Loading...
CC RES 2008-074 RESOLUTION NO. 2008-74 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 2006-00007 TO TRIM OR REMOVE FOLIAGE AT 30679 30699 AND 3071 CREST ROAD. WHEREAS, on September 11, 2007, Mr. and Mrs. Roza, owners of property located at 3102 Corinna Drive, Mr. and Mrs. Peterson, owners of the property located at 3103 Dainora Drive, Mr. and Mrs. Beazell, owners of property located at 3109 Dianora Drive, Mr. and Mrs. Shepherd, owners of property located at 3117 Dianora Drive, Mr. Hossein Sahabi, property owners at 3125 Dianora Drive, Mr. and Mrs. Hillinger, property owner at 3131 Dianora Drive & Mr. and Mrs. Hanlon-Keller, owners of the property located at 3139 Dianora Drive (herein "the Applicants"), in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, filed an application requesting a View Restoration Permit ("Permit") to restore a view from each of their properties that is significantly impaired by foliage owned by Mr. and Mrs. Liehr at 3067 Crest Road, Dr. and Mrs. Wyman at 3069 Crest Road, and Mr. and Mrs. O'Melveny at 3071 Crest Road (herein "the foliage owners"), in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City"); and, WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission ("Commission") hearing was published in the was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News and was mailed to the Applicants and the foliage owners originally on September 20, 2007 and again on November 7, 2007 to include the properties located at 3069 and 3071 Crest Road; and, WHEREAS, on October 23, 2007, after all eligible voting members of the Planning Commission had visited the sites, the 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 and the item was continued to December 11, 2007 to allow Staff and the City Arborist to provide addition information; and, WHEREAS, on November 9, 20077 City Staff met with the foliage owners at 3067 Crest Road and verified that they had voluntarily removed a view impairing Canary Island Pine tree (Tree No. 3) and a view impairing Aleppo Pine tree (Tree No. 12); and, WHEREAS, on December 11, 2007, after all eligible voting members of the Planning Commission had visited the sites, the 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, the public hearing was closed and item was continued to February 12, 2008 to allow Staff, City Attorney and the City Arborist to provide addition information; and, WHEREAS, on February 12, 2008, Staff informed the Commission that the procedural rules following the closing of the public hearing on the matter on December 11, 20077 did not allow for further public comment on the matter or new information could not be heard without re-noticing the public hearing; and, WHEREAS, a re-notice of the Planning Commission ("Commission") hearing for March 25, 2008 was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on February 16, 2008, so as to allow the Planning Commission to consider for further public comment and new information; and, WHEREAS, on March 25, 2008, after all eligible voting members of the Planning Commission had visited the site, the 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; and, WHEREAS, Commissioners Perestam and Ruttenberg each recused themselves from participating in this case due to a conflict of interest; and, WHEREAS, on April 8, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2008-13, thereby conditionally approving View Restoration Permit No. 2006-00007; and, WHEREAS, within the 15 day appeal period, Mr. and Mrs. Liehr, & Dr. and Mrs. Wyman and Mr. and Mrs. O'Melveny (foliage owners) appealed the April 8, 2008 Planning Commission decision to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, a notice of the City Council hearing to be held on July 15, 2008 was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and, WHEREAS, on July 15, 2008, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeals, at which time, all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence and the item was continued to August 19, 2008, to allow time for the City Arborist to provide a recommendation for the appropriate view restoration action to be ordered for Tree Nos. 19, 20, and 21; and, WHEREAS, on August 19, 2008, the City Council held a duly noticed a public hearing to consider the matter, at which time, all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Applicants at 3102 Corinna Drive & 31037 31097 31177 31257 3131, and 3139 Dianora Drive have a view, as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code, of the Los Angeles basin, Los Angeles harbor, and Ocean. Section 2: The Applicant's viewing area at 3109 Dianora Drive, as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code, is from the dining room. The Applicant's viewing area at 3117 Dianora Drive, as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code, is from the living room. The Applicants' viewing area at 3125 1078805.2 Resolution 