CC SR 20220215 01 - FWH amendment
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: February 15, 2022
Subject:
Consideration and possible action to amend Section 17.76.030 (Fences, walls and hedges) of Title 17
(Zoning) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) requiring view assessments be
conducted from public roads and areas for new fences, walls and hedges.
Recommendation:
1) Receive and File an update report on coastal view corridor compliance efforts; and,
2) Introduce Ordinance No. __, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
AMENDING SECTION 17.76.030 (FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES) OF SECTION 17.76
(MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS AND STANDARDS) OF ARTICLE VII (DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
AND REVIEW) OF TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ENSURE THAT NEW WALLS, FENCES, OR HEDGES DO NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIR
VEHICULAR VIEW CORRIDORS OR VIEWING STATIONS
1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk
2. Declare Public Hearing Open: Mayor Bradley
3. Request for Staff Report: Mayor Bradley
4. Staff Report & Recommendation: John Alvarez, 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 Bradley
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.
rTYOF RANCHO ALOS VERDES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 02/15/2022
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to amend Section 17.76.030 (Fences, walls and
hedges) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Palos Verde s Municipal Code (RPVMC)
requiring view assessments be conducted from public roads and areas for new fences,
walls and hedges.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS:
(1) Receive and File an update report on coastal view corridor compliance efforts; and,
(2) Introduce Ordinance No. __, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES AMENDING SECTION 17.76.030 (FENCES, WALLS AND
HEDGES) OF SECTION 17.76 (MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS AND
STANDARDS) OF ARTICLE VII (DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AND REVIEW)
OF TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE
TO ENSURE THAT NEW WALLS, FENCES, OR HEDGES DO NOT
SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIR VEHICULAR VIEW CORRIDORS OR VIEWING
STATIONS
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: John Alvarez, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY: Ken Rukavina, P.E., Community Development Director
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft Ordinance No. __ (with track changes) (page A-1)
B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2021-18 (page B-1)
C. October 26, 2021, Planning Commission staff report (page C-1)
D. May 4, 2021, City Council staff report (page D-1)
E. Public correspondence (page E-1)
F. Coastal Specific Plan and City County Policy No. 49 (page F-1)
1
CfTYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
BACKGROUND:
At the February 16, 2021 City Council meeting, Councilmember Cruikshank requested
Staff prepare a report on views experienced along the City’s roadways. The City Council
agreed that this item should be placed on a future agenda. On May 4, 2021, the City
Council received a Staff presentation about preserving views from the City’s designated
view corridors, which are identified in the City’s General Plan (Attachment D). During City
Council discussion on the matter, the City Council expressed a concern that views from
the roadways are gradually being eroded throughout the City. Thus, the City Council
directed Staff and the City’s Planning Commission to explore code amendments that
would ensure that new walls or fences do not significantly impair views from the City’s
roads. The City Council also requested Staff provide follow-up reporting on the City’s
compliance efforts to curb view-impairing foliage along the City’s view corridors, primarily
along the coastal view corridor of Palos Verdes Drive South and West.
On October 26, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and
discussed proposed code amendments to the Fences, Walls and Hedges section of the
City’s Municipal Code (Attachment C). After deliberating on the matter, the Planning
Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2021-18 (Attachment B), recommending
specific amendments be made to Section 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges) of the
Zoning Code for the City Council’s consideration. This report includes both an update
concerning the coastal view corridor compliance efforts and an introduction to the
proposed code amendments.
DISCUSSION:
As a refresher, the Visual Resources element of the City’s General Plan calls for the
protection of visual resources taken from private property and from public property or
viewing stations. Viewing stations include major vehicular roadways or “view corridors”
located along Palos Verdes Drive South, West, and East, Crest Road, Hawthorne
Boulevard, Crenshaw Boulevard, Silver Spur Road, Western Avenue, Miraleste Drive and
Highridge Road. Viewing stations also include roadway turnouts along vehicular corridors,
Del Cerro Park, Hesse Park, Lower and Upper Point Vicente Park s, Founder’s Park, the
Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, Oceanfront Estates public trails, Trump National Golf Club
public trails, and Terranea Resort public trails. The following discussion is centered on
protecting views taken from public property areas, including roadways, designated in the
General Plan, with an emphasis of protecting “view corridors.”
Coastal View Corridor Compliance Efforts
The management of foliage abutting the seaward side of the Palos Verdes Drive South
and West is important for the preservation of view corridors. This foliage consists of City-
owned foliage managed in partnership with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land
Conservatory (PVPLC); and foliage owned by the Trump Organization, Terranea Resort,
private residences, a religious institution, county-owned and federally-owned properties,
and homeowners associations as common areas. Some of these properties, such as
Trump National Golf Club, Ocean Front Estates, Sea Bluff HOA, and Terranea Resort,
2
have specific foliage height restrictions imposed on them by the City through their
respective project’s conditions of approval. However, other properties do not have
preexisting foliage-related restrictions imposed on them . Since May 2021, of those
properties that have preexisting foliage height restrictions and where the City has
received complaints, the City’s Code Enforcement Officer has notified those property
managers, namely the Trump Organization and the Oceanfront Estates Homeowners’
Association board, that their foliage is out of compliance with City Council-imposed foliage
requirements and that trimming is required. In addition, City Staff has also notified the
City’s Public Works Department to trim view impairing foliage within the Palos Verdes
Drive South right-of-way starting at La Rotunda Drive and between Terranea Way and
Seahill Drive.
It should be noted that the Oceanfront Estates Homeowners’ Association (HOA) had
postponed foliage maintenance trimming until the time the City Council could review the
HOA’s Development Agreement, which outlines foliage maintenance obligations. On
February 1, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing on the matter and affirmed the
past City Council determination that trimming the foliage that is impairing the Palos
Verdes Drive West view corridor is the responsibility of the HOA. Days following the
February 1 meeting, the HOA has indicated to staff that they are soliciting bids for the
trimming work which will occur within the next few weeks. The City’s Code Enforcement
Division will be working with the HOA.
In the event the City receives a compliant(s) concerning foliage impairing a view from the
roadway that is not addressed by a project’s conditions of approval, then the City’s Code
Enforcement Officer will investigate and bring the foliage into compliance with either
preexisting foliage height restrictions or the City’s Fences, Walls and Hedges code, if a
violation is found to exist.
Proposed Code Amendments
Currently, fences and walls are generally allowed by-right up to 42 inches high in the front
yard and 7 feet high within the side and rear yards. Front yard hedges are allowed up to
42 inches high, but the Zoning Code does not prescribe a maximum height for side and
rear yard hedges, as the hedge height is restricted by the City through the complaint of a
view impairment taken from a residential property only. When new fences and walls are
proposed and the location of the fence or wall is on a property that is two feet or more
below the building pad of an adjacent property whose view could be impaired by the new
fence or wall, a Fence/Wall Permit is required.
As part of the Fence/Wall Permit review, the Zoning Code requires Staff to conduct an
initial site visit to assess view impairments from neighboring properties, but not from view
corridors or view stations. Should the permit application advance to the Community
Development Director, it is only then Staff assesses the fence or wall impairment or
potential impairment from the view corridors or viewing stations. These proposed
amendments, in part, seek to require Fence/Wall Permit applications for new fences
anytime a new fence or wall is located next to a view corridor or viewing station and
requires Staff to conduct an initial view assessment from a view corridor or viewing
3
station. These proposed amendments also will require hedges to be assessed for view
impairments from view corridors or viewing stations where the Zoning Code now only
requires assessments to be conducted from residential viewing areas.
Fences, walls and hedges have gradually eroded views from the City’s view corridors. As
presented to the Planning Commission, Staff believes the reason view impairing fences
and walls are found along view corridors, such as those found on Hawthorne Boulevard
and Crest Road (East), is because some of these fences or walls were constructed prior
to the code requirement to assess and restrict fences and walls from impairing views as
taken from view corridor roadways (pre-1997 and pre-City incorporation in 1973). Other
fences and walls that impair view corridors or viewing stations have been constructed
without City authorization under the current code, and the City’s Code Enforcement
Division has yet to receive complaints concerning the unpermitted fences or walls.
Another cause for the erosion, particularly front yard fences or walls that impair corridor
views (PV Drive East and West), is because the City’s Zoning Code, specifically the Minor
Exception Permit (MEP) review, does not require views to be assessed, and therefore
restricted, for their potential view impairment from view corridors along the City’s roads.
Similarly, the existing code doesn’t require the City to enforce hedges that cause or may
cause view impairments taken from the City’s view corridors.
The proposed code amendments described below seek to strengthen the Zoning Code
by adding language to ensure that new fences and walls, and existing or new hedges, do
not cause view impairments. Staff is of the opinion that these code amendments together
with complaint-driven code enforcement action against existing unpermitted fences, walls
and hedges will lessen and to some degree, reverse , view impacts taken from view
corridors.
The City’s Zoning Code, Title 17, regulates existing and potential view impairment
impacts associated with proposed walls, fences, foliage, and structures. Since the focus
of the matter concerns the potential erosion of views as taken from the City’s designated
view corridors, Staff and the Planning Commission sought changes to the City’s Fence s,
Walls and Hedges section of the Zoning Code (Section 17.76.030) as it is this section
that is most applicable to curbing view impairments along the City’s view corridors and
that already contains some view protection language.
Based on the Planning Commission’s review of the matter on October 26, 2021, and as
reflected in their adopted resolution, P.C. Resolution No. 2021-18 (Attachment B), the
following proposed code amendments (summarized below) are now being recommended
for the City Council’s consideration. To review the specific amendments to the code
language, please see the draft Ordinance which tracks the changes with underline text
for new language and strike-through for deleted text (Attachment A):
• Section 17.76.030(B)(1) to require new fences and walls that abut or are adjacent
to roadway view corridors and viewing stations be reviewed within the Fence/Wall
Permit application process, discussed in the preceding pages
4
• Section 17.76.030(B)(2) to require a preliminary view assessment for new fences
or walls that are adjacent to or abut roadway view corridors and viewing stations
when determining if a Fence/Wall Permit is warranted
• Section 17.76.030(B)(3)(a) to amplify the Fence/Wall Permit approval finding that
a proposed fence or wall shall not significantly impair a view from a view corridor
or other viewing stations and that coastal view assessments shall be conducted in
accordance with the City’s Coastal Specific Plan and/or City Council Policy No. 49.
See Attachment F for reference
• Section 17.76.030(B)(3)(d) to include a view assessment from view corridors and
viewing stations and weighing this assessment against potential privacy and pool
safety impacts when considering to approve or deny a Fence/Wall Permit
• Section 17.76.030(C)(1)(b)(ii) adding language that prohibits hedges, located
outside of the front setback (generally measured 20’ in from the front property line),
from significantly impairing views taken from a public view corridor and viewing
station
• Section 17.76.030(D)(2)(b) adding language, as part of the Minor Exception Permit
review, the approval finding that a proposed fence or wall will not significantly
impair a view from any public road or viewing station
• Section 17.76.030(E)(3) to require the submittal of a Minor Exception Permit
application for proposed hedges located in the front yard setback and adding
language, as part of the Minor Exception Permit review, the approval finding that
a proposed hedge will not significantly impair a view from a public view corridor
and viewing station
The Planning Commission’s recommendation for adoption of the above noted
amendments are based upon the Staff Report presented to the Planning Commission on
October 26, 2021, which is attached to this report as Attachment C.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Applicability of New Amendments
The proposed code amendments, which will expand , amplify and clarify the public view
assessment components of the Fence, Wall and Hedge section, will go into effect after
30 days from Ordinance adoption (2nd reading). The proposed code language will apply
to new fences, walls, and hedges installed after the effective date. However, for any
existing fence, wall or hedge that impairs a view from a view corridor or viewing station
that was installed prior to April 1997, when the City adopted the regulation restricting
fences, walls, and hedges from significantly impairing public views, the fence, wall or
hedge will be considered legal non-conforming ("grandfathered") and can remain without
having to obtain a permit. For those fences, walls or hedges that abut or are adjacent to
view corridors or viewing stations that were installed without permits after April 1997, they
are considered violations, as the requirement to obtain a Fence/Wall permit has been in
effect since April 1997. Therefore, should it be found by the Code Enforcement Division,
following a complaint made by the public, that an unpermitted fence, wall or hedge that
was installed after April 1997 significantly impairs a view from either nearby residences
5
or from view corridors or viewing stations, a Fence/Wall permit or a Minor Exception
Permit would need to be sought to legalize the unpermitted fence , wall, or hedge under
the proposed code changes.
It should also be noted that pursuant to the City's regulations for nonconformities (RPVMC
Section 17.84), any fences or walls grandfathered by this new ordinance may be replaced
without having to apply for a permit if they become damaged or deteriorated.
Public Notification
The notice announcing City Council’s review of the proposed amendments was published
on January 27, 2022, in the Palos Verdes Peninsula Newspaper. Since publishing the
notice, Staff has received one public comment (Attachment E).
Environmental Assessment
The proposed code amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) because they consist 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
amendments do not have the potential to cause significant effects on the environment.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the information contained herein, Staff recommends the City Council receive
and file a status report on coastal view corridor compliance efforts and adopt Ordinance
No. __, amending RPVMC Section 17.76.030 of the Zoning Code pertaining to fences,
walls and hedges (Case No. PLCA2021-0004).
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City
Council’s consideration:
1) Do not adopt the draft Ordinance, thereby retaining RPVMC Section 17.76.030 of
the Zoning Code (Fences, Walls and Hedges) as currently codified.
2) Identify added or modified language to include in the Ordinance that may be read
into the record.
3) Identify additional issues or code amendment language changes and continue the
public hearing to a specified date for continued discussion.
6
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES AMENDING SECTION 17.76.030 (FENCES,
WALLS AND HEDGES) OF SECTION 17.76
(MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS AND STANDARDS) OF
ARTICLE VII (DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AND
REVIEW) OF TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE RANCHO
PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO ENSURE THAT
NEW WALLS, FENCES, OR HEDGES DO NOT
SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIR VIEW CORRIDORS OR
VIEWING STATIONS
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2021, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
received a staff presentation about preserving views from the City’s vehicular view
corridors, as described in the General Plan. During City Council discussion on the
matter, the City Council identified fences and walls that have been inst alled that impair
views as taken from City view corridors and expressed concern that views from
vehicular roadways are being eroded throughout the City.
