RPVCCA_SR_2010_06_01_17_Height_Variation_Permit_View_FindingsMEMORANDUM
TO:CITY COUNCIL
FROM:MAYOR PRO TEM TOM LONG
DATE:JUNE 1,2010
SUBJECT:Height Variation Permit View Findings
The purpose of this memorandum is to ask the council to consider beginning the
process of amending the view ordinance.
The City's view ordinance was adopted in "Proposition M"in 1989.As adopted
by the voters,the ordinance allows a resident to build a structure up to 16 feet above
the original grade "by right."Structures in excess of 16 feet require a "height variation
permit."If a height variation permit was required the ordinance (as adopted in
Proposition M)required that the view impairment created by the structure be
considered.Nothing in the ordinance indicated that only the portion of the view
impairment above 16 feet should be considered if a height variation permit was sought.
Nonetheless,a custom developed among staff,the planning commission and many
planning commissioners to ignore that portion of the view below 16 feet anytime a
height variation permit was considered arguing that the view below 16 feet was not a
"protected view."Staff reports often referred to "protected view"in quote marks as
though it was a term defined in the ordinance.The term cannot be found anywhere in
the ordinance as adopted by the voters.
I raised the concern as a planning commissioner that if a property owner seeks a
height variation permit,the ordinance requires consideration of the entire view.Staff's
view,and that of the majority of other planning commissioners is different.The issue
was brought before the prior city council.Initially,the city council voted 5 to 0 in favor of
my point of view.Upon further reflection and considering the views of other former
planning commissioners,the city council changed its view and voted 4 to 1 to expressly
require that all views below 16 feet be ignored in the consideration of height variation
permits.Since a height variation permit can never seek permission to build a structure
above 26 feet,this means that no more than a 10 foot sliver of view (and typically not
most of the view)is ever considered on a height variation permit application.The vast
majority of height variation permit applications are granted in part because the planning
commission and the city council are now forbidden by the ordinance (as amended by
the city council)from considering most of the view that is impaired by the proposed
structure.The city attorney has opined that the change in the ordinance made by the
city council is a minor change and therefore did not require approval of the voters.I
respectfully disagree.
385128.1 DOC
17-1
-2-
Various fallacies are often advanced as to why the portion of the view below 16
feet should not be considered when there is a height variation permit at issue: first,
some have suggested that views below 16 feet are never protected and should never
be considered under any circumstance.However,the view restoration ordinance
specifically requires that foliage not block views which are above either 16 feet orthe
ridge line of the home,whichever is lower.There are a number of cases of view
restoration involving the removal,trimming and maintenance of trees that are below 16
feet in height.
Second,considering views below 16 feet will impair a property owner's right to
build up to 16 feet "of right."This is also not true.Any property owner who confines his
or her structure to 16 feet or less in height does not need a height variation permit and
is not subject to any of the requirements of the view restoration ordinance for structures
and can therefore build a structure that totally obliterates a view.However,as originally
adopted by the voters,Proposition M required property owners who wished to build a
structure to more than 16 feet (which is often required in order to build a two-story
structure)to compromise with their neighbors and to take steps to avoid significantly
impairing a view.As adopted by the voters,the entire view would be taken into account
any time a height variation permit was sought.By amending the ordinance and
requiring the planning commission and council to ignore that portion of the view below
16 feet anytime a height variation permit is sought,the council dramatically weakened
the strength of the view ordinance.
I request that the council instruct the staff to bring back a staff report to offer as
alternatives to the council amending the ordinance in a way that would restore the
original language of Proposition M and would allow consideration of the entire view that
is being lost at the time of height variation permit applications as opposed to only that
portion of the view above 16 feet that is now defined as a "protected view."
Attachments
City Council April 6,2004 Staff Report on this issue
City Council Approved April 6,2004 Excerpted Minutes on this issue
City Council April 20,2004 Staff Report (with attachments)on this issue
City Council Approved April 20,2004 Excerpted Minutes on this issue
Staff Responses to Questions from Mayor Wolowicz when this item was on the
Council's April 18 agenda
17-2
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY
COUNCIL
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING,BUILDING AND CODE
ENFORCEMENT
APRIL 6,2004
ZON2003-00417 (16.FOOT HEIGHT CODE AMENDMENT)
Staff Coordinator:Ara Michael Mihranian,Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Staff respectfully requests Council direction on the following items:
1.Determine whether to continue the discussion on the proposed code
amendment language,as recommended by the Planning Commission,and
the amendments that were introduced at the City Council meeting,until after
receiving a comprehensive recommendation from the Planning Commission;
and,
2.'If the Council wishes to discuss the matter this evening,review the Planning
Commission's concems,as summarized by Staff,and provide Staff with
further direction as to any specific language amendments.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On February 17,2004,the City Council unanimously adopted Urgency Ordinance No.
400U,Resolution No.2004-12,and Ordinance No.401 amending the Development
Code,that among other things,clarified the application of two Height Variation Findings.
The Planning Commission,when presented with the new code requirements at its
February 24,2004 meeting,raised concems regarding the application of the new
findings.Based on Staff's understanding of the Commission's and the public's
concems,as discussed in this report,Staff respectfully requests Council direction on
suggested draft code amendment language to address the following issues:
1)How to allow flexibility in the view analysis of structures below 16-feet in height
when a significant view impairment exists;
2)How to treat "tear-down I rebuild"structures;
3)How to avoid project phasing;
4)The ambiguity with the term "proposed construction;"
5)Clarification of the intent of the Grading View Finding;and,
17-3
CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT
APRIL 6,2004
PAGE 2
6)Whether to repeal the current requirement that two-story structures under 16-feet
in height go through the Height Variation application process.
BACKGROUND
On February 17, 2004,the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider adopting
a code amendment that would,among other things,clarify the application of two Height
Variation view findings.At the meeting,the Council considered modifications to the
code amendment language recommended by the Planning Commission at its
December 11,2003 meeting (see attached P.C.Resolution No.2003-62)and after
discussion,unanimously introduced Ordinance No.401,which contained the modified
language.
The Planning Commission's proposed language required that the only portion of a
proposed new structure that is less than sixteen feet in height that would be analyzed
for view impairment in connection with a height variation permit is the portion directly
under the structure that is proposed to exceed sixteen feet in height.The City Council
revised the language to expand the review to all of the new areas of the structure that
are less than sixteen feet in height in connection with a height variation permit.In order
to make the new requirements effective immediately,the Council adopted Urgency
Ordinance No.400U that evening (the minutes from that meeting are not yet available).
The Urgency Ordinance mirrors Ordinance No.401 and is attached to this Staff Report
(see attachment).
At the February 24,2004 Planning Commission meeting,the Commission was informed
of the new Height Variation findings adopted under Urgency Ordinance No.400U.The
Commission was informed that because an urgency ordinance was adopted,the new
requirements became effective immediately and would have to be applied to two Height
Variation applications on the Commission's agenda that evening.In reviewing the two
proposed projects to determine whether the new findings could be made,the Planning
Commission raised some questions regarding the intent of the new language,as they
felt there was some ambiguity as to what type of "new construction"would be subjected
to the view analysis.Although the Commission went on to make the required findings,
it sought further clarification from the Council on how to apply the new findings for
various scenarios,including "tear-down and re-build"projects.
On March 2,2004,the City Council was set to adopt the second reading of Ordinance
401.However,at that meeting,it was brought to the Council's attention that the
Planning Commission had expressed some concerns about the application of the new
Height Variation findings language.Since there were questions regarding the code
amendment language,the Council agreed to refrain from formally adopting the new
height variation language and continued the discussion of the matter to its April 6th
meeting.In addition,the Council directed Staff to report back on April 6th with the
Commission's specific concerns regarding the proposed code amendment language
and any suggested new language that may address the Commission's concerns.
17-4
CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT
APRIL 6,2004
PAGE 3
The City Council's modified code amendment language to Height Variation Findings
Nos.4 and 5 was presented to the Planning Commission at its March 23,2004 meeting.
Only the language of the Height Variation findings was presented to the Planning
Commission,because this is the only language that was modified by the City Council
after receiving the Planning Commission's recommendations,and the Planning
Commission did not raise any concerns about the other code amendment language
contained in the Urgency Ordinance.Due to other items on the agenda that evening,
which involved members of the public who were waiting to speak,the Commission did
not get to this agenda item until after 11 :00 pm.As a result,the Commission had a very
brief discussion of the matter and heard testimony from only one speaker in attendance,
a resident currently proposing to construct a new residence above 16-feet in height.
Given the circumstances,the Commission,with a vote of 5-1,agreed to continue the
discussion to its April 13,2004 meeting with a recommendation that the Council
continue its discussion on this matter until after the Commission could thoroughly
discuss the issue and present the Council with a more comprehensive recommendation.
As such,this item is scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission as the
second item on the agenda of its upcoming April 13,2004 meeting.
In light of the Commission's recommendation,Staff noted to the Commission that
pursuant to previous Council direction,this item would still be on the April 6th City
Council agenda.Staff noted that the Commission's recommendation would be provided
to the Council,but that it would be at the Council's discretion on whether and how to
proceed.Therefore,notwithstanding the Commission's recommendation,Staff is
presenting this item to the Council with a Staff Report that summarizes the various
issues that have arisen since the Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No.400U.The
purpose of this report is to facilitate the discussion,if the Counpil wishes to proceed with
the item this evening.
DISCUSSION
PROPOSED LANGUAGE AT ISSUE
The subject of concern,as expressed by the Planning Commission and certain public
speakers at the Council's March 2,2004 meeting,is the new language of Height
Variation Findings Nos.4 and 5.The precise language is contained in Urgency
Ordinance No.400U,which is attached to this Staff Report.To assist with the
discussion of the issues,Staff is providing an explanation of each finding below:
1.Height Variation Finding (No.iv)
According to Urgency Ordinance No.400U,residential development projects that
require a Height Variation application will be subject to a view analysis finding for new
construction above or below 16-feet in height.The specific language for Height
Variation Finding No.iv is as follows:
The area of a proposed new structure or addition to an existing structure,when
considering both the new area that is above sixteen feet and the new area that is below
17-5
CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT
APRIL 6,2004
PAGE 4
sixteen feet,as defined in Section 17.02.040(8)of this Chapter,when considered
exclusive of existing foliage,does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area
of another parcel.
The following diagram helps illustrates the application of the above finding:
A'
....1................................ .
16'
Existing Residence A
Based on the diagram,the proposed addition labeled area A'would trigger a Height
Variation application because the proposed addition is above 16-feet in height.
Pursuant to the Urgency Ordinance,the view analysis finding would apply to proposed
additions labeled as areas A',A and B,because together they constitute "new area that
is above sixteen feet and new area that is below sixteen feet."
As a result of concerns raised at the March 2,2004 City Council meeting,Councilman
Stern inquired whether code language could be drafted that would allow more flexibility
in the analysis of a Height Variation permit when a significant view impairment exists
below 16-feet.Specifically,Councilman Stern is requesting that language be drafted
that would allow a Height Variation permit to be granted if the structure causing the view
impairment below 16-feet in height is designed to reasonably minimize the impairment
of a view.As such,pursuant to Councilman Stern's inquiry,if it is the Council's wish,
the following language can be added as the last sentence to Height Variation Finding
No.iv:
In cases where a significant view impairment exists below 16-feet in height,this finding
can be made if the proposed structure below 16-feet in height is designed and situated
as to reasonably minimize a significant view impairment.
2.Height Variation Finding (No.v)
According to Urgency Ordinance No.400U,a Height Variation application being sought
for a residential development project above 16-feet in height will need to be reasonably
designed to minimize a view impairment,even if the previous finding determines that a
significant view impairment does not exist.The exact language reads as follows:
If a view impairment exists,but it is determined not to be significant,as described in
Finding No.iv,is the proposed new structure or proposed addition to an existing
17-6
CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT
APRIL 6,2004
PAGE 5
structure designed and situated in such a manner as to reasonable minimize the
impairment of a view.
Based on the above code amendment language,when assessing whether a project is
designed and situated to minimize a view impairment,those portions of the proposed
project that are above and below 16-feet are to be considered in the analysis of this
finding.Using the previous illustrative example,this finding would apply to the proposed
additions labeled as areas A',A and B because they constitute a proposed addition to
an existing single-family residence.However,it should be noted that the additions
labeled areas A and B would only be analyzed in situations where the addition labeled
area A'is requested,since it is addition A'that triggers a Height Variation application.
Otherwise,if only additions labeled as areas A and B are requested,whether
collectively or independently,this finding would not apply because a Height Variation
application is not required.
PLANNING COMMISSION INPUT
The following discussion is a summary of Staff's understanding of the concerns raised
by the Commission during its brief discussion on this matter at its March 23rd meeting.
As previously noted,the Planning Commission did not have enough time to provide
suggestions on possible draft language that could address its concerns.Additionally,
the Commissioners abbreviated their remarks and some did not speak.Therefore,the
Commission is recommending that the Council continue this item to allow a second
opportunity for the Commission to provide more comprehensive input.Notwithstanding
the Commission's recommendation,if it is the Council's desire to discuss this matter this
evening,Staff has summarized the comments made by the Commission below and has
included some draft language for consideration by the Council that may address the
brief concerns expressed by the Commissioners on March 23rd •
1.Tear-down /Rebuild Structures:
The Commission is concerned that a strict interpretation of the proposed code
amendment language could prohibit a property owner who wishes to demolish an
existing home that exceeds 16-feet in height from rebuilding that home within the same
building envelope,if it is determined that a significant view impairment would result from
the new home.This is because anytime a structure is voluntarily demolished or is
remodeled,such that over 50%of the interior and exterior walls are removed,the
replacement structure is considered a new structure which must receive approval of the
necessary applications in order to be built.Under the historical application of the Height
Variation findings,only the portion over 16-feet of the new replacement structure would
be subject to the view analysis.However,under the new language,the entire new
structure would be subject to the view analysis.
In order to address this concern,the Council may wish to consider language that states:
In cases where a Height Variation application is proposed for a structure that replaces
an existing structure that has been voluntarily demolished by the property owner,this
17-7
CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT
APRIL 6,2004
PAGE 6
finding will not apply,provided that the proposed replacement structure will be within the
building envelope of the existing structure,meaning that it will have the same square
footage and maximum building height as the existing structure and will be reconstructed
within the footprint of the existing structure.
Furthermore,if such language is added,Staff recommends that the Council also amend
the Code to require that certified plans of the pre-existing residential structure be
submitted to the City prior to issuance of a demolition permit by the Department of
BUilding and Safety to document said residential structure.
2.Phasing a Project:
A concern was raised by the Commission that the Council's intent to protect views
below 16-feet when proposing construction above 16-feet,as described in new Height
Variation Finding No.iv,could be circumvented by phasing the project construction.In
other words,based on the language of new Height Variation Finding No.iv (noted
above)and using the diagram below to illustrate this concern, one could conceivably
construct areas A and B (proVided they do not exceed 16-feet)as phase 1,without
having to undergo a view analysis and then construct phase 2 later.If a view exists
below 16-feet,said view would be impaired by the phase 1 construction,since said
construction up to 16-feet in height is allowed "by right."Then,as phase 2,one could
submit a Height Variation application to construct area A'.If there is no view impairment
by proposed area A',the Height Variation would likely be approved (provided all other
findings can be made).Since Planning approvals are valid for 6-months (1-year -if
approved by the Planning Commission),the Phase 1 approval probably would still be
valid when the Phase 2 approval is obtained.The applicant would then combine both
designs and submit the plans to the Building and Safety Department for "plan check"
review and ultimately construct the entire project at the same time.Although more
costly to the applicant in terms of time and money,the end result would be the same as
if the new finding language did not exist.