2008-74 Page 2 of 7 & 3139 Dianora Drive, as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code, is from the dining room and master bedroom. From 3131 Dianora Drive the viewing area, as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code, is from both the living room and the dining room. In addition, each property has an outdoor patio view. From 3102 Corinna Drive and 3103 Dianora Drive, the viewing area, as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code, is taken from the living room. Section 3: The Applicants at 3102 Corinna Drive & 31037 31097 31177 3125, and 3139 Dianora Drive have a view that is significantly impaired by eighteen (18) trees and one shrub located at 3067 Crest Road, seven (7) trees located at 3069 Crest Road, and thirteen (13) trees located at 3071 Crest Road. Section 4: Since May 12, 2006, the foliage owners attended meetings with the City's View Restoration Mediator and City Staff. After more than a year of negotiation, the Applicants informed the City that a private agreement could not be reached with the foliage owner at 3067 Crest Road. Since a private agreement was not finalized with the property owners at 3069 and 3071 Crest Road, the Applicants decided to include the property owners at 3069 and 3071 Crest Road as part of the application request. Since the Applicants and the foliage owners did not resolve the matter privately, the Applicants were released to formally file the View Restoration application request. Therefore, in accordance with Section V (A) of the View Restoration Guidelines, the Applicants complied with the early neighbor consultation process. Section 5: Based on evidence presented to the City Council at the public hearing, including oral and written testimony and the staff report and the attachments to the report, all of which is incorporated herein by this reference, the Council hereby finds that the subject trees located at 3067, 3069 and 3071 Crest Road significantly impair the Applicants' view. All of the aforementioned foliage recommended by Staff to be trimmed or removed as well as the additional three trees ordered by the City Council to be trimmed (Trees, 19, 20 and 21) exceed 16 feet in height or exceed the ridgeline height level of each of the foliage owners' residences located on their respective parcels and significantly impair the view from the Applicants' viewing areas. Section 6: The foliage owners' properties at 3067, 3069 and 3071 Crest Road are located within 1000 feet of the Applicants' properties at 3102 Corinna Drive and 31037 31097 31177 31257 31317 & 3139 Dianora Drive. Section 7: The Applicants' lots, within Tract No. 25839 were created in May 1961, when the final subdivision map was recorded. The foliage owner's property at 3067 Crest Road (Liehr) was created in its current lot configuration when a deed was recorded in August 1962. At the time the Applicants' lots were created in 1961, the foliage owner's lot at 3067 Crest Road (Liehr) was part of a larger undeveloped lot. The foliage owners' lots at 3069 and 3071 Crest Road (Wyman and O'Melveny, respectively) were created in the mid-1960s from the aforementioned larger lot. 1078805.2 Resolution 2008-74 Page 3of7 In accordance with the City's View Restoration Guidelines, testimony of witness can be considered in determining the conditions that existed at the time an applicant's lot was created. Based on testimony from two applicants that are original homeowners and three sworn affidavits (two of which are from the applicants) attesting to their observations and recollections of the views and trees that existed when their lots were created in 1961, the City Council found that Trees Nos. 19, 20, and 21 were not view- impairing trees in 1961 when the applicants' lots were created and, therefore, are subject to the provisions of the View Restoration Ordinance. Also, the 1962 oblique aerial photo (Exhibit G, to the October 23, 2007 Staff Report), demonstrates that at the approximate time the Applicants' lots were created (in 1961) no trees existed on the northerly and westerly portions of the then larger lot, which are now the properties located at 3069 and 3071 Crest Road (Wyman and O'Melveny, respectively). Based on a careful examination of aerial photographs taken from 1945 to 1962, the testimony of an original property owner, and the City arborist's testimony as to the ages and growth rates of the trees, the City Council found that Trees 1-18 and 22- 49 were not mature, view-impairing trees in 1961 when the applicants' lots were created and, therefore, are subject to the provisions of the View Restoration Ordinance. The City Council independently reviewed and considered the testimony and evidence in the record before the Planning Commission and the evidence and testimony that was presented to the City Council. Based on the entire record of the proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that