01-21-2014 - (4)L�
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Christopher J. Chung
City Manager
City of West Covina
Memorandum
AGENDA
ITEM NO. 11
DATE: January 21, 2014
BY: Jeff Anderson,
Planning Director
SUBJECT: ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION
CODE AMENDMENT NO. 13-03
RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL/SINGLE FAMILY ZONE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
REPEAL OF MORATORIUM ON VACANT PROPERTIES FOR
CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE SOUTH HILLS AREA
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the following ordinances:
ORDINANCE NO. d � 5- - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 (ZONING) OF THE WEST COVINA
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL
AGRICULTURAL/SINGLE FAMILY ZONE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
It is recommended that the City Council introduce the following ordinance:
ORDINANCE NO. - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 2243 AND ORDINANCE NO. 2245
PROHIBITING GRADING OR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURES IN SPECIFIED AREAS OF THE CITY
DISCUSSION:
The ordinance for the Residential Agricultural/Single Family Zone code amendment was
introduced at the City Council meeting of December 17, 2013. The ordinance for the code
amendment will amend Chapter 26 (zoning) to require a 10-foot level area in hillside areas
between the rear of the house and the slope, to require greater setbacks for decks and balconies,
and to require three -car garages for houses greater than 4,500 square feet or 5 bedrooms. At the
City Council hearing, an amendment was requested to modify the proposed standards for deck
and balcony setbacks to exempt lots from the additional setback requirements if they are adjacent
to permanent open space. The following is the proposed standard for deck and balcony setbacks.
Required Setbacks for Elevated Structures. All elevated structures shall provide
side setbacks of 1.5 times the required side setbacks and shall comply with the
required rear yard setback specified in section 26-406. In cases where a side or
rear property line is adjacent to a landscape maintenance district, golf course,
country club, park, public school or similar type of permanent open space the
setback adjacent to such use shall comply to the standard setback required.
This ordinance will take effect on February 20, 2014.
In addition, the City Council directed staff at the public hearing to prepare an ordinance for
introduction to remove the moratorium on the 79 lots in the South Hills areas. The City Council
initially adopted the moratorium on May 7, 2013. The Council extended the moratorium on June
4, 2013. The moratorium is currently in effect until May 7, 2014. A second reading for this
ordinance will occur on February 4, 2014. The repeal of moratorium ordinance will take effect
30 days after the second reading.
ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2013\13-03 R-1 Stds.MoratoriumSouthHills\CC Hearing 2nd Reading. 1.21.14\Staff Report.doc
R-1 Development Standards & Roal of Moratorium •
January 21, 2014
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact with the adoption of an ordinance except for minor costs associated
with updating the Municipal Code books.
Prep y: Jeff Anderson
Planning Director
Attachments: 1. Code Amendment Ordinance
2. Repeal of Moratorium Ordinance
3. City Council Staff Report, December 17, 2013
2
ATTACHMENT 1
ORD IN AN C E NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 26 (ZONING) OF THE
WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL
AGRICULTURAL/SINGLE FAMILY ZONE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
WHEREAS, on the 71" day of May, 2013, the City Council initiated a code amendment to
revise certain development standards in the Residential Agricultural/Single Family Zones; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a study sessions on the 91" day of July; 2013,
the 271" day of August, 2013, and the 22nd day of October, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving required notice, did on the 26`' day of
November, 2013, conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the
Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 13-5546 recommending to the City Council approval
of Code Amendment No. 13-03.
WHEREAS, the City Council considered evidence presented by the Planning Commission,
Planning Department, and other interested parties at a duly advertised public hearing on the i 7`" day
of December, 2013; and
WHEREAS, studies and investigations made by this Commission and in its behalf reveal
the following facts:
1. On May 7, 2013, The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2243 that adopted a
moratorium that initiated a code amendment to consider amending the development
standards in the Residential Agricultural/Single Family Zones.
2. Due to changes in the. intensity of development on single-family properties it is
appropriate to review the regulations to determine if revisions to development standards
should be modified for thresholds and setbacks to clarify regulations.
3. The proposed action is considered to be exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA
Guidelines, in that the proposed action consists of a code amendment, which does not
have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment as the code
revisions would require discretionary review of small structures that would be
categorically exempt and would be evaluated on a case by case basis.
NOW, THEREFORE, by the City Council of the City of West Covina does ordain as
follows:
SECTION NO. 1: The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as if
set forth herein in full.