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2021, the City Council directed staff and the City’s
Planning Commission to explore code amendments that would ensure that new walls or
fences do not significantly impair roadway views from not only City’s view corridors or
arterial roads, but from all roadways within the City.
WHEREAS, based on staff and Planning Commission recommendation, the City
Council now desires to amend the municipal code to strengthen fence, wall, and hedge
regulations that require view impairment assessments from viewing stations designated
in the General Plan.
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2021, pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code, a notice
of public hearing before the Planning Commission was published in the Peninsula
News, inviting public comments on the proposed amendments to Section 17.76.030 of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC).
WHEREAS, on October 26, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing and approved P.C. Resolution No. 2021-18, recommending that the City
Council consider adopting revisions to Section 17.76.030 of the RPVMC.
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2022, a public notice was published in the Palos
Verdes Peninsula News, providing a notice of a public hearing before the City Council
on February 15, 2022.
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, the City Council conducted a duly noticed
public hearing on this Ordinance, and considered P.C. Resolution No. 2021-18, the
written staff reports, and all relevant testimony and documents provided.
A-1
Ordinance No.__
Page 2 of 9
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of the Ordinance have been
met.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES 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 fully herein by
reference.
B. It is the intent and purpose of this Ordinance that Section 17.76.030
(Fences, Walls and Hedges) of Chapter 17.76 (Miscellaneous Permits and
Standards) of Article VII (Development Application and Review) of Title 17
(Zoning) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code be amended to
ensure public area view assessments be conducted for new fences, walls
and hedges.
Section 2. The proposed code amendment to Title 17 adopted herein is
consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in that
it upholds, and does not hinder, the goals and policies of those plans.
Section 3. Section 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges) of Chapter 17.76
(Miscellaneous Permits and Standards) of Article VII (Development Application and
Review) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby
amended as follows (new text in bold underline):
Section 17.76.030 Fences, Walls and Hedges.
A. Purpose. These standards provide for the construction of fences, walls and
hedges as required for privacy and for protection against hazardous conditions,
dangerous visual obstruction at street intersection and unnecessary impairment
of views.
B. Fence/Wall Permit.
1. Permit Required. A fence/wall permit shall be required for any fence or wall
placed within the rear yard or side yard setback adjacent to any contiguous or
abutting parcel (as determined by the director), or placed adjacent to or
abutting a city-designated viewing station identified in the city's general
plan or coastal specific plan, except as specified below:
a. Fences or walls located where the grade differential between the
building pads of adjacent lots, measured perpendicular to th e boundary
between the two properties contiguous to or abutting the fence , wall or
hedge, is two feet or less in elevation; or
b. Fences or walls where the subject lot is located upslope of any property
contiguous to or abutting the location of the fence, wall or hedge; or
A-2
Ordinance No.__
Page 3 of 9
c. Fences or walls when the top of the fence or wall is at a lower elevation
than that of the pad of the upslope lot.
2. Initial Site Visit. Upon submittal of an application and a site inspection fee, as
established by resolution of the city council, the director, or his/her
representative, shall conduct an initial site visit in order to determine the type of
application process that is required, as follows:
a. If based on the initial site inspection, the director or their designee is
able to determine that there will be no view impairment to an adjacent
property owner, or no view impairment from a city-designated viewing
station, caused by the proposed new fence or wall and the director can
make the finding described in Section 17.76.030(B)(3)(b), the fence/wall
permit shall be approved. Notice of said approval shall be sent to the
property owners adjacent to the sub ject property, pursuant to Section
17.80.040 (Notice of Decision by Director) of this title. An adjacent
property owner may appeal the director's decision to the planning
commission pursuant to Section 17.80.050 (Appeal to Planning
Commission) of this title. The decision of the planning commission may be
appealed to the city council pursuant to Section 17.80.070 (Appeal to City
Council) of this title.
b. If the director is unable to determine that no view impairment will be
caused by the proposed new fence or wall, the applicant shall pay the
remainder of the application fee established by the city council and the
application shall be reviewed as described in subsection (B)(3) of this
section.
3. Findings. A fence/wall permit may be approved only if the director finds as
follows:
a. That the fence or wall would not significantly impair a view from the
viewing area, as defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential (RS)
Districts), of another property or a view from public property which has
been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as a city-
designated viewing area. Within the City’s Coastal Zone, assessments
from view corridors and viewing stations shall be taken in
accordance with the City’s Coastal Specific Plan and/or City Council
Policy No. 49. Within residential viewing areas, views shall be taken
from a standing position, unless the primary viewing area is more suitable
to viewing in a seated position;
b. That foliage on the applicant's lot which exceeds 16 feet or the ridgeline
of the primary structure, whichever is lower, and significantly impairs a
view from the viewing area of another parcel, as defined in Chapter 17.02
(Single-Family Residential (RS) Districts) or a view from public property
which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan,
as a city-designated viewing station area, shall be removed trimmed or
removed prior to permit approval. This requirement shall not apply where
trimming or removal of the foliage would constitute an unreasonable
invasion of the privacy of the occupants of the property on which the
A-3
Ordinance No.__
Page 4 of 9
foliage exists and there is no method by which the property o wner can
create such privacy through some other means permitted by this title that
does not impair a view from viewing area of another property;
c. That placement or construction of the fence or wall shall comply with all
applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code and general plan;
d. Notwithstanding finding (a) of this subsection (B)(3), the applicant's
request shall be approved if the director determines that findings of
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section listed above can be made and
either:
i. Denial would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy
of the occupants of the applicant's property and there is no method by
which the property owner can create such privacy through some other
means permitted by this title that would not significantly impair a view from
a viewing area of another property or from a city-designated viewing
station; or
ii. Denial would prevent compliance with the swimming pool fencing
requirements contained in subsection (F)(3) of this section and there is no
reasonable method to comply with subsection (F)(3) of this section that
would not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another
property or from a city-designated viewing station.
4. Notice of Decision. The notice of decision of a fence/wall permit made pursuant
to Section 17.76.030(B)(3) shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of
property adjacent to the subject property. Notice of denial shall be given only to
the applicant. Any interested person may appeal the director's decision to the
planning commission pursuant to Section 17.80.050 (Appeal to Planning
Commission) of this title.
5. This decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council
pursuant to Section 17.80.070 (Appeal to City Council) of this title.
6. The director, the planning commission and city council may impose such
conditions on the approval of a permit as are necessary to protect the public
health, safety and welfare and to carry out the purpose and intent of this section.
7. In the case of conflict between the provisions of this section and other provisions
of the development code or the building code, the most restrictive provisions
apply.
C. Fence, Walls and Hedges Allowed Without a Permit. Unless restricted by
conditions imposed through a fence/wall permit issued pursuant to subsection B
of this Section 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges) which meet the following
requirements shall be allowed without a permit:
1. Residential Zoning Districts.
a. Fences, walls and hedges located within the front yard setback area
shall meet the following standards:
A-4
Ordinance No.__
Page 5 of 9
i. Up to 42 inches in height shall be permitted, except as restricted
by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070
(Intersection Visibility) of this title;
ii. When combined with a retaining wall, the total height may not
exceed 42 inches, except as further restricted by the intersection visibility
requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) of this title; and
iii. When located within the front yard of a flag lot and the f ront
property line of the flag lot abuts the rear or interior side property line of an
adjacent lot, up to seven feet in height shall be permitted, except for the
first 20 feet of the access way ("pole"), as measured from the location
where the pole abuts the street of access, in which case fences, and walls
and hedges shall be limited to 42 inches in height.
b. Fences, walls and hedges not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a) of this
section shall meet the following standards:
i. Fences and walls up to seven feet in height shall be permitted on
any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a) except as restricted by
Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) of this title;
ii. Hedges shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to
subsection (C)(1)(a), to a height that does not significantly impair a view
from surrounding property, as described in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family
Residential (RS) Districts), or from a city-designated viewing station,
unless the director determines that a specific hedge height is needed to
prevent the unreasonable invasion of privacy of the hedge owner and there
is no other method by which the hedge owner can protect their privacy;
iii. When combined, the total height of a fence, freestanding wall or
retaining wall may not exceed eight feet, as measured from grade on the
lower side, and may not exceed seven feet, as measur ed from grade on
the higher side;
c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96
(Definitions), up to seven feet in height may be located within front or
street side setback areas, pursuant to the temporary construction fencing
provisions of Section 17.56.020(C) of this title.
2. Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
a. Fences, walls and hedges located within the front yard and street-side
setback areas shall meet the following standards:
i. Up to 42 inches in height shall be permitted, except as restricted
by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070
(Intersection Visibility) of this title;
ii. When combined with a retaining wall, the total height may not
exceed 42 inches in the front or street-side setback areas, except as
restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070
(Intersection Visibility) of this title; and
b. Fences/walls located behind front and street-side setbacks shall meet
A-5
Ordinance No.__
Page 6 of 9
the following standards:
i. Up to seven feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot
behind the front or street-side setback areas, except as restricted by the
intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Intersection
Visibility) of this title;
ii. When combined with a fence, the total height may not exceed
eight feet, as measured from grade on the lower side and may not exceed
seven feet as measured from grade on the higher side;
c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96
(Definitions), up to seven feet in height may be located within front or
street side setback areas, pursuant to the temporary construction fencing
provisions of Section 17.56.020(C) of this title.
D. Fences, Walls and Hedges—Permitted With a Minor Exception Permit.
1. The following fences, walls and hedges shall be permitted subject to the
approval of a minor exception permit pursuant to Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception
Permits):
a. Fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), higher than 42 inches
and up to seven feet in height located in the front setback areas; provided,
the area between the street and any such fence is landscaped, per a plan
approved by the director of community development;
b. A fence or wall, or any combination thereof, located outside of a front
yard setback area which does not exceed 11½ feet in height as measured
from grade on the lower side and seven feet in height as measured from
grade on the higher side;
c. Fences higher than seven feet and up to ten feet in height and not
within the required setback areas or a combination of a t hree and one-half
foot retaining wall and recreational fencing of ten feet in height for
downslope and side yard fencing for tennis courts or similar recreational
facilities. The fence above the seven-foot height shall be constructed of
wire mesh, or similar material, capable of admitting at least 80 percent
light as measured on a reputable light meter.
2. In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception
Permits), the director of planning shall use but not be limited to the follow ing
criteria in assessing such an application:
a. The height of the fence or wall will not be detrimental to the public
safety and welfare;
b. The line of sight over or through the fence is adequate for safety and
does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area, as defined in
Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this title, of
an adjacent parcel or from any city-designated street or a public
viewing station, as defined in Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and
Restoration) of this title;
c. On corner lots, intersection visibility as identified in Section 17.48.070
A-6
Ordinance No.__
Page 7 of 9
(Intersection Visibility) of this title is not obstructed; and
d. The height of the retaining portion does not exceed the grading limits
set forth in Section 17.76.040 (Grading Permit) of this title.
E. Hedges Permitted Within the Front Yard Setback. Hedges (not fences, walls or
combination thereof) that exceed 42 inches in height are allowed within the front-
yard setback, including the intersection visibility triangle, provided that:
1. No portion of the hedge will exceed six feet in height;
2. The location and/or height of the existing or proposed hedge exceed ing
42 inches allows for the safe view of on -coming vehicular traffic and pedestrians
by a driver exiting his or her driveway and does not cause a visual impairment
that would adversely affect the public health, as determined by the director of
public works; and
3. The height of the hedge exceeding 4 2 inches does not significantly impair a
view from the viewing area of a residential parcel as defined in Section 17.02.040
(View Preservation and Restoration) of this title or from any city-designated
viewing station.
4. The property owner submits a complete application and fee for a minor
exception permit site plan review permit and obtains approval of said permit.
The approval of said permit shall include a condition of approval that specifies
the hedge's permitted height above 42 inches and that the hedge shall be
maintained at said height.
5. Hedges that exceed 30 inches in height and are located within the intersection
visibility triangle shall be reviewed pursuant to the criteria set forth in
Section 17.48.070(D).
F. General Regulations.
1. Fences, walls and hedges shall be measured as a single unit if built or planted
within three feet of each other, as measured from their closest points, unless at
least one of the fences, walls or hedges is located on an adjoining lot held under
separate ownership. Perpendicular returns connecting two or more parallel walls
or fences shall not be considered portions of the wall or fence for purposes of
determining whether or not the fences or walls are a single unit.
2. Retaining walls may exceed the height limits of this section; provided, a
grading permit is approved pursuant to Section 17.76.040 (Grading Permit) of
this title.
3. Fences or Walls—Required. All pools, spas and standing bodies of water
18 inches or more in depth shall be enclosed by a structure and/or a fence or
wall not less than five feet in height measured from the outside ground level at a
point 12 inches horizontal from the base of the fence or wall. Any gate or door to
the outside shall be equipped with a self-closing device and a self-latching device
located not less than four feet above the ground. Such fences, walls and gates
shall meet city specifications and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the
city's building official.
4. The use of barbed wire is prohibited unless required by any law or regulation
A-7
Ordinance No.__
Page 8 of 9
of the state or federal government or any agency thereof. Electrified fencing may
only be allowed for the keeping of animals pursuant to Chapter 17.46 (Equestrian
Overlay (Q) District) of this title. All electrified fences shall contain a warning sign,
posted in a visible location, warning that an electrified fence is in use.
5. Chain link, chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in front yards
between the front property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-
family residence closest to the front property line, in side yard s between the
street-side property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-family
residence closest to the street side property line, and within a rear yard setback
which abuts the following arterial streets identified in the city's general plan:
a. Crenshaw Boulevard;
b. Crest Road;
c. Hawthorne Boulevard;
d. Highridge Road;
e. Miraleste Drive;
f. Palos Verdes Drive East;
g. Palos Verdes Drive North;
h. Palos Verdes Drive South;
i. Palos Verdes Drive West; and
j. Silver Spur Road.