other than the decision regarding Trees Nos. 19-21, the Planning Commission's decision regarding the trees was correct and affirms the balance of the Planning Commission's decision. The Planning Commission and City Council also found, based on the evidence in the record, that no action was ordered with respect to Trees Nos. 31-34 and Tree No. 46, because they are not currently significantly impairing a view from the applicants' properties. Based on the evidence in the record before the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council concurs and affirms the Planning Commission's decision that these trees are not significantly impairing the applicants' views at this time. Section 8: The recommended trimming or removal of the subject trees will not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the property upon which the foliage is located because the portion of the foliage that impairs the view is at a higher elevation than the foliage owners' rooflines. Therefore, trimming or removal of the subject foliage will not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the property upon which the foliage is located. Section 9: For properties located within the boundaries of the Miraleste Recreation & Park district, the Commission and the Council on appeal 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 1078805.2 Resolution 2008-74 Page 4 of 7 properties are not located within the Miraleste Recreation and Park District. Accordingly, that finding is not relevant to this decision. Section 10: Trimming and/or removing the subject trees, as identified in the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit "A"), which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is necessary in order to restore the applicants' view. Section 11: Pursuant to Section 15304 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project is categorically exempt under Class 4 of that section because the work required to restore the applicants' view does not include the removal of scenic and mature trees as identified by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan (Visual Aspects; Figure 41). This finding, which was made by the Planning Commission and affirmed by the City Council, demonstrates that the decision complies with the provisions of CEQA because the decision does not cause any significant adverse environmental impacts. Since the subject trees are not considered to be scenic or mature trees as identified in the City's General Plan, the environmental impacts due to trimming and/or removal are insignificant. Section 12: Like the Planning Commission, the City Council hereby rejects the legal arguments advanced by the foliage owners that this application is barred by the statutes of limitations set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure because statutes of limitation apply to the filing of lawsuits in court, not to the City's administrative view restoration process. The City Council also rejects the arguments that this application is barred by the equitable doctrines of laches, estoppel, unclean hands or by the doctrine of implied agreement, which are defenses that typically are asserted in lawsuits. The City's View Restoration Ordinance, which was adopted by the City's voters, implements an important public policy of preserving views in the City, which should not be undermined by the doctrines of estoppel or laches. The Ordinance allows a property owner to file an application to restore his or her view in accordance with the City's procedures at any time following the adoption of the Ordinance and does not establish a time limit for a property owner to do so. Accordingly, the fact that a property owner did not previously file an application with the City to restore a view does not imply that: (1) the property owner has agreed that his or her view never should be restored; (2) the property owner cannot avail himself or herself of the City's administrative process, or (3) the property owner has acted in bad faith. For all of these reasons, the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission's determination that the legal arguments advanced by the foliage owners are unavailing in this case. Since the Planning Commission considered and rejected each of these arguments, the City Council hereby rejects the appellants' contention that the Planning Commission did not consider these arguments when the Commission rendered its decision. Section 13: A majority of the quorum of the Planning Commission participated and voted in favor of the motion ordering certain trees to be trimmed. Pursuant to the Planning Commission's regulations sufficient Commissioners participated in, and voted in favor of, the resolution memorializing the Commission's decision. In addition, the fact 1078805.2 Resolution 2008-74 Page 5of7 that the Chairman, who had recused himself from the proceeding due to a conflict of interest, signed