CC SR 20190115 01 - Municipal Code Amendments to Title 17
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: 01/15/2019
Subject: Consideration and possible action to adopt an urgency ordinance amending Chapters
17.02 (Single-Family Residential (RS) Districts) and 17.10 (Second Unit Development
Standards) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to require Neighborhood
Compatibility review for residential second units over 12’ in height and to clarify the
trigger that requires the Neighborhood Compatibility finding for structures over 16’ in
height (Case No. PLCA2018-0008)
Subject Property/Location: Citywide
1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk
2. Declare Public Hearing Open: Mayor Duhovic
3. Request for Staff Report: Mayor Duhovic
4. Staff Report & Recommendation: Amy Seeraty, Senior Planner
5. Council Questions of Staff (factual and without bias):
6. Testimony from members of the public:
The normal time limit for each speaker is three (3) minutes. The Presiding Officer may grant additional time to a representative speaking
for an entire group. The Mayor also may adjust the time limit for individual speakers depending upon the number of speakers who
intend to speak.
7. Declare Hearing Closed/or Continue the Public Hearing to a later date: Mayor Duhovic
8. Council Deliberation:
The Council may ask staff to address questions raised by the testimony, or to clarify matters. Staff and/or Council may also answer
questions posed by speakers during their testimony. The Council will then debate and/or make motions on the matter.
9. Council Action:
The Council may: vote on the item; offer amendments or substitute motions to decide the matter; reopen the hearing for additional
testimony; continue the matter to a later date for a decision.
01203.0005/527220.1
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 01/15/2019
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to adopt an urgency ordinance amending Chapters
17.02 (Single-Family Residential (RS) Districts) and 17.10 (Second Unit Development
Standards) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to require Neighborhood
Compatibility review for residential second units over 12’ in height and to clarify the
trigger that requires the Neighborhood Compatibility finding for structures over 16’ in
height (Case No. PLCA2018-0008)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Adopt Ordinance No.__U, AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.02
(SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS) DISTRICTS) AND 17.10 (SECOND UNIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) OF TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE RANCHO
PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE NEIGHBORHOOD
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW FOR RESIDENTIAL SECOND UNITS OVER 12’ IN
HEIGHT AND TO CLARIFY THE TRIGGER THAT REQUIRES THE
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY FINDING FOR STRUCTURES OVER 16’
IN HEIGHT.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Amy Seeraty, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Urgency Ordinance No.__U (page A-1)
B. Public Correspondence (page B-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
In 1997, as part of the City’s comprehensive update to Title 17 (Zoning Code) of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC), Title 17.10 (Second Unit Development
Standards) was enacted that allows second units (also known as Accessory Dwelling
1
01203.0005/527220.1
Units (ADUs)) on residential zone properties subject to specific standards consistent
with California State Government Code § 65852.2. The enacted standards are to
ensure second units in residential districts are developed and operated on adequate
sites, at proper and desirable locations, and that the goals and objectives of the General
Plan are observed. Since 1997, the City has approved an average of 2 second units per
year, until recently.
On January 1, 2017, State laws (AB 2299 and SB 1069) were enacted renaming
second dwelling units as “Accessory Dwelling Units” (for continuity with the Zoning
Code this Staff Report will refer to an Accessory Dwelling Unit as a second unit)
intended to “support infill and affordable housing development.” The bills “ease and
streamline” current statewide regulations, encourage the building of second units, and
create more housing options. The bills also “improve and incentivize the creation of
second dwelling units as ways to create more rental property and incomes for families
to stay in their current homes.” Overall, the bills are intended to “ease barriers” to the
construction and permitting of accessory dwelling units by local governments.
On January 1, 2018, two additional State laws (SB 229 and AB 494) were enacted
regarding second units. These laws are intended to further facilitate the development of
second units in response to California’s severe housing crisis, including allowing second
units to be built concurrently with a single-family home, waiving utility connection fees,
and reducing parking requirements.
In response to these new laws, the Community Development Department has recently
experienced an uptick in the requests for second units. Between 2013 and 2016, 0
second units were approved; however, in 2017 the City approved 1 second dwelling unit
and in 2018 approved 2 second units. However, as of the writing of this report, there are
5 second unit applications currently in the planning process. Due to the recent
legislation, Staff anticipates that these applications will continue to increase, which
subsequently may result in adverse impacts to the City’s residential neighborhoods,
contrary to the purpose of the City’s Second Unit Ordinance (Chapter 17.10) and the
goals and policies of the General Plan.
