TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: JUNE 12, 2007

SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT (CASE NO. ZON2007-00076): MISCELLANEOUS CODE AMENDMENT

Staff Coordinator: Kit Fox, AICP, Associate Planner

Attachment: P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2007

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2007-__, thereby forwarding a recommendation of approval of the proposed Miscellaneous Code Amendment to the City Council.

BACKGROUND

On February 6, 2007, the City Council considered a request for a waiver of the penalty fee associated with an after-the-fact Planning application. In this particular case, the application in question had been previously denied without prejudice by the Planning Commission, and this decision had been upheld on appeal by the City Council. However, when the applicant submitted a revised application for the after-the-fact approval in January 2007, Staff assessed a second penalty fee. Although the City Council ultimately granted the applicant’s request to waive the second penalty fee, the City Council felt that to do so required “stretching” of the Municipal Code provisions regarding fee waivers. Therefore, in granting the applicant’s request, the City Council also directed Staff to initiate an amendment to the City’s fee waiver provisions to include provisions to waive duplicate penalty fees in similar situations.

On February 20, 2007, the City Council considered appeals of the Planning Commission’s affirmation of the Director’s approval of a site plan review application with neighborhood compatibility analysis. This case involved a house that had been destroyed by fire and was being rebuilt, albeit taller but still within the 16-foot height limit. However, this application triggered the neighborhood compatibility analysis because there was about one thousand square feet (1,000 SF) of unaccounted building area that was not reflected in the City’s building permits for the house. The City Council ultimately overturned the neighbors’ appeals, and directed Staff to initiate an amendment to the City’s neighborhood compatibility processes that would expedite and exempt similar cases from review in the future.

Given that Staff was about to proceed with the code amendment process for these two (2) issues, there were a couple of other timely issues that Staff thought could also be addressed at the same time. One issue is the revisions of the City’s attached unit development standards, which deal (in part) with the transmission of sound and vibration through common walls and floors/ceilings of attached residential projects. The other issue is the requirement (or lack thereof) for temporary framework silhouettes for non-single-family-residential projects.

Pursuant to the City’s Development Code, all code amendments must be initiated by the City Council or reviewed by the City Council before proceeding. Therefore, Staff requested initiation of the two (2) additional code amendments that could be considered concurrent with the two (2) City Council-initiated code amendments. On May 1, 2007, the City Council initiated the Miscellaneous Code Amendment (Case No. ZON2007-00076) for all four (4) amendments.

DISCUSSION

The four (4) components of this code amendment are discussed separately below, accompanied by Staff’s recommended changes to the Development Code language.

Waive Duplicate Penalty Fees for After-the-Fact Planning Applications in Certain Specified Circumstances

The City Council has directed Staff to revise the fee waiver provisions of the Development Code (Section 17.78.010) to allow for the waiver of penalty fees when duplicate after-the-fact applications are submitted. Accordingly, Staff recommends revising Section 17.78.010 as follows (additions underlined and deletions struck out):

“17.78.010 Fee waivers

A. Except for the application fee exemptions described in Sections 17.78.010(DE) and (F) of this chapter, no appeal, application for a permit or approval under Title 15, Title 16 or Title 17 of this Municipal Code may be accepted unless the applicant pays all necessary application, appeal and/or penalty fees as established by the city council. The director may accept requests for waiver of application, appeal and/or penalty fees for presentation to the city council. If a fee waiver request is submitted concurrently with an application or appeal, the application, appeal and/or penalty fee shall be paid by the applicant and the paid fee shall be held by the city until a determination is made on the accompanying fee waiver request.

B. The city council may, in its discretion, grant such a waiver if it finds:

1. The applicant or the beneficiary of the use or activity proposed by the applicant is a nonprofit corporation registered with the state of California;

2. The use or activity proposed or the activities of the beneficiary of the use or activity proposed are charitable, educational or otherwise provide a substantial benefit to the public; or

3. The applicant has demonstrated a financial hardship, as determined by the city council, on a case by case basis.

C. The city council may, in its discretion, grant a fee waiver without making the findings specified in Section 17.78.010(B) of this chapter, if the applicant has been granted a variance due to administrative error pursuant to Section 17.64.020(C) (Variances) of this title.

D. The city council may, in its discretion, grant a penalty fee waiver without making the findings specified in Section 17.78.010(B) of this chapter, if the applicant has previously paid the penalty fee for an after-the-fact application that was denied without prejudice, and is submitting a subsequent, modified version of the after-the-fact application within one year of the denial of the previous application.