6. Replacement of Privately Owned Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets. Any
existing fence or wall that is part of an existing uniform fence or wall design and
is located within a rear yard setback of a private property located along any of the
arterial streets listed in Section 17.76.030(F)(5) shall be replaced or repaired at
the same height and location and with the same materials and color as the
original uniform fence or wall, to the satisfaction of the community development
director.
Section 4. 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.
Section 5. 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, sentence,
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.
A-8
Ordinance No.__
Page 9 of 9
Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
ordinance, and shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records
of and the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted.
This Ordinance shall take effect immediately, pursuant to the authority conferred upon
the City Council by Government Code section 36937. The City Clerk shall cause a
summary of this ordinance to be published in accorda nce with Government Code
section 36933 in a newspaper of general circulation which is hereby designated for that
purpose.
Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall go into effect on the 31 st day
after its passage.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of _____, 2022.
David L. Bradley, Mayor
Attest:
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, TERESA TAKAOKA, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify
that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the
foregoing Ordinance No. passed first reading on____________, 2022, was
duly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on
________, 2022, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
A-9
B-1
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTER 17.76 (FENCES, WALLS, & HEDGES) OF TITLE 17
(ZONING) OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE
(CASE NO. PLCA2021-0004).
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan seeks to protect views, called viewing
stations, enjoyed by the majority of the public (Visual Resources); and,
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2021, the City Council received a staff presentation about
preserving views from the City's vehicular view corridors, as described in the General
Plan. During City Council discussion on the matter, the City Council identified fences
and walls that have been installed that impair views as taken from City vehicular view
corridors, and expressed concern that views from vehicular roadways are being eroded
throughout the City.
WHEREAS, on May 4, the City Council directed staff and the City's Planning
Commission to explore code amendments that would ensure that new walls or fences
do not si_gnificantly impair roadway views from not only City's view corridors or arterial
roads, but from all roadways within the City.
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the municipal code to strengthen fence,
wall and hedge regulations that require view impairment assessments from viewing
stations designated in the General Plan and to add public streets part of those view
assessments.
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2021, pursuant to the City's Municipal Code, a public
notice was published in the Peninsula News, inviting public comments on the proposed
amendments to Section 17.76.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
(RPVMC).
WHEREAS, on October 26, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to Section 17.76.030 of the
RPVMC.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The facts set forth in the recitals of this Resolution are true and
correct and incorporated fully herein by reference.
Section 2: The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the
proposed code amendments to Section 17.76 (Fences, Walls, & Hedges) of Title 17
(Zoning) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, as presented in 'Exhibit A'.
B-2
Section 2: The proposed amendments are consistent with the Rancho Palos
Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in that they uphold, not hinder, the
goals and policies of those plans.
Section 3: The proposed code amendments comply with the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff has determined that the
proposed text amendments are exempt from environmental review under CEQA
pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) as the amendments can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that new fence or wall proposals nor the enforcement of violating
hedges will have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 4: For the foregoing reasons, and based on information and findings
contained in the public record, including staff reports, minutes, records of proceedings,
and evidence presented at the public hearings, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes hereby recommends to the City Council that an Ordinance be
adopted entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
AMENDING CHAPTER 17.76 (FENCES, WALLS, & HEDGES) OF TITLE 17
(ZONING) OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO ENSURE
THAT NEW WALLS, FENCES, OR HEDGES DO NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIR
ROADWAY VIEWS (CASE NO. PLCA2021-0004)" in the form attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit "A".
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26 th day of October 2021.
A YES: COMMISSIONERS CHURA, JAMES, LEON, SAADATNEJADI, VICE-CHAIR
HAMILL AND CHAIR PERESTAM
NOES: COMMISSIONER SANTAROSA
ABSTENTIONS: NONE
RECUSALS: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Ken Rukavina, P.E.
Director of Community Development
Secretary to the Planning Commission
~~
Chair
Resolution No. 2021-18
Page 2 of 12
B-3
EXHIBIT "A"
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO.
Please see attached.
Resolution No. 2021-18
Page 3 of 12
B-4
ORDINANCE NO. ---
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES AMENDING CHAPTER 17.76 (FENCES, WALLS,
& HEDGES) OF TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE RANCHO
PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO ENSURE THAT
NEW WALLS, FENCES, OR HEDGES DO NOT
SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIR ROADWAY VIEWS
(CASE NO. PLCA2021-0004)
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan seeks to protect views, called viewing
stations, enjoyed by the majority of the public (Visual Resources); and,
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2021, the City Council received a staff presentation about
preserving views from the City's vehicular view corridors, as described in the General
Plan. During City Council discussion on the matter, the City Council identified fences
and walls that have been installed that impair views as taken from City vehicular view
corridors, and expressed concern that views from vehicular roadways are being eroded
throughout the City.
WHEREAS, on May 4, the City Council directed staff and the City's Planning
Commission to explore code amendments that would ensure that new walls or fences
do not significantly impair roadway views from not only City's view corridors or arterial
roads, but from all roadways within the City.
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the municipal code to strengthen fence,
wall and hedge regulations that require view impairment assessments from viewing
stations designated in the General Plan and to add public streets part of those view
assessments.
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2021, pursuant to the City's Municipal Code, a public
notice was published in the Peninsula News, inviting public comments on the proposed
amendments to Section 17.76.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
(RPVMC).
WHEREAS, on October 26, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to Section 17.76.030 of the
RPVMC.
WHEREAS, on October 26, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing, and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2021-_, recommending that the City
Council adopt this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on __ , a public notice was published in the Palos Verdes
Peninsula News, providing a notice of a public hearing before the City Council on
; and --
Resolution No. 2021-18
Page 4 of 12
B-5
WHEREAS, on __ , the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing
on this Ordinance, and all testimony was received was made a part of the public record;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all information presented to it,
including the Planning Commission findings, P.C Resolution No. 2021-_, written staff
reports, and any testimony provided at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of the Ordinance have been
met.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES 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 fully herein by
reference.
B. It is the intent and purpose of this Ordinance that Section 17.76 (Fences,
Walls, & Hedges) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code be amended to ensure public area view assessments be
conducted for new fences, walls and hedges.
SECTION 2. The proposed code amendment to Title 17 adopted herein is
consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in that
it upholds, and does not hinder, the goals and policies of those plans.
SECTION 3: The proposed code amendments comply with the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff has determined that the
proposed text amendments are exempt from environmental review under CEQA
pursuant to Section 15061 (b )(3) as the amendments can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that new fence or wall proposals nor the enforcement of violating
hedges will have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 3. Chapter 17.76 of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (new text in bold underline):
A. Purpose. These standards provide for the construction of fences, walls and
hedges as required for privacy and for protection against hazardous conditions,
dangerous visual obstruction at street intersection and unnecessary impairment
of views.
B. Fence/Wall Permit.
1. Permit Required. A fence/wall permit shall be required for any fence or wall
placed within the rear yard or side yard setback adjacent to any contiguous or
abutting parcel (as determined by the director) or placed adjacent to or
Resolution No. 2021-18
Page 5 of 12
B-6
abutting a public viewing station, which has been identified in the city's
general plan or coastal specific plan, as a city-designated viewing station,
except as specified below:
a. Fences or walls located where the grade differential between the
building pads of adjacent lots, measured perpendicular to the boundary
between the two properties contiguous to or abutting the fence, wall or
hedge, is two feet or less in elevation; or
b. Fences or walls where the subject lot is located upslope. of any property
contiguous to or abutting the location of the fence, wall or hedge; or
c. Fences or walls when the top of the fence or wall is at a lower elevation
than that of the pad of the upslope lot.
2. Initial Site Visit. Upon submittal of an application and a site inspection fee, as
established by resolution of the city council, the director, or his/her
representative, shall conduct an initial site visit in order to determine the type of
application process that is required, as follows:
a. If based on the initial site inspection, the director or his/her designated
representative is able to determine that there will be no view impairment
to an adjacent property owner or no view impairment from a public
viewing station, which has been identified in the city's general plan
or coastal specific plan, as a city-designated viewing station, caused
by the proposed new fence or wall and the director can make the finding
described in Section 17.76.030(8)(3)(b), the fence/wall permit shall be
approved. Notice of said approval shall be sent to the property owners
adjacent to the subject property, pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Notice of
Decision by Director) of this title. An adjacent property owner may appeal
the director's decision to the planning commission pursuant to
Section 17.80.050 (Appeal to Planning Commission) of this title. The
decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council
pursuant to Section 17.80.070 (Appeal to City Council) of this title.
b. If the director is unable to determine that no view impairment will be
caused by the proposed new fence or wall, the applicant shall pay the
remainder of the application fee established by the city council and the
application shall be reviewed as described in subsection (8)(3) of this
section.
3. Findings. A fence/wall permit may be approved only if the director finds as
follows:
a. That the fence or wall would not significantly impair a view from the
viewing area, as defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential (RS)
Districts), of another property or a view from public property, a viewing
station, which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal
specific plan, as a city-designated viewing area. Within the City's
Coastal Zone, roadway views shall be taken in accordance with the
City's Coastal Specific Plan and/or City Council Policy No. 49. Within
residential viewing areas, views shall be taken from a standing position,
Resolution No. 2021-18
Page 6 of 12
B-7
unless. the primary vie1•♦.1ing area is more suitable to \'iewing in a seated
position;
b. That foliage on the applicant's lot which exceeds 16 feet or the ridgeline
of the primary structure, whichever is lower, and significantly impairs a
view from the viewing area of another parcel, as defined in Chapter 17.02
(Single-Family Residential (RS) Districts) or a view from public property
which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan,
as a city-designated viewing station ™· shall be removed trimmed or
removed prior to permit approval. This requirement shall not apply where
trimming or removal of the foliage would constitute an unreasonable
invasion of the privacy of the occupants of the property on which the
foliage exists and there is no method by which the property owner can
create such privacy through some other means permitted by this title that
does not impair a view from viewing area of another property;
c. That placement or construction of the fence or wall shall comply with all
applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code and general plan;
d. Notwithstanding finding (a) of this subsection (8)(3), the applicant's
request shall be approved if the director determines that findings of
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section listed above can be made and
either:
i. Denial would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy
of the occupants of the applicant's property and there is no method by
which the property owner can create such privacy through some other
means permitted by this title that would not significantly impair a view from
a viewing area of another property or from a public viewing station,
which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal
specific plan, as a city-designated viewing station; or
ii. Denial would prevent compliance with the swimming pool fencing
requirements contained in subsection (F)(3) of this section and there is no
reasonable method to comply with subsection (F)(3) of this section that
would not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another
property or from a public viewing station, which has been identified in
the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as a city-designated
viewing station.
4. Notice of Decision. The noti.ce of decision of a fence/wall permit made pursuant
to Section 17.76.030(8)(3) shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of
property adjacent to the subject property. Notice of denial shall be given only to
the applicant. Any interested person may appeal the director's decision to the
planning commission pursuant to Section 17.80..050 (Appeal to Planning
Commission) of this title.
5. This decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council
pursuant to Section 17.80.070 (Appeal to City Council) of this title.
6. The director, the planning commission and city council may impose such
Resolution No. 2021-18
Page 7 of 12
B-8
conditions on the approval of a permit as are necessary to protect the public
health, safety and welfare and to carry out the purpose and intent of this section.
7. In the case of conflict between the provisions of this section and other provisions
of the development code or the building code, the most restrictive provisions
apply.
C. Fence, Walls and Hedges Allowed Without a Permit. Unless restricted by
conditions imposed through a fence/wall permit issued pursuant to subsection 8
of this Section 17.76.030 fFences, Walls and Hedges) which meet the following
requirements shall be allowed without a permit:
1. Residential Zoning Districts.
a. Fences, walls and hedges located within the front yard setback area
shall meet the following standards:
i. Up to 42 inches in height shall be permitted, except as restricted
by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070
(Intersection Visibility) of this title;
ii. When combined with a retaining wall, the total height may not
exceed 42 inches, except as further restricted by the intersection visibility
requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) of this title; and
iii. When located within the front yard of a flag lot and the front
property line of the flag lot abuts the rear or interior side property line of an
adjacent lot, up to seven feet in height shall be permitted, except for the
first 20 feet of the access way ("pole"), as measured from the location
where the pole abuts the street of access, in which case fences, and-walls
and hedges shall be limited to 42 inches in height.
b. Fences, walls and hedges not subject to subsection (C)(1 )(a) of this
section shall meet the following standards:
i. Fences and walls up to seven feet in height shall be permitted on
any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1 )(a) except as restricted by
Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) of this title;
ii. Hedges shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to
subsection (C)(1 )(a), to a height that does not significantly impair a view
from surrounding property, as described in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family
Residential (RS) Districts), or from a public street or viewing station,
which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific
plan, as a city-designated viewing station, unless the director
determines that a specific hedge height is needed to prevent the
unreasonable invasion of privacy of the hedge owner and there is no other
method by which the hedge owner can protect their privacy;
iii. When combined, the total height of a fence, freestanding wall or
retaining wall may not exceed eight feet, as measured from grade on the
lower side, and may not exceed seven feet, as measured from grade on
the higher side;
c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17. 96
Resolution No. 2021-18
Page 8 of 12
B-9
(Definitions), up to seven feet in height may be located within front or street
side setback areas, pursuant to the temporary construction fencing
provisions of
Section 17.56.020(C) of this title.
2. Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
a. Fences, walls and hedges located within the front yard and street-side
setback areas shall meet the following standards:
i. Up to 42 inches in height shall be permitted, except as restricted
by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070
(Intersection Visibility) of this title;
ii. When combined with a retaining wall, the total height may not
exceed 42 inches in the front or street-side setback areas, except as
restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070
(Intersection Visibility) of this title; and
b. Fences/walls located behind front and street-side setbacks shall meet
the following standards:
i. Up to seven feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot
behind the front or street-side setback areas, except as restricted by the
intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Intersection
Visibility) of this title;
ii. When combined with a fence, the total height may not exceed
eight feet, as measured from grade on the lower side and may not exceed
seven feet as measured from grade on the higher side;
c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96
(Definitions), up to seven feet in height may be located within front or
street side setback areas, pursuant to the temporary construction fencing
provisions of
Section 17.56.020(C) of this title.
