02-04-1997 - Code Amendment #274 - Interim Urgency Ordinance #1978 - Time Extension Retaining Walls & Elevated StructuresCity of West Covina
0 Memorandum
TO: City Council ..AGENDA
City Manager
ITEM NO. A-1
FROM: Planning Department DATE 24-97
Planning Commission ®PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 274
INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 1978 - TIME EXTENSION
RETAINING WALLS AND ELEVATED STRUCTURES
SUMMARY: Code Amendment No. 274 is a City -initiated
ty d project to add
provisions to Chapter 26 (Zoning) of the West Covina Municipal
Code regulating the height and design of retaining walls and
elevated structures in the City's single-family residential zones.
Also proposed is a time extension for Urgency Ordinance No. 1978,
extending the expiration date to allow sufficient time for Code
Amendment No. 274 to become effective.
BACKGROUND
On September 1i7, 1996, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1977,
which established a moratorium on the construction of retaining walls and other
elevated structures (e.g. decks, patios) over four feet in height within single-
family residential zones. In addition, the Council directed the Planning
Commission to consider the adoption of a permanent code amendment to
address retaining walls and elevated structures.
According to Stafte law, the initial urgency adoption of an ur ordinance is valid for 45
P 9 Y
days. On October 15, 1996, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No.
1978 to extend Urgency Ordinance No. 1977 for 120 days beyond the October
31, 1996, expiration date (or until February 28, 1997). Since the moratorium was
intended as only a short-term measure, Urgency Ordinance No. 1978
incorporated a process to allow retaining walls over four feet in height through an
administrative review procedure.
On December 31, 1996, the Planning Commission conducted a study session to
consider a permanent code amendment to establish regulations for retaining
walls and elevated structures. A public hearing was held on January 14, 1997,
and continued ito January 28, 1997, when the Planning Commission voted
unanimously to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve
Code Amendment No. 274.
EVALUATION
The intent of the code amendment is not to prohibit the construction of retaining
walls or elevated structures, but to improve their appearance and minimize their
impacts on surrounding properties. All retaining walls and elevated structures
over thirty inches in height currently require a building permit to ensure their
structural integrity. The proposed code amendment would require the Planning
Director to review all retaining walls and elevated structures over four feet in
height to ensure that appropriate design measures are incorporated into each
proposal.
Exemptions
The proposed code amendment identifies certain circumstances when retaining
walls or elevated structures would be exempt from the new code provisions. The
exemptions arel similar to those adopted in the urgency ordinance and are as
follows:
ZACCISFRPTSAHIRETWALL5. DOC
Code Amendment NdW • ;
Retaining Walls and Elevated Structures
February 4. 1997 - Page 2
=> Retaining walls and elevated structures that are not readily visible from the
ground level of surrounding properties or from public rights -of -way.
�. Retaining walls which have been determined necessary by the City Engineer
for reasons of emergency slope stabilization and/or public safety.
Second story decks and/or balconies not exceeding 200 square feet, as long
as they do not extend horizontally over an area with a 3:1 horizontal to
vertical slope or steeper.
A retaining wall or elevated structure which is considered exempt would not be
restricted to a maximum height or required to comply with the established design
criteria.
He_ fight
As proposed, an administrative retaining wall/elevated structure permit would be
required for all retaining walls and elevated structures which exceed four feet in
height, and for all retaining walls which are constructed in combination with a
screen wall or fence such that the total height exceeds eight and one-half feet.
The proposed code amendment addresses both retaining walls and landscaped
crib walls. A crib wall is a type of retaining wall comprised .of a hollow rectangular
cribwork of logs, timbers, reinforced concrete beams, or steel beams .filled with
rock or soil. Landscaping can be incorporated into the design of a crib wall so
that vines or other planting actually extend across the face of the wall. Based on
the wail's design, the appearance of a landscaped crib wall is generally less
aesthetically objectionable than a standard retaining wall. For this reason, the
proposed code amendment allows landscaped crib walls to reach a maximum
height of fifteen feet. As with any retaining wall, a landscaped crib wall greater
than four feet in height would require an administrative retaining wall/elevated
structure permit.
All other retaining walls and elevated structures, unless otherwise exempt, would
be limited to a maximum height of eight feet. A wall or fence built on top of a
retaining wall; but not comprised of "solid" materials, would not count toward the
total height. Definitions are included in the proposed code amendment to specify
how height is measured'and what constitutes a solid fence or wall.
The consensus of the Planning Commission was that eight feet is an appropriate
height limit. The Commission discussed whether a nine or ten foot height limit
would be more suitable; however, the Commission concluded that property
owners should be able to achieve their development objectives and comply with
an eight foot height limit if they utilize alternative design solutions, such as
terraced retaining walls. Additionally, a property owner could propose a
landscaped crib wall with a maximum height of fifteen feet. In cases. of extreme
hardship, a resident could apply for a variance to construct a retaining wall that is
taller than the established height limits.
Parallel Retaining Walls
The proposed ordinance requires a minimum horizontal distance of at least three
feet between multiple retaining walls that are approximately parallel and on the
.same property. If the horizontal distance between retaining walls is, five feet or
greater, each wall is treated as an individual structure and is limited to the
applicable height requirements. If the walls are closer than five feet, the height is
calculated from the lowest adjacent grade of the lowest wall segment to the top of
the highest wall segment. This should encourage property owners to maintain a.
five foot separation between walls. Nonetheless, a minimum separation of three
ZACC\SFRPTSAH\RETWALL5. DOC
Code Amendment
Retaining Walls ar
4
ated Structures
feet would be
landscaping N
ired in all cases which would allow an adequate area for
n walls.
