Loading...
PC RES 2019-014 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT PLVRP NO. 2017-00088 THEREBY REQUIRING THE FOLIAGE OWNERS TO REDUCE 1 DATE PALM TREE, 1 JUNIPER TREE, AND 1 JACARANDA TREE TO THE HEIGHT LEVEL OF THE FOLIAGE OWNERS' SECOND STORY RIDGELINE OR VOLUNTARILY REMOVE 1 DATE PALM TREE, 1 JUNIPER TREE, AND 1 JACARANDA TREE, WITHOUT REPLACEMENT, AT 6539 MADELINE COVE DRIVE, IN ORDER TO RESTORE THE APPLICANTS' VIEWS. WHEREAS, on April 16, 2019, Mr. Hori, owner and resident of 6536 Abbottswood Drive, and on May 2, 2019, Ms. Rall, owner and resident of 6528 Abbottwood Drive (collectively, the "Applicants"), filed applications requesting a View Restoration Permit ("Permit") to restore a view that is significantly impaired by trees located at 6539 Madeline Cove Drive (owned by Mr. & Mrs. Assadi, the "Foliage Owners"). WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission hearing was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on May 9, 2019 and the Public Notice was also mailed to the Applicants and to the Foliage Owners on May 9, 2019. WHEREAS, on June 11, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted a motion making all the findings to approve the View Restoration Permit application and continued the public hearing to June 25, 2019 on a vote of 6-0-1 with Commissioner Santarosa recused. The public hearing was continued in order to provide additional time for the Foliage Owners, who were absent, to participate in the meeting discussion and to provide feedback as to their preference to trim or remove the subject trees, as they did not attend the June 11th meeting. WHEREAS, on June 25, 2019, the Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request and tree trimming remedies to restore the views, 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: The recitals above are true and correct, and incorporated herein by P.C. Resolution No. 2019-14 Page 1 of 12 reference. Section 2: Property Ownership (a) Applicant Mr. Hori and his wife, Mrs. Hori, own and reside at the property at 6536 Abbottswood Drive. (b) Applicant Ms. Betty Rall owns and resides at the property at 6528 Abbottswood Drive. (c) Foliage owners Mr. and Mrs. Assadi own, but do not reside at, the property at 6539 Madeline Cove Drive (also referred to as the subject property). Section 3: Views Section 17.02.040(A)(14)of the RPVMC defines a far view as including the ocean or offshore islands. A "view" which is protected by this section shall not include distant mountain areas not normally visible. (a) On the subject property there are: one (1) Canary Island Date Palm Tree located in the rear yard slope; one (1) Hollywood Juniper Tree located in the west side yard; and one (1) Jacaranda Tree located in the front yard. The trees may be collectively referred to as the subject trees. (b) As defined by Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) Section 17.02.040(A)(14), Mr. Hori at 6536 Abbottswood Drive has the following views: Pacific Ocean, Catalina Island, Santa Barbara Island, Anacapa Island, Santa Cruz Island and Santa Monica Mountains. (b) As defined by RPVMC Section 17.02.040(A)(14), Ms. Rail at 6528 Abbottswood Drive has the following views: Pacific Ocean, Catalina Island and Santa Barbara Island. (c) Mr. and Mrs. Hori and Ms. Rail, are referred to, individually or collectively, as Applicant or Applicants. Section 4: Viewing Areas. Section 17.02.040(A)(15) of the RPVMC defines viewing areas as that area of a structure (excluding bathrooms, hallways, garages or closets) or that area of a lot (excluding the setback areas) where the owner and city determine the best and most important view exists. Section 17.02.040(B)(5) of the RPVMC states that the City determines a viewing area based on balancing the nature of the view to be protected and the importance of the area of the structure or lot from where the view is taken. Per the View Restoration Guidelines Section III-B.2, the viewing P.C. Resolution No. 2019-14 Page 2 of 12 area may include multiple rooms or locations on the applicant's property if those locations share the same view. (a) Viewing area from 6536 Abbottswood Drive: The property located at 6536 Abbottswood Drive, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Hori, who resides there. As defined by Section 17.02.040(B)(5) of the RPVMC, the viewing areas from 6536 Abbottswood Drive are the master bedroom and the combined dining/living room. However, the combined dining/living room is the best and most important viewing area because the dining/living room offers the most expansive and panoramic view of the Pacific Ocean with Catalina Island to the south, and Santa Barbara Island, Anacapa Island, Santa Cruz Island views sweeping southwest to northwest, and ending in the direction of the Santa Monica Mountains. Since the combined dining/living room is the best and most important view, for consistent analysis of the subject trees' impairment, the findings relate to this viewing area. (b) Viewing area from 6528 Abbottswood Drive: The property located at 6528 Abbottswood Drive, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, is owned by Ms. Rall, who resides there. As defined by Section 17.02.040(B)(5) of the RPVMC, the viewing area from 6528 Abbottswood Drive is from the living room, den and master bedroom, which share the same view elements consisting of far views of the Pacific Ocean, Catalina Island and Santa Barbara Island. Per the View Restoration Guidelines Section III-B.2, the viewing area may include multiple rooms or locations on the applicant's