CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM TO:
CHAIRMAN & MEMBERS OF THE P
FROM:
JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEVELOP
DATE:
DECEMBER 13, 2011
SUBJECT:
CODE AMENDMENT TO REVISE RPVMC CHAPTER 17.90 • INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE (CASE NO. ZON2011·00168)
Staff Coordinator: Abigail Harwell, Assistant Planner"RECOMMENDATION
1.)
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2011_ , recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. _ , a Code Amendment revising RPVMC Chapter 17.90, thereby allowing the administrative adjustment of an open-space hazard zoning district boundary line from thirty (30) feet to one-hundred (100) feet through an interpretation procedure (Case No. ZON2011-00168); and,
2.)
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the application fees associated with a request for an Interpretation Procedure to adjust an open-space hazard district boundary line be waived until the update of the General Plan, which will include updated mapping of the hazard areas Citywide, has been adopted by the City Council.
BACKGROUND
When the City's Official Zoning Map was first adopted in 1975, one of the zoning districts identified on the map was the open-space hazard (OH) zoning district. According to the City's Development Code (Chapter 17.32), the OH district ''prevents unsafe development of hazardous areas that must be preserved or regulated for public health and safety purposes." The OH zoning district areas identified in the 1975 zoning map were based upon general information available to the City at that time. Generally speaking, the OH zoning district is comprised of areas where the slope exceeds 35%, areas experiencing downslope movement, areas unstable for development, areas where grading of the land may endanger public health and safety due to erosion, the ocean bluff areas, and areas subject to flooding from storm water. As such, the OH zoning district boundary lines adopted in 1975 do not follow lot lines but instead cross over lot lines and often even cross
1
Planning Commission Meeting Code Amendment: Interpretation Procedure December 13, 2011
over developed residences. In 1997, Ordinance No. 320 adopted various amendments and changes to Title 16 and 17 of the City's Municipal Code, including the creation of a new Interpretation Procedure chapter of the Development Code (Chapter 17.90). Among other things, this chapter allows the adjustment of zoning or special district boundary lines up to 30 feet from the location depicted on the City's Official Zoning Map, if such adjustments are necessary to resolve uncertainty as to the precise location of such zoning or special district boundary lines. In the case of an interpretation involving the location of an OH zoning district boundary line, the consideration is based on geological and/or soils reports. The Interpretation Procedure provides property owners with an opportunity to make adjustments to the zoning district boundary lines on their property without having to process a change to the City's official Zoning Map, which can be time consuming and costly to a property owner. Since adoption of the Interpretation Procedure in 1997, the City has received and processed three different requests from individual property owners of residentially developed properties to adjust the location of the OH boundary line on their property. In all of these instances, the Director interpreted that the OH boundary line could be moved up to 30 feet, based upon geological and/or soils reports submitted by each applicant and approved by the City Geologist determining that doing so would not cause harm to the subject property nor the neighboring area. Since 2005, there have also been three cases where individual property owners have sought to move the OH boundary line on their property more than 30 feet. In these cases, they received City Council approval of a Zone Change to do so. It should be noted that most property owners are usually unaware that an OH zoning designation is on their property until they propose development . or changes to their property. In such cases, the property owner will choose to work around the OH area, adjust the OH zoning designation, or not pursue the project envisioned for the OH area. Earlier this year, the Planning Commission conducted a series of public hearings to update the hazard areas depicted on the General Plan Land Use Map to match the OH areas depicted on the City's parcel specific Zoning Map. As part of the hearing process, over 600 property owners received public notice if portions of their property contained OH areas. As a result, many residents wrote letters and spoke at the hearing with concerns about the presence of OH areas on their property. While Staff explained that the OH areas have been in place since adoption of the Zoning Map in 1975 and they are not being proposed to be changed, many residents felt that it was wrong to have these existing OH areas located over improved portions of their property in the first place. At that time, Staff noted that to address these concerns, Staff proposed initiating a code amendment that would provide greater ability for property owners to adjust the OH boundary lines on their property. The Planning Commission agreed with this proposal. On October 18,2011, at the request of Staff, the City Council initiated a Code Amendment to amend the Interpretation Procedure to allow the Community Development Director to make adjustments to an OH boundary line location from thirty feet to one-hundred feet without the processing of a Zoning Map amendment, on a 3-0 vote (Councilman Campbell
2
Planning Commission Meeting Code Amendment: Interpretation Procedure December 13,2011 and Mayor Long were absent). The purpose of said code amendment is to provide a property owner a more flexible and simplified mechanism to adjust the boundary line of a zoning designation on their property without having to go through the costly and timeconsuming zoning map amendment process. The excerpted minutes from the October 18th meeting have been attached to this report. It should be noted that during the public hearing and in correspondence received priorto the meeting, some members of the public suggested that in addition to increasing the allowed adjustment distance that revisions be made to the entire Chapter 17.90 to clarify the process as well as make clear that a property owner can make a request for a boundary adjustment on their own property. Staff and the City Council agreed with this suggestion. On November 17, 2011, Staff mailed out 1,160 notices to property owners with property that was identified to have some portion of the OH zoning district on their property. As of the writing of this Staff Report, eight items of correspondence have been received by Staff (attached). Also, several property owners either called or visited the Community Development Department to further understand the issue, although they did not provide written comments. DISCUSSION In order to provide property owners further flexibility in adjusting the OH zoning district boundary, and to address public concern as to the process and authority of such interpretations, Staff is recommending the changes as noted below to Chapter 17.90 (strikethrough text for language removed, and bold and underlined text for new language). In addition to changing the allowable maximum adjustment distance of the OH . boundary line from 30 feet to 100 feet, changes are being proposed to clarify the different type of possible interpretations that can be requested, the submittal requirements for a boundary line adjustment request, and how such interpretations will be memorialized. 17.90.010 - Purpose and scope. This chapter provides a procedure for the following interpretations to the Municipal Code: A. In case! of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of any provision of Title 16 or Title 17 of this Code, or to further define or enumerate the uses permitted in the various zones, and upon proper initiation as provided in Section 17.90.020 of this chapter, the follOWing procedure shall be follo'lt'ed if a code amendment is not initiated. Said interpretations shall be generally applicable to all situations of the same type and shall not be limited or directed to specific parcels or circumstances thereon. B. An adjustment of an open-space hazard zoning or special district boundary line (except within the coastal zone) up to one hundred (100) feet from the location depicted on the city's official zoning map except for a coastal specific plan setback zone boundary of up to thirty feet from the scaled location on the zoning map also may be accomplished under this procedure if a code amendment is not initiated, and if such adjustment is necessary to demarcate a more accurate and precise location of the open-space hazard district boundary line on the official zoning map, based on site conditions and approved geology of such zoning or special district boundary. C. An adjustment of a Coastal specific plan setback zone boundary lines, or open-space hazard district boundary lines within the coastal zone, up to five (5) feet from the
3
Planning Commission Meeting Code Amendment: Interpretation Procedure December 13,2011 location depicted on the city's official zoning map, may only be adjusted up to fi'.le feet.IT such adjustment is necessary to demarcate a more accurate and precise location of the open-space hazard district boundary line on the official zoning map, based on site conditions and approved geology. under the interpretation procedure described in this chapter. Except in the case of a zoning or special district boundary adjustment, interpretations shall be generally applicable to all future situations of the same type and shall . not be limited or directed to specific parcels or circumstances thereon. D. An adjustment to a zoning or special district boundary line, other than the open-space hazard district boundary line or coastal specific plan setback zone boundary lines, of up to thirty (30) feet from the location depicted on the zoning map, if such adjustment is necessary to demarcate a more accurate and precise location of the open-space hazard district boundary line on the official zoning map, based on site conditions and approved geology. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997) 17.90.020 -Initiation. A. The preparation of an An interpretation related to Section 17.90.010.A, 17.90.010.C or 17.90.101.D may be initiated by the city council, planning commission, view restoration commission or director, or by any person upon the written request and payment of fee, as established pursuant to city council resolution, by any person. 8. An interpretation related to Section 17.90.010.8 may only be initiated by the owner of the property which said open-space hazard zoning boundary line traverses. Said interpretation requests shall be accompanied with the appropriate fee, as established pursuant to city council resolution. The written interpretation request shall indicate the property address, the requested distance that the zoning district boundary line is to be moved from the location depicted on the zoning map, and the property owner's original signature. Furthermore, said written request shall be accompanied by a scaled site plan, indicating the property lines, the existing open-space hazard boundary line and the proposed new boundary line with the scaled distance of movement, as well as any geological and/or geotechnical studies required by the city to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city's geotechnical staff that the proposed adjustment of an open space hazard zoning district boundary line will not endanger the public health, safety and welfare. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997) 17.90.030 - Basis of interpretation. A. An interpretation shall be based on an examination of the intent of this Code, considering all the relevant provisions thereof, and shall be consistent with such intent. Consideration shali be given to the relationship among the regulations of the various zoning classifications and the uses and development standards therein. B. In the case of an interpretation involving further definition or enumeration of uses permitted in a particular zone, consideration shall be given to the similarities and differences between the characteristics of each use subject to interpretation and the characteristics ofthose uses expressly permitted in the zone. C. In the case of an interpretation involving the location of an open space hazard zoning district or coastal specific plan setback zone boundary line on the city's official zoning map, consideration shall be based on geotechnical and/or soils reports. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997)
4
Planning Commission Meeting Code Amendment: Interpretation Procedure December 13,2011 17.90.040 - Preparation, notice and transmittal. A. For interpretations related to Section 17.90.01 O.A. ~ithin thirty days after the initiation of an interpretation, the director shall prepare a written interpretation and transmit it to the planning commission and the city council and shall give public notice that such interpretation has been prepared. Such notice shall be published and given to the property owner, any interested parties, and any affected homeowner associations, as required for a code amendment, pursuant to Chapter 17.68 (Zone Changes and Code Amendments) of this title. €h- Within fifteen calendar days after the date of the notice, the planning commission, city councilor any interested person may make a written request to the director for a hearing. If no such request for a hearing is received, the interpretation shall become effective and final fifteen calendar days after the date of the notice. 8. For interpretations pursuant to Sections 17.90.010.8, 17.90.010.C or 17.90.010.0" within thirty days after the initiation the director shall prepare a written interpretation and transmit it to the person requesting the interpretation, the property owner affected by the interpretation and any interested person. Within fifteen calendar days after the date of the notice, the person requesting the interpretation, the property owner affected by the interpretation and any interested person may appeal the decision of the director to the planning commission and any decision of the planning commission to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997) 17.90.050 - Planning commission hearing and action. A. If a request for an interpretation hearing related to Section 17.90.010.A is received, or ifan appeal of a director interpretation pursuant to Section 17.09.010.8, 17.09.010.C, or 17.09.010.0 is filed, a hearing shall be held by the planning commission within thirty calendar days of the date of such request/appeal. B. After the hearing, the planning commission may, by resolution, adopt the proposed interpretation, adopt a modified or different interpretation, or refer the matter to the director for further study. Failure of the planning commission to act within sixty calendar days after the close of the hearing shall be deemed an approval of the director's interpretation. C. If the planning commission refers the matter to the director for further study, the director shall prepare and submit another interpretation in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.90.040 of this chapter. D. Unless the planning commission refers the interpretation to the director for further study, the director shall give written notice of the decision of the planning commission to the applicant, any interested person, and any affected homeowner association pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title. The decision ofthe planning commission shall become effective and final fifteen calendar days after the date of notice of its action, unless an appeal to the city council is filed in accordance with Section 17.80.070 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title. (Amended during 11-97 supplement; Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997) 17.90.060 - Book of interpretations. When an interpretation pursuant to Section 17.90.010.A is given final approval by the director, planning commission or city council, the director shall enter the interpretation in a book of interpretations which shall be preserved and made accessible to any interested person. When an interpretation pursuant to Sections 17.90.010.8, 17.90.010.C or 17.90.010.0 is given final approval, the interpretation shall be noted in the city's file on the subject property and