D. Fences, Walls and Hedges-Permitted With a Minor Exception Permit.
1. The following fences, walls and hedges shall be permitted subject to the
approval of a minor exception permit pursuant to Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception
Permits):
a. Fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), higher than 42 inches
and up to seven feet in height located in the front setback areas; provided,
the area between the street and any such fence is landscaped, per a plan
approved by the director of community development;
b. A fence or wall, or any combination thereof, located outside of a front
yard setback area which does not exceed 11 ½ feet in height as measured
from grade on the lower side and seven feet in height as measured from
grade on the higher side;
c. Fences higher than seven feet and up to ten feet in height and not
within the required setback areas or a combination of a three and one-half
Resolution No. 2021-18
Page 9 of 12
B-10
foot retaining wall and recreational fencing of ten feet in height for
downslope and side yard fencing for tennis courts or similar recreational
facilities. The fence above the seven-foot height shall be constructed of
wire mesh, or similar material, capable of admitting at least 80 percent
light as measured on a reputable light meter.
2. In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception
Permits), the dire.ctor of planning shall use but not be limited to the following
criteria in assessing such an application:
a. The height of the fence or wall will not be detrimental to the public
safety and welfare;
b. The line of sight over or through the fence is adequate for safety and
does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area1 as defined in
Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this title, of
an adjacent parcel or from any public street or a public viewing
station, as defined in Section 17.02.040 (Vie•N Presep.<ation and
Restoration) of this title , which has been identified in the city's general
plan or coastal specific plan, as a city-designated viewing station;
c. On corner lots, intersection visibility as identified in Section 17.48.070
(Intersection Visibility) of this title is not obstructed; and
d. The height of the retaining portion does not exceed the grading limits
set forth in Section 17.76.040 (Grading Permit) of this title.
E. Hedges Permitted Within the Front Yard Setback. Hedges (not fences, walls or
combination thereof) that exceed 42 inches in height are allowed within the front-
yard setback, including the intersection visibility triangle, provided that:
1. No portion of the hedge will exceed six feet in height;
2. The location and/or height of the existing or proposed hedge exceeding
42 inches allows for the safe view of on-coming vehicular traffic and pedestrians
by a driver exiting his or her driveway and does not cause a visual impairment
that would adversely affect the public health, as determined by the director of
public works; and
3. The height of the hedge exceeding 42 inches doe.s not significantly impair a
view from the viewing area of! residential parcel as defined in Section 17.02.040
(View Preservation and Restoration) of this title or from any public street or
public viewing station, which has been identified in the city's general plan
or coastal specific plan, as a city-designated viewing station.
4. The property owner submits a complete application and fee for a minor
exception permit site plan re 1,iev.i permit and obtains approval of said permit.
The approval of said permit shall include a condition of approval that specifies
the hedge's permitted height above 42 inches and that the hedge shall be
maintained at said height.
5. Hedges that exceed 30 inches in height and are located within the intersection
visibility triangle shall be reviewed pursuant to the criteria set forth in
Section 17.48.070(0).
Resolution No. 2021-18
Page 10 of 12
B-11
F. General Regulations.
1. Fences, walls and hedges shall be measured as a single unit if built or planted
within three feet of each other, as measured from their closest points, unless at
least one of the fences, walls or hedges is located on an adjoining lot held under
separate ownership. Perpendicular returns connecting two or more parallel walls
or fences shall not be considered portions of the wall or fence for purposes of
determining whether or not the fences or walls are a single unit.
2. Retaining walls may exceed the height limits of this section; provided, a
grading permit is approved pursuant to Section 17.76.040 (Grading Permit) of
this title.
3. Fences· or Walls.-Required. All pools, spas and standing bodies of water
18 inches or more in depth shall be enclosed by a structure and/or a fence or
wall not less than five feet in height measured from the outside ground level at a
point 12 inches horizontal from the base of the fence or wall. Any gate or door to
the outside shall be equipped with a self-closing device and a self-latching device
located not less th·an four feet above the ground. Such fences, walls and gates
shall meet city specifications and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the
city's building official.
4. The use of barbed wire is prohibited unless required by any law or regulation
of the state or federal government or any agency thereof. Electrified fencing may
only be allowed for the keeping of animals pursuant to Chapter 17.46 (Equestrian
Overlay (Q) District) of this title. All electrified fences shall contain a warning sign,
posted in a visible location, warning that an electrified fence is in use.
5. Chain link, chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in front yards
between the front property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-
family residence closest to the front property line, in side yards between the
street-side property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-family
residence closest to the street side property line, and within a rear yard setback
which abuts the following arterial streets identified in the city's general plan:
a. Crenshaw Boulevard;
b. Crest Road;
c. Hawthorne Boulevard;
d. Highridge Road;
e. Miraleste Drive;
f. Palos Verdes Drive East;
g. Palos Verdes Drive North;
h, Palos Verdes Drive South;
i. Palos Verdes Drive West; and
j. Silver Spur Road.
6. Replacement of Privately Owned Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets. Any
existing fence or wall that is part of an existing uniform fence or wall design and
Resolution No. 2021-18
Page 11 of 12
B-12
is located within a rear yard setback of a private property located along any of the
arterial streets listed in Section 17.76.030(F)(5) shall be replaced or repaired at
the same height and location and with the same materials and color as the
original uniform fence or wall, to the "Satisfaction of the community development
director.
Resolution No. 2021-18
Page 12 of 12
MEMORANDUM
TO: CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: KEN RUKAVINA, P.E., DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
C DATE: OCTOBER 26, 2021
SUBJECT: FENCES, WALLS, & HEDGES- PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS TO
SECTION 17.76.030 (CASE NO. PLCA2021-0004)
Project Manager: John Alvarez, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION
1) Review the proposed code amendments to Section 17.76.030 of Chapter 17.76
(Miscellaneous Permits and Standards) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) to require staff view assessments for
new fences, walls, and hedges from public viewing stations; and
2) Provide input on the proposed code amendment; and
3) Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2021- ___, recommending that the City Council
adopt code amendments to Section 17.76.030 of the RPVMC.
BACKGROUND
On May 4, 2021, the City Council received a staff presentation about preserving views
from the City’s vehicular view corridors, as described in the General Plan. It is from the
City’s vehicular and arterial roadways where most of the public could appreciate views.
During City Council discussion on the matter, the City Council identified fences and walls
that have been installed that impair views as taken from City vehicular view corridors,
such as Crest Road as a prime example. The City Council expressed a concern that views
from vehicular roadways are being eroded thro ughout the City. Thus, the City Council
directed staff and the City’s Planning Commission to explore code amendments that
would ensure that new walls or fences do not significantly impair roadway views from not
only City’s view corridors or arterial roads, but from all roadways within the City.
DISCUSSSION
The City’s General Plan specifies viewing stations, which include vehicular view corridors,
that deserve special view resource protection from significant development and foliage
obstructions. These roadway “view corridors” are located along Palos Verdes Drive
South, West, and East, Crest Road, Hawthorne Boulevard, Crenshaw Boulevard, Silver
C-1
JA
Spur Road, Western Avenue, Miraleste Drive and Highridge Road. The General Plan also
identifies viewing stations as roadway turnouts along vehicular corridors, Del Cerro Park,
Hesse Park, Lower and Upper Point Vicente Park, Founder’s Park, the Palos Verdes
Nature Preserve, Oceanfront Estates public trails, Trump National’s public trails, and
Terranea’s public trails.
Chapter 17 of the City’s Zoning Code contains a variety of provisions that require staff
and Planning Commission review of existing and potential view impairment impacts
associated with proposed walls, fences, foliage, and structures. The review and
preservation of views is generally focused on impacts taken from residential properties
and to a lesser extent from public areas. Since the City already has robust view protection
codes preventing residential structures and foliage from significantly impairing views, the
focus of the City Council concern is to strengthen the development code to ensu re shorter
structures, particularly fences and walls, do not cause view impairments from roadways.
Existing Fence, Wall, and Hedge Standards
RPVMC § 17.76.030 governs fences, walls, and hedges within residential and non-
residential zones. Generally, the location and height standards that apply to fences, walls,
and hedges within residential areas limit heights within front yards to 42 inches or 3.5 feet
and within side and rear yards to 7 feet in height. Hedges located within side and rear
yards do not have a height limit, however, hedges that impair residential views are
restricted to heights that do not significantly impair views, as determined by the City Code
Enforcement Division. The tables below summarize fence, wall and hedge applicability to
RPVMC § 17.76.030:
Fence and Wall:
Location Height Limit F/W Permit Allows: MEP Allows:
Front Yard 42 inches Not Applicable 3.5 feet to 7 feet*
Rear Yard 7 feet Up to 7 feet* Up to 11.5 feet*
Side Yard 7 feet Up to 7 feet* Up to 11.5 feet*
*Provided that no significant view impairment exists from a residence
Hedge:
Location Height Limit F/W Permit Allows: MEP Allows:
Front Yard 42 inches Not Applicable 3.5 feet to 6 feet*
Rear Yard None* Not Applicable Not Applicable
Side Yard None* Not Applicable Not Applicable
*Provided that no significant view impairment exists and/or traffic visibility is unimpaired
C-2
The code provides residents two kinds of permit applications for new fences and walls
that exceed standard height limits; the Fence/Wall Permit and Minor Exception Permit,
which are described below.
Fence/Wall Permit
Within residential zoning districts, new fence and wall proposals located within rear or
side yards are subject to the Fence/Wall Permit application and are reviewed by Planning
staff to ensure that they do not significantly impair views taken from public areas, such as
vehicular view corridors, and taken from the viewing areas of homes. The code exempts
Fence/Wall permit reviews whenever a new fence or wall is sited next to a property that
is 2 feet or less in elevation, or when the new fence or wall is located on a lot upslope to
an abutting property, or when the new fence or wall doesn’t exceed the height of an
abutting building pad and when the top of the fence or wall is at a lower elevation than
that of the pad of the upslope lot.
If a fence or wall is proposed and it is not exempt from the Fence/Wall permit, then staff
conducts an initial site visit to assess whether the new fence or wall will impair surrounding
residential views; however, the existing code does not require staff to initially assess
whether the proposed fence or wall will impair views from public areas, such as view
corridors. Regardless, in order to approve the Fence/Wall permit, the Director of
Community Development must find that the fence or wall doesn’t significantly impair views
taken from nearby residences nor from public areas designated by the General Plan. Staff
believes that the reason some view impairing fences and walls found along view corridors,
such as those found on Crest Road (East), is because those fences or walls were either
constructed prior to existing code requirement to assess the fence or wal l from the view
corridor roadways (pre-1997) or were constructed without City authorization under the
current code.
Minor Exception Permit (MEP)
New fence and wall proposals that exceed the height limitations stipulated in the code are
reviewed through the Minor Exception Permit application process (RPVMC
§ 17.76.030(D)). Fences and walls could be approved to exceed 42 inches in the front
yard and 7 feet in the side or rear yard so long as the Director of Community Development
finds, amongst other findings, that the fence or wall doesn’t significantly impair a view
from a nearby residential viewing area. However, RPVMC § 17.76.030(D) does not
require a view assessment be taken from public areas, such as view corridors, designated
by the General Plan. Staff believes that it is because the code lacks such a requirement
that some front yard fences or walls, exceeding 42 inches, impair views as seen from
some view corridors.
Hedges
With the exception of front yard hedges, the City’s code doesn’t require new hedges to
C-3
be reviewed in the same manner as that of new fences and walls, but the code does
prohibit new or existing hedges from impairing residential views. With respect to view
impairing hedges, the City’s Code Enforcement Division enforces view impairing hedges
assessed from surrounding residences, but not from public areas. It is staff’s opinion that
hedges cause the greatest contribution to the erosion of views taken from the City’s view
corridors.
Proposed Amendments
The City Council’s primary concern is that fences and walls are eroding views taken
vehicular view corridors, for example on Crest Road (East), and other roadways. The City
Council requested that the Planning Commission consider expanding view assessme nts
to all roadways within the City when reviewing new fence or wall proposals. Staff is of the
opinion that most City streets do not lend themselves to vista opportunities and that
existing fence and wall height limits already provide a reasonable amount of de facto view
protection. However, staff believes that City Council’s goal to ensure that new walls or
fences do not significantly impair roadway views is best achieved by amending the
existing code to bolster existing view protection language for those view corridor
roadways already designated by the General Plan, require view assessments from public
streets or existing view stations for new fences and walls subject to MEPs, and for hedges
subject to code enforcement complaints, and enforcing illegally constructed fences and
walls that violate the code. In addition, by simply applying the existing fence and wall code
standards for rear, side and front yard fences and walls during development permit
reviews for all properties, the restrictive height requirements will ensure that city -wide
roadways will not be view impaired to a reasonable degree .
Therefore, Staff is recommending revisions as noted below to RPVMC § 17.76.030
(strikethrough text for language removed, and bold and underlined text for new
language):
A. Purpose. These standards provide for the construction of fences, walls and hedges
as required for privacy and for protection against hazardous conditions, dangerous
visual obstruction at street intersection and unnecessary impairment of views.
B. Fence/Wall Permit.
1. Permit Required. A fence/wall permit shall be required for any fence or wall
placed within the rear yard or side yard setback adjacent to any contiguous or
abutting parcel (as determined by the director) or placed adjacent to or abutting
a public viewing station, which has been identified in the city's general plan
or coastal specific plan, as a city-designated viewing station, except as
specified below:
a. Fences or walls located where the grade differential between the building
pads of adjacent lots, measured perpendicular to the boundary between the
two properties contiguous to or abutting the fence , wall or hedge, is two feet
C-4
or less in elevation; or
b. Fences or walls where the subject lot is located upslope of any property
contiguous to or abutting the location of the fence, wall or hedge; or
c. Fences or walls when the top of the fence or wall is at a lower elevation
than that of the pad of the upslope lot.
