Loading...
PC RES 2022-003 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2022-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT PLVR NO. 2021-0008, REQUIRING THE FOLIAGE OWNERS TO CROWN REDUCE, WITH THE OPTION TO REMOVE AND REPLACE, ONE MAGNOLIA TREE LOCATED ADJACENT TO 32646 COASTSITE DR, UNIT NO. 206, IN ORDER TO RESTORE THE APPLICANT'S VIEW WHEREAS, on November 12, 2021, Howard Stevens ("Applicant"), the resident at 32646 Coastsite Drive, Unit No. 206, filed an application requesting a View Restoration Permit ("Permit") to restore a view that is significantly impaired by a tree owned by Palos Verdes Bay Club, Inc., represented by the Board of Directors of the Palos Verdes Bay Club("Foliage Owners") located at 32821 Seagate Drive. WHEREAS, on November 30, 2021, the City Arborist visited the subject Magnolia tree. The City Arborist, in his report (Attachment No. 4), opines that view restorative crown reduction to the Magnolia Tree down to 16 feet in height may be survivable, but it will destroy the aesthetic value of the tree. The Arborist states that early spring (March) before new growth is the safest period to trim the Magnolia Tree. WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission hearing was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on December 9, 2021, and the Public Notice was also mailed to the Applicant and to the Foliage Owners. WHEREAS, on January 25, 2022, 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. Section 2: Property Ownership (a) Applicant Howard Stevens resides at 32646 Coastsite Drive, Condominium Unit No. 206, and the most recent Los Angeles County records indicate that Albert Laurie is the current property owner. P C. Resolution No 2022-03 Page 1 of 9 (b) Foliage owners Palos Verdes Bay Club, Inc. own and manage the subject Magnolia tree that is located within the landscaped common area adjacent to 32646 Coastsite 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 common area property, there is one view impairing Magnolia tree, referred to as the subject tree. (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 tree. 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(6)(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 32646 Coastsite Drive, Condominium Unit No. 206: Staff determined that the living room, guest bedroom and balcony areas offer th e best and most important viewing area because from these areas the Pacific Ocean and Catalina Island views are most expansive. Since the living room, guest bedroom and balcony areas offer the best and most important view, for consistent analysis of the subject tree's impairment, the findings relate to these viewing areas. The master bedroom (Bedroom 1), which is located next to the guest bedroom, is not a viewing area because this room's window does not overlook both the ocean and Catalina Island. Instead, the master bedroom room overlooks the houses and apartment buildings west of the Palos Verdes Bay Club,which are not considered protected views. Section 5: View Restoration Mandatory Findings 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. P.0 Resolution No 2022-03 Page 2 of 9 a) On March 4, 2021, Howard Stevens (the "Applicant") made a tree trimming request for one Magnolia Tree located adjacent to his residence in writing and through certified mail to the Palos Verdes Bay Club ("Foliage Owners"), but the matter was not resolved. b) On April 8, 2021, the Applicant submitted a Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Permit (PLVR2O21-0008) requesting that the City mediate the issue with the Foliage Owners. c) On April 8, 2021, 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. d) On April 15, 2021, the Applicant requested to postpone mediation to resolve the matter privately with the Palos Verdes, Bay Club Board of Directors. e) On June 10, 2021, at the Applicant's request, City Staff and the City's view restoration mediator met with the Applicant and the Foliage Owners at City Hall to discuss the matter. f) Following the June 10, 2021 meeting, the Applicant and the Foliage Owners had continuing discussions through the mediator. On June 24, 2021, the Palos Verdes Bay Club stated that they would conduct their bi-annual routine maintenance trimming on the Magnolia Tree in Fall 2021 and the Applicant stated that after trimming he would re-assess the view. g) On November 1, 2021, the Magnolia Tree was trimmed. h) On November 12, 2021, the Applicant, unsatisfied with the results of the trimming, chose to file a formal View Restoration Permit application. 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 Magnolia Tree is 23 feet in height, as measured from the base of the tree, which exceeds the 16 feet in height code requirement, and as such, it is subject to review for its impairment of the view. In order for this finding to be made, the foliage exceeding the 16 feet in height must significantly impair a view from the viewing area. 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. As observed from the viewing area, the Magnolia Tree foliage shown on Attachment No. 3, which exceeds 16 feet in height, is located within the center of the view frame and impairs the view of the ocean and Catalina Island, which is a prominent landmark. 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. P C Resolution No. 2022-03 Page 3 of 9 (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 voluntarily removed or ordered to be crown reduced is located less than 1,000 feet from the Applicant's property. The Magnolia Tree, which is located Palos Verdes Bay Club common area, approximately 20 feet from the Applicant's property at 32646 Coastsite Drive, Unit 206, is within 1,000 feet. 