A'
_..1 ______.
16'
Existing Residence A
In order to address this concern,the Council may wish to consider establishing a
minimum time period for applicants to wait between the processing of development
applications.This would prohibit a property owner from submitting more than one
development application during a set time period,thereby discouraging projects from
being phased.However,this could inadvertently penalize property owners who wish to
17-8
CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT
APRIL 6,2004
PAGE 7
upgrade their property after purchasing a home that was recently expanded by a
previous property owner,unless the time period is only applied to the same property
owner.
3.Ambiguity with the Term "Proposed Construction"
According to the Commission,the Council's clarification of the Height Variation Findings
only apply to Finding Nos.4 and 5,leaving a question of how the remaining findings
should be applied when referring to "proposed structure"or "structure."For example,
while it is clear that the view analysis performed under Height Variation Finding No.iv
should consider portions of a proposed structure below 16-feet,it is not clear whether
the same analysis should be performed for the "Cumulative View Impact"finding (Height
Variation Finding No.vi in Urgency Ordinance No.400U).Therefore,in order to
alleviate any ambiguity when applying the Height Variation Findings,the Council may
wish to add the following language to RPVMC Section 17.02.040(C)(1)(e):
e.A Height Variation application to build a new structure or an addition to an existing
structure at a height that exceeds the sixteen foot height limit up to the maximum height
permitted in Section 17.02.040(B)(1)of this chapter may be granted,with or without
conditions,if the folloWing findings can be made.For the purpose of this finding.
"proposed structure"or "structure"shall mean the new area that is above sixteen feet
and the new that is below sixteen feet:
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY COUNCILMAN LONG
On March 23,2004,Councilman Long submitted a comment letter to the Planning
Commission that essentially frames some of the various issues that have been raised
with regard to the modified code amendment language (see attachment).Although the
Commission was not able to discuss the various points contained in the comment letter
at its March 23rd meeting due to time constraints,Staff has reviewed Councilman Long's
letter and would like to address certain points.
1.Grading Permit and the View Finding
According to Urgency Ordinance N.400U,in cases where grading is proposed,if the
proposed earth movement results in a lower finished grade elevation,then the view
finding (referred to as Grading Finding No.2)does not apply:
The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect
the visual relationships with,or the views from the "viewing area"of neighboring
properties.This finding shall not apply when the proposed grading will lower the grade
of the lot and will result in a structure that will create less view impairment than a
structure that could have been built in the same location on the lot to the maximum
building heights described in Section 17.02.040(B)of this Title.
17-9
CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT·
APRIL 6,2004
PAGE 8
As noted on page 1,item 2,of Councilman Long's letter,he states that "even if grading
adds to the original grade,if the structure is still below 16 feet from the original grade,it
is my understanding that clarification provided by urgency ordinance No.400U would
still provide that no view analysis is necessary."After discussing this issue with the City
Attorney,it is Staff's understanding that in a case where a project requires a grading
permit that wifl raise the existing pad elevation,then the view finding will apply,even if
the resulting structure does not exceed 16-feet in height.As written,the intent of the
finding is to encourage grading that lowers a pad,thereby minimizing the potential to
impair a view,rather than raising a pad,which is more likely to result in a view
impairment.If this is not the intended result of this new finding,then Staff recommends
that the Council clarify the intent at this time.
2.Structures Destroyed by a Natural Disaster or Involuntary Act
Pursuant to Section 17.84.060(A)(2)of the RPVMC,a residential building damaged or
destroyed due to an involuntary act,or a voluntary act against the structure that is not
the fault of the property owner may be replaced,repaired or restored to its original
condition provided that such construction is limited to the same maximum building
height,square footage and general location on the property.In other words,a structure
destroyed by a fire or earthquake,for example,may be rebuilt within the same envelope
as the original structure without having to go through a comprehensive discretionary
review process,including the view analysis typically required for Height Variation
applications for structures exceeding 16-feet in height.However,if a damaged or
destroyed structure is proposed to be rebuilt beyond the original envelope,then the
replacement structure would be considered a new structure and would be subject to all
applicable discretionary review applications.
3.Two-story Structures At or Below 16-Feet
According to Section 17.02.040(B)(1)(c)of the RPVMC,a Height Variation permit is
required for a structure on a pad lot that exceeds one-story even if it is within the 16-foot
height limit (it should be noted that the Municipal Code does not limit the number of
stories).This requirement was added in 1996 to close a loophole in the pre-existing
Development Code that was allowing two-story homes to be built without the benefit of
a Height Variation application review.Prior to the comprehensive amendments to the
Development Code made in 1996,two-story structures were being built within the
permissible 16-foot height limit by lowering the pad elevation through grading.This was
possible because the "old"Code established the 16-foot height limit from existing grade
and made no reference to finished grade.By not triggering the Height Variation review
process,two-story homes were being built without a Neighborhood Compatibility
analysis.Therefore,in order to address this loophole,the Code was amended to
establish a maximum measurement from both existing and finished grades and a
requirement that a two-story structure must go through the Height Variation application
process.
At this time,Staff believes that the two-story trigger for structures that are less than
sixteen feet in height is confusing and no longer necessary because of the
17-10
CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT
APRIL 6,2004
PAGE 9
establishment of the maximum heights based on existing and finished grades.
Furthermore,if a project is proposed to be constructed at 16-feet,the concern would not
focus on the interior floor plan,but rather on the exterior appearance,which would be
reviewed under the Neighborhood Compatibility guidelines,if a project trips one of the
neighborhood compatibility triggers.Therefore,if the Council wishes to eliminate this
Height Variation application trigger and not require a Height Variation permit for projects
involving two-stories,which are under 16-feet in height,then the following language
may be deleted:
Structures allowed pursuant °to this subsection sha!!GORtaiR RO more theR ORe story
(oeIIaFS aRd basemeRts are 9*8mpf:ed from this reqwremeRt)8Rd shall not exceed
twenty-feet in height,as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab
meets finished grade,to the ridgeline or highest point of the structure.Otherwise a
height variation permit shall be required.
Based on the above discussion,Staff respectfully requests Council direction on the
matters discussed and the suggested code amendment language.In the event the
Council wishes to continue the discussion on the matter until after receiving a more
comprehensive recommendation from the Planning Commission or to further modify the
code language contemplated,the Council may wish to consider repealing Urgency
Ordinance No.400U to avoid public confusion.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Discussion of Proposition M by the City Attorney
Section 1 of Proposition M states,in relevant part,that its purpose is to prevent the
needless destruction and impairment of limited vista points and view lots."Specifically,
this Ordinance:
"1.Protects,enhances and perpetuates views available to property owners and
visitors because of the unique topographical features of the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
These views provide unique and irreplaceable assets to the City and its neighboring
communities and provide for this and future generations examples of the unique
physical surroundings which are characteristic of the City.
"2.Defines and protects finite visual resources by establishing limits which
construction and plant growth can attain before encroaching onto a view.
"3.Insures that the development of each parcel of land or additions to
residences or structures occur in a manner which is harmonious and maintains
neighborhood compatibility and the character of contiguous sub-community
development as de~ned in the General Plan.
"4.Requires the pruning of dense foliage or tree growth which alone,or in
conjunction with construction,exceeds defined limits."
17-11
CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT
APRIL 6,2004
PAGE 10
Section 5 of Proposition M,which is not codified within the Municipal Code,states that
future City Councils may amend its provisions,if such amendments are necessary to
effectuate or enhance its purposes:
"To the extent the City Council finds that changes to this Ordinance are
necessary to effectuate or enhance the purposes of this Ordinance as stated in Section
1,the City Council may amend this Ordinance,following the procedures,including all
required public hearings,for amending zoning ordinances.The City Council is
empowered to adopt such procedures and rules or regulations as are necessary to
implement this Ordinance."
When then City Attorney Ariel Calonne analyzed the provisions of Proposition M that
are related to structures and compared them to the then-current provisions of the
Municipal Code,he stated:
"Existing Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code provisions permit construction of,
or additions to,residences of up to sixteen (16)feet in height,as measured in a
specified manner.Existing Municipal Code provisions further allow residential
structures of up to thirty (30)feet in height,as measured in a specified manner,upon
issuance of a discretionary height variation permit.Before a height variation permit can
be issued under existing Municipal Code provisions,the City must determine,among
other things,that defined view lots are protected from significant view impairment and
that no significant cumulative view impact will result from the height variation.
"The proposed measure would modify the existing height variation permit
requirements in several ways.The maximum height allowed with a height variation
permit would be reduced to twenty six (26)feet.An early neighborhood consultation
process would be created to require the person seeking the height variation permit to
take reasonable steps to consult with property owners within five hundred (500)feet.If
an interested neighborhood homeowners'association exists,the applicant would be
required to request its position on the application.The proposed measure would require
height variation permits to be supported by a finding that a proposed structure would not
significantly impair views from the viewing area of other parcels.
"The proposed measure requires height variation permits to be supported by a
finding that the proposal is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character,as
defined to include the scale of development of surrounding residences,architectural
styles and materials,and front yard setbacks.".
The amendment to the Code that is set forth in Urgency Ordinance No.400U would
allow the portion of a proposed development (For purposes of this discussion,
"development"means an entirely new structure or an addition to an existing structure).
that is at or below 16 feet in height to be reviewed for potential view impairment,if a
height variation application is required for a portion of the development that will exceed
16 feet in height.(The amendment does not affect any proposed single-family
residential development project that does not exceed 16 feet in height.)
17-12
CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT
APRIL 6,2004
PAGE 11
The current question that is being posed is whether this amendment effectuates or
enhances the purposes of Proposition M so that the City Council can approve it,or is
voter approval of the amendment required?
One of the overarching purposes of Proposition M was to protect and enhance views,
as stated in the first purpose of Section 1.Allowing the Planning Commission and City
Council to review the portions of a new development that are below 16 feet in height for
potential significant view impairment and adjust any portion of the project,regardless
whether above or below 16 feet in height,to eliminate or minimize a view impairment
clearly advances the purpose of protecting views,so that voter approval of this
amendment should not be required.
On the other hand,it can be argued that this amendment conflicts with the second
purpose of Proposition M,which was to retain the pre-existing right to develop a
structure that did not exceed sixteen feet in height "by establishing limits which
construction and plant growth can attain before encroaching onto a view."(Emphasis
added.)In the impartial analysis of Proposition M,Mr.Calonne discussed the then-
existing Code provisions that allowed development up to 16 feet in height;his analysis
does not state that Proposition M would alter those provisions.However,because the
recent amendment does not affect the right to build a structure that is entirely within the
16-foot height limit,it can be argued that the amendment is consistent with the second
purpose of the Proposition so that voter approval is not required.
Although the amendment and this discussion focus upon the portions of Proposition M
that address the development of structures,a significant portion of the Proposition
addresses foliage and the height limits to which it can grow before someone can file an
application to have it removed so that a view can be restored (sixteen feet or the
ridgeline of the structure,whichever is less).It is interesting to note that under the
recent amendment,some property owners actually could have the right to keep foliage
on their properties that completely obliterates a view (assuming the ridgeline of the
structure is at least sixteen feet tall),but would not have the right to build a new
structure that is less than sixteen feet in height without a height variation because a
portion of the proposed structure will exceed sixteen feet in height.It is doubtful that the
drafters of Proposition M intended this result.
It should also be noted that historically,documented as far back as 1989 (after the
adoption of Proposition M),the practice of the City has been to assess the impact on
views only with respect to the components of a project that are above 16-feet in height
in connection with Height Variation applications.This approach was upheld by both the
Planning Commission and City Council on appeal.1 In situations when an ordinance is
ambiguous,interpretations of its provisions by city staff and the administrative bodies
that are charged with enforcing and interpreting its provisions are entitled to great
1 Additionally,the submittal requirements for a Height Variation application require a silhouette,depicting
the proposed construction above 16-feet,be erected to assist the decision makers and the pUblic in the
assessment of views,as well as massing of a structure for Neighborhood Compatibility purposes.In fact,
the submittal requirements require that specific color flags be placed that demarcate the 16-foot height
limit,in addition to color flags demarcating the proposed roof ridgeline.
17-13
CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT
APRIL 6,2004
PAGE 12
weight by the courts.(Highland Ranch v.Agricultural Labor Relations Board,29
Ca1.3d848,859 (1981).Based on these prior determinations and interpretations,it
appears that the intent of Proposition M was to analyze only those portions of the
structure that were above sixteen feet.
After performing this analysis,on balance,it appears that the recent amendment,which
was adopted by the City Council in Urgency Ordinance No.400U,does effectuate and
enhance one of the primary purposes of Proposition M of preserving views from
residential lots in the City.Accordingly,even though the amendment departs from prior
City practice,approval by the voters does not appear to be required.Of course,to
remove all doubt about this conclusion,a ballot measure could be prepared so that this
issue would be presented to the voters.
Historical Information Regarding Height Variation Applications
Since the inception of the Height Variation requirement in 1976,the City has received
approximately 1,031 application requests.Of that number,approximately 325
applications involved construction above and below 16-feet in height,which is
approximately 31%of the total number of Height Variation applications submitted to the
City.It should be noted that the information gathered from the City log-books,
especially pre-1983,contained limited information on project descriptions.Therefore,
the figures provided are considered to be estimates.
It should be noted that to date,five Height Variation applications have been processed
under the new findings established by the Urgency Ordinance.Of these five
applications,only one request was denied because of a view impairment.However,the
denial was based on a view impairment resulting from proposed construction above 16-
feet,as the portion below 16-feet was not visible from the viewing area.
Public Notification
Pursuant to the Development Code,a public notice was published in the Peninsula
News on March 20,2004 inviting public comments on the proposed code amendment.
To date,two written comments have been submitted to the City and are attached for
Council review.In the event the City receives additional pUblic comments after the
transmittal of this Staff Report,Staff will present the comments at the April 6th public
hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
•Urgency Ordinance No.400U
•Councilman Long's March 23,2004 Comment Letter
•P.C.Resolution No.2003-62
•RPVMC Section 17.84.060(A)(2)-Structures Destroyed by a Natural Disaster or
Involuntary Act
•Proposition Land M
•Original Height Variation Code Requirement (adopted in 1975)
17-14
CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT
APRIL 6,2004
PAGE 13
•Public Comments
Respectfully submitted:
Joel Rojas,AICP
Director of Planning,Building
and Code Enforcement
Reviewed,
Les Evans
City Manager
M:\CODE AMENDMENTSIZON2003-o041716 FOOT HEIGH1\CCMEMO O4-oS·04.doc
17-15
Approved April 6,2004 Minutes
Page 1 of 16
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
ZON2003-00417 (16-FOOT HEIGHT CODE AMENDMENT).(1203 x 1801)
Councilman Stern pointed out that one of the things the Planning Commission
has indicated is that it would still like to work on this issue;expressed his
preference that the Planning Commission continue to work on this matter;and
stated that the audience comments were welcome but that the Planning
Commission should keep this item until it has a final recommendation to City
Council.
Councilman Long noted the Planning Commission's desire to do further work on
this issue and to further comment on this issue;stated that he is inclined to
concur with Councilman Stern that this matter be returned to the Planning
Commission for further recommendations;and questioned if there is a compelling
reason for the City Council to undertake this matter as opposed to sending it
back to the Planning Commission for a final recommendation to City Council.
