Loading...
PC RES 2010-011 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2010-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 2009-00017 TO TRIM AND/OR REMOVE FOLIAGE LOCATED AT 1 BRONCO DRIVE, AND 28428 CAYUSE LANE. WHEREAS, on February 2, 2010, Mr. & Mrs. Jim and Lucy White, and Mr. & Mrs. Miles & Susan Ghormley, owners of property located at 2 Bronco Drive and 28541 Palos Verdes Drive East, respectively, (herein "the Applicants"), in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, filed an application requesting a View Restoration Permit ("Permit") to restore a view from their property that is significantly impaired by foliage owned by Mr. and Mrs. Jim & Diane Menjou at 1 Bronco Drive, Ms. Rosemarie DiSanto at 13 Cayuse Lane and Mr. Patrick Parsons at 28428 Cayuse Lane, (herein "the Foliage Owners"), in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City"); and, WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission ("Commission") hearing was mailed to the Applicant and the Foliage Owners on February 18, 2010; and, WHEREAS, on March 23, 2010, after all eligible voting members of the Planning Commission had visited the sites, the Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request, at which time, all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: As defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code, the Applicants at 2 Bronco Drive has a view of the city lights (South Bay & Los Angeles Basin), and the Santa Monica and San Gabriel Mountains, and 28541 Palos Verdes Drive has a view of the city lights (South Bay & Los Angeles Basin), the Santa Monica and San Gabriel Mountains, and the Santa Monica Coastline and Santa Monica Bay. Section 2: The Applicant's viewing area 2 Bronco Drive, as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code, is from the living room/dining room. The Applicant's viewing area at 28541 Palos Verdes Drive East, as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code, is from the "great room" (which includes the family room, dining room and den), and the outdoor patio area. Section 3: The Applicants at 2 Bronco Drive and 28541 Palos Verdes Drive East have a view that is significantly impaired by three (3) trees located at 1 Bronco Drive and one (1) tree located at 28428 Cayuse Lane. Section 4: On March 16, 2009, Mr. & Mrs. Jim & Lucy White and Mr. & Mrs. Miles & Susan Ghormley submitted a Notice of Intent to File for View Restoration Application No. 2009-00017, which requested a pre-application meeting with Mr. & Mrs. Jim and Diane Menjou, Ms. Rosemarie DiSanto, and Mr. Patrick Parsons, owners of foliage located at 1 Bronco Drive, 13 Cayuse Lane, and 28428 Cayuse Lane, respectively. Staff accordingly scheduled a pre- application meeting between the Applicants and two of the Foliage Owners (Ms. DiSanto & Mr. & Mrs. Menjou) to be held on May 4, 2009. On May 4, 2009, a pre-application meeting was held with the View Mediator, Staff, the Applicants and only one Foliage Owner (DiSanto). An P.C. Resolution 2010-11 Page 1 of 8 additional pre-application meeting was held with the View Mediator, Staff, a Foliage Owner (Mr. & Mrs. Menjou), and Mrs. Ghormley on September 25, 2009. Additional communication occurred between the Applicants, Foliage Owners & View Mediator; however, all parties involved were not able to come to an agreement. Thus, the Applicant was released to formally file the View Restoration application request. It should also be noted that as of the date of this decision, Staff has not had any email, telephone or in-person contact with Mr. Parsons, who is the owner of 28428 Cayuse Lane and Tree No. 1. The only form of contact Staff has had with Mr. Parsons thus far is a signed return receipt acknowledging receipt of the formal application notice mailed by Staff in February 2010. This return receipt was received by the City on February 11, 2010. Staff also left copy of the Memo packet, with the original Staff Report attached, at Mr. Parsons' door on Monday, March 22nd. Therefore, in accordance with Section V (A) of the View Restoration Guidelines, the Applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process. Section 5: All of the foliage that Staff is recommending for trimming and/or removal exceeds 16 feet and significantly impairs the view from the Applicants' viewing areas. Section 6: The Foliage Owners' properties at 1 Bronco Drive and 28428 Cayuse Lane are located less than 1,000 feet from the Applicants' properties at 2 Bronco Drive and 28541 Palos Verdes Drive East. Section 7: The creation of the Foliage Owner's lot at 1 Bronco Drive preceded the Subdivision Map Act, and was created via Record of Survey per book 62, pages 36 and 37, which was recorded in May of 1949. The other Foliage Owner's lot at 28428 Cayuse Lane was created in June 1957 by Tract No. 22946. The Applicants' lots were created in July 1968 by Tract No. 27936. The approved grading plans for the Tract indicate that the lot now addressed as 28428 Cayuse Lane was part of a Supervised Compaction operation. The grading plans show that prior to the placement of compacted fill, vegetation and debris were removed from the site, thus these Foliage Owners' trees were not planted until after the Foliage Owners' lots were created and graded. Also, although the lot at 1 Bronco Drive was created at the same time as the Applicants' lots, the existence of standard building practices generally dictate that lots are created using mass grading techniques that involve the removal of all existing vegetation to create the building pads, Staff believes that the foliage in question did not exist as view impairing foliage when the lots were created. As such, the foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist as view impairing vegetation, when the lot from which the view