VRC RES 2000-001 II 0
V.R.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2000 - 01
A RESOLUTION OF THE VIEW RESTORATION
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
APPROVING VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 59 TO
TRIM FOLIAGE AT 2140 TOSCAN I N I DRIVE.
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2000 Mr. and Mrs. Stephano Finazzo, owners of
property located at 2175 Rockinghorse Drive (herein "the applicant"), in the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes, filed an application requesting a View Restoration Permit ("Permit") to
restore the view from their property that is significantly impaired by foliage owned by Mr.
and Mrs. Robert Zimel, at 2140 Toscanini Drive (herein "the foliage owner's"), in the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City"); and,
WHEREAS, notice of the View Restoration Commission ("Commission") hearing
was mailed to the applicants and the foliage owners on May 25, 2000, at least 30 days in
advance of the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2000, 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 t The applicant at 2175 Rockinghorse Drive has a view, as defined by
Section 17.02.0 of the City's Development Code, of San Pedro, the Vincent Thomas Bridge
and the Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors.
Section 2: The applicant's viewing area, as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the
City's Development Code, is from the living room and upper rear yard patio.
Section 3: The applicant has a view that is significantly impaired by one Ash tree,
one Macadamia Nut tree and one mock Pear tree on property located at 2140 Toscanini
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. On
numerous occasions the applicant and foliage owner met to discuss the view
impairment issue and to attempt to reach an agreement. An agreement was reached
on December 1, 1997; however, on February 5, 1998 the applicant informed the City
that he did not believe that the foliage owner properly implemented their agreement.
Subsequently, on May 22, 1998 the applicant and foliage owner attended a pre-
application meeting with the City and reached another agreement. The foliage owner
•
drafted the second agreement and the applicant executed it on October 2, 1998. On
October 13, 1998 the foliage owner revised the terms of the agreement and included a
new clause which stated that the applicant's acceptance of the agreement would
preclude the applicant from making "further claim against [the foliage owner] for further
tree trimming or removal."
Section 5: Based on evidence provided by the applicant, the subject trees at 2140
Toscanini Drive significantly impair the applicant's view. All of the subject foliage exceeds
the height of the ridgeline of the primary structure or 16 feet and significantly impairs the
view from the applicant's viewing area.
Section 6: The subject properties are located less than one thousand (1,000) feet
from the applicant's property in that the foliage owner's property adjoins the applicant's
property.
Section 7: The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist, as view
impairing vegetation, when the lot from which the view is taken was created. The
applicant's and the foliage owners properties, lots 44 and 30, respectively, of Tract 26331
were created 38 years ago on May 23, 1962. Tract 26331 was created using mass grading
techniques which involve removal of all existing vegetation and terracing the hillsides to
create the building pads. All three of the subject trees are located in a natural canyon that
was filled in and terraced to create the building pads as they now exist. According to the
Supervised Compaction Report dated January 14, 1963 "vegetation, brush, and debris
were removed off the site [and] in the canyon area underlying the subject lots alluvium was
removed to natural ground. The natural ground was scarified, watered and compacted to
a uniform mass suitable to receive the fill." In addition, said report states that "the slopes
on lots 12 through 62 have been cleaned of loose material and planted."
Section 8: Trimming the foliage will not cause an unreasonable infringement on the
privacy of the foliage owners in that a solid fence and the portions of the trees to be
trimmed that are less than 16 feet in height provide privacy; however, only portions of the
trees above 16 feet will be trimmed. Therefore, trimming the trees will not cause
unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the foliage owner.
Section 9: Trimming the subject trees as identified in the attached Conditions of
Approval (Exhibit "A"), is necessary in order to restore the applicant's 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: Based on the foregoing information, and on the information and findings
included in the Staff report and evidence presented at the public hearing, the View
Restoration Commission hereby orders the trimming of foliage at 2140 Toscanini Drive in
V.R.C.Resolution No.2000-01
Page 2 of 5
•
order to restore the view at 2175 Rockinghorse Drive, as provided in, and subject to, the
conditions outlined in the attached Exhibit "A".
Section 12. Any interested person aggrieved of this decision or by any portion of
this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 17.02.0 (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 July 6,
2000 the date of the View Restoration Commission final action.
Section 13. For the foregoing reasons and based on information and findings
contained in the Staff Reports, minutes, and records of the proceedings, the View
Restoration Commission hereby approved View Restoration Permit No. 59 subject to the
Conditions of Approval contained in the attached Exhibit "A", which are necessary to
protect the public health, safety and welfare.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on the 6th day of July, 2000.
AYES: Dyda, Franklin, lseda, Simmons, Vice-Chairman Slayden
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: Monks, Weber, Chairman Alberio
ABSENT: Drages
%4 -.
es B. lay en, Vide Chair n
Joel 'is jas
Dire •r of Planni
:ui ding & Code Enforcement
V.R.C.Resolution No.2000-01
Page 3 of 5
411/ •
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 59
1. Ash Tree: Raise the base of the crown to a height not less than 25 feet above the base
of the tree. Foliage less than 16 feet above the base of the tree may remain. Limbs less
than 12 inches in diameter located on the south half of the tree and limbs less than 8
inches in diameter located on the north half of the tree are to be removed.
2. Macadamia Nut Tree: Trim to a height not to exceed 16 feet above the base of the
tree.
3. Mock Pear Tree: Trim to a height not to exceed 20 feet above the base of the tree.
4. The foliage owner 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, beginning one year after the initial trimming of the foliage is
completed and verified by Staff.
5. If any tree that is trimmed dies within one year of the initial work being performed due
to the performance of the work, then 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 of the VRP Guidelines and Procedures.
6. No sooner than one year after the initial trimming is completed, City Staff shall report
to the Commission as to the adequacy of the maintenance schedule, as well as the
foliage owner's ability to maintain the foliage in compliance with these conditions of
approval. The Commission shall consider the Staff report and determine if a public
hearing to amend the conditions is necessary. If the Commission determines that a
hearing is necessary, then a hearing will be held pursuant to Section V.I. of the VRP
Guidelines and Procedures.
7. The applicant shall, 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 City accepted estimate and such
funds shall be maintained in a City trust account until completion of work.
8. The foliage owners shall select a contractor from the estimate(s) provided by the
V.R.C.Resolution No.2000-01
Page 4 of 5
•
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, 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.
9. 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 applicant has chosen to eliminate would then require an entirely new View
Restoration application and fee.
10.The applicant may withdraw the view restoration request and the trust account funds
if the applicant does so within five (5) days after the applicant sends the estimate
required herein. In the event that the applicant withdraws 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.
11.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.
12.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, an amount not to exceed the amount of the
applicant's trust account.
13.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 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.
14.Subsequent to the trimming or removal of the foliage, the applicant may, at his
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 or
View" form available at the Planning, Building & Code Enforcement Department.
\\MASTADON\PLANNING\ETR\VRP\51-60\59\ADOPTED VRC RESO 2000_01.DOC V.R.C.Resolution No.99-01
Page 5 of 5