SECTION NO. 2: Based on the evidence presented and the findings set forth, Code
Amendment No. 13-03 is hereby found to be consistent with the West Covina General Plan and the
implementation thereof and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good
zoning practices require Code Amendment No. 13-03.
SECTION NO. 3: Based on the evidence presented and the findings set forth, the
Planning Commission of the City of West Covina hereby recommends to the City Council of the
City of West Covina that it approves Code Amendment No. 13-03 to amend Chapter 26 (Zoning)
of the West Covina Municipal Code to read as shown on Exhibit "A."
SECTION NO.4: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and it shall
be published as required by law.
Code Amendment No. 13-03 • •
January 21, 2014 — Page 2
PASSED AND APPROVED on this 21St day'of January, 2014.
Mayor Steve Herfert
ATTEST:
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CITY OF WEST COVINA )
1, Nickolas S. Lewis, City Clerk of the City of West Covina, do hereby certify -ti-hat the
foregoing Ordinance No. was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the 17t" day of December, 2013. That, thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day
of 2013.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2013\13-03 R-1 Stds.MoratoriumSouthHills\CC Hearing 211d
Reading. 1.21.14\Ordinance.doc
Code Amendment No. 13-03 •
January 21, 2014 — Page 3
•
EXHIBIT A
x
CHAPTER 26 ZONING
RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL ZONE/SINGLE FAMILY ZONE
SECTION 1. Section 26-402 of Article VIII of Chapter 26 of the West Covina Municipal Code,
off-street parking, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-402. Off -Street Parking
(a) in v A and n l zones Each single-family dwelling shall provide thefe shall four (4)
accessible off-street parking spaces primed for each dwelling unit. A minimum of two (2)
spaces shall be enclosed on three (3) sides and roofed. The provisions of this section shall
apply to new single-family dwelling construction after January 1, 1993.
M For single-family dwellings with a gross floor area (exclusive of garages) of 4,500 square
feet or greater or with five (5) or more bedrooms a minimum of the three (3) off-street
parking spaces located within an enclosed garage is required. Tandem parking may be
permissible for the purpose of providing the three (3) required parking spaces provided
tandem parking is limited to not more than one vehicle behind another and a minimum
of two parking spaces are provided side -by -side at the garage entrance. Legal
nonconforming covered parking spaces in existence prior to February 21, 2014 that do
not fully meet these requirements may continue to be maintained, repaired, and/or
rebuilt to the same size and configuration as long as such nonconforming covered
parking spaces were legally established and maintained. The requirements of this
Section shall apply to new construction and the expansion of existing single-family
dwellings.
LcJ_Hewev,er-, When a carport is not readily visible from the street, the city may determine that
six-foot or higher masonry walls around the perimeter of the property (or other view -
obscuring physical or topographical features) constitute enclosure. The pfeyisie„s--o€-thi-s
seetien shall apply to new single family dwelling eenstr-uetien aftef januafy 1, 1993, and
below.when any e an existing single family stmetur-e emeeeds the fflaximum pet-mitted
as - -.1ined in seetion 26 296.110. In all ether- eases, there shall be twe (2) aecessible
off street par -king spaees enelesed en thfee (3) sides and Feefed, provided for- eaeh d,,velfing
(bd)All covered parking spaces shall be enclosed on three (3) sides and roofed unless a carport is
not readily visible from the street, the city may determine that six-foot or higher masonry
walls around the perimeter of the property (or other view -obscuring physical or
topographical features) constitute enclosure. Porte cocheres may be allowed when visible
from the street if the architectural style and materials are consistent with the house, subject
to the review and approval of the planning director.
(ee) Garages and carport shall have a minimum interior clear width and depth of twenty (20) feet
between columns or walls. Three -car garages shall have a minimum interior clear width
of thirty (30) feet and depth of 20 feet. In cases where a tandem narking sTiace is
proposed to comply with a required three (3) car garage, a minimum of two parking
spaces shall be provided side -by -side at the garage entrance and minimum ten (10) feet
by twenty (20) feet shall be provided behind. Unless otherwise approved in advance by
the planning director in writing, placement of garage doors shall be centered between
columns or walls. Access to such parking shall be paved, not less than twelve (12) feet in
width, nor wider than the garage or carport, except as modified in section 26-402.5. The
balance of the required spaces, if uncovered, shall have minimum dimensions of eight (8)
feet by sixteen (16) feet.