is taken was created. Section 8: Removal or trimming of the foliage as recommended by Staff will not cause an unreasonable infringement on the privacy of the Foliage Owners in that the Foliage Owners' rear yards are not visible from the Applicant's viewing areas. Specifically, the Foliage Owners' residences and rear yard are not visible from the Applicants' viewing areas due to the elevation differences between the properties. As such, removal and/or trimming of the trees will not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the Foliage Owners. Section 9: Trimming and/or removal of the subject trees as identified in the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit "A"), is necessary in order to restore the Applicants' view. Section 10: It should be noted that 13 Cayuse Lane was originally part of the View Restoration application and Staff Report. However, after the Staff Report was transmitted on March 9, 2010, Ms. Rosemarie DiSanto (13 Cayuse Lane) trimmed Tree Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 11 and 12 to improve the Applicants' views. (Tree Nos. 13-15 already did not significantly impair the Applicants' views.) On Friday March 12, 2010 and Monday March 15, 2010, Staff visited the Applicants' properties at 2 Bronco Drive & 28541 Palos Verdes Drive East and Ms. DiSanto's P.C. Resolution 2010-11 Page 2 of 8 property at 13 Cayuse Lane and noted that this trimming has reduced the extent of the trees encroaching into the protected view to a level that Staff believes no longer significantly impairs the view from the Ghormley property. Thus, Staff believes that the finding of significant view impairment as discussed on page 9 of the Staff Report and as required in Section V.B of the View Guidelines can no longer be made with regards to the existing foliage at 13 Cayuse Lane. (The foliage on Ms. DiSanto's property already did not significantly impair the White's view as discussed on page 8 of the previously transmitted Staff Report.) As such, Tree Nos. 2-6, and 11-15 are not a part of this final Resolution and attached Conditions of Approval, as these trees were trimmed down prior to the Planning Commission meeting such that they no longer significantly impaired the view and Staff could no longer make the finding of significant view impairment per Section V.B of the View Guidelines. Section 11: Pursuant to Section 15304 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project is categorically exempt under Class 4 of that section because the work required to restore the Applicants' view does not include the removal of scenic and mature trees as identified by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan (Visual Aspects; Figure 41). This finding, demonstrates that the decision complies with the provisions of CEQA because the decision does not cause any significant adverse environmental impacts. Since the subject trees are not considered to be scenic or mature trees as identified in the City's General Plan, the environmental impacts due to trimming and/or removal are insignificant. Section 12: Based on the foregoing information, and on the information and findings included in the Staff report and evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby orders the trimming and/or removal of foliage at 1 Bronco Drive and 28428 Cayuse Lane in order to restore the view at 28541 Palos Verdes Drive East and 2 Bronco Drive, as provided in and subject to, the conditions outlined in the attached Exhibit "A", which is incorporated herein by this reference. Section 13: Any interested person aggrieved of this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 17.202.040 (2)(g) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following the date of the Planning Commission's final action. Section 14: For the foregoing reasons and based on information and findings contained in the Staff Reports, minutes, and records of the proceedings, the Planning Commission hereby approves View Restoration Permit No. 2009-00017 subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in the attached Exhibit "A", which are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. P.C. Resolution 2010-11 Page 3 of 8 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on the 23 Id day of March 2010. AYES: Commissioners Emenhiser, Knight, Leon, Levis ,-and Chair Gerstner NOES: none ABSTENTIONS: none ABSENT: Commissioner Tetreault RECUSALS: Vice-Chair Tomblin ro t 4LL Bill Gerstner Chairman Joelja� Co un' un y Develent Director P.C. Resolution 2010-11 4 of 8 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 2009-00017 1. Aleppo Pine tree (labeled Tree No. 1) located at 28428 Cayuse Lane: Reduce crown to the height levels indicated in the White trimming height level photo (Exhibit D) and shape, in order to restore the view of the city lights (South Bay & Los Angeles Basin), and the Santa Monica and San Gabriel Mountains as viewed from the viewing area at 28541 Palos Verdes Drive East. Tree trimming shall occur during the cooler months of the year (November-March) Or With the consent of the Foliage Owner, remove tree and replace with one 24- inch box size tree. However, in no case shall the new replacement tree immediately impair the view. And as the tree may grow up to impair the view, it may be subject to View Preservation Permit action according to Section VIII of the View Restoration Guidelines. 2. Monterey Pine tree (labeled Tree No. 7) located at 1 Bronco Drive: Per the Foliage Owners' request, remove tree & replace with one 24-inch box size tree in order to restore the view of the city lights (South Bay & Los Angeles Basin) and the Santa Monica Mountains and San Gabriel Mountains as viewed from the viewing area at 2 Bronco Drive, and the view of the city lights (South Bay & Los Angeles Basin), the Santa Monica Mountains and San Gabriel Mountains, and the Santa Monica Coastline and Santa Monica Bay as viewed from the viewing area at 28541 Palos Verdes Drive East. However, in no case shall the new replacement tree immediately impair the view. And as the tree may grow up to impair the view, it may be subject to View Preservation Permit action according to Section VIII of the View Restoration Guidelines. 