The interim ordinance did not address main or accessory structures which are
built on areas of artificial fill created by a retaining wall or on top of elevated
decks or patios. Similar to a combination retaining wall/screen wall, a structure
which is built directly on top of a retaining wall or elevated deck .will increase the
height and mass of the wall or structure and could potentially create privacy
impacts for a downhill neighbor.
As proposed, the code amendment requires an administrative retaining
wall/elevated structure permit for any structure constructed on top of an area of
artificial fill created by a retaining wall or constructed on top of an elevated deck
or patio when any portion of the proposed structure is within five feet of the edge
of the retaining wall or elevated structure. The provision for a five-foot setback
was selected as it is consistent with the standards for parallel retaining walls and
screen walls. The height of the added structure, however, will not count toward
the maximum height limits established for retaining walls and elevated structures.
The proposed administrative procedure requires that surrounding property
owners be notified of the proposal and be given an opportunity to request an
administrative hearing if they so desire. The interim ordinance requires that all
property owners and tenants within a 100-foot radius of the site receive notice of
the proposal. The Planning Commission, however, felt that this was not sufficient
and recommended that all property owners and tenants within a 300-foot radius
of the site recei�ue notice of the proposal. Since retaining walls are often
proposed on larger hillside lots, a larger radius should make more residents
aware of a proposed project.
If no hearing is requested, the Planning Director may take action to approve,
conditionally approve, or disapprove a proposal. The Planning Director also has
the option to refer a proposal to the Planning Commission. To remain consistent
with the administ lative hearing process as established in the Municipal Code, the
proposed code amendment allows 10 days for the public to comment on a project
or request a hearing, rather than 14 days as adopted in the interim ordinance.
Design Standard
Prior to the approval of a re itaming wall/elevated structure permit, the proposal
would be carefully considered to ensure that neighboring property owners are not
adversely affected. The proposed code amendment requires that the Planning
Director review each application based on the following design criteria: colors
and materials, landscaping, wall separation, and privacy impacts. Staff feels that
it is not practical to require specific design standards for all cases since wall
design will vary based on the individual site characteristics. However, staff has
incorporated a list of suggested construction and landscape materials. Although
property owners are not limited to the list of suggested materials, it provides
guidelines for appropriate design.
Pursuant to Section 65858 of the State Government Code, an urgency ordinance
is effective for an,' initial period of 45 days and can be extended for a maximum of
two times, once for up to 10 months and 15 days, and once again for up to one
year. On October 15, 1996, the Council extended the original urgency ordinance
z:
DOC
Code Amendment No
Retaining Walls and Elevated Structures
February 4. 1997 - Page 4
fora limited duration of 120 days to February 28, 1997. This was done to ensure
that the interim regulations would not persist for an extended period of time.
Staff has made the development of the permanent ordinance a priority work item
as evidenced by its current readiness for introduction. However, because of the
requirements for second reading and a 30-day period before becoming effective,
the earliest date that the permanent ordinance could take effect is March.21,
1997. In order to avoid a lapse in the regulations, it will be necessary to briefly
extend the urgency ordinance a final time.
While the permanent ordinance should take effect in March, the City Attorney has
recommended that the urgency ordinance be extended until July 1. Since this is
the final time that the urgency ordinance can be extended, this will provide
protection against any possible delays that could arise during the final adoption
of the ordinance. Once the permanent ordinance takes effect, the urgency
ordinance will automatically terminate.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council introduce
the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS
OF CHAPTER 26 OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE
(ZONING) RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN
RETAINING WALLS AND ELEVATED STRUCTURES WITHIN
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES (CODE AMENDMENT
NO. 274).
Staff further recommends that the City Council adopt the following urgency
ordinance:
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA EXTENDING URGENCY
ORDINANCE NO. 1978 RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF
CERTAIN RETAINING WALLS AND ELEVATED STRUCTURES
WITHIN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
Anne D. Hill
Planning Assis ant
.. .
al Planner
REVIEWED AND APPROVED
y W. Collier
ing Director
Z:\CC\SFRPTSAH\RETWALL5.D0C
City of West Covina
jMemorandum
TO: Planning Commission AGENDA
FROM: Planning Department ITEM No. R-1
DATE 1-28-97
SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 274 ®PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
RETAINING WALLS AND ELEVATED STRUCTURES
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
f
SUMMARY: Code Amendment No. 274 is a City -initiated project to add
provisions to Chapter 26 (Zoning) of the West Covina Municipal
Code regulating the height and design of retaining walls and
elevated structures in the City's single-family residential zones.
11
BACKGROUND
At the January 1;4, 1997, Planning Commission meeting, staff presented a draft
code amendment based on the adopted interim ordinance and the comments
made by the Planning Commission at the December 10th study session. After
reviewing comments from the public, staff recommended that the Commission
review the draft as a working document so that staff could incorporate regulations
for crib retaining walls, as well as other minor revisions, into the ordinance
amendment. The item was continued to the January 28th Commission meeting
for final recommendation to the City Council.
DISCUSSION
The attached 'ordinance amendment, marked Exhibit 'A" includes the
modifications as\�described by staff at the January 14, 1997 Commission meeting,
as well as other minor text revisions that provide further clarification and maintain
consistency withl'other requirements. The changes are as follows:
Crib Walls
The proposed ordinance amendment now addresses and defines landscaped
crib walls. A crib wall is a type of retaining wall comprised of a hollow rectangular
cribwork of logs 1 timbers, reinforced concrete beams, or steel beams filled with
rock or soil. Landscaping can be incorporated into the design of a crib wall so
that vines or other planting actually extend across the face of the wall. Based on
the wall's design, the appearance of landscaped crib walls will generally be less
aesthetically objectionable than standard retaining walls. For this reason, the
proposed ordinance amendment allows for a landscaped crib wall to reach a
maximum height,of fifteen feet. As with any retaining wall, a landscaped crib wall
greater than four feet in height would require an administrative retaining
wall/elevated structure permit.