the resolution in his capacity as the chairman, after the Planning Commission rendered its decision, does not alter that the vote was properly taken and that he had properly recused himself in accordance with the provisions of the Political Reform Act and did not participate in the decision. Section 14: The extent of the trimming, crown reduction and lacing ordered by the Commission and the City Council is not disproportionate trimming in light of the applicants' view impairment. On the contrary, the tree trimming that was ordered was necessary to eliminate the significant view impairment caused by the subject foliage, and the City Arborist opined that the trimming that was ordered will not be harmful to the trees in question nor will such trimming disfigure the subject trees. With respect to the trees that will be unsightly as a result of the trimming, the City Council is providing the foliage owners with the options of having those trees removed and replaced with varieties of trees that can be maintained at a lower height at the expense of the applicants. Section 15: Condition No. 29 of the Commission's Resolution is a standard condition of approval ensuring that shortly after the completion of tree trimming and removal, if additional trees (trees other than the trees identified in the Conditions of Approval) on the foliage owners' properties are found to be significantly impairing the view, then the view impairing foliage shall be trimmed to a height so as not to significantly impair the view from the applicants' properties, and the applicants shall be responsible for the additional trimming costs. This condition is in accordance with the City's View Restoration Regulations and is necessary and appropriate when restoring views with numerous trees located on foliage owners' properties, since some view impairing trees may not be visible at the time of the trimming, even though they do significantly impair a view. Section 16: Based on the foregoing information, and on the information and findings included in the Staff report and evidence presented at the public hearing before the Planning Commission and the City Council (including the staff reports), the City Council hereby affirms and modifies the Planning Commission's decision, which ordered the trimming and/or removal of foliage at 3067 Crest Road in order to restore the view at 3102 Corinna Drive and 3103, 31097 31177 31257 31317 & 3139 Dianora Drive, as provided in, and subject to, the conditions outlined in the attached Exhibit "A", which is incorporated herein by this reference. Section 17: For the foregoing reasons and based on information and findings contained in the Staff Reports, minutes, and records of the proceedings, the City Council hereby affirms the Planning Commission's decision, as modified by the City Council to add three additional trees, approving View Restoration Permit No. 2006- 00007 subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in the attached Exhibit "A", which are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. 1078805.2 Resolution 2008-74 Page 6 of 7 Section 18: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on the 1 • h day ,f Aug 2008. Mayor Attest: City Clerk State of California ) . County of Los Angeles )ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution. No. 2008-74 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting held on August 19, 2008. (72z- 41,...ezic__ City Clerk 1078805.2 Resolution 2008-74 Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 2006-00007 1. Olive tree (labeled Tree No. 1): Reduce crown to restore the view based on the height level indicated in the Roza site visit photo dated February 6, 2008 (Attached to February 12, 2008 Staff Report). Said trimming shall occur on an annual basis. Or Option: Remove the tree. Tree removal shall include stump flush cutting to existing grade. 2. Pine tree (labeled Tree No. 2): Reduce crown to restore the view based on the height level indicated in the Roza site visit photo dated February 6, 2008 (Attached to February 12, 2008 Staff Report). Said trimming shall occur on an annual basis during the cooler months of the year, November-March. Or Option: Remove the tree. Tree removal shall include stump flush cutting to existing grade. 3. Brachyton (labeled Tree No. 4): Reduce crown to restore the view based on the height level indicated in the Roza site visit photo (Attached to February 12, 2008 Staff Report). Said trimming shall occur on an annual basis. Or Option: Remove the trees. Tree removal shall include stump flush cutting to existing grade. 4. Myaporum (labeled Tree No. 5): Reduce crown to restore the view based on the height level indicated in the Roza site visit photo dated February 6, 2008 (Attached to February 12, 2008 Staff Report). Said trimming shall occur on an annual basis. Or Option: Remove the tree. Tree removal shall include stump flush cutting to existing grade. 