D.E. Registered nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporations that are registered with the secretary of state and which are located or conduct business in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes or provide services available to city residents, shall, upon submittal of reasonable proof as to nonprofit 501(c)(3) status, be exempt from the requirement for payment of application fees associated with processing certain planning applications. This exemption shall apply only to the following types of applications:

1. Temporary sign permits;

2. Special use permits;

3. Sign permits;

4. Site plan review applications (only where no new expansion of building space or lot coverage is proposed); and

5. Conditional large domestic animal permits.

This fee exemption shall not be construed as waiving the requirements for submittal and review of the required applications and associated information. This fee exemption shall not apply to appeal fees, penalty fees or fees for building permits or plan check services. Fee waivers for appeal fees, penalty fees and/or building permits or plan check services shall be processed in accordance with the procedures described in Section 17.78.010 of this chapter.

F. Any permit or application fees (excluding geotechnical review fees) associated with the proposed reconstruction of a building or other structure that has been damaged or destroyed by fire or other involuntary act of the property owner shall be waived, provided that the applicant can demonstrate that said fees are not covered by the applicant’s homeowners’ insurance policy.”

Expedite Planning Review and Exempt the Reconstruction of Single-Family Residences that are Damaged or Destroyed by Fire from the City’s Neighborhood Compatibility Requirements

The City Council has directed Staff to revise the exemptions from the Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis requirements of the Development Code (Section 17.02.030(B)(2)) to include the reconstruction of single-family homes damaged or destroyed by fire or other involuntary act of the property owner. Consistent with this directive, Staff is also proposing a fee waiver for such cases. The proposed fee waiver language is included in the preceding section of this report. In addition, Staff recommends revising Section 17.02.030(B)(2) as follows to address the Neighborhood Compatibility review changes (additions underlined and deletions struck out):

“17.02.030(B)(2)

The projects listed in the following subparagraphs (a through de) shall be exempt from the Neighborhood Compatibility requirements of this subsection. However, no property shall be issued a permit for a project that is subject to the same subparagraph more than once in a two-year period without complying with the Neighborhood Compatibility requirements:

a. An addition to an existing single-family residence that meets the following criteria:

(i.) Is sixteen feet or less in height, as measured according to the criteria stated in Section 17.02.040(B);

(ii.) Is not being constructed along the facade facing any street;

(iii.) Is two hundred fifty square feet or less in floor area; and

(iv.) Complies with all of the city’s residential development standards.

b. An addition or conversion of non-habitable floor area to habitable floor area that does not result in exterior modifications other than the placement of flush mounted doors and windows.

c. The construction of a minor non-habitable accessory structure, such as, but not limited to, a cabana, a pool changing room, a storage shed, or a playhouse, that meets the following criteria:

(i.) Is twelve feet or less in height, as measured from lowest adjacent grade as stated in Section 17.48.050(D);

(ii.) Is less than two hundred fifty square feet in floor area; and

(iii.) Complies with all of the city’s residential development standards.

d. The enclosure of a roofed breezeway between legally permitted structures or the enclosure of a two hundred fifty square foot or less patio cover, provided the enclosure:

(i.) Is sixteen feet or less in height, as measured according to the criteria stated in Section 17.02.040(B);

(ii.) Is attached to the primary structure; and,

(iii.) Complies with all of the city’s residential development standards.

e. The reconstruction of a single-family residence damaged or destroyed by fire or other involuntary act of the property owner, provided that the reconstructed residence:

(i.) Is the same size and located in the same general location as the original residence;

(ii.) Is designed with substantially the same exterior materials, finishes and architectural style as the original residence; and,

(iii.) Complies with all of the city’s residential development standards.”

Revise the Noise and Vibration Standards from the City’s Attached Unit Development Standards

The City’s attached unit development standards (Chapter 17.06) were adopted in 1975 as a part of the City’s first zoning code. These standards initially dealt with attenuation of sound and vibration between attached dwelling units, as well as enforcement of fire rating standards. This Code underwent minor modifications and renumbering over the years. Major changes included:

- Adding provisions requiring public utility easements within private streets (1980); and,

- Rescinding the provisions regarding fire ratings (1997).

Other than these modifications, however, the substantive provisions regarding the attenuation of sound and vibration have not changed for more than thirty (30) years. The City’s records indicate that the City Council discussed these provisions on November 6, 1975, but the Minutes of that meeting do not reflect any specific intent of the City Council at that time. In the past few years, developers of multi-family residential projects have questioned these standards, indicating that they are more stringent than those of many other South Bay and Peninsula jurisdictions (see table below). The major difference appears to be the minimum Impact Insulation Class (IIC) for floors and ceilings, which is fifty (50) or not specified in most jurisdictions, but sixty-five (65) in our city.