property if those locations share the same view. Since the living room and master bedroom have the best and most important view, for consistent analysis of the trees' impairment, the findings relate to these viewing areas. Section 5: View Restoration Mandatory Findings. The Commission finds that the following six mandatory findings can be made, as required by Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(c) of the RPVMC: CO The Applicants have complied with the early neighbor consultation process and have shown proof of cooperation on their part to resolve conflicts. a) On May 8, 2017, Applicant Hori mailed a registered letter to the mailing address of Foliage Owners requesting tree trimming, but the Foliage Owners did not accept the letter. b) On September 28, 2017, Applicant. Rall also mailed a registered letter to the mailing address of the Foliage Owners requesting tree trimming, but the Foliage Owners did not accept the letter. P.C. Resolution No. 2019-14 Page 3 of 12 c) On September 28, 2017, Ms. Burress, a homeowner claiming to be affected by the subject trees, also mailed a registered letter to the mailing address of the Foliage Owners requesting tree trimming, but the Foliage Owners did not accept the letter. d) On November 14, 2017, after making attempts to contact and resolve the view impairment issue with the Foliage Owners to no avail, Mr. Hori, Ms. Rall and Ms. Burruss submitted a Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Permit requesting that the City mediate the issue. (Ms. Burruss ultimately did not file a View Restoration Permit application) e) In response to the Applicants' and Ms. Burruss' requests, the City mailed a pre-application meeting invitation to the Foliage Owners on November 14, 2017, but the Foliage Owners did not respond. Pursuant to Section V-A.7.a of the View Restoration Guidelines, the Applicants, having already mailed registered letters to the Foliage Owners, complied with the early neighborhood consultation requirement on November 30, 2017 when the Foliage Owners failed to notify the City, in writing, with a mediation date selection specified in the City's notification letter dated November 14, 2017. Notwithstanding that the Applicants met the Early Neighbor Consultation requirement on November 30, 2017 when the Foliage Owners failed to participate in mediation, a second attempt to contact the Foliage Owners was made by the City on December 1, 2017, but the City again did not receive a response accepting the mediation request. On December 4, 2017, the Foliage Owners mailed a letter to the City stating that they had been out of the country, but trimming (without specification of the trees) was completed as recently as October 2017. However, around this time period, the Applicants and Ms. Burruss indicated to Staff that the subject trees remained untrimmed and continued to block their views. On December 13, 2017, the City mailed a third pre-application meeting invitation to the Foliage Owners, and again the City did not receive a response accepting mediation. On December 19, 2017, the Foliage Owners mailed a letter to the City that additional trimming and removal (again without specification) was completed since December 4, 2017. The Applicants and Ms. Burruss stated, at the time, that the subject trees remained untrimmed and continued to block their view. On January 16, 2018, Ms. Burruss withdrew from the pre-application process. In a last attempt to conduct mediation between the parties, Staff requested that the City's View Restoration Mediator, Ms. Coleen Berg, make telephonic contact with the Foliage Owners directly. The Foliage Owners and P.C. Resolution No. 2019-14 Page 4 of 12 Ms. Berg agreed to meet on the Foliage Owners' property to discuss the matter. On March 23, 2018, Ms. Berg met with Foliage Owner Mr. Assadi at 6539 Madeline Cove Drive. In July 2018, Ms. Berg, submitted a tree trimming proposal from the Applicants to the Foliage Owners. Unfortunately, no private agreement between the Applicants and the Foliage Owners was reached through mediation. On April 16, 2019, Applicant. Hori filed a View Restoration Permit application. On May 2, 2019, Applicant Rall also filed a View Restoration Permit application, to become a co-Applicant in the case. Based on the above, the finding can be made that the Applicants have complied with the early neighbor consultation process and have shown proof of cooperation on their part to resolve conflicts. (2) Foliage exceeding sixteen (16) feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower, significantly impairs a view from the applicant's viewing area, whether such foliage is located totally on one property, or when combined with foliage located on more than one property. a) From the viewing area of Applicant Hori's residence at 6536 Abbottswood Drive, the Canary Island Date Palm Tree in the rear yard, the Juniper Tree in the west side yard and the Jacaranda Tree in the front yard, exceed 16' in height and exceed the ridgeline of the subject property. The View Restoration Guidelines state that foliage, which is located within the center of the view frame and/or impairs "prominent landmarks of significant features" of a view, and/or entirely obstructs one of the components of a multi-component view, should be considered a significant impairment. From the Hori viewing area, which is the interior of the combined dining/living room, the Palm Tree (and behind it the Juniper Tree and the Jacaranda Tree) impair the Catalina Island view, which is a prominent landmark feature. The subject trees