(1) In the case where an expansion to the existing single-family structure exceeds the
maximum permitted for a lot as outlined in section 26-296.44,01100, any garage or
carport shall conform to the provisions regulating width and depth in subsection (c) of
this section, and any front, side and rear yards as regulated by this article.
(4D Garages or carports opening towards a side street shall be set back a minimum of twenty-
two (22) feet from the property line.
Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2013\13-03 R-1 Stds.MoratoriumSouthHills\CC Hearing 2nd
Reading. 1.21.14\Ordinance.doc
Code Amendment No. 13-03 •
January 21, 2014 — Page 4
(e) No off stfeet pafking spaees established p6of to.an1964,by—pefmtt, -s4ag -be
(€g) In addition to the minimum number of off-street parking spaces required for each dwelling
unit, additional off-street parking space(s) shall be required on the basis of dwelling unit size
according to the following schedule:
Gross Unit Size
Additional Number of Required Off -Street Parking Spaces
4
8001+ As per an approved CUP or maximum unit size exceprion
Said additional space(s) may, but need not, be provided in a carport or garage. The minimum
required dimensions for uncovered spaces shall be eight (8) feet by sixteen (16) feet.
(gh) Garages which are intended to accommodate four (4) or more cars shall not open to any
public street, unless designed as a subterranean garage.
(Code 1960. § 10702.02; Ord. No. 1333, § 1, 4-25-77; Ord. No. 1530, § 1, 2-8-82; Ord.
No. 1878, ¢ 2, 5-13-91; Ord. No. 1910, § 2, 10-13-92; Ord. No. 2030, § 4, 4-20-99;
Ord. No. 2141, § 3, 7-19-05; Ord. No. 2154, § 3, 9-19-06; Ord. No. 2184, § 3(Exh. A),
12-16-08)
SECTION 2. Section 26-406.5 of Article VIII of Chapter 26 of the West Covina Municipal
Code, for level rear yard requirements on lots with graded pad, is added to read as follows:
Sec. 26-406.5. Rear Yard, Level Area Requirement on Lots with Graded Pads
For hillside lots_ with graded pads, a minimum ten (10) foot substantiallv flat area for
pedestrian and emergency access shall be provided between the rear of the house and
the slope, measured perpendicularly from the structure (a one-story open patio cover
may be located in the level area in compliance with other development standards).
Legal nonconforming structures in existence prior to February 21, 2014 that do not
fully meet these requirements may continue to be maintained, repaired, and/or rebuilt
to the same size and configuration as long as such nonconforming structures were
legally established and maintained.
SECTION 1. Section 26-414 of Article VIII of Chapter 26 of the West Covina Municipal Code,
for retaining walls and elevated structures, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-414. Retaining walls and elevated structures.
(a) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) "Retaining wall" shall mean a wall designed to resist the lateral displacement of soil or
other materials. The height of a retaining wall shall be measured at continuous points
along the length of the wall from the top of the wall to the lowest adjacent Enished
grade.
Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2013\13-03 R-1 Stds.MoratoriumSouthHills\CC Hearing 21sd .
Reading. 1.21.14\Ordinance.doc
Code Amendment No. 13-03 •
January 21, 2014 — Page 5
•
(2) "Landscaped crib wall" shall mean a type of retaining wall comprised of a hollow
rectangular cribwork of logs, timbers, reinforced concrete beams, or steel beams filled
with soil or rock, designed with vines and/or other planting extended across the face of
the wall.
(3) "Elevated structure" shall mean any deck, patio, view platform, tennis or sport court, or
other similar structure which is elevated above finished grade. The height of an elevated
structure shall be measured at continuous points around the perimeter of the structure
from the top of the finished floor or slab level of the structure to the lowest adjacent
finished grade.
(4) "Screened wall or fence" shall mean any wall or fence, other than a retaining wall,
designed and constructed for the purposes of screening, security, and/or separation of
property.
(5) "Screen wall or fence, solid" shall mean any screen wall or fence comprised of a
material such that more than thirty (30) percent of the view through the fence or wall is
obstructed.
(b) Exemptions. The following types of retaining walls and elevated structures shall be exempt
from the regulations of this section regardless of their height:
(1). Retaining walls and elevated structures that are not readily visible from the ground level
of surrounding properties or public rights -of -way as determined by the planning
director.
(2) Retaining walls necessary for 'reasons of emergency slope stabilization and/or public
safety as determined by the city engineer.
