CC RES 1998-008 RESOLUTION NO. 98-8
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES AFFIRMING THE VIEW
RESTORATION COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF VIEW
RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 37 TO REMOVE TREES AT
30411 AND 30419 GANADO DRIVE.
WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, Dr. Kenneth Daponte, owner of property
located at 3662 Greve Drive., in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, filed an application
for View Restoration Permit No. 37 ("Permit") to top, trim and/or remove several trees
on the properties located at 30411 and 30419 Ganado Drive. ("the subject properties"),
owned by Mr. Kenneth Patton and Mr. Roy Lorenz ("the foliage owners"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the Municipal Code, notice of the
hearing before the View Restoration Commission ("Commission"), along with copies of
the Staff report, were mailed to the applicant and the foliage owners on June 24, 1997,
30 days in advance of the hearing; and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 1997, after all voting members of the View Restoration
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 View Restoration Commission made all necessary
findings, and approved View Restoration Permit No. 29 by adopting V.R.0 Resolution
No. 97-5; and
WHEREAS, on August 7, 1997, within the fifteen day appeal period, Mr. Roy
Lorenz and Mr. Kenneth Patton, the foliage owners, appealed the Commission's
decision to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Municipal
Code, the City Council held a public hearing on October 21, 1997, at which time due to
the illness of an appellant, the City Council continued the hearing to the December 2,
1997 City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, prior to the meeting on December 2, 1997, the appellant indicated
that he would be unable to proceed on December 2, 1997 due to his health, at which
time on December 2, 1997, the City Council opened the public hearing and continued
the meeting to the January 20, 1998, public hearing; and
WHEREAS, after notice was issued to all involved parties, the City Council held
a public hearing on January 20, 1998, at which time all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard and present evidence on the notice of appeal, the City Council
re-affirmed the approval of View Restoration Permit No. 37 to remove trees at 30411
and 30419 Ganado Drive.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section I The applicant at 3662 Greve Drive has a view, as defined by Section
17.02.040 of the City's Development Code, which includes the ocean, and Catalina
Island.
Section 2: The applicant's viewing area, as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the
City's Development Code, for the property located at 3662 Greve Dr. is from the living
room/den, dinning room, bedroom, and rear yard patio.
Section 3; The applicant located at 3662 Greve Dr. has a view that is
significantly impaired by foliage on property located at 30411 and 30419 Ganado Drive.
Section 4: The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation
process and has shown proof of cooperation on his part to resolve conflicts, as
evidenced by Acknowledgement of View Restoration Request that is signed by both
foliage owners, and dated February 9, 1997.
Section S: Based on evidence provided by the applicants, the subject trees at
30411 and 30419 Ganado Drive significantly impair the applicant's view. All of the
subject foliage exceeds the ridgeline of the primary structure or 16 feet, whichever is
lower, and significantly impairs the view from the applicant's viewing area.
Section 6: The subject properties are located within 200 feet of the applicant's
property.
Section T: The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist, as view
impairing vegetation, when the lots from which the views are taken were created. All of
the properties that are a part of this application were created in 1963 under Tract No.
27611. Evidence in the City Geology files indicate that at the time the tract was
created, mass grading which involved removal of all vegetation occurred. Reports
submitted by Donald R. Warren Engineers, dated January 23, 1963, state that "the
property is currently vacant, brush covered land descending from Crest Road toeard the
ocean..." Additionally, "it is proposed that the property be developed as a tract of level
residential building sites. Principally, the grading will involve removal of the ridge tops
and filling of the central canyon...." This would indicate that the subject trees could not
have been in existence when the subject lots were created.
City Council Resolution No. 98-8
Page 2 of 7
•
Section 8 Removal of the foliage as recommended by Staff, will not cause an
unreasonable infringement on the privacy of the foliage owners property located at
30411 Ganado Drive in that the trees currently do not eliminate viewing onto the Patton
property. At 30419 Ganado Drive, the two Monterey Pine trees which provide some
degree of privacy, are recommended to be removed, with the owner's consent. If they
are removed, there may be an infringement on the privacy of the occupants at 30419
Ganado Drive (Lorenz). This impact will be mitigated because conditions have been
imposed that will require replanting the areas with a tree or shrub that will not grow into
the applicant's viewing area.
Section 9;The properties involved are not located within the Miraleste
Recreation and Park District.
Section la: The topping trimming, lacing and/or removal of the subject trees as
identified in Condition Nos. 1 and 2 of attached Exhibit "A", is necessary in order to
restore the applicant's view.
Section 11: The City's Geotechnical Consultant and contract Arborist, have
advised that: where trees are removed, tree stumps and the root systems should
remain intact and replacement shrubs shall be planted, as identified in Condition Nos. 1
& 2 of attached Exhibit "A", to further support the slope. However, the foliage owner
(Mr. Roy Lorenz) has insisted that the stumps be removed so that replacement planting
can occur in the same locations.
Section 12: Pursuant to Section 15300 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 applicant's 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).
Section 13: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and
findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, which
are attached hereto by reference, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
hereby denies the appeal,,thereby upholding the View Restoration Commission's
decision with modifications to the conditions of approval attached as Exhibit A, and
approves View Restoration Permit No 37 to remove trees at 30411 and 30419 Ganado
Drive in order to restore the view from 3662 Greve Drive, as requested and provided for
in the conditions outlined in the attached Exhibit "A" and the attached plot plan diagram.
City Council Resolution No.98-8
Page 3 of 7
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on the 17th day of February 1998.
1.1.1-4•11__A
Mayor
ATTEST:
_A._A
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, Jo Purcell, City Clerk for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the
above Resolution No. 98-0 8was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said
City Council at a regular meeting held on February 17, 1998.