5. Yucca tree (labeled Tree No. 6): Reduce crown to restore the view based on the height level indicated in the Roza site visit photo dated February 6, 2008 (Attached to February 12, 2008 Staff Report). Said trimming shall occur on an annual basis. Or Option: Remove the tree. Tree removal shall include stump flush cutting to existing grade. 6. Rubber trees (labeled Tree Nos. 7 and 8): Reduce crown to restore the view based on the height level indicated in the Roza site visit photo dated February 6, 2008 (Attached to February 12, 2008 Staff Report). Said trimming shall occur on an annual basis. Or Option: Remove the trees. Tree removal shall include stump flush cutting to existing grade. 7. Bird of Paradise (labeled Tree No. 9) Reduce crown to restore the view based on the height level indicated in the Peterson site visit photo (Attachment 3 of the December 11, 2007 Staff Report). Said trimming shall occur on an annual basis. Or Option: Remove the tree. Tree removal shall include stump flush cutting to existing grade. 8. Cedar tree (labeled Tree No. 10) Remove the dying tree without a replacement tree. 9. Aleppo Pine trees (labeled Tree Nos. 11 &13) Remove two (2) Aleppo Pine trees and replace with two (2) 24-inch box size trees. Tree removal shall include stump flush cutting to existing grade. 10.Canary Island Pine trees (labeled Tree Nos. 14-15) 1078805.2 Resolution 2008-74 Exhibit A Page 2 of 8 Raise crown and heavily lace remaining portion of trees during the cooler months of the year, November-March. The crown raising height level shall be based on the height level shown on site visit photo taken from the Peterson view (Attachment 3 of the December 11, 2007 Staff Report). Said trimming shall occur on an annual basis. Or Option: Remove trees and replace with two (2) 24-inch box size trees. Tree removal shall include stump flush cutting to existing grade. 11.Eucalyptus trees (labeled Tree Nos. 16-17) Reduce crown to restore the view based on the height level indicated in the Peterson site visit photo (Attachment 3 of the December 11, 2007 Staff Report). Said trimming shall occur on an annual basis. Or Option: Remove the trees. Tree removal shall include stump flush cutting to existing grade. 12.Locust trees (labeled tree No. 18) Reduce trees so as not to exceed 6 feet in height. Said trimming shall occur on asemi-annual basis. Or Option: Remove the trees. Tree removal shall include stump flush cutting to existing grade. 13. Eucalyptus trees (labeled Tree Nos. 19-21) Reduce the height of the three Eucalyptus trees by reducing the tree crowns to a height level indicated in the Peterson site visit photo (Attachment 3 of the December 11, 2007 Staff Report). Trimming to said height level shall occur on an annual basis. Or Option: Remove the three (3) Eucalyptus trees. Tree removal shall include stump flush cutting to existing grade. Replace each Eucalyptus tree removed with one (1) 24-inch box size tree. 1078805.2 Resolution 2008-74 Exhibit A Page 3 of 8 14.Pine tree (labeled Tree No. 24) Reduce 1/3 of the tree crown and shape during the cooler months of the year, November-February. Said trimming shall occur on an annual basis. Or Option: Remove the tree and replace with one 24-inch box size tree. Tree removal shall include stump flush cutting to existing grade. 15.Pine tree (labeled Tree No. 25) Heavily thin and selectively remove branches pursuant to the City Arborist's recommendation to remove lateral branches that are '/z to 2/3 the size of the parent branch or all the way back to the stem. Said trimming shall occur during the cooler months (November to February) of the year and on an annual basis. 16.Pine trees (labeled Tree Nos. 26 and 27) For the purposes of beetle eradication, defer trimming up to one year after the initial trimming or removal occurs for Tree Nos. 24 and 25. Upon the anniversary of said trimming, Tree Nos. 26 and 27 shall be heavily thinned and selective branches shall be remove pursuant to the City Arborist's recommendation to remove lateral branches that are '/2 to 2/3 the size of the parent branch or all the way back to the stem. Said trimming shall occur during the cooler months of the year (November to February) and on an annual basis. 17.Eucalyptus trees (labeled Tree Nos. 28-30) Remove trees and replace with three (3) 24-inch box size trees. Tree removal shall include stump flush cutting to existing grade. 18.Eucalyptus tree (labeled Tree No. 36) Remove tree and replace with one 24-inch box size tree. Tree removal shall include stump flush cutting to existing grade. 19.Ash tree (labeled Tree No. 37) Reduce crown to restore the view based on the height level indicated in the Peterson site visit photo (Attachment 3 of the December 11, 2007 Staff 1078805.2 Resolution 2008-74 Exhibit A Page 4 of 8 Report), which is approximately 10-15 feet. Said trimming shall occur on an annual basis. 