Noting that it may take the Planning Commission one or two meetings to resolve
the issues of concern to the Commission,City Attorney Lynch questioned
whether the City Council would like to repeal Urgency Ordinance No.400U in the
meantime so that the old rules continue in effect while the deliberations are
ongoing.She stated that this would be beneficial because of the historic
process;that whatever the Council ultimately decided would be a matter of
policy;and that by repealing the ordinance,the City will not be having an
intervening period of time where different rules would apply to some residents
that would not apply later.
Mayor pro tem Clark expressed his belief that Urgency Ordinance No.400U
should be repealed if this matter is to be debated further;and stated that there is
a great deal of consideration that needs to be undertaken and settled before this
fundamental policy issue is adopted.
At this time,Senior Planner Ara Mihranian presented the staff report and the
following recommendation:(1)Determine whether to continue the discussion on
the proposed code amendment language,as recommended by the Planning
Commission,and the amendments that were introduced at the City Council
meeting,until after receiving a comprehensive recommendation from the
Planning Commission;and,(2)If the Council wishes to discuss the matter this
meeting,review the Planning Commission's concerns,as summarized by Staff,
and provide Staff with further direction regarding specific language amendments.
Councilman Stern noted his understanding that the tear-down/rebuild issue is a
pre-existing issue that was not clear even under the old code.
Senior Planner Ara Mihranian stated that in the original language,prior to the
adoption of the urgency ordinance,if someone was voluntarily proposing to tear
down and rebuild a two-story structure,that portion above 16 feet would be
17-16
Approved April 6,2004 Minutes
Page 2 of 16
subject to a height variation application and a view analysis,but not that portion
below the 16 feet;and advised that the property owner did not have the right to
rebuild up to their old envelope.
Senior Planner Mihranian noted for Councilman Long that the 3 major issues of
concern by the Planning Commission were the tear-down/rebuild structures,
phasing a project,and the ambiguity with the term "proposed construction."
Councilman Long inquired of staff that looking at the chart on Circle Page 4,one
of the Planning Commission's concerns is that with the tear-down/rebuild,if the
existing residence within the chart is torn down as part of the remodel,because it
goes above 16 feet currently,would the view analysis would be required if it went
outside the pre-existing envelope as a voluntary tear-down/rebuild?
Senior Planner Mihranian noted for Councilman Long that even if the existing
structure were over 16 feet in height,it would not be subject to the view analysis;
if it was an involuntary situation,as long as the structure is rebuilt within exactly
the existing envelope,it would not require a view analysis;however,if just a
small sliver of additional square footage extended beyond the original structure,a
view analysis would be required for the entire portion over 16 feet,including the
previously existing structure.
Jon Cartwright,30630 Calle de Suenos,highlighted his privilege in serving on the
Planning Commission for the past 8 years;and thanked the City for allowing him
the opportunity to serve his community.Mr.Cartwright noted his pleasure that a
view analysis is not triggered on the grading permit when the grading is proposed
to grade down;noted his pleasure that at the July 15,2003 City Council meeting,
it had reaffirmed the historic interpretation that one had the absolute right to build
to 16 feet and that the Council had adopted new language codifying that right in
February of this year;but noted that he is concerned if the City is now saying that
one does not have the absolute right to build to 16 feet if an owner has to do so
at the same time that a height variation applies.He stated that in his opinion,this
action is inconsistent with what has been approved and that it erodes the 16-foot-
by-right rule.Mr.Cartwright stated that this logic is tough to follow,believing that
one either has the right to build to 16 feet or does not have the right to build to 16
feet;he highlighted his support for protecting views,but asked that the City
reconsider the decision to require a view analysis below 16 feet on a height
variation as well as a view analysis on any other unrelated structure below 16
feet if applied for at the same time as the height variation.He stated that this
decision is a major departure from the current code;that it takes away property
rights and misses the mark of the intent to protect views from a proposed
structure;that it is also in conflict with Proposition M,which applies to one having
a right to build or grow foliage to 16 feet before it encroaches onto a view.He
stated that every reference to height in Proposition M is above 16 feet and that
the new language in the height variation findings is in conflict with the purpose of
Section 2 of Proposition M which was to retain the pre-existing right to build to 16
feet.He stated that if City Council wishes to eliminate the right-to-build-to-16-
foot rule,it would be his opinion that it would require voter approval.
17-17
Approved April 6,2004 Minutes
Page 3 of 16
Mr.Cartwright noted that since the City's inception,over 1,000 height variation
applications have been processed and approved by staff,the Planning
Commission and by City Council on appeal;and stated that view analyses were
not required below 16 feet on the height variation,nor were they required for any
other structure below 16 feet that were applied for at the same time.He stated
that this allowed applicants,staff and the Planning Commission to consider
everything at once in a very efficient and cost-effective way.He explained the
irony of all this is that the decision which requires a view analysis below 16 feet
on a height variation or any other unrelated structure below 16 feet applied for at
the same time as the height variation can be circumvented simply by processing
the permits one at a time -pointing out that this will result in the applicant and
the City spending additional time and money processing permits sequentially as
opposed to at the same time.He urged the City Council to reconsider the
decision to analyze views below 16 feet and to re-establish the historic
interpretation that views below 16 feet are not considered on the height variation,
that doing so will allow a 16-foot-by-right standard as well as protect a
homeowner's right to improve his/her property.
Mr.Cartwright provided his own power point illustrations (see Exhibit A)for the
Council,which he believed showed the impacts of Urgency Ordinance 400U.He
advised that the first graph is a takeoff of the graph shown in the staff report.
Referring to the first graph,he stated that there is no view impairment in the
height variation segment;that before this ordinance was put in place,if one
applied for a height variation and the proposed room extension,it would have
been approved;that after Urgency Ordinance 400U was adopted,it would have
been denied;that if one then went back and processed an application for the
room addition,it would have been approved;that if one applied for a height
variation,it would have been approved.He stated that there would be no views
saved;and that there would be considerably more time and cost on the part of
the applicant and staff.He stated that the chart indicates what would happen
when an applicant had the right to develop to 16 feet,he could do it;that when
that right was taken away and given to the neighbors as view rights across his
entire property from ground level to 26 feet,he lost that right to build.He stated
that one has to ask,did it make sense to deny a height variation when view
impairment is in an unrelated structure not attached to the height variation;and
expressed his belief that in the future,the City will only see one permit submitted
at a time.
Councilman Stern noted the helpfulness of Mr.Cartwright's presentation;
highlighted the proposed ordinance language that came before the Council about
a month ago,wherein the Planning Commission was suggesting that the City
would do the analysis of view impairment below 16 feet in that area -referring to
the graph that says "height variation"to the right;and questioned if Mr.Cartwright
would feel that to be inappropriate.
Addressing Councilman Stern's inquiry,Mr.Cartwright stated that yes,it would
be inappropriate.Mr.Cartwright explained that this whole discussion started
17-18
Approved April 6,2004 Minutes
Page 4 of 16
over 4 years ago;advised that the Planning Commission has gone through 4
years of these same discussions when then Planning Commissioner Long was
advocating views below 16 feet and the rest of the Planning Commission was
not;and stated that it eventually became an operational problem because the
discussion of height variation would come up.He stated that the Planning
Commission then asked for a joint workshop with City Council in order to gain
some clarification on this issue -pointing out that by that time,there were
various problems with issues such as build-by-right.He stated that at this
workshop,there was concern on the Council's part that the Planning Commission
may have been negotiating views below 16 feet and that Council believed that if
this were true,that it should be codified and put into the code.He stated that he
personally does not believe that the Planning Commission ever negotiated a view
impairment below 16 feet;explained that oftentimes,there were a couple of
Planning Commissioners who would ask if an applicant would be willing to move
their house or structure,willing to get with their neighbor to work out an issue;but
advised that as a Commission,they never negotiated below 16 feet.He stated
that nevertheless,that concept went forth.Mr.Cartwright stated that when this
got to the City Council in July 2003,Council affirmed the absolute right to build to
16 feet;that at that time,there was discussion about whether the Council should
remand the matter to the Planning Commission;and stated that it is his
recollection that the City Council did not believe that the Planning Commission
could resolve the matter after 4 years of discussing the it;that there was no
reason to remand it to the Planning Commission at that point;and that it should
be kept at the City Council level.He stated that it was extremely important to
some of the Planning Commissioners to put this issue in the hands of the City
Council because of the Planning Commission's dissension on this issue.
Councilman Stern noted his recall of the discussion and stated that the word
"may"has caused some of the confusion in the decision.
Referring to Chart No.6,lot 2,Councilman Long questioned whether Mr.
Cartwright is assuming that the ridgeline on the house is also 16 feet.
Mr.Cartwright stated that Proposition M states that one can grow foliage to 16
feet before it encroaches into a view;that the City now has view restoration
guidelines that state that one can grow foliage to 16 feet or the highest roof ridge
line,whichever is lower;that the guidelines for the structure state that if a view is
impaired at 2 feet,then it can be denied;that foliage and structures now lack
harmony when considering the guidelines;and stated that he would prefer that
structures and foliage be harmonious,that there be an absolute right to either
build a structure to 16 feet or to grow foliage to 16 feet.
Ted Paulson,5248 Valley View Road,former Planning Commissioner,stated
that this issue was discussed and debated many times by the Planning
Commission,with the consensus almost every time that the 16-foot rule should
apply and that it should not be changed.Mr.Paulson noted his concurrence with
the statements made by Mr.Cartwright.He stated that he is not aware of any
great groundswell in the past,which dictates that this needs to be changed,and
17-19
Approved April 6,2004 Minutes
Page 5 of 16
noted his confusion in why it keeps getting revisited -pointing out that City
Council had previously approved the 16-foot-by-right rule.He expressed his
belief that at this point in time,this has become a policy issue that needs to be
taken up by City Council.Mr.Paulson noted his concern that if this is sent back
to the Planning Commission for further debate,it will open up new public
hearings on this matter and that it will not just be taken up as a discussion item;
and he noted that it was his understanding that the proper process was followed
and that Council had already decided the matter,but that he understood what
was passed by the City Council at the last hearing,based on the discussion
dialogue,was not what was submitted for recommendation by the Planning
Commission.
Referring to the first chart,Councilman Long asked Mr.Paulson if his biggest
concern is that the extension below 16 feet would be considered as part of the
height variation permit.
Responding to Councilman Long's inquiry,Mr.Paulson stated that in the first
chart,yes;noted that the way he understands the new ordinance as rewritten is
that the height variation issue would now address everything on this chart below
and above 16 feet;stated that his concern is if one were submitting a plan to
build a two-story house,automatically it would be subject to height variation
review;and that if the view impairment was below 16 feet,one could be denied
under the proposed ordinance.
Mayor Gardiner asked Mr.Paulson if he believes some property rights have been
taken away by the urgency ordinance.
Mr.Paulson stated that yes,he believed some property rights had been taken
away by the urgency ordinance;that the City would be taking away property
rights because the City could deny a project with a view impairment below 16
feet;and stated that he does not believe this matter should be debated any
further by the Planning Commission,believing that the Commission cannot
resolve this issue.
Mr.Paulson noted for Mayor pro tem Clark that his primary message is that the
City should revert back to the old code,and that the City should only take into
account a view above 16 feet.
Councilman Stern asked Mr.Paulson to ignore the portion on the diagram to the
left where the room extension was placed,and to assume the view was directly
underneath the portion where the height variation was sought,the box that goes
from 0 to 16 feet where one wants to build up.He asked Mr.Paulson if it is his
belief that the City should ignore what falls below 16 feet even though it will block
the view and is obviously part of the height variation of that structure.
Responding to Councilman Stern's question,Mr.Paulson noted his belief that the
process which is currently in place,prior to City Council making the changes,
adequately addresses that type of situation to be addressed by the Planning
17-20
Approved April 6,2004 Minutes
Page 6 of 16
Commission as it is evaluating a project;and stated that if a project,as noted on
the first chart,came before the Planning Commission for consideration,if there
was a view impairment defined by staff under the view review process,that
particular project --forgetting existing residence and room extension --would
probably be recommended for denial because of view impairment.
Councilman Stern stated that in his hypothetical example the view impairment
appears from 0 to 16 feet underneath the part that is built up to 26 feet and
questioned if staff would have denied that.Councilman Stern noted that he
understood Mr.Cartwright's statement regarding his understanding of the
ordinance to have a different outcome and expressed his belief that because of
this confusion,this is why it is necessary to send this back to the Planning
Commission to clarify the matter.
Bruce Franklin,15 Oceanaire Drive,former Planning Commissioner,stated that
he concurs with Mr.Cartwright's statements;expressed his belief that every
resident should have the right to build to 16 feet under all conditions;otherwise,
the City would be subjecting its residents to a 2-step process and add additional
cost and time to complete a project.He urged the Council to maintain the 16-
foot-by-right rule,as approved by the City Council last July.
Don Vannorsdall,29513 Windport Drive,former Planning Commissioner,read a
message faxed by former View Restoration Commissioner Gil Alberio stating his
opinion that there were issues with the urgency ordinance and that any major
changes of Prop M should be made under due process.(Mr.Alberio's fax is on
file with the City Clerk's Office.)
Mr.Vannorsdall stated that he concurred with Mr.Cartwright's statements and
those of the previous speakers;advised that he served on the subcommittee that
considered the entire code many years ago;noted his recollection that this issue
was thoroughly addressed at that time;and he urged the City to keep the code
as written.
Referring to the first graph,Councilman Stern asked Mr.Vannorsdall to ignore
the structure to the left,to assume the view is to the right,that the applicant has
an existing building up to 16 feet,that the applicant is requesting to go up to 26
feet;and questioned of Mr.Vannorsdall if the view is between 0 and 16 feet
directly beneath the portion where the height variation is sought,based upon his
experience,what would have been the outcome under the old code before the
urgency ordinance.
In response to Councilman Stern's inquiry,Mr.Vannorsdall stated that the
Planning Commission would not have disapproved anything below 16 feet;that
they could not have approved it above 16 feet.
Mayor pro tem Clark stated that if the new portion of the house were two stories,
but there was no view impairment that was determined above 16 feet,would Mr.
17-21
Approved April 6,2004 Minutes
Page 7 of 16
Vannorsdall have denied the case if there was a view impairment below the 16
feet.
Mr.Franklin cited a case that was considered,wherein the owners of a house 13
feet high wanted to build to 20 feet;that there was a view between 13 and 15
feet,with no view above that;and he indicated that the Planning Commission
approved it.
Craig Mueller,3559 Seaglen Drive,Chairman of the Planning Commission,
commented on the history of this issue,the various discussions that have taken
place thus far;and stated that the Planning Commission came up with a
recommendation,passed 4-3,to recommend that City Council adopt certain
language.He stated that that recommendation was ignored by the City Council
and that the Council had sent the matter back to the Planning Commission for
further consideration.He urged the Council to carefully consider sending this
matter back to the Planning Commission;pointed out that there are five new
Planning Commissioners;and noted his belief that this Council will not accept the
ultimate decision of the Planning Commission.He stated that there is not likely
to be a unanimous decision on the part of the Planning Commission.He urged
the Council to put themselves in the place of a homeowner who is attempting to
make improvements and rebuild his/her home.
