PC RES 2019-027 . T
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-27
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES,
CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A VIEW RESTORATION
PERMIT (CASE NO. PLVR NO. 2018-00161, REQUIRING
FOLIAGE OWNERS AT 6303 ALTO CIRCLE TO CROWN
REDUCE 1 BRAZILIAN PEPPER TREE, 1 MAGNOLIA
TREE, AND 2 JUNIPER TREES LOCATED IN THE REAR
YARD
WHEREAS, on March 27, 2018, Applicant Delia Nelson, owner of 28731 Shire
Oaks Drive, applied for a View Restoration Permit to restore a view that is significantly
impaired by trees located at 6303 Alto Circle (owned by Foliage Owners Junru Pan and
Sindy Wu); and,
WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission hearing was published in the
Palos Verdes Peninsula News on September 12, 2019 and the Public Notice was also
mailed to the Foliage Owners and Applicant on September 12, 2019; and,
WHEREAS, on October 22, 2019, the Planning 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: The recitals above are true and correct, and incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2: Property Ownership.
(a) Applicant Delia Nelson owns the property at 28731 Shire Oaks Drive.
(b) Foliage Owners Junru Pan and Sindy Wu own the property at 6303 Alto
Circle (also referred to as the subject property).
Section 3: View.
Section 17.02.040(A)(14) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC)
defines a far view, in part, as the ocean and offshore islands. The Applicant has views
of the Pacific Ocean and Catalina Island, which are significantly impaired by 1 Brazilian
Pepper Tree, 1 Magnolia Tree and 2 Juniper Trees located in the rear yard of the
subject property.
P C Resolution No 2019-27
Page 1 of 9
Section 4: Viewing Area.
Section 17.02.040(A)(15) of the RPVMC defines a viewing area 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 the City determine the best and
most important view exists. This is defined by Section 17.02.040(B)(5) of the RPVMC,
which 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 and Procedures Section
III-B.2, the viewing area may include multiple rooms or locations on an applicant's
property if those locations share the same view.
The Applicant's viewing area includes the living room, dining room, and bedroom from
the ground floor of the residence. The viewing area includes multiple rooms within the
Applicant's residence because those locations share the same view in the southwest
direction towards the ocean and Catalina Island.
Section 5: View Restoration Mandatory Findings.
The Planning Commission finds that the following six mandatory findings can be made,
as required by Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(c) of the RPVMC and Section V. A-F of the
View Restoration Guidelines and Procedures, which elaborates on the ordinance by
providing guidance and criteria that are considered when making findings:
(1) The Applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process and has
shown proof of cooperation on their part to resolve conflicts.
a) On January 20, 2018, Applicant mailed a certified letter to the Foliage
Owners requesting tree trimming.
b) On February 7, 2018, the Foliage Owners acknowledged receipt of the
certified letter via text message, but they did not trim the trees. On February
16, 2018, the Applicant sent a follow-up text message requesting trimming
and the Foliage Owners, again did not trim the trees.
c) On March 27, 2018, the Applicant submitted a Notice of Intent to File a View
Restoration Permit requesting that the City mediate the issue.
d) On March 27, 2018, in response to the Applicant's request, the City mailed a
pre-application mediation meeting invitation to the Foliage Owners, but the
Foliage Owners did not respond by the April 9, 2018 deadline specified in the
City's notification letter.
P.0 Resolution No 2019-27
Page 2 of 9
e) On April 9, 2018 the City determined that the Applicant complied with the
requirements of the Early Neighbor Consultation process outlined in Section
V-A of the City's View Restoration Guidelines and Procedures.
f) On April 11, 2018, the City made a second attempt to contact the Foliage
Owners by mailing a pre-application meeting invitation, but the Foliage
Owners failed to respond to this second attempt to hold mediation.
g) On July 22, 2019, the Applicant mailed a certified letter to the Foliage
Owners, once again, requesting tree trimming; however, the Foliage Owners
did not trim the trees.
h) On July 29, 2019, the Applicant filed a View Restoration Permit application to
the City.
Based on the above, the Planning Commission finds that the Applicant has
complied with the early neighbor consultation process and has shown proof of
cooperation on her 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.
Section V-B.6 of the View Restoration Guidelines and Procedures clarifies that a
significant impairment includes 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. From
the Applicant's viewing areas, which are from the ground floor living room, dining
room, and bedroom, and which share the same view, the Pepper Tree, Magnolia
Tree and 2 Juniper Trees, exceeding the Foliage Owners' ridgeline, are located
within the center of the view frame and impair the Applicant's view of Catalina
Island, which is a prominent landmark; thus warranting the determination that the
trees cause a significant view impairment.
Based on the above, the Planning Commission finds that the subject foliage,
exceeding the ridgeline of the primary structure, significantly impairs the view
from the Applicant's viewing areas.