20.Pine tree (labeled Tree No. 38) Reduce crown to restore the view based on the height level indicated in the Peterson site visit photo (Attachment 3 of the December 11, 2007 Staff Report). Said trimming shall occur during the cooler months of the year (November to February) and on an annual basis. 21.Sweet Shade tree (labeled Tree No. 39) Reduce crown to restore the view based on the height level indicated in the Peterson site visit photo (Attachment 3 of the December 11, 2007 Staff Report). Said trimming shall occur on an annual basis. 22.Jacaranda tree (labeled Tree No. 40) Reduce crown to restore the view based on the height level indicated in the Peterson site visit photo (Attachment 3 of the December 11, 2007 Staff Report). Said trimming shall occur on an annual basis. 23.Pine tree (labeled Tree No. 41) Reduce crown and shape to restore the view based on the height level indicated in the Peterson site visit photo (Attachment 3 of the December 11, 2007 Staff Report). Said trimming shall occur during the cooler months of the year, November-February. Said trimming shall occur on an annual basis. 24.Cedar tree (labeled Tree No. 42) Heavily thin tree. Said trimming shall occur during the cooler months of the year, November-February. Said trimming shall occur on an annual basis. 25.Causuarina tree (labeled Tree No. 44) Reduce crown to restore the view based on the height level indicated in the Peterson site visit photo (Attachment 3 of the December 11, 2007 Staff Report). Said trimming shall occur during the cooler months of the year, November-February. Said trimming shall occur on an annual basis. 26.Causuarina trees (labeled Tree Nos. 43 & 45) 1078805.2 Resolution 2008-74 Exhibit A Page 5 of 8 If found to impair the Peterson view, reduce crowns to restore the view no lower than the height level indicated in the Peterson site visit photo (Attachment 3 of the December 11, 2007 Staff Report). Said trimming shall occur during the cooler months of the year, November-February. Said trimming shall occur on an annual basis. 27.Redwood trees (labeled Tree Nos. 47& 48) Heavily thin tree Nos. 47 and 48. The initial trimming shall occur during the cooler months of the year, November-February. Should additional pruning be needed in order to preserve the view after the initial thinning is preformed, said pruning shall occur every 5 years. 28.Pine tree (labeled Tree No. 49) Reduce crown and shape to restore the view based on the height level indicated in the Peterson site visit photo (Attachment 3 of the December 11, 2007 Staff Report). Said trimming shall occur during the cooler months of the year, November- February. Said trimming shall occur on an annual basis. Or Remove tree and replace with one 24-inch box size tree. Tree removal shall include stump flush cutting to existing grade. 29.Upon completion of said tree trimming and removal, if additional trees (trees other than Tree Nos. 1-49) on the subject properties are found to be impairing the view, then the view impairing foliage shall be trimmed to a height so as not to impair the view from the applicants' properties and the applicants shall be responsible for the additional trimming costs. 30.The foliage owners shall be responsible to maintain the foliage in such a manner as to not significantly impair the applicant's view by trimming the foliage specified in this permit on an annual basis, or as specified above, if different, beginning one year after the initial trimming of the foliage is completed and verified by Staff. 31. If any tree or shrub that is ordered to be culled, laced, or trimmed dies within two years of the initial work being performed due to the performance of the work, the applicants or any subsequent owner of the applicant's property shall be responsible for providing a replacement tree or shrub to the foliage owner and for the removal of the dead tree or shrub, which shall include stump flush cutting, if feasible, to or as close to existing grade as possible. If the city arborist determines that culling, lacing, or trimming said tree or shrub will in all probability cause the tree or shrub to die, and the foliage owner chooses not to accept removal and replacement as an option, either in writing or in public testimony 1078805.2 Resolution 2008-74 Exhibit A Page 6 of 8 during the public hearing, then the applicants will not be responsible for providing a replacement tree or shrub to the foliage owner. The replacement foliage shall be provided in accordance with the specifications described in section VI-E (Commission Action) of the Guidelines. If the work is performed by the foliage owner himself or herself (instead of by a licensed landscape or licensed tree service), said foliage owner shall forfeit the right to replacement foliage if the trimmed tree dies. If a tree or shrub dies it is subject to removal pursuant to Section 8.24.060 (property maintenance) of the RPV Municipal. 