PC RES 2017-017 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MODIFYING
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S
APPROVAL OF VIEW PRESERVATION PERMIT CASE
NO. 2016-00015 FOR 59 PASEO DE CASTANA, TO
MEMORIALIZE THE REMOVAL OF TREE NOS. 1 AND 6,
TO REMOVE TREE NO. 7, AND TO MAINTAIN TREE
NOS. 2 THROUGH 5 AND THE NEWLY PLANTED FICUS
TREES WITHIN THE COMMON AREA USING THE CITY
PHOTO DOCUMENTATION DATED MAY 25, 2017 AS
THE BASELINE VIEW.
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2016, the property owners of 59 Paseo De Castana, Mr.
and Mrs. Kobayashi, (the "Applicants"), in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, filed a pre-
application ("Notice of Intent") requesting a View Preservation Permit to preserve a view
that was being significantly impaired by 7 trees located within the common area owned
by the Rancho Palos Verdes Estates Community Association (the "Association"), in the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City"); and,
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2016, the City, pursuant to Section VIII-B(4) of the City's
2010 View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines, requested that the Association
voluntarily trim the trees so as to eliminate the significant view impairment, and to do so
within a 30 day period beginning November 1St; and,
WHEREAS, on July 8, 2016, the Association, in response to the City's request to
trim the trees voluntarily, submitted a letter to the City stating that they believe that they
already satisfied the Applicants' request for trimming since the trees were trimmed
within the past year and additional trimming may adversely affect the trees' health; and,
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2016, the Applicants, having received a negative
response from the Association, filed a formal application requesting a View Preservation
Permit ("Permit") be approved in order to preserve the view from their property that was
significantly impaired by the trees; and,
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2016, the Community Development Director,
having made all the required findings, issued a Notice of Decision ("NOD") requiring that
the Association reduce the crowns of the trees so as to preserve the view from 59
Paseo De Castana, and copies of the NOD were mailed to the Applicants, the
Association, and all interested parties; and,
WHEREAS, on September 29, 2016, the Association filed a timely appeal of the
Director's decision to the Planning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission ("Commission") hearing was
published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on November 10, 2016 and the Public
Notice was mailed to the Applicants and the Association; and,
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2016, after all eligible voting members of the
Commission had visited the Applicants' property and met with the Association
representatives, 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 item was continued to February 14, 2017 after approval of a
motion (6-1) to require the removal of trees 1, 3, 6, and 7, but allow the parties to reach
an agreement to adjust the exact trees to be removed and to require the Applicants to
supply replacement foliage that would not interfere with the view; and,
WHEREAS, on February 14, 2017, the Commission granted a request from the
Association and the Applicants to continue the item to March 28, 2017 to allow
additional time to reach an agreement; and,
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2017, the Commission granted another request from
the Association and the Applicants to continue the item to April 25, 2017 to allow
additional time to resolve the tree removal issues; and,
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2017, City Staff reported to the Commission that two of
the 7 trees had been removed (Trees No. 1 and 6), Trees No. 2 and 3 had their foliage
trimmed to create openings for views between canopies, and privacy foliage had been
installed within the Association's common area, but the Association and the Applicants
had not reached a final agreement concerning the removal of other trees and as a
result, the Commission granted a request to continue the item to June 13, 2017 to allow
additional time to resolve the remaining issue; and,
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2017, after all eligible voting members of the Planning
Commission had visited the Applicants' property and met with the Association
representatives, 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 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The Commission finds that the Applicants at 59 Paseo De Castana
have a view, as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code, of the far
views of the City Basin/Lights (L.A. & Orange Counties), Mountains (San Bernardino
and Santa Ana ranges), a partial view of the L.A. Harbor, Shoreline (Orange County
Coastline) and Ocean (San Pedro Channel/Bay) from the Applicants' viewing areas
described below.
Section 2: The Commission finds that the Applicants' viewing area at 59 Paseo
De Castana, as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code, is from
the living room and outdoor deck.
Section 3: The Commission finds that on September 20, 2016, when the
Director, having made all the required findings to approve the View Preservation Permit
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-17
Page 2
application and issued a Notice of Decision (NOD), seven Italian stone pine trees,
known as Tree Nos. 1 through 7, were located within the common area owned by the
Rancho Palos Verdes Estates Community Association, specifically located on a
landscaped slope that separates the Applicants' property at 59 Paseo De Castana and
the property located at 12 Paseo de Pino,
Section 4: The Commission finds that Tree Nos. 1 and 6, having been removed
and Tree Nos. 2 through 5, having been trimmed since the Association filed its appeal,
no longer creates a significant view impairment from the Applicants' viewing area.
Section 5: The Commission finds that the Applicants have a view of the Ocean
and Shoreline that is significantly impaired by Tree No. 7.