Exemations
Based on discussion at the January 14th Commission meeting, subsection (b)(3)
has been amended to only exempt second story decks or balconies that do not
exceed 200 square feet in area. Any second story deck or balcony greater than
200 square feet in area would require an administrative retaining wall/elevated
structure permit.As part of the review procedure, staff would determine if the
second story deck or balcony was in compliance with the established design
standards. The proposed .design standards include a provision to minimize
interference with the privacy of surrounding properties.
The draft ordinance previously reviewed by the Commission did not address main
or ,accessory structures which are built on areas of artificial fill created by a
J
Code Amendment NC/4 i
Retaining Walls and Elevated Structures
January 28, 1997 - Page 2
retaining wall or on top of elevated decks or patios. Similar to a combination
retaining wall/screen wall, a structure which is built directly on top of a retaining
wall or elevated deck adds to the height and mass of the wall or structure and
could potentially create privacy impacts for a downhill neighbor.
As proposed, subsection (c)(3) requires an administrative retaining wall/elevated
structure permit for any structure constructed on top of an area of artificial fill
created by a retaining wall or constructed on top of an elevated deck or patio
when any portion of the proposed structure is within five feet of the edge of the
retaining wall or elevated structure. The provision for a five-foot setback is
consistent with the standards for parallel retaining walls and screen walls. The
height of the added structure, however, will not count toward the maximum height
limits of eight feet or fifteen feet as established for retaining walls and elevated
structures. This section will apply whether the retaining wall and structure are
proposed all at one time or the project is proposed in phases.
Maintenance
Subsection (f) has been added to the code amendment to ensure that all
retaining walls, including crib walls, are properly maintained. The maintenance
provisions include all retaining walls, as well as associated drainage, irrigation,
and landscaping.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution
recommending that the City Council approve Code Amendment No. 274.
Anne D. Hill
Planning Assistant
REVIEWED AND APPROVED
V W: Collier
ing Director
Z:\PLANCOM\SFRPTSAH\RETWALL3.DOC
City of West Covina
Memorandum
TO: Planning Commission AGENDA
FROM: Plannihn9 P l Department ITEM NO.
B-1
DATE 1-14-97
SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. ®PRIMED ON RECYCLED PAPER
RETAINING WALLS AND ELEVATED STRUCTURES
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Subsequent to the preparation of the attached staff report, staff received a letter
from Sterling F. White of Hassen Development Company (see attached)
commenting on the, 1 proposed code amendment. In addition to asking a number
of questions, Mr. White raises the point that crib walls are not addressed by the
ordinance. Staff agrees that the ordinance should be modified in order to
address crib walls; however, this will require some minor research.
For this reason, staff is presenting the draft code amendment for review at this
meeting as a working document. In addition to discussing the current draft, staff
will verbally present the Commission with proposals for addressing crib walls, as
well as other minor changes that may be warranted. The meeting will also
provide the Commission with an opportunity to consider the questions posed in
Mr. White's letter.and provide any final direction to staff.
In light of these (circumstances, staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission conduct the public hearing, accept testimony, provide direction to
staff, and continue the hearing to the Commission meeting of January 28, 1997,
for final recommendation to the City Council.
Dougl N. Mclsaac
Princtoal Planner
REVIEWED AND APPROVED
y W. Collier
ing Director
ZAPLANCOMISFRPTSDMIRWCON. DOC
•
U
Ha55eN
Hassen
Development
Company
January 8, 1997
Mr. Jeffrey W. Collier
Planning Director
City of West Covina
P.O. Box 1440
West Covina, CA 91793
RECEIV F
JAN - 1997
Qt_�14NING DEPARENT
T'JI
Re: Proposed Retaining Wall Ordinance - Exhibit "A"
Dear Mr. Collier: r
Upon reviewing your "draft" of the proposed City of West Covina
retaining wall ordinances, we have the following comments:
(a) Definitions (2) "elevated structures" - The "6" inches above grade"
appears to be rather restrictive, after all, the house finish floor must
be. a minimum of 6 inches above grade and would fall under this
classification. Since you are restricting retaining walls to 4 feet, why
not use 4 feet for the elevated structure also?
a
( c) Permit Required - What will this cost? Is it in addition to the permit
required by the engineering department? It seems to me that
complying with this ordinance is going to be very costly to the
developer. Could developers of subdivisions be exempt or given
special consideration?
(d) Maximum Height - Does this mean that no retaining wall, exceeding 8
feet, can be constructed in the City? The present engineering
standards allows walls to 15 feet, level surcharge, or 12 feet, with
sloping surcharge, for normal design. Greater heights are permitted
with special design. The 8' height appears, to me to be very
restrictive. What about crib walls or other types of retaining walls?
Why are these not addressed?
100 North Barranca Avenue I Suite 900 1 West Covina, CA 91791-1600 I Telephone (818) 967-7374 I Fax (818) 967-7388
Mr.. W. Collier
January 8, 1997
Page Two
At least, you should be consistent. If you are going to permit a
combined retaining wall and solid fence height of 8.5 feet, then you
.should permit the same height for a retaining wall.
