PC RES 2021-008 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES,
CONDITIONALLY APPROVING VIEW RESTORATION
PERMIT PLVR NO. 2020-0013, REQUIRING THE
FOLIAGE OWNERS TO CROWN REDUCE, WITH THE
OPTION TO REMOVE AND REPLACE, THREE PINE
TREES AND MULTIPLE JUNIPER TREES AT 31316
FLOWERIDGE DRIVE, IN ORDER TO RESTORE THE
APPLICANT'S VIEW
WHEREAS, on February 23, 2021, Jon Holland, owner and resident at 31222
Floweridge Drive, ("Applicant"), filed an application requesting a View Restoration
Permit ("Permit") to restore a view that is significantly impaired by trees owned by
Francesco Riviera and Tamara Davtyan ("Foliage Owners") located at 31316
Floweridge Drive.
WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission hearing was published in the
Palos Verdes Peninsula News on April 8, 2021, and the Public Notice was also mailed
to the Applicant and to the Foliage Owners.
WHEREAS, after receiving notice of the hearing, the Foliage Owners expressed
to staff their concerns that removing the view impairing foliage would result in slope
stability and erosion impacts and the loss of shade.
WHEREAS, on March 31, 2021, staff, the City Arborist and the City Geologist
met with the Foliage Owners on their property to assess the site conditions.
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2021, the City Arborist and on April 14, 2021, the City
Geologist submitted reports whereby the City Geologist opined that removal of the
subject foliage would not result in major slope stability or soil erosion impacts, however,
he advised that groundcover vegetation be installed to minimize future soil erosion.
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2021, the Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
to consider the request and crown reduction remedies to restore the view, 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.
P C Resolution No 2021-08
Page 1 of 11
Section 2: Property Ownership
(a) Applicant Jon Holland owns and resides at 31222 Floweridge Drive.
(b) Foliage owner Francesco Riviera and Tamara Davtyan own and reside at
31316 Floweridge Drive.
Section 3: Views
Section 17.02.040(A)(14) of the RPVMC defines a far view as including the
ocean or offshore islands.
(a) On the subject property at 31316 Floweridge Drive there are three Pine Trees
and multiple Juniper Trees located on the rear yard slope. The trees are
collectively referred to as the subject trees.
(b) As defined by Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) Section
17.02.040(A)(14), the Applicant has the following views: Pacific Ocean and
Catalina Island, which are significantly impaired by the subject trees.
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.
(a) Viewing area from 31222 Floweridge Drive (Holland):
Staff determined that the kitchen area offers the best and most important viewing
area because from inside the kitchen the Pacific Ocean and Catalina Island
views are most expansive. Since the kitchen offers the best and most important
view, for consistent analysis of the subject trees' impairment, the findings relate
to this viewing area. Note, the viewing area is not the master bedroom, or its
adjacent balcony located on the 11/2 story of the house because the view is taken
from one of the rooms comprising the primary living areas (living room, dining
room, family room or kitchen) and the master bedroom is not located on the
same story of the house as the primary living areas (View Restoration Guidelines
III-B.3.b).
Section 5: View Restoration Mandatory Findings.
P C Resolution No 2021-08
Page 2 of 11
The Commission makes the following findings, in accordance with Section
17.02.040(C)(2)(c) of the RPVMC:
(1) The Applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process
and has shown proof of cooperation on his/her part to resolve conflicts.
a) In August 2018, Jon Holland ( "Applicant") made tree removal and trimming
requests in writing and through certified mail to Mr. Riviera and Ms. Davtyan
("Foliage Owners"), but the matter was not resolved.
b) On September 25, 2018, the Applicant submitted a Notice of Intent to File a
View Restoration Permit (PLVR2O1 8-0023) requesting that the City mediate
the issue with the Foliage Owners.
c) On September 25, 2018, in response to the Applicant's request, the City
mailed a pre-application mediation meeting invitation to the Foliage Owners
and they subsequently accepted the City's invitation for mediation.
d) On October 30, 2018, City staff and the City's view restoration mediator met
with the Applicant and Foliage Owners at City Hall to discuss the matter.
e) Following the October 30, 2018 meeting, the Applicant and the Foliage
Owners had continuing discussions through the mediator and a private
agreement was reached between the Applicant and the Foliage Owners to
remove one Pine Tree and one Palm Tree and to trim the lower branches of
the remaining three Pine Trees in the rear yard. The Applicant stated that
after trimming he would re-assess the view. On February 15, 2019, one Pine
Tree and one Palm Tree were removed and the lower branches of the
remaining three Pine Trees were trimmed. were removed and trimmed.
f) On June 18, 2020, the Applicant requested the removal of three Pine Trees
through certified mail to the Foliage Owners, but the matter was not resolved
by August 21, 2020.
g) On August 21, 2020, the Applicant submitted a Notice of Intent to File a View
Restoration Permit (PLVR2O2O-001 3) requesting that the City mediate the
tree removal request with the Foliage Owners.
h) On August 21, 2002, in response to the Applicant's request, the City sent a
pre-application mediation meeting invitation to the Foliage Owners and they
subsequently accepted the City's invitation for mediation.
i) On September 25, 2020, City staff and the City's view restoration mediator
held a virtual mediation meeting with the Applicant and Foliage Owners to
discuss the matter.
j) Following the September 25, 2020 meeting, the Applicant and the Foliage
Owners had continuing discussions through the mediator; however, the
matter was not resolved by February 23, 2021.
k) Since efforts to settle the matter privately through mediation had been
exhausted, on February 23, 2021, the Applicant chose to file a formal View
Restoration application.