(3) Decks or balconies not exceeding two hundred (200) square feet in area which take
direct access from the second story of a residence and do not extend horizontally over
an area with a horizontal to vertical slope ratio of three to one (3: 1) or steeper.
(c) Administrative use permit required. Unless otherwise exempt pursuant to subsection (b)
above the following types of retaining walls and structures may only be constructed with the
approval of an administrative use permit as set forth in article VI, division 5 of this chapter:
(1) Any retaining wall or elevated structure in excess of four (4) feet in height.
(2) Any retaining wall or elevated structure constructed in combination with a screen wall
or fence above, such that the combined height exceeds eight and one-half (8.5) feet.
Wall and fence surfaces, or portions thereof, that are not solid as defined in subsection
(a)(4) above shall not be counted toward the measurement of height.
(3) Any structure constructed on top of an area of artificial fill created by a retaining wall or
constructed on top of an elevated structure proposed or approved pursuant to
subsections (1) and (2) above, such that any portion of such structure is located. within
five (5) feet of the edge of the retaining wall or elevated structure. Such structures shall
not be subject to the maximum height limits pursuant to subsection (d) below.
(d) Maximum height. Except for those walls and structures exempted pursuant to subsection (b)
above, no retaining wall (except for a landscaped crib wall) or elevated structure shall
exceed a maximum height of eight (8) feet, and no landscaped crib wall shall ex,-eed a
maximum height of fifteen (15) feet. The height of screen walls and fences constructed
above retaining walls and elevated structures shall comply with. the standards set forth in
seeti .~ 26 44- section 26-413 of this article.
(e) Required Setbacks for Elevated Structures. All elevated structures shall provide side
setbacks of 1.5 times the required side setbacks and shall comply with the required
rear yard setback specified in section 26-406. In cases where a side or rear p:qptry
line is adjacent to a landscape maintenance district, golf course, country club, park,
public school or similar type of permanent open space the setback adjacent to such use
shall comply to the standard setback required.
(ef) Parallel retaining walls and fences. Any retaining walls constructed in combination with
other retaining walls, screen walls and/or fences on the same property that are separated and
approximately parallel to each other shall be separated by a horizontal distance of three (3)
feet or greater. Where two (2) or more walls and/or fences are approximately parallel i.o each
other and separated by a horizontal distance of less than five (5) feet, the parallel walls
and/or fences shall be treated as a single wall and the height shall be measured at continuous
Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2013\13-03 R-1 Stds.MoratoriumSouthHills\CC Hearing Ind
Reading. 1.21.14\Ordinance.doe
Code Amendment No. 13-03 • •
January 21, 2014 — Page 6
points from the lowest adjacent finished grade of the lowest wall or fence segment to the top
of the highest wall or fence segment. The area between parallel retaining walls and other
walls and fences shall be landscaped such that a minimum of two-thirds (2/3) of the wall
surface will be screened from view once the landscaping reaches maturity.
(€g) Maintenance. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner, or other person leasing,
occupying, or having charge or possession of a property to properly maintain all retaining
walls, including any associated drainage and irrigation systems, in a safe and undamaged
condition. All landscaping required per this section shall be maintained in compliance with
the standards set forth in seet on 26 444 section 26-416 of this article.
(gh)Submittal requirements. In addition to the application requirements set forth in division 1,
article VI of this chapter, the following information shall also be provided:
(1) Site plan for the entire site indicating the proposed location of the retaining wall or
elevated structure. The plan shall include existing and proposed topographic contours,
existing trees and vegetation, elevations for the top and bottom of the proposed wall or
structure, and the setback from all property lines.
(2) Elevation drawings depicting the proposed architectural treatment, including proposed
colors and materials.
(3) Cross-section of the proposed retaining wall or elevated structure at its point of
maximum height indicating the existing and finished grade and the height of the
structure as it relates to the finished grade.
(4) Landscape/irrigation plan indicating the size and species of all proposed plant materials.
(lei) Findings. Before an application for an administrative use permit for a retaining wall/elevated
structure may be granted, the following findings shall be made:
(1) The proposed retaining wall, elevated structure, and/or other structure, has been
designed so as to substantially minimize any adverse aesthetic and visual impacts as
visible from surrounding properties and public rights -of -way.
(2) The proposed retaining wall, elevate structure, and/or other structure complies 'Vvith the
following design standards:
a. Colors and materials. Decorative materials and/or design elements shall be used as
necessary to enhance the aesthetic appearance of the retaining wall or structure.
