Loading...
PC RES 2023-014 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2023-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, DENYING THE APPEAL REQUEST TO PRESERVE A VIEW FROM 29112 OCEANRIDGE DRIVE UPON AFFIRMING THE DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION THAT PERMIT FINDING NO. 4 CANNOT BE MADE (CASE NO. PLVP 2022-0004). WHEREAS, on or about May 27, 2022, View Restoration Division Staff advised Mr. Martin Plost (herein the Appellant), property owner at 29112 Ocean ridge Drive, that the Appellant's photos were deficient for View Preservation purposes in relation to two trees (Mayten and Chinese Elm) located on the property at 28920 Pincastle Drive; and WHEREAS, on June 7, 2022, Appellant) submitted a Notice of Intent to File a View Preservation pre-application to the City's View Restoration Division to preserve his view in relation to two trees (Mayten and Chinese Elm) located on the property at 28920 Pinecastle Drive (Case No. PLVP2022-0004); and WHEREAS, on or about June 10, 2022, the Chinese Elm tree at 28920 Pinecastle Drive was voluntarily trimmed. This trimming was performed as routine trimming by the foliage owner and not due to any trimming request made by Staff. Although the rear yard Chinese Elm tree was trimmed, the Appellant was not satisfied because the Chinese Elm tree continued to impair the view and the Appellant expressed his concern that the front yard Mayten tree was not trimmed; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2023, the Appellant submitted a Formal View Preservation Permit application request for the Mayten and Chinese Elm trees on the property at 28920 Pinecastle Drive to be trimmed; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 2023, the then-Interim Director of Community Development issued a Notice of Final Determination denying the View Preservation Permit on the grounds that the permit findings could not be made in the affirmative, particularly Finding No. 4; noting that the Appellant had not submitted evidence that the foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist as viewing impairing vegetation in November 1989 or thereafter; and WHEREAS, on August 9, 2023, the Appellant filed an appeal of the then-Interim Director of Community Development's denial determination for the View Preservation Permit Case No. PLVP2022-0004; and WHEREAS, a notice of the Planning Commission hearing was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on August 31, 2023, and the Public Notice was also distributed to the Appellant at 29112 Ocean ridge Drive and the foliage owner at 28920 Pinecastle Drive; and P.C. Resolution No 2023-14 Page 1 of 7 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Sections 21000 et. Seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15304 et seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Section 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land) under Class IV of the CEQA Guidelines. Specially,the project consists of minor private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees as those mature tree groupings defined and identified by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan (Visual Aspects); and WHEREAS, on October 10, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to review the appeal and 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 above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: Property Ownership (a) Appellant: Mr. Plost resides and owns 29112 Oceanridge Drive. Section 3: View Preservation View. The view is characterized as the Los Angeles basin view as observed from the den the portion of the deck immediately adjacent to the den (excluding the setback area). Section 17.02.040(A)(14) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) does not define the view as including the sky nor distant mountain areas. Viewing Area. Section 17.02.040(A)(15) of the RPVMC defines 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 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 P C. Resolution No 2023-14 Page 2 of 7 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 29112 Oceanridge Drive: The Planning Commission determines that the den and the portion of the deck immediately adjacent to the den (excluding the setback area), where the June 10, 2014 documentation of view photograph had been taken, is a qualifying viewing area, as it also determined that the photo was taken within 3 feet of the Appellant's den. Section 4: Appeal Points (1) Appellant claims that the submitted photographic evidence satisfies the View Preservation requirements. The Planning Commission determines that the submitted photographic evidence fails to meet the preservation requirements. The Appellant's photographs taken on December 25, 2022, January 16, 2015, and April 25, 2005 were either taken from the rear yard setback, an area of the property not considered to be a viewing area; or the photos do not demonstrate that the Mayten foliage that is significantly impairing the view today, did not exist as view impairing vegetation in November 1989 or thereafter. To the contrary, the Appellant's photographs demonstrate that the Mayten tree impaired the view in 2005 and in 2022 and the front yard Mayten tree cannot be seen in the 2015 photograph because the photograph depicts the conditions of the rear yard area and does not capture the front yard area where the Mayten tree is located. (2) Appellant claims that the photographs taken from the setback area should be eligible for View Preservation purposes. The Planning Commission determines that the Appellant has failed to meet the burden of proof that the then-Interim Director was in error for rejecting the photographs as a viewing area for documentation of a view. Pursuant to Section 17.02.040.A.15 of the RPVMC setback areas of residential properties cannot be considered viewing areas, and the photographs within the rear yard setback area show that the Mayten tree foliage either existed in the view or the foliage was not in the photograph. Section 5: View Preservation Mandatory Findings The Planning Commission makes the following findings, in accordance with Section VIII- (C)of the View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines: P.0 Resolution No. 2023-14 Page 3 of 7 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) On February 23, 2022, the Applicant mailed a certified letter and return receipt to the Foliage Owner (Zagzebski) at 28920 Pinecastle Drive requesting tree trimming. b) On June 7, 2022, the Applicant submitted a Notice of Intent to File a View Preservation pre-application with the View Restoration Division against one property owned by Zagzebski at 28920 Pinecastle Drive (Case No. PLVP 2022- 0004). c) On June 1, 2023, the Applicant submitted a Formal View Preservation Permit application request for property owned by Zagzebski at 28920 Pinecastle Drive. Based on the above, the Planning Commission has made the finding that the Appellant complied with the early neighbor consultation process and has shown proof of cooperation on his part to resolve the conflict. 