Ci y C erk
City Council Resolution No. 98-8
Page 4 of 7
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 37
1. Foliage located at 30411 Ganado Drive (Patton Property)
Pine Trees No. 1, 2, & 3: Pine trees No 1, 2, and 3, as shown on the attached plot
plan diagram, shall be removed and the stumps shall be ground. No replacement
foliage shall be provided.
2. Foliage located at 30419 Ganado Drive (Lorenz Property)
Canary Island Pine Nos. 1, 2, & 3: Canary Island Pine Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as shown
on the attached plot plan diagram, shall be removed and the stumps shall be
ground. The trees shall be replaced with three 15-gallon New Zealand Christmas
Trees (Metrosideros Excelsus).
Canary Island Pine 4: The City's contract Arborist has confirmed that Canary
Island Pine No. 4, shown on the attached plot plan diagram, does not exist.
Therefore, no action is required.
Canary Island Pine 5: The City's contract Arborist has confirmed that Canary
Island Pine No. 5, shown on the attached plot plan diagram, does not exist.
Therefore, no action is required.
Aleppo Pine Nos.,6, 7, 8, & 9: Aleppo Pine Nos. 6, 7, 8, & 9, as shown on the
attached plot plan diagram, shall be removed and the stumps shall be ground.
These trees shall be replaced with four 15-gallon New Zealand Christmas Trees
(Metrosideros Excelsus).
Aleppo Pine No. 10: Aleppo Pine Nos. 10, as shown on the attached plot plan
diagram, shall be removed and the stump shall be ground. This tree shall be
replaced with one 15-gallon Gold Medallion Tree (Cassia Leptophylla).
11. Myoporum: The Myoporum, as shown on the attached plot plan diagram, shall
be removed and the stump shall be ground. This tree shall be replaced with one
15-gallon Australian Willow tree (Geijera Parviflora).
Monterey Pine Nos. 12 & 13: Monterey Pine Nos. 12 & 13, as shown on the
attached plot plan diagram, shall be removed and the stumps shall be ground.
City Council Resolution No.98-8
Page 5 of 7
These trees shall be replaced with two 15-gallon Melaleuca Linariifolia trees
(Flaxleaf Paperbark).
14. Eucalyptus: The Eucalyptus, as shown on the attached plot plan diagram,
shall be removed and the stump shall be ground. This tree shall be replaced with
one 15-gallon Melaleuca Linariifolia tree (Flaxleaf Paperbark).
15. Eucalyptus: The Eucalyptus, as shown on the attached plot plan diagram,
shall be removed and the stump shall be ground. This tree shall be replaced with
one 15-gallon African Sumac tree (Rhus Lancea).
16. Acacia: The Acacia, which was inadvertently shown on the attached plot plan
diagram as a Eucalyptus, shall be removed and the stump shall be ground. This
tree shall be replaced with one 15-gallon Melaleuca Linariifolia tree (Flaxleaf
Paperbark).
17. Eucalyptus: The Eucalyptus, as shown on the attached plot plan diagram,
shall be removed and the stump shall be ground. This tree shall be replaced with
one 15-gallon African Sumac tree (Rhus Lancea).
3. The City's Contract Arborist will monitor the replanting of all trees being replaced in
condition No. 2 above.
4. The applicant shall, not later than 30 days after approval of this permit, present to
the City, a minimum of three (3) itemized estimates to carry out the aforementioned
work. Such estimates are to be supplied by licensed landscape or licensed tree
service contractors, acceptable to the City, which provide insurance certificates in
a form acceptable to the City, and shall include all costs of any replacement foliage,
and the cleanup and removal of debris from each property. In addition, the
applicant shall pay to the City an amount equal to the lowest of the three estimates
and such funds shall be maintained in a City trust account until completion of work.
5. Each foliage owner shall select a contractor from the estimates 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 owners shall only be reimbursed
for the amount of the lowest bid submitted by the applicant.
6. The applicant may reduce the scope of the work required by this Permit by
giving the City and the foliage owners 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 which the applicant has chosen to eliminate would
then require an entirely new View Restoration application and fee.
City Council Resolution No. 98-8
Page 6 of 7
7. The applicant may withdraw his view restoration request and his trust account funds
if the applicant does so within five (5) days after the applicant sends the three (3)
estimates required by Condition No. 4 above. In the event that the applicant
withdraws his/her 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.
8. Each foliage owner shall, no later than 90 days after the notice of approval (First
Notice) is mailed, complete the work to the extent required by this Permit, and each
foliage owner shall maintain the vegetation to a height that will not impair a view
from another property in the future as specified in Condition Nos. 1 and 2.
9. The City shall reimburse each foliage owner from the City's trust account, not later
than 30 days after receipt of the appropriate billing and the satisfactory completion
of the required work, specified by this Permit in an amount not to exceed the
amount of the applicant's trust account.
10. If after 90 days the required work as specified in Condition Nos. 1 and 2 are not
completed, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will authorize a bonded tree service to
perform the work at the subject property 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 applicants from the City trust account not later than 30
days after the City completes the work.
11. Subsequent to the removal of the foliage, the applicant may, at his/her discretion,
document the restored view for future reference by submitting to the Director of
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, photographs of the restored view taken
from the applicant's viewing area along with a "Documentation of Existing Foliage"
form available at the Planning, Building & Code Enforcement Department.
N:\PLANNING\GUEST\VRC\APPEALS\FOLIAGE\STAFF.RPT\APPEAL37.RSO City Council Resolution No.9 8-8
Page 7 of 7