also hinder visibility of the Catalina Island view, which is a component of the multi-component view. Additionally, the subject trees impair a prominent landmark feature (Catalina Island) and entirely obstruct the Catalina Island component of the multi- component view, thus further warranting the determination that the subject trees cause a significant view impairment. Therefore, this finding can be made as to 6536 Abbottswood Drive. b) From the viewing areas of Applicant Rall's residence at 6528 Abbottswood Drive, the Canary Island Date Palm Tree in the rear yard, the Juniper Tree in the west side yard and the Jacaranda Tree in the front yard, which exceed 16' in height and exceed the ridgeline of the subject property, significantly impair the views of the Ocean and Santa Catalina Island and Santa Barbara Islands. The View Restoration Guidelines state that foliage, which is located within the center of the view frame and/or impairs "prominent landmarks of significant features" of a view, P.C. Resolution No. 2019-14 Page 5 of 12 and/or entirely obstructs one of the components of a multi-component view, should be considered to a significant impairment. From Ms. Rail's viewing areas, which are the interior living room and master bedroom, the view frame is narrowed by the ridgelines of the primary structures facing west (6536 Abbottswood Drive) and facing south (6533 Madeline Cove Drive). The subject trees are located within the center of the view frame. In addition, the Jacaranda Tree impairs the Catalina Island view and the Palm tree impairs the Santa Barbara Island view, which are prominent landmark features. Moreover, the subject trees effect a collective view impairment, as their foliage is located within the center of the view frame and impairs prominent landmark features (Catalina Island & Santa Barbara Island), thus further warranting the determination that the trees cause a significant view impairment. Therefore, this finding can be made as to 6528 Abbottswood Drive. (3) The foliage to be removed is located on property, any part of which is less than one thousand (1,000) feet from the applicant's property. In accordance with the City's View Restoration Guidelines Section V-C, the foliage that is to be removed is located less than 1,000 feet from the Applicants' properties. Mr. Hori shares a rear property line with the subject property, and Ms. Rail's property line is approximately 25 feet east of the subject property line. As such, the finding can be made that the foliage to be removed is located on property less than 1,000 feet from both Applicants' properties. (4) The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist, as view impairing vegetation, when the lot from which the view is taken was created. The subdivision Tract map (Tract Map No. 27134) associated with the Applicants' lots was recorded on May 31, 1962. In 1962, the lots associated with the Applicants' properties, Lot 9 (6536 Abbottswood Drive) and Lot 10 (6528 Abbottswood Drive) had unobstructed views. The subdivision (Tract Map No. 28053) where the Foliage Owners' lot is located was recorded in April 1969, and developed with a house in April 1971. Landscape improvements followed the development, and occupancy of the Foliage Owners' house occurred in 1971. Ms. Rall is the original homeowner of 6528 Abbottswood Drive and she attests that before her house was built, she and her then-husband had visited the property in or around 1962 and no trees impaired the view at that time, and she has supported her testimony with photos taken from her house in 1963 and 1965, showing that the subject trees did not impair the view. In corroboration of her testimony, aerial photography taken in August 1963 shows that the land where the Foliage Owners' lot was created did not contain vegetation and therefore the views from both Applicants' lots could not have been impaired by the subject trees. P.C. Resolution No. 2019-14 Page 6 of 12 As such, the finding can be made that the subject trees did not exist, as view impairing vegetation, when the Applicants' lots were created. (5) Removal or trimming of the foliage will not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the property upon which the foliage is located. Removal or trimming of the foliage will not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the subject property because the portion of the trees' canopy subject to trimming does not function as privacy screening. Should the trees, particularly the rear yard Palm Tree be removed, the Foliage Owners' rear yard could be partially exposed. However, any exposure resulting from removing the Palm Tree would not and does not constitute an unreasonable infringement on outdoor privacy because the Applicants' residences and the outdoor gathering areas are set back far enough to prohibit casual observation into the Foliage Owners' rear yard. In addition, well-established privacy hedges, located on the Hori property, near the shared rear yard property line, hinder visibility into the rear yard of the Foliage Owners' property. Should the Foliage Owners remove the Palm Tree, two replacement shrubs will be purchased and installed near the location of the removed Palm tree, at the Applicants' expense, to provide additional privacy screening to the rear yard of the Foliage Owners' property. There is no unreasonable infringement of indoor privacy because the subject property's residents have curtains or blinds on their rear windows that screen the interior areas of the first and second story rooms. As such, the finding can be made that