5
Planning Commission Meeting Code Amendment: Interpretation Procedure December 13, 2011 updated on the city's official zoning map through the procedure identified in Section
17.88.020.E. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT On June 29, 2010, the City Council certified a Negative Declaration (ND) in conjunction with the adoption of the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee (RDSSC) Code Amendment and Zone Change (Planning Case No. ZON2007-00377). The RDSSC Code Amendment involved modifications to miscellaneous provisions of the Development Code, which (with the certification of the ND) the City Council found to have no significant impacts upon the environment. In addition, on September 21, 2010, the City Council adopted Addendum NO.1 to the certified ND, to make minor changes to Chapter 17.38 of the Development Code to correct the omission of Specific Plan District VII, and to change the designation of specific plan districts from numbered to descriptive titles. The proposed code amendment is to revise code language related to the Interpretation Procedure requirements of Chapter 17.90 of the Development Code. Staff believes that the proposed code amendment revisions are within the scope of the miscellaneous Development Code revisions analyzed in the ND for the RDSSC Code Amendment. Therefore, Staff has prepared Addendum NO.3 to the RDSSC Code Amendment ND to address the compliance of the revisions to Chapter 17.90 with the provisions of CEQA. Addendum No. 3 is attached to the ordinance presented for the City Council's consideration. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Public Correspondence As previously noted, eight items of correspondence were received in response to the notice that was sent on November 17, 2011 to all property owners identified to have OH areas on their property. The first e-mail was received on November 26, 2011 from Barbara Huffman. In her e-mail.Ms. Huffman writes in support of the proposed code amendment and an opportunity to possibly increase the movement of the OH boundary line on her property from 30 feet to 100 feet. It should be clarified, however, that a geological or geotechnical study would be required as part of an interpretation request to adjust the OH boundary line, a requirement that has always been necessary as part of the interpretation procedure and is not proposed to be eliminated in order to justify that the adjustment to the boundary line will not endanger the public health, safety and welfare. The second e-mail was received on November 27,2011 from James and Jane Jones, of 2747 Vista Mesa, asking what the "implication and obligation of this [code amendment is] to us as the property owner." In response, as this was a question that was commonly asked by other recipients of the notice who contacted Staff, the proposed code amendment would provide an option for those currently impacted by the OH areas on their property. The property owner can only make the request for adjustment of the boundary
6
Planning Commission Meeting Code Amendment: Interp'retation Procedure December 13, 2011
line on their own property. A successful adjustment of the OH boundary line that creates more developable area on a property would then allow the property owner to proceed with applications for development in said area consistent with their respective zoning district. The third item was a letter submitted on November 30,2011 by Maurice Williams, of 2152 Van Karajan Drive. Mr. Williams writes in protest of the proposed code amendment, believing that his property was incorrectly zoned in 1984 to be completely within an OH area and feels that the City should correct these OH zoning district depictions, not the property owners themselves. He is of particular concern with the depiction of the OH areas within the Eastview area of the City, annexed in 1983. The fourth item was an e-mail received on December 2, 2011 from Jeff Koehler, of 28039 Calzada Drive. Mr. Koehler writes that his house was built in 1965 on a pad lot and the depiction of the OH area on his property "seems rather arbitrary." He further comments that it does not make sense for him to have to a geological survey done for his property to move the OH boundary line when there are other possible options, and he would support another "reasonable method other than [an] expensive geological survey to adjust the boundary." The fifth item was an e-mail received on December 4, 2011 from Joe Gasperov, of 28036 Calzada Drive, who agrees with the comments made by Mr. Koehler. The sixth and seventh letters were received on December 5, 2011 from Jeanne Lacombe, writing as both the property owner of 2052 Galerita Drive and as the President of the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association. Ms. Lacombe feels it is wrong to have OH area identified on both her property but also on other properties within the Eastview area. She proposes that the City Geologist and City Staff work with homeowners to re-evaluate . the OH areas in the City, believing that "it is unreasonable for each homeowner affected by the open space hazard to endure the process of getting each property re-zoned and suffering the financial cost to do so." Further, Ms. Lacombe suggests that this proposed code amendment to the interpretation procedure be postponed until such an evaluation is complete. The eighth e-mail was received on December 6, 2011 from John McCowan, of 2064 Galerita Drive. Mr. McCowan comments that he was not aware of the QH area on his property and finds it unfair and unreasonable to have to pay to have the OH boundary line adjusted on his property. Concurring along the lines of Ms. Lacombe's comments previously noted, Mr. McCowan believes that the OH areas should be re-evaluated to eliminate the need for the proposed adjustment change of the Interpretation Procedure. As noted in the public comments described above, some residents believe that due to the lack of precision in depicting the OH areas on the City's original zoning map, the City should take the lead in better delineating the OH boundary lines instead of requiring individual property owners to go through the Interpretation Procedure to adjust the OH boundary line on their property at their own expense. Staff agrees that the OH districts depicted on the zoning map need to be re-evaluated Citywide and adjustments made to make them consistent with the existing geologic and topographic conditions. As a result, Staff has tasked the City Geologist with assessing the hazard area depictions Citywide and
7
Planning Commission Meeting Code Amendment: Interpretation Procedure December 13, 2011 make any adjustments/corrections as part of the ongoing General Plan update. Conversely, any adjustments made to the hazard areas depicted on the General Plan Land Use map will be made to the same OH areas depicted on the City's zoning map. The revised Interpretation Procedure proposed by Staff would provide a mechanism for property owners to adjust the OH boundary line up to 100 feet as currently depicted on the zoning map. Because it may take up to another year to update the OH lines as part of the General Plan update, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Interpretation Procedure fee be waived for OH boundary line adjustments until the General Plan update and associated zoning map update is completed and adopted by the City Council. CONCLUSION As the current Municipal Code reads, the existing maximum allowable movement of an open space hazard zoning district boundary line of 30 feet through the Interpretation Procedure defined in Chapter 17.90 may not be sufficient. To provide additional flexibility to these properties without the initiation of a costly and lengthy zone change, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a Code Amendment to revise Municipal Code Chapter 17.90. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation, below are alternatives for Planning Commission to consider: 1) Determine that the current Interpretation Procedure as described in Chapter 17.90 should be retained as codified and direct Staff to return with the appropriate resolution at the next Planning Commission meeting; or 2) Propose alternative or additional amendments to Chapter 17.90, and direct Staff to modify the proposed amendments as such for further discussion by the Planning Commission at the next Planning Commission meeting.
ATTACHMENTS: • PC Resolution No. 2011-_, recommending Council adoption of the Code Amendment • Exhibit "A" - Addendum No.3 to Negative Declaration • October 18, 2011 City Council Minutes • E-mail from Barbara Huffman, dated November 26, 2011 • E-mail from James & Jane Jones, dated November 27,2011 • Letter from Maurice Williams, dated November 30, 2011 • E-mail from Jeff Koehler, dated December 2,2011 • E-mail from Joe Gasperov, dated December 4, 2011
8
Planning Commission Meeting Code Amendment: Interpretation Procedure December 13, 2011 • • •
Two letters from Jeanne Lacombe, dated December 1, 2011 E-mail from John McCowan, dated December 6, 2011 Existing Municipal Code Chapter 17.90
9
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2011A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REVISING SECTION 17.90 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE, THEREBY CHANGING THE ALLOWABLE MOVEMENT OF AN OPENSPACE HAZARD BOUNDARY LINE FROM THIRTY (30) FEET TO ONE-HUNDRED (100) FEET THROUGH THE INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE (CASE NO. ZON2011-00168). WHEREAS, on April 15, 1997, Ordinance No. 320 was adopted by the City Council for various amendments and changes to Title 16 and 17 of the City's Municipal Code, including the creation of the Interpretation Procedure (Chapter 17.90); and, WHEREAS, Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 allows discretionary adjustment of zoning or special district boundary lines depicted on the City's Official Zoning Map without the processing of a Zone Change, as well as allows interpretations to be made in cases of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of the City's Building or Development Codes; and, WHEREAS, since adoption of the Interpretation Procedure in 1997, the City has processed interpretations on six different properties where the Open Space Hazard ("OH") District was located on the developed portion of a residential property and the OH District boundary line could be moved with minimal overall impact to the Zoning Map; and, WHEREAS, based upon the comments from the public and the Planning Commission, it was suggested that the City consider increasing the allowable movement of a boundary line through the Interpretation Procedure described in Chapter 17.90; and, WHEREAS, on October 18, 2011, the City Council initiated a Code Amendment to revise Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 to amend the Interpretation Procedures to allow the Community Development Director, upon initiation by the property owner, to make administrative adjustments of a zoning or special district boundary line from thirty feet to one-hundred feet without the processing of a Zoning Map amendment; and, WHEREAS, on November 17, 2011, Staff mailed out 1,160 notices to property owners with property that was identified to have some portion of the OH zoning district on their property; and,
P.C. Resolution No. 2011-_ Page 1 of 9
10
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2011, notice of a public hearing on the proposed amendments to Chapter 17.90 of the Municipal Code was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environrnental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 2100 et seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code Regulations, Title 14, Section 1500 et seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City determined that there is not substantial evidence that the code amendment would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment. Accordingly, Addendum No. 3 to the Negative Declaration, which was prepared in conjunction with the adoption of Ordinance No. 510, has been prepared and is attached to this resolution; and, WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on December 13, 2011, at which time all interested parties were give an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: That the arnendrnents to Title 17 of the Municipal Code are consistent with California Government Code Section 65853, zoning amendment procedures. Section 2: That the amendments to Title 17 are consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in that they uphold, and do not hinder, the goals and policies of those plans. Specifically, the revisions to Chapter 17.90 will allow property owners more flexibility to adjust the open space hazard zoning district boundary line to more accurately reflect the built environment of the existing property. Section 3: That the amendments to Chapter 17.90 are necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare in the area Section 4: That Chapter 17.90 (Interpretation Procedure) of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby revised as follows (strikethrough text for language removed, and bold and underlined text for new language):
17.90.010 - Purpose and scope. This chapter provides a procedure for the following interpretations to the Municipal Code: A. In case~ of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of any provision of Title 16 or Title 17 of this Code, or to further define or P.C. Resolution No. 2011-_ Page 2 of 9
11