Mr.Mueller stated that in addition to supporting the repeal of the urgency
ordinance,he was present to advocate two things.He asked the Council to
modify the grading permit when pe.rtaining to grading down,which is a
recommendation of the Planning Commission.He stated that it is important to
allow a homeowner to grade down and still have his/her home 16 feet above the
existing grade,believing that this would encourage the homeowner to grade
down.He stated that the residents should be discouraged from building artificial
ridges or promontories,believing that they have a negative impact upon the
landscape contours.Mr.Mueller stated that the second-story trigger should be
deleted and highlighted the existing neighborhood compatibility rules that were
adopted in 1996;and he encouraged the Council to make these two small
corrections to the code.Mr.Mueller stated that if Council chooses to send this
back to the Planning Commission,Council should keep in mind that this will take
some time for discussion and public input;that the Planning Commission
meetings will go longer and that debate will continue for some time before a
recommendation is made to the Council;and reiterated his concern that the
Planning Commission may not come up with a desirable solution for the Council
-believing that the Planning Commission cannot come up with a better solution
than what is outlined this evening.
Councilman Stern stated that the staff report indicates that "therefore the
Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council continue this item to
allow a second opportunity for the Commission to provide more comprehensive
input";and questioned what was the vote of the Commission.
17-22
Approved April 6,2004 Minutes
Page 8 of 16
Mr.Mueller stated,"5 new Commissioners in favor,1 experienced Commissioner
dissenting."
Councilman Stern questioned Mr.Mueller if he felt the prior code was so clear
that everyone knew the outcome for that homeowner wanting to build the
structure -now referring to the right of the first diagram.Councilman Stern
expressed his opinion that the outcome is not clear under the old code;stated
that he has faith that the Planning Commissioners will listen and reason through
a well-thought out recommendation;and stated that there has been some
ambiguity in the statements of some of the speakers.He noted that staff has
identified some of the things that need to be clarified,for instance,the situation
where there is a present ridge line of 18 feet,where the homeowner wants to tear
down and rebuild;stated that the existing code would trigger an analysis;and
noted the Planning Commission's desire to look at this issue.He expressed his
belief that this matter should not have come before the Council before a final and
complete recommendation had been made by the Planning Commission -
pointing out that the Planning Commission had not fully addressed some of the
issues of concern prior to it coming before City Council.
Mr.Mueller stated that cumulative view impairment needs to be addressed and
its relation throughout the neighborhood;and suggested language for modifying
the urgency ordinance,which incorporates his concerns with the grading permit
and the deletion of the second-story trigger.He stated that he is in favor of
repealing the urgency ordinance;and stated that if it is the Council's desire,the
Planning Commission will take up the matter once again.Mr.Mueller stated that
many of the view lots have unusable land,buildable space,with setbacks that
cannot be built upon because of restrictions;and noted that it should be realized
that it might not be fair for all residents depending on the topography of their lots.
Paul Tetreault,32232 Phantom Drive,new Planning Commissioner,noted the
necessity to clear up this matter;stated that Mr.Cartwright brought forth many of
his same concerns and problems that he envisions in the urgency ordinance;
commented on residents who are denied a project,only to redesign their homes
to be more expansive one-story structures,creating smaller setbacks;and stated
that time and time again,he sees examples where the urgency ordinance as
presently worded fails to protect valuable views.He stated that the ordinance
encourages applicants to phase in the construction projects;and expressed his
belief that the City needed to reword the ordinance so that it eliminated this
phasing of projects that would otherwise have been denied if submitted at the
same time.
RECESS AND RECONVENE
Chairman Gardiner recessed the meeting at 10:14 P.M. and reconvened the
meeting at 10:20 P.M.
Pang Mueller,3559 Seaglen,noted her concern with the length of time the
Planning Commission has already spent on this issue;addressed her concern
17-23
Approved April 6,2004 Minutes
Page 9 of 16
with the increasingly more complex municipal codes developed under the
urgency ordinance,stating that the ordinance seems to protect views in some
instances and not in other instances;and stated that such complexity could lead
to more interpretation problems.She expressed her belief that the City Council
members have enough knowledge and understanding of this issue to make a
sound policy decision at this time.She stated that it is not a productive use of
time and energy to send this issue back to a fairly new Planning Commission to
start the proceedings all over again --pointing out that the previous Planning
Commission had thoroughly discussed this issue for many months.She urged
the City Council to reaffirm the historical interpretation of the existing ordinance
and to repeal the sections in the urgency ordinance that address the view
impairment in the 0 to 16-foot areas;stated that she does not believe it is
necessary to include the language "may"or "shall"to create an opportunity to
consider views in the portion below 16 feet;and urged the City Council to make a
decision on this policy,one that is not complex.
Ken Dyda,5715 Capeswood Drive,stated that this City has dealt with view
issues for many years;advised that one of the first principles that Council made
clear was the by-right-to-build-to-16-foot rule outside the required setbacks;
noted that the setbacks are there to provide the possibility for corridor views;
mentioned that the development code also indicates that there are limits to lot
coverage;and that anyone coming to the City wanting to build new or add-on can
interpret the code clearly that they can build anything up to 16 feet outside the
setbacks on the property so long as they follow all the other building codes and
that they will not fall into any other traps/triggers. Looking at what was structured
in the urgency ordinance,whether rebuilding voluntarily or involuntarily,he stated
that the expectation is that one should at least be able to build what they had
prior,whether 16 feet or 17 feet -pointing out that the neighborhood has lived
with that building for many years;and that it is unfair to say that the City must
review everything.He stated that allowing phasing costs both the applicant and
the City additional time and money and noted the importance of completing a
construction project in a timely manner.He stated that the rule should be
maintained at 16 feet.
Councilman Long noted Mr.Dyda's involvement with the creation of the code
from the outset;stated that the ordinance requires that findings be made as to
the degree of view impairment,but noted that there is nothing in the ordinance
that says view is only that which is above 16 feet;and questioned Mr.Dyda if that
wording was just adopted or left out when one analyzes view in a height
variation.
Mr.Dyda stated that if the City says one can build to 16 feet and not have any
problem,an applicant could have built a one-story and wider house;and that if a
structure is up to 16 feet within permitted setbacks and lot coverage,the
neighbors don't have a right to a view.
Sunshine,6 Limetree Lane,advised that when the view ordinance was first
drafted,the language indicated that there is no significant view in the space
17-24
Approved April 6,2004 Minutes
Page 10 of 16
between 0 and 16 feet;that no one had any opportunity to address a view within
the 16 feet -stating that the code was specifically developed for that purpose.
She stated that it was understood that if someone purchased a property,they
would have the right to build up to 16 feet regardless of view impact.Sunshine
noted for Councilman Long that the ordinance defined the view to exclude
everything below 16 feet.
Councilman Long questioned if specific wording is so indicated in the original
ordinance to exclude everything below 16 feet.
Sunshine noted for Councilman Long that excluding everything below 16 feet
was the intent of the ordinance and she apologized if the original ordinance is not
clear on that fact.
Mr.Cartwright noted his complete concurrence with Sunshine's statement;and
stated that it also is staff's interpretation that view impairment cannot be
considered below 16 feet.Mr.Cartwright stated that since all the triggers are
above 16 feet,it is the view of the majority of people who read the language that
the language indicates the significant view is above 16 feet.
Councilman Long noted that staff has used the term "protected views"in its staff
reports as an excuse for refusing to provide view protection but that the
ordinance did not contain any reference to or any definition of "protected views":
and instead merely required by its plain language a view analysis of all views
anytime a structure exceeded 16 feet.
Mr.Cartwright stated that the language should then be changed,not the
ordinance;and expressed his belief that most everyone on the Planning
Commission knew what the historic interpretation was.
Mr.Dyda stated that the original intent was to allow people to build homes up to
16 feet within the setbacks and the lot coverage;that any foliage which fell within
that envelope did not affect the view,therefore it was permitted;that if foliage
outside the envelope could impact the view,such as the ocean or Catalina,it
would not be permitted outside of that 16-foot envelope.
Mr.Paulson pointed out that the Council has heard comments from people who
were involved in writing the original material that set the ground rules for the
ordinances that exist;and he urged Council to listen to these people who have
been responsible for operating and implementing these rules under the
ordinance.Mr.Paulson stated that looking back on what he had said earlier this
evening,the 16 feet applies all the way across the property;and he encouraged
the Council not to send this back to the Planning Commission,but to keep it at
the Council level and do what needs to be done as a matter of policy.
Mr.Mueller asked that as the Council considers what to do,that it not throw out
all the language in the urgency ordinance should this body decide to repeal the
ordinance;commented on his proposed changes to the ordinance;explained that
when reverting back to the original ordinance,the Council could get there by
17-25
Approved April 6,2004 Minutes
Page 11 of 16
simply deleting the reference to the portion below 16 feet and basically retain the
remaining flow of the language,and to take the 3 findings and put them in logical
order.He suggested leaving Nos.4 and 5 in the ordinance,but to place them in
a different order;and reiterated his suggested change to delete the reference to
the portion below 16 feet in all clauses,including Finding No.6;that the grading
permit sections be included as modified by the Planning Commission,which
relate to grading down,and to delete the reference to the two-story trigger below
16 feet with a 20-foot requirement.
Councilman Long asked for a hard copy of Mr.Mueller's proposed language for
the urgency ordinance.
Mr.Mueller stated that altering the ordinance and including his proposed
language would create an alternative to either leaving the urgency ordinance in
place as it's written or to repeal the urgency ordinance altogether.
Councilman Long noted that the current recommendation of the Planning
Commission,5-1,is that Council send this matter back to the Commission.
Councilman Long stated that in the chart that Mr.Cartwright used,the
recommendation of the Planning Commission immediately prior to the adoption
of the urgency ordinance,the 4-3 recommendation,was that the City should not
include the area of the room extension to the extreme left in the diagram in the
view analysis,but that the City should include the entirety of the structure to the
right,which is the portion directly below the portion for which a height variance is
sought.
Responding to Councilman Long's statement,Mr.Mueller indicated that,yes,the
Planning Commission vote was 4-3 in September.
Councilman Long stated that the chair of the planning commission made a
comment about the Council not accepting the Planning Commission's
recommendation in adopting the urgency ordinance;but questioned if the chair of
the Planning Commission wants Council to follow that recommendation now.
Chairman Mueller had no response to this inquiry.
Councilman Wolowicz asked Mr.Mueller if he approves of the language
contained in Finding No.4 of the February staff report.
Responding to Councilman Wolowicz'inquiry,Mr.Mueller explained that the
recommendation was only reached in order to come to some sort of a
compromise in September 2003;that the Commission believed that was the best
it could do based upon the information they had;and stated that as a citizen
instead of a Commissioner,he would not be supportive of the recommendation.
Councilman Stern asked if Mr.Mueller had discussed his recommended
language with the Planning Commission prior to this meeting,and,if not,would
17-26
Approved April 6,2004 Minutes
Page 12 of 16
he be opposed to having the Planning Commission review his recommended
language.
Mr.Mueller stated that he had not reviewed the proposed language changes with
the Planning Commission;noted that the proposed wording could be presented
to the Planning Commission,but reiterated that these are policy decisions that
need to be made by the City Council.
Councilman Stern noted that the Planning Commission is in concurrence with the
grading issue;noted his support for deleting the reference to the two-story
trigger;but with regard to the 16-foot rule,he stated that the Planning
Commission should reconsider it and come back to the Council with its best
recommendation.
Mr.Mueller stated that if it's the Council's decision to send it back,the Planning
Commission will take on the challenge;but noted that in the meantime,the
Planning Commission needs something in the ordinance so that it can continue
to process applications.
Mayor pro tern Clark questioned that if it was the inclination of the Council to
reaffirm the policy on the 16-foot rule being the point at which the City considers
the view impairment,did staff have suggested language based upon the
discussion.
City Attorney Lynch suggested the following language:Circle Page 17,Section
8Cii,"The portion of a new structure that is above 16 feet does not significantly
impair view ..."
Circle Page 17,Section 8Civ,"The area of the proposed new structure or
addition to an existing structure that is above 16 feet,"and to strike everything
else up to "when considered exclusive ..."
Circle Page 17,Section 8Cv,"...addition to an existing structure that is above 16
feet is designed and situated in such a manner..."
Circle Page 17,Section 8Cvi , "...view impairment caused by the proposed
structure that is above 16 feet."
Circle Page 17,Section 8Cix,''The proposed structure above 16 feet does not
result in an unreasonable ..."
City Attorney Lynch clarified that it is the voluntary demolition that is not
addressed;stated that Council has the option of repealing the urgency
ordinance,sending this back to the Planning Commission or to make the
amendments as described above.
Councilman Long noted that some of his concerns and questions have still gone
unanswered,for example,the burning down of a house,proposed to be built
precisely within the pre-existing envelope with no expansion,believing that this is
17-27
Approved April 6,2004 Minutes
Page 13 of 16
an approved situation;but that if one goes outside the envelope at all,a height
variation permit is then required that then takes into account a view analysis of
the existing structure above 16 feet.He stated that this becomes problematic
and that he would like the Planning Commission to take a look at it --noting that
this is one of the issues he addressed in his memorandum.He stated that the
same issue is apparent all across the board on the voluntary teardown.
Councilman Stern stated that he is coming to the conclusion that Council should
stick to something more closely akin to what Mr.Cartwright articulated,however,
he questioned if there is some way to give the Planning Commission the
authority not necessarily to deny the permit,not necessarily to review the view
impact in terms of denial,but some authority to make a suggestion when it sees
that moving a building a couple feet might help a situation.
In response to Councilman Stern's inquiry,City Attorney Lynch stated that she
did not see that as an option;and pointed out that in that particular circumstance,
the applicant had worked with the neighbors for negotiation;and that it was not
something that was insisted upon by the Planning Commission.
Mayor pro tem Clark noted that in the 12 years he served on the Planning
Commission and View Restoration Commission,there were oftentimes when
applicants would negotiate with their neighbors prior to coming before the
Planning Commission,many times an applicant would be willing to modify plans
in order to minimize view impairment to the surrounding neighbors.
Councilman Wolowicz stated that this body owes it to the former Planning
Commission that discussed this issue at length,a blue ribbon panel or former
and current members who spoke this evening,to support their recommendation.
RECESS AND RECONVENE
Chairman Gardiner recessed the meeting at 11 :10 P.M and reconvened the
meeting at 11:13 P.M.
Councilman Wolowicz moved,seconded by Mayor pro tem Clark,to rescind
existing Urgency Ordinance No.400U and introduced Ordinance 404U;that the
City revert back to the original language presented to Council on February 17,
2004,by staff and the Planning Commission,along with the proposed changes
as reflected above by City Attorney Lynch.
Councilman Wolowicz clarified the motion to include the adoption of the
resolution,excluding reference to considering views under 16 feet.
Councilman Long expressed his belief that what the motion proposed to do is
actually reject the Planning Commission recommendation because the area
marked "A"should be considered under that recommendation;and noted his
concern that the motion proposed to add language to the ordinance that is
incompatible with Proposition M,possibly constituting a major change in the
ordinance,which would compel future Planning Commissions to routinely grant
17-28
Approved April 6,2004 Minutes
Page 14 of 16
the vast majority of height variation permit applications.He expressed his belief
that the proposed change to the ordinance will seriously dilute an important
protection of views adopted by the majority vote of this City;and urged the
Council to vote against the ordinance.He stated that nothing in the ordinance
and nothing in Proposition M that was originally passed stated that the City
should ignore the view below 16 feet;pointed out that he is not challenging the
absolute right to build to 16 feet in the absence of a need for a height variation
permit,but stated that at some point,a line needs to be drawn and that at that
point,the project should be discretionary.He noted his concern with the
ordinance being diluted/weakened on the appearance that there was never any
protection for views under 16 feet was simply false since the ordinance clearly
protects view obstructed by foliage that exceeds the ridgeline of a house even
when a house is less than 16 feet in height and that the ordinance at one time
required height variation permits and view analyses for two-story structures that
were less than 16 feet.The ordinance was designed to allow someone to build a
one-story house up to 16 feet without accommodating their neighbors'views but
not more.Now the majority of impaired views will be routinely ignored.