The City’s Neighborhood Compatibility finding was enacted to allow the modernization
of the aging housing stock in a manner that recognizes and respects the unique
features and characteristics of neighborhoods, thereby ensuring continued enjoyment of
the City’s quality of life. The Neighborhood Compatibility finding is administered based
on certain development triggers, to ensure that a residential project is designed in a
manner that complements the surrounding neighborhood, with an emphasis on
architectural style in order to preserve the unique characteristics and qualities of the
City. Simply put, Neighborhood Compatibility is achieved when a residential project is
designed in a manner that blends in with the following characteristics of the immediate
neighborhood: scale of the surrounding residences; architectural styles and building
materials; and setbacks.
2
01203.0005/527220.1
Currently, second units only trigger the City’s Neighborhood Compatibility finding if,
when combined with prior additions cumulatively, they exceed either 750ft2 or result in a
25% expansion of the total square footage of all the original structu res constructed on
the property. Second units that don’t trigger the Neighborhood Compatibility finding are
not assessed for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, particularly adjacent
properties (they are only assessed for conformance with the general development
standards for the underlying residential zoning district such as height, setbacks, and lot
coverage). For example, a property owner could potentially obtain an over-the-counter
approval to construct a 750ft² second unit, provided that it meets the minimum setbacks,
lot coverage, and does not exceed the 16’/20’ “by-right” building height envelope.
Moreover, over-the-counter (ministerial) approvals do not require public notification, a
project silhouette, and are not appealable in accordance RPVMC §17.70.030. In other
words, a property owner could construct a 16’ tall “box-style” second unit with little to no
articulation that is incompatible with the primary home on the same site, as well as other
structures in the neighborhood without any discretionary review. To address this issue,
Staff recommends amending Chapters 17.02 and 17.10 of the Zoning Code related to
the second units.
Proposed Code Amendments
In summary, the proposed Urgency Ordinance (Attachment A) would require
Neighborhood Compatibility review for second units over 12’ in height, to clarify the
trigger that requires the Neighborhood Compatibility finding for structures over 16’ in
height, and correct terms to be consistent with the definitions in §17.96 of the RPVMC .
The proposed amendments to Title 17 are shown below (deleted text in strikethrough
and new text in bold/underline) and in the attached Urgency Ordinance (Attachment
A):
Neighborhood Compatibility Triggers, specifically RPVMC §17.02.030(B)(1)(a), (b), (d),
(c), and (e), would be amended as follows:
a. A new primary dwelling unit residence that is proposed to be developed on
a vacant lot.
b. A new primary dwelling unit residence that is proposed to replace an
existing residence.
c. An existing primary dwelling unit residence that is proposed to be
remodeled or renovated such that fifty percent or greater of any existing
interior and exterior walls or existing square footage is demolished.
d. An addition to an existing single-family residenceprimary dwelling unit or the
construction of any new detached structure that individually, or when combined
with prior additions cumulatively, results in greater than:
(i) 750 square feet of additional floor area, or
3
01203.0005/527220.1
(ii) A 25 percent expansion of the total square footage of all of the original
structures constructed on the property, including the main
residenceprimary dwelling unit, the garage, and all detached structures;
The proposed text is intended to clarify that this trigger applies only to the “primary”
dwelling unit as defined in §17.96.2150 of the RPVMC.
e. The construction of, or an addition to, a new second story or higher story; a
structure exceeding 16 feet in height and requiring a Height Variation
Permit pursuant to Chapter 17.02.040 (Single Family Residential (RS)
Districts View Preservation and Restoration). of the development code
This section is intended to clarify that the trigger for the Neighborhood Compatibility
finding is required for structures over 16’ consistent with the Height Variation findings.
As currently written, the trigger is based on a “second or higher story,” but in 2004, the
City Council amended the Code by deleting any references to the number of stories
because the review process of the Neighborhood Compatibility finding is based on
height. This is because the City does not regulate the interiors of a structure but rather
the exterior appearance. This change would be consistent with other sections of the
Code that was adopted by the City Council in 2004 and is considered a “clean-up” item.
The following Neighborhood Compatibility Trigger, proposed as RPVMC
§17.02.030(B)(1)(i), would be added as follows:
i. The construction of, or addition to, a second unit over 12 feet in height,
as measured pursuant to Chapter 17.10.020 (Second Unit Development
Standards).