Jurisdiction Common Walls Common Floors/Ceilings Notes

Palos Verdes Estates See notes See notes Left to the discretion of the decision-making body (PVEMC 18.08.130.B)

Rolling Hills N/A N/A No multi-family structures permitted in city

Rolling Hills Estates 50 STC 50 STC/50 IIC Adopted Los Angeles County Code by reference

(RHEMC 15.04.010)

Torrance See notes See notes Acoustical treatment of floors and walls required to meet State standards

(TMC 91.36.5.C.12)

Lomita 50 STC 50 STC/50 IIC Adopted Los Angeles County Code by reference

(LMC 10-1.01)

Redondo Beach 55 STC 50 STC/50 IIC (RBMC 10-2.1608.d.3)

Hermosa Beach 52 STC 58 STC (HBMC 17.22.060.G)

Manhattan Beach 55 STC 55 STC (MBMC 10.88.060.C.2)

Los Angeles (city) See notes See notes Acoustical report required at the discretion of the Advisory Agency, but no specific standards set

(LAMC 12.95.2.D.1.c)

Los Angeles (county) 50 STC 50 STC/50 IIC Adopted CBC Appendix Chapter 12 as amended (LACC 26.12)

Rancho Palos Verdes 55 STC 50 STC/65 IIC (RPVMC 17.06.020.A)

State Building Code 50 STC 50 STC/50 IIC (CBC 1208)

Note: STC = Sound Transmission Class, IIC = Impact Insulation Class

The benefit of the current requirements is that they provide for a greater degree of noise and vibration insulation between attached units than the minimum requirements of the Building Code (and those of some other South Bay and Peninsula jurisdictions). This should lead to a quieter interior living environment for future residents. The cost of the current requirements is that conventional wood-frame construction will not meet these sound insulation requirements; concrete construction would be required to meet them. This would increase the cost of construction for developers, a cost that would probably be passed on to the future residents in the form of higher housing prices.

Although the City has not processed a multi-family residential project in quite some time, there are currently two (2) such projects under review that would trigger compliance with the attached unit development standards contained in Chapter 17.06. These include:

- The senior condominium project (Vellana) on Crestridge Road; and,

- A 27-unit condominium project on Highridge Road.

Based upon the foregoing discussion, Staff believes that the sound and vibration attenuation provisions of Chapter 17.06 may be overly restrictive. For the surveyed jurisdictions that include an IIC standard for common floor/ceiling assemblies, 50 IIC is the most common standard. Therefore, Staff suggests revising this standard as follows to be more consistent with the standards of other nearby jurisdictions (additions underlined and deletions struck out):

“17.06.020 Development Standards.

A. Attenuation of Noise and Vibration.

1. No plumbing fixture or other such permanent device which generates noise or vibration shall be attached to a common wall adjacent to a living room, family room, dining room, den or bedroom of an adjoining unit. All plumbing fixtures or similar devices shall be located on exterior walls, on interior walls within the unit or on common walls, if adjacent to a similar fixture or device.

2. All water supply lines within common walls and/or floors/ceilings shall be isolated from wood or metal framing with pipe isolators specifically manufactured for that purpose and approved by the city’s building official. In multistory residential structures, all vertical drainage pipes shall be surrounded by three-quarter-inch thick dense insulation board or full thick fiberglass or wool blanket insulation for their entire length, excluding the sections that pass through wood or metal framing. The building official may approve other methods of isolating sound transmission through plumbing lines where their effectiveness can be demonstrated.

3. All common wall assemblies which separate attached single-family units shall be of a cavity-type construction.

4. All common wall assemblies which separate all other attached dwelling units (multiple-family condominiums, stock cooperatives, community apartment houses) or a dwelling unit and a public or quasi-public space shall be of a staggered-stud construction.

5. All common wall assemblies which separate dwelling units from each other or from public or quasi-public spaces (interior corridors, laundry rooms, recreation rooms and garages) shall be constructed with a minimum rating of fifty-five STC (sound transmission class).

6. All common floor/ceiling assemblies which separate dwelling units from each other or from public or quasi-public spaces (interior corridors, laundry rooms, recreation rooms and garages) shall be constructed with a minimum rating of fifty STC (sound transmission class) and a minimum rating of sixty-five fifty IIC (impact insulation class). Floor coverings may be included in the assembly to obtain the required ratings, but must be retained as a permanent part of the assembly and may only be replaced by another insulation.

7. STC and IIC ratings shall be based on the result of laboratory measurements and will not be subjected to field testing. The STC rating shall be based on the American Society for Testing and Materials system specified in ASTM #90-66t or equivalent. The IIC rating shall be based on the system in use at the National Bureau of Standards or equivalent. Ratings obtained from other testing procedures will require adjustment to the above rating systems. In documenting wall and floor/ceiling compliance with the required sound ratings, the applicant shall either furnish the city’s building official with data based upon tests performed by a recognized and approved testing laboratory, or furnish the building official with verified manufacturer’s data on the ratings of the various wall and floor/ceiling assemblies utilized.