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. Foliage: The subject foliage is one front yard Mayten tree and one rear yard Chinese Elm tree located at 28920 Pinecastle Drive. Foliage height: The subject trees exceed 16 feet and the ridgeline of the primary structure at 28920 Pinecastle Drive. Viewing area: Pursuant to Section 17.02.040 (A)(15) RPVMC,the viewing area is defined 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. Included in this, consideration is provided for spaces within a residence that are considered "primary living areas" such as the living room, family room and dining room, which are natural gathering locations. Outside locations, such as a patio or deck, could be considered candidate "viewing areas", but the City's View Guidelines state that greater weight is given to the interior views, than the outdoor views (ref. Guidelines Section III-B1). There is an outside area that includes a deck that may also qualify as a viewing area, provided that they share the same view, pursuant to Section III-B of the View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines. Outside viewing areas are limited to a viewing area taken, generally, within 10 feet of the structure, at the same grade as the structure and must not be within a setback area. The best and most important viewing area is the den, which protrudes P.0 Resolution No 2023-14 Page 4 of 7 towards the rear property line in the"L" shaped primary structure. This analysis is based on the view that is taken from the deck, immediately adjacent to the den door. View: The view to the north is the Los Angeles Basin. Per Section VIII-C-2 of the View Preservation Guidelines, the view is considered a single component view as the view frame consists entirely of a single view component of the Los Angeles Basin. View impairment: Section VIII-C-2(e)of the View Preservation Guidelines states that foliage, which is located in the center of the view frame and/or entirely obstructs one of the components of a multi-component view and/or impairs prominent landmarks, should be considered a significant impairment. Based on the view that is taken from the Appellant's deck, immediately adjacent to the den door, the Mayten tree located in the front yard at 28920 Pinecastle Drive is in the center of the view frame impairing the Los Angeles basin view. Therefore, the front yard Mayten tree, which exceeds 16 feet and exceeds the ridgeline of the primary structure, significantly impairs the view from the viewing area. However, the rear yard Chinese Elm tree at 28920 Pinecastle Drive is located on the periphery of the view frame. Pursuant to Section VIII-C-2(e)of the View Preservation Guidelines, foliage located on the outer edge of a view frame is less likely to significantly impair a view. The Planning Commission finds that the Chinese Elm tree does not create a significant view impairment because the tree is merely impairing the periphery of the expansive, single component view. Based on the foregoing discussion, the Planning Commission has made the finding that only the Mayten tree located in the front yard of the foliage owner's property, exceeding sixteen (16) feet and the ridgeline of the primary structure, significantly impairs a view from the Appellant's viewing area. 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 line. The Foliage Owner's property at 28920 Pinecastle Drive is located 114 feet from the Appellant's property at 29112 Ocean ridge Drive. Based on the aforementioned distance, the Planning Commission has made the finding that the foliage is located on property less than one thousand (1,000)feet from the Appellant's property line. 4) The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist as view impairing vegetation in November 1989 or thereafter. Pursuant to Section VIII-B.2 of the View Preservation Guidelines, the property P.0 Resolution No 2023-14 Page 5 of 7 owner wishing to protect his existing view is responsible for submitting documentation of the view, as it existed after the effective date of the Ordinance (November 17, 1989). The Guidelines state the photo shall clearly provide evidence that accurately depicts the view and/or foliage as it existed from the property owner's viewing area on the date the photo was taken. Pursuant to Section 17.02.040 (A)(15) of the RPVMC, the viewing area is defined 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. The Appellant submitted four photos to document the view, which were included in the Notice of Intent to File View Preservation pre-application submittal. These photos are dated December 25, 2022, January 16, 2015, June 10, 2014 and April 25, 2005. Based on an examination of the submitted photos, the Planning Commission has determined the photos either depict view impairing foliage (i.e. June 10, 2014)or they are not qualifying photos because they were taken from a setback area on the property, which is not considered a viewing area pursuant to Section 17.02.040(A)(15) of the RPVMC. The Appellant's photos dated December 25, 2022, January 16, 2015 and April 25, 2005 depict a view taken from the rear yard setback for these photos are not consistent with the view that can be observed from the viewing area at 29112 Oceanridge Drive. Therefore, it cannot be established, using the Appellant's submitted photos, that the foliage that is significantly impairing the view, the front yard Mayten tree, did not impair the view from a viewing area. Based on the above, the Appellant has not submitted evidence that the foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist as view impairing vegetation in November 1989 or thereafter. Therefore, the Planning Commission cannot make Finding No.4. 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. As the Planning Commission cannot make Finding No. 4, this finding is moot. Section 6: Any interested person aggrieved of this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth in writing, the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within 15 calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 25, 2023. A $3,100.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 25, 2023. P.C. Resolution No 2023-14 Page 6 of 7 Section 7: For the foregoing reasons and based on information and findings contained in the Staff Reports, Minutes, and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission hereby Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2023-14; an appeal of View Preservation Permit Case No. PLVP2022-0004, to preserve a view from 29112 Oceanridge Drive upon affirming the Director's determination that permit Finding No. 4 of View Preservation Guidelines Section VIII-C cannot be made. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10th day of October 2023 by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS BRACH, NELSON, NULMAN, PERESTAM, SAADATNEJADI,AND CHAIR CHURA NOES: NONE ABSTENTIONS: NONE RECUSALS: NONE ABSENT: VICE CHAIR SANTAROSA DaVid Ch u ra`\ Chair randy orbe , n1CP Director of Community Development Secretary of the Planning Commission P C Resolution No 2023-14 Page 7 of 7