RPVCCA_CC_SR_2015_06_30_03_Proposal_To_Change_Tree_Trimming_PracticesCITY OF
MEMORANDUM
.A
PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: MICHAEL THRONE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: JUNE 3012015
SUBJECT: STREET TREE MAINTENANCE PRACTICES (SUPPORTS
2014 CITY COUNCIL GOAL #2, PUBLIC
INFRASTRUCTURE)
REVIEWED: DOUG WILLMORE, CITY MANAGER vtAA)
Project Managers: Nicole Jules, Deputy Director of Public Works -AV
Joel Rojas, Director of Community Development
RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Consider Staff's proposal to modify the City's policy on tree trimming and
maintenance practices;
2) Direct Staff to initiate the appropriate code amendments to Municipal Code Title 17
and to the City's View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines to delete the current
City Tree Review Permit process;
3) Direct Staff to rescind all City Tree Review Permit covenants that currently exist
between the City and residents; and
4) Adopt Ordinance No. U which would impose a temporary moratorium on the
acceptance and processing of City Tree Review Permits while the new City tree
trimming practices are put into place.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has over 9,700 City -owned trees within the public rights
of way and on City -owned properties, an asset that is valued over $30M. The City derives
great benefits from trees because they improve our environmental quality of life and help to
improve the health of our communities. While trees are appreciated, they have also been
the source of aggravation for some residents because they have contributed to the
degradation of views when not maintained. Through a citizen -comprised focus group,
1
Street Tree Maintenance Practices
June 30, 2015
Page 2 of 7
proposed revisions to the City's policies and practices of maintaining City -owned trees have
been developed. Staff is recommending that the Council consider the proposal and direct
staff to initiate the appropriate steps to modify the way we maintain City trees within the
rights-of-way and on City -owned properties.
In essence, these revisions will consolidate the responsibility for maintaining City -owned
trees in the Public Works Department and will eliminate the process for tree adoption that
had been administered by the Community Development Department, including rescinding
adoption agreements and covenants that were approved previously.
In November 1989, the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes passed Proposition M, which
was subsequently codified (Municipal Code Section 17.02.040) as the City's View
Preservation and Restoration Ordinance (Ordinance). The ordinance established view
restoration/preservation regulations and procedures for foliage on private property. Foliage
on City property was not addressed by the original Prop M ordinance. In 1989, the City
Council adopted Resolution 89-119, which set forth an application process for dealing with
City -owned trees that impair residents' views. The City Tree Review Permit policy was
subsequently modified and codified into the RPV Municipal Code in 1996 as Section
17.76.100. Since then, there have been several amendments to the Code. The most
significant change occurred in 2005, when the City Council adopted streamlining and cost-
saving revisions that required the automatic removal of any view -impairing City tree unless
the tree was adopted and maintained (trimmed annually) by an adjacent resident at their
own expense. Unfortunately, some times this process has resulted in inadequately
maintained adopted trees and contentious division between residents in the same
neighborhood, and litigation against the City.
In response to two proposals submitted by residents, Mayor Pro Tem Brooks, at the
November 19, 2013 City Council meeting, presented a study session item for the Council to
consider agendizing an item to discuss proposed changes to the City's current practice of
maintaining City trees. At that time, the Council directed staff to revisit the current practices
of City tree trimming.
On June 17, 2014, staff presented an overview of the City's current street tree maintenance
methods to re -familiarize the Council and public about the existing practices and the City's
view restoration policy for city -owned trees. At that meeting, public comments were
received, and the Council directed staff to work with the community with the goal of creating
a proposal to amend our process and report back with the findings.
On September 10, 2014, staff held a community meeting at City Hall to discuss tree
maintenance practices. Twelve interested individuals provided input and participated in a
lively discussion regarding the existing policies and past practices. Residents represented
various areas of the City, including the Miraleste Recreation and Park District, Berryhill
neighborhood, Miraleste neighborhood, and the Pacific View community. While there were
passionate opinions and accounts shared about the removal, trimming and replacement of
trees as a result of view restoration efforts, the group arrived at a common ground as to the
2
Street Tree Maintenance Practices
June 30, 2015
Page 3 of 7
first steps at modifying the City's process. Some of the highlighted points discussed at the
first meeting were:
• Trees are a valuable community asset and necessary component of our natural
environment.
® Maintenance of public trees that impact views should follow the same requirements
established for private trees that impact views.
® Consider a streamlined tree adoption and/or permit process for non -view and view
related issues.
® Improvements are needed to the service request process to address tree issues
more proactively, which includes routine maintenance of newly planted trees and
maintenance of trees during the establishment period.
• City to undertake reforestation efforts to replace the trees that have exceeded their
useful life with more appropriate trees or drought tolerant trees for neighborhoods
(explore reforestation grant opportunities).