B. Utility Easements Over Private Streets and Other Areas. If private streets are involved, a provision shall be made for public utility easements over the entire private street network. The director and/or planning commission may also require public utility easements adjacent to public streets or over other areas to accommodate fire hydrants, water meters, street furniture, storm drainage, sanitary sewers, water and gas mains, electrical lines and similar urban infrastructure. The director and/or planning commission may also require access routes necessary to ensure that fire fighting equipment can reach and operate efficiently in all areas.”

Add a Requirement for the Construction of Temporary Framework Silhouettes for Multi-Family Residential, Commercial, Institutional and Cemetery Projects Requiring Approval of a Conditional Use Permit

While the City’s Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines for single-family residential projects require the construction of a project silhouette for all projects requiring neighborhood compatibility analysis, no such silhouette requirement currently exists for multi-family residential and non-residential projects. Although not required, Staff has made it a practice to ask the developers of multi-family residential and non-residential projects that could potentially affect views to erect some type of silhouette structure to assist Staff and the public in assessing view impacts. Past projects where this has been requested include:

- The Belmont Village assisted living facility;

- The Instorage self-storage facility on Western Avenue;

- The senior condominium project (Vellana) on Crestridge Road;

- The Golden Cove Center expansion and remodel; and

- The Green Hills Memorial Park master plan.

Currently, the City is considering other non-single-family-residential projects for which the assessment of view impacts may be a critical component in the consideration of a conditional use permit. These include:

- The Marymount College expansion project;

- An office building at the northwest corner of Hawthorne Boulevard and Crest Road; and,

- A 27-unit condominium project on Highridge Road.

Based upon the City’s prior practice of asking for silhouettes for previously-approved non-single-family-residential projects, Staff believes that codifying the requirement for silhouettes for other major non-single-family-residential projects requiring a conditional use permit would be helpful to Staff and the public in understanding and evaluating the impacts of these projects. Therefore, Staff recommends revising the application requirements for conditional use permits (Section 17.60.020) as follows (additions underlined and deletions struck out):

“17.60.020 Application.

A. The application for a conditional use permit shall be filed on forms provided by the city. A person may not file, and the director shall not accept, an application which is the same as, or substantially the same as, an application upon which final action has been taken by the director, by the planning commission, or by the city council within twelve months prior to the date of said application, unless accepted by motion of the planning commission or city council, or the previous application is denied without prejudice by the planning commission or city council.

B. An application shall contain full and complete information pertaining to the request.

C. The director or the planning commission shall investigate the facts bearing on each case to provide information necessary to assure action consistent with the intent and purposes of this title.

D. In cases where the director considers the conditions set forth on the application not within the scope of the conditional use permit procedure, the applicant shall be so informed. Whereupon, if the application is filed, it shall be signed by the applicant to the effect that he or she was so informed. Filing of an application does not constitute an indication of approval.

E. In no event shall the acceptance of an application by the city be construed as support for, or the eventual approval of, the proposed use.

F. For multi-family residential and non-residential development applications, a temporary framework silhouette of the proposed project shall be required as part of a complete application. Said silhouette shall be constructed, marked and certified in accordance with the guidelines established by the city council from time to time.”

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Public Notification

The subject of this code amendment is applicable citywide and would require direct notification of more than one thousand (1,000) property owners. Therefore, pursuant to Section 65091(a)(3) of the California Government Code, a one-eighth-page public notice for the June 12, 2007, public hearing on the draft Miscellaneous Code Amendment was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on May 26, 2007. Notice was also posted on the City’s website. As of the date this report was completed, Staff had received no comments in response to the public notification for this item.

CEQA Compliance

Staff believes that there is no substantial evidence that the amendments to Title 17 would result in new significant environmental effects, or a substantial increase in the severity of the effects, as previously identified in Environmental Assessment No. 694 and the Negative Declaration, adopted through Resolution No. 97-25 in conjunction with Ordinance No. 320 for amendments to Titles 16 and 17 of the Municipal Code, since the new amendments provide regulations that would reduce undue burdens imposed upon property owners in cases of certain after-the-fact applications and reconstruction of fire-damaged residences. Furthermore, the revisions would protect residents of future attached dwelling units from unreasonable noise and vibration impacts, and help to reduce impacts to properties within the City and the environment by protecting views and the aesthetic quality of the area. An Addendum to the prior Negative Declaration will be prepared for the City Council’s consideration.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing discussion, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval for this miscellaneous code amendment (Case No. ZON2007-00076) to the City Council, via Minute Order.

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission's consideration:

1. Forward the draft Miscellaneous Code Amendment to the City Council with modifications read into the record of tonight’s meeting.

2. Identify any issues of concern with the draft Miscellaneous Code Amendment, provide Staff with direction for modifications, and continue the public hearing to a date certain.

Attachments:

PC Resolution No. 2007-__

City Council Staff report of May 1, 2007