(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 and Procedures
Section V-C, the foliage that is to be removed is located less than 1,000 feet from
P C Resolution No 2019-27
Page 3 of 9
the Applicant's property, as the Applicant's property shares a rear property line
with the Foliage Owner's property.
As such, the Planning Commission finds that the foliage to be removed is located
on property less than 1,000 feet from the Applicant's property.
(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 Applicant's lot, within Tract No. 27936, was created in July 1968. At the
same time, the Foliage Owner's lot, which resides within the same Tract, was
also created. Also in 1968, the tract housing subdivision consulting engineer,
Converse, Davis and Associates, produced a series of reports associated with
the grading of 82 residential lots, including the Applicant's and the Foliage
Owners' properties. In those initial reports, the consulting engineer described a
tree-less, undeveloped tract area in March 1968. They also described the cut and
fill grading preparation techniques where removal of deleterious materials, such
as trees and brush, was required. By September 11, 1968, the consulting
engineer produced the Final Report on Grading Tract 27936 where it was
reported that 82 building sites were created by cut and fill methods and that the
ground clearing, compaction, and fill work had been completed. Since the
Foliage Owner's property, including the rear yard slope, had been prepared and
graded to the specifications called out in the consulting engineer's reports, no
trees could have existed on the Foliage Owner's property in 1968.
Within one year after the mass grading occurred, the houses in the tract had
been built, but in 1969, the Foliage Owners' rear yard still did not contain any
trees, as is evidenced by an aerial photograph from August 1969, which clearly
shows a barren rear yard slope at 6303 Alto Circle (Attachment No. 6 of the Staff
Report). The photograph proves that no trees existed on the Foliage Owners'
property at the time the lots were created and when the houses were built.
Therefore, there is reasonable photographic and written evidence to conclude
that, the trees on the subject property did not exist and could not have impaired
the view at the time the Applicant's lot was created in July 1968.
As such, the Planning Commission finds that the trees did not exist, as view
impairing vegetation, when the lot from which the view is taken was 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.
Trimming 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 effective privacy screening from
surrounding properties. The foliage, after view restoration trimming, will not
P C Resolution No 2019-27
Page 4 of 9
further expose the indoor or outdoor areas of the Foliage Owners' property. The
trees, after view restoration trimming, will continue to function as partial privacy
screening.
As such, the Planning Commission finds that 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.
(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 Applicant's 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 of 1 Brazilian
Pepper Tree, 1 Magnolia Tree and 2 Juniper Trees at 6303 Alto Circle in order to
restore the view from the property at 28731 Shire Oaks Drive, as provided in, and
subject to, the conditions outlined in the attached Exhibit "A" and the Trimming
Instruction photo shown in the attached Exhibit "B"
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 Applicant's view does 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 by 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, the 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 adopts P.C. Resolution No. 2019-27 approving View Restoration
P C Resolution No 2019-27
Page 5 of 9
Permit PLVR No. 2018-0016 subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in the
attached Exhibit "A", and the Trimming Instruction photo shown in the attached Exhibit
"B", which are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on the 22nd day of October 2019.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS JAMES, NELSON, SANTAROSA, SAADATNEJADI,
PERESTAM, VICE-CHAIRMAN LEON, AND CHAIRMAN BRADLEY
NOES: NONE
ABSTENTIONS: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
RECUSALS: NONE
4101P
David Bradley
_ - Chairman
o -
Ara e -� n AICP
Community Development Director and
Secretary of the Planning Commission
P C Resolution No 2019-27
Page 6 of 9
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT PLVR NO. 2018-0016
1 Applicant Delia Nelson shall submit to the City a 'statement, in writing, that she
has read, understands, 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 Applicant 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 Foliage Owners Junru Pan and Sindy Wu at 6303 Alto
Circle (the subject property) to reduce the height of the crown of the Brazilian
Pepper Tree located in the rear yard of the subject property by approximately 8
feet from the existing crown height, thus limiting the crown height to
approximately 2 feet above the rear yard of the Applicant's property. The initial
tree trimming shall be performed at the Applicant's expense and thereafter, the
Foliage Owners shall be responsible for costs associated with maintaining the
tree, in accordance with Condition No. 12, to preserve the Applicant's view. See
the Trimming Instruction photo shown in Exhibit "B".
4. This approval shall require the Foliage Owners to trim the upper branches of the
Magnolia Tree in the rear yard of the subject property down by approximately 3
feet. The initial tree trimming shall be performed at the Applicant's expense and
thereafter, the Foliage Owners shall be responsible for the costs associated with
maintaining in accord with Condition No. 12, the tree to preserve, the Applicant's
view. See the Trimming Instruction photo shown in Exhibit "B".