I
(e) Multiple retaining walls - with 4 foot maximum retaining wall height
and 5 foot separation, on a 1.5:1 slope, the builder could build two
walls four feet high and gain only one foot of yard area! This doesn't
make any sense and needs to be revised or deleted.
I
(f) Submittal Requirements (3) noticing information - Why 300 feet? It
seems to me that you originally had 100 feet. How does one go about
obtaining the addresses of all occupants? I don't think that the post
office would give out that information. Would the builder be required
to make a house to house canvas of the area to determine the
occupants? It seems to me that you are asking for the impossible and
",occupants" should be deleted.
(g) Permit Procedure (2)(B) Landscaping - This requirement appears
excessive and adding more - costs to a costly procedure. Since
developers have to submit landscape plans for their development, they
should be omitted from this condition. i
I
( C) Walls Separation - see comments re item (e).
(D) Privacy Impacts - what does this mean? You can't construct a
retaining wall on your property line? Needs clarifying or deleted.
(3) Noticing and Hearing - Again I have a problem with "occupants".
How does one determine occupants of a dwelling?
. I
(4) Appeals - Five (5) days sounds a little restrictive, couldn't you
provide a little more time for the applicant to appeal the decision?
C _ .
p
i
i
i
I
i
I
Mr. Jeffrey W. Collier
January 8, 1997
Page Three
In conclusion, it appears that anyone desiring to erect a retaining wall
over 4 feet in height better have a lot of money to spend for this appears
to be an expensive and time consuming process. Also restricting retaining
wall height to 8 feet creates serious problems to our development and we
believe that some provisions should be made for higher retaining walls.
Very truly yours,
HASSEN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Sterling F. White
Director of Planning and Engineering
SFW:dbs j
S
N
t
J- City of West Covina
Memorandum
TO: Planning Commission* AGENDA
FROM: Planning Department ITEM No. g 1
DATE 1-14-97
SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 274 ®PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
RETAINING WALLS AND ELEVATED STRUCTURES
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
i
SUMMARY: Codes Amendment No. 274 is a City -initiated project to add
provisions to Chapter 26 (Zoning) of the West Covina Municipal
Code regulating the height and design of retaining walls and
elevated structures in the City's single-family residential zones.
BACKGROUND
On October 15, 1996, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance which limits
the maximum height of retaining walls and elevated structures and establishes
design criteria to increase their compatibility with the surrounding natural and/or
built environment. The interim ordinance will remain in effect until February 28,
1997. The City Council has directed the Planning Commission to consider the
adoption of a permanent code -amendment.
The intent of the code amendment is not to prohibit the construction of retaining
walls or elevated structures, but to improve their appearance and minimize their
impacts on surrounding properties. All retaining walls and elevated structures
over thirty inches in height currently require building permits to ensure their
structural integrity. The proposed code amendment will 'require the planning
director to review, all retaining walls and elevated structures over four feet in
height to ensure that appropriate design measures are implemented into each
proposal.
On December 10, 1996, the Planning Commission reviewed the interim
ordinance adopted by the City Council and directed staff to draft a permanent
code amendment. The attached ordinance amendment, marked Exhibit "A", is
based on the adopted interim ordinance and the comments made by the Planning
Commission at the December 10th meeting.
DISCUSSION
Exemptions
The proposed code amendment identifies certain situations when retaining walls
or elevated structures would be exempt from the new code provisions. The
exemptions remain the same as those adopted in the interim ordinance and are
as follows:
=> Retaining walls and elevated structures which are not readily visible from the
ground level of surrounding properties or from public rights -of -way.
Retaining walls which have been determined necessary by the city engineer
for reasons of emergency slope stabilization and/or public safety.
=> Second story decks and/or balconies are exempt, as long as they ,do not
extend horizontally over an area with a 3:1 horizontal to vertical slope or
steeper..
A retaining wall or elevated structure which is considered exempt would not be
restricted to a maximum height or required to comply with established design
criteria.
Z: \PLANCOMISFRPTSAWRETWALL2. DOC
Code Amendment No. '
Retaining Walls and EleallCed Structures
January 14, 1997 - Page 2
Height
As proposed, an administrative retaining wall/elevated structure permit would be
required for all retaining walls and elevated structures which .exceed four feet in
height, and for all retaining walls which are constructed in combination with a
screen wall or fence such that the total height exceeds eight and one-half feet.
Unless otherwise exempt, a retaining wall or elevated structure would be limited
to a maximum height of eight feet. A wall of fence built on top of a retaining wall,
but not comprised of "solid" materials, would not count toward the total height.
Definitions are included in the proposed code amendment to specify how height
is measured and what constitutes a solid fence or wall.
The consensus at the December 10th Commission meeting was that eight feet is
an appropriate height limit. The Commission discussed whether a nine or ten
foot height limit would be more suitable; however, the Commission concluded
that property owners should be able to achieve their development objectives and
comply with an eight foot height limit if they utilize alternative design solutions,
such as terraced retaining walls. In cases of extreme hardship, a resident could
apply for a variance in order to construct a taller wall.
The proposed ordinance specifically addresses multiple, or terraced, retaining
walls. If the horizontal distance between walls is five feet or greater, each wall
would be treated as an individual structure and would be limited to a maximum
height of eight feet. If the walls are closer than five feet, the height would be
calculated from the lowest adjacent grade of the lowest wall segment to the top of
the highest wall segment. This regulation should encourage applicants to
maintain a five foot . separation between walls. Nonetheless, a minimum
separation of three feet would be required in all cases which would allow
adequate area for landscaping between walls.