enumerate the uses permitted in the various zones, and upon proper initiation as provided in gection 17.90.020 of this chapter, the follO'.\Iing procedure shall be follO'....ed if a code amendment is not initiated. Said interpretations shall be generally applicable to all situations of the same type and shall not be limited or directed to specific parcels or circumstances thereon. B. An adjustment of an open-space hazard zoning or special district boundary line (except within the coastal zone) up to one hundred (100) feet from the location depicted on the city's official zoning map except for a coastal specific plan setback zone boundary of up to thirty foet from the scaled location on the zoning map also may be accomplished under this procedure if a code amendment is not initiated, arl4 if such adjustment is necessary to demarcate a more accurate and precise location of the open-space hazard district boundary line on the official zoning map, based on site conditions and approved geology of such zoning or special district boundary. C. An adjustment of a Coastal specific plan setback zone boundary lines, or open-space hazard district boundary lines within the coastal zone, up to five (5) feet from the location depicted on the city's official zoning map, may only be adjusted up to five foet if such adjustment is necessary to demarcate a more accurate and precise location of the open-space hazard district boundary line on the official zoning map, based on site conditions and approved geology. under the interpretation procedure described in this chapter. Except in the case of a zoning or special district boundary adjustment, interpretations shall be generally applicable to all future situations of the same type and shall not be limited or directed to specific parcels or circumstances thereon. O. An adjustment to a zoning or special district boundary line, other than the open-space hazard district boundary line or coastal specific plan setback zone boundary lines, of up to thirty (30) feet from the location depicted on the zoning map, if such adjustment is necessary to demarcate a more accurate and precise location of the open-space hazard district boundary line on the official zoning map, based on site conditions and approved geology. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997) 17.90.020 - Initiation. A. The preparation of an An interpretation related to Section 17.90.010.A, 17.90.010.C or 17.90.101.0 may be initiated by the city council, planning commission, view restoration commission or director, or by any person upon the written request and payment of fee, as established pursuant to city council resolution, by any person. B. An interpretation related to Section 17.90.010.B may only be initiated by the owner of the property which said open-space hazard zoning boundary line traverses. Said interpretation reguests shall be accompanied with the appropriate fee, as established pursuant to P.C. Resolution No. 2011-_ Page 3 of 9
12
city council resolution. The written interpretation request shall indicate the property address, the requested distance that the zoninq district boundary line is to be moved from the location depicted on the zoning map, and the property owner's original signature. Furthermore, said written request shall be accompanied by a scaled site plan, indicating the property lines, the existing open-space hazard boundary line and the proposed new boundary line with the scaled distance of movement, as well as any geological and/or geotechnical studies required by the city to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city's geotechnical staff that the proposed adjustment of an open space hazard zoning district boundary line will not endanger the public health, safety and welfare. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997) 17.90.030 - Basis of interpretation. A. An interpretation shall be based on an examination of the intent of this Code, considering all the relevant provisions thereof, and shall be consistent with such intent. Consideration shall be given to the relationship among the regulations of the various zoning classifications and the uses and development standards therein. B. In the case of an interpretation involving further definition or enumeration of uses permitted in a particular zone, consideration shall be given to the similarities and differences between the characteristics of each use subject to interpretation and the characteristics of those uses expressly permitted in the zone. C. In the case of an interpretation involving the location of an open space hazard zoning district or coastal specific plan setback zone boundary line on the city's official zoning map, consideration shall be based on geotechnical and/or soils reports. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997) 17.90.040 - Preparation, notice and transmittal. A. For interpretations related to Section 17.90.010.A, within thirty days after the initiation of an interpretation, the director shall prepare a written interpretation and transmit it to the planning commission and the city council and shall give public notice that such interpretation has been prepared. Such notice shall be published and given to the property owner, any interested parties, and any affected homeowner associations, as required for a code amendment, pursuant to Chapter 17.68 (Zone Changes and Code Amendments) of this title. g., Within fifteen calendar days after the date of the notice, the planning commission, city councilor any interested person may make a written request to the director for a hearing. If no such request for a hearing is received, the interpretation shall become effective and final fifteen calendar days after the date of the notice.
P.C. Resolution No. 2011-_ Page 4 of 9
13
8. For interpretations pursuant to Sections 17.90.010.8, 17.90.010.C or 17.90.010.0" within thirty days after the initiation the director shall prepare a written interpretation and transmit it to the person requesting the interpretation, the property owner affected by the interpretation and any interested person. Within fifteen calendar days after the date of the notice, the person requesting the interpretation, the property owner affected by the interpretation and any interested person may appeal the decision of the director to the planning commission and any decision of the planning commission to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997)
17.90.050 - Planning commission hearing and action. A. If a request for an interpretation hearing related to Section 17.90.01 O.A is received, or if an appeal of a director interpretation pursuant to Section 17.09.010.8, 17.09.010.C, or 17.09.010.0 is filed, a hearing shall be held by the planning commission within thirty calendar days of the date of such requesUappeal. 8. After the hearing, the planning commission may, by resolution, adopt the proposed interpretation, adopt a modified or different interpretation, or refer the matter to the director for further study. Failure of the planning commission to act within sixty calendar days after the close of the hearing shall be deemed an approval of the director's interpretation. C. If the planning commission refers the matter to the director for further study, the director shall prepare and submit another interpretation in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.90.040 of this chapter. D. Unless the planning commission refers the interpretation to the director for further study, the director shall give written notice of the decision of the planning commission to the applicant, any interested person, and any affected homeowner association pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title. The decision of the planning commission shall become effective and final fifteen calendar days after the date of notice of its action, unless an appeal to the city council is filed in accordance with Section 17.80.070 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title. (Amended during 11-97 supplement; Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997) 17.90.060 - Book of interpretations. When an interpretation pursuant to Section 17.90.010.A is given final approval by the director, planning commission or city council, the director shall enter the interpretation in a book of interpretations which shall be preserved and made accessible to any interested person. When an interpretation pursuant to Sections 17.90.010.8, 17.90.010.C or 17.90.010.0 is given final approval, the interpretation shall be noted in the city's file on the subject property and
p.e. Resolution No. 2011-_ Page 5 of 9
14
updated on the city's official zoning map through the procedure identified in Section 17.88.020.E. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997) Section 5: The amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code as identified in Section 4 shall become effective on the effective date of an ordinance adopted by the City Council. Section 6: For the foregoing reasons, and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes, and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 17.90 of the City's Municipal Code, thereby changing the allowable movement of an open-space hazard boundary line from thirty (30) feet to one-hundred (100) feet through an interpretation procedure. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13 th day of December 2011, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTION: ABSENT: RECUSALS:
David L. Tomblin Chairman
Joel Rojas, AICP Community Development Director; and Secretary to the Planning Commission
P.C. Resolution No. 2011-_ Page 6 of 9
15
EXHIBIT "A" (Addendum to No.3 to Negative Declaration)
Project Background: On June 1, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2010-43, thereby adopting a Negative Declaration for miscellaneous amendments to Title 17 of the City's Municipal Code to enact the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee Code Amendment and Zone Change (Ordinance No. 510). Prior to its adoption, the Negative Declaration was circulated for public comment from April 1, 2010, through May 1, 2010. In adopting the Negative Declaration, the City Council found that: 1) the Negative Declaration was prepared in the manner required by law and that there was no substantial evidence that, with appropriate mitigation measures, the approval of the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee Code Amendment and Zone Change (Case No. ZON2007-00377) would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment; and 2) that the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee Code Amendment and Zone Change were consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and with the Coastal Specific Plan. On September 21, 2010, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 513U, thereby approving Addendum NO.1 to the certified NO, to make minor changes to Chapter 17.38 of the Development Code to correct the omission of Specific Plan District VII, and to change the designation of specific plan districts from numbered to descriptive titles. Additionally, on November 15, 2011, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 529, thereby approving Addendum NO.2 to the certified NO and approving miscellaneous "clean-up" code amendments to Title 17 (Zoning) of the City's Development Code which clarified code language, removed code language discrepancies, and codified eXisting policy procedures and/or application requirements. Proposed Amendments: The City Council is currently reviewing a code amendment to revise Chapter 17.90 of the Development Code (Interpretation Procedure) that would revise code language, remove code language and codify existing policy procedures and/or applications. The proposed amendments are to designate the different types of interpretations that can be requested to the Community Development Director, clarify who can initiate an interpretation request, provide further direction as to the processing of interpretation requests, and how such requests shall be recorded for future reference. Purpose: This Addendum to the previously-certified Negative Declaration is being prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines which allows for the lead agency to prepare an addendum to an adopted Negative Declaration if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration have occurred. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15162, no subsequent Negative Declaration shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following: 1.
Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will required major revisions of the previous Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new, P.C. Resolution No. 2011-_ Page 7 of 9
16
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2.
Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will required major revisions of the previous Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity or previously identified significant effects; or,
3.
New information of substantial importance identifies one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Negative Declaration, significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous Negative Declaration, mitigation measures or alternative previously found not to be feasible or not analyzed in the Negative Declaration would be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects but the project proponents decline to adopt a measure or alternative.
Findings Regarding the Proposed Project Revisions:
Staff analyzed the proposed code amendment revisions to Chapter 17.90 to determine if any impacts would result. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed this itern and has determined that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, a new Negative Declaration is not required for this revision because the proposed amendments will not result in any new significant environmental effects: 1.
The proposed revisions do not result in any new significant environmental effects and, like Ordinance No. 510 and 513U, no significant irnpacts have been identified. The revision to Title 17 (Zoning) do not present new significant environmental impacts because they rnerely modify or clarify certain requirements, or codify policy procedures and/or application requirernents. Therefore, the proposed revisions do not represent a substantial change in the project, and will not result in new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any impacts.
2.
The proposed reVISions will not result in any significant environrnental impacts, and the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken have not substantially changed since the CEQA determination was made for Ordinance No. 510. The scope of the proposed revisions relate to minor modifications that clarify code language discrepancies and/or codify policies and procedures that are currently in place. There are no changes with respect to the circumstances under which the revisions are undertaken that will require rnajor revisions of the previous Negative Declaration.
3.
No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the prior Negative Declaration was adopted, identifies a significant environmental effect. Because the proposed revisions would not result in any new or more severe environmental impacts than those associated with P.C. Resolution No. 2011-_ Page 8 of 9
17
Ordinance No. 510, there is no need for new or substantially modified mitigation measures. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, the Planning Commission finds that no further environmental review is necessary other than the City Council's adoption of this Addendum No.3.
