VRC RES 1997-021 V.R.C. RESOLUTION NO. 97 - 21
A RESOLUTION OF THE VIEW RESTORATION
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
APPROVING 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.
NOW,THEREFORE, THE VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY 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
0 0
yard patio viewing areas of each property.
Section 3 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.
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 structure
or 16 feet, whichever is lower, and significantly impairs the view from the applicants'
viewing areas.
Section 6 The subject properties are located less than one thousand (1,000) feet
from the applicants' properties.
Section 7: 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 the subject
trees could not have been in existence when the subject lots were created.
Section 8: Removal, lacing, and trimming of the foliage as recommended by Staff,
will not cause an unreasonable infringement on the privacy of the foliage owners property
located at 3503 Bendigo Drive in that the trees currently do not eliminate viewing onto the
Schatzlein property. Additionally, privacy is further enhanced by the difference in building
pad elevations between the two properties, and by the substantial rear setbacks on both
V.R.C.Resolution No.97-21
Page 2 of 8
• ill
properties. For the Yang and Boss Properties, Staffs recommendation to remove several
trees from both properties, could expose some areas on the property, where privacy could
be of concern (such as the upper bedrooms, patio, swimming pool, and deck area behind
the foliage owner's house), to viewing from the applicants' property. However, Staff
believes that this impact could be mitigated by replanting the areas with trees or shrubs
that will provide privacy but not grow into the applicants' viewing area. Therefore, the
removal or trimming will not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the
occupants of the property upon which the foliage is located.
Section 9 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 10: 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 11: Any person aggrieved of this decision or by any portion of this decision
may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 17.02.040 (C.2.g.) of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing and
with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following December 18,
1997, the date of the View Restoration Commission final action.
Section 12: Based on the foregoing information, and on the information and
findings included in the Staff report, evidence presented at the public hearing, minutes, and
records of the proceedings, the View Restoration Commission hereby orders the topping,
trimming, lacing and/or removal of foliage at 3503, 3511, 3519 Bendigo Drive to restore the
views at 30747 (Hamilton), 30741 (Krasovec), and 30731 (McFadden) Ganado Drive, as
provided in, and subject to, the conditions outlined in the attached Exhibit "A".
V.R.C.Resolution No.97-21
Page 3 of 8
•
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on the 18th day of December 1997.
AYES: Black, Goern, R. Green, Marshall, Sweetnam
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: Boudreau, Long
ABSENT: A. Green
Ra and Gree' , C airman
Qoat‘nre.v.iNjA=>g ,k__)
Carolynn Petru, AICP
Director of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement
V.R. C.Resolution No. 97-21
Page 4 of 8
• 0
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 42
1. Foliage at 3503 Bendigo Drive:
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 work should occur during the winter months.
2. Foliage at 3511 Bendigo Drive:
a. Acacia trees 1 thru 10: Trim or top to the height of the view plane or remove
with the consent of the foliage owner. 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. Monterey Pine trees 1 thru 6: Reduce the crown to the height of the view
plane as defined in condition 2a, or remove with the consent of the foliage
owner.
c. Monterey Pine trees 7 thru 12: Reduce the crown to the height of the view
plane as defined in condition 2a, or remove with the consent of the foliage
owner. If the trees are removed, replacement foliage shall be provided.
Replacement foliage shall be selected by the foliage owner from a list
provided by Staff. Final selection and placement of the plant materials shall
be reviewed by the City Arborist, and approved by the Director of Planning,
Building, and Code Enforcement.
d. Eucalyptus tree: Reduce the crown to a height not to exceed the view
plane.
V.R.C.Resolution No.97-21
Page 5 of 8
0 0
e. 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 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 work should occur during the winter months.
3. Foliage at 3519 Bendigo Drive:
a. Pine trees 1 thru 3: Reduce the crown to the height of the view plane or,
remove with the consent of the foliage owner. 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 4 thru 16: Reduce the crown to the level of the view plane as
defined in condition 3a. However, if the applicant can provide
documentation of the view as it existed, on the effective date of
Municiple Code Section 17.02.040 or some subsequent date, then these
trees will be subject to the City's View Preservation process and
referred to Code Enforcement for compliance.
c. Oleanders 1 thru 5: Topped to a height not to exceed the view plane.
However, if the applicant can provide documentation of the view as it
existed, on the effective date of Municiple Code Section 17.02.040 or
some subsequent date, then these trees will be subject to the City's
View Preservation process and referred to Code Enforcement for
compliance.
d. Oleanders 6 thru 9: Topped to a height not to exceed the view plane.
However, if the applicant can provide documentation of the view as it
existed, on the effective date of Municiple Code Section 17.02.040 or
some subsequent date, then these trees will be subject to the City's
View Preservation process and referred to Code Enforcement for
compliance.
e. Eucalyptus trees 1 and 2: Reduce the crown to the height of the view plane
(which is defined as the ridgeline of the Boss residence plus 8 feet, to a point
not to exceed the McFadden pad) or, remove with the consent of the foliage
owner.
f. Unknown tree: Reduce the crown to the height of the view plane as defined
in condition 3a.
V.R.C.Resolution No.97-21
Page 6 of 8
• II
Note: All work should occur during the winter months.
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
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 applicants should, 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 cleanup
and removal of debris. 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.
7. 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 lowest bid submitted by the applicant.
8. The applicants may reduce the scope of the trimming 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.
9. 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 send the three
(3) estimates required by Condition No. 5 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
V.R.C.Resolution No.97-21
Page 7 of 8
I 0
effect.
10. 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 Condition Nos. 1 through 3.
11. The City shall reimburse the foliage owners 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.
12. If after 90 days the required work as specified in Condition Nos. 1 through 3 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.
13. Subsequent to the trimming or removal of the foliage, the applicants may, at their
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\STAFF.RPT\VRC\RESO\RESO42.RSO