Design Standards
Design criteria needs to be carefully considered to ensure that neighboring
property owners are not adversely affected. The proposed code amendment'
requires planning director review of each application based on the following
design criteria: colors and materials, landscaping, wall separation, and impacts
on privacy. Staff feels that it is not practical to require specific design standards
for all cases since each proposal should .be based on the individual site
characteristics. However, incorporated into the proposed code amendment is a
list of suggested construction and landscape materials. Although applicants
would not be limited to the suggested materials, they could utilize the
suggestions as design guidelines. Staff has added a, provision to the design
criteria that requires retaining walls and elevated structures to be located and
designed to avoid unreasonable interference with the privacy of surrounding
properties.
Review Procedure
The proposed procedure to obtain an administrative retaining wall/elevated
structure permit is similar to the "Sign Administrative Review" procedure
developed for the sign ordinance. The procedure requires that surrounding
property owners be notified of the proposal and be given an opportunity to
request an administrative hearing if they so desire. The interim ordinance
requires that all property owners and tenants within 'a 100 foot radius of the site
receive notice of the proposal. Considering the Commission's comments at the
December 10th study session, staff has revised the noticing procedure to require
that all property owners and tenants within a 300-foot radius, of the site receive
notice of the proposal. This would make more residents aware of a proposed
project.
Z:\PLANCOMISFRPTSAHIRETWALL2. DOC
Code Amendment N 4 •
Retaining Walls and 9vated Structures
January 14. 1997 - Paae 3 .
.If no hearing is requested the Planning Director may take action to approve,
approve with conditions, or disapprove a proposal. The Planning Director also
has the option to refer a proposal to the Planning Commission. To remain
consistent with the administrative hearing process as established in the Municipal
Code, the proposed code amendment allows 10 days for the public to comment
on a project or request a hearing, rather than 14 days as adopted in the interim
ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution
recommending that the City Council approve Code Amendment No. 274.
I CH
Anne D. Hill
Planning Assistant
i. . j.
I Planner
AND APPROVED
'. Collier
Director
ZAPLANCOM\SFRPTSAH\RETWALL2.DOC
City of West Covina '
Memorandum
TO: Planning Commission AGENDA
FROM: Planning Department ITEM NO. C-9
DATE 12-3-96 `
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 274: ®PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
RETAINING WALLS AND ELEVATED STRUCTURES
SUMMARY: On October 15, 1996, the City Council adopted an interim urgency
ordinance to regulate the height and design of retaining walls and
other elevated structures over four feet in height in single-family
residential zones. As adopted, the interim ordinance will remain in
effect until February 28, 1997. The City Council has directed the
Planning Commission to consider the adoption of a permanent code
amendment to address retaining walls and elevated structures within
the City of West Covina.
BACKGROUND
At the September 3, 1996 City Council meeting, Councilmember Herfert raised
concems expressed by residents regarding the height and appearance of retaining
walls. In response to these concems, staff was directed to evaluate appropriate
standards for retaining walls and other elevated structures in single-family
residential zones.
Then, on September 17, 1996, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No.
1977, which established a moratorium on the construction of retaining walls and
other elevated structures (e.g. decks, patios) over four feat in height within single-
family residential zones. According to State law, the initial adoption or an urgency
ordinance is . valid for only 45 days. Therefore, the interim ordinance was set to
expire on October 31, 1996. At that time, it was indicated that the moratorium was
intended only as a short-term measure, and that staff would propose a system to
allow retaining walls through an administrative review procedure at the time the
urgency ordinance was extended.
At the City Council meeting of October 15, 1996, staff recommended extending the
interim ordinance for 10 months and 15 days as provided for in State law. The City
Council, however, opted to extend the ordinance for a shorter duration of 120 days
beyond the October 31, 1996 expiration date (or until February 28, 1997). As
indicated, this ordinance (Urgency Ordinance No. 1988) established an
administrative review process for retaining walls and similar elevated structures
greater than four feet in height. The interim ordinance establishes the following
regulations:
Allowed By Right
• Retaining walls and elevated structures not more than four feet in height.
• Retaining walls and elevated structures which are not readily visible from the
ground level of surrounding properties or public rights -of -way, as determined by
the Planning Director.
• Retaining walls which are necessary for reasons of emergency slope
stabilization and/or public safety, as determined by the City Engineer.
• Decks or balconies with direct access from the second -story of a residence, not
extending horizontally over an area with a 3.1 horizontal to vertical slope or
steeper.
ZJPLAN CONVSFR PTSAH/R ETWALL.DOC
Code Amendment
Retaining Walls &
Structures
•
• Any retaining
greater than four feet, but less than eight feet in height.
• Retaining walls with a screen wall or fence constructed on top for a - combined
height greater, than 8.5 feet above the lowest adjacent grade.
• Any retaining
DISCUSSION
Retaining walls
patios, view plat
to ensure. propE
No. 1978, ther
structures. The
construction of
can be consider
or elevated structure over eight feet in height.
ind elevated structures over 30 inches in height, such as decks,
)rms, and/or tennis courts, require the issuance of a building permit
engineering; however, prior to the adoption of Urgency Ordinance
were no standards to regulate the height or design of these
ibsence of design criteria and height regulations has permitted the
me retaining walls and/or elevated structures within the City which
J visually obtrusive and aesthetically unappealing.
The intent of the adopted interim ordinance is to continue to permit retaining walls
and elevated strr l' ctures within certain height limits, but to require appropriate. design
and mitigation measures to ensure that they are integrated with the existing natural
and/car built environment_
Retaining walls are typically constructed in hillside areas or on lots with a significant
slope as a mea ins of developing larger pad areas to accommodate construction or
level yard space. Elevated decks and structures usually extend outward over a
sloped area andl'include some type of support posts, walls, or beams.