This new section creates a trigger for the Neighborhood Compatibility finding for second
units that exceed 12’ in height. RPVMC § 17.10.020(E) currently allows second units up
to 16’ in height without any discretionary review. If the proposed code language is
enacted, second units exceeding 12’ in height will require the discretionary review
(Director Level) of the Neighborhood Compatibility finding, which among other things,
requires public notification (500’ radius), installation of a project silhouette, and a notice
of decision that is appealable to the Planning Commission. A second unit exceeding 16’
in height would require the processing of a Height Variation.
Second Unit Development Standards, specifically, RPVMC §17.10.020(C) and (E), are
proposed to read as follows:
C. All second unit developments shall comply with all applicable building,
housing, zoning and site development standards, codes and regulations of
the base zoning district in which it will be located. This shall include, but not
be limited to, standards regarding height (see Subsection E below),
setbacks and lot coverage., and in the case of second units which require
approval of a height modification permit, All second units exceeding 12 feet
4
01203.0005/527220.1
in height shall comply with the nNeighborhood character Compatibility
requirements of Section Chapter 17.02.030(B) (Neighborhood
Compatibility Single Family Residential Districts).
This section is proposed to be amended to indicate that the Neighborhood Compatibility
finding will be triggered for second units that exceed 12’ in height.
E. Whether attached or detached to the primary unit, the second unit shall not
exceed sixteen 16 feet in height, unless a hHeight vVariation permit is granted
pursuant to Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration). The
height of a second unit shall be measured as follows, whichever is lower:
i. The preconstruction (existing) grade at the highest elevation of the
existing building pad area covered by the structure, to the ridgeline
or highest point of the structure, or
ii. The post-construction grade where the lowest foundation or slab
meets finished grade, to the ridgeline or highest point of the
structure.
This section proposes to clarify how second units are measured, which is consistent
with the way primary structures are measured, and that a Height Variation is required if
the second unit exceeds 16’ in height , similar to other structures on building pad lots.
Staff does not believe that the proposed code amendments described above are in
conflict with any of the recent state provisions in terms of requiring the Neighborhood
Compatibility finding for second units exceeding 12’ in height.
Urgency Ordinance
Government Code § 36937 states that an ordinance becomes effective immediately if
the City Council finds, by a four-fifths vote, that the ordinance is for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health, or safety and contains a declaration of the facts
constituting the urgency. In this case, the urgency is that in light of new State laws and
the pending applications being considered, that the development of second units
without some degree of discretionary review could adversely impact the character of
certain residential neighborhoods and could constitute a threat to the health, safety, and
welfare of the community.
After this meeting, the Urgency Ordinance will be followed by a regular Ordinance,
following the standard code amendment process of first obtaining Planning Commission
input on the proposed code amendment for a recommendation to the City Council. The
Planning Commission is scheduled to consider the draft code amendment language at
its January 22, 2019 meeting. Additionally, the City Council is not being asked to
formally initiate the code amendment proceedings to Chapters 17.02 or 17.10 this
evening, because on November 17, 2018, the City Council initiated code amendment
5
01203.0005/527220.1
proceedings for a comprehensive update to Title 17 (Zoning Code) of the RPVMC and
Zoning Map. As the proposed changes are to certain sections of the Zoning Code, a
separate initiation request is not required.
Public Notice
On December 27, 2018, a public notice announcing that the City Council, at its January
15, 2019 meeting, will consider an Urgency Ordinance to amend Chapters 17.02 and
17.10 of the RPVMC as it relates to second units was published in the Peninsula News.
Furthermore, on January 3, 2019, a listserv announcing tonight’s meeting on this topic,
as well as providing links to the proposed draft code language and the December 27th
public notice, was issued to Breaking News subscribers.
Public Correspondence
In response to the public notice and the listserv announcement, to date, the City
received two comment letters suggesting edits to the proposed amended code
language (Attachment B). These suggestions were considered, and in some cases,
incorporated in the discussion above and reflected in the attached proposed Urgency
Ordinance (Attachment A). In the event Staff receives public comments after the
transmittal of this Staff Report, all correspondence will be forwarded to the City Council,
via email, upon receipt for the Council’s consideration in advance of the January 15 th
meeting.