32.The applicants shall present to the City, at least one itemized estimate to carry out the aforementioned work. Such estimate is to be supplied by a licensed landscape or licensed tree service contractor, acceptable to the City, which provides insurance certificates in a form acceptable to the City, and shall include all costs of cleanup and removal of debris and the cost to have an 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. 33.The foliage owner shall select a contractor from the estimate(s) provided by the applicant or another licensed firm of their choice subject to approval by the City, to perform the required work. However, the foliage owner shall only be reimbursed for the amount of the lowest bid submitted by the applicant. If the foliage owner chooses to do the required work himself or herself (instead of by a licensed landscape or licensed tree service), then the foliage owner shall not be compensated from the trust account and the amount in the trust account shall be refunded to the applicants. 34.The applicants may reduce the scope of the trimming required by this Permit by giving the City and the foliage owner written notice of such decision within 30 days of this approval. The applicant shall deposit funds to the City in a trust account in an amount sufficient to cover the remaining work. However, trimming or removal of the vegetation that the applicant has chosen to eliminate would then require an entirely new View Restoration application and fee. 35.The applicants may withdraw the view restoration request and the trust account funds if the applicant does so within five (5) days after the applicants send the estimate required herein. In the event that the applicants withdraw the request in a timely manner, the foliage owner is not required to perform the work specified by this Permit and this Permit is of no further force and effect. 36.The foliage owner shall, no later than 90 days after the Notice of Approval (First Notice by the City that applicants have satisfactory complied with all requirements of Condition of Approval No. 32) is mailed, complete the work to the extent required by this Permit and shall maintain the vegetation to a height 1078805.2 Resolution 2008-74 Exhibit A Page 7 of 8 that will not impair the view from the applicant's property in the future as specified in these Conditions of Approval. If any foliage owner herein does not complete the required work as specified within 90 days of the issuance of the Notice of Approval, then the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will authorize a bonded tree service to perform the work at the subject property and at the foliage owner's expense. In the event that the City is required to perform the work at the foliage owner's expense, the City shall reimburse the applicant from the City trust account not later than 30 days after the expiration of the time period stipulated above. 37.Upon completion of the work, the foliage owner shall notify the City and shall submit a copy of a paid 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 owner not later than 30 days after receipt of the appropriate billing as verified by City Staff. If the paid invoice submitted by the foliage owner is for an amount less than the funds in the City's trust account, the foliage owner 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) or applied to the applicant's permit processing account, if that account contains a negative balance. If the paid invoice submitted by the foliage owner is for an amount that exceeds the funds in the City's trust account, the foliage owner shall only receive the funds from the City trust account and the foliage owner shall be responsible for paying the difference 38. If the required work as specified herein is not completed within the stipulated time periods, 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 owner's expense, and the applicant's deposit will be refunded. In the event that the City is required to perform the work, the foliage owner will be billed for all City expenses incurred in enforcing the View Restoration order and a lien or assessment may be recorded against the foliage owner's property if the invoice is not paid. 39.Subsequent to the trimming or removal of the foliage, Staff shall document the restored view from each applicant's property. The photographic documentation shall be kept on file at the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department and used as a benchmark by City Staff for making a determination of significant view impairment in any future view preservation enforcement actions. If foliage not subject to this View Restoration Permit should grow up and impair the documented view, said new foliage shall be considered significant view impairing foliage and shall be trimmed by the foliage owner to match the view shown on the documented photograph. 1078805.2 Resolution 2008-74 Exhibit A Page 8of8