® City should consider eliminating the recordation of tree adoption agreements against
the property of the resident who is interested in adopting a tree.
• City should consider increasing the frequency of grid -trimming and including
trimming of the tops of trees.
® Create language that defines what a "mature" tree is, as referenced in the Visual
Aspects section of the General Plan.
• Improve the language of, and include a definition for, "infrastructure damage". This
language is currently vague and needs amplification.
DISCUSSION
On February 4, 2015, the Tree Maintenance focus group met for a second time to formulate
a proposal to modify the City's current practices of dealing with view impairing trees in the
public rights-of-way and on City -owned properties, including parks.
Proposal
The Public Works Department will oversee and maintain ALL citv-owned trees
Previously, the maintenance of city -owned trees was managed by the Public Works
Department and the Community Development Department (view -related). This measure
will consolidate the management of all city -owned trees to one department and reduce
confusion to residents. Further, this will streamline and simplify the process of having trees
trimmed. Although the Community Development Department will continue to be involved
when it comes to trees that impact views, the request will originate and conclude with the
Public Works Department and the Community Development Department will be consulted
as appropriate.
Eliminate the City Tree Review Permit process
The City Tree Review Permit process, described in greater detail below, will be eliminated
which will streamline the process, and will remove the tree adoption option and recordation
3
Street Tree Maintenance Practices
June 30, 2015
Page 4 of 7
of covenants against personal properties.
Allow flexibility in the maintenance of City trees via an encroachment permit process and
include aesthetics as a maintenance option
This allows residents (at their cost) the ability to apply for an encroachment permit to have
a city tree or trees aesthetically trimmed under the supervision of a certified arborist and
city staff. Similarly, include aesthetic trims as a line item in the future tree maintenance
contract to be exercised in cases that warrant aesthetic trims outside of the normal tree
trimming schedule.
Increase efforts to protect City trees and replace trees when recommended for removal
Greater efforts will be expended to save trees. Trimming will be the first course of action
unless trimming will result in a compromise to the tree's health. Tree removal will be the
last and final step. In the event a tree is recommended for removal, a replacement tree will
be installed.
Include canODv reduction in the maintenance contract for view imaairina trees
The current tree trimming maintenance contract does not provide for canopy -reduction on
trees that impair views. Tree trimming practices in the past have been limited to trim the
lower tree branches only for proper clearances above the roadway and pedestrian paths.
The proposal is to include in the future contract for tree maintenance, view -related trims or
canopy reductions in maintenance zones that are prone to having view -related impacts.
Modify code language for clarity of "mature tree" definition
There are certain city documents that provide language that refers to "mature trees" or
"infrastructure damage". This language can be improved by providing clearer definitions
and explanations of terms that appear to be ambiguous or loosely defined.
To implement the above proposal, amendments to the City's Development Code (Title 17)
and to the City's View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines will be necessary to remove
the current City Tree Review Permit process that has been administered by the Community
Development Department. Furthermore, the Public Works Street Tree Trimming Policy will
need be amended to incorporate the new process. Consequently, Staff is proposing that
the City Council agree to rescind all existing City Tree Review Permit maintenance
covenants that currently exist between the City and residents who have adopted City trees
in the past for view maintenance purposes.
After City Council's consideration, staff will begin to prepare all the required revisions to
relevant documents (ordinance amendments, bid specifications and contract modifications)
and to advertise for tree maintenance services in March 2016.
51
Street Tree Maintenance Practices
June 30, 2015
Page 5 of 7
Current City Processes
Tree trimming activities, whether on city -owned trees or as a result of view
restoration/preservation cases and/or applications, are directed and managed by both the
Public Works Department and the Community Development Department. Each
Department has had a role and goal that impact the health, safety and appearance of City
Trees.
Public Works Street Tree Maintenance
The Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining all City trees, including trees
located in street rights-of-way by way of grid -trimming on a three year cycle. The City is
divided into three zones and each zone is trimmed once every three years by professional
tree trimmers under the direction of a certified arborist and under the supervision of the
City's Maintenance Superintendent. Per the current contract, grid trimming includes only
raising a tree's canopy and removing way -ward limbs. It does not include trimming to
improve views or aesthetics, such as lacing, which is a method of pruning that admits light
and air through the tree's canopy or crown. The contract also does not include root
pruning; roots are often the source of damaged public infrastructure including sidewalks,
curbs, gutters and streets. Grid trimming is conducted in accordance with professional
guidelines and specifications that are designed to maintain the health and aesthetics of City
trees.
In addition to grid trimming, tree trimming efforts are also employed to reduce hazards to
public health and safety when tree limbs impede pedestrians, equestrians and/or vehicles.