The overall impact of a retaining wall or elevated structure is based on its actual
appearance (i.e1 height, size, and design) and the visibility of the structure from the
11
surrounding area. Typically, the visual impact of a retaining wall or elevated
structure becomI6s more adverse as the overall mass (height and length) of the wall
or structure increases
Staff contacted approximately 15 cities in the greater Los Angeles area to evaluate
retaining wall standards. The majority of the municipalities contacted do not have
specific zoning standards for retaining walls. However, several of the cities apply
their fence and wall regulations to retaining walls. The maximum height for fences in
most municipalities, including West Covina, is six feet. Several of the cities
surveyed had fencing requirements which further regulated the height of fences
between prope Ves with an elevation change between lots. Both Glendale and
Diamond Bar have adopted regulations specific to retaining wall height and design.
CJANN
Code Amendment No.
Retaining Walls & EleveStruc Lures
December 10, 1996 -Page 3
The following table illustrates the maximum heights established in other cities:
>F
Arcadia*
6 foot maximum
W16:0a'..............€�..oct:r
Ctarsmo>tz>:> >:»:i';i.:...:
:..::.......:::.
foot.. rax�m ,
.:... u..:.:.....:::..:.
..... na
foot maximum..:..;:.:>:.::
4f.... rr aximu
.......:. man,Htllstde
Mana ement Area
:.::.........
...............
5 faot rnax>r�u;:��.:.�ost cases
''<<>
oot. �riax t..... streef when certe�:rE..desr :::
>
:.;:......................................
nents.are.tncorat..ed::::::::::::::::.:::::::............................:::::::::::.:::..::.::.:::.:::.
f eo . i.: I.eel .::hidden
!Glendora
6 foot max�mu when visible from a public Fight -of way
a +E✓anada Fhntnd e
9
6 foot maximum
(3uer 3 foot talf requires administrative hillside review
ak+ IFares#*
foot I ax..Mu .. ,
.allerne
fi foot maximum
......
Vi�saoc a o......>><'>»
...................:.:::.::::.....
IVa� stadar:.d:;
Newport Beach
fi to 8 foot rn...... (based on zoning d�str�et)
..
Pomona':><:> ::>>°:.
_.
:...........
ta::::.::.::::::.:::<:..,No
written standards
::.;:::.;.:.:.:.;:.>:
>::::>::>Plannm
:.::.:............:.:::..............,,...:.........:::. ,::...........
::Cotnmrssron: o
............... _.. _.......__ ..........:...:n: easeb : cast, r �,�i�<::>>:<:;:::>:
`tames wnicn apply fence regulations to retaining walls
In considering a permanent ordinance, the Planning Commission should consider
the various aspects of the interim ordinance and determine if they should be
modified in any way. Outlined below are the major issue areas involved in the
ordinance along with a description of the current standards and basic options that
could be considered for a permanent ordinance.
Issue 1: Types of Improvements Subiect to Review
The current interim ordinance applies to (1) retaining walls, and (2) other elevated
structures, including decks, patios, view platforms, tennis courts, or other similar
structures.
While the initial concern was regarding the visual and aesthetic impact of retaining
walls, the ordinance was broadened to include other types of elevated structures.
This was done since these structures can have the same potential for being visually
obtrusive when constructed at too great a height or not appropriately designed or
screened.
Options
Apply the permanent ordinance to.-
1 . Retaining walls only.
2. Retaining walls (including retaining walls with screen walls and fences
above) and other elevated structures as currently established.
CJANNE/RETWALL.DOC
Code Amendment
Retaining Walls &
Structures
Issue 2:
Subsection B.2. c
structures that will
the public right -of -
the main thrust of
and elevated strut
Where a wall or
others, subjecting
any meaningful be
Are Subject To
the interim ordinance provides that retaining walls and elevated
not be readily visible from ground level of surrounding property or
vay are exempted from review. This provision was included since
the ordinance is to minimize the visual impact of retaining walls
ures upon surrounding property owners/residents and the public.
structure is proposed in a location that is not readily visible to
t to any special review process or standards would not produce
In the process of developing the interim ordinance, the first area of concern was with
11
retaining walls or structures extending outward over a downslope condition. These
improvements would be the most likely to be visually"' obtrusive since they are
generally the most exposed to view and since they can create blockages to
previously available views.
Upon further cor
locations could
consideration. 1
areas extending
considered that
outward over a
downward into tr
Because of then
retaining walls ai
provided that th
way, the ordinanc
visual or aestheti
case determinati
visible.
Options
Apply the
deration, however, it was realized that retaining walls built in other
so create similar aesthetic impacts if not given proper design
s would include high retaining walls that have been cut into slope
ither upwards or downwards from a building pad. It was also
property owner who was restricted from building a high deck
ape area could circumvent this by constructing a retaining wall
slope area to create additional level building or deck area.
factors, the interim ordinance was bro6dened to apply to all
I elevated structures (generally in excess of four feet in height),
were readily visible from other properties or the street. In this.
covers any proposed wall or structure that may have a significant
impact. In so doing, however, it compels staff to make case -by -
is as to whether a proposed wall or structure will be readily
ordinance to:
1. Retaining 'I walls and elevated structures extending over a downslope
condition only.
i
Z All retaining walls and elevated structures, including those extending over a
slope area,'or cut into a slope area.
3. All retaining walls and elevated structures, except where they are readily
visible from other properties or the public right-of-way (existing standard).