P.C. Resolution No. 2011-_ Page 9 of 9
18
, Stern, Wolowicz, and Mayor Long
Initiate a Code Amendment to Revise RPVMC Chapter 17.90 (Interpretation Procedure) City Clerk Morreale reported that late correspondence was distributed prior to the meeting and there were three requests to speak regarding this item. Assistant Planner Harwell provided a brief staff report regarding this item. Mayor Long left the meeting at 10:13 P.M. Discussion ensued between Council Members and staff. Ken Dyda, Rancho Palos Verdes, suggested that there should be a correction that the map should be illustrative so that there will not be different scale factors and use previous procedures to protect the City. Sharon Yarber, Rancho Paros Verdes, stated that the proposed ctiange was to amend the existing ordinance to state 100 feet instead of 30 feet, and instead the existing ordinance should remain in place with additional language added to clarify that the homeowner be able to make a request to move the line in a particular direction. She stated that the intent as stated by staff should be clarified in the proposed code amendment. Lowell Wedemeyer, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that he was in favor of the review of the entire ordinance regarding the Interpretation Procedure. He suggested that the section be subject to a complete revision in order to separate out particular categories which should be addressed more appropriately. He noted that the ordinance should clarify which things can be applied to a specific parcel versus those that should be a general interpretation applicable to the entire City. Additional discussion ensued between Council Members and staff. Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Wolowicz, to adopt the staff recommendation to: Initiate a Code Amendment to revise Title 17.90 of the RPVMC to amend the Interpretation Procedures to allow the Community Development Director to make adjustments of a zoning or special district boundary line from thirty feet to one hundred feet without the processing of a Zoning Map amendment. The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
City Council Minutes October 18, 2011 Page 11 of 13
19
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Stern, Wolowicz, and Mayor Pro Tern Misetich None Campbell and Long None
los Verdes Nature Preserve - Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy ual Management Reports City C k Morreale reported that late correspondence was distributed prio meeting d there was one request to speak regarding this item. Deputy Com nity Development Director Mihranian provided an 0 PowerPoint pre ntation of the item. Andrea Vona, Exec ''!Ie Director, Palos Verdes Peninsula L tI Conservancy (PVPLC) provided a short overv w of the PVPLC, its mission, and t current operation of two nature centers. an overview of the monitoring Danielle Lefer, Conservation irector, PVPLC, provid of threatened species and plan ,habitat restoratio and vegetation mapping in compliance with the City's requir ents under the CCP plan. Discussion ensued between Council stated that he hikes on the Three Sisters er Keeping an Extra Eye on the Preserve EPERS) of that area under the PVPLC. staff and the PVPLC to modify the use nd control erosion after rain storms. Mayor Pro Tern Misetich an Stern, to approve the staff recommendation to: Re Ive and file the Palos Verdes ninsula Land Conservancy's Palos Verdes Nature 2008-2009 and 2010 nual Report on managing the Cit Preserve. ed on the following roll call vote: Stern, Wolowicz, and Mayor Pro Tern Misetich None Campbell and Long None LOSED SESSION REPORT:
City Council Minutes October 18, 2011 Page 12 of 13
20
Abigail Harwell From: Sent: To: Subject:
Greg Pfost [[email protected]] Monday, November 28, 2011 9:48 AM 'Abigail Harwell' FW: OPEN SPACE PROP. LINE ADJUCTMENT
AbigailFYI.
-Greg. Sincerely,
Gregory Pfost, AICP Deputy Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5228
-----Original Message----From, [email protected] [mailto,[email protected]] Sent, Saturday, November 26, 2011 10,54 AM To, PLANNING®RPV.COM Subject, OPEN SPACE PROP. LINE ADJUCTMENT Dear
planning commission and city council,
I, as a property owner in Rancho Palos Verdes, and would like to have my comments heard for the Notice of Planning case No. Zon2011-00168( code amendment). I am for the
opportunity to have the boundary line changed from 30ft. to 100ft. away from my house back towards the Miraleste parks and recreation parkland property with out the need for an expensive geology report. I am very concerned that the arbitrary line set down randomly on
my property and the property of the Miraleste Park Distict. Please keep me informed on the outcome of the issue.
Thanks
Barbara Huffman
1
21
Abigail Harwell [email protected] Sunday, November 27, 2011 6:51 AM [email protected] [email protected] Case ZON2011-00168 Proposed Revision to Chap. 17.90
From: Sent:
To: Cc: Subject:
Dear Abigail,
cc: Planning Commission
The City's notice dated 11/17 regarding the proposed re-interpretation of this procedure is the subject here. We find that an unused sliver across the bottom of our property, 2747 Vista Mesa, may fall within an Open Space Hazard zone. Our question is: What is the implication and obligations of this to us as the homeowner? We shall be away until December 4th so please answer either by email anytime or by phone after that. Thank you.
IIChord tr -ially,
Jim
o~~#
James S. and Jane B. Jones
<[email protected]> Tel/Fax:
(310)
831-3372
1
22
RECEIVED
NOV 30 2011 November 30,2011
COMMUNITY DEY ElOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Re:
Planning Case No. ZON 2011-00168 (Code Amendment) Comments by Maurice Williams
I am extremely disappointed by the City ofRPV's proposed revision to Chapter 17.90 of the Municipal Code, to allow owners of property traversed by an Open Space Hazard Zoning District boundary line the opportunity to adjust their boundary line up to 100 feet. (I assume you mean 100 feet. Your notice only says 100). I was originally told by Planning Department staff over a year ago that the City was going to possibly look at areas that were zoned OH in error. Obviously, that's not the case. I live at the end of Van Karajan Drive, which is shown in Exhibit A, with my west property line located along the boundary between Eastview and the rest ofRPV. I purchased my property in 1986. I just recently discovered that almost my entire property is zoned OH, which, as a licensed civil engineer was a total shock. The only reason I have been able to come up with, as to why my property and my neighbors' properties are zoned OH, is because we live in the "lower class" Eastview area. I know of nowhere in the entire world where the natural topography and/or geology abruptly and drastically change along a straight-line, political boundary, except, apparently in RPV. This change, according to your zoning map occurs at the boundary between Eastview and the rest ofRPV, not in one, but unbelievably, in two separate locations. This is shown in the two attachments, (Exhibit A and Exhibit B) with OH zoning shaded in green. What is further unbelievable is that both of these areas occur on the Eastview side of the line, and the shapes ofthese areas are nothing like anything seen in nature. I could understand the canyon portion of my property being zoned OH, except that the entire canyon to the west of my property, west ofthe Eastview boundary line, is residential. The other portion of my property, where the natural slopes never exceeded 35%, should never have been zoned OH. My entire home and pool are built on bedrock. There is not one credible reason for this zoning.
23
Before I discovered that my property was zoned OR, I obtained a building permit, and built a 356 square foot addition to the west side of my home in 2003. Apparently, someone forgot to look at the zoning map. Prior to issuing a permit, one of your Planning Department staff members, your geologist, and my geotechnical engineer who prepared the soils report had visited the site. I am a civil engineer who has lived here since 1986. No one even suggested that the site had any problems. In addition, prior to my purchase of the property, the County of LA issued one grading permit and five building permits. Surely, if the property is so unsafe as to be zoned OR, at least one professional along the way would have noticed something wrong. Now I can't even build a patio cover. Not to mention what it does to my property value. IfI had an emergency, and I had to sell my property in a hurry, what would I get for it? So far, none ofyour Planning Department staff can give me a reason, provide any documentation, or even knows of any documentation as to why my property is zoned OR. I've been told that it probably doesn't exist. Obviously, something is wrong with this system. It needs a complete overhaul, not the band-aid that's proposed. I propose that the City take it upon itself to do the right thing and correct these injustices inflicted upon the impacted citizens of Eastview, and others in similar situations. All property owners should be treated equally. Give us back our unjustly taken property. It is long overdue. In addition, the proposed revision to Chapter 17.90 should at least allow OR boundary lines which bound property to be moved, not just those that traverse property. This proposal is too restrictive. But the bigger issue is that property was randomly taken without valid reason. Your proposed minor change does nothing to address this issue. Your entire process needs to be reviewed and revised. Again, give us back our unjustly taken property.
Maurice P. Williams 310-832-1694 [email protected]
24
Existing Zoning
Ex H 1.0
i---r A 25
Page 1 of 1
Map Output
ArclMS HTML Viewer Ma
ExHtBi/
26
http://www.giscentral.com/servlet/com.esri.esrirnap.Esrirnap?ServiceName=CityofRPV0... 10120120 10
Page 1 of 1
Abigail Harwell From: Jeff Koehler [email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 02,2011 10:20 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Open Hazard Zone Dear Ms Harwell I live at 28039 Calzada Dr and was recently made aware of the existence of the open hazard zone created in 1974. I note from the map depiction that the boundary ofthe zone cuts across my property - in fact it cuts through the existing house as well as through the existing houses of a number of my neighbors. Given that the house was built in 1965 and both the house and the yard are on perfectly level terrain and neither has slipped since new, the boundary of the OH zone seems rather arbitrary. I understand that the imapct of the zoning restriction is that if! wanted to enclose the existing patio on the west side of the house that I would have to engender the expense of a geologic survey to obtain approval. On the other hand if I wanted to enclose the patio on the East side I would not have to do the survey since that patio is outside of the boundary. This does not make sense to me. I understand that there is a proposal to amend the OH zone to allow modifications of the line, but the current language would still require the geological survey to make the adjustment. It seems to me that other evidence of the stability of the property - at least of the existing house and closely surrounding area - such as photos showing level land, no evidence of slippage, etc., would be sufficient to establish that the likelihood of catastrophic land slides is small enough that the boundary could be moved without risk. I understand that there is to be a hearing on Dec 13 concerning modification of the zoning restriction and I would like to encourage you to support adoption of a reasonable method other than expensive geological survey to adjust the boundary. I plan to attend the public hearing and will introduce the notion if given the opportunity. VIR Jeff Koehler
12/5/20 II
27
Page 1 of 1
Abigail Harwell From:
Joe Gasperov Osphgsp@aoLcom]
Sent:
Sunday, December 04,2011 12:46 PM
To:
[email protected]
Subject: The Open Hazard Zone
Dear Ms Harwell This is in regards to the e-mail you have already received from my next-door neighbor, Jeff Koehler (28039 Calzada Drive). I have the same problem and concerns, and would also like to encourage you to support adoption of a reasonable method other than expensive geological survey to adjust the boundary. Thank you in advance for your help. Joseph Gasperov 28036 Calzada Drive
12/5/2011
28
01/12/2002
15:50
13105330191
LACOMBE
PAGE
02
December 1, 2011 TOI Rancho ...10$ Verdes Plannln8 Commission Re: Notice for PlaMII... ca.. ZON201HI01118 2052 Glllerita Prlve, RPV
I J~lt discovered that mv backyard 'sloned as ·open space ha.ard While there may be weed.lhat need to be ~lIed or tl'ee$ trimmed and $Ome may see It as a haJard, It does not c:onMCt WIth any ~bllc or open space like a canyon. If mv yard Is .oned open JP'Ite hazard tlten 95" of 011 homes In RPII should have back or front vards wttl1 open sPace haurd _Ina. 3
•
It II wrong lhat 11~5t dl_vered this. Tlte previ(l~s owner probably didn't kn_ this either. Tltls lnformalk)n 1. not on anV tax records, or provlded thro~1Ih eSQ"OW or III my property folder wttl1 permlt Irtfol'rnatlon In the BuildIng and SlI~ Dolpartll\tTlt. As a homeb\Jyllr and homeowner, I have done my due dDI..nt* to discover
this Information. la.ked AbIgail Harwell In the planning dept. how were ' " - lin... and boundarle$ determlnlld, when did this open space ha.ard lonlng begin In the Eastview are.. Ind why weren't we n()tllled In this letter that our property !110ned open spa
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM TO:
CHAIRMAN & MEMBERS OF THE P
FROM:
JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEVELOP
DATE:
DECEMBER 13, 2011
SUBJECT:
CODE AMENDMENT TO REVISE RPVMC CHAPTER 17.90 • INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE (CASE NO. ZON2011·00168)
Staff Coordinator: Abigail Harwell, Assistant Planner"RECOMMENDATION
1.)