Suggested materials include, but are not limited to, stone, masonry, wood, textured
poured concrete, and textured colored precision block with colored grout. Natural
and earth -tone colors should be utilized for retaining walls to blend the wall with
existing surroundings. A variation in design or materials should be used where
necessary to break up large masses and/or add visual interest.
b. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be integrated into the design of the retaining wall
or elevated structure as necessary to screen the retaining wall or structure from
open view. Where required, a landscape and irrigation plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the planning director. Selected plant species shall be drought tolerant
and fire resistant. Suggested plants include, but are not limited to, Arbutus unedo
(Strawberry Tree), Nandina domestics (Heavenly Bamboo), Parthenocissus
tricuspidata (Boston Ivy), Photinia (Photinia), Pittosporum tobira (Mock Orange),
Rhus lancea (African Sumac), Ribes (Currant or Gooseberry), and Xyylosma
congestum (Shiny Xylosma).
c. Wall separation. Retaining walls shall be separated into terraced segments where
necessary to break up large undifferentiated masses.
d. Privacy impacts. Retaining walls and structures shall be located and designed to
avoid unreasonable interference with the privacy of surrounding properties.
(Ord. No. 1988, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 274, Exh. A), 2-18-97; Ord. No. 1992, §§ 1, 2(Amd. 277,
Exh. A), 4-1-97; Ord No. 2030, § 4, 4-20-99)
Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2013\13-03 R-1 Stds.MoratoriumSouthHills\CC Hearing 2-ad
Reading. 1.21.14\Ordinance.doc
0 ATTACHMENT 2 0
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA, CALIFORNIA REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 2243 AND
ORDINANCE NO. 2245 PROHIBITING GRADING OR CONSTRUCTION
OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN SPECIFIED AREAS OF THE CITY
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2013, the City Council adopted urgency West Covina City
Council Ordinance No. 2243 prohibiting the construction of residential structures on 79
undeveloped residential lots remaining on the Skyview Lane, Rolling Hills Road, Countrywood
Lane, Hidden Valley Drive, Inspiration Point, Outlook Lane, Sunrise Road, Horizon Hills Drive,
Majestic Street, and Mountain Ridge Road located in the hills of the City of West Covina (the
"Properties"), West Covina; and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2013, the City Council adopted West Covina City Council
Ordinance No. 2245 extending the effective date of urgency Ordinance No. 2243; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that there is no longer a need for the zoning
moratorium enacted by West Covina City Council Ordinances No. 2243 and No. 2245.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA
CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION NO. 1: West Covina City Council Ordinance Nos. 2243 and 2245 are
repealed per the statutory requirements of State law.
SECTION NO. 2: The proposed action is considered to be exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the
CEQA Guidelines, in that the proposed action consists of the repeal of a zoning moratorium
ordinance which does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION NO. 3: The City Council hereby declares it would have passed this
Ordinance sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, and section by section, and does
hereby declare that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and, if for any reason any
sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance shall be held invalid, such decision s1-iall not
affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
SECTION NO. 4: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and it
shall be published as required by law.
7-ACase Files\CODE AMEND\2013\13-03 R-I Stds.MoratoriumSouthHills\CC Hearing 2nd Reading.1.21.14\Moratorium Termination
Ordinance.doc
Ordinance No.
Page 2
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 2 1 " day of January 2014.