3. Monterey Pine tree (labeled Tree No. 8) located at 1 Bronco Drive: Per the Foliage Owners' request, remove tree & replace with one 24-inch box size tree in order to restore the view of the city lights (South Bay & Los Angeles Basin) and the Santa Monica Mountains and San Gabriel Mountains as viewed from the viewing area at 2 Bronco Drive, and the view of the city lights (South Bay & Los Angeles Basin), the Santa Monica Mountains and San Gabriel Mountains, and the Santa Monica Coastline and Santa Monica Bay as viewed from the viewing area at 28541 Palos Verdes Drive East. However, in no case shall the new replacement tree immediately impair the view. And as the tree may grow up to impair the view, it may be subject to View Preservation Permit action according to Section Vlll of the View Restoration Guidelines. P.C. Resolution 2010-11 Page 5 of 8 4. Monterey Pine tree (labeled Tree No. 9) located at 1 Bronco Drive: Per the Foliage Owners' request, remove tree & replace with one 24-inch box size tree in order to restore the view of the city lights (South Bay & Los Angeles Basin) and the Santa Monica Mountains and San Gabriel Mountains as viewed from the viewing area at 2 Bronco Drive, and the view of the city lights (South Bay & Los Angeles Basin), the Santa Monica Mountains and San Gabriel Mountains, and the Santa Monica Coastline and Santa Monica Bay as viewed from the viewing area at 28541 Palos Verdes Drive East. However, in no case shall the new replacement tree immediately impair the view. And as the tree may grow up to impair the view, it may be subject to View Preservation Permit action according to Section VIII of the View Restoration Guidelines. 5. Monterey Pine tree (labeled Tree No. 10) located at 1 Bronco Drive: No action required at this time as the tree does not currently significantly impair either of the Applicants' views. 6. Upon completion of Condition Nos. 1-5, if additional foliage on the subject properties is found to be impairing the view from the determined viewing area, then the offending foliage shall be trimmed so as not to significantly impair the view from the Applicants' properties and the Applicants shall be responsible for the additional trimming costs. 7. The Foliage Owners shall be responsible to maintain the foliage in such a manner as to not impair the Applicant's view by trimming the foliage specified in this permit on an annual basis, beginning one year after the initial trimming of the foliage is completed and verified by Staff. 8. Per Guidelines Section VI.A.4, tree removal shall mean the removal and disposal of a tree or shrub, by grinding the shrub's or tree's stump to the existing grade. (The Planning Commission may determine that the stump be ground to a depth below the existing grade on a case-by-case basis.) If existing topography or other physical limitations identified by the tree service contractor preclude mechanical stump grinding, the stump shall be flush cut to existing grade or as close to existing grade as possible, as determined by the tree service contractor. If a foliage owner wishes to keep the stump, he or she may so elect; then, in no case, may the remaining stump height exceed 18 inches above grade. Unless otherwise directed by the Commission in connection with the decision on a particular application, removal of the foliage shall not include the removal and disposal of a plant's root system. 9. If any tree or shrub that is ordered to be culled, laced, or trimmed dies within one year of the initial work being performed due to the performance of the work, the applicant or any subsequent owner of the applicant's property shall be responsible for providing a replacement tree or shrub to the foliage owner. This time period may be extended by the Commission if evidence is provided by a certified arborist that a longer monitoring period is necessary for a specific type of tree or shrub. However, if the city arborist determines that culling, lacing, or trimming said tree or shrub will in all probability cause the tree or shrub to die, and the foliage owner chooses not to accept removal and replacement as an P.C. Resolution 2010-11 Page 6 of 8 option, either in writing or in public testimony during the public hearing, then the applicant will not be responsible for providing a replacement tree or shrub to the foliage owner. The replacement foliage shall be provided in accordance with the specifications described in section VI-E (Commission Action) of these Guidelines. If the work is performed by the foliage owner, said foliage owner shall forfeit the right to replacement foliage if the trimmed tree dies. If a tree or shrub dies it is subject to removal pursuant to Section 8.24.060 (property maintenance) of the RPV Municipal Code. 10. The Applicants shall present to the City, at least one itemized estimate to carry out the aforementioned work. Such estimate is to be supplied by a licensed landscape or licensed tree service contractor, acceptable to the City, which provides insurance certificates in a form acceptable to the City, and shall include all costs of cleanup and removal of debris and the cost to have an ISA certified tree trimmer or accredited arborist on site to perform or supervise the work being done. Said insurance shall identify the property owner and the City (and its officers, agents and employees) as additionally named insureds, and shall have a coverage amount of no less than $1,000,000 for each occurrence and no less than $2,000,000 in the aggregate. In addition, the Applicants shall pay to the City an amount equal to the City-accepted estimate and such funds shall be maintained in a City trust account until completion of work as verified by City Staff. 