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. The Applicant's condominium building (Building No. 7) is within Lot 1 of Tract No. 28905, which is part of the overall condominium housing tract development known as Lot 1 of Tract No. 28905, and became a legal lot on April 19, 1964 (see Attachment No. 5). The engineer for the condominium housing tract subdivision, Converse Foundation Engineers, produced a report associated with the grading of the tract (No. 28905), which include the Applicant's condominium building (Building No. 7) and the Foliage Owner's common areas. The engineer's Final Report on Compaction dated March 13, 1964, states that the tract was to receive compacted fill and shall be stripped of all vegetation and undesirable materials, benched where necessary and scarified. As a result of the described grading work, the surface where the buildings and common areas are located, was "stripped of vegetation" as part of a mass excavation and compacted fill operation (Attachment No. 5). After grading operations were completed and the housing subdivision for condominium purpose was constructed, a subsequent aerial photograph was taken of the site showing that no vegetation impaired the view from the Applicant's property on August 4, 1969 (Attachment No. 5). 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. Because the Magnolia Tree is located in the middle of open landscaped common area, it does not provide effective privacy screening from the public right-of-way and from surrounding residences. All the west facing condominium units of Building 7, including covered balconies, adjacent to the subject tree, are readily observed from the public right-of-way areas. Removal the subject tree or trimming to a 16-foot height level will not result in a loss of privacy because the subject tree does not provide effective privacy. P.C. Resolution No 2022-03 Page 4 of 9 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, 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. 9 of the staff report). Therefore, the finding is moot. Section 6: Removal and Replacement of Foliage Findings The Commission makes the following tree removal and foliage replacement findings, in accordance with Section VI of the City View Restoration Guidelines: (1) The Commission finds pursuant to Section VI-C that removal of the subject tree is warranted because the City's Arborist has determined that the crown reduction to 16 feet in height will destroy the tree's aesthetic value. (2) The Commission further finds pursuant to Section VI-E.1(c) that removal of the subject tree without replacement will cause significant adverse impact to shade based on the amount of shade that the subject tree offers to the adjacent unit owners on the first floor. Therefore, the Commission makes the finding that one 24-inch box size tree, that will not exceed 16 feet at maturity, is needed to mitigate the loss of shade. Section 7: Based on all documentary and oral evidence presented, including the Staff and arborist 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 shade, the Planning Commission hereby orders the crown reduction, with the option to remove and replace, one Magnolia Tree located adjacent to 32646 Coastsite Drive, Unit No. 206, in order to restore the view for the property located at 32646 Coastsite Drive, Unit No. 206, 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.Pu rsuant 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.0 Resolution No. 2022-03 Page 5 of 9 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. Sectio n 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. 2021-0008 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 25th day of January 2022 by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS CHURA, NELSON,NULMAN, SANTAROSA AND CHAIR PERESTAM NOES: VICE-CHAIR HAMILL ABSTENTIONS: NONE RECUSALS: COMMISSIONERS NULMAN AND SAADATNEJADI ABSENT: NONE Step en Perestam Chair i en Rukavina, P.E. Director of Community Development Secretary of the Planning Commission P C. Resolution No. 2022-03 Page 6 of 9 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT PLVR NO. 2021-0008 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 th is 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, the Board of Directors of Palos Verdes Bay Club,to perform only ONE of the following: a. Voluntarily remove one (1) Magnolia Tree adjacent to 32646 Coastsite Drive, Unit No. 206, as shown on Attachment No.3. 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. 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 tree with one 24-inch box size. The costs to perform flush cutting, tree removal and the installation of replacement tree, shall be borne by the Applicant. OR b. Crown reduce one (1) Magnolia Tree adjacent to 32646 Coastsite Drive, Unit No. 206, as shown on Attachment No. 3, down to 16 feet, as measured from where the trunk g emerges from the ground. g Should the tree die within two years of crown reduction, the Applicant shall not bear any of expense of removing or replacing the dead tree. The cost to remove the dead tree after two years of crown reduction shall be borne by the Foliage Owners. P C Resolution No 2022-03 Page 7 of 9 4. The Applicant shall present to the City, at least one itemized estimate to carry out the tree trimming work and the optional removal and replacement 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. 5. The Foliage Owners shall select a contractor from the esti mates) provided by the Applicant or shall use a 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. 6. The Foliage Owners shall, within a 90-day period stipulated by staff, complete either the removal or the 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 removal or tree trimming work within the 90-day deadline. However, if the Foliage Owners do not complete the required work within the 90-daytime 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 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. 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. 7. 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 P.C. Resolution No 2022-03 Page 8 of 9 J 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. 8. 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. 9. 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 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 tree subject to the View Restoration Permit decision so that the tree shall not exceeded the height limit imposed by the View Restoration Permit. If other foliage exceeding 16 feet in height subsequently grows into the Applicant's documented view, said new foliage shall be considered significant view impairment foliage and trimmed to a 16-foot height level. Such maintenance crown 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. P.C Resolution No 2022-03 Page 9 of 9