Mayor Steve Herfert
ATTEST:
City Clerk Nickolas S. Lewis
I, NICHOLAS S. LEWIS, CITY CLERK of the City of West Covina, California, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Ordinance had its first reading and was introduced during theregular
meeting of the City Council on the 21" day of January, 2014 and had its second reading and was
adopted and passed during the regular meeting of the City Council on the 4th day of February,
2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
City Clerk Nickolas S. Lewis
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Arnold Alvarez-Glasman
ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2013\13-03 R-1 Stds.MoratoriumSouthHills\CC Hearing 2nd Reading. 1.21.14\Moratoriuill
Termination Ordinance.doc
ATTACHMENT 3
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Christopher J. Chung
City Manager
BY: Jeff Anderson
Planning Director
City of West Covina
Memorandum
AGENDA
ITEM NO. 12
DATE December 17, 2013
SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 13-03
RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL/SINGLE FAMILY ZONE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
GENERAL EXEMPTION
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 CHAPTER 26
(ZONING) OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED
TO RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL/SINGLE FAMILY ZONE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
BACKGROUND:
On May 7, 2013, the City Council initiated a code amendment to study the Residential
Agricultural/Single Family Zone development standards. The Planning Department
recommended that six standards be reviewed, most of which are standards for hillside
properties. Additionally at that meeting, the City Council adopted a moratorium on 79 vacant
properties located on Skyview Lane, Rolling Hills Road, Countrywood Lane, Hidden Valley
Drive, Inspiration Point, Outlook Lane, Horizon Hills Drive, Majestic Street, and Mountain
Ridge Road. These properties are located in a hillside area with varied topography where
physical improvements can create view and privacy impacts. The properties were part of a
larger subdivision that was originally subdivided in the 1980's. At the time of the
subdivision, houses were not proposed concurrently with the tract map. The average single-
family house constructed in the nation in 1981 was 1,720 square feet and the average home
constructed in 2010 was 2,392 square feet. The size of the houses likely to be constructed in
the South Hills area could range from 4,000 square feet to 5,500 square feet and could have
different impacts than what was considered at the time the subdivisions were approved.
DISCUSSION:
Over the past few years, staff has been contacted by prospective developers soliciting
information on the possible development of a number of vacant lots in the South Hills area.
Based on the topography of the area and on concerns expressed over the years regarding some
current development standards, staff compiled a list of development standards that had been
questioned. This list was presented to the City Council and is the basis for the Code
Amendment. Five of the six issues primarily deal with lots in areas of topography (hillside
areas). The following are the five issues for lots in areas of topography.
1. Ratio of Pad Size to Floor Area. The question is whether there should be a zoning
standard that requires a ratio between the pad size and the floor area of the house.
Currently, there is a zoning standard that establishes a ratio between the lot size and the
floor area of the house; however, the pad size can be substantially smaller than the lot size
in an area of varied topography. This could be an issue if the size of the footprint of the
house is so large that it uses all the level part of the property.
ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2013\13-03 R-1 Stds.MoratoriurnSouthHi11s\CC Hearing 12.17.13\StaffReport.doc
Code Amendment No. 13-03� •
R-A/R-1 Standards
December 17, 2013 - Page 2
2. Appropriate Pad Size. The question is whether the pad sizes on the lots are appropriate in
size or should be larger to allow for level open space areas around the houses.
The pad sizes have already been created. The concern is that some of the pads may be too
small to allow for large houses and level yard area. To modify the pad area would require
a new engineering design and grading.
3. Number of Stories. The question is whether the current Municipal Code standards for
measuring building height and number of stories are appropriate in hillside lots.
The current definition, while limiting the house to two stories, allows basements in what
may appear to be three-story structures on the downhill portion of the house.
4. Standards and Review Process for Decks. The question is whether the current zoning
standards and review process for decks (also called "elevated structures" in the Municipal
Code) are appropriate.
The Municipal Code requires that decks, (a view platform structure that is elevated above
finished grade) between four feet and eight feet in height, obtain the approval of an
administrative use permit (See Attachment 3). Decks over eight feet in height are not
allowed by Code and must obtain a variance. An administrative use permit requires the
noticing to residents in a 300-foot radius and is reviewed by the Planning Director.
5. Common Area Maintenance for Drainage and Landscaping of Slopes. The question is
whether there should be some type of requirement for common area maintenance of
drainage and/or landscape improvements on the slopes.
Subdivisions that are reviewed today are required to have an HOA (Homeowner's
Association) so that slopes would be in a common area that is communally maintained
and financed. Currently some of the lots have cross lot drainage which requires each
individual property owner to maintain the drainage swales. Swales that are not well
maintained could cause drainage issues and erosion. Many of the lots also include large
sections of hillside. If the landscaping in these areas is not maintained by the property
owner, there can be issues with erosion as well as the negative aesthetic issues. This has
occurred in other neighborhoods in the City and has become a code enforcement matter.
The remaining issue, while an issue in hillside areas, also affects lots in other parts of the City
in cases where additions or rebuilds led to larger houses. The following is the issue that
affects all lots in the City.
6. Standards for Covered Parking. The question is whether current standards for required
covered parking (garage/carport) are appropriate.
Currently, the Code requires two covered parking spaces, no matter how large the house
is. The Code further requires two open parking spaces for each house. However, the
larger the floor area of the house, the greater the number of open parking spaces are
required. The standards for additional open parking spaces are provided below.