11. The Foliage Owners shall select a contractor from the estimate(s) provided by the Applicants or another licensed firm of their choice subject to approval by the City, to perform the required work. However, the Foliage Owners shall only be reimbursed for the amount of the lowest bid submitted by the Applicant. If the Foliage Owners choose to do the required work themselves (instead of by a licensed landscape or licensed tree service), then the Foliage Owners shall not be compensated from the trust account and the amount in the trust account shall be refunded to the Applicant. 12. The Applicants may reduce the scope of the trimming required by this Permit by giving the City and the Foliage Owners written notice of such decision within 30 days of this approval. The Applicant shall deposit funds to the City in a trust account in an amount sufficient to cover the remaining work. However, trimming or removal of the vegetation that the Applicant has chosen to eliminate would then require an entirely new View Restoration application and fee. 13. The Applicants may withdraw the view restoration request and the trust account funds if the Applicant does so within five (5) days after the Applicant sends the estimate required herein. In the event that the Applicant withdraws the request in a timely manner, the Foliage Owners are not required to perform the work specified by this Permit and this Permit is of no further force and effect. 14. The Foliage Owners shall, no later than 90 days after the Notice of Approval (First Notice) is mailed, complete the work to the extent required by this Permit and shall maintain the vegetation to a height that will not impair the view from the Applicants' properties in the future as specified in these Conditions of Approval. If any Foliage Owner herein does not complete the required work as specified within 90 days of the issuance of the Notice of Approval, then the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will authorize a bonded tree service to perform the work at the subject property and at the Foliage Owners' expense. In the event that the City is required to perform the work at the Foliage Owners' expense, the City shall reimburse the Applicant from the City trust account not later than 30 days after the expiration of the time period stipulated above. P.C. Resolution 2010-11 Page 7 of 8 15. Upon completion of the work, the Foliage Owners shall notify the City and shall submit a copy of a paid invoice showing that the work was performed. Upon submittal of the invoice and verification by City Staff of compliance, the City shall transmit the funds from the City trust account to the Foliage Owners not later than 30 days after receipt of the appropriate billing as verified by City Staff. If the paid invoice submitted by the Foliage Owners is for an amount less than the funds in the City's trust account, the Foliage Owners shall only be transmitted an amount equal to the actual cost of the trimming. In such situations, the balance of the trust account shall be refunded back to the Applicant (within 30 days of receipt of the appropriate billing) or applied to the Applicant's permit processing account, if that account contains a negative balance. If the paid invoice submitted by the Foliage Owners is for an amount that exceeds the funds in the City's trust account, the Foliage Owners shall only receive the funds from the City trust account and the Foliage Owners shall be responsible for paying the difference 16. If the required work as specified herein is not completed within the stipulated time periods, then the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will utilize the City's code enforcement process to authorize a bonded tree service to perform the work at the subject property at the Foliage Owners' expense, and the Applicant's deposit will be refunded. In the event that the City is required to perform the work, the Foliage Owners will be billed for all City expenses incurred in enforcing the View Restoration order and a lien or assessment may be recorded against the Foliage Owners' property if the invoice is not paid. 17.Subsequent to the trimming or removal of the foliage, the restored view shall be documented by Staff. The photographic documentation shall be kept on file at the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department and used as a benchmark by City Staff for making a determination of significant view impairment in any future view preservation enforcement actions. If new foliage not subject to this View Restoration Permit or not addressed pursuant to Condition 16 should grow up and impair the documented view, said new foliage shall be considered significant view impairing foliage and shall be trimmed by the Foliage Owners to match the view shown on the documented photograph. 18. Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Act, it shall be the responsibility of the foliage owner to inform the City of any nests in the trees that are subject to the VRP. Or if any nests are found in the course of trimming and/or removal, the City shall be informed of that as well. If a nest is found, the trees shall be checked/inspected by a qualified biologist to ascertain whether it is an active nest. The Applicants will be responsible for the cost of this consultant. If there is an active nest, as determined by a qualified biologist, trimming and/or removal shall only occur outside of the active nesting season for the type of bird's nest that is found. P.C. Resolution 2010-11 Page 8 of 8