P C Resolution No 2021-08
Page 3 of 11
Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that the Applicant has complied with
the early neighbor consultation process and has shown proof of cooperation on
his 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.
The subject Pine Trees and the Juniper Trees in the rear yard exceed the
ridgeline of the Foliage Owner's primary structure. The three subject Pine Trees
also exceed 16 feet in height. Section V-B.6 of the View Restoration Guidelines
and Procedures clarifies that a significant impairment is likely to exist when the
foliage is located within the center of the view frame and/or entirely obstructs one
of the components of a multi-component view and/or impairs "prominent
landmarks" of a view. The subject Pine Trees shown on Attachment No. 3 of the
staff report, which exceed 16 feet in height and exceed the ridgeline of the
Foliage Owner's primary structure, are located within the center of the view frame
and impair the views of the ocean and Catalina Island, which is a prominent
landmark. The Juniper Trees shown on Attachment No. 3, which exceed the
ridgeline of the Foliage Owner's primary structure, are located within the center
of the view frame and impair the ocean view.
Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that 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.
(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 or crown reduced is located less than 1,000 feet
from the Applicant's property. The Foliage Owner's property at 31316 Floweridge
Drive is approximately 130 feet from the Applicant's property at 31222
Floweridge Drive.
Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that the subject foliage is located on a
property that is within 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.
P C Resolution No 2021-08
Page 4 of 11
The Applicant's lot (Lot 21) and the Foliage Owner's lot (Lot 28) within Tract No.
29057 became legal lots on April 7, 1965 (see Attachment No. 6 of the staff
report). The engineer for the housing tract subdivision, Moore and Taber,
produced a report associated with the grading of the tract lots, which include the
Applicant's and the Foliage Owner's properties. The engineer's Final Report on
Compaction dated October 22, 1965 states that prior to tract grading, the
undeveloped natural hillside slope was covered by brush and low grass. Prior to
placing the compacted fill, the topsoil was excavated into bedrock and a suitable
toe bench established for all hill fills. As a result, the surface was "stripped of
vegetation" as part of a mass excavation and compacted fill operation (see
Attachment No. 6). Indeed, after grading operations were completed and the
housing subdivision was constructed, a subsequent aerial photograph was taken
of the site showing that no trees or vegetation existed on the Foliage Owner's lot
on January 13, 1966.
Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that the subject trees on the Foliage
Owner's property did not impair the Applicant's views when the Applicant's lot
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.
The Foliage Owners' rear outdoor gathering area is not visible from the north and
south adjacent properties at 31304 and 31328 Floweridge Drive due to rear yard
perimeter block walls. Since there are no windows on the west building façade at
31315 Eaglehaven Circle, the Foliage Owner's three subject Pine Trees located
on the rear yard slope do not currently provide visual screening or buffering from
31315 Eaglehaven Circle. The Foliage Owner's rear outdoor gathering area is
currently visible around the Juniper Trees by standing on the west side property
line behind the block wall at 31315 Eaglehaven Circle. Because there is no pre-
existing privacy for the Foliage Owner's rear outdoor gathering area, crown
reduction of the Juniper Trees to the top of the block wall at 31315 Eaglehaven
Circle will not cause an unreasonable privacy infringement. Lastly, there are a
variety and number of curtain options which are available to preserve the indoor
privacy of the Foliage Owners' rear façade windows.
Therefore, the Planning Commission finds 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.
(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,
P C Resolution No 2021-08
Page 5 of 11
1989, and preserving the historical development of the Miraleste Recreation &
Park District area with large numbers of trees.
The subject properties are not located within the Miraleste Recreation and Park
District (Attachment No. 10 of the staff report). Therefore, the finding is moot.
Section 6: Replacement of Foliage Findings.
The Commission makes the following foliage replacement findings, in
accordance with Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(f) of the RPVMC:
(1) The Commission finds that removal of trees without replacement will
cause significant adverse impacts on the public health, safety and welfare
based on the City's Geologist's report about the upper slope erosion
potential. Per the City Geologist, to minimize soil erosion on the upper
slope, replacement groundcover vegetation and shrubs should be installed
Therefore, the Commission makes the finding that groundcover vegetation
replacement of the Pine and Juniper trees is needed to mitigate any
adverse impacts on the public health, safety and welfare and,
(2) The Commission finds that removal of trees without replacement will
cause significant adverse impacts to shade based on the substantial
amount of existing shade that the subject trees offer to the outdoor pool
and patio areas. Therefore, the Commission makes the finding that four
24-inch box size trees, that will be low growing and have a broad canopy
at maturity, is needed to mitigate the loss of shade.