Tree removal is not preferred but is necessary when a public tree is dead, diseased, dying,
damaging public infrastructure or private improvements, or has been ordered to be
removed in accordance with the City View Restoration guidelines.
The Public Works Department maintains an electronic database of all trees that tracks and
inventories the history of street tree maintenance. This database ensures consistency of
the maintenance with respect to tree species, age and size. It also tracks the trimming
and/or replacement activities associated with each tree, and it documents all service
requests submitted for all trees.
Community Development View Restoration/PreservationlCity Tree Review Permit
The Community Development Department is responsible for View Restoration Permits,
View Preservation Permits, which deal with privately -owned trees, and the City Tree
Review Permit process which removes or trims City Trees that significantly impair views, in
accordance with the City's Municipal Code Section 17.76.100. Pursuant to the Code, the
Community Development Director shall approve or conditionally approve a City Tree
Review Permit request if it is determined that a City tree significantly impairs a resident's
view from the resident's viewing area. Accordingly, Staff conducts a view analysis from the
applicant's viewing area and recommends that the Director approve the permit request if
the City tree significantly impairs the applicant's view. If certain criteria are met, owners of
properties adjacent to the trees have the opportunity to adopt a City tree and maintain the
5
Street Tree Maintenance Practices
June 30, 2015
Page 6 of 7
tree with their own resources so that it does not significantly impair the neighbor's view and
preserves the City Tree that would otherwise be removed. In cases where trees are not
adopted, the City's tree maintenance contractor removes the view impairing tree.
Although performed by the same tree maintenance contractor, each department manages
the contractor differently, which creates inconsistencies with right-of-way tree maintenance,
whether view related or not, and results in confusion and frustration to the residents. As a
result, tree maintenance practices managed by both Departments should be consolidated
with maintenance activities entirely supervised by the Public Works Department so that the
health, longevity and appearance of City trees are consistently maintained.
RPV Development Code Amendment
In order to implement the proposed trimming process for view -impairing City trees and to
consolidate that responsibility within the Public Works Department, the City's Development
Code needs to be amended as follows:
® Section 17.76.100 City Tree Review Permits- Rescind this Code section in its
entirety, as the proposed City tree trimming process will not warrant the need of a
City -issued permit in order to have a view -impairing City tree trimmed.
Section 17.86.050 (A) (2) Disqualification for Violation- Delete the text reference to
the City Tree Review Permit.
Since these amendments are located within Title 17, the amendments must first be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission before ultimate City Council action.
View Restoration and Preservation Guideline Revisions
Adopted on September of 2006, the City's View Restoration/ Preservation Guidelines and
Procedures (View Guidelines) include information related to the current City Tree Review
Permit process. Any changes to the City Tree Review Permit process should also be
reflected in the View Restoration Guidelines & Procedures. As such, Staff is proposing to
make the appropriate changes to the View Guidelines. Since the Guidelines are jointly
approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, the Guideline revisions will first be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission before City Council action.
City Tree Review Permit Covenants
The City Tree Review Permit process currently allows an owner of the property directly
abutting or underlying the public -right -way or parkway where a view -pairing City tree is
located to enter into an agreement with the City for the continued maintenance of the tree
(tree adoption). Under the agreement, which is recorded against the title of the agreeing
party's property, the property owner (and any future owner) agrees to maintain a view -
X
Street Tree Maintenance Practices
June 30, 2015
Page 7 of 7
impairing tree so as to prevent future significant view impairments by the tree. The City has
entered into eleven such City Tree Review Permit Covenants.
If Section 17.76.100 of the RPV Municipal Code is rescinded, Staff believes that the
existing City Tree Permit covenants also should be rescinded. This is because under the
proposed City Tree trimming process, the City will continue to trim and maintain view -
impairing trees identified in the covenants. In order to terminate existing covenants, the
City will provide a thirty -day notice to the affected party.
City's Tree Trimming, Planting and Removal Policy & Guidelines For the Public Works
Department
On March 4, 1997, City Council adopted Resolution No. 97-18 which established a policy
regarding the removal of City trees by the Public Works Department. Subsequently, in
November 2008, the City approved the Tree Trimming, Planting and Removal Policy and
Guidelines, which outlines the procedures for City tree trimming, removal and planting. If
the View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines are revised, and if the City Tree Review
Permit process is eliminated, the City's Tree Trimming, Planting and Removal Policy will
need to be amended to set forth the new process by which all City trees are maintained,
specifically with respect to view -impairing trees and how residents may request an
evaluation of City -owned trees that are impacting views.
The goal is to create a process that is simple and stream -lined, best serves the residents of
Rancho Palos Verdes and preserves City trees and our natural environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff recommendation is not expected to result in a significant fiscal impact to the City's
budget.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