CC SR 20240521 02 - Initiate Code Amendments Multiple Applications and Sign Code01203.0005/982192.1
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 05/21/2024
AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to initiate code amendment proceedings to Chapter
17.78.030 (Consideration of Multiple Applications) and Chapter 17.75 (Sign Code) of Title
17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1)Initiate code amendment proceedings to amend RPVMC Section 17.78.030
(Consideration of Multiple Applications) of Title 17 (Zoning) to prohibit multiple
Senate Bill (SB) 330 preliminary applications and/or multiple applications for the
same entitlement for mutually exclusive projects on the same property at the same
time; and,
(2)Initiate code amendment proceedings to amend RPVMC Section 17.75 (Sign
Code) of Title 17 (Zoning) regarding legal nonconforming signs.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact since these code amendment proceedings
are budgeted annually in the Community Development Department/Planning Division
budget.
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Brandy Forbes, AICP, Community Development Director
REVIEWED BY: Same as below.
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A.Existing Chapter 17.78.030 (Consideration of Multiple Applications) (page A-1)
B.Existing Chapter 17.75.140.B (Removal without compensation; legal
nonconforming signs) (page B-1)
BACKGROUND:
1
01203.0005/982192.1
From time-to-time, the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) warrants code
amendments to reflect current conditions, trends or to correct loopholes and/or
inconsistencies. Unlike other chapters in the RPVMC, code amendments proposed to the
City’s Zoning Code (Chapter 17 of the RPVMC) requires that the City Council first initiate
the code amendment proceedings followed by conducting public hearings by the Planning
Commission who then forwards a recommendation to the City Council for consideration
at a duly noticed public hearing.
Tonight, the City Council is being asked to initiate code amendment proceedings to
update the Zoning Code as it pertains to receiving multiple development applications on
individual properties and nonconforming signs.
DISCUSSION:
Multiple Applications
Although the RPVMC requires that when more than one permit or approval is necessary
for a single development project or use on the same site, the applications shall be
submitted simultaneously and processed concurrently, it has come to the attention of Staff
that there are no clarifications for how to address multiple SB 330 preliminary applications
and/or multiple applications for the same type of entitlement for different projects on the
same site at a given time when such applications are for projects that are mutually
exclusive. For example, an application for a single-family dwelling and a multi-family
dwelling on the same parcel where construction of one of the projects would physically
conflict with the construction of the other project.
Due to the tight review requirements of the State’s permit streamlining act in reviewing
land use approvals, if an applicant submits multiple applications for alternative projects
on the same site to be reviewed at the same time, this may cause confusion d uring the
reviews and burden the workload of Planning Division staff in having to review multiple
proposals/projects for the same site with the expedited 30 day completeness review
deadline.
Certainly, there may be circumstances where an applicant may submit a proposal and
then subsequently revise the application based on discussions with staff and logistics of
development. Due to the linear review of that application, that would be considered the
same project with revisions with the same application number. The RPVMC amendments
being considered would not apply in that circumstance. Rather the RPVMC amendments
would apply to multiple projects with different details (i.e., number of dwelling uni ts, height,
massing, setbacks, parking) that physically conflict with each other, where each of those
projects would warrant its own separate application and review.
It is important to address that there is an immediate need for this added stipulation in the
procedures of the RPVMC to ensure that there is not duplicative work being completed
when an applicant has not determined which project they want to pursue. With the added
deadline requirements instituted by the State, there is a need to eliminate confusion and
2
01203.0005/982192.1
prevent overburdened workloads of staff having to review several projects for the same
site at the same time.
Sign Code Amendments
On November 16, 2021, the City Council approved a comprehensive update of the City’s
Sign Code (Chapter 17.75 of the RPVMC). This update included regulations for both
commercial and non-commercial (residential) signs. These regulations are intended to
promote the public health, safety, and welfare and balance the City's interests in
aesthetics and traffic safety, with the interest of nonresidential uses and their patrons to
provide visible information relating to the services or goods provided.
On April 9, 2024, the Planning Commission approved a Sign Program for the shopping
center known as “Western Plaza” located at 29105-29229 S. Western Avenue. This
project originally included a proposed Variance and regulations to allow four free-standing
legal, non-conforming directory monument signs to be remodeled. However, based on
further review of the project information, including jurisdictional and design considerations
for these signs, the application for the free-standing monument signs was not included in
the proposed Sign Program. It was determined that the Variance section of the RPVMC
cannot be utilized for nonconforming signage, and that another method by which to allow
remodeling of existing legal, non-conforming signs would need to be investigated.
Staff and the City Attorney reviewed the current Sign Code and determined that it may be
difficult for businesses with legal non -conforming signs to remodel their signs and still
adhere to the current monument sign requirements which include a maximum height of
six feet and a maximum area of 40 ft2. Specifically, RPVMC §17.75.B.3 states:
3. Reconstruction of a legal nonconforming sign where 30 percent or more of the
sign structure is replaced must be brought into full compliance with this chapter.