removal or trimming of the foliage will not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the subject property. (6) For property located within the boundaries of the Miraleste Recreation & Park district, the Committee shall also find that removal or trimming of the foliage strikes a reasonable balance between meeting the purposes of section 17.02.040 set forth in Section 1 of the Ordinance approved by the voters on November 7, 1989, and preserving the historical development of the Miraleste Recreation & Park District area with large numbers of trees. Neither the Applicants' nor the Foliage Owners' properties are located within the Miraleste Recreation and Park District. As such, this finding is moot. Section 6: Based on all documentary and oral evidence presented, including the Staff Report and its attachments, comments from the public, and testimony provided at the public hearings, the Planning Commission hereby orders the trimming or removal of trees at 6539 Madeline Cove Drive in order to restore the views for the properties located at 6536 Abbottswood Drive and 6528 Abbottswood Drive, as provided in, and subject to, the conditions outlined in the attached Exhibit "A". P.C. Resolution No. 2019-14 Page 7 of 12 Section 7: Pursuant to Section 15700 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project is categorically exempt under Class IV of that section because the work required to restore the Applicants' views do not include the removal of scenic and mature trees as those mature tree groupings defined and identified by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan (Visual Aspects). Section 8. Any interested person aggrieved of this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 17.02.040 (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 9. Any challenge to this Resolution and the findings set forth therein, must be filed within the 90 day statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6 and Section 17.86.100(B) of the RPVMC. Section 10. 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 PLVRP No. 2017-00088 subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in the attached Exhibit "A", which are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. . PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on the 25th day of June 2019. AYES: COMMISSIONERS NELSON, JAMES, SAADATNEJADI, PERESTAM, VICE CHAIRMAN LEON, AND CHAIRMAN BRADLEY NOES: NONE ABSTENTIONS: NONE ABSENT: NONE RECUSALS: COMMISSIONER SANTAR0r- AdOP 1 ( - Ab. ell) . avi. Bradley Chairman Ar- , ' : Mihrani , AICP Community Bev- opment Director and Secretary of the Planning Commission P.C. Resolution No. 2019-14 Page 8 of 12 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT PLVRP NO. 2017-00088 1. The Applicants shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide the written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. The Applicants shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project. 3. This approval shall require the Foliage Owners at 6539 Madeline Cove Drive (the subject property) to perform only one of the following: a. The Date Palm Tree shall be reduced to the Foliage Owners' second story ridgeline height level at 6539 Madeline Cove Drive. Tree trimming shall be performed at the Applicants' expense. In the event that the tree dies within two years of the initial trimming event, then the Applicants shall bear the expense of removing the dead tree and replacing the dead or dying tree with one 24-inch box size tree. The costs to perform tree removal, remedial stump work, and the installation of replacement tree shall be borne by the Applicants. If the work is performed by the foliage owner, said foliage owner shall forfeit the right to replacement foliage if the trimmed tree dies. Or b. Voluntarily remove the rear yard Date Palm Tree by grinding the stump to or below adjacent grade, whichever is technically feasible. If stump grinding is not technically feasible, as determined by a qualified landscape contractor, then the tree trunk shall be cut flush to or close to the grade adjacent to the tree trunk. In no case shall the tree's root P.C. Resolution No. 2019-14 Page 9 of 12 system be removed. Removal, stump grinding or flush cutting shall be performed at the Applicants' expense. 4. This approval shall require the Foliage Owners at 6539 Madeline Cove Drive to perform only one of the following options: a. The Jacaranda Tree shall be reduced to the Foliage Owners' second story ridgeline height level at 6539 Madeline Cove Drive. Tree trimming shall be performed at the Applicants' expense. In the event that the tree dies within two years of the initial trimming event, then the Applicants shall bear the expense of removing the dead tree and replacing the dead or dying tree with one 24-inch box size tree. The costs to perform tree removal, remedial stump work, and the installation of replacement tree shall be borne by the Applicants. If the work is performed by the foliage owner, said foliage owner shall forfeit the right to replacement foliage if the trimmed tree dies. Or b. Voluntarily remove the front yard Jacaranda Tree by grinding the stump to or below adjacent grade, whichever is technically feasible. If stump grinding is not technically feasible, as determined by a qualified landscape contractor, then the tree trunk shall be cut flush to or close to the grade adjacent to the tree trunk. In no case shall the tree's root system be removed. Removal, stump grinding or flush cutting shall be performed at the Applicants' expense. 