CC RES 1998-050 RESOLUTION NO. 98-50
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. 42 TO TRIM, LACE, REDUCE
THE CROWN AND/OR REMOVE FOLIAGE AT 3503, 3511,
3519 BENDIGO DRIVE.
WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, Mr. and Mrs. Kean Hamilton, Mr. and Mrs. Felix
Krasovec, and Mr. and Mrs. Tom McFadden owners of property located at 30747 Ganado
Drive, 30741 Ganado Drive, and 30731 Ganado Drive, respectively, (herein "the
applicants"), in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, filed an application requesting a View
Restoration Permit ("Permit") to restore the view from their properties that is significantly
impaired by foliage owned by Mrs. Mardell Schatzlein, at 3503 Bendigo Drive; by Mr. and
Mrs. Daniel Yang, at 3511 Bendigo Drive; and by Mr. George Boss, at 3519 Bendigo Drive
(herein "the foliage owners"), in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City"); and
WHEREAS, notice of the View Restoration Commission ("Commission") hearing,
along with copies of the Staff Report, were mailed to the applicants and the foliage owners
on July 7, 1997, 30 days in advance of the hearing; and
WHEREAS, on August 7, 1997, the Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
to consider the request, at which time, the applicants' requested, and were granted a
continuance to the September 4, 1997 public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on September 4, 1997, the Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the request, at which time, the foliage owners' requested, and were
granted a continuance to the October 2, 1997, public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on October 2, 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 and the VRC approved VRP No.42; and
WHEREAS, on November 4, 1997, the draft Resolution was brought back before
the VRC for adoption however, due to the need for additional language clarifications, the
draft resolution was brought back to the VRC on November 20, 1997, and again on
December 4, 1997; and
WHEREAS, on December 2, 1997, the City Council directed Staff and the VRC
not to make any new decisions on view restoration applications until the VRC Guideline
revisions were adopted by the Council; and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 1997, as directed by the City Council, the Commission
Conceptually approved the final language of VRC Resolution No. 97-21, but pursuant to
the Council's directive stopped short of actually adopting the draft Resolution; and
WHEREAS, on December 16, 1997, the City Council re-considered its directive
concerning the adoption of Resolution No. 97-21 and agreed to allow the adoption of the
Resolution and on December 18 1997, the VRC adopted resolution No. 97-21 as
conceptually approved on December 4, 1997; and
WHEREAS, on March 3, 1998, within the fifteen day appeal period, Mr. Daniel
Yang and Mr. George Boss, the foliage owners, appealed the Commission's decision to
the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the third foliage owner, Mrs. Mardell Schatzlein did not appeal the
decision of the VRC within the fifteen day appeal period and therefore, that decision is
final; and
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Municipal
Code, the City Council held a public hearing on April 21, 1998, and continued the hearing
to the meeting of may 19, 1998 at which time all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard and present evidence on the notice of appeal; and
WHEREAS, while this appeal was pending, the applicants' and Mr. Boss (3519
Bendigo Drive) reached an agreement regarding resolution of this matter which is reflected
in condition No. 3 attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section I The applicants' at 30747 Ganado Drive, 30741 Ganado Drive, and
30731 Ganado Drive have a view, as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's
Development Code, which includes the ocean coastline, and Catalina Island.
Section 2_: The applicants' viewing area, as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the
City's Development Code, from 30747 (Hamilton), 30741 (Krasovec), and 30731
(McFadden) Ganado Drive, is shared from the living room, den, dinning room, and rear
yard patio viewing areas of each property.
Section a: The applicants located at 30747 (Hamilton), 30741 (Krasovec), and
30731 (McFadden) Ganado Drive, have views that are significantly impaired by foliage on
property located at 3505, 3511, and 3519 Bendigo Drive.
City Council Resolution No 98-50
Page 2 of 9
Section 4: The applicants have complied with the early neighbor consultation
process and have shown proof of cooperation on their part to resolve conflicts, as
evidenced by the attached letter dated March 16, 1997 which summarizes the contents of
the letters sent to each foliage (delivered by certified mail on February 24, 1997), and
receipt for registered mail sent to the foliage owners at 3503, 3511, and 3519 Bendigo
Drive., indicates proof of cooperation in trying to resolve the conflict.
Section 5: Based on evidence provided by the applicants, and on Staff site
investigations, the subject trees at 3503, 3511, 3519 Bendigo Drive significantly impair the
applicants' view. All of the subject foliage exceeds the ridgeline of the primary structures
or 16 feet, whichever is lower, and significantly impairs the view from each of the
applicants' viewing areas of the ocean, coastline, and Catalina Island.