Issue 3: Height at Which Structures Should Be
In general, the interim ordinance provides a three -tiered system of regulations for
retaining walls and elevated structures depending on their height. These height
regulations were i arrived at through staffs reasoned estimation of their potential
impacts. i
i
1. Four Feetl or Less - Retaining walls and structures no more than four feet in
height are;inot subject to special review.
At a height of four feet or less, the visual impacts of a wall or structure would
not typically be significant.
Code Amendment No.
Retaining Walls & Ele* Structures
December 10, 1996 -Page 5
2. Between Four Feet and Eight Feet - Retaining walls and structures
between four feet and eight feet in height are subject an administrative review
procedure.
Above four feet in height, a retaining wall or elevated structure tends to
become visually prominent. If sufficient consideration. is not given to the
location, design, and appearance of such structures, they can be visually
obtrusive and aesthetically unappealing. Conversely, incorporating proper
design measures and/or landscaping can often mitigate these impacts.
3. Over Eight Feet - Retaining walls and structures in excess of eight feet in
height are not allowed, except by variance.
While the appearance of a retaining wall or elevated structure over eight feet
in height can be improved through design measures, the shear height of such
structures would tend to make them visually obtrusive. Furthermore, where
retaining walls of such height are proposed, a reasonable likelihood exists
that similar results can be achieved through alternative design solutions.
Lastly, if a retaining wall or structure of such height were the only feasible
design, it would probably be a case where exceptional circumstances exist
that would warrant the granting of a variance.
During the City Council discussion on the interim ordinance, however, some
councilmembers expressed concern about a maximum height limit.
Another issue relative to height has to do with regular screen walls or fences built
directly on top of retaining walls. Where this is done, the combined height of the
walls increases the visual and aesthetic impact. Even a nominal four -foot retaining
wall with a six-foot screen wall on top gives the overall visual appearance of a ten -
foot wall on the downhill side. The interim ordinance has addressed this by
requiring review of any combination retaining wall and screen over eight and one-
half feet high. This represents a six foot screen wall with two and one-half foot
retaining wall, which is the minimum height requiring a building permit.
Options
1. Maintain the standards included in the interim ordinance: no review under
four feet, administrative review between four and eight feet, not permitted
over eight feet.
2. Increase or eliminate the maximum height limit above which retaining walls
and elevated structures are prohibited.
3. Maintain the maximum height limit of eight feet, except for retaining walls and
elevated structures that are not readily visible from other properties and the
public right-of-way.
4. Maintain or modify the requirement for review of combined retaining walls
and screen walls above eight and one-half feet in height.
Issue 4: Design Standards
The design of the retaining wall or elevated structure. greatly contributes to the
overall visual impact. The materials, colors, physical design (shape, articulation,
location, orientation), and landscaping will all affect the appearance and visual
impact of a retaining wall or elevated structure. With the use of appropriate design
elements, adverse impacts can be significantly lessened.
CIANNE/RETWALL.DOC
Code Amendment No.
Retaining Walls & Elev structures
December 10. 1996 -Page 6
As indicated, seveiral types of design measures can be used to lessen the visual and
aesthetic impacts Iof retaining walls and elevated structures. Subsection F. of the
interim ordinance lists some types of measures that could be used. These include:
1. Separationl'of the wall horizontally and/or vertically into smaller segments.
2. Use of decorative materials and/or incorporation of decorative design
elements on the facade of the retaining wall or structure.
3. Incorporation of appropriate landscaping at the base of the retaining wall or
structure. r
While these cover the basic design options that can be employed, they do not
provide specific standards. Staff does not believe that it is feasible to develop
specific standards to be applied in all cases since each proposal will differ in what
would be necessary and appropriate to effectively mitigate visual impacts. It may,
however, be possible to provide more detail as to types of appropriate design
materials, landscaping materials, etc.
Options
1. Employ d Isign standards as included in the existing interim ordinance.
2. Add additional detail as types of appropriate construction and landscaping
materials (abut not specific requirements).
Issue 5:
Retaining walls a'nd elevated structures between four and eight feet are required to
go through an administrative review procedure similar to the "Sign Administrative
Review' procedure developed for the Sign Ordinance. This requires notices to be
mailed to owners and tenants within a 100-foot radius of the site, and provides a
period of 14 days within which a public hearing may be requested. If no hearing is
requested, the Planning Director may proceed to act on the proposal. The Planning
Director also has the option to refer a proposal to the Planning Commission. The
Planning Director's decision may also be appealed to the Planning Commission and
City Council. l
Options
1. Utilize the administrative review process as established in the existing interim
2. Change the radius for pu.. Ic noticing from 100 feet to another standard such
as 300 feet_
3. Utilize an administrative review process without public noticing nor the
opportunity for public hearings.
Code Amendment No. 2
Retaining Walls & ElevAtructures
December 10, 1996 -Pace 7
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider this report and provide
staff with direction for a permanent Code Amendment.
Anne D. Hill
Planning Assistant
Qouglas . Mclsaac
Princip#f Planner
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
I / (.,fu
W. Collier
is Director
N
CJANNE/RENVALL.DOC
NO REVIEW
�NI
�01
REVIEW REQUIRED
191
{I
Non -retaining
wall
8.5 feet
maximum
Retaining wall
Retaining wall
4 feet
maximum
Retaining wall
7��Zq ::;:r
8 feet
maximum
Retaining wall
8 feet
maximum
zlplancamW pdmla274x1015.doc
REVIEW REQUIRED (CONT.)