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2011_ , recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. _ , a Code Amendment revising RPVMC Chapter 17.90, thereby allowing the administrative adjustment of an open-space hazard zoning district boundary line from thirty (30) feet to one-hundred (100) feet through an interpretation procedure (Case No. ZON2011-00168); and,
2.)
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the application fees associated with a request for an Interpretation Procedure to adjust an open-space hazard district boundary line be waived until the update of the General Plan, which will include updated mapping of the hazard areas Citywide, has been adopted by the City Council.
BACKGROUND
When the City's Official Zoning Map was first adopted in 1975, one of the zoning districts identified on the map was the open-space hazard (OH) zoning district. According to the City's Development Code (Chapter 17.32), the OH district ''prevents unsafe development of hazardous areas that must be preserved or regulated for public health and safety purposes." The OH zoning district areas identified in the 1975 zoning map were based upon general information available to the City at that time. Generally speaking, the OH zoning district is comprised of areas where the slope exceeds 35%, areas experiencing downslope movement, areas unstable for development, areas where grading of the land may endanger public health and safety due to erosion, the ocean bluff areas, and areas subject to flooding from storm water. As such, the OH zoning district boundary lines adopted in 1975 do not follow lot lines but instead cross over lot lines and often even cross
1
Planning Commission Meeting Code Amendment: Interpretation Procedure December 13, 2011
over developed residences. In 1997, Ordinance No. 320 adopted various amendments and changes to Title 16 and 17 of the City's Municipal Code, including the creation of a new Interpretation Procedure chapter of the Development Code (Chapter 17.90). Among other things, this chapter allows the adjustment of zoning or special district boundary lines up to 30 feet from the location depicted on the City's Official Zoning Map, if such adjustments are necessary to resolve uncertainty as to the precise location of such zoning or special district boundary lines. In the case of an interpretation involving the location of an OH zoning district boundary line, the consideration is based on geological and/or soils reports. The Interpretation Procedure provides property owners with an opportunity to make adjustments to the zoning district boundary lines on their property without having to process a change to the City's official Zoning Map, which can be time consuming and costly to a property owner. Since adoption of the Interpretation Procedure in 1997, the City has received and processed three different requests from individual property owners of residentially developed properties to adjust the location of the OH boundary line on their property. In all of these instances, the Director interpreted that the OH boundary line could be moved up to 30 feet, based upon geological and/or soils reports submitted by each applicant and approved by the City Geologist determining that doing so would not cause harm to the subject property nor the neighboring area. Since 2005, there have also been three cases where individual property owners have sought to move the OH boundary line on their property more than 30 feet. In these cases, they received City Council approval of a Zone Change to do so. It should be noted that most property owners are usually unaware that an OH zoning designation is on their property until they propose development . or changes to their property. In such cases, the property owner will choose to work around the OH area, adjust the OH zoning designation, or not pursue the project envisioned for the OH area. Earlier this year, the Planning Commission conducted a series of public hearings to update the hazard areas depicted on the General Plan Land Use Map to match the OH areas depicted on the City's parcel specific Zoning Map. As part of the hearing process, over 600 property owners received public notice if portions of their property contained OH areas. As a result, many residents wrote letters and spoke at the hearing with concerns about the presence of OH areas on their property. While Staff explained that the OH areas have been in place since adoption of the Zoning Map in 1975 and they are not being proposed to be changed, many residents felt that it was wrong to have these existing OH areas located over improved portions of their property in the first place. At that time, Staff noted that to address these concerns, Staff proposed initiating a code amendment that would provide greater ability for property owners to adjust the OH boundary lines on their property. The Planning Commission agreed with this proposal. On October 18,2011, at the request of Staff, the City Council initiated a Code Amendment to amend the Interpretation Procedure to allow the Community Development Director to make adjustments to an OH boundary line location from thirty feet to one-hundred feet without the processing of a Zoning Map amendment, on a 3-0 vote (Councilman Campbell
2
Planning Commission Meeting Code Amendment: Interpretation Procedure December 13,2011 and Mayor Long were absent). The purpose of said code amendment is to provide a property owner a more flexible and simplified mechanism to adjust the boundary line of a zoning designation on their property without having to go through the costly and timeconsuming zoning map amendment process. The excerpted minutes from the October 18th meeting have been attached to this report. It should be noted that during the public hearing and in correspondence received priorto the meeting, some members of the public suggested that in addition to increasing the allowed adjustment distance that revisions be made to the entire Chapter 17.90 to clarify the process as well as make clear that a property owner can make a request for a boundary adjustment on their own property. Staff and the City Council agreed with this suggestion. On November 17, 2011, Staff mailed out 1,160 notices to property owners with property that was identified to have some portion of the OH zoning district on their property. As of the writing of this Staff Report, eight items of correspondence have been received by Staff (attached). Also, several property owners either called or visited the Community Development Department to further understand the issue, although they did not provide written comments. DISCUSSION In order to provide property owners further flexibility in adjusting the OH zoning district boundary, and to address public concern as to the process and authority of such interpretations, Staff is recommending the changes as noted below to Chapter 17.90 (strikethrough text for language removed, and bold and underlined text for new language). In addition to changing the allowable maximum adjustment distance of the OH . boundary line from 30 feet to 100 feet, changes are being proposed to clarify the different type of possible interpretations that can be requested, the submittal requirements for a boundary line adjustment request, and how such interpretations will be memorialized. 17.90.010 - Purpose and scope. This chapter provides a procedure for the following interpretations to the Municipal Code: A. In case! of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of any provision of Title 16 or Title 17 of this Code, or to further define or enumerate the uses permitted in the various zones, and upon proper initiation as provided in Section 17.90.020 of this chapter, the follOWing procedure shall be follo'lt'ed if a code amendment is not initiated. Said interpretations shall be generally applicable to all situations of the same type and shall not be limited or directed to specific parcels or circumstances thereon. B. An adjustment of an open-space hazard zoning or special district boundary line (except within the coastal zone) up to one hundred (100) feet from the location depicted on the city's official zoning map except for a coastal specific plan setback zone boundary of up to thirty feet from the scaled location on the zoning map also may be accomplished under this procedure if a code amendment is not initiated, and if such adjustment is necessary to demarcate a more accurate and precise location of the open-space hazard district boundary line on the official zoning map, based on site conditions and approved geology of such zoning or special district boundary. C. An adjustment of a Coastal specific plan setback zone boundary lines, or open-space hazard district boundary lines within the coastal zone, up to five (5) feet from the
3
Planning Commission Meeting Code Amendment: Interpretation Procedure December 13,2011 location depicted on the city's official zoning map, may only be adjusted up to fi'.le feet.IT such adjustment is necessary to demarcate a more accurate and precise location of the open-space hazard district boundary line on the official zoning map, based on site conditions and approved geology. under the interpretation procedure described in this chapter. Except in the case of a zoning or special district boundary adjustment, interpretations shall be generally applicable to all future situations of the same type and shall . not be limited or directed to specific parcels or circumstances thereon. D. An adjustment to a zoning or special district boundary line, other than the open-space hazard district boundary line or coastal specific plan setback zone boundary lines, of up to thirty (30) feet from the location depicted on the zoning map, if such adjustment is necessary to demarcate a more accurate and precise location of the open-space hazard district boundary line on the official zoning map, based on site conditions and approved geology. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997) 17.90.020 -Initiation. A. The preparation of an An interpretation related to Section 17.90.010.A, 17.90.010.C or 17.90.101.D may be initiated by the city council, planning commission, view restoration commission or director, or by any person upon the written request and payment of fee, as established pursuant to city council resolution, by any person. 8. An interpretation related to Section 17.90.010.8 may only be initiated by the owner of the property which said open-space hazard zoning boundary line traverses. Said interpretation requests shall be accompanied with the appropriate fee, as established pursuant to city council resolution. The written interpretation request shall indicate the property address, the requested distance that the zoning district boundary line is to be moved from the location depicted on the zoning map, and the property owner's original signature. Furthermore, said written request shall be accompanied by a scaled site plan, indicating the property lines, the existing open-space hazard boundary line and the proposed new boundary line with the scaled distance of movement, as well as any geological and/or geotechnical studies required by the city to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city's geotechnical staff that the proposed adjustment of an open space hazard zoning district boundary line will not endanger the public health, safety and welfare. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997) 17.90.030 - Basis of interpretation. A. An interpretation shall be based on an examination of the intent of this Code, considering all the relevant provisions thereof, and shall be consistent with such intent. Consideration shali be given to the relationship among the regulations of the various zoning classifications and the uses and development standards therein. B. In the case of an interpretation involving further definition or enumeration of uses permitted in a particular zone, consideration shall be given to the similarities and differences between the characteristics of each use subject to interpretation and the characteristics ofthose uses expressly permitted in the zone. C. In the case of an interpretation involving the location of an open space hazard zoning district or coastal specific plan setback zone boundary line on the city's official zoning map, consideration shall be based on geotechnical and/or soils reports. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997)
4
Planning Commission Meeting Code Amendment: Interpretation Procedure December 13,2011 17.90.040 - Preparation, notice and transmittal. A. For interpretations related to Section 17.90.01 O.A. ~ithin thirty days after the initiation of an interpretation, the director shall prepare a written interpretation and transmit it to the planning commission and the city council and shall give public notice that such interpretation has been prepared. Such notice shall be published and given to the property owner, any interested parties, and any affected homeowner associations, as required for a code amendment, pursuant to Chapter 17.68 (Zone Changes and Code Amendments) of this title. €h- Within fifteen calendar days after the date of the notice, the planning commission, city councilor any interested person may make a written request to the director for a hearing. If no such request for a hearing is received, the interpretation shall become effective and final fifteen calendar days after the date of the notice. 8. For interpretations pursuant to Sections 17.90.010.8, 17.90.010.C or 17.90.010.0" within thirty days after the initiation the director shall prepare a written interpretation and transmit it to the person requesting the interpretation, the property owner affected by the interpretation and any interested person. Within fifteen calendar days after the date of the notice, the person requesting the interpretation, the property owner affected by the interpretation and any interested person may appeal the decision of the director to the planning commission and any decision of the planning commission to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997) 17.90.050 - Planning commission hearing and action. A. If a request for an interpretation hearing related to Section 17.90.010.A is received, or ifan appeal of a director interpretation pursuant to Section 17.09.010.8, 17.09.010.C, or 17.09.010.0 is filed, a hearing shall be held by the planning commission within thirty calendar days of the date of such request/appeal. B. After the hearing, the planning commission may, by resolution, adopt the proposed interpretation, adopt a modified or different interpretation, or refer the matter to the director for further study. Failure of the planning commission to act within sixty calendar days after the close of the hearing shall be deemed an approval of the director's interpretation. C. If the planning commission refers the matter to the director for further study, the director shall prepare and submit another interpretation in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.90.040 of this chapter. D. Unless the planning commission refers the interpretation to the director for further study, the director shall give written notice of the decision of the planning commission to the applicant, any interested person, and any affected homeowner association pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title. The decision ofthe planning commission shall become effective and final fifteen calendar days after the date of notice of its action, unless an appeal to the city council is filed in accordance with Section 17.80.070 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title. (Amended during 11-97 supplement; Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997) 17.90.060 - Book of interpretations. When an interpretation pursuant to Section 17.90.010.A is given final approval by the director, planning commission or city council, the director shall enter the interpretation in a book of interpretations which shall be preserved and made accessible to any interested person. When an interpretation pursuant to Sections 17.90.010.8, 17.90.010.C or 17.90.010.0 is given final approval, the interpretation shall be noted in the city's file on the subject property and