Councilman Stern stated that he would take responsibility for the development of
the urgency ordinance;noted that it was a good trade-off to see if Council could
minimize impact on views below 16 feet when someone is asking for permission
to go above 16 feet;and advised that he will be voting in favor of the motion that
puts in place the expressed language to consider portions only above 16 feet
because he believes some of the arguments that have been presented and some
of the unfortunate loopholes that people may exploit,that it makes sense to
essentially block out that area below 16 feet,believing that this also will create
more clarity.
Mayor pro tern Clark noted that he was one of the drafters of Proposition M;
explained that it was not the intent to bring view impairment under 16 feet;and
expressed his belief that supporting the motion is the right direction.
Councilman Long stated that because the rest of Council will be supporting the
motion,he suggested taking the motion one step further to specify that foliage be
permitted to grow to 16 feet regardless of what improvements are present on the
property so that the public knows there is absolutely no protection of views under
16 feet.He mentioned that making this suggestion does not indicate he is in
support of the motion but that it would be consistent with the views of some of the
speakers and would provide a consistent means of disregarding views.
City Attorney Lynch explained that staff will bring back at the Council's.next
meeting the altered ordinance or the second option of an urgency ordinance that
would amend the prior one,making the changes that were read above.
Councilman Stern noted his preference to repeal the urgency ordinance and to
allow staff to bring back the new ordinance with suggested language and to go
on from there.
17-29
Approved April 6,2004 Minutes
Page 15 of 16
Mayor Gardiner noted his preference to amend the existing urgency ordinance,
deleting the below 16-foot view consideration.
Councilman Wolowicz amended his motion to include the teardown items that
need to be addressed further and the two-story trigger and to have staff bring
back all the language at one time.
City Attorney Lynch suggested adding in the issue of what happens when there
is a voluntary tear-down versus an involuntary tear-down as well as a couple
other issues that were mentioned;and noted that it would be her
recommendation to repeal the urgency ordinance at this meeting and allow staff
to bring back everything to the Council,not the Planning Commission.
Councilman Wolowicz amended his motion by rescinding the existing urgency
ordinance and to direct staff to redraft the ordinance,including the proposed
changes discussed this evening.
Mayor pro tern Clark noted that the primary effect is to take out of the code the
review of view under 16 feet.
Mayor Gardiner noted that the ordinance should maintain the beneficial features,
such as the grading issue.
City Attorney Lynch read into the record Urgency Ordinance No.404U.
The motion to repeal the original urgency ordinance carried as follows:
AYES:Clark,Stern,Wolowicz,and Mayor Gardiner
NOES:Long
ABSENT:None
City Clerk Purcell noted her understanding of Councilman Wolowicz'prior motion
to go back and adopt Section 17.02.040C-1-4,reverting to the original language
presented to Council on February 17,2004,but to exclude the boundaries of the
additions up to 16 feet,including both Part A and B.
Councilman Stern noted his understanding that the grading issue will be
addressed so that a view analysis will not be necessary when grading down;that
consistent with staff recommendation,a new provision will be included making it
clear that the voluntary demolition will allow a homeowner to build back into the
existing envelope;and that the two-story trigger will be eliminated.
Councilman Long suggested that if there is voluntary/involuntary removal of a
structure,that even if the replacement structure goes outside the envelope,the
portion of the replacement structure that is within the envelope -regardless of
how high it may be or what it is -should not be considered in any height variation
analysis -stating that he would support that component of the motion.
Councilman Long reiterated that in his judgment,this City is in the process of
significantly diluting and weakening the ordinance for years to come.
17-30
Approved April 6,2004 Minutes
Page 16 of 16
The second part of the motion carried as follows:
AYES:Clark,Stern,Wolowicz,and Mayor Gardiner
NOES:Long
ABSENT:None
Councilman Stern requested that Mr.Cartwright's graphs be attached to the
minutes.Without objection,the Council agreed.
17-31
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY
COUNCIL
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING,BUILDING AND CODE
ENFORCEMENT
APRIL 20,2004
ZON2003-o0417 (16-FOOT HEIGHT CODE
AMENDMENT).
Staff Coordinator:Ara Michael Mihranian,Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION
1.Introduce Ordinance No._,a City initiated proposal to amend Title 17 of
the City's Municipal Code affirming the City's historical interpretation of the
16-foot height requirement and clarifying the "view"finding as it relates to the
Height Variation and Grading applications.
2.Adopt Resolution No.2004-_,thereby amending the Height Variation
Guidelines and the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook to make the
language consistent with the proposed code amendments.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On April 6,2004,the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No.404U,repealing
Urgency Ordinance No.400U and providing Staff with Specific direction for amending
the Development Code to affirm the application of the 16-foot height limit and clarify
the application of the Height Variation and Grading Permit Findings.The Council
directed Staff to bring back precise code amendment language for consideration at its
April 20,2004 meeting.Pursuant to Council direction,Staff has prepared the
respective code amendment language and respectfully requests Council direction on
the proposed language.
Additionally,Staff respectfully requests Council direction on proposed amendments to
the Height Variation Guidelines and the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook that
will emulate the new proposed code amendment language.
17-32
CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT
APRIL 20,2004
PAGE 2
BACKGROUND
On April 6,2004,the City Council opened the public hearing to receive public
testimony on the matter related to the Height Variation permit findings.After
considering the comments made by the Planning Commission at its March 23 rd
meeting,receiving public testimony,and further discussing the matter,the Council,
with a vote of 4-1,adopted Urgency Ordinance No.404U,which repealed Urgency
Ordinance No.400U.The Council directed Staff to come back at its April 20,2004
meeting with specific code language that affirms the historic application of the 16-foot
height limit as being a "by-right"height limit for all citywide residential properties.The
draft minutes from the April 6,2004 City Council meeting are under separate cover.
Given the Council's action,attached is the draft ordinance that contains the language
directed by the Council and the draft resolution that will make the la.nguage contained
in the Height Variation Guidelines and Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook
consistent with the proposed code amendment language.In order to review the
specific draft code amendment language,please refer to the attached ordinance and
resolution.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
Staff has determined that the proposed code amendments to the Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code will require an addendum·to the Environmental
Assessment and Negative Declaration prepared and approved by the City Council
under Resolution No.97-25 for amendments to Titles 16 and 17 of the City's
Municipal Code.At the time the City Council adopted the Negative Declaration,it
found:1)that there would be no significant adverse environmental impacts resulting
from the adoption of the amendments;2)that many of the amendments were
clarifications and minor non-substantive revisions;and 3)that the new amendments
reaffirm the historic interpretation and application of the 16-foot height requirement
and clarify the Height Variation and Grading Permit Findings.
Staff believes that the proposed amendments clarify the existing Code requirements
and provide the decision makers,Staff and the public with direction on how to process
residential development applications.As such,Staff is of the opinion that said
amendments to the Code will not result in any new significant environmental effects,
but rather serve to reduce impacts upon the environment.As a result,no further
environmental review will be is necessary other than the adoption of Addendum No.
10 to Environmental Assessment No.694 and Negative Declaration.
DISCUSSION
Code Amendments
Pursuant to the Council's adopted motion at its April 6,2004 meeting,the following
section contains a summary of the code amendments being presented to the Council
for consideration this evening.To view the specific code amendment language,
17-33
CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT
APRIL 20,2004
PAGE 3
please see the attached draft ordinance that contains underlined text representing
added language,and strike through text representing deleted language.
1.Height Variation Findings
For the purpose of the view and privacy findings required for a Height Variation
application,the Council agreed that only proposed portions above 16-feet are to be
analyzed.To implement this direction,Height Variation Findings Nos.2,4,5,6,and
9 of Section 17.02.040(C)(1)are proposed to be amended (see pages 5 and 6 of the
attached draft ordinance).
2.Two-Story Structures Under 16-feet
According to Section 17.02.040(B)(1)(c)of the RPVMC,a Height Variation permit is
required for a structure on a pad lot that exceeds one-story even if it is within the 16-
foot height limit (it should be noted that the Municipal Code does not limit the number
of stories).This requirement was added in 1996 to close a loophole in the pre-
existing Development Code that was allowing two-story homes to be built without the
benefit of a Height Variation application review.Since this requirement has caused
confusion in the past and is no longer necessary because of the established
maximum height measurements from existing and finished grades,the Council
agreed to eliminate this Height Variation application trigger.As such,a Height
Variation permit will no longer be required for projects involving two-stories,which are
under 16-feet in height.In order to implement this direction,Section
17.02.040(B)(1)(c)will be amended accordingly (see page 5 of the attached draft
Ordinance ).
3.Grading View Finding
As originally recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City
Council,in cases where grading is proposed,if the proposed earth movement results
in a lower grade elevation under the proposed building footprint,then the view finding
(referred to as Grading Finding No.2)does not apply.Conversely,in cases where
grading is proposed that will raise the existing grade elevation,either under the
building footprint or elsewhere on the lot,then the view finding will apply (see page 6
of the attached draft Ordinance).It should be noted that as drafted,the view finding
will apply when the existing grade is raised regardless of whether the resulting
structure is within the height limits described in Section 17.02.040.
4.Tear-down Rebuild Structures
Currently,Section 17.84.060(A)(2)of the RPVMC allows structures damaged or
destroyed due to an involuntary act to be replaced,repaired or restored to their
original condition.The Council directed that this allowance also be applied to
structures that are voluntarily demolished like "tear-downlrebuild"projects.However,
this requirement only applies in situations where the proposed structure will be
constructed within the same maximum building height,square footage and general
17-34
CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT
APRIL 20,2004
PAGE 4
location as the original structure.Furthermore,in terms of view analysis,the Council
agreed that a structure proposed to be rebuilt must be within the same envelope as
the original structure,whether demolished voluntarily or involuntarily,will not be
subject to a view analysis,even if the replacement structure is above 16-feet in
height.However,the view analysis will apply to portions of a proposed structure that
extend beyond the original structure envelope and that are above 16-feet in height
(see page 4 ofthe attached draft Ordinance).
5.Table 02-A:Single-Family Residential Development Standards
In addition to the above text amendments,as an administration "clean-up"item that
was overlooked at the time the Development Code was updated in 1997,Footnote
No.8 is proposed to be deleted.At the time the Council considered updating the
Development Code,the second story 25-foot setback requirement was replaced with
a trigger that requires the Planning Commission's review of projects that are closer
than 25-feet from the front or street-side property line.Furthermore,the trigger for
new single-family residences exceeding 16-feet in height was inadvertently left off the
table and is now proposed to be added.As such,Table 02-A of the RPVMC is
proposed to be amended accordingly,as depicted in Exhibit B of the attached draft
Ordinance.This clean-up amendment was reviewed and recommended by the
Planning Commission and was previously presented to the Council which resulted in
no comments.
Amendment to the Height Variation Guidelines and Neighborhood Compatibility
Handbook
In order to ensure that the Height Variation Guidelines and Neighborhood
Compatibility Handbook emulate the code amendment language being considered by
the Council,the following changes are proposed to be made to the follOWing
documents (to view the specific amendments,please see Exhibit A of the attached
draft Resolution.The amended sections are shaded.):
Height Variation Guidelines
•The "Purpose"section is proposed to be amended to reiterate the Code's 16-foot
height limit requirement.
•The "Building Height"and "Criteria for Review"sections are proposed to be
amended to reflect the respective language amendments to Title 17.
•The "Mandatory Findings"section is proposed to be amended to clarify the intent
of Finding No.iv so as to reasonably minimize an impairment of a view.
•The order of Findings iv and vi is being amended.
Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook
•The text in the Mass and Scale section pertaining to "Neighbor's Views"and the
Height of Structures section of the Handbook is proposed to be amended to clarify
the City's 16-foot "by-right"height limit.
17-35
CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT
APRIL 20,2004
PAGE 5
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Effective Date
In the event the City Council finds the proposed language acceptable and the
proposed code amendment is introduced this evening,the ordinance will be brought
back to the City Council for a second reading and adoption at its May 4th meeting.
The ordinance will go into effect 30-days from the second reading (May 4,2004),on
June 4,2004.It should be noted that since Urgency Ordinance No.400U was
repealed by Urgency Ordinance No.404U at the April 6,2004 Council meeting,in the
interim the regulations contained in the current Development Code (existing prior to
the Urgency Ordinance)are to be applied to Height Variation applications that
necessitate decisions by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission.
ALTERNATIVES
The following alternative is available for the City Council's consideration in addition to
Staff's recommendation:
1.Identify any issues of concern with the proposed amendments,and provide
Staff with modifications,and continue the public hearing to a date certain.
FISCAL IMPACT
If the City Council approves the proposed code amendment,Staff anticipates that
there will be no direct impact to the City's General Fund nor will it have a fiscal impact
to the City.
Respectfully submitted,
Joel Rojas,AICP
Director of Planning,Building and
Code Enforcement
Reviewed by:
Les Evans
City Manager
17-36
CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT
APRIL 20,2004
PAGE 6
ATTACHMENTS
•Draft Ordinance No.
•Exhibit 'A'-Addendum No.10 to Environmental Assessment No.694
• .Exhibit '8'-Amended Table 02-A -Residential Development Standards
Table
•Draft Resolution No.2004-_
•Exhibit 'A'-Amended Excerpts from the Height Variation Guidelines and
Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook
•Commissioner Knight's Comment Letter (late correspondence)
M:\CODEAMENDMENTS\zON2003-0041716 FOOT HEIGHT\CCMEMO 04-20-04.doc
17-37
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
THE 16·FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION FORRESIDENTIALLY ZONED
PROPERTIES AND CLARIFYING THE FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR
HEIGHT VARIATION AND GRADING PERMIT APPLICATIONS
WHEREAS,on November 25,1975,the City's first Municipal Code was adopted
establishing the City's 16-foot height limit and establishing a discretionary review
process for any individuals seeking to construct a residence exceeding 16-feet (Height
Variation Permit process);and,
WHEREAS,in 1979,the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (the "Municipal
Code")was amended to clarify that the Height Variation Permit process applies to both
new residences and additions to existing residences;and,
WHEREAS,on November 7,1989,the voters of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes approved Proposition M (Cooperative Preservation and Restoration Ordinance)
which was incorporated into the Municipal Code;and,•
WHEREAS,between 1996 and 1997,the City approved a major update and
overhaul Title 17 (Zoning)of the Municipal Code,which among other things,clarified
how to measure the 16-foot height limit on pad lots;and,
WHEREAS,on February 8,2003 the City Council held a joint workshop with the
Planning Commission to discuss,among other things,the interpretation of existing
codes and the Height Variation Permit Findings involving the protection of residents'
views from proposed construction.At the meeting,the City Council directed Staff to
bring forward ideas to the Council at a future meeting to clarify or resolve the issues;
and,
WHEREAS,on June 24,2003,the Planning Commission was asked to review
and provide feedback on the content and format of a draft Staff Report to the City
Council regarding the clarification and interpretation of existing codes and the Height
Variation Permit findings.The Planning Commission continued the discussion and
.directed Staff to come back with more information regarding the historical interpretation
and application of the 16-foot height limit and the Height Variation Permit findings;and,
WHEREAS,on July 15,2003,the City Council,at the request of a Council
member,discussed the issues pertaining to the existing Municipal Code and the Height
Variation Permit findings.At the meeting,the City Council unanimously reaffirmed the
historic interpretation and application of the 16-foot height,measured as set forth in the
Municipal Code based on the type of lot involved,as being a "by-right"height limit for all
CJD
Ordinance No.