Section 6: The Planning Commission finds that between November 18, 2015
and March 11, 2016, the Applicants exchanged numerous written correspondences with
the Association. On March 18, 2016, the Applicants filed a Notice of Intent to File a View
Restoration Permit Application in an attempt to resolve the matter with the help of the
City's View Restoration Mediator. On May 13, 2016, after unsuccessful mediation and
after withdrawing the View Restoration Permit application, the Applicants filed a Notice
of Intent for a View Preservation Permit (attached and incorporated herein by
reference). After Staff review of the Notice of Intent application, the City requested that
the Association either voluntarily trim the view impairing foliage within 30 days or submit
a written pledge to trim the trees during the month of November 2016, which is the start
of the cooler dormant period (attached and incorporated by reference). On June 29,
2016, the Association mailed a letter to the City citing that they believe the Association
had already satisfied the Applicants' request for trimming, and trimming the trees further
within less than a year's time may adversely affect the trees' health. Since the
Association's response did not contain a positive commitment to trimming the trees, the
Applicants decided to submit a formal View Preservation Permit application request to
the City. Based on correspondence between the Applicants and the Association, and in
light of the Applicants' efforts to resolve the matter through mediation and through the
appeal process, the Planning Commission affirms the Community Development
Director's determination that the Applicants have complied with the early neighbor
consultation process required by Section VIII-C(1) of the City's View Restoration and
Preservation Guidelines.
Section 7: Since the December 13, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, the
Appellant removed Trees No. 1 and 6 and trimmed Trees No. 2 through 5 so as to
eliminate the significant view impairment of the City Basin/Lights. However, in
accordance with Section VIII-C(2) of the City's View Restoration and Preservation
Guidelines, the Commission finds that Tree No. 7 exceeds 16 feet in height, as
measured from the base of the tree, and significantly impairs the Applicants' view of the
Ocean and Shoreline. The view frame from Applicants' viewing area contains a
combination of different view components including views of the ocean, shoreline
(Orange County Shoreline), mountains, and City lights, which is defined in the City's
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures as a "multi-
component" view. The Planning Commission affirms the Community Development
Director's determination that Tree No. 7 exceeds 16 feet in height and significantly
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-17
Page 3
impairs the multi-component view of the Ocean (San Pedro Bay) and Shoreline (Orange
County).
Section 8: In accordance with Section VIII-C(3) of the City's View Restoration and
Preservation Guidelines, the Commission finds that Tree No. 7 is located less than
1,000 feet from the Applicants' property, as measured from the Applicants' property line
to nearest property line of the Association's property, as the properties share a common
property line.
Section 9: In accordance with Section VIII-C(4) of the City's View Restoration and
Preservation Guidelines, the Commission finds that as depicted in the photographs
dated July 28, 1991, the trees did not impair the view(s) after November 1989. As
evidenced in the July 1991 photo, the young pine tree growth that is located in the
direction of Tree No. 7 impaired the partial views of the Ocean, Shoreline, and the
Mountains. However, these trees have since been removed and are not subject to the
permit. Therefore, the tree subject to this permit, Tree No. 7, which is absent in the 1991
photos, did not impair the views of the Ocean and Shoreline.
Section 10: In accordance with Section VIII-C(5) of the City's View Restoration
and Preservation Guidelines, the Commission finds that the removal of Tree No. 7, as
described in Condition No. 3 of the Conditions of Approval, will not cause an
unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the adjacent properties
upon which the foliage is located, which are the properties located at 6, 8, 10, and 12
Paseo De Pino, 22 & 24 Paseo De Castana, and any other property located with the
Palos Verdes Estates Community Association.
As discussed in the December 13, 2016 Staff Report, the closest residence to Tree No.
7 is located at 12 Paseo De Pino, but no unreasonable outdoor or indoor privacy
infringement could be substantiated with the removal of Tree No. 7 because the
prescribed removal will not would further expose the currently exposed second story
windows and the outdoor areas of the property. Moreover, the Applicant recently paid
for and had installed foliage on the common area slope that was meant to create or
enhance privacy to the outdoor areas surrounding the property at 12 Paseo De Pino
and the residence's second story windows.
With respect to the other residences within the Association's community that were
assessed by City Staff for potential privacy infringements', particularly those properties
at 6, 8, & 10 Paseo De Pino, Tree No. 7 is located in an area that does not provide any
privacy screening that benefits these properties, therefore removal of Tree No. 7 as
described in Condition No 3, will not cause any unreasonable privacy infringements to
their outdoor and indoor areas. With respect to the properties located at 22 & 24 Paseo
De Castana, tree removal will also not result in an unreasonable privacy infringement to
their indoor or outdoor privacy because the removal of Tree No. 7 will not make their
indoor or outdoor areas more visible than what is already observed from the first and
second stories of 59 Paseo De Castana or other properties located on Paseo De
Castana, above Paseo De Pino, and above the lower section of Paseo De Castana
near 22 & 24 Paseo De Castana.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-17
Page 4
Based on the above, the Planning Commission finds that removing Tree No. 7 will not
cause any unreasonable privacy infringements on any property within the Association.