Section 7: Based on all documentary and oral evidence presented, including the
staff, arborist and geologist reports and its attachments, comments from the public, and
testimony provided at the public hearings, and making the finding that removal without
replacement foliage will cause a significant adverse impact on the public health, safety,
or welfare and shade, the Planning Commission hereby orders the crown reduction,
with the option to remove and replace, the rear yard Pine Trees and Juniper Trees at
31316 Floweridge Drive in order to restore the view for the property located at 31222
Floweridge Drive, as provided in, and subject to, the conditions outlined in the attached
Exhibit "A".
Section 8: Pursuant to Section 15304 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 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 9: 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
P C Resolution No 2021-08
Page 6 of 11
writing and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following the
date of the Planning Commission's final action.
Section 10: 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 11: 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 PLVR No. 2020-0013 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 this 11th day of May 2021 by the following
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS CHURA, HAMILL, SAADATNEJAI, JAMES, SANTAROSA,
VICE-CHAIRMAN PERESTAM, AND CHAIRMAN LEON
NOES: NONE
ABSTENTIONS: NONE
RECUSALS: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Gordon Leon
Chairman of the Planning Commission
/.
Ken Rukavina, P.E.
Director of Community Development
Secretary of the Planning Commission
P C Resolution No 2021-08
Page 7 of 11
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT PLVR NO. 2020-0013
1. The Applicant shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that he has read,
understands, and agrees 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 the Foliage Owners at 31316 Floweridge Drive (the
subject property) to perform only one of the following:
a. Voluntarily remove the three (3) Pine Trees and multiple Juniper
Trees in the rear yard at 31316 Floweridge Drive shown on
Attachment No. 3 of the staff report.
The tree trunks 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.
Flush cutting shall be performed at the Applicant's expense. Tree
removal shall be performed at the Applicant's expense. The Applicant
shall bear the expense replacing the removed trees with four 24-inch
box size, low growing, broad canopy trees, 1,200 square feet of
drought tolerant groundcover vegetation, 1,200 square feet of erosion
control netting and six 3-gallon size, low-growing, drought tolerant
shrubs. The costs to perform flush cutting, tree removal and the
installation of replacement trees, groundcover, netting and shrubs shall
be borne by the Applicant.
OR
P C Resolution No 2021-08
Page 8 of 11
b. Crown reduce the three (3) Pine Trees and multiple Juniper Trees in
the rear yard at 31316 Floweridge Drive shown on Attachment No. 3 of
the staff report, down to the top of the block wall adjacent to the west
property line at 31315 Eaglehaven Circle.
The City's Arborist has determined that the trees are expected to die
after crown reduction. The Applicant shall not bear any of expense of
removing or replacing dead trees. The cost to remove dead trees shall
be borne by the Foliage Owners.
4. Upon completion of either crown reduction or removal described in Condition of
Approval No. 3, but no more than one 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 crown reduced to a height that
eliminates the significant view impairment, and the Applicant shall be responsible
for the cost of the additional trimming.
5. The Applicant shall present to the City, at least one 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 Applicant 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.
6. The Foliage Owners shall select a contractor from the estimate(s) provided by
the Applicant,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 Applicant. If the Foliage Owners chose to do the required work
using his own equipment, 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.
7. The Foliage Owners shall, within a 90-day period stipulated by staff, complete
the removal and/or crown reduction work to the extent required by this Permit.
Said 90-day deadline may be extended by the Community Development Director
should the City-approved tree contractor contact the City indicating that they
cannot accommodate the tree trimming, removal or replacement work within the
90-day deadline. However, if the Foliage Owners does not complete the required
work within the 90-day time period stipulated by staff or a Director- approved
extension period, if one is necessary, then the City may seek a court order that
authorizes a bonded, insured tree service to perform the work at the subject
P C Resolution No 2021-08
Page 9 of 11
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.
8. Upon completion of the work, the Foliage Owners shall notify the City and if the
Foliage Owners hired a contractor, the Foliage Owners are to 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 Applicant (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.
9. If the required work as specified herein is not completed within the stipulated time
periods described 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
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 Permit and a lien or assessment may be
recorded against the Foliage Owner's property if the invoice is not paid.
10. Failure to comply with and adhere to the tree trimming condition of approval,
namely Condition No. 3, may be cause for the City to issue administrative
citations as described in Section 1.16 of the City's Municipal Code.
11. Foliage maintenance shall be subject to the maintenance provisions of the City's
View Preservation Guidelines, Section VIII-A, where subsequent to the
completed crown reduction and/or voluntary removal of the foliage as described
in Conditions of Approval No. 3, the restored view from the Applicant's viewing
area 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.
Pursuant to Section VIII-A of the View Preservation Guidelines, the Foliage
Owners shall maintain the trees subject to the View Restoration Permit decision
so that the trees have not exceeded the height limit imposed by the View
Restoration Permit. If foliage not subject to the View Restoration Permit
subsequently grows into the Applicant's documented view, said new foliage shall
be considered significant view impairment foliage. Such maintenance crown
P C Resolution No 2021-08
Page 10 of 11
reduction shall occur at the Foliage'Owners' expense. 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.
P C Resolution No 2021-08
Page 11 of 11