Section 6: On July 2, 1997, City Geotechnical Consultant Dennis Hannon visited
the Yang and Boss properties and reported no evidence of slope instability. His
recommendation for the slope was to leave stumps in place where trees were to be
recommended for removal and replant the area with woody root system plant materials.
Section City Consulting Arborist Dave Hayes has indicated that a replacement
ratio of 1 to 1 is necessary for the Yang property in order to provide for the desired privacy
barrrier, and to maintain the overall stability of the slope as the root systems of the
removed foliage begin to decompose.
Section 8: The subject properties are located less than one thousand (1,000) feet
from the applicants' properties.
Section 9; The foliage significantly impairing the views did not exist, as view
impairing vegetation, when the lots from which the views are taken were created. All of the
involved properties were created in 1963 under Tract 27611. A review of the City's 1976
aerial photographs reveals that there were only a few trees between the foliage owners'
lots, (lot#68, 69, and 70), and the applicants' lots (lot #64, 65, and 66). Additionally, the
applicant (Mr. Hamilton) has provided photograph's taken from his property in 1967 which
clearly show that foliage did not exist on any of the lots at that time. Further investigations
of the City's geology file for the tract provides evidence that the subject trees did not exist
at the time that the lots were created. Reports submitted by Donald R. Warren Engineers,
and dated January 21, 1963 (Exhibit D) addressed the extent of grading performed in
creation of the subject tract. The reports clearly make reference to the fact that these were
created cut/fill lots and that " the property is currently vacant, brush-covered land
descending from Crest Road toward the ocean...." This would indicate that any trees that
were present on the site in 1963 were removed when the mass grading for the tract
occurred and therefore, were not in existence when the subject lots were created.
City Council Resolution No 9850
Page 3 of 9
Section 10: Removal, lacing, and trimming of the foliage as conditioned by the City
Council, will not cause an unreasonable infringement on the privacy of the foliage owners'
properties located at 3503, 3511, and 3519 Bendigo Drive in that the trees currently do
not eliminate viewing onto each of the properties. Additionally, as mentioned in these
conditions the Council is requiring that replacement foliage be planted on the Yang
property, and the parties on the Boss property have also agreed to the planting of
replacement foliage to maintain privacy on those two properties. Privacy is further
enhanced by the difference in building pad elevations and by the substantial rear setbacks
on the properties. Therefore, the removal or trimming along with the requirement for
replacement foliage will not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the
occupants of the properties upon which the foliage is located.
Section 111 Trimming, lacing and/or removal of the subject trees as identified in
Condition Nos. 1 through 3 of attached Exhibit "A", is necessary in order to restore the
applicants' view.
Section 42: 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: Based on the foregoing information, and on the information and
findings included in the Staff report and evidence presented at the public hearing, the City
Council hereby modifies the decision of the View Restoration Commission, approving View
Restoration Permit No. 42, subject to changes to some of the conditions as set forth in the
attached Exhibit "A", which are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
City Council Resolution No 98-50
Page 4 of 9
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on the 3rd day of June 1998.
i
ayor
ATTEST:
4/9
Alt A t °'
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. 98-50 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council
at a regular meeting held on June 3rd, 1998.
ilk r ij
I 'Y CLERK
City Council Resolution No 98- 50
Page 5 of 9
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 42
1. Foliage at 3503 Bendigo Drive (VRC's decision not appealedNRC's decision
final):
a. Reduce the crown of Pine tree No. 1 and 2 below the view plane or remove
the trees with the consent of the foliage owner and grind out the stumps.
The view plane for this property is defined as a plane measured from
a point located 5 feet above the Schatzlein ridgeline to a point located
3 feet above the Krasovec pad.
b. Pine tree No. 3 shall be laced heavily. Said lacing shall be performed
biennially (once every 2 years from the date of the initial lacing).
c. Reduce the crown of the rear most tree (located in the northeast corner of
the property) to a level not to exceed the view plane.
Note: All trees which are trimmed instead of removed, shall be trimmed
during the winter or early spring (November through March).
2. Foliage at 3511 Bendigo Drive (Yang):
a. The view plane for this property is defined as a plane measured from
a point located 5 feet above the ridgeline of the Yang residence, to a
point located 3 feet above the lowest point of the McFadden pad.
b. Acacia trees 1 thru 10: Trim or top to the height of the view plane or remove
and replace with the consent of the foliage owner. If the trees are removed,
then the applicant shall pay for 10, 5-gallon size replacements.
c. Monterey Pine trees 1 thru 6: Reduce the crown to the height of the view
plane as defined in condition 2a, or remove and replace with the consent of
the foliage owner. If the trees are removed, then the applicant shall pay for
6, 15-gallon size replacements.
d. Monterey Pine trees 7 thru 12: Reduce the crown to the height of the view
plane as defined in condition 2a, or remove and replace with the consent of
the foliage owner . If the trees are removed, then the applicant shall pay for
6, 24 inch box replacements.