5
Planning Commission Meeting Code Amendment: Interpretation Procedure December 13, 2011 updated on the city's official zoning map through the procedure identified in Section
17.88.020.E. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT On June 29, 2010, the City Council certified a Negative Declaration (ND) in conjunction with the adoption of the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee (RDSSC) Code Amendment and Zone Change (Planning Case No. ZON2007-00377). The RDSSC Code Amendment involved modifications to miscellaneous provisions of the Development Code, which (with the certification of the ND) the City Council found to have no significant impacts upon the environment. In addition, on September 21, 2010, the City Council adopted Addendum NO.1 to the certified ND, to make minor changes to Chapter 17.38 of the Development Code to correct the omission of Specific Plan District VII, and to change the designation of specific plan districts from numbered to descriptive titles. The proposed code amendment is to revise code language related to the Interpretation Procedure requirements of Chapter 17.90 of the Development Code. Staff believes that the proposed code amendment revisions are within the scope of the miscellaneous Development Code revisions analyzed in the ND for the RDSSC Code Amendment. Therefore, Staff has prepared Addendum NO.3 to the RDSSC Code Amendment ND to address the compliance of the revisions to Chapter 17.90 with the provisions of CEQA. Addendum No. 3 is attached to the ordinance presented for the City Council's consideration. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Public Correspondence As previously noted, eight items of correspondence were received in response to the notice that was sent on November 17, 2011 to all property owners identified to have OH areas on their property. The first e-mail was received on November 26, 2011 from Barbara Huffman. In her e-mail.Ms. Huffman writes in support of the proposed code amendment and an opportunity to possibly increase the movement of the OH boundary line on her property from 30 feet to 100 feet. It should be clarified, however, that a geological or geotechnical study would be required as part of an interpretation request to adjust the OH boundary line, a requirement that has always been necessary as part of the interpretation procedure and is not proposed to be eliminated in order to justify that the adjustment to the boundary line will not endanger the public health, safety and welfare. The second e-mail was received on November 27,2011 from James and Jane Jones, of 2747 Vista Mesa, asking what the "implication and obligation of this [code amendment is] to us as the property owner." In response, as this was a question that was commonly asked by other recipients of the notice who contacted Staff, the proposed code amendment would provide an option for those currently impacted by the OH areas on their property. The property owner can only make the request for adjustment of the boundary
6
Planning Commission Meeting Code Amendment: Interp'retation Procedure December 13, 2011
line on their own property. A successful adjustment of the OH boundary line that creates more developable area on a property would then allow the property owner to proceed with applications for development in said area consistent with their respective zoning district. The third item was a letter submitted on November 30,2011 by Maurice Williams, of 2152 Van Karajan Drive. Mr. Williams writes in protest of the proposed code amendment, believing that his property was incorrectly zoned in 1984 to be completely within an OH area and feels that the City should correct these OH zoning district depictions, not the property owners themselves. He is of particular concern with the depiction of the OH areas within the Eastview area of the City, annexed in 1983. The fourth item was an e-mail received on December 2, 2011 from Jeff Koehler, of 28039 Calzada Drive. Mr. Koehler writes that his house was built in 1965 on a pad lot and the depiction of the OH area on his property "seems rather arbitrary." He further comments that it does not make sense for him to have to a geological survey done for his property to move the OH boundary line when there are other possible options, and he would support another "reasonable method other than [an] expensive geological survey to adjust the boundary." The fifth item was an e-mail received on December 4, 2011 from Joe Gasperov, of 28036 Calzada Drive, who agrees with the comments made by Mr. Koehler. The sixth and seventh letters were received on December 5, 2011 from Jeanne Lacombe, writing as both the property owner of 2052 Galerita Drive and as the President of the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association. Ms. Lacombe feels it is wrong to have OH area identified on both her property but also on other properties within the Eastview area. She proposes that the City Geologist and City Staff work with homeowners to re-evaluate . the OH areas in the City, believing that "it is unreasonable for each homeowner affected by the open space hazard to endure the process of getting each property re-zoned and suffering the financial cost to do so." Further, Ms. Lacombe suggests that this proposed code amendment to the interpretation procedure be postponed until such an evaluation is complete. The eighth e-mail was received on December 6, 2011 from John McCowan, of 2064 Galerita Drive. Mr. McCowan comments that he was not aware of the QH area on his property and finds it unfair and unreasonable to have to pay to have the OH boundary line adjusted on his property. Concurring along the lines of Ms. Lacombe's comments previously noted, Mr. McCowan believes that the OH areas should be re-evaluated to eliminate the need for the proposed adjustment change of the Interpretation Procedure. As noted in the public comments described above, some residents believe that due to the lack of precision in depicting the OH areas on the City's original zoning map, the City should take the lead in better delineating the OH boundary lines instead of requiring individual property owners to go through the Interpretation Procedure to adjust the OH boundary line on their property at their own expense. Staff agrees that the OH districts depicted on the zoning map need to be re-evaluated Citywide and adjustments made to make them consistent with the existing geologic and topographic conditions. As a result, Staff has tasked the City Geologist with assessing the hazard area depictions Citywide and
7
Planning Commission Meeting Code Amendment: Interpretation Procedure December 13, 2011 make any adjustments/corrections as part of the ongoing General Plan update. Conversely, any adjustments made to the hazard areas depicted on the General Plan Land Use map will be made to the same OH areas depicted on the City's zoning map. The revised Interpretation Procedure proposed by Staff would provide a mechanism for property owners to adjust the OH boundary line up to 100 feet as currently depicted on the zoning map. Because it may take up to another year to update the OH lines as part of the General Plan update, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Interpretation Procedure fee be waived for OH boundary line adjustments until the General Plan update and associated zoning map update is completed and adopted by the City Council. CONCLUSION As the current Municipal Code reads, the existing maximum allowable movement of an open space hazard zoning district boundary line of 30 feet through the Interpretation Procedure defined in Chapter 17.90 may not be sufficient. To provide additional flexibility to these properties without the initiation of a costly and lengthy zone change, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a Code Amendment to revise Municipal Code Chapter 17.90. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation, below are alternatives for Planning Commission to consider: 1) Determine that the current Interpretation Procedure as described in Chapter 17.90 should be retained as codified and direct Staff to return with the appropriate resolution at the next Planning Commission meeting; or 2) Propose alternative or additional amendments to Chapter 17.90, and direct Staff to modify the proposed amendments as such for further discussion by the Planning Commission at the next Planning Commission meeting.
ATTACHMENTS: • PC Resolution No. 2011-_, recommending Council adoption of the Code Amendment • Exhibit "A" - Addendum No.3 to Negative Declaration • October 18, 2011 City Council Minutes • E-mail from Barbara Huffman, dated November 26, 2011 • E-mail from James & Jane Jones, dated November 27,2011 • Letter from Maurice Williams, dated November 30, 2011 • E-mail from Jeff Koehler, dated December 2,2011 • E-mail from Joe Gasperov, dated December 4, 2011
8
Planning Commission Meeting Code Amendment: Interpretation Procedure December 13, 2011 • • •
Two letters from Jeanne Lacombe, dated December 1, 2011 E-mail from John McCowan, dated December 6, 2011 Existing Municipal Code Chapter 17.90
9
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2011A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REVISING SECTION 17.90 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE, THEREBY CHANGING THE ALLOWABLE MOVEMENT OF AN OPENSPACE HAZARD BOUNDARY LINE FROM THIRTY (30) FEET TO ONE-HUNDRED (100) FEET THROUGH THE INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE (CASE NO. ZON2011-00168). WHEREAS, on April 15, 1997, Ordinance No. 320 was adopted by the City Council for various amendments and changes to Title 16 and 17 of the City's Municipal Code, including the creation of the Interpretation Procedure (Chapter 17.90); and, WHEREAS, Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 allows discretionary adjustment of zoning or special district boundary lines depicted on the City's Official Zoning Map without the processing of a Zone Change, as well as allows interpretations to be made in cases of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of the City's Building or Development Codes; and, WHEREAS, since adoption of the Interpretation Procedure in 1997, the City has processed interpretations on six different properties where the Open Space Hazard ("OH") District was located on the developed portion of a residential property and the OH District boundary line could be moved with minimal overall impact to the Zoning Map; and, WHEREAS, based upon the comments from the public and the Planning Commission, it was suggested that the City consider increasing the allowable movement of a boundary line through the Interpretation Procedure described in Chapter 17.90; and, WHEREAS, on October 18, 2011, the City Council initiated a Code Amendment to revise Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 to amend the Interpretation Procedures to allow the Community Development Director, upon initiation by the property owner, to make administrative adjustments of a zoning or special district boundary line from thirty feet to one-hundred feet without the processing of a Zoning Map amendment; and, WHEREAS, on November 17, 2011, Staff mailed out 1,160 notices to property owners with property that was identified to have some portion of the OH zoning district on their property; and,
P.C. Resolution No. 2011-_ Page 1 of 9
10
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2011, notice of a public hearing on the proposed amendments to Chapter 17.90 of the Municipal Code was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environrnental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 2100 et seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code Regulations, Title 14, Section 1500 et seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City determined that there is not substantial evidence that the code amendment would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment. Accordingly, Addendum No. 3 to the Negative Declaration, which was prepared in conjunction with the adoption of Ordinance No. 510, has been prepared and is attached to this resolution; and, WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on December 13, 2011, at which time all interested parties were give an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: That the arnendrnents to Title 17 of the Municipal Code are consistent with California Government Code Section 65853, zoning amendment procedures. Section 2: That the amendments to Title 17 are consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in that they uphold, and do not hinder, the goals and policies of those plans. Specifically, the revisions to Chapter 17.90 will allow property owners more flexibility to adjust the open space hazard zoning district boundary line to more accurately reflect the built environment of the existing property. Section 3: That the amendments to Chapter 17.90 are necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare in the area Section 4: That Chapter 17.90 (Interpretation Procedure) of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby revised as follows (strikethrough text for language removed, and bold and underlined text for new language):
17.90.010 - Purpose and scope. This chapter provides a procedure for the following interpretations to the Municipal Code: A. In case~ of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of any provision of Title 16 or Title 17 of this Code, or to further define or P.C. Resolution No. 2011-_ Page 2 of 9
11