5. This approval shall require the Foliage Owner at 6539 Madeline Cove Drive to perform only one of the following options: a. The Hollywood Juniper Tree shall be reduced to the Foliage Owners' second story ridgeline height level at 6539 Madeline Cove Drive. Tree trimming shall be performed at the Applicants' expense. In the event that the tree dies within two years of the initial trimming event, then the Applicants shall bear the expense of removing the dead tree and replacing the dead or dying tree with one 24-inch box size tree. The costs to perform tree removal, remedial stump work, and the installation of the replacement tree shall be borne by the Applicants. If the work is performed by the foliage owner, said foliage owner shall forfeit the right to replacement foliage if the trimmed tree dies. Or P.C. Resolution No. 2019-14 Page 10 of 12 b. Voluntarily remove the side yard Hollywood Juniper Tree without replacement by grinding the stump to or below adjacent grade, whichever is technically feasible. If stump grinding is not technically feasible, as determined by a qualified landscape contractor, then the tree trunk shall be cut flush to or close to the grade adjacent to the tree trunk. In no case shall the tree's root system be removed. Removal, stump grinding or flush cuffing shall be performed at the Applicants' expense. 6. Upon completion of either trimming or removal described in Condition of Approval Nos. 3, 4 & 5 above, but no more than 1 week after completion, if additional foliage on the subject property is found by City Staff to be impairing the view protected by this permit, then the additional foliage shall be trimmed to a height that does not exceed the Foliage Owners' second story ridgeline height level, and the Applicants shall be responsible for the cost of the additional trimming. 7. The Applicants shall present to the City, at least 1 itemized estimate to carry out the aforementioned work. Such estimate shall be supplied by a licensed landscape contractor or by a licensed, bonded, and insured tree service contractor, acceptable to the City, and shall include all costs of cleanup and removal of debris, and the cost to have an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified tree trimmer or accredited arborist on site to perform or supervise the work being done. 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. 8. The Foliage Owners shall select a contractor from the estimate(s) provided by the Applicants, or shall use a state licensed firm (landscape contractor or tree service contractor) of their choice, subject to approval by the City. However, the Foliage Owners shall only be reimbursed for the amount of the lowest bid submitted by the Applicants. If the Foliage Owners choose to do the required work, then the Foliage Owners shall not be compensated from the trust account and the amount in the trust account shall be refunded to the Applicants. 9. The Foliage Owners shall, no later than 90 days after the Notice of Approval (First Notice) is mailed by the City notifying the Foliage Owners to trim/remove the foliage, complete the trim/removal work to the extent required by this Permit. If the Foliage Owners do not timely complete the required work, then the City will seek a court order that authorizes a bonded, insured 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 Applicants from the City trust account. P.C. Resolution No. 2019-14 Page 11 of 12 10. Upon completion of the work, the Foliage Owners shall notify the City and if the Foliage Owners hired a contractor, they shall submit a copy of a paid contractor 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 no later than 30 days. 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 Applicants (within 30 days of receipt of the appropriate billing), if that account contains a surplus 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. 11. If the required work as specified herein is not completed within the stipulated time periods described in Condition No. 9 above, 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 Applicants' 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 Permit and a lien or assessment may be recorded against the Foliage Owners' property if the invoice is not paid. 12. Failure to comply with and adhere to the tree trimming conditions of approval, namely Condition Nos. 3, 4 & 5, may be cause for the City to issue administrative citations as described in Section 1.16 of the City's Municipal Code 13. Foliage maintenance shall be subject to the maintenance provisions of the City's View Preservation Guidelines, Section VIII-A, where subsequent to the initial trimming and removal of the foliage, the restored view from the Applicants' viewing areas will be documented by Staff. The photographic documentation shall be kept on file at the Community Development Department and used as a benchmark by City Staff for making a determination of significant view impairment should view preservation enforcement be necessary. Should future view preservation enforcement be necessary, as determined by Staff, then the foliage shall be trimmed, at the Foliage Owner's expense. If other foliage, which exceeds 16 feet in height and/or exceeds the Foliage Owner's ridgeline height, not subject to this View Restoration Permit should grow on the Foliage Owner's properties and impair the documented views, said new foliage shall be considered significant view impairing foliage and shall be trimmed by the Foliage Owners to match the views shown on the documented photograph(s). P.C. Resolution No. 2019-14 Page 12 of 12