Page 1 of 7
17-38
~
residential properties in the City and clarified the interpretation of specific Height
""'"driation Permit Findings;and,.'
WHEREAS,at its July 15th meeting,the City Council initiated code amendment
proceedings in order to codify its interpretation and clarification of the 16-foot height limit
and the Height Variation Permit Findings;and,
WHEREAS,after notices issued pursuant to the provisions of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code,the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
September 23,2003,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be
heard and present evidence regarding said amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal
Code as set forth in the Planning Commission Staff Report of that date;and,
WHEREAS,after reviewing the proposed text amendments,the Commission
directed Staff to prepare precise language for consideration at its October 28,2003
meeting and continued the public hearing;and,
WHEREAS,at its October 28,2003,the Planning Commission continued the
public hearing,without discussion,and again on November 25,2003,continued the
hearing to its December 9,2003 meeting;and,
WHEREAS,on December 11,2003 the Planning Commission continued the
public hearing proceedings,and reviewed and considered the proposed code
amendments to Title 17,and adopted P.C.Resolution No.2003-62 forwarding its
recommendations to the City Council for its consideration,and;
WHEREAS,on January 31,2004,a notice of a public hearing on the code
amendment was pUblished in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News;and
WHEREAS,after notices issued pursuant to the requirements of Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code,the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on
February 17,2004,at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be
heard and present evidence.After considering the Planning Commission's
recommendation and public testimony,the Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No.
400U and introduced Ordinance No.401 that among other things,required a view
analysis for portions above and below 16-feet in height when a Height Variations
application is requested;and
WHEREAS,on March 2,2004 the City Council was scheduled to adopt the
second reading of Ordinance No.401 when it was brought to the council's attention that
the Planning Commission had expressed a concern with the application of the new
requirements.Therefore,the Council agreed to continue the discussion to its April 6,
2004 meeting so that the Commission can further review the code language being
considered and prOVide the Council with additional comments;and
Ordinance No.
Page 2 of7
17-39
WHEREAS,on March 6,2004,a notice of a Planning Commission pUblic hearing
on the code amendment was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News;and
WHEREAS,on March 23,2004,the Planning Commission briefly reviewed the
code amendment language being considered by the Council.Due to time constraints,
the Commission,with a vote of 5-1,recommended that the Council .continue its
discussion from April 6,2004 to a later date to allow the Commission a second
opportunity to further review the proposed code language and provide a more
comprehensive recommendation;and,.
WHEREAS,on March 20,2004,a notice of a City Council public hearing on the
code amendment was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News;and
WHEREAS,on April 6,2004,notwithstanding the Planning Commission's
recommendation,the City Council opened the public hearing.After considering the
comments made by the Planning Commission at its March 23 rd meeting,receiving
public testimony,and further discussing the matter,the Council,with a vote of 4-1,
adopted Urgency Ordinance No.404U,which repealed Urgency Ordinance No.400U.
Because the Planning Commission already had discussed and considered this issue on
several occasions,the Council directed Staff to come back at its April 20,2004 meeting
with specific code language that affirms the historic application of the 16-foot height limit
as being a "by-right"height limit for all citywide residential properties;and
WHEREAS,after notices issued pursuant to the requirements of Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code,the City Council held a continued duly noticed public
hearing on April 20,2004,at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity
to be heard and present evidence;
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CliY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:The City Council has reviewed and considered the amendments to
Title 17 of the Municipal Code.
Section 2:The amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code are consistent
with California Government Code Section 65853,zoning amendment procedures.
Section 3:The City Council finds that the amendments to Title 17 of the
Municipal Code are consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and Coastal
Specific Plan in that they uphold,and do not hinder,the goals and policies of those
plans,in particular to carefully control and direct future growth towards making a
positive contribution to all elements of the community.
Section 4:The City Council 'finds that the amendments to Title 17 of the
Municipal Code are substantially the same as previous provisions of the Rancho Palos
Ordinance No.
Page 3 of7
17-40
•Verdes Municipal Code and that the amendments to Title 17 shall be construed as a
restatement and continuation of the previous provisions and as new enactment.(.,,"".\,
Section 5:The City Council further finds that there is no substantial evidence
that the amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code would result in new significant
environmental effects,or a substantial increase in the severity of the effects,as
previously identified in Environmental Assessment No.694 and the Negative
Declaration,adopted through Resolution No.97-25 in conjunction with Ordinance No.
320 for amendments to Titles 16 and 17 of the Municipal Code,since the new
amendments reaffirm the historic interpretation and application of the 16-foot height
requirement and clarify the Height Variation Findings.An Addendum (No.10)to the
prior Negative Declaration has been prepared and is attached hereto as Exhibit 'A'.The
City Council hereby finds,based on its own independent judgment,that the facts stated
in the Addendum are true because the revisions to Title 17 of the Municipal Code will
not result in greater environmental impacts in the.City.
Section 6:The City Council finds that the amendments to Title 17 of the
Municipal Code are necessary to preserve the public health,safety,and general welfare
in the area.
Section 7:The first paragraph of Paragraph B and sub-section (1 )(c)of
Paragraph B of Section 17.02.040 of Chapter 17.02 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is
hereby amended to read as follows, with all remaining portions of Paragraph B of
Section 17.02.040 of Chapter 17.02 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code retained without
amendment:
17.02.040 View Preservation and Restoration.
B.Regulations.
I.Building Height.Any individual or persons desiring to build a new structure or an addition
to an existing structure ~EeeeEJi.Bg shall be permitted to build up to sixteen feet in height
pursuant to Section 17.02.040(B)ofthis Chapter provided there is no grading.as defined in
Section 17.76.040 of this Chapter.to be perfonned in connection with the proposed
construction.and further provided that no Height Variation is required.and all applicable
residential development standards are or will be met.In cases where an existing structure is
voluntarily demolished or is demolished as a result of an involuntary event a Height
Variation application will not be required to exceed sixteen feet in height provided that the
replacement structure will have the same square footage and maximum building height as the
existing structure and will be reconstructed within the building envelope and footprint ofthe
pre-existing structure.Approval for proposed structures or additions to existing structures
exceeding sixteen feet in height,may be sought through application for a Height Variation
permit,which,if granted pursuant to the procedures contained herein,will permit the
individual to build a structure not exceeding twenty-six feet in height,except as provided in
Section 17.02.040(B)(I)(d)ofthis chapter,or such lower height as approved by the city,
measured as follows:
Ordinance No.
Page 4 of7
17-41
17.02.040(B)(l)(c):
For lots with a "building pad"at street level or at a different level than the street or lot
configurations not previously discussed,the height shall be measured from the pre-
construction (existing)grade at the highest elevation ofthe existing building pad area
covered by the structure to the ridge line or highest point of the structure,as illustrated in
Figure 3 below.Portions of a structure which extend beyond the "building pad"area of a lot
shall not qualify as the highest elevation covered by the structure,for the purposes of
determining maximum building height.Structures allowed pursuant to this subsection sftaY
eentain Be mere tha:R efte stery (eellafS aBa basemeats are exemptea from this reqairemeat)
aBti shall not exceed twenty-feet in height,as measured from the point where the lowest
foundation or slab meets finished grade,to the ridgeline or highest point of the structure.
Otherwise a height variation permit shall be required.
Section 8:Paragraph C subsection (1)(e)of Section 17.02.040 of Chapter
17.02 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
C.Procedures and Requirements
1.Preservation ofViews Where Structures are Involved
e..AB.Height Variation application to build a new structure or an addition to an existing
structure at a height that exceeds the sixteen foot height limit up to the maximum-height
pennitted in Section 17.02.04O(B)(1)ofthis chapter may be granted,with or without
conditions,if the following findings can be made:
i.The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process established by
the city;
ii.The proposed structure or addition to a structure that is above sixteen feet in height
does not significantly impair a view from public property (parks,major thoroughfares,
bike ways,walkways or equestrian trails)which has been identified in the city's general
plan or coastal specific plan,as city-designated viewing areas;
iii.The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or a promontory;
:vi iv.the area of a proposed new structure or addition to an existing structure that is
above sixteen feet in height,as defined in Section 17.02.040(8)ofthis Chapter,when
considered exclusive of existing foliage,does not significantly impair a view from the
viewing area of another parcel.If the viewing area is located in a structure,the viewing
area shall be located in a portion of a structure which was constructed without a height
variation pennit or variance,or which would not have required a height variation or
variance when originally constructed had this section,as approved by the voters on
November 7,1989,been in effect at the time the structure was constructed,unless the
viewing area located in the portion ofthe existing structure which required a height
variation permit or variance constitutes the primary living area (living room,family
room,dining room or kitchen)of the residence;
Ordinance No.
Page 5 of?
17-42
i¥y.If view im airment exists from the viewin area of
determined not to be si ·ficant .......described in Findin No.i e ro osed new the •
structure is or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height
®-~signed and situated in such a manner as to reasonably minimize the impairment of a
VIew;
¥vi.There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the
application.C~ulative view impairment shall be determined by:(a)considering the
amount ofview impairment that would be caused by the proposed structure or addition
to a structure that is above sixteen feet in height;and (b)considering the amount ofview
impairment that would be caused by the construction on other parcels of structures or
additions that exceed sixteen feet in height"aad lilt'@ sHail8f'to the'prOp~e etnlet:Yre;
..Th d l··th all th d .<;;;,\""\,........Vll.e propose structure comp les WI 0 er co e requrrements;
viii.The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character;
ix.The proposed new structure or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen
feet does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy ofthe occupants of
abutting residences.
Section 9:Table 02-A:Single-Family Residential Development Standards of
Section 17.02.040 of Chapter 17.02 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby
amended to delete footnote number 8.which currently reads "8.The front and side
setback for those portions of structures over sixteen feet in height shall be a minimum of
twenty-five feet in all residential zoned districts.".as shown in the amended Table 02-A
attached hereto as Exhibit 'B'.
Section 10:Subparagraph 2 of paragraph E of Section 17.76.040 of chapter
17.76 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the
visual relationships with,nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties.In
cases where grading is proposed for a new residence or an addition to an existing residence.this
finding shall be satisfied when the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade under the
building footprint such that the height of the proposed structure.as measured pursuant to Section
17.02.040$)ofthis Title.is lower than a structure that could have been built in the same
.location on the lot ifmeasured from pre-construction (existing)grade;
Section 11:The rights given by any approval granted under the terms of Title
17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code prior to the effective date of the
adoption of said ordinance shall not be affected by the amendments to Title 17 by this
ordinance and shall continue in effect until and unless they are modified.revoked,
expired or are otherwise terminated according to the terms of the approval or the terms
of Title 17 as they existed prior to the effective date of this ordinance.
Ordinance No.
Page 6 of7
17-43
Section 12:The amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal
Code as identified herein shall apply to all development applications that have not been
finally acted upon as of the effective date of this ordinance.
Section 13:For the foregoing reasons,and based on the information and
findings included in the Staff Report,Minutes,and other records of proc~edings,the
City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby adopts the fo~egoing
amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code.
Section 14:The City Clerk is directed to certify to the passage and adoption of
this ordinance and to cause the full text of this ordinance to be published as required by
law.
PASSED,APPROVED,ADOPTED,and ORDERED this 20th day of April,2004,by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTION:
ABSENT:
.Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles )ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I,JO PURCELL,City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,hereby
certify that the above Ordinance No._was duly and regularly passed and adopted by
the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on April 20,2004.
City Clerk
Ordinance No.
Page 7 of7
17-44
ADDENDUM NO.10 TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTI
NEGATIVE DECLARATION (EAlND)NO.694
April 20,2004
On April-1,1997,the City Council adopted Resolution No.97-25,thereby adopting a
Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No.694 for amendments to Titles
16 and 17 of the City's Municipal Code.Prior to its adoption,the Negative Declaration
was circulated for public comment from March 4 through March 24,1997 and no
substantive comments were received from any persons or responsible agencies.In
adopting the Negative Declaration,the City Council found:1)that there would be no
significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the adoption of the
amendments;2)that many of the amendments were clarifications and minor non-
substantive revisions;and 3)that the substantive amendments would not cause impacts
on the environment since the requirements and regUlations governing development in
the City would be clarified,thereby minimizing adverse impacts to adjacent properties
and upon the environment.
The City Council is currently considering amendments to Title 17 of the Development
Code,as it pertains to affirming the historical interpretation and application of the 16-
foot height limit and clarifying the Height Variation and Grading Permit findings.The
proposed amendments clarify the existing Code requirements and provide the decision
makers,Staff and the public with clearer direction on how to process residential
development applications.As such,the City Council has independently reviewed this
item and determined that the proposed amendments will not result in any new
significant environmental effects.Furthermore,the City Council finds that the
amendments are within the scope of EAlND No.694 that were prepared and adopted in
conjunction with the amendments to Titles 16 and 17,that were adopted on April 19,
1997 by the City Council.As a result,no further environmental review is necessary
other than the adoption of this Addendum No.1 O.
Exhibit "A"
Ordinance No.
Page 1 of 1
17-45
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 uRS_"designation indicates the maximum number oflots per acre permitted in the zone;the "RS-A"number indicates the minimum number of acres per lot permitted.
LOT MINIMUM SETBACKS3.6.S
MINIMUM SETBACKS2.3,6 MAXIMUM MAXIMUM PARKINGDISTRICTDIMENSIONSlFORCITYCREATEDLOTSFORLOTSCREATEDPRIORTOLOTHEIGHT3•4•7 REQUIREMENTsINCORPORAnONIANNEXAnONCOVERAGE
INTERIOR STREET FRONT INTERIOR STREET REAR less than 5,000 s.f.
AREA WIDTH DEPTH FRONT REAR SIDE SIDE of habitable spaceSIDE SIDE =2 enclosed ga-
TTL ONE
rage spaces
BOTH
SIDES SIDE 5,000 s.f.or more
RS-AS 5 acres 200 300 20 30 10 20 20 20 5 10 15 6%16
ofhabitable space
=3 enclosed ga-
RS-I 1 acre 100 150 20 25 10 20 20 20 5 10 15 25%16 rage spaces
RS-2 20,000 sf 90 120 20 20 10 20 20 20 5 10 IS 40%16
RS-3 13,000 sf 80 110 20 20 10 20 15 20 5 10 15 45%16
RS-4 10,000 sf 75 100 20 20 10 20 15 20 5 10 15 50%16
RS-5 8,000 sf 65 100 20 20 10 20 15 20 5 10 15 52%16
I.For an existing lot which does not meet these standards,see Chapter 17.84 (Nonconformities).
2.Lots ofrecord,existing as of November 25,1975 (adoption of this code),or within Eastview and existing as ofJanuary 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 ofthis chapter.A height variation application shall be referred directly to the planning
commission for consideration,if any ofthe following is proposed:
A.Any portion ofa structure which exceeds sixteen (16)feet in height extends closer than twenty-five (25)feet from the front or street-side property line.