CEQA
The proposed code amendment to Chapters 17.02 and 17.10 of the RPVMC are
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section
15061(b)(3) because it consists only of minor revisions and clarifications to an existing
zoning code and will not have the effect of deleting or substantially changing any
regulatory standards or findings. The proposed code language is an action that does not
have the potential to cause significant effects on the environment, because it only
clarifies and updates the triggers for Neighborhood Compatibility review, which does not
have a significant impact on the environment .
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to the Staff’s recommendation, the following alternate actions are available
for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Identify edits to the draft language and read those changes in the record
for adoption of the Urgency Ordinance this evening.
2. Provide Staff with further direction for consideration at the February 5,
2019 City Council meeting.
3. Take no action.
6
ORDINANCE NO. __U
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.02 (SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS) DISTRICTS) AND 17.10
(SECOND UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) OF TITLE
17 (ZONING) OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE NEIGHBORHOOD
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW FOR RESIDENTIAL SECOND
UNITS OVER 12’ IN HEIGHT AND TO CLARIFY THE
TRIGGER THAT REQUIRES THE NEIGHBORHOOD
COMPATIBILITY FINDING FOR STRUCTURES OVER 16’
IN HEIGHT.
WHEREAS, in 1997, Chapter 17.10 (Second Unit Development Standards) of Title
17 (Zoning) was enacted that allows second units on residential zone properties subject
to specific standards consistent with California State Government Code § 65852.2. The
standards ensure second units in residential districts are developed and operated on
adequate sites, at proper and desirable locations, and that the goals and objectives of the
General Plan are observed; and,
WHEREAS, on January 1, 2017, State laws (AB 2299 and SB 1069) were enacted
renaming second dwelling units as “Accessory Dwelling Units” intended to , among other
things, support infill and affordable housing development, ease and streamline current
statewide regulations, encourage the building of second units, create more housing
options, and improve and incentivize the creation of second dwelling units as ways to
create more rental property and incomes for families to stay in their current homes ; and,
WHEREAS, on January 1, 2018, two additional State laws (SB 229 and AB 494)
were enacted regarding second units intended to further facilitate the development of
second units in response to California’s severe housing crisis, including allowing second
units to be built concurrently with a single-family home, waiving utility connection fees,
and reducing parking requirements; and,
WHEREAS, due to recent legislation, and the apparent correlated recent uptick in
applications for second units, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes now
desires to require Neighborhood Compatibility review for second units over 12’ in height
and to clarify the trigger for the City’s Neighborhood Compatibility finding for structures
exceeding 16’ in height; and,
WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 36934 and 36937 authorize the City
Council to adopt an urgency ordinance that becomes effective immediately upon its
adoption by a four-fifths vote of the City Council for the immediate preservation of the
public peace, health or safety of the City; and,
A-1
Ordinance No. ___U
Page 2 of 6
WHEREAS, this Urgency Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation
of the public peace, health and safety of the City within the meaning of Government Code
section 36937 due to the growing concerns regarding the aesthetic effect of second units
on neighborhoods; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the uptick in planning applications for
second units without regulations and limitations in place that more thoroughly address the
City’s needs and character constitutes an immediate threat to the public health, safety,
and welfare; and,
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this ordinance have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby makes the
following findings:
A. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this
reference.
B. It is the intent and purpose of this Ordinance that Neighborhood
Compatibility Review be required for second units over 12’ in height and
that it clarifies the trigger for the City’s Neighborhood Compatibility finding
for structures exceeding 16’ in height.
C. This Urgency Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the
public peace, health and safety of the City within the meaning of
Government Code Section 36937 in order to address growing concerns
regarding the aesthetic effect of second units on residential neighborhoods
and their consistency with the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan.
Section 2: Sections 17.02.030(B)(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code are modified to read as follows (deleted text in strikethrough and
new text in bold/underline):
a. A new primary dwelling unit residence that is proposed to be developed
on a vacant lot.
b. A new primary dwelling unit residence that is proposed to replace an
existing residence.
c. An existing primary dwelling unit residence that is proposed to be
remodeled or renovated such that fifty percent or greater of any existing
interior and exterior walls or existing square footage is demolished.