2. Initial Site Visit. Upon submittal of an application and a site inspection fee, as
established by resolution of the city council, the director, or his/her representative,
shall conduct an initial site visit in order to determine the type of application process
that is required, as follows:
a. If based on the initial site inspection, the director or his/her designated
representative is able to determine that there will be no view impairment
to an adjacent property owner or no view impairment from a public
viewing station, which has been identified in the city's general plan or
coastal specific plan, as a city-designated viewing station, caused by
the proposed new fence or wall and the director can make the finding
described in Section 17.76.030(B)(3)(b), the fence/wall permit shall be
approved. Notice of said approval shall be sent to the property owners
adjacent to the subject property, pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Notice of
Decision by Director) of this title. An adjacent property owner may appeal
the director's decision to the planning commission pursuant to
Section 17.80.050 (Appeal to Planning Commission) of this title. The
decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city c ouncil
pursuant to Section 17.80.070 (Appeal to City Council) of this title.
b. If the director is unable to determine that no view impairment will be
caused by the proposed new fence or wall, the applicant shall pay the
remainder of the application fee established by the city council and the
application shall be reviewed as described in subsection (B)(3) of this
section.
3. Findings. A fence/wall permit may be approved only if the director finds as
follows:
a. That the fence or wall would not significantly impair a view from the
viewing area, as defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential (RS)
Districts), of another property or a view from public property, a viewing
station, which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal
specific plan, as a city-designated viewing area. Within the City’s Coastal
Zone, roadway views shall be taken in accordance with the City’s
Coastal Specific Plan and/or City Council Policy No. 49. Within
residential viewing areas, views shall be taken from a standing position,
unless the primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated
position;
b. That foliage on the applicant's lot which exceeds 16 feet or the ridgeline
of the primary structure, whichever is lower, and significantly impairs a
C-5
view from the viewing area of another parcel, as defined in Chapter 17.02
(Single-Family Residential (RS) Districts) or a view from public property
which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan,
as a city-designated viewing station area, shall be removed trimmed or
removed prior to permit approval. This requirement shall not apply where
trimming or removal of the foliage would constitute an unreasonable
invasion of the privacy of the occupants of the property on which the foliage
exists and there is no method by which the property owner can create such
privacy through some other means permitted by this title that does not
impair a view from viewing area of another property;
c. That placement or construction of the fence or wall shall comply with all
applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code and general plan;
d. Notwithstanding finding (a) of this subsection (B)(3), the applicant's
request shall be approved if the director determines that findings of
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section listed above can be made and either:
i. Denial would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of
the occupants of the applicant's property and there is no method by which
the property owner can create such privacy through some other means
permitted by this title that would not significantly impair a view from a
viewing area of another property or from a public viewing station, which
has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan,
as a city-designated viewing station; or
ii. Denial would prevent compliance with the swimming pool fencing
requirements contained in subsection (F)(3) of this section and there is no
reasonable method to comply with subsection (F)(3) of this section that
would not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another property
or from a public viewing station, which has been identified in the city's
general plan or coastal specific plan, as a city -designated viewing
station.
4. Notice of Decision. The notice of decision of a fence/wall permit made pursuant to
Section 17.76.030(B)(3) shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of
property adjacent to the subject property. Notice of denial shall be given only to
the applicant. Any interested person may appeal the director's decision to the
planning commission pursuant to Section 17.80.050 (Appeal to Planning
Commission) of this title.
5. This decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council
pursuant to Section 17.80.070 (Appeal to City Council) of this title.
6. The director, the planning commission and city council may impose such
conditions on the approval of a permit as are necessary to protect the public health,
safety and welfare and to carry out the purpose and intent of this section.
C-6
7. In the case of conflict between the provisions of this section and other provisions
of the development code or the building code, the most restrictive provisions apply.
C. Fence, Walls and Hedges Allowed Without a Pe rmit. Unless restricted by
conditions imposed through a fence/wall permit issued pursuant to subsection B
of this Section 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges) which meet the following
requirements shall be allowed without a permit:
1. Residential Zoning Districts.
a. Fences, walls and hedges located within the front yard setback area shall
meet the following standards:
i. Up to 42 inches in height shall be permitted, except as restricted
by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Intersection
Visibility) of this title;
ii. When combined with a retaining wall, the total height may not
exceed 42 inches, except as further restricted by the intersection visibility
requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) of this title; and
iii. When located within the front yard of a flag lot and the front
property line of the flag lot abuts the rear or interior side property line of an
adjacent lot, up to seven feet in height shall be permitted, except for the first
20 feet of the access way ("pole"), as measured from the location where the
pole abuts the street of access, in which case fences, and walls and hedges
shall be limited to 42 inches in height.
b. Fences, walls and hedges not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a) of this
section shall meet the following standards:
i. Fences and walls up to seven feet in height shall be permitted on
any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a) except as restricted by
Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) of this title;
ii. Hedges shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to
subsection (C)(1)(a), to a height that does not significantly impair a view from
surrounding property, as described in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family
Residential (RS) Districts), or from a public street or viewing station,
which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific
plan, as a city-designated viewing station, unless the director determines
that a specific hedge height is needed to prevent the unreasonable invasion
of privacy of the hedge owner and there is no other method by which the
hedge owner can protect their privacy;
iii. When combined, the total height of a fence, freestanding wall or
retaining wall may not exceed eight feet, as measured from grade on the
lower side, and may not exceed seven feet, as measured from grade on the
higher side;
c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions),
C-7
up to seven feet in height may be located within front or street side setback
areas, pursuant to the temporary construction fencing provisions of
Section 17.56.020(C) of this title.
2. Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
a. Fences, walls and hedges located within the front yard and street -side
setback areas shall meet the following standards:
i. Up to 42 inches in height shall be permitted, except as restricted
by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Intersection
Visibility) of this title;
ii. When combined with a retaining wall, the total height may not
exceed 42 inches in the front or street-side setback areas, except as
restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070
(Intersection Visibility) of this title; and
b. Fences/walls located behind front and street-side setbacks shall meet the
following standards:
i. Up to seven feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot
behind the front or street-side setback areas, except as restricted by the
intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Intersection
Visibility) of this title;
ii. When combined with a fence, the total height may not exceed eight
feet, as measured from grade on the lower side and may not exceed seven
feet as measured from grade on the higher side;
c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions),
up to seven feet in height may be located within front or street side setback
areas, pursuant to the temporary construction fencing provisions of
Section 17.56.020(C) of this title.
D. Fences, Walls and Hedges—Permitted With a Minor Exception Permit.
1. The following fences, walls and hedges shall be permitted subject to the
approval of a minor exception permit pursuant to Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception
Permits):
a. Fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), higher than 42 inches
and up to seven feet in height located in the front setback areas; provided,
the area between the street and any such fence is landscaped, per a plan
approved by the director of community development;
b. A fence or wall, or any combination thereof, located outside of a front
yard setback area which does not exceed 11½ feet in height as measured
from grade on the lower side and seven feet in height as measured from
grade on the higher side;
c. Fences higher than seven feet and up to ten feet in height and not within
C-8
the required setback areas or a combination of a three and one -half foot
retaining wall and recreational fencing of ten feet in height for downslope
and side yard fencing for tennis courts or similar recreational facilities. The
fence above the seven-foot height shall be constructed of wire mesh, or
similar material, capable of admitting at least 80 percent light as measured
on a reputable light meter.
2. In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception
Permits), the director of planning shall use but not be limited to the following criteria
in assessing such an application:
a. The height of the fence or wall will not be detrimental to the public safety
and welfare;
b. The line of sight over or through the fence is adequate for safety and
does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area, as defined in
Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this title, of
an adjacent parcel or from any public street or a public viewing station,
as defined in Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this
title , which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal
specific plan, as a city-designated viewing station;
c. On corner lots, intersection visibility as identified in Section 17.48.070
(Intersection Visibility) of this title is not obstructed; and
d. The height of the retaining portion does not exceed the grading limits set
forth in Section 17.76.040 (Grading Permit) of this title.
E. Hedges Permitted Within the Front Yard Setback. Hedges (not fences, walls or
combination thereof) that exceed 42 inches in height are allowed within the front -
yard setback, including the intersection visibility triangle, provided that:
1. No portion of the hedge will exceed six feet in height;
2. The location and/or height of the existing or proposed hedge exceeding
42 inches allows for the safe view of on -coming vehicular traffic and pedestrians
by a driver exiting his or her driveway and does not cause a visual impairment that
would adversely affect the public health, as determined by the director of public
works; and
3. The height of the hedge exceeding 42 inches does not significantly impair a view
from the viewing area of a residential parcel as defined in Section 17.02.040 (View
Preservation and Restoration) of this title or from any public street or public
viewing station, which has been identified in the city's general plan or
coastal specific plan, as a city-designated viewing station.
4. The property owner submits a complete application and fee for a minor
exception permit site plan review permit and obtains approval of said permit. The
approval of said permit shall include a condition of approval that specifies the
hedge's permitted height above 42 inches and that the hedge shall be maintained
at said height.
C-9
5. Hedges that exceed 30 inches in height and are located within the intersection
visibility triangle shall be reviewed pursuant to the criteria set forth in
Section 17.48.070(D).
F. General Regulations.
1. Fences, walls and hedges shall be measured as a single unit if built or planted
within three feet of each other, as measured from their closest points, unless at
least one of the fences, walls or hedges is located on an adjoining lot held under
separate ownership. Perpendicular returns connecting two or more parallel walls
or fences shall not be considered portions of the wall or fence for purposes of
determining whether or not the fences or walls are a single unit.
2. Retaining walls may exceed the height limits of this section; provided, a grading
permit is approved pursuant to Section 17.76.040 (Grading Permit) of this title.
3. Fences or Walls—Required. All pools, spas and standing bodies of water
18 inches or more in depth shall be enclosed by a structure and/or a fence or wall
not less than five feet in height measured from the outside ground level at a point
12 inches horizontal from the base of the fence or wall. Any gate or door to the
outside shall be equipped with a self-closing device and a self-latching device
located not less than four feet above the ground. Such fences, walls and gates
shall meet city specifications and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the
city's building official.
4. The use of barbed wire is prohibited unless required by any law or regulation of
the state or federal government or any agency thereof. Electrified fencing may only
be allowed for the keeping of animals pursuant to Chapter 17.46 (Equestrian
Overlay (Q) District) of this title. All electrified fences shall contain a warning sign,
posted in a visible location, warning that an electrified fence is in use.
5. Chain link, chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in front yards
between the front property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-family
residence closest to the front property line, in side yards between the street -side
property line and the exterior facade of the existing single -family residence closest
to the street side property line, and within a rear yard setback which abuts the
following arterial streets identified in the city's general plan:
a. Crenshaw Boulevard;
b. Crest Road;
c. Hawthorne Boulevard;
d. Highridge Road;
e. Miraleste Drive;
f. Palos Verdes Drive East;
g. Palos Verdes Drive North;
h. Palos Verdes Drive South;
C-10
i. Palos Verdes Drive West; and
j. Silver Spur Road.
6. Replacement of Privately Owned Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets. Any
existing fence or wall that is part of an existing uniform fence or wall design and is
located within a rear yard setback of a private property located along any of the
arterial streets listed in Section 17.76.030(F)(5) shall be replaced or repaired at the
same height and location and with the same materials and color as the original
uniform fence or wall, to the satisfaction of the community development director.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Public Notification
The notice announcing the Commission’s review of the proposed amendments was
published on October 7, 2021 in the Palos Verdes Peninsula Newspaper. Staff has not
received any public comments since publishing the notice.
Environmental Assessment
The proposed code amendments comply with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff has determined that the propo sed text
amendments are exempt from environmental review under CEQA pursuant to
Section 15061(b)(3) as the amendments can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that new fence or wall proposals nor the enforcement of violating hedges will
have a significant effect on the environment.
CONCLUSION
The primary purpose of the proposed amendments is to strengthen the code to ensure
new fences, walls and hedges will not significantly impair views from locations within the
City where most of the public enjoy views.
In summary, the proposed amendments will achieve the following:
1. Bolster view protection from public areas, including the City’s vehicular view
corridors; and
2. New front yard fences, walls and hedges will require a view assessment be taken
from public areas during the review of a Minor Exception Permit application; and
3. Existing hedges will require a view assessment from public areas.
If the proposed amendments are adequate to the Planning Commission, Staff
recommends that the Commission forward the draft amendments to the City Council for
its final approval.
C-11
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternatives are availabl e for the
Planning Commission’s consideration:
1) Direct Staff to come back with modified language for consideration at a continued
public hearing; or
2) Direct Staff to come back at the next meeting with a resolution recommending
that the City Council reject the proposed code amendment.
ATTACHMENTS
• Draft P.C. Resolution
• Exhibit “A”- Proposed Amendments
• Excerpted May 4, 2021 City Council Meeting Minutes
C-12
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTER 17.76 (FENCES, WALLS, & HEDGES) OF TITLE 17
(ZONING) OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE
(CASE NO. PLCA2021-0004).
WHEREAS, the City’s General Plan seeks to protect views, called viewing
stations, enjoyed by the majority of the public (Visual Resources); and,
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2021, the City Council received a staff presentation about
preserving views from the City’s vehicular view corridors, as described in the General
Plan. During City Council discussion on the matter, the City Council identified fences
and walls that have been installed that impair views as taken from City vehicular view
corridors, and expressed concern that views from vehicular roadways are being eroded
throughout the City.
WHEREAS, on May 4, the City Council directed staff and the City’s Planning
Commission to explore code amendments that would ensure that new walls or fences
do not significantly impair roadway views from not only City’s view corridors or arterial
roads, but from all roadways within the City.
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the municipal code to strengthen fence,
wall and hedge regulations that require view impairment assessments from viewing
stations designated in the General Plan and to add public streets part of those view
assessments.
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2021, pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code, a public
notice was published in the Peninsula News, inviting public comments on the proposed
amendments to Section 17.76.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
(RPVMC).
WHEREAS, on October 26, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to Section 17.76.030 of the
RPVMC.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The facts set forth in the recitals of this Resolution are true and
correct and incorporated fully herein by reference.