Gross Unit Size (Sq.
Attached Garages)
Ft.) (Exclusive of
Additional Number of Required
Off -Street Parking Spaces
4,000
— 5,499
1
5,500
— 7,000
2
7,001—
8,000
3
8001+
As per an approved CUP or
maximum unit size exception
Houses with large floor areas or large numbers of bedrooms can result in a greater
number of cars being parked on residential streets if they provide the minimum
amount of parking required.
ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2013\13-03 R-1 Stds.MoratoriurnSouthHi11S\CC Hearing 12.17.13\StaffReport.doc
W. •
Code Amendment No. 13-03
R-A/R-1 Standards
December 17, 2013 - Page 3
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT:
In order to study the six issues, the Planning Commission held three study sessions (July 9,
2013, August 27, 2013, and October 22, 2013). At these study sessions, the Planning
Commission evaluated potential changes to the Municipal Code and determined not to
recommend any changes to three of the issues, including Appropriate Pad Size, Building
Height and Number of Stories, and Common Area Maintenance for Drainage and
Landscaping of Slopes. Information on the study sessions is included as Attachments 5
through 8.
The Commission did decide to recommend changes to the Municipal Code for the following
issues.
• Ratio of Pad Size to Floor Area. The consensus of the Commissioners was that it
would be appropriate to require a level area behind the house (between the slope and
the house) rather than a pad coverage ratio. The recommendation is for a 10-foot level
area. (This standard was designed after a standard from the City of Walnut.) This
level area could be improved with an open single -story patio cover. Requiring a 10-
foot level area emergency access area behind each house will allow for access, require
houses to be setback from the slope, and reduce encroachment into slope areas.
• Standards and Review Process for Decks. The Municipal Code currently allows decks
and balconies in the same manner as it allows for room additions; however, decks and
balconies have a greater effect on privacy than room additions. The consensus of the
Commission was to require 50% greater side yard setbacks for decks and balconies and
a minimum 25-foot rear yard setback. Most side yard setbacks in hillside areas are 7 or
10 feet. Decks and balconies can create issues of privacy and view impacts. Requiring
additional setbacks can reduce the concerns.
• Standards for Covered Parking. The Municipal Code currently requires a two -car
garage for all single-family houses. The consensus of the Commissioners was to
require three -car garages when the floor area of the house exceeds 4,500 square feet or
the house has five or more bedrooms. The Commission determined that it was
appropriate to allow tandem garages to comply with the three -car garage standard. It is
likely that a house that is greater than 4,500 square feet and a house with 5 or more
bedrooms will have more vehicles than an average -sized house.
The proposed amendments have been included in the attached ordinance. The proposed code
text is attached to the ordinance for your review (Attachment 1). The moratorium is currently
in effect. If the City Council approves the proposed code amendment, an ordinance to release
the moratorium will be presented to the City Council at the time of the second reading of the
ordinance. The moratorium would be released on the date that the code amendment takes
effect (30 days after the second reading).
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 26, 2013. The Commission
discussed the draft tandem parking standards, the process for reviewing decks and
balconies, and modifying the draft code amendment to allow single -story open patio covers
in the 10-foot level area between the house and the top of the slope. The Commission
voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the proposed code amendment to the City Council.
ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2013\13-03 R-1 Stds.MoratoriurnSouthHills\CC Hearing 12.17.13\Staff Report.doe
Code Amendment No. 13-03 •
R-A/R-1 Standards
December 17, 2013 - Page 4
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed Code Amendment would not have any direct fiscal impact to the General
Fund.
Prep e y. Jeff Anderson
Planning Director
Attachments:
Attachment 1— Draft Code Amendment Ordinance
Attachment 2 —
Planning Commission Resolution No. 13-5546
Attachment 3 —
Planning Commission Minutes, November 26, 2013
Attachment 4 —
Planning Commission Staff Report, November 26, 2013
Attachment 5 —
Planning Commission Study Session Report, October 22, 2013
Attachment 6 —
Study Session Table, October 22, 2013
Attachment 7 —
Planning Commission Study Session Report, August 27, 2013
Attachment 8 —
Study Session Table, August 27, 2013
Attachment 9 —
City Council Staff Report, June 4, 2013
Attachment 10
— City Council Staff Report, May 7, 2013
ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2013\13-03 R-1 Stds.MoratoriurnSouthHi11S\CC Hearing 12.17.13\StaffReport.doc