enumerate the uses permitted in the various zones, and upon proper initiation as provided in gection 17.90.020 of this chapter, the follO'.\Iing procedure shall be follO'....ed if a code amendment is not initiated. Said interpretations shall be generally applicable to all situations of the same type and shall not be limited or directed to specific parcels or circumstances thereon. B. An adjustment of an open-space hazard zoning or special district boundary line (except within the coastal zone) up to one hundred (100) feet from the location depicted on the city's official zoning map except for a coastal specific plan setback zone boundary of up to thirty foet from the scaled location on the zoning map also may be accomplished under this procedure if a code amendment is not initiated, arl4 if such adjustment is necessary to demarcate a more accurate and precise location of the open-space hazard district boundary line on the official zoning map, based on site conditions and approved geology of such zoning or special district boundary. C. An adjustment of a Coastal specific plan setback zone boundary lines, or open-space hazard district boundary lines within the coastal zone, up to five (5) feet from the location depicted on the city's official zoning map, may only be adjusted up to five foet if such adjustment is necessary to demarcate a more accurate and precise location of the open-space hazard district boundary line on the official zoning map, based on site conditions and approved geology. under the interpretation procedure described in this chapter. Except in the case of a zoning or special district boundary adjustment, interpretations shall be generally applicable to all future situations of the same type and shall not be limited or directed to specific parcels or circumstances thereon. O. An adjustment to a zoning or special district boundary line, other than the open-space hazard district boundary line or coastal specific plan setback zone boundary lines, of up to thirty (30) feet from the location depicted on the zoning map, if such adjustment is necessary to demarcate a more accurate and precise location of the open-space hazard district boundary line on the official zoning map, based on site conditions and approved geology. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997) 17.90.020 - Initiation. A. The preparation of an An interpretation related to Section 17.90.010.A, 17.90.010.C or 17.90.101.0 may be initiated by the city council, planning commission, view restoration commission or director, or by any person upon the written request and payment of fee, as established pursuant to city council resolution, by any person. B. An interpretation related to Section 17.90.010.B may only be initiated by the owner of the property which said open-space hazard zoning boundary line traverses. Said interpretation reguests shall be accompanied with the appropriate fee, as established pursuant to P.C. Resolution No. 2011-_ Page 3 of 9
12
city council resolution. The written interpretation request shall indicate the property address, the requested distance that the zoninq district boundary line is to be moved from the location depicted on the zoning map, and the property owner's original signature. Furthermore, said written request shall be accompanied by a scaled site plan, indicating the property lines, the existing open-space hazard boundary line and the proposed new boundary line with the scaled distance of movement, as well as any geological and/or geotechnical studies required by the city to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city's geotechnical staff that the proposed adjustment of an open space hazard zoning district boundary line will not endanger the public health, safety and welfare. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997) 17.90.030 - Basis of interpretation. A. An interpretation shall be based on an examination of the intent of this Code, considering all the relevant provisions thereof, and shall be consistent with such intent. Consideration shall be given to the relationship among the regulations of the various zoning classifications and the uses and development standards therein. B. In the case of an interpretation involving further definition or enumeration of uses permitted in a particular zone, consideration shall be given to the similarities and differences between the characteristics of each use subject to interpretation and the characteristics of those uses expressly permitted in the zone. C. In the case of an interpretation involving the location of an open space hazard zoning district or coastal specific plan setback zone boundary line on the city's official zoning map, consideration shall be based on geotechnical and/or soils reports. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997) 17.90.040 - Preparation, notice and transmittal. A. For interpretations related to Section 17.90.010.A, within thirty days after the initiation of an interpretation, the director shall prepare a written interpretation and transmit it to the planning commission and the city council and shall give public notice that such interpretation has been prepared. Such notice shall be published and given to the property owner, any interested parties, and any affected homeowner associations, as required for a code amendment, pursuant to Chapter 17.68 (Zone Changes and Code Amendments) of this title. g., Within fifteen calendar days after the date of the notice, the planning commission, city councilor any interested person may make a written request to the director for a hearing. If no such request for a hearing is received, the interpretation shall become effective and final fifteen calendar days after the date of the notice.
P.C. Resolution No. 2011-_ Page 4 of 9
13
8. For interpretations pursuant to Sections 17.90.010.8, 17.90.010.C or 17.90.010.0" within thirty days after the initiation the director shall prepare a written interpretation and transmit it to the person requesting the interpretation, the property owner affected by the interpretation and any interested person. Within fifteen calendar days after the date of the notice, the person requesting the interpretation, the property owner affected by the interpretation and any interested person may appeal the decision of the director to the planning commission and any decision of the planning commission to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997)
17.90.050 - Planning commission hearing and action. A. If a request for an interpretation hearing related to Section 17.90.01 O.A is received, or if an appeal of a director interpretation pursuant to Section 17.09.010.8, 17.09.010.C, or 17.09.010.0 is filed, a hearing shall be held by the planning commission within thirty calendar days of the date of such requesUappeal. 8. After the hearing, the planning commission may, by resolution, adopt the proposed interpretation, adopt a modified or different interpretation, or refer the matter to the director for further study. Failure of the planning commission to act within sixty calendar days after the close of the hearing shall be deemed an approval of the director's interpretation. C. If the planning commission refers the matter to the director for further study, the director shall prepare and submit another interpretation in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.90.040 of this chapter. D. Unless the planning commission refers the interpretation to the director for further study, the director shall give written notice of the decision of the planning commission to the applicant, any interested person, and any affected homeowner association pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title. The decision of the planning commission shall become effective and final fifteen calendar days after the date of notice of its action, unless an appeal to the city council is filed in accordance with Section 17.80.070 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title. (Amended during 11-97 supplement; Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997) 17.90.060 - Book of interpretations. When an interpretation pursuant to Section 17.90.010.A is given final approval by the director, planning commission or city council, the director shall enter the interpretation in a book of interpretations which shall be preserved and made accessible to any interested person. When an interpretation pursuant to Sections 17.90.010.8, 17.90.010.C or 17.90.010.0 is given final approval, the interpretation shall be noted in the city's file on the subject property and
p.e. Resolution No. 2011-_ Page 5 of 9
14
updated on the city's official zoning map through the procedure identified in Section 17.88.020.E. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997) Section 5: The amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code as identified in Section 4 shall become effective on the effective date of an ordinance adopted by the City Council. Section 6: For the foregoing reasons, and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes, and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 17.90 of the City's Municipal Code, thereby changing the allowable movement of an open-space hazard boundary line from thirty (30) feet to one-hundred (100) feet through an interpretation procedure. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13 th day of December 2011, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTION: ABSENT: RECUSALS:
David L. Tomblin Chairman
Joel Rojas, AICP Community Development Director; and Secretary to the Planning Commission
P.C. Resolution No. 2011-_ Page 6 of 9
15
EXHIBIT "A" (Addendum to No.3 to Negative Declaration)
Project Background: On June 1, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2010-43, thereby adopting a Negative Declaration for miscellaneous amendments to Title 17 of the City's Municipal Code to enact the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee Code Amendment and Zone Change (Ordinance No. 510). Prior to its adoption, the Negative Declaration was circulated for public comment from April 1, 2010, through May 1, 2010. In adopting the Negative Declaration, the City Council found that: 1) the Negative Declaration was prepared in the manner required by law and that there was no substantial evidence that, with appropriate mitigation measures, the approval of the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee Code Amendment and Zone Change (Case No. ZON2007-00377) would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment; and 2) that the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee Code Amendment and Zone Change were consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and with the Coastal Specific Plan. On September 21, 2010, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 513U, thereby approving Addendum NO.1 to the certified NO, to make minor changes to Chapter 17.38 of the Development Code to correct the omission of Specific Plan District VII, and to change the designation of specific plan districts from numbered to descriptive titles. Additionally, on November 15, 2011, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 529, thereby approving Addendum NO.2 to the certified NO and approving miscellaneous "clean-up" code amendments to Title 17 (Zoning) of the City's Development Code which clarified code language, removed code language discrepancies, and codified eXisting policy procedures and/or application requirements. Proposed Amendments: The City Council is currently reviewing a code amendment to revise Chapter 17.90 of the Development Code (Interpretation Procedure) that would revise code language, remove code language and codify existing policy procedures and/or applications. The proposed amendments are to designate the different types of interpretations that can be requested to the Community Development Director, clarify who can initiate an interpretation request, provide further direction as to the processing of interpretation requests, and how such requests shall be recorded for future reference. Purpose: This Addendum to the previously-certified Negative Declaration is being prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines which allows for the lead agency to prepare an addendum to an adopted Negative Declaration if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration have occurred. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15162, no subsequent Negative Declaration shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following: 1.
Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will required major revisions of the previous Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new, P.C. Resolution No. 2011-_ Page 7 of 9
16
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2.
Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will required major revisions of the previous Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity or previously identified significant effects; or,
3.
New information of substantial importance identifies one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Negative Declaration, significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous Negative Declaration, mitigation measures or alternative previously found not to be feasible or not analyzed in the Negative Declaration would be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects but the project proponents decline to adopt a measure or alternative.
Findings Regarding the Proposed Project Revisions:
Staff analyzed the proposed code amendment revisions to Chapter 17.90 to determine if any impacts would result. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed this itern and has determined that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, a new Negative Declaration is not required for this revision because the proposed amendments will not result in any new significant environmental effects: 1.
The proposed revisions do not result in any new significant environmental effects and, like Ordinance No. 510 and 513U, no significant irnpacts have been identified. The revision to Title 17 (Zoning) do not present new significant environmental impacts because they rnerely modify or clarify certain requirements, or codify policy procedures and/or application requirernents. Therefore, the proposed revisions do not represent a substantial change in the project, and will not result in new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any impacts.
2.
The proposed reVISions will not result in any significant environrnental impacts, and the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken have not substantially changed since the CEQA determination was made for Ordinance No. 510. The scope of the proposed revisions relate to minor modifications that clarify code language discrepancies and/or codify policies and procedures that are currently in place. There are no changes with respect to the circumstances under which the revisions are undertaken that will require rnajor revisions of the previous Negative Declaration.
3.
No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the prior Negative Declaration was adopted, identifies a significant environmental effect. Because the proposed revisions would not result in any new or more severe environmental impacts than those associated with P.C. Resolution No. 2011-_ Page 8 of 9
17
Ordinance No. 510, there is no need for new or substantially modified mitigation measures. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, the Planning Commission finds that no further environmental review is necessary other than the City Council's adoption of this Addendum No.3.