Section 2: The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the
proposed code amendments to Section 17.76 (Fences, Walls, & Hedges) of Title 17
(Zoning) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, as presented in ‘Exhibit A’.
C-13
Section 2: The proposed amendments are consistent with the Rancho Palos
Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in that they uphold, not hinder, the
goals and policies of those plans.
Section 3: The proposed code amendments comply with the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff has determined that the
proposed text amendments are exempt from environmental review under CEQA
pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) as the amendments can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that new fence or wall proposals nor the enforcement of violating
hedges will have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 4: For the foregoing reasons, and based on information and findings
contained in the public record, including staff reports, minutes, records of proceedings,
and evidence presented at the public hearings, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes hereby recommends to the City Council that an Ordinance be
adopted entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
AMENDING CHAPTER 17.76 (FENCES, WALLS, & HEDGES) OF TITLE 17
(ZONING) OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO ENSURE
THAT NEW WALLS, FENCES, OR HEDGES DO NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIR
ROADWAY VIEWS (CASE NO. PLCA2021-0004)” in the form attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit “A”.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of October 2021.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
RECUSALS:
ABSENT:
___________________
Stephen Perestam
Chair
______________________
Ken Rukavina, P.E.
Director of Community Development
Secretary to the Planning Commission
C-14
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-__
EXHIBIT "A"
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. ____
Please see attached.
C-15
ORDIANCNE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES AMENDING CHAPTER 17.76 (FENCES, WALLS,
& HEDGES) OF TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE RANCHO
PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO ENSURE THAT
NEW WALLS, FENCES, OR HEDGES DO NOT
SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIR ROADWAY VIEWS
(CASE NO. PLCA2021-0004)
WHEREAS, the City’s General Plan seeks to protect views, called viewing
stations, enjoyed by the majority of the public (Visual Resources); and,
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2021, the City Council received a staff presentation about
preserving views from the City’s vehicular view corridors, as described in the General
Plan. During City Council discussion on the matter, the City Council identified fences
and walls that have been installed that impair views as taken from City vehicular view
corridors, and expressed concern that views from vehicular roadways are being eroded
throughout the City.
WHEREAS, on May 4, the City Council directed staff and the City’s Planning
Commission to explore code amendments that would ensure that new walls or fences
do not significantly impair roadway views from not only City’s view corridors or arterial
roads, but from all roadways within the City.
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the municipal code to strengthen fence,
wall and hedge regulations that require view impairment assessments from viewing
stations designated in the General Plan and to add public streets part of those view
assessments.
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2021, pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code, a public
notice was published in the Peninsula News, inviting public comments on the proposed
amendments to Section 17.76.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
(RPVMC).
WHEREAS, on October 26, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to Section 17.76.030 of the
RPVMC.
WHEREAS, on October 26, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing, and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2021-__, recommending that the City
Council adopt this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on _____, a public notice was published in the Palos Verdes
Peninsula News, providing a notice of a public hearing before the City Council on
_____; and
C-16
WHEREAS, on _____, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing
on this Ordinance, and all testimony was received was made a part of the public record;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all information presented to it,
including the Planning Commission findings, P.C. Resolution No. 2021-__, written staff
reports, and any testimony provided at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of the Ordinance have been
met.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES 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 fully herein by
reference.
B. It is the intent and purpose of this Ordinance that Section 17.76 (Fences,
Walls, & Hedges) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code be amended to ensure public area view assessments be
conducted for new fences, walls and hedges.
SECTION 2. The proposed code amendment to Title 17 adopted herein is
consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in that
it upholds, and does not hinder, the goals and policies of those plans.
SECTION 3: The proposed code amendments comply with the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff has determined that the
proposed text amendments are exempt from environmental review under CEQA
pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) as the amendments can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that new fence or wall proposals nor the enforcement of violating
hedges will have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 3. Chapter 17.76 of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (new text in bold underline):
A. Purpose. These standards provide for the construction of fences, walls and
hedges as required for privacy and for protection against hazardous conditions,
dangerous visual obstruction at street intersection and unnecessary impairment
of views.
B. Fence/Wall Permit.
1. Permit Required. A fence/wall permit shall be required for any fence or wall
placed within the rear yard or side yard setback adjacent to any contiguous or
abutting parcel (as determined by the director) or placed adjacent to or
C-17
abutting a public viewing station, which has been identified in the city's
general plan or coastal specific plan, as a city-designated viewing station,
except as specified below:
a. Fences or walls located where the grade differential between the
building pads of adjacent lots, measured perpendicular to the boundary
between the two properties contiguous to or abutting the fence, wall or
hedge, is two feet or less in elevation; or
b. Fences or walls where the subject lot is located upslope of any property
contiguous to or abutting the location of the fence, wall or hedge; or
c. Fences or walls when the top of the fence or wall is at a lower elevation
than that of the pad of the upslope lot.
2. Initial Site Visit. Upon submittal of an application and a site inspection fee, as
established by resolution of the city council, the director, or his/her
representative, shall conduct an initial site visit in order to determine the type of
application process that is required, as follows:
a. If based on the initial site inspection, the director or his/her designated
representative is able to determine that there will be no view impairment
to an adjacent property owner or no view impairment from a public
viewing station, which has been identified in the city's general plan
or coastal specific plan, as a city-designated viewing station, caused
by the proposed new fence or wall and the director can make the finding
described in Section 17.76.030(B)(3)(b), the fence/wall permit shall be
approved. Notice of said approval shall be sent to the property owners
adjacent to the subject property, pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Notice of
Decision by Director) of this title. An adjacent property owner may appeal
the director's decision to the planning commission pursuant to
Section 17.80.050 (Appeal to Planning Commission) of this title. The
decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council
pursuant to Section 17.80.070 (Appeal to City Council) of this title.
b. If the director is unable to determine that no view impairment will be
caused by the proposed new fence or wall, the applicant shall pay the
remainder of the application fee established by the city council and the
application shall be reviewed as described in subsection (B)(3) of this
section.
3. Findings. A fence/wall permit may be approved only if the director finds as
follows:
a. That the fence or wall would not significantly impair a view from the
viewing area, as defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential (RS)
Districts), of another property or a view from public property, a viewing
station, which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal
specific plan, as a city-designated viewing area. Within the City’s
Coastal Zone, roadway views shall be taken in accordance with the
City’s Coastal Specific Plan and/or City Council Policy No. 49. Within
residential viewing areas, views shall be taken from a standing position,
C-18
unless the primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated
position;
b. That foliage on the applicant's lot which exceeds 16 feet or the ridgeline
of the primary structure, whichever is lower, and significantly impairs a
view from the viewing area of another parcel, as defined in Chapter 17.02
(Single-Family Residential (RS) Districts) or a view from public property
which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan,
as a city-designated viewing station area, shall be removed trimmed or
removed prior to permit approval. This requirement shall not apply where
trimming or removal of the foliage would constitute an unreasonable
invasion of the privacy of the occupants of the property on which the
foliage exists and there is no method by which the property owner can
create such privacy through some other means permitted by this title that
does not impair a view from viewing area of another property;
c. That placement or construction of the fence or wall shall comply with all
applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code and general plan;
d. Notwithstanding finding (a) of this subsection (B)(3), the applicant's
request shall be approved if the director determines that findings of
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section listed above can be made and
either:
i. Denial would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy
of the occupants of the applicant's property and there is no method by
which the property owner can create such privacy through some other
means permitted by this title that would not significantly impair a view from
a viewing area of another property or from a public viewing station,
which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal
specific plan, as a city-designated viewing station; or
ii. Denial would prevent compliance with the swimming pool fencing
requirements contained in subsection (F)(3) of this section and there is no
reasonable method to comply with subsection (F)(3) of this section that
would not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another
property or from a public viewing station, which has been identified in
the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as a city-designated
viewing station.
4. Notice of Decision. The notice of decision of a fence/wall permit made pursuant
to Section 17.76.030(B)(3) shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of
property adjacent to the subject property. Notice of denial shall be given only to
the applicant. Any interested person may appeal the director's decision to the
planning commission pursuant to Section 17.80.050 (Appeal to Planning
Commission) of this title.
5. This decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council
pursuant to Section 17.80.070 (Appeal to City Council) of this title.
6. The director, the planning commission and city council may impose such
C-19
conditions on the approval of a permit as are necessary to protect the public
health, safety and welfare and to carry out the purpose and intent of this section.
7. In the case of conflict between the provisions of this section and other provisions
of the development code or the building code, the most restrictive provisions
apply.
C. Fence, Walls and Hedges Allowed Without a Permit. Unless restricted by
conditions imposed through a fence/wall permit issued pursuant to subsection B
of this Section 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges) which meet the following
requirements shall be allowed without a permit:
1. Residential Zoning Districts.
a. Fences, walls and hedges located within the front yard setback area
shall meet the following standards:
i. Up to 42 inches in height shall be permitted, except as restricted
by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070
(Intersection Visibility) of this title;
ii. When combined with a retaining wall, the total height may not
exceed 42 inches, except as further restricted by the intersection visibility
requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) of this title; and
iii. When located within the front yard of a flag lot and the front
property line of the flag lot abuts the rear or interior side property line of an
adjacent lot, up to seven feet in height shall be permitted, except for the
first 20 feet of the access way ("pole"), as measured from the location
where the pole abuts the street of access, in which case fences, and walls
and hedges shall be limited to 42 inches in height.
b. Fences, walls and hedges not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a) of this
section shall meet the following standards:
i. Fences and walls up to seven feet in height shall be permitted on
any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a) except as restricted by
Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) of this title;
ii. Hedges shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to
subsection (C)(1)(a), to a height that does not significantly impair a view
from surrounding property, as described in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family
Residential (RS) Districts), or from a public street or viewing station,
which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific
plan, as a city-designated viewing station, unless the director
determines that a specific hedge height is needed to prevent the
unreasonable invasion of privacy of the hedge owner and there is no other
method by which the hedge owner can protect their privacy;
iii. When combined, the total height of a fence, freestanding wall or
retaining wall may not exceed eight feet, as measured from grade on the
lower side, and may not exceed seven feet, as measured from grade on
the higher side;
c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96
C-20
(Definitions), up to seven feet in height may be located within front or street
side setback areas, pursuant to the temporary construction fencing
provisions of
Section 17.56.020(C) of this title.
2. Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
a. Fences, walls and hedges located within the front yard and street-side
setback areas shall meet the following standards:
i. Up to 42 inches in height shall be permitted, except as restricted
by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070
(Intersection Visibility) of this title;
ii. When combined with a retaining wall, the total height may not
exceed 42 inches in the front or street-side setback areas, except as
restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070
(Intersection Visibility) of this title; and
b. Fences/walls located behind front and street-side setbacks shall meet
the following standards:
i. Up to seven feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot
behind the front or street-side setback areas, except as restricted by the
intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Intersection
Visibility) of this title;
ii. When combined with a fence, the total height may not exceed
eight feet, as measured from grade on the lower side and may not exceed
seven feet as measured from grade on the higher side;
c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96
(Definitions), up to seven feet in height may be located within front or
street side setback areas, pursuant to the temporary construction fencing
provisions of
Section 17.56.020(C) of this title.
D. Fences, Walls and Hedges—Permitted With a Minor Exception Permit.
1. The following fences, walls and hedges shall be permitted subject to the
approval of a minor exception permit pursuant to Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception
Permits):
a. Fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), higher than 42 inches
and up to seven feet in height located in the front setback areas; provided,
the area between the street and any such fence is landscaped, per a plan
approved by the director of community development;
b. A fence or wall, or any combination thereof, located outside of a front
yard setback area which does not exceed 11½ feet in height as measured
from grade on the lower side and seven feet in height as measured from
grade on the higher side;
c. Fences higher than seven feet and up to ten feet in height and not
within the required setback areas or a combination of a three and one-half
C-21
foot retaining wall and recreational fencing of ten feet in height for
downslope and side yard fencing for tennis courts or similar recreational
facilities. The fence above the seven-foot height shall be constructed of
wire mesh, or similar material, capable of admitting at least 80 percent
light as measured on a reputable light meter.
2. In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception
Permits), the director of planning shall use but not be limited to the following
criteria in assessing such an application:
a. The height of the fence or wall will not be detrimental to the public
safety and welfare;
b. The line of sight over or through the fence is adequate for safety and
does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area, as defined in
Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this title, of
an adjacent parcel or from any public street or a public viewing
station, as defined in Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and
Restoration) of this title , which has been identified in the city's general
plan or coastal specific plan, as a city-designated viewing station;
c. On corner lots, intersection visibility as identified in Section 17.48.070
(Intersection Visibility) of this title is not obstructed; and
d. The height of the retaining portion does not exceed the grading limits
set forth in Section 17.76.040 (Grading Permit) of this title.
E. Hedges Permitted Within the Front Yard Setback. Hedges (not fences, walls or
combination thereof) that exceed 42 inches in height are allowed within the front-
yard setback, including the intersection visibility triangle, provided that:
1. No portion of the hedge will exceed six feet in height;
2. The location and/or height of the existing or proposed hedge exceeding
42 inches allows for the safe view of on-coming vehicular traffic and pedestrians
by a driver exiting his or her driveway and does not cause a visual impairment
that would adversely affect the public health, as determined by the director of
public works; and
3. The height of the hedge exceeding 42 inches does not significantly impair a
view from the viewing area of a residential parcel as defined in Section 17.02.040
(View Preservation and Restoration) of this title or from any public street or
public viewing station, which has been identified in the city's general plan
or coastal specific plan, as a city-designated viewing station.
4. The property owner submits a complete application and fee for a minor
exception permit site plan review permit and obtains approval of said permit.
The approval of said permit shall include a condition of approval that specifies
the hedge's permitted height above 42 inches and that the hedge shall be
maintained at said height.
5. Hedges that exceed 30 inches in height and are located within the intersection
visibility triangle shall be reviewed pursuant to the criteria set forth in
Section 17.48.070(D).