However, depending on the age and/or condition of the sign, it may be impossible for an
applicant to maintain more than 70% of the original sign structure. Given that the City
wishes to facilitate the enhancing of the Western Avenue commercial corridor, St aff and
the City Attorney propose that the above code section be updated to allow the remodeling
and/or reconstruction of existing, legal, non-conforming monument signs, subject to
certain requirements. These may include but are not limited to:
• Limiting the remodeled sign structure to no greater than the existing height, width
and sign area;
• Ensuring that no portion of the remodeled/reconstructed sign extends into the
public right-of-way; and,
• Ensuring that the remodeled/reconstructed sign does not create a public health
and safety hazard, i.e., in relationship to driveway entrance/exit sightlines, etc.
If initiated, the code amendment process will begin with public hearings conducted by the
Planning Commission, in addition to consultation with the Zoning Code Update
Subcommittee. In this case, the Planning Commission serves in the advisory capacity
3
01203.0005/982192.1
and would forward a recommendation to the City Council for its consideration at a future
duly noticed public hearing. Once the item is scheduled for a Planning Commission
meeting, Staff anticipates this process to take approximately two months.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
This item was originally scheduled to have a public hearing and for City Council to
consider an urgency ordinance to adopt the amendments to RPVMC Section 17.78.030
(Consideration of Multiple Applications). Staff intend to prepare the amendments at an
accelerated pace for City Council to consider adoption of these amendments, so it was
determined that there wasn’t a need for the urgency ordinance at this time. Therefore a
public hearing was no longer warranted for this code amendment initiation request.
CONCLUSION:
Staff therefore recommends the City Council initiate code amendment proceedings to
Chapter 17.78.030 (Consideration of Multiple Applications) and Chapter 17.75 (Sign
Code) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for the
City Council’s consideration:
1. Identify specific code criteria within the RPVMC 17.78.030 that should or should
not be amended.
2. Direct Staff to take no action at this time.
3. Take other action, as deemed appropriate.
4
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
17.78.030. - Consideration of multiple applications.
When more than one permit, variance or other approval under title 16 (Subdivisions) and this title
is necessary for a single development project or use, the applicant shall submit all the
applications simultaneously and the applications shall be processed concurrently. Further, all the
applications may be considered by a single officer or agency of the city pursuant to this section.
If any of the applications would be presented to the planning commission for initial consideration
if filed singly, all the applications shall be presented to the planning commission as a package.
The planning commission shall then have the authority to act on each application as if the
planning commission were the officer, or agency of the city, authorized to act on such an
application by title 16 (Subdivisions) or this title.
If none of the applications would be presented to the planning commission for initial
consideration if filed singly, then all the applications shall be acted upon by the director as a
package. The director shall then have the authority to act on each application.
A decision of the director on a group of applications pursuant to this section may be appealed to
the planning commission pursuant to section 17.80.050 (Appeal to Planning Commission) of this
title. A decision of the planning commission on a group of applications, pursuant to section
17.78.030 (Consideration of Multiple Applications) of this chapter, may be appealed to the city
council pursuant to section 17.80.070 (Appeal to city council) of this title. An appeal of an
application that is part of a package shall serve as an appeal of the entire application package.
Unless an appeal is referred to the director pursuant to section 17.80.060(E) of this title, or to the
planning commission pursuant to section 17.80.080(A)(5) of this title, the appellate body may, in
its discretion, consider any issue, any permit or approval approved in the appealed package,
whether or not raised or identified in the notice of appeal. Unless an appeal is authorized by this
subsection, all decisions rendered pursuant to this section shall be final when rendered.
If any of the applications presented to the planning commission require final approval by the city
council, if filed singly, then all the applications shall be forwarded to the city council for final
action.
(Code 1981, § 17.78.030; Ord. No. 320, § 7(part), 1997)
5/13/24, 12:10 PM Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Code of Ordinances
about:blank 1/1A-1
A.
1.
2.
B.
1.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
2.
3.
17.75.140. - Removal without compensation; legal nonconforming signs.
Removal without compensation. The city may require removal, without compensation, of the
following signs:
Any sign installed without first complying with all ordinances and regulations in effect at the
time of its construction and erection or use.
Any sign found posted, or otherwise affixed upon any public property contrary to the
provisions of this chapter. Such signs shall be immediately removed by the city.
Legal nonconforming signs.
Legal nonconforming signs shall be removed without compensation if the sign meets any of
the following criteria:
Any sign, including its supporting structure, whose use has ceased, or has been
abandoned by its owner, for a period of not less than 90 days. Costs incurred in removing
an abandoned sign shall be charged to the property owner.
Any sign which has been more than 50 percent destroyed, and the destruction is other
than facial copy replacement.
Any sign that has been moved from its original location on the property, or any sign that
has been enlarged by more than five percent sign area or whose height has been
increased by five percent without the required approvals.
Any temporary sign which is beyond the time limits set within this chapter for its category
of temporary sign.
Any sign which, in the determination of the city's building official, is or may become a
danger to the public or which is unsafe.
Any sign which constitutes a traffic hazard not created by relocation of streets or
highways or by acts of the city or of the county.
Legal nonconforming signs must be maintained in accordance with section 17.75.080(F).
Reconstruction of a legal nonconforming sign where 30 percent or more of the sign structure
is replaced must be brought into full compliance with this chapter.
(Ord. No. 652, § 3(17.75.140), 11-16-2021)
5/13/24, 12:13 PM Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Code of Ordinances
about:blank 1/1B-1