B.The area ofthe structure which exceeds sixteen (16)feet in height (second story footprint)exceeds seventy-five percent (75%)ofthe existing first story footprint area (residence and garage);
and
C.Sixty percent (60%)or more ofan existing garage footprint is COVt:ed by a structure which exceeds sixteen (16)feet in height (a second story).
D.The portion ofa structure that exceeds sixteen feet in height is beir.g developed as part ofa new single-farmly residence;or
E.Based on an initial site visit,the director determines that any portion ofa structure which is proposed to exceed sixteen (16)feet in height may significantly impair a view as defined in this
chapter.
5.For parking development standards,see Section 17.02.030(B)ofthis chapter.
6.A garage with direct access driveway from the street ofaccess shall not be less than twenty feet from the front or street-side property line,which ever is the street ofaccess.
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,The 1¥ellt lUlEl stFeet siele setilaelE feF these peF!i8lls ef stFaeteFes e\'eF sil!teea feet mliiHght sliall13e a R1iHi_aftweHty n'/e feet ifl all fCSieleatiai 2811mg Elismets.
Exhibit "B"
Ordinance No._
Page 1 of 1
(§
17-46
RESOLUTION NO.2004-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES AMENDING THE HEIGHT VARIATION GUIDELINES
AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY HANDBOOK IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO.
AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
THE 16-FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR RESIDENTIALLY ZONED
PROPERTIES AND CLARIFYING THE HEIGHT VARIATION AND
GRADING FINDINGS
WHEREAS,on November 25,1975,the City's first Municipal Code was adopted
establishing the City's 16-foot height limit and establishing a discretionary review
process for any individuals seeking to construct a residence exceeding 16-feet (Height
Variation Permit process);and,
WHEREAS,in 1979,the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (the "Municipal
Code")was amended to clarify that the Height Variation Permit process applies to both
new residences and additi~ns to existing residences;and,
WHEREAS,on November 7,1989,the voters of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes approved Proposition M (Cooperative Preservation and Restoration Ordinance)
which was incorporated into the Municipal Code;and,
WHEREAS,between 1996 and 1997,the City approved a major update and
overhaul Title 17 (Zoning)of the Municipal Code,which among other things,clarified
how to measure the 16-foot height limit on pad lots;and,
WHEREAS,on February 8,2003 the City Council held a joint workshop with the
Planning Commission to discuss,among other things,the interpretation of eXisting
codes and the Height Variation Permit Findings involving the protection of residents'
views from proposed construction.At the meeting,the City Council directed Staff to
bring forward ideas to the Council at a future meeting to clarify or resolve the issues;
and,
WHEREAS,on June 24,2003,the Planning Commission was asked to review
and provide feedback on the content and format of a draft Staff Report to the City
Council regarding the clarification and interpretation of existing codes and the Height
Variation Permit findings.The Planning Commission continued the discussion and
directed Staff to come back with more information regarding the historical interpretation
and application of the 16-foot height limit and the Height Variation Permit findings;and,
WHEREAS,on July 15,2003,the City Council,at the request of a Council
member,discussed the issues pertaining to the existing Municipal Code and the Height
Variation Permit findings.At the meeting,the City Council unanimously reaffirmed the
Resolution No.2004-_
Page 1 of 5
17-47
historic interpretation and application of the 16-foot height,.measured as set forth in the
Municipal Code based on the type of lot involved,as being a "by-right"height limit for all
residential properties in the City and clarified the interpretation of specific Height
Variation Permit Findings;and,
WHEREAS,at its July 15th meeting,the City Council initiated code ~mendment
proceedings in order to codify its interpretation and clarification of the 16-foot height limit
and the Height Variation Permit Findings;and,
WHEREAS,after notices issued pursuant to the provisions of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code,the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
September 23,2003 at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be
heard and present evidence regarding said amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal
Code as set forth in the Planning Commission Staff Report of that date;and,
WHEREAS,after reviewing the proposed text amendments,the Commission
directed Staff to prepare precise language for consideration at its October 28,2003
meeting and continued the public hearing;and,
WHEREAS,at its October 28,2003,the Planning Commission continued the
pUblic hearing,without discussion,and again on November 25,2003,continued the
hearing to its December 9,2003 meeting;and,
WHEREAS,on December 11,2003 the Planning Commission continued the
pUblic hearing proceedings,and reviewed and considered the proposed code
amendments to Title 17,and adopted P.C.Resolution No.2003-62 forwarding its
recommendations to the City Council for its consideration,and,
WHEREAS,on January 31,2004,a notice of a public hearing on the code
amendment was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News;and,
WHEREAS,after notices issued pursuant to the requirements of Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code,the City Council held a dUly noticed public hearing on
February 17,2004,at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be
heard and present evidence.After considering the Planning Commission's
recommendation and pUblic testimony,the Council adopted Ordinance No.400U and
i~troduced Ordinance No.401 that among other things,required a view analysis for
portions above and below 16-feet in height when a Height Variation application is
requested;and,
WHEREAS,on March 2,2004 the City Council was scheduled to adopt the
second reading of Ordinance No.401 when it was brought to the Council's attention that
the Planning Commission had expressed a concern with the application of the new
requirements.Therefore,the Council agreed to continue the discussion to its April 6,
2004 meeting so that the Commission can further review the code language being
considered and provide the Council with additional comments;and,
Resolution No.2004-_
Page 20f5
17-48
WHEREAS,on March 6,2004,a notice of a Planning Commission public hearing
on the code amendment was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News;and,
WHEREAS,on March 23,2004,the Planning Commission briefly reviewed the
code amendment language being considered by the Council.Due to time constraints,
the Commission,with a vote of 5-1,recommended that the Council continue its
discussion from April 6,2004 to a later date to allow the Commission a second
opportunity to further review the proposed code language and provide a more
comprehensive recommendation;and,
WHEREAS,on March 20,2004,a notice of a City Council public hearing on the
code amendment was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News;and
WHEREAS,on April 6,2004,notwithstanding the Planning Commission's
recommendation,the City Council opened the public hearing.After considering the
comments made by the Planning Commission at its March 23r.<J meeting,receiving
public testimony,and further discussing the matter,the Council,with a vote of 4-1,
adopted Urgency Ordinance No.404U,which repealed Urgency Ordinance No.400U.
Becau~e the Planning Commission already had discussed and considered this issue on
several occasions,the Council directed Staff to come back at its April 20,2004 meeting
with specific code language that affirms the historic application of the 16-foot height limit
as being a "by-right"height limit for all citywide residential properties;and,
WHEREAS,after notices issued pursuant to the requirements of Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code,the City Council held a continued duly noticed public
hearing on April 20,2004,at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity
to be heard and present evidence.
WHEREAS,after receiving pUblic testimony at the public hearing,on April 20,
2004,the City Council adopted Ordinance No._amending Title 17 of the Municipal
Code affirming the City's historical interpretation and application of the 16-foot height
requirement and clarifying the Height Variation and Grading findings for Citywide
residential zoned neighborhoods;and
WHEREAS,in the adoption of Ordinance No._,the City Council further found
that there is no substantial evidence that the amendments to Title 17 would result in
new significant environmental effects,or a substantial increase in the severity of the
effects,as previously identified in Environmental Assessment No.694 and the Negative
Declaration,adopted through Resolution No.97-25 in conjunction with Ordinance No.
320 for amendments to Titles 16 and 17 of the Municipal Code,since the new
amendments reaffirm the historical interpretation and application of the 16-foot height
requirement and clarify the Height Variation Findings.An Addendum (No.10)to the
prior Negative Declaration was prepared and attached as Exhibit 'A'to Ordinance No.
_The City Council hereby finds,based on its own independent judgment,that the
Resolution No.2004-
Page 3 of5
17-49
facts stated in the Addendum are true because the revisions to Title 17 of the Municipal
Code will not result in greater environmental in'l""acts in the City.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:The City Council finds that the Height Variation Guidelines and the
Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook,as set forth in Exhibit 'A'hereto,shall be
amended to reflect the amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code adopted under
Ordinance No.389.
Section 2:The City Council finds that the amendments to the Height Variation
Guidelines,as set forth in Exhibit 'A'attached hereto,results in substantially the same
intent as the document adopted by the City Council on June 3,1996,which was
developed in response to the November 17,1989 voter approval of Proposition M.
Section 3:The City Council finds that the amendments to the Neighborhood
Compatibility Handbook,as set forth in Exhibit 'A'attached hereto,results in
substantially the same intent as the document adopted by the City Council on May 6,
2003.
Section 4:The amendments to the Height Variation Guidelines and the
Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook shall be effective immediately from the date of
the adoption of Ordinance No._.
PASSED,APPROVED and ADOPTED this 20th day of April,2004.
Peter C.Gardiner
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Resolution No.2004-_
Page 4 of5
17-50
State of California
County of Los Angeles
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
)
)ss
)
I,JO PURCELL,City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,do
hereby certify that the above Resolution No.2004-_was duly and regularly passed
and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on April 20,2004.
City Clerk
Resolution No.2004-
Page 5 of 5
17-51
AMENDED EXCERPTS OF
THE HEIGHT VARIATION GUIDELINES
AND
THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY HANDBOOK
Resolution No.2004-_
Exhibit 'A'
17-52
Height Variation Guidelines
May 6,2003
I.PURPOSE
\The intent of this document is to provide guidelines and procedures for
protecting views which may be impaired by development of new residential structures or
additions to existing residential structures.As specified in Proposition M,which Wj:lS
passed by the voters of Rancho Palos Verdes and became effective on November 17,
1989,the purposes for the regUlations are to:
a.Protect,enhance and perpetuate views available to property
owners and visitors because of the unique topographical features of the Palos Verdes
Peninsula.These views provide unique and irreplaceable assets to the City and its
neighboring communities and provide for this and future generations examples of the
unique physical surroundings which are characteristic of the City.
b.Define and protect finite visual resources by establishing limits
which construction and plant growth can attain before encroaching onto a view.
c.Insure that the development of each parcel of land or additions to .
residences or structures occur in a manner which is harmonious and maintains
neighborhood compatibility and the character of contiguous subcommunity development
in the General Plan.
d.Require the pruning of dense foliage or tree growth which alone,or
in conjunction with construction,exceeds defined limits.
These guidelines and procedures apply to any person
construct a residential structure above the sixteen foot height
...except that paragraph H of
Section 2 -Removal of Foliage as Condition of Permit Issuance,a lies to an
residential structure,re ardless of hei ht....
II.DEFINITIONS
A.Viewing Area
Section 17.02.040 (A)(15)of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
defines "Viewing area"as follows:
mViewing area'means that area of a structure (excluding bathrooms,
hallways,garages or closets)or that area of a lot (excluding the setback areas)
Page 1
17-53
Height Variation Guidelines
May 6,2003
are not acceptable.An application will not be considered "complete"for processing
without an adequately constructed silhouette in place.
5.The frame must remain in place and be maintained in good
condition throughout the required notice period for the Height Variation
application or the Neighborhood Compatibility analysis process.the decision
process and,if necessary,any appeal periods.The frame may not be removed until
the City's appeal process has been exhausted and a final decision has been rendered.
The applicant must remove 'the frame within seven (7)days after a final decision
has been rendered and the City's appeal process has been exhausted..
VI.BUILDING HEIGHT
1.Proposed residential building height cannot exceed 26 feet.If a
greater height is desired,a Variance application is required,rather than a Height
Variation Permit.
Section 17.02.040(B)(1)of the Municipal Code states that:
2.Height is measured based on whether the subject lot is considered
an uphill,downhill,or other (pad)lot relative to the street of access,and based on the
extent to which the structure slopes with the lot.Section 17.012.040(B)(1)of the Code
defines height measurements as follows:
Page 7
17-54
Height Variation Guidelines
May 6,2003
(d)"On sloping lots described in sections 17.02.040(B)(1)(a)and
17.02.040(B)(1 )(b),the foundation of the structure shall contain a
minimum eight (8)foot step with the slope of the lot.However,no
portion of the structure shall exceed thirty (30)feet in height,when
measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets
finished grade to the ridge line or highest point of the structure.
The thirty (30)foot height shall not exceed a horizontally projected
sixteen (16)foot height line (from the high point ofthe uphill step of
the structure)."(See figure below):Ifthere is not a minimum eight
(8)foot step in the structure's foundation,a Height Variation Permit
and/or a Variance will be required.
VII.SETBACKS FOR SLOPING LOTS
Section 17.02.040(B)(2)of the Municipal Code requires that:
"On lots sloping uphill from the street of access and where the
height of a structure is in excess of sixteen (16)feet above the point
where the lowest foundation or slab meets the ground,areas in
excess of the sixteen (16)foot height limit shall be set back one (1)
foot from the exterior building facade of the first story,most parallel
and closest to the front property line,for every foot of height in
Page 9
17-55
Height Variation Guidelines
May 6,2003
b.The area of the structure which exceeds sixteen (16)
feet in height (the second story footprint)exceeds seventy-five percent (75%)of
the existing first story footprint area (residence and attached garage);
c.Sixty percent (60%)or more of an eXisting garage
footprint is covered by a structure which exceeds sixteen (16)feet in height (a
second story);or
e.Based on an initial site visit,the Director determines
that any portion of a structure which is proposed to exceed sixteen (16)feet In
height may significantly impair a view as defined In this chapter."
IX.MANDATORY FINDINGS
1.liThe applicant has complied with the early neighbor
consultation process established by the City.II
Staff will review the submittal to be sure that the methods of early
neighbor consultation,as outlined above on pages 4 and 5 of these Guidelines,are
adequate.
Any public park or right-of way will be considered for view analysis under
this provision.Other sites will be limited to those specifically delineated in the General
Plan,Coastal Specific Plan,or areas specifically set aside as public viewing areas.
"Significantly impair"is defined in section (6)below.
3.
promontory:'
liThe proposed structure is not located on a ridge or
Page 11
17-56
Height Variation Guidelines
May 6,2003
A ridge is defined in Section 17.96.1550 as "an elongated crest or a linear
series of crests of hills,bluffs,or highlands".A promontory is defined in Section
17.96.1420 as "a prominent mass of land,large enough to support development,which
overlooks,or projects onto a lowland or body of water on at least two sides".The
analysis of ridges and promontories relates to protection of public views and vistas
overlooking or looking up at ridges or promontories.The Director or Planning
Commission will make a determination as to the degree of visual impact associated with
construction over 16 feet in height on a "ridge or promontory"when viewed from a park,
pUblic roadway,or a designated public viewing point.
The "ridge or promontory"must be prominent in relation to the 16 to 26
foot range of heights permitted under the Height Variation Permit process.Geologic
structures which would not be noticeable in relation to the size of the proposed structure
probably will not be affected by development of a proposed structure,and accordingly
no public view benefit would be prOVided by prohibiting construction on such ridges or
promontories.
(a)"Significant view impairment"will be determined by the
Director or Planning Commission based on (a)the severity (extent,magnitude,etc.)of
impairment of an eXisting view,and/or (b)the impairment of features of significance,
i.ncluding but not limited to Catalina Island and other offshore islands,Point Fermin or
other notable coastal promontories,or the Vincent Thomas bridge or other prominent
manmade landmarks,etc..
(b)The "vieWing area"may only be located on a second (or
higher)story of a structure if:
i.The construction of that portion of the structure did not require approval
of a Height Variation Permit or Variance,pursuant to Chapter 17.02.040 of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code,or would not have required
..