Section 11: The Commission finds that removing Tree No. 7 and the trimming to
maintain Tree Nos. 2 through 5, as identified in Condition No. 3 and Condition 5 of the
attached Conditions of Approval, is necessary in order topp
reserve the Applicants' view.
p
Section 12: Pursuant to Section 15700 of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed
project is categorically exempt under Class 4 of that section because the work required
to preserve the Applicant's view does not include the removal of scenic and mature
trees as those mature tree groupings defined and identified by the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes General Plan (Visual Aspects).
Section 13: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Director's Notice of Decision, meeting minutes and other records of
proceedings, which are attached and incorporated herein by reference, the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby modifies the Community
Development Director's decision and approves View Preservation Permit No. 2016-
00015 to memorialize the removal of Trees No. 1 and 6, remove one pine tree (Tree No.
7) and maintain Trees No. 2 through 5 and the newly planted ficus trees, located on the
Association's common area property, in order to preserve the view from 59 Paseo De
Castana, as provided in the conditions outlined in the attached Exhibit "A," Conditions of
Approval, incorporated herein by reference.
Section 14. Any interested person aggrieved of this decision or by any portion of
this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 17.80.070 (A) of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code; any appeal must be filed with the City, in writing
and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than 15 days following the date of the
Planning Commission's decision.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-17
Page 5
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on the 13th day of June 2017.
AYES: Vice Chairman James, Commissioners Emenhiser, Bradley, Leon, Nelson
NOES: Commissioner Tomblin
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT: Chairman Cruikshank
RECUSALS:
VIZ
54....•.,
William J. J e
Vice Chairman
411It•
Director of Community Development and
Secretary of the Planning Commission
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-17
Page 6
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VIEW PRESERVATION PERMIT NO. 2016-00015
1. The Applicants shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have
read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this
Resolution. Failure to provide the written statement within 30 days following the
date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
2. The Applicants shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City,
and/or any officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (collectively "Indemnitees"), from any and all claims,
demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings
(whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature),
and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to
arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"),
brought against the Indemnitees, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set
aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by the
Indemnitees (including Actions approved by the voters of the City), for or
concerning this project.
3. The Association shall:
Remove Tree No. 7, as identified in Figure 6 of the Notice of Decision.
Figure No. 6 of the Notice of Decision is attached hereto as Exhibit A-1
and incorporated by reference.
4. The Association shall, no later than 90 days after receiving Notice from the City
complete the removal work required by this Permit. If the Association does not
complete the required work as specified within 90 days of the Notice, the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes may seek a court order that authorizes a bonded, insured
tree service to perform the work. The Association will be responsible for all City
expenses incurred in enforcing the View Preservation order, including but not
limited to attorney fees and costs, and a lien or assessment may be recorded
against the Association if the invoice is not paid.
5. The Association will maintain the newly planted ficus trees so as not grow to
heights that significantly impair the view, as photo documented by City Staff on
May 25, 2017 attached hereto as Exhibit A-2, from the Applicant's viewing area.
6. Trees No. 2 through 5 must be trimmed on a biennial basis and during the
dormant months of the year in a manner so as not to significantly impair
Applicants' view.
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-17
Page 7
EXHIBIT "A-1"
FIGURE No. 6
VIEW PRESERVATION PERMIT NO. 2016-00015
Figura (i True Wu:Ilion Mz-p
I
•
lrP1
I t
Tril.R 2 at',,t Tree
I - -
Appili int
,„ •
Tri 1
pru FIE rty Et Ire('5
Tr& 5 e.
t4'* Tree 7
140A Cr,mmnn
Arcs
•.---
Lar...Lze; .
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-17
Page 8
EXHIBIT "A-2"
MAY 25, 2017 BASELINE VIEW
VIEW PRESERVATION PERMIT NO. 2016-00015
4,, 4 1 e4iiiik
-,,, , . '
,,,,,i,
\\ ,- 4t p ,
-4-, ,, 1 ' Ail ';''
4
G
L ' , _
f--. I
_ N
f t
f
\‘:
x
,-- .st,,,, a. 4 >
111111111111
i
..;.: :ALIM :4,
AO 'fi MIMI .N
4
-8' lriillIllg
Y. �
o
IS1111
r
11.1111"111,00,,..„1=
',„ i
c*i,' .4 ‘ lowsommio.
t
r
sC`al
e.4
4
a
E 10
P.C. Resolution No. 2017-17
Page 9