C-22
F. General Regulations.
1. Fences, walls and hedges shall be measured as a single unit if built or planted
within three feet of each other, as measured from their closest points, unless at
least one of the fences, walls or hedges is located on an adjoining lot held under
separate ownership. Perpendicular returns connecting two or more parallel walls
or fences shall not be considered portions of the wall or fence for purposes of
determining whether or not the fences or walls are a single unit.
2. Retaining walls may exceed the height limits of this section; provided, a
grading permit is approved pursuant to Section 17.76.040 (Grading Permit) of
this title.
3. Fences or Walls—Required. All pools, spas and standing bodies of water
18 inches or more in depth shall be enclosed by a structure and/or a fence or
wall not less than five feet in height measured from the outside ground level at a
point 12 inches horizontal from the base of the fence or wall. Any gate or door to
the outside shall be equipped with a self-closing device and a self-latching device
located not less than four feet above the ground. Such fences, walls and gates
shall meet city specifications and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the
city's building official.
4. The use of barbed wire is prohibited unless required by any law or regulation
of the state or federal government or any agency thereof. Electrified fencing may
only be allowed for the keeping of animals pursuant to Chapter 17.46 (Equestrian
Overlay (Q) District) of this title. All electrified fences shall contain a warning sign,
posted in a visible location, warning that an electrified fence is in use.
5. Chain link, chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in front yards
between the front property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-
family residence closest to the front property line, in side yards between the
street-side property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-family
residence closest to the street side property line, and within a rear yard setback
which abuts the following arterial streets identified in the city's general plan:
a. Crenshaw Boulevard;
b. Crest Road;
c. Hawthorne Boulevard;
d. Highridge Road;
e. Miraleste Drive;
f. Palos Verdes Drive East;
g. Palos Verdes Drive North;
h. Palos Verdes Drive South;
i. Palos Verdes Drive West; and
j. Silver Spur Road.
6. Replacement of Privately Owned Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets. Any
existing fence or wall that is part of an existing uniform fence or wall design and
C-23
is located within a rear yard setback of a private property located along any of the
arterial streets listed in Section 17.76.030(F)(5) shall be replaced or repaired at
the same height and location and with the same materials and color as the
original uniform fence or wall, to the satisfaction of the community development
director.
C-24
C-25
Council comments and return for re-consideration at a City Council meeting in the
near future.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Bradley, Cruikshank, Dyda, Ferraro, and Mayor Alegria
None
Mayor Alegria called for a brief recess at 9:33 P.M. The meeting reconvened at
9:41 P.M.
PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
Mayor Alegria reported that there was one .additional request to speak under Public
Comments for Non-Agenda Items.
The following member of the public addressed the City Council: Helen Fong.
5. Consideration and possible action to receive and file an informational report
on protecting public views. (Alvarez)
City Clerk Takaoka noted that late correspondence was distributed and there were
two requests to speak and one voicemail.
I
John Alvarez, Senior Planner, presented a staff report and PowerPoint presentation. I
Discussion ensued among Council Members.
The following members of the public addressed the City Council: Lenee Bilski; and
Edward Stevens (voicemail).
Discussion continued among Council Members and Staff.
Mayor Alegria moved to extend the meeting to 10:45 P.M. Without objection, Mayor
Alegria so ordered.
Councilmember Cruikshank moved, seconded by Councilmember Dyda, to: initiate a
code amendment process to consider amending the Zoning Code to preserve views
impaired by fences and walls along all roadways; and to include a recommendation
by the Planning Commission.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Bradley, Cruikshank, Dyda, Ferraro, and Mayor Alegria
None
6. Consideration and possible action to receive and file an update on the Sister
City Program with Sakura City. (Banales)
City Council Minutes
May 4, 2021
Page 8 of 9
I
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 05/04/2021
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to receive and file an informational report on
protecting public views.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS:
(1)Receive and file an informational report on how the City protects public views and
the City's practice in applying view protection policies to development projects.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: John Alvarez, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY: Ken Rukavina, P.E., Community Development Director
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A.Figure No. 1 Visual Resources of the General Plan (page A-1)
B.Figure No. 26 Coastal Specific Plan Visual Corridors and Figure No. 28 2-
degree arc of (page B-1)
C.City Council Policy No. 49 Coastal Specific Plan (page C-1)
BACKGROUND:
At the February 16, 2021 City Council meeting, during discussion on future agenda
items, Councilmember Cruikshank requested Staff prepare a report on views
experienced along the public right-of-way. The City Council agreed that this item should
be placed on a future agenda. Based upon the concerns expressed by Councilmember
Cruikshank and the public during the February 16 meeting, tonight’s report focuses on
information about preserving views along the City’s view corridors, particularly
preserving the views from the public view corridor along major arterial streets, as
described in the General Plan.
D-1
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
DISCUSSION:
General Plan - View Corridors
The City’s General Plan, the community’s vision for future development, is organized
into various elements concerning land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open
space, noise, safety and, related to this discussion, the Visual Resources element. The
Visual Resources element states that the City adopted and implemented various
ordinances and guidelines to protect visual resources as seen from private and public
property.
When the General Plan speaks to the preservation and enhancement of visual
resources, it not only calls for the protection of scenic areas, but also the protection of
the visual resources that include developed areas, i.e. structures (Wayfarers Chapel for
example) and landscaping (mature landscaping on Miraleste Drive for example). For the
purposes of this discussion, the General Plan specifies vehicular roadways that deserve
special view resource protection from significant development and foliage obstructions.
These “view corridors” are located along Palos Verdes Drive South, West, and East,
Crest Road, Hawthorne Boulevard, Crenshaw Boulevard, Silver Spur Road, Western
Avenue, Miraleste Drive and Highridge Road (Attachment A - see Figure No. 1 Visual
Resources).
The City has various ordinances, codes, methods, policies and guidelines by which the
City manages and preserves private and public views from significant development and
foliage obstructions. This is achieved through the City’s View Restoration and
Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines, the Height Variation Guidelines, the Coastal
Specific Plan (CSP) and City Council Policy No. 49.
Generally speaking, the City’s View Restoration and Preservation Ordinance protects
public views from structures, but the Ordinance does not protect public views from
foliage located on private property as viewed from the public right-of-way. However,
there are other City tools by which foliage located on City-owned property and private
property can be restricted from significantly impairing public and private views. The
CSP and City Council Policy No. 49 are germane to the discussion of enacted policies
intended to preserve views along public view corridors, particularly those scenic views
taken from Palos Verdes Drive South and Palos Verdes Drive West, as further
discussed below.
Coastal Specific Plan - Visual Corridors
Following the state mandate of the California Coastal Act, in 1978 the City Council
adopted the City's CSP thereby creating a Coastal District located seaward of Palos
Verdes Drive South and Palos Verdes Drive West. The CSP is intended to protect the
natural features, such as geology, shoreline character, and biota of the coastline while
controlling the character of development and providing access to the coast. Similar to
the City's General Plan, the CSP is divided into the following five elements: Natural
D-2
Environment Element, Socio/Cultural Element, Urban Environment Element, Fiscal
Element and the Corridor Element. It is within the Corridor element that the CSP
discusses visual corridors taken from linear paths, such as the Palos Verdes Drive
South and Palos Verdes Drive West roadways, within the Coastal District, which is
discussed in greater detail below.
Visual Corridor Element
As a policy, development projects, including residential and non -residential building
projects, in the City's Coastal District require the analysis of corridor impacts to mitigate
those impacts, particularly those impacts to public visual corridors established in the
Corridor Element of the CSP. According to the Corridor Element of the CSP, visual
corridors contain for both vistas and views. Vistas are defined as having a public
viewing station, object or objects to be seen and an intermediate group (i.e. former
Marineland). Views have a public viewing station, but do not have a specific focus or
object to be seen and have a broad focal point (i.e. Pacific Ocean). Viewing stations are
either continuous, such as Palos Verdes Drive South and Palos Verdes Drive West, or
localized, such as public roadway turnouts on the roads.
When discussing specific visual corridors, the CSP places particular emphasis in
protecting those object-based views or vistas, such as former Marineland, Point Fermin,
and Catalina Island. According to the CSP, specific visual corridors have the greatest
degree of visual value and interest to the greatest number of viewers. The CSP defined
and mapped specific visual corridors, taken from Palos Verdes Drive West and Palos
Verdes Drive South (Attachment B - see attached Figure 26 Visual Corridors). These
specific visual corridors are characterized in having a specific range or cone of vision as
one travels by vehicle along the Palos Verdes Drive roadways with horizontal and
vertical boundaries (Attachment B). Within specific visual corridors, the City applies
specific horizontal and vertical angle measurements, based on a 2-degree arc, zonal
height restrictions and a viewing station when reviewing development applications, such
as the Terranea Resort and Trump National Golf Club.
As an example, the application of the CSP and its visual corridor protections was
applied to the Terranea Resort project, which has three vista corridors that traverse the
property oriented towards Point Fermin and Catalina. As a result of applying the specific
visual corridor review criteria to this development, one of the villa buildings nearest to
the entry driveway was limited to one-story at a height not to exceed 16 feet because it
falls within Height Zone 1, while the main hotel building was permitted to exceed 30 feet
because it falls within Height Zone 3. Improvements located outside of the specific
visual corridors for the Terranea Resort project were not subjected to the Height Zones,
but rather the height limits established by the Commercial Recreation (CR) zoning
district and the provisions of the project's Conditional Use Permit findings.
For development projects that are not located in the CSP's specific visual corridors, the
CSP states that to protect the visual relationship between the roadway and ocean, no
building should project into a 2-degree down arc zone, as measured along the shortest
distance between the viewing station and the coastline (see attached Figure 28 2-
D-3
degree arc diagram). It should be noted that this is not a requirement for development
projects outside of specific view corridors, but rather a recommendation. It is thought
that this was not made a requirement by the CSP because of physical constraints
associated with topography that would make many properties unbuildable or costly
because of substantial grading and earth alteration to the topography, which is
discouraged by the City's General Plan, CSP, Environmental Overlay Control Districts,
and Zoning Code. Although the City has applied specific view corridor requirements to
projects that are within the specific view corridor, such as Terranea Resort and Trump
National Golf Club, the City has generally permitted structures that are not within a
specific view corridor and that comply with the "by-right" 16-foot height limit to encroach
into the 2-degree down arc zone and therefore impair ocean views. These projects are
rare as they tend to be limited to the few single-family residential lots that are located
along Palos Verdes Drive West and Palos Verdes Drive South. Nonetheless, the City
reviews these projects on a case-by-case basis to determine if a project has been
designed to minimize ocean view impacts from a viewing station per City Council Policy
No. 49 discussed below. Moreover, as previously noted, structures that exceed 16-feet
in height are subject to discretionary review including the Height Variation process to
protect views from private and public properties.
As noted throughout the visual corridor discussion above, the City is required to apply
height limitations to building projects that are located within a specific view corridor to
minimize or prevent public vista impairments, as defined by the CSP. For projects not
located within a defined specific view corridor, the CSP recommends that proposed
building structures comply with the 2-degree down arc and zonal height policy, where
reasonably feasible, to protect the ocean view.
City Council Policy No. 49
As mentioned in the preceding section, for those development projects not located in
the CSP's specific visual corridors, the CSP states that to protect the visual relationship
between Palos Verdes Drive South and West and the ocean, no building should project
into a 2-degree down arc zone, as measured along the shortest distance between the
viewing station and the coastline. In the past, the City determined viewing stations along
Palos Verdes Drive West and Palos Verdes Drive South based on topography, roadway
constraints and trail locations. In some instances, the view was seen from a seated
position in a vehicle, and in others, the view was taken from a standing/walking position
along a City trail.
In 2014, the City Council adopted Policy No. 49, to consistently establish the viewing
station for the purposes of applying the 2 -degree arc called for in the CSP for those
projects not located within a specific view corridor. The newly adopted policy requires
that the view station be identified as a point along the road where the best and most
important view exists at an elevation of 3 feet above the “fog line” or the painted white
bike lane on the seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive South and Palos Verdes Drive
West.
D-4
When not located within the CSP’s specific visual corridor, City Council Policy No. 49
applies to development projects, such as Height Variation Permit reviews and generally
other residential and non-residential building developments that are proposed seaward
of Palos Verdes Drive South and Palos Verdes Drive West, where staff reviews view
impacts from the “fog line”, which is the white stripped bike lane located on the seaward
side of Palos Verdes Drive South and West.
Development Code
The City’s Zoning Code, Chapter 17, contains a variety of codes that require Staff and
Planning Commission review of existing and potential view impairment impacts
associated with proposed walls, fences, foliage, and structures. The review and
preservation of views is generally focused on impacts taken from neighboring properties
and from public areas. For example: structures within the City’s Coastal District, those
properties seaward of Palos Verdes Drive South and Palos Verdes Drive West, are
subject to the review of view impacts taken from the public view corridor (Coastal Permit
Section 17.72 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code). With respect to other areas
of the City that are not be within the Coastal District, proposed structures exceeding
16 feet in height are also subject to the review of view impacts taken from the public
view corridor and from surrounding properties (Height Variation Permit). Within
residential zoning districts, fence and wall proposals are reviewed to ensure that they do
not significantly impair views taken from public areas, such as view corridors, and taken
from the viewing areas of homes (Section 17.76.030 - Fences, walls and hedges).
CONCLUSION
Based on the information contained herein, Staff recommends the City Council receive
and file this informational report on how the City protects public views and the City's
practice in applying view protection policies to development projects.
D-5
D-6<
l"'O
9
C> ~·
JI<" ~·
C'
0
,.->~•-•-",_
!"°-'...-I ,'
/ ~~ ;
;
i
Palos VerdP.s Estates I
I ;
----•·-•-··-•-·•-·-·-·J !
I
i
!
I
cean
./
'.S-4 ~¾
Rolling Hi lls
v~
~ l ~VII II •~,.,~ -,....._.I, ,., I
i
I
!
I
~ ,.,: \ y~ ,!
\/ " ··,., ,....Jr....''-"" .,,/ ---,,.. ·,.