5. This approval shall require the Foliage Owners to reduce the height of the
crowns of the two Juniper Trees in the rear yard of the subject property by one
(1) foot from the existing height crown height. The initial tree trimming shall be
performed at the Applicant's expense and thereafter, the Foliage Owners shall be
responsible for costs associated with maintaining the tree in accord with
P C Resolution No 2019-27
Page 7 of 9
Condition No. 12, to preserve the Applicant's view. See the Trimming Instruction
photo shown in Exhibit "B".
6. If any of the trees die within two years of the initial trimming event, then
the Applicant shall bear the expense of removing the dead tree and replacing the
dead or dying tree with one 24-inch box size tree. The cost to perform tree
removal, remedial stump work, and the installation of replacement tree shall be
borne by the Applicant. However, if the work is performed by the Foliage Owners,
they shall accept responsibility for any foliage health risks associated with
trimming their own trees and forfeit the right to replacement foliage by the
Applicant if the trimmed trees die.
7. Upon completion of trimming 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
impair the Applicant's view, and the Applicant shall be responsible for the cost of
the additional trimming. Thereafter, the Foliage Owners shall be responsible for
the costs associated with maintaining the foliage to preserve the Applicant's view
on a schedule equivalent to the trimming maintenance schedule cycle imposed
by the Planning Commission against the Brazilian Pepper tree, Magnolia tree
and the Juniper trees in Condition No. 12.
8. The Applicant shall present to the City, at least 1 itemized estimate to carry out
the work required by this permit. The estimate shall be from a licensed landscape
contractor or 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 certified tree trimmer or
accredited arborist recognized by a professional organization for arbor care on
site to perform or supervise the work being done. In addition, the Applicant shall
pay to the City an amount equal to the City-approved estimate, and such funds
shall be maintained in a City trust account until completion of work as verified by
City Staff.
9. The Foliage Owners shall select a contractor from the estimate(s) provided by
the Applicant, or shall use a certified tree trimmer or accredited arborist 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 Applicant.
Pursuant to View Restoration Guidelines and Procedures Section IV-J, 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 Applicant. The Foliage Owners shall, no later than 90
days after the Notice of Approval and Order to Comply is mailed by the City
notifying the Foliage Owners to trim the foliage, complete the trim work to the
extent required by this Permit. If the Foliage Owners do not timely complete the
P C Resolution No 2019-27
Page 8 of 9
J
required work, then the City will utilize the City's code enforcement process to
authorize 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, the City shall reimburse the Applicants from the
City trust account. 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.
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 of receipt. 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. 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 available in
the trust account and the Foliage Owners shall be responsible for paying the
difference.
11. Failure to comply with and adhere to these 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 RPVMC.
12 Foliage maintenance shall be subject to the maintenance provisions of the City's
View Preservation Guidelines and Procedures, Section VIII-A, where subsequent
to the initial trimming of the foliage, the restored view from the Applicant's
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 Staff determination of view preservation
enforcement. Upon each anniversary of the initial trimming of the subject trees,
the Foliage Owners shall trim the trees, in addition to any other trees which have
grown into the Applicant's documented view. Such maintenance trimming shall
occur at the Foliage Owners' expense. Should the Foliage Owners fail to trim
their trees by each anniversary date of the initial trimming, the Applicant or the
future owners of the Applicant's property may submit a complaint to the City
requesting view preservation enforcement. The Applicant or the future owners of
the Applicant's property may submit a complaint to the City requesting view
preservation enforcement on an annual basis. If more frequent enforcement is
requested to Staff, then such enforcement may occur pursuant to Section VIII-A
of the View Restoration Guidelines and Procedures.
P C Resolution No 2019-27
Page 9 of 9
Exhibit "B"
Trimming Instruction Photo
Reduce the height of the crowns of the two (2) Juniper Trees in the rear
yard of the subject property by one (1) foot from the existing crown height.
Trim the upper branches of Reduce the height of the crown of the Brazilian Pepper Tree
the Magnolia Tree in the rear located in the rear yard of the subject property by approx. 8 feet
yard of the subject property from the existing crown height, thus limiting the crown height to
down to the dashed line, approx. 2 feet above the rear yard of the Applicant's property,
which is approx. 3 feet. which is approx. the dashed line.
• !' 'c
;.:; ` ��, .� t Sr•hal • a{' ''l+ 'i` d x ' .•p •.r,..l�'
�.; •
15,4 .L' ... ^ y '1 tf •* r aI
J
• •we � ,t�..�, Sr1..y� r'f;.r.tatiF q• s. • 2101 , . ,..v• `! '• =t °j�ar. x aids, ' ,
,• 1 � a i.
� •..•
•1.
• The dashed line is approx. the height level of the top of the stone
pilaster in the Applicant's rear yard, which is circled in red.
G
PciA) O
dG
O O
O •
N