PROHIBITED
Ketaining wall
e
Retaining wall
8+ feet
zlp1ancomMrpdmta274x 1015.doc
%QI dUe UtlrVW IV[ UZOW VI VVUUIr --v, v.n),
to
SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TRIBUNE
1210 N. Azusa Canyon Road
West Covina, CA 91790
41
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Los Angel es
I am a citizen of the United States, and a resident
of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of
eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in
the above-entited matter. I am the principal clerk of
the printer of SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TRIBUNE, a
newspaper of general circulation printed and
published daily in the City of West Covina, County
of Los Angeles, and which newspaper has been
adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State
of California, on the date of September 10, 1957,
Case Number 684891. The notice, of which the
annexed is a true printed copy, has been published
in each regular and entired issue of said newspaper
and not in any supplement' thereof on the following
dates, to wit:
1/24/97
I declare under penalty of 'perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at West Covina; LA Co. California
this 24 day of .TANiTARV , 19 97
i
signature .
•
RECEIVE®
JAN 2 8 1997
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
CITY OF WEST COVINA
Proof of Publication of
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HE
Pursuant to the law and in confor
Municipal,Code, You are" heret
PUBLIC; HEARING of the WEST
COUNC1i7F<>
CODE AMENDMENT NO ` 274 x
.,,.,. 7 '
APPLICANT:". of West Coi
LOCATIONtMCity Wlde?+F i,
1 REQUEST6 The, proled--con
amendments tog
West CovinaN
(ZoningY`a . el
YY ."regulation'of r
� ,.ul,'eJ4 yfl ;and other elevi
iNi 1= (e.g.-raised pats
!�' platforms) in
residential zonii
In accordance wtih''the gi
procedures for environmental a!
case .is`.considered CATEGORI
.and: no Environmental Imps
Negative Declaration'is require
you .wish; to_:challenge. the _actic
orallY:'at: the, publi
West
ARING
nonce with the,
r notified of a
COVINA CITY
Es 4
In '
fists of certain
hapter 26 of the
inicipal Code
ited' to the
taining walls
led structures
rs, decks, view.
,angle -family
6 districts.%,
idelines and.
;essments this,
,AL EXEMPT
ct, Report or.
to. be.filled. If
Vtaken on the
sing only those
fuaIbrought up
or in written
a City of. West
Anne Hill at•(818) 814-8422, or visit the office of the
Planning'Department, City Hall, Room 208. -
Only through citizen 'participation con.Your
11 government build a better City,
BY ORDER Of= THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA
`:Publish: January'24,.199T'
San Gabriel Valley Tribun 7716
14
Japa:ts uCwVV lul uJC Vl vVuiRy viv,n vn,y/
SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TRIBUNE
1210 N. Azusa Canyon Road
West Covina, CA 91790
IN
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IA
County of Los Angeles
RECEIVED
JAN 2 9 1997
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
CITY OF WEST COVINA
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
I am a citizen of the United States, and a resident
of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of
eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in
the above-entited matter. I aim the principal clerk of
the printer of SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TRIBUNE, a
newspaper of general circulation printed and
published daily in the City of� West Covina, County
of Los Angeles, and which newspaper has been
adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles,'State
of California, on the date of September 10, 1957,
Case Number 684891. The .notice, of which the
annexed is a true printed copy, has been published
in each regular and entired issue of said newspaper
and not in any supplement thereof on the following
dates, to wit:'
1/24/97 1,
I declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at West Covina, LA Co. California
11
this _2_4 day of JANUAU , 19 97
sign
Proof of Publication of
NOTICE OF PUBLIC. NEARING'
CITY OF WEST COVINA CITY COUNCIL"
NOTICE IS:HEREBY�IVEN; that a public
hearing will be heldby4he City Council of the City
of West Covina to-consideran extension of
Urgency Ordinance No. 1%8 related to retaining
walls and;, elevated, " structures within
single family residential, _zones,:
Urgency=..Ordindnce No 1968 was. adopted by the.
City Council on October-.15,,•,1996: to establish ah
administrative: rev!ew'.peocess to regulate the .
height -and design of 'retaining walls and other.
elevated structuret'4hat may. create adverse
aesthetic orssafety irnpacts,,.until such time as
other: reasonable zoning.°controls'could be.
adopted: The",ordinance become effective on
October•31;1996, and inset to expire on February.
28,'.1997.iThis ordinance Is now' Proposed to be
.extended for an,additional period of time
go wP-?r°✓ .- .,: � yfl .
Pursuant to,the"
'Cal Ifornia Environmental
QualityAct (CEQA), of'1970, as amended, this
urgency ordinance is -considered to be
categorically. exempt, (Clots 8) in that it consists':
of "an action by: -a regulatory, -agency , for the
protection of JIle environment. Af you wish to
challenge the action;aaken on -:the request, -you
may be limited to raising only those issues which
you or another individual brought up orally,at the
Public :hedrinwor•`in written, correspondence',
submitted to the City -of West Covina at or prior to
the public hearing
THE PUBLid HEARING WILL BE HELD
PLACE WEST COVINA CITY HALL
-COUNCIL CHAMBERS
LEVEL ONEf ts:
1444; West Garvey Avenue + r
DATE Tuesday, February 4, 1997 +r
TIME:'---- 7:30 p m
If You have any'gestions we ur9e`you to contact
Anne Hi l l at (818) 814 8422, or visit the office of the
Planning. Department, City Hall, Room 208.Only:
through;-scitizen ,participation can your.
government build'a better City "4.
BY ORDER'OF THE�CITY COUNCIL,
OF THE CITY OF WEST.COVINA
Publish: J666ary°24,1997
San Gabriel Valley Tribun #4096
13