P.C. Resolution No. 2011-_ Page 9 of 9
18
, Stern, Wolowicz, and Mayor Long
Initiate a Code Amendment to Revise RPVMC Chapter 17.90 (Interpretation Procedure) City Clerk Morreale reported that late correspondence was distributed prior to the meeting and there were three requests to speak regarding this item. Assistant Planner Harwell provided a brief staff report regarding this item. Mayor Long left the meeting at 10:13 P.M. Discussion ensued between Council Members and staff. Ken Dyda, Rancho Palos Verdes, suggested that there should be a correction that the map should be illustrative so that there will not be different scale factors and use previous procedures to protect the City. Sharon Yarber, Rancho Paros Verdes, stated that the proposed ctiange was to amend the existing ordinance to state 100 feet instead of 30 feet, and instead the existing ordinance should remain in place with additional language added to clarify that the homeowner be able to make a request to move the line in a particular direction. She stated that the intent as stated by staff should be clarified in the proposed code amendment. Lowell Wedemeyer, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that he was in favor of the review of the entire ordinance regarding the Interpretation Procedure. He suggested that the section be subject to a complete revision in order to separate out particular categories which should be addressed more appropriately. He noted that the ordinance should clarify which things can be applied to a specific parcel versus those that should be a general interpretation applicable to the entire City. Additional discussion ensued between Council Members and staff. Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Wolowicz, to adopt the staff recommendation to: Initiate a Code Amendment to revise Title 17.90 of the RPVMC to amend the Interpretation Procedures to allow the Community Development Director to make adjustments of a zoning or special district boundary line from thirty feet to one hundred feet without the processing of a Zoning Map amendment. The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
City Council Minutes October 18, 2011 Page 11 of 13
19
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Stern, Wolowicz, and Mayor Pro Tern Misetich None Campbell and Long None
los Verdes Nature Preserve - Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy ual Management Reports City C k Morreale reported that late correspondence was distributed prio meeting d there was one request to speak regarding this item. Deputy Com nity Development Director Mihranian provided an 0 PowerPoint pre ntation of the item. Andrea Vona, Exec ''!Ie Director, Palos Verdes Peninsula L tI Conservancy (PVPLC) provided a short overv w of the PVPLC, its mission, and t current operation of two nature centers. an overview of the monitoring Danielle Lefer, Conservation irector, PVPLC, provid of threatened species and plan ,habitat restoratio and vegetation mapping in compliance with the City's requir ents under the CCP plan. Discussion ensued between Council stated that he hikes on the Three Sisters er Keeping an Extra Eye on the Preserve EPERS) of that area under the PVPLC. staff and the PVPLC to modify the use nd control erosion after rain storms. Mayor Pro Tern Misetich an Stern, to approve the staff recommendation to: Re Ive and file the Palos Verdes ninsula Land Conservancy's Palos Verdes Nature 2008-2009 and 2010 nual Report on managing the Cit Preserve. ed on the following roll call vote: Stern, Wolowicz, and Mayor Pro Tern Misetich None Campbell and Long None LOSED SESSION REPORT:
City Council Minutes October 18, 2011 Page 12 of 13
20
Abigail Harwell From: Sent: To: Subject:
Greg Pfost [[email protected]] Monday, November 28, 2011 9:48 AM 'Abigail Harwell' FW: OPEN SPACE PROP. LINE ADJUCTMENT
AbigailFYI.
-Greg. Sincerely,
Gregory Pfost, AICP Deputy Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5228
-----Original Message----From, [email protected] [mailto,[email protected]] Sent, Saturday, November 26, 2011 10,54 AM To, PLANNING®RPV.COM Subject, OPEN SPACE PROP. LINE ADJUCTMENT Dear
planning commission and city council,
I, as a property owner in Rancho Palos Verdes, and would like to have my comments heard for the Notice of Planning case No. Zon2011-00168( code amendment). I am for the
opportunity to have the boundary line changed from 30ft. to 100ft. away from my house back towards the Miraleste parks and recreation parkland property with out the need for an expensive geology report. I am very concerned that the arbitrary line set down randomly on
my property and the property of the Miraleste Park Distict. Please keep me informed on the outcome of the issue.
Thanks
Barbara Huffman
1
21
Abigail Harwell [email protected] Sunday, November 27, 2011 6:51 AM [email protected] [email protected] Case ZON2011-00168 Proposed Revision to Chap. 17.90
From: Sent:
To: Cc: Subject:
Dear Abigail,
cc: Planning Commission
The City's notice dated 11/17 regarding the proposed re-interpretation of this procedure is the subject here. We find that an unused sliver across the bottom of our property, 2747 Vista Mesa, may fall within an Open Space Hazard zone. Our question is: What is the implication and obligations of this to us as the homeowner? We shall be away until December 4th so please answer either by email anytime or by phone after that. Thank you.
IIChord tr -ially,
Jim
o~~#
James S. and Jane B. Jones
<[email protected]> Tel/Fax:
(310)
831-3372
1
22
RECEIVED
NOV 30 2011 November 30,2011
COMMUNITY DEY ElOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Re:
Planning Case No. ZON 2011-00168 (Code Amendment) Comments by Maurice Williams
I am extremely disappointed by the City ofRPV's proposed revision to Chapter 17.90 of the Municipal Code, to allow owners of property traversed by an Open Space Hazard Zoning District boundary line the opportunity to adjust their boundary line up to 100 feet. (I assume you mean 100 feet. Your notice only says 100). I was originally told by Planning Department staff over a year ago that the City was going to possibly look at areas that were zoned OH in error. Obviously, that's not the case. I live at the end of Van Karajan Drive, which is shown in Exhibit A, with my west property line located along the boundary between Eastview and the rest ofRPV. I purchased my property in 1986. I just recently discovered that almost my entire property is zoned OH, which, as a licensed civil engineer was a total shock. The only reason I have been able to come up with, as to why my property and my neighbors' properties are zoned OH, is because we live in the "lower class" Eastview area. I know of nowhere in the entire world where the natural topography and/or geology abruptly and drastically change along a straight-line, political boundary, except, apparently in RPV. This change, according to your zoning map occurs at the boundary between Eastview and the rest ofRPV, not in one, but unbelievably, in two separate locations. This is shown in the two attachments, (Exhibit A and Exhibit B) with OH zoning shaded in green. What is further unbelievable is that both of these areas occur on the Eastview side of the line, and the shapes ofthese areas are nothing like anything seen in nature. I could understand the canyon portion of my property being zoned OH, except that the entire canyon to the west of my property, west ofthe Eastview boundary line, is residential. The other portion of my property, where the natural slopes never exceeded 35%, should never have been zoned OH. My entire home and pool are built on bedrock. There is not one credible reason for this zoning.
23
Before I discovered that my property was zoned OR, I obtained a building permit, and built a 356 square foot addition to the west side of my home in 2003. Apparently, someone forgot to look at the zoning map. Prior to issuing a permit, one of your Planning Department staff members, your geologist, and my geotechnical engineer who prepared the soils report had visited the site. I am a civil engineer who has lived here since 1986. No one even suggested that the site had any problems. In addition, prior to my purchase of the property, the County of LA issued one grading permit and five building permits. Surely, if the property is so unsafe as to be zoned OR, at least one professional along the way would have noticed something wrong. Now I can't even build a patio cover. Not to mention what it does to my property value. IfI had an emergency, and I had to sell my property in a hurry, what would I get for it? So far, none ofyour Planning Department staff can give me a reason, provide any documentation, or even knows of any documentation as to why my property is zoned OR. I've been told that it probably doesn't exist. Obviously, something is wrong with this system. It needs a complete overhaul, not the band-aid that's proposed. I propose that the City take it upon itself to do the right thing and correct these injustices inflicted upon the impacted citizens of Eastview, and others in similar situations. All property owners should be treated equally. Give us back our unjustly taken property. It is long overdue. In addition, the proposed revision to Chapter 17.90 should at least allow OR boundary lines which bound property to be moved, not just those that traverse property. This proposal is too restrictive. But the bigger issue is that property was randomly taken without valid reason. Your proposed minor change does nothing to address this issue. Your entire process needs to be reviewed and revised. Again, give us back our unjustly taken property.
Maurice P. Williams 310-832-1694 [email protected]
24
Existing Zoning
Ex H 1.0
i---r A 25
Page 1 of 1
Map Output
ArclMS HTML Viewer Ma
ExHtBi/
26
http://www.giscentral.com/servlet/com.esri.esrirnap.Esrirnap?ServiceName=CityofRPV0... 10120120 10
Page 1 of 1
Abigail Harwell From: Jeff Koehler [email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 02,2011 10:20 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Open Hazard Zone Dear Ms Harwell I live at 28039 Calzada Dr and was recently made aware of the existence of the open hazard zone created in 1974. I note from the map depiction that the boundary ofthe zone cuts across my property - in fact it cuts through the existing house as well as through the existing houses of a number of my neighbors. Given that the house was built in 1965 and both the house and the yard are on perfectly level terrain and neither has slipped since new, the boundary of the OH zone seems rather arbitrary. I understand that the imapct of the zoning restriction is that if! wanted to enclose the existing patio on the west side of the house that I would have to engender the expense of a geologic survey to obtain approval. On the other hand if I wanted to enclose the patio on the East side I would not have to do the survey since that patio is outside of the boundary. This does not make sense to me. I understand that there is a proposal to amend the OH zone to allow modifications of the line, but the current language would still require the geological survey to make the adjustment. It seems to me that other evidence of the stability of the property - at least of the existing house and closely surrounding area - such as photos showing level land, no evidence of slippage, etc., would be sufficient to establish that the likelihood of catastrophic land slides is small enough that the boundary could be moved without risk. I understand that there is to be a hearing on Dec 13 concerning modification of the zoning restriction and I would like to encourage you to support adoption of a reasonable method other than expensive geological survey to adjust the boundary. I plan to attend the public hearing and will introduce the notion if given the opportunity. VIR Jeff Koehler
12/5/20 II
27
Page 1 of 1
Abigail Harwell From:
Joe Gasperov Osphgsp@aoLcom]
Sent:
Sunday, December 04,2011 12:46 PM
To:
[email protected]
Subject: The Open Hazard Zone
Dear Ms Harwell This is in regards to the e-mail you have already received from my next-door neighbor, Jeff Koehler (28039 Calzada Drive). I have the same problem and concerns, and would also like to encourage you to support adoption of a reasonable method other than expensive geological survey to adjust the boundary. Thank you in advance for your help. Joseph Gasperov 28036 Calzada Drive
12/5/2011
28
01/12/2002
15:50
13105330191
LACOMBE
PAGE
02
December 1, 2011 TOI Rancho ...10$ Verdes Plannln8 Commission Re: Notice for PlaMII... ca.. ZON201HI01118 2052 Glllerita Prlve, RPV
I J~lt discovered that mv backyard 'sloned as ·open space ha.ard While there may be weed.lhat need to be ~lIed or tl'ee$ trimmed and $Ome may see It as a haJard, It does not c:onMCt WIth any ~bllc or open space like a canyon. If mv yard Is .oned open JP'Ite hazard tlten 95" of 011 homes In RPII should have back or front vards wttl1 open sPace haurd _Ina. 3
•
It II wrong lhat 11~5t dl_vered this. Tlte previ(l~s owner probably didn't kn_ this either. Tltls lnformalk)n 1. not on anV tax records, or provlded thro~1Ih eSQ"OW or III my property folder wttl1 permlt Irtfol'rnatlon In the BuildIng and SlI~ Dolpartll\tTlt. As a homeb\Jyllr and homeowner, I have done my due dDI..nt* to discover
this Information. la.ked AbIgail Harwell In the planning dept. how were ' " - lin... and boundarle$ determlnlld, when did this open space ha.ard lonlng begin In the Eastview are.. Ind why weren't we n()tllled In this letter that our property !110ned open spa