A-2
Ordinance No. ___U
Page 3 of 6
d. An addition to an existing single-family residenceprimary dwelling unit or
the construction of any new detached structure that individ ually, or when
combined with prior additions cumulatively, results in greater than:
(i) 750 square feet of additional floor area, or
(ii) A 25 percent expansion of the total square footage of all of the original
structures constructed on the property, including the main
residenceprimary dwelling unit, the garage, and all detached structures;
e. The construction of, or an addition to, a new second story or higher story; a
structure exceeding 16 feet in height and requiring a Height Variation
Permit pursuant to Chapter 17.02.040 (Single Family Residential (RS)
Districts View Preservation and Restoration); of the development code;
Section 3: A new Section 17.02.030(B)(1)(i) is hereby added to Chapter 17.02
(Single Family Residential (RS) Districts) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to
read in its entirety as follows:
i. The construction of, or addition to, a second unit over 12 feet in height,
as measured pursuant to Section 17.10.020 (Second Unit Development
Standards).
Section 4: Sections 17.10.020(C) and (E) of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code are modified to read as follows (deleted text in strikethrough and new text
in bold/underline):
C. All second unit developments shall comply with all applicable building, housing,
zoning and site development standards, codes and regulations of the base
zoning district in which it will be located. This shall include, but not be limited
to, standards regarding height (see Subsection E below), setbacks and lot
coverage. , and in the case of second units which require approval of a height
modification permit, All second units exceeding 12 feet in height shall
comply with the Neighborhood Compatibility requirements of Section
Chapter 17.02.030(B) (Neighborhood CompatibilitySingle Family
Residential Districts).
E. Whether attached or detached to the primary unit, the second unit shall not
exceed sixteen 16 feet in height, unless a hHeight vVariation permit is granted
pursuant to Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration). The
height of a second unit shall be measured as follows, whichever is lower:
i. The preconstruction (existing) grade at the highest elevation of the
existing building pad area covered by the structure, to the ridgeline
or highest point of the structure, or
A-3
Ordinance No. ___U
Page 4 of 6
ii. The post-construction grade where the lowest foundation or slab
meets finished grade, to the ridgeline or highest point of the
structure.
Section 5: CEQA Exemption. This ordinance is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) because it consists
only of minor revisions and clarifications to an existing zoning code and will not have the
effect of deleting or substantially changing any regulatory standards or findings. The
proposed Ordinance is an action that does not have the potential to cause significant
effects on the environment, because it only clarifies and updates the triggers for
Neighborhood Compatibility Review.
Section 6: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of
this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any
court of any competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have
passed this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, se ntence, clause and
phrase thereof not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any
portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 7: Certification and Posting. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to
be posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage,
in accordance with the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City
Clerk shall further certify to the adoption and posting of th is Ordinance, and shall cause
this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the
Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City.
Section 8: Effective Date. This Urgency Ordinance shall go into effect immediately
upon its adoption by at least a four-fifths vote of the City Council pursuant to Government
Code sections 36934 and 36937.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of January, 2019.
A-4
Ordinance No. ___U
Page 5 of 6
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, EMILY COLBORN, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify
that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the
foregoing Ordinance No. U was duly adopted by the City Council of said City at
a regular meeting thereof held on January 15, 2019, and that the same was passed and
adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
A-5
From: dchura7734@aol.com <dchura7734@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2019 1:24 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: DChura7734@aol.com; MChura5678@aol.com
Subject: Emergency Code Amendment
Ara,
here's a few comments - sometimes good to get another reading of the words.
17.02.030, B, 1 (e)
You might explicitly say "attached or detached" second unit and use "single-family residence" vs. just
"residence". Seem a loophole exists if one wants to attach a Second Unit to another Second Unit,
assuming this is not intended to be allowed
I might suggest removal of the explicit "16 feet in height", as ideally "requiring a height variation permit"
should suffice. I assume 16 feet is already a reason for requiring a permit, however maybe there are (or
will be) other reasons for height variation permits other than just 16 feet, as might apply in different
situations.
Section (i):
The "or addition to" is hanging - you could copy language from (e) that says "or addition to, a
residence" or you could simply say "The construction of a detached or attached second unit".
A friendly suggestion for the future: ideally, the code would be written so that planners can easily verify
that plans submitted are compliant. For second units, this means having plans marked with "pre-existing"
features. For example, "foundation or slab at the lowest preconstruction (existing) grade..." can only be
verified by a planner if the plans identify this explicitly. Should any issue arise, the city has made no
assumptions about what is pre-existing, and the architect is responsible for using specific terms in the
code.