7\
\ • ' __ _____i San Pedro )h
\
Visual Resources
* Manmade : Structural Focus Points
----¼Vistas ,--I~ Shoreline
-Views (Refer to the Coastal Specific Pia r----i L 'fortheextentofthe visual corridors)
l.....J Natural: Rural Areas, Sea Cliffs,
c=] Major Canyons, Major Ridges,
Significant Tree Groupings
Urban Design: Golden Cove Center,
Miraleste Area, Ocean Front Estates C::::J Tract, Sea Breeze Tract, Portuguese
Bend, Terranea, and Trump
t
0.5
Source:
City of Ra ncho Palos Verdes
Miles
Figure
1
D-7---catalina
catalina
pt . fermin
D
landmark
view corridor
hori zontal edges
v i ew corridors
hori zontal boundari es
partial
d irect full & indirect vertical zones JdP4 e: / I zone 1
kiP1
&iP1
e:21
r 11
zone 2
zone 3
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES \~ Io I sooj 1soo ! 3200
figura 28 typical sections
focal pe>int
~rc:-2· ~~~n~-______ ➔
'ro ?ROTE-CT THI$-VI SU.\L RELAT I CJ,.1:$-t-i IP OET WEE t,f
TH E ~!VIE -'!"ID DCEA N [N THO$!? Al'.'E.liS l!U-HCti .t.J;iE
NOT PART O'F it.t-.1 lOE:NTIFl@.D VIS.TA C!lR'RIOO.R. NO
9UlL~tN~~ ~ttOVLD PROJECT INTO A lo~ "EASURED
2:" DIJWNI -ARC FROM HORT ZONf .-.L ,u; ME A.S.UREO
ALOl',Q G THE S.tt~R't'I.ST Ol.STA~CE BET!ilEert 'T I E'.
\llti;WI NG STA;TCON AND· ThE CO.A.$'f"LJN@:.
D-8
CITY COUNCIL POLICY
NUMBER: 49
DATE ADOPTED/AMENDED: 9/16/14
SUBJECT: Coastal Specific Plan Corridors Element -Identifying a Viewing
Station to Assess Visual Impacts of a Proposed Project Located
Outside of a Visual Corridor
POLICY:
To protect the visual relationship between Palos Verdes Drive West/Palos Verdes
Drive South and the ocean in areas that are not part of an identified visual corridor,
as identified in Figure 26 of the Visual Element, the City's Coastal Specific Plan
states that no buildings should project into a zone measured 2-degrees down-arc
from horizontal as measured along the shortest distance between the "viewing
station" and the coastline (Page C-12 of the Coastal Specific Plan). It shall be the
policy of the City that for purposes of this requirement, the "viewing station" shall
be at an elevation that is 3-feet above the "fog line" (painted white line/bike lane
line) adjacent to the vehicle travelling lane along the seaward side of Palos Verdes
Drive West or Palos Verdes Drive South where the best and most important view
exists over the site of the proposed project which may or may not be adjacent to
the subject property line. This policy is not intended to supersede any existing
condition of approval that is more restrictive in preserving views from Palos Verdes
Drive West or Palos Verdes Drive South.
BACKGROUND:
The State of California's Coastal Act, enacted in 1976, mandates that coastal
jurisdictions establish a local coastal plan that regulates local land use decisions
within a defined coastal district. It is through the Coastal Act that the City's Coastal
Specific Plan (CSP) was adopted by the City Council on December 19, 1978
thereby creating a Coastal District located seaward of Palos Verdes Drive West
and South, along the City's 7.5 miles of coastline. The CSP is intended to protect
the natural features, such as geology, shoreline character, and biota of the
coastline while controlling the character of development and providing access to
the coast. Similar to the City's General Plan, the CSP is divided into five elements,
one of which is the Corridors Element.
The Corridors Element identifies five basic categories of "corridors." As utilized
within the CSP, the term "corridor" includes a full range of interrelated linear and
D-9
non-linear elements that provide functional, protection and preservation,
definitions and linking capabilities. One of the five corridors identified in the
Corridor Element is the category of visual corridors.
Visual corridors have dimensions for "vistas" and "views." Vistas have a viewing
station, object or objects to be seen and an intermediate area. Views have a
viewing station but do not have a specific focus or object to be seen and have
broad focal points which have an unlimited arc and depth. The visual corridors
identified in the CSP are considered to have the greatest degree of visual value
and interest to the greatest number of viewers. As a result, the CSP sets criteria
for identifying viewing stations to assess proposed development projects located
within identified visual corridors. Furthermore, the CSP establishes specific height
zones for projects located within the same identified visual corridors.
However, the CSP does not establish criteria for identifying viewing stations to
assess the visual impacts of development projects located outside of a CSP visual
corridor. This City Council policy establishes the criteria to be used to determine
the location of the "viewing station" in areas located outside of a specified view
corridor from which the visual impacts of proposed projects shall be assessed in
order to maximize the protection of vistas and views within the Coastal District.
From:John Alvarez
To:Leslie Chapin
Cc:aysanrangchian@gmail.com; B-Shujaat Ali; E-Noel Park; F-John Spielman; F-William Quan; L-Jonothan Hofeller;
V-Mohsen Saidinejad; W-Eugene and Stephanie Miyata
Subject:Re: Panoramic Ocean View Protections
Date:Friday, January 28, 2022 2:54:59 PM
Good afternoon Les,
Thank you for your comments. I will include them in the upcoming City Council staff report.
Regards,
John Alvarez
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
johna@rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5288
Due to the current surge of the COVID-19 Omicron Variant, Rancho Palos Verdes
City Hall will be closed to walk-in visitors through January 30, 2022, unless further
notification is provided. Several members of the City’s workforce are being asked to
work remotely during this time. Inquiries will continue to be reviewed on a daily basis.
Please be patient with us as there may be delays or minor inconveniences in
responding to your inquiry.
From: Leslie Chapin <les.alice@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 1:51 PM
To: John Alvarez <JohnA@rpvca.gov>
Cc: aysanrangchian@gmail.com <aysanrangchian@gmail.com>; B-Shujaat Ali
<shujaat1@gmail.com>; E-Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com>; F-John Spielman
<johnspielman@sent.com>; F-William Quan <williequan@yahoo.com>; L-Jonothan Hofeller
<jonathan.hofeller@gmail.com>; V-Mohsen Saidinejad <mohsenmd@ucla.edu>; W-Eugene and
Stephanie Miyata <esmiyata@hotmail.com>
Subject: Panoramic Ocean View Protections
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hello John,
Here are my comments relative to the Code Amendment changes for view assessment changes for
newly constructed fences, walls and hedges. And a quick reminder that proposition M was voted on
and approved by the voters in 1985, the intent being to protect and preserve all views including
“panoramic” views especially available from any of the city’s elevated locations. When proposition
M was codified by the city the results did not address panoramic views from anywhere in the city but
focused on neighbor to neighbor view obstruction issues. The result is that vegetation, especially
trees, have been allowed to grow causing our panoramic views to be slowly but certainly diminished.
E-1
Trees grow at about a foot a year so trees have grown approximately forty feet and have certainly
destroyed some of the city’s panoramic ocean views since the passage of proposition M. Those
interested are invited to drive from the Shell station at Granvia Altimira on Hawthorne Boulevard to
city hall continually glancing toward the ocean to see what you can see. Granted there is an opening
just south of Granvia Altimira for maybe 500 yards allowing ocean views. As you continue down
Hawthorne Boulevard what you see are huge trees that have been allowed to grow impeding the
city’s panoramic ocean views, including the huge trees at Ralphs market, Ryan park and even the
huge trees at city hall. Our ocean views have been slowly but surely diminished over the years.
Those interested are also invited to view the panoramic views from the four viewing benches
located at the west end of upper Hesse park. What you see are view obstructions caused by the
monstrous trees that have been allowed to impede our ocean views. Changes to the city codes to
include newly built fences, walls and hedges do not seem to improve the past and current view
obstruction issues. It seems the potential enforcement again will pit neighbors against neighbors
which has proven to be ineffective over the years. We are thanking you for your support in
maintaining our Pacific View neighborhood’s views impeded by Hesse Park vegetation through the
years. These comments do not offer much relative to the impending fence wall and hedges decision
code writing issues but since the view issue was reopened by the city I thought I would weigh in.
Les Chapin
6710 Verde Ridge Road
310-377-1139
les.alice@cox.net
E-2
Coastal Specific Plan- Visual Corridor Element
The City’s Coastal Specific Plan (CSP) defines and maps specific visual corridors, taken
from Palos Verdes Drive West and Palos Verdes Drive South (Figure 26 Visual
Corridors). These specific visual corridors are characterized in having a specific range
or cone of vision as one travels by vehicle along the Palos Verdes Drive roadways with
horizontal and vertical boundaries. Within specific visual corridors, the City applies
specific horizontal and vertical angle measurements, based on a 2-degree arc, zonal
height restrictions and a viewing station.
For development projects that are not located in the CSP's specific visual corridors, no
building should project into a 2-degree down arc zone, as measured along the shortest
distance between the viewing station and the coastline (see attached Figure 28 2-
degree arc diagram). It should be noted that this is not a requirement for development
projects outside of specific view corridors, but rather a recommendation. The City
reviews these projects on a case-by-case basis to determine if a project has been
designed to minimize ocean view impacts from a viewing station per City Council Policy
No. 49 discussed below.
The City is required to apply height limitations to building projects that are located within
a specific view corridor to minimize or prevent public vista impairments, as defined by
the CSP. For projects not located within a defined specific view corridor, the CSP
recommends that proposed building structures comply with the 2-degree down arc and
zonal height policy, where reasonably feasible, to protect the ocean view.
City Council Policy No. 49
City Council adopted Policy No. 49 establishes the viewing station for the purposes of
applying the 2-degree arc called for in the CSP for those projects not located within a
specific view corridor. The view station is identified as a point along the road where the
best and most important view exists at an elevation of 3 feet above the “fog line” or the
painted white bike lane on the seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive South and Palos
Verdes Drive West.
F-1
F-2---catalina
catalina
pt . f ermin
landmark
view corridor
horizontal edges
view corridors
horizontal boundaries
direct full
liiP4
tiD4
&iP1
partial
& indirect
e:21
EZI
[ Z I
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES \~ lo
figunt 28 typical sections
UC ,,..,._ local p,c>l"t
:1.1---------4
~re -2 ' below ltoti~o nt•I
---------➔
0 PROTECT THI..,. VI SU.\L ~ELAT IC ·st-1 I Po 8Ei WE E l\f
TH~ ~IVE .... ~o DCcAN IN THO$ A~E~S -~IC~ ARE
NO PART OF~ lOIEN T I 1£D VIS A CORRI~O~. ~O
9u1LD1~G~ $ttOULD PROJECT INTO A lO!'E MEA SURED
" DlJWNl -ARC -1:i'DM -OOT lON AL ""S "EA.S.UREO
6 LO _G HE SH:!:IR 'f' 51' D 1 ST A CE BEi illEi; NI i' I ~
~I Ew l ~G Sl~T[ON AND T~E COASTL]N~.
verti cal zones
zone 1
zone 2
zone 3
lsooj1soo 13200
F-3
CITY COUNCIL POLICY
NUMBER: 49
DATE ADOPTED/AMENDED: 9/16/14
SUBJECT: Coastal Specific Plan Corridors Element -Identifying a Viewing
Station to Assess Visual Impacts of a Proposed Project Located
Outside of a Visual Corridor
POLICY:
To protect the visual relationship between Palos Verdes Drive West/Palos Verdes
Drive South and the ocean in areas that are not part of an identified visual corridor,
as identified in Figure 26 of the Visual Element, the City's Coastal Specific Plan
states that no buildings should project into a zone measured 2-degrees down-arc
from horizontal as measured along the shortest distance between the "viewing
station" and the coastline (Page C-12 of the Coastal Specific Plan). It shall be the
policy of the City that for purposes of this requirement, the "viewing station" shall
be at an elevation that is 3-feet above the "fog line" (painted white line/bike lane
line) adjacent to the vehicle travelling lane along the seaward side of Palos Verdes
Drive West or Palos Verdes Drive South where the best and most important view
exists over the site of the proposed project which may or may not be adjacent to
the subject property line. This policy is not intended to supersede any existing
condition of approval that is more restrictive in preserving views from Palos Verdes
Drive West or Palos Verdes Drive South.
BACKGROUND:
The State of California's Coastal Act, enacted in 1976, mandates that coastal
jurisdictions establish a local coastal plan that regulates local land use decisions
within a defined coastal district. It is through the Coastal Act that the City's Coastal
Specific Plan (CSP) was adopted by the City Council on December 19, 1978
thereby creating a Coastal District located seaward of Palos Verdes Drive West
and South, along the City's 7.5 miles of coastline. The CSP is intended to protect
the natural features, such as geology, shoreline character, and biota of the
coastline while controlling the character of development and providing access to
the coast. Similar to the City's General Plan, the CSP is divided into five elements,
one of which is the Corridors Element.
The Corridors Element identifies five basic categories of "corridors." As utilized
within the CSP, the term "corridor" includes a full range of interrelated linear and
F-4
non-linear elements that provide functional, protection and preservation,
definitions and linking capabilities. One of the five corridors identified in the
Corridor Element is the category of visual corridors.
Visual corridors have dimensions for "vistas" and "views." Vistas have a viewing
station, object or objects to be seen and an intermediate area. Views have a
viewing station but do not have a specific focus or object to be seen and have
broad focal points which have an unlimited arc and depth. The visual corridors
identified in the CSP are considered to have the greatest degree of visual value
and interest to the greatest number of viewers. As a result, the CSP sets criteria
for identifying viewing stations to assess proposed development projects located
within identified visual corridors. Furthermore, the CSP establishes specific height
zones for projects located within the same identified visual corridors.
However, the CSP does not establish criteria for identifying viewing stations to
assess the visual impacts of development projects located outside of a CSP visual
corridor. This City Council policy establishes the criteria to be used to determine
the location of the "viewing station" in areas located outside of a specified view
corridor from which the visual impacts of proposed projects shall be assessed in
order to maximize the protection of vistas and views within the Coastal District.