VRC RES 2001-006 V.R.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 - 06
A RESOLUTION OF THE VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING
VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 114 TO TRIM, REMOVE,
OR LACE FOLIAGE AT 18 SWEETBAY.
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2001 Mr. Louis Moore, owner of property located at 19
Sweetbay (herein "the applicant"), in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, filed an application
requesting a View Restoration Permit ("Permit") to restore a view from his property that is
significantly impaired by foliage owned by Mrs. Betty Turner, at 18 Sweetbay (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 September 25, 2001, at least 30 days in
advance of the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, after one continuance on November 1, 2001, on November 15, 2001,
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 1: The applicant at 19 Sweetbay has a view, as defined by Section 17.02.040
of the City's Development Code, of Santa Catalina Island and of the ocean.
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 from the front bedroom.
Section 3: The applicant has a view that is significantly impaired by one
Cotoneaster, two Jacaranda trees, one Pepper tree, and one Mock Pear tree on property
located at 18 Sweetbay.
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 July 18,
2001 the applicant and foliage owner attended a pre-application meeting with the City.
The meeting was held at the applicant's residence with the consent of both parties.
Both parties made offers to deal with the trees in question however, neither could
agree, thus, in August 2001 the applicant informed the City that he and the foliage
owner could not reach agreement and filed a formal application.
Section 5: Based on evidence provided by the applicant, the subject trees at 18
Sweetbay 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
Aft
. 111y _
from the applicant's viewing area.
Section 6: The subject property is located less than one thousand(1,000)feet from
the apps property erty in that the foliage owner's property is directly across the street from
p
the applicant's property.
Section 7: The applicant and the foliage owners properties, lots 20 and 44,
respectively, of Tract 14500 were created in April 1948. The homes were built in 1951 and
1956 respectively, approximately 45 to 50 years ago. According to City View Restoration
Arborist, Mr. Dave Hayes, the trees located at 18 Sweetbay appear to be 25 to 40 years
old. While specific information as to how the tract was graded is not available, based on
the lot creation year (1948), the age of the home, and the age of the trees as verified by
the View Restoration Arborist, it would appear that the trees were planted after the lots
were created and the homes were built.
Section 8: Trimming, removing, or lacing the foliage as recommended by Staff,will
not cause an unreasonable infringement on the privacy of the foliage owner in that the view
impairing trees do not currently provide privacy to the foliage owner. Additionally,
replacement foliage is provided for all foliage that is recommended for removal. Therefore,
the recommended actions will not cause unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the
foliage owner.
Section 9: Trimming, removing or lacing 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, removal and/or lacing of foliage at 18
Sweetbay in order to restore the view at 19 Sweetbay, 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 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
V.R.C.Resolution No.2001-06
Page 2 of 6
•
. ID
Restoration Commission hereby approved View Restoration Permit No. 114 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 15th day of November 2001.
AYES: Vice Chair Slayden, Drages, De Moraes, Franklin, Dyda, Weber, Ginise
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
Gilbert Alberio, Chairman
IOW ; ,
' 1901 lefed
.- 'oja-
Director of Planning,
Building & Code Enforcement
V.R.C. Resolution No.2001-06
Page 3 of 6