17.10.020C
"All Second Units exceeding 12 feet ..." could be clarified to say "All attached or detached Second Units
..." as that language appears in other places
-dave
B-1
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019 5:43 PM
To: 'sharon yarber' <momofyago@gmail.com>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Second dwelling units
The verbiage has been changed.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
___________________________________
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or
protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination,
distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: sharon yarber <momofyago@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019 10:08 AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Second dwelling units
So if Neighborhood Compatibility is defined in 17.02.040 (the View Preservation ordinance)
then change the verbiage " neighborhood character" in 17.10.020 C to say "Neighborhood
Compatibility standards as set forth in Chapter 17.02.040." I think "Neighborhood
Compatibility" is a defined term no?
B-2
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019, 9:03 AM Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Sharon,
It is not exactly how you summarized, so let me clarify.
• second units up to 12’ in height, no neighborhood compatibility or view
preservation (no discretionary review).
• second units between 12’ and 16’ in height, neighborhood compatibility
would apply (director level review).
• Second units exceeding 16’ in height, both neighborhood compatibility and
the view ordinance would apply (a Height Variation and a Conditional Use Permit
applications are required for review by the Planning Commission as required for
all Conditional Use Permits).
The View Ordinance, as codified in 17.02.040 and enacted by the voters through Prop
M, only applies to structures exceeding 16’ in height. As part of the View Ordinance, the
Neighborhood Compatibility finding is defined and described, that is why the proposed
language makes reference to this section of the Code. Furthermore, Neighborhood
Compatibility is also described in Section 17.02.030 and that is why this Section is
referenced as well.
For these reasons, the proposed text language specifically references the
Neighborhood Compatibility finding so as not to imply the View Ordinance is triggered if
under 16’ in height.
I am still working on the proposed language and have received suggestions from others
as well.
Thank you!
Ara
B-3
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
___________________________________
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or
protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination,
distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
B-4
From: sharon yarber <momofyago@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2019 11:22 AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Second dwelling units
Thanks, so what you are saying is (1) up to 12' no neighborhood compatibility or view
preservation, and (2) if over 12' and up to 16' it is subject to both neighborhood compatibility and
view preservation? I guess I find the reference to "neighborhood character" in 17.10.020. C. odd
if it is then referring to the view preservation code section. Maybe say instead "the provisions of
17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of the ...Code" and drop the "neighborhood
character" verbiage.
I know we are not in alignment with State re: parking but let them try to enforce. 😁😁
On Fri, Jan 4, 2019, 5:51 PM Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Sharon,
I’ve modified the language to clarify “primary” residence to Section 17.02.030(a), (b),
and (c)…good suggestion.
Staff is not proposing that the neighborhood compatibility finding apply to second
dwelling units less than 12’ in height because a structure at that height may not be
intrusive to a neighborhood (provided all the other development standards are adhered
to). Staff also believes that requiring neighborhood compatibility for second dwelling
exceeding 12’ in height does not conflict with the State provisions for ADUs. That said,
as you may know, the City’s second unit ordinance does not exactly align with the
recent State laws regarding ADUs particularly as it relates to the parking requirements.
But Staff is not proposing any changes to these standards.
This code amendment establishes a neighborhood compatibility trigger and clarifies
how second units are measured.
B-5
Let me know if you have additional suggestions, I will be working on further edits over
the next few days.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
___________________________________
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
B-6
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or
protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination,
distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Sharon Yarber <momofyago@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2019 8:52 AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Second dwelling units
Ara,
I think in 17.02.030 “residence” should be defined so that it is clear that it is the primary
residence to which you are referring as opposed to the secondary unit which is also a residence.
On the one hand you are requiring that any second unit over 12’ has to comply with the
neighborhood compatibility standards (which is good) but then in 17.10.020 (C) you say the
second units have to comply with the “neighborhood character standards of Chapter 17.02.040
(View Preservation and Restoration….”. Don’t you mean 17.02.030 (which is the neighborhood
compatibility section not the view preservation and restoration)? Maybe you should simply refer
to both neighborhood compatibility (17.02.030) AND view preservation/restoration (17.02.040)
sections. As written no neighborhood compatibility review is required if the second unit does not
exceed 12 feet. Is that what you intend to be the outcome of this effort? Is that state law?
Is it impermissible under state law to make units over 12’ have to comply with view
preservation provisions? Do they have to have equal treatment as the primary residence (only
applies if over 16’)?
Sharon
B-7
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
B-8
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019 5:48 PM
To: 'sharon yarber' <momofyago@gmail.com>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Second dwelling units
Sharon,
The terms ‘compatibility’ and ‘character’ are used interchangeable throughout the
Zoning Code.