Page 12
17-57
..
Height Variation Guidelines
May 6,2003
such a permit if that Section had been in effect at the time that portion of
the structure was constructed;or
ii.The viewing area is located in a part of the structure that constitutes.the
primary living area of the house,which is the living room,family room,
dining room or kitchen.
(c)If a master bedroom exists on the same level as the primary
living area of the house,and if no views are enjoyed from the other primary living areas,
views from the master bedroom will be considered.
(d)Views will be analyzed without respect to foliage existing on
properties within 1000 feet of the property from which the view is taken.The impact of a
proposed structure if the foliage did not exist will be estimated as best as can be
determined.However,if the foliage blocking the view is located on the property from
which the view is taken,such foliage must be removed prior to the view analysis or that
foliage will be considered as remaining in the view.
(b)View impairment may be minimized by redesigning a
structure to relocate or reduce the size of the portion of the addition over 16 feet in
height to lessen the view impact.
(c)Redesign to minimize view impairment may include
relocation or reorientation of the addition,deletion of a balcony,revised roof pitch,or
other measures which generally maintain the scope of the addition .
Page 13
17-58
Height Variation Guidelines
May 6,2003
(a)Significant cumulative view impairment will be considered
when the individual structure may not significantly impair views,but when the effect of
the structure could,in combination with other similar structures,create significant view
impairment.
(b)The Director or Planning Commission will determine which
other nearby parcels within the viewshed from a particular property or public place may
be developed,consistent with this Section;which would further impair a view.The
evaluation will usually not extend beyond three or four parcels adjacent to the subject
property.
(c)The criteria for determining the significance of the cumulative
view impairment is the same asfor significance for the individual structure,as outlined
below in paragraph 6.
7.
requirements,'"
liThe proposed structure complies with all other Code
Any proposed structure will be evaluated to assure compliance with
zoning,General Plan,and Specific Plan requirements,including but not limited to
setbacks and open space restrictions,as well as any specific conditions associated with
the pertinent tract approval.If other discretionary permits are required for the second
story addition,approval of the Height Variation Permit shall be contingent on the
approval of those other discretionary permit.
8.liThe proposed structure is compatible with the immediate
neighborhood character,"
"Neighborhood character"is defined to consider the existing
characteristics of an area,including:
(a)Scale of surrounding residences,including total square
footage and lot coverage of the residence and all ancillary structures.
Page 14
17-59
,.
Height Variation Guidelines
May 6,2003
(b)Architectural styles,including facade treatments,structure
height,open space between structures,roof design,the apparent bulk or mass of the
structure,number of stories,and building materials.
(c)Front,side and rear yard setbacks.
The Director's or Planning Commission's determination of compatibility
with neighborhood character will be based on a review of the above criteria relative to
the immediate neighborhood which is normally considered to be at least the twenty (20)
closest residences within the same zoning district,and on property owner response to
the required notification.Increases in scale,height,bulk or mass or decreases in
setbacks or open space may be considered incompatible.
"Privacy Is defined as the reasonable protection from intrusive visual
observation:'
(a)The burden of proving an "unreasonable infringement of
indoor and/or outdoor privacy"shall be on the property owner claiming infringement of
privacy.The Director or Planning Commission will make a determination on a case by
case basis.
(b)Given the variety and number of options which are available
to preserve indoor privacy,greater weight generally will be given to protecting outdoor
privacy than to protecting indoor privacy.
Redesign to minimize invasion of privacy may include using translucent
material in (upper floor)windows,eliminating windows,reducing and/or relocating
balconies,or eliminating balconies.
x.HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT PROCEDURES
A.Height Variation Permit Application
The attached "Height Variation Permit Application"must be submitted to
the City's Department of Planning,Building,and Code Enforcement to initiate a request
for a Height Variation Permit.
B.Height Variation Permit Process
Page 15
17-60
Height Variation Guidelines
May 6,2003·
The following sequence of steps shall occur in order to process a Height
Variation Permit application:
1.The applicant consults with property owners within 500 feet of the
proposed project.
2.The applicant completes and submits an application form to the
City's Department of Planning,Building,and Code Enforcement along with the
appropriate fees.The application must be accompanied by proof of early neighbor
consultation (including letter from subject Homeowners Association,if any)and the
waiver form for the temporary frame.
3.The applicant erects the temporary frame and notifies Staff that the
frame is in place.
4.Staff reviews the application to assure that it is complete,and
inspects the site to assure that the temporary frame is in place and adequately
constructed.A letter will be sent to the applicant not later than 30 calendar days after .
submittal indicating that the application is complete for review or what additional
information or corrections are reqUired to make the application complete for review.
5.The Director shall refer an application for a Height Variation Permit
directly to the Planning Commission for consideration under the same findings,as part
of a public hearing,if any of the following is proposed:
a.Any portion of a structure which exceeds sixteen (16)feet
in height extends closer than twenty-five (25)feet from the front or street-side property
line;or
b.The area of the structure which exceeds sixteen (16)feet
in height (the second story footprint)exceeds seventy-five percent (75%)of the existing
first story footprint area (residence and attached garage);
c.Sixty percent (60%)or more of an existing garage
footprint is covered by a structure which exceeds sixteen (16)feet in height (a second
story);or
e.Based on an initial site visit,the Director determines that
any portion of a structure which is proposed to exceed sixteen (16)feet in height may
significantly impair a view as defined in this chapter."
6.Staff mails notice to all property owners within a five hundred foot
radius and to the affected homeowners'association,if any,and informs them that any
..
Page 16
17-61
("8.Window materials should be consistent with the original materials.
9.An addition to an existing residence should appear
as if it were part of the original structure by
incorporating design details that are true to the
architectural style represented in the existing
structure.
10.The use of a blank facade that faces a street should be
avoided.
Design Tip:The privacy of
your neighbor should be
preserved by carefully
locating and sizing windows
and decks/balconies.
B.HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES
The height of a structure should be compatible with the size of a lot,as well as the
context of the surrounding neighborhood.The City of Rancho Palos Verdes,by the
vote of the citizens on November 7,1989,adopted procedures and decision criteria for
evaluating the height of new residences and additions to existing residences that
exceed the established height limits.Pursuant to Section 17.02.030(8)of the RPVMC,
the established height limit is based on the type of lot (upslope,downslope,pad,or
other).As art of the ado ted rocedures,a Hei ht Variation Permit rocess was
created to"
1.The height of a structure should be compatible with the
established building heights in the neighborhood.
2.The height of a structure should be proportionate to the front
yard setback.
3.The second story of a structure should be setback from the
first story.
Design Tip:The
privacy of a neighbor
can be preserved by
placing windows high
on a wall to provide
light and ventilation,
but avoid views onto
an adjacent property.
4.The height of a structure on a sloping lot should respect the natural topography.
5.
Rancho Palos Verdes Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook 20
17-62
3.Garage
The location and size of a garage should not
dominate the street view of a residence.
Furthermore,a garage and its driveway (direct
or indirect)should be sited based on the pattern
ofthe neighborhood.
4.Streetscape Patterns
In an established neighborhood,the streetscape
should be preserved,especially if it is ,commonly
seen throughout the area.
Design Tip:When a residence
has more than three bedrooms,
there may be a practical need for
added garage space.
Design Tip:Energy Conservation
•Use large roof overhangs.
•Plant deciduous trees on
south and west elevations.
•Use windows for maximum
natural light.
•Use windows to create
through airflow for natural
ventilation.
•Ventilate attic spaces.
•Use porches,covered patios
and the like to buffer the
residence from heat gain.
6.Grading
Excessive gra?ing used to create a building pa?sh.ould .b~avoi?ed ..Rather,gra~
should be desl ned to res ect the natural terrain with minimal site disturbance.', ,•,"",
,"'""',1l!i'"!i
Natural features such as the natural slope of the land,significant trees and their root
systems,existing vegetation,and any other natural site attributes should be preserved
and taken advantage of in the design of a project;...._.
B.LOT COVERAGE
Lot coverage is primarily intended to +--Lot Coverage -..
regulate the relationship between lot size
and building footprint.A structure should
be designed in a manner that does not
appear too big for the lot.A project that
maximizes the lot coverage requirement,
but is within the Code limit,is discouraged.
®
Rancho Palos Verdes Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook 17
17-63
Approved April 20,2004 Minutes
Page 1 of 3
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
ORDINANCE NO.405;RESOL.NO.2004-26:ZON2003-00417 (16-FOOT
HEIGHT CODE AMENDMENT).(Continued from April 6th meeting.)(1203 x
1801)
Mayor Gardiner directed continuing public input on the 16-foot height Code
amendment be heard.
Jon Cartwright,Rancho Palos Verdes,stating he echoes the sentiments of all the
ex-Planning Commissioners,thanked Council members for listening to his input
on the issue at the April 6 meeting and thanked staff for their excellent report and
the proposed draft language which he supports.
Councilman Stern expressed gratitude to Mr.Cartwright for an excellent
presentation at that meeting,saying he found it extremely helpful.
Councilman Wolowicz thanked Mr.Cartwright for his efforts to assist him in
understanding the issue and also for assembling a group of blue ribbon people to
testify before Council.
Mayor Gardiner applauded Mr.Cartwright for the clarity of his presentation,
saying it was pivotal in his thinking on the matter.
Frank Lyon,Rancho Palos Verdes,credited Council for making a very
reasonable decision at the previous meeting and urged approval of the excellent
staff report and ordinance prepared by Senior Planner Mihranian and City
Attorney Lynch.He expressed strong support for the decision to revise the Code
as currently stated in the staff report and acknowledged Jon Cartwright's efforts
in gathering a very capable group to address Council.
Craig Mueller,Rancho Palos Verdes,also applauded Council's decision at the
prior meeting,saying he understands the difficulty of reviewing the ordinance.
He indicated he found the testimony presented extremely clear and concise and
reiterated that Mr.Cartwright did an excellent job of illustrating the problem for
Council and the public.He opined the language of the ordinance where it states
"height variation application to build a new structure in addition to an existing
structure either of which exceeds the 16-foot height limit up to the maximum,"
should actually be worded,"an existing structure that exceeds the 16-foot height
limit up to the maximum height permitted in Section 2
or ...,"saying there should be another "or"in that sentence.Otherwise,he stated
all the updates and directions appear to be in order with what was previously
discussed.
Councilman Stern stated he believed the language was appropriate because the
reference to "either"on the second line was to clarify it is either the new structure
17-64
Approved April 20,2004 Minutes
Page 2 of 3
or the addition,which will create the trigger.
Mayor Gardiner queried what exactly was being referred to as exceeding the 16-
foot limit:the addition,the structure,or both.
City Attorney Lynch responded it referred to either.
Councilman Stern indicated modifications were made to the material in the
Agenda packet since its distribution.He stated,after reading it,he
recommended the City Attorney further clarify the language making clear it is
either of those conditions,that is,if either the new or the existing structure
exceeds the 16-foot limit the view analysis will be triggered.
Councilman Wolowicz questioned if the language under "Grading View Finding"
on Circle Page 3 stating,"it should be noted that as drafted the view finding will
apply when the existing grade is raised regardless of whether the resulting
structure is within the height limit described in Section 17.020.40"suggests that
something else might be changed in the future.
City Attorney Lynch explained no further changes were being recommended,but
staff wanted to clarify if grading is performed and the grade of the pad beneath a
structure is increased that would trigger a view analysis under the grading
sections of the ordinance.
Senior Planner Mihranian clarified,even if the structure is within the 16-foot
height limit,if grading is requested,it is a discretionary application;if it results in
raising the existing grade to a higher elevation,then the view analysis is
triggered.
City Attorney Lynch indicated,if Council is inclined to adopt the resolution,staff
would make the same parallel changes to the View Guidelines and
Neighborhood Capability Handbook so all th~ee documents are consistent.
Councilman Wolowicz inquired if the City has any existing warning requirements
in place such as a proposed notice to buyers.
City Attorney Lynch responded Councilman Long brought the matter up some
time ago,but staff did not want to draft an ordinance until Council's final action
was taken,adding an ordinance requiring notice of the 16-foot height limit be
given to prospective buyers will be drafted if the ordinance is approved this
evening.
Councilman Wolowicz asked whether the Planning Commission had been
directed to examine the Neighborhood Capability Handbook to determine if it is
consistent with other relevant Codes and documents.
17-65
Approved April 20,2004 Minutes
Page 3 of 3
Director Rojas answered the Commission does look at the various documents
and,if they find any inconsistencies,brings them to the attention of staff.He
indicated the way the documents are currently drafted captures all the thought
and consensus of the last meetings.
Mayor Gardiner noted at one time Council had a lengthy discussion about foliage
and trimming down to the ridgeline or cutting down to the profile of the building
and inquired if that has changed.
City Attorney Lynch responded those requirements have not changed.
Councilman Stern indicated,while he very much appreciates the letter Jim Knight
prepared,he thought it might be valuable to give his comments on it,saying he
agrees with staff's position that when doing an analysis the real world as it exists
at the moment should be considered rather than imputing buildings onto vacant
lots and trying to ascertain what might happen in the future.He stated he does
not believe it advances any meaningful value to discuss possibilities not currently
in existence.
Mayor Gardiner declared the Public Hearing closed.
Councilman Wolowicz moved,seconded by Councilman Stern,to (1)
INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO.405,A CITY INITIATED PROPOSAL TO
AMEND TITLE 17 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE AFFIRMING THE CITY'S
HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE 16-FOOT HEIGHT REQUIREMENT
AND CLARIFYING THE "VIEW"FINDING AS IT RELATES TO THE HEIGHT
VARIATION AND GRADING APPLICATIONS;and,(2)ADOPT RESOLUTION
NO.2004-26,AMENDING THE HEIGHT VARIATION GUIDELINES AND THE
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY HANDBOOK TO MAKE THE LANGUAGE
CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS.
The motion carried on the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Wolowicz,Stern &Mayor Gardiner
None
Long and Mayor Pro T em Clark
17-66
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:Joel Rojas and Carolyn Lehr
FROM:Steve Wolowicz
CC:Carol Lynch
DATE:April 18,2010
SUBJECT:cc meeting April 14,item #11 view variation
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
Carolyn and Joel,
After reading the report for the meeting I have found we all should have the
minutes on this subject from the Council meetings on April 6th and 20 th of 2004.
(1)Please send as soon as possible copies of those minutes to all of the
Council Members.The Council and especially the two newest members
should have copies of those minutes.This will help understand the
extensive and thorough comments by the then present and past Planning
Commissioners and the deliberations noted by the Council at that time.
Staff has emailed copies of the approved minutes of the April 6 and
April 20 2004 meetings to the City Council.It's worth noting that
deliberation of this issue back in the 2003/2004 time frame actually
involved a total of 6 Planning Commission meetings and 5 City
Council meetings.Staff only attached the April 6th and April 20 th staff
reports as they best summarize the conclusion of the issues
discussed.If so directed at the meeting,Staff can transmit all of the
background information on this issue to the City Council.
(2)Also,for the meeting we should have any comments from staff as to their
own thoughts on any current problems suggesting a need to revision of
the decisions made in April 2004.
Staff will be prepared to answer questions from the Council on this
issue as well as provide any requested comments as to the
effectiveness of the currently drafted height variation findings.
Thank you,
Steve
Page 1 of 1
C:\Documents and Settings\carlam\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK451\cc meeting 2010 04-14 #View restoration (5).doc
17-67