City Council Resolution No 98- 50
Page 6 of 9
e. Eucalyptus tree: Reduce the crown to a height not to exceed the view
plane.
f. Tree of Heaven: Since the tree of heaven is difficult to see through the mass
of other trees, if after all the above referenced work is performed and if, in
the opinion of City Staff, the tree protrudes into the view plane, the crown
shall be reduced to the height of the view plane defined in condition 2a.
Note: All trees which are trimmed instead of removed, shall be trimmed
during the winter or early spring (November through March).
3. Foliage at 3519 Bendigo Drive (Boss):
a. The view plane for this property is defined as a plane measured from
a point located 8 feet above the ridgeline of the Boss residence, to a
point not to exceed the elevation of the McFadden pad.
b. Pine trees 1 through 3: Remove with the consent of the foliage owner.
c. Eucalyptus trees 1 and 2: Remove with the consent of the foliage owner.
d. Pine trees 4 through 16: Remove with the consent of the foliage owner.
e. Oleanders 1 through 8: Remove with the consent of the foliage owner.
f. Unknown tree 1 & 2: Remove with the consent of the foliage owner. The
stump for unknown tree number 2 shall be ground down at least 6" below
ground level.
g. The applicant's shall pay for ten (10), 15-gallon replacement trees.
h. Root kill shall be applied to the stumps of the subject foliage (except Pine
trees 4 through 16) as deemed necessary by the City approved contractor,
to prevent re-growth.
Note: All trees which are trimmed instead of removed, shall be trimmed
during the winter or early spring (November through March).
4. One year after the initial trimming the View Restoration Commission shall assess
the adequacy of the maintenance schedule outlined in conditions 1 through 3
above, as well as the foliage owner's ability to maintain the foliage in compliance
with the conditions of approval. If amendments and modifications to the conditions
City Council Resolution No 98-50
Page 7 of 9
of approval are necessary, the View Restoration Commission will hold a public
hearing to consider the issues.
5. The trees described in conditions 2 and 3 above are located in a dense cluster of
foliage on the slope between the foliage owners and the applicants' properties.
Within this cluster of trees there may be foliage from other trees which also creates
a significant view impairment yet is not specifically listed in the above conditions.
Any such foliage shall also be trimmed to the height of the view plane defined
above.
6. The selection of the type of replacement foliage shall be made by the foliage owner
from an approved list of foliage types provided by the Director of Planning Building
and Code Enforcement or approved by the City arborist.
7. Pursuant to Section V-A-4 of the VRP Guidelines and Procedures, any tree or shrub
that is removed shall be cut flush to the ground leaving the root systems and stumps
in place.
8. If any tree or shrub that is ordered to be culled, laced, or trimmed as specified in this
permit, dies within one year of the initial work being performed due to the
performance of the work, the applicant or any subsequent owner of the applicant's
property shall 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 V-E and F of the VRP Guidelines and
Procedures.
9. The applicants should, not later than 30 days after approval of this permit, 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.
In addition, the applicant shall pay to the City an amount equal to the the City
selected estimate and such funds shall be maintained in a City trust account until
completion of work.
10. The foliage owners shall select a contractor from the estimates provided by the
applicants 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 bid submitted by the applicant. If the foliage owner chooses
to do the required work himself, then the foliage owner shall not be compensated
from the trust account and the amount in the trust account shall be refunded to the
applicant.
City Council Resolution No 98-50
Page 8 of 9
11. The applicant 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 which the applicants have chosen to eliminate
would then require an entirely new View Restoration application and fee.
12. The applicants may withdraw their view restoration request and their trust account
funds if the applicants do so within five (5) days after the applicants have sent the
estimate required herein. 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.
13. The foliage owners 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 shall
maintain the vegetation to a height that will not impair a view from another property
in the future as specified in these Conditions of Approval.
14. The City shall reimburse the 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, as verified by City Staff, in an amount
not to exceed the amount of the applicant's trust account.
15. If the required work as specified herein is not completed within the stipulated time
periods, then the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will authorize a bonded tree service
to perform the foliage removal work at the subject property 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 City completes the work.
16. Subsequent to the trimming or removal of the foliage, Staff will document the
restored view for future reference by submitting to the applicant, foliage owner, and
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 or View Form" .
City Council Resolution No 98-50
N:\PLANNING\GUESTWRC\APPEALS\FOLIAGE\STAFF.RPTWRP42\APLRES42.RSO Page 9 of 9