I agree that for consistency purposes and to avoid confusion, the Code should be
amended to use one consistent term.
But that is a larger code amendment that will be addressed as part of the
comprehensive update that was already initiated by the Council.
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
___________________________________
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or
protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination,
distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: sharon yarber <momofyago@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019 10:22 AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Second dwelling units
B-9
So why do we throw around Neighborhood Compatibility when it is not defined anywhere and
only neighborhood character is the operative language? You make it unnecessarily confusing by
using two terms interchangeably.
So neighborhood compatibility/character applies to second dwellings over 12 feet and no second
dwelling can exceed 16 feet unless granted a height variance under 17.02.040 which will then
involve view preservation compliance. I get it.
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019, 9:03 AM Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Sharon,
It is not exactly how you summarized, so let me clarify.
• second units up to 12’ in height, no neighborhood compatibility or view
preservation (no discretionary review).
• second units between 12’ and 16’ in height, neighborhood compatibility
would apply (director level review).
• Second units exceeding 16’ in height, both neighborhood compatibility and
the view ordinance would apply (a Height Variation and a Conditional Use Permit
applications are required for review by the Planning Commission as required for
all Conditional Use Permits).
The View Ordinance, as codified in 17.02.040 and enacted by the voters through Prop
M, only applies to structures exceeding 16’ in height. As part of the View Ordinance, the
Neighborhood Compatibility finding is defined and described, that is why the proposed
language makes reference to this section of the Code. Furthermore, Neighborhood
Compatibility is also described in Section 17.02.030 and that is why this Section is
referenced as well.
For these reasons, the proposed text language specifically references the
Neighborhood Compatibility finding so as not to imply the View Ordinance is triggered if
under 16’ in height.
I am still working on the proposed language and have received suggestions from others
as well.
B-10
Thank you!
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
___________________________________
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
B-11
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or
protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination,
distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: sharon yarber <momofyago@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2019 11:22 AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Second dwelling units
Thanks, so what you are saying is (1) up to 12' no neighborhood compatibility or view
preservation, and (2) if over 12' and up to 16' it is subject to both neighborhood compatibility and
view preservation? I guess I find the reference to "neighborhood character" in 17.10.020. C. odd
if it is then referring to the view preservation code section. Maybe say instead "the provisions of
17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of the ...Code" and drop the "neighborhood
character" verbiage.
I know we are not in alignment with State re: parking but let them try to enforce. 😁😁
On Fri, Jan 4, 2019, 5:51 PM Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Sharon,
I’ve modified the language to clarify “primary” residence to Section 17.02.030(a), (b),
and (c)…good suggestion.
Staff is not proposing that the neighborhood compatibility finding apply to second
dwelling units less than 12’ in height because a structure at that height may not be
intrusive to a neighborhood (provided all the other development standards are adhered
to). Staff also believes that requiring neighborhood compatibility for second dwelling
exceeding 12’ in height does not conflict with the State provisions for ADUs. That said,
as you may know, the City’s second unit ordinance does not exactly align with the
B-12
recent State laws regarding ADUs particularly as it relates to the parking requirements.
But Staff is not proposing any changes to these standards.
This code amendment establishes a neighborhood compatibility trigger and clarifies
how second units are measured.
Let me know if you have additional suggestions, I will be working on further edits over
the next few days.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
___________________________________
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
B-13
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or
protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination,
distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Sharon Yarber <momofyago@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2019 8:52 AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Second dwelling units
Ara,
I think in 17.02.030 “residence” should be defined so that it is clear that it is the primary
residence to which you are referring as opposed to the secondary unit which is also a residence.
On the one hand you are requiring that any second unit over 12’ has to comply with the
neighborhood compatibility standards (which is good) but then in 17.10.020 (C) you say the
second units have to comply with the “neighborhood character standards of Chapter 17.02.040
(View Preservation and Restoration….”. Don’t you mean 17.02.030 (which is the neighborhood
compatibility section not the view preservation and restoration)? Maybe you should simply refer
to both neighborhood compatibility (17.02.030) AND view preservation/restoration (17.02.040)
sections. As written no neighborhood compatibility review is required if the second unit does not
exceed 12 feet. Is that what you intend to be the outcome of this effort? Is that state law?
Is it impermissible under state law to make units over 12’ have to comply with view
preservation provisions? Do they have to have equal treatment as the primary residence (only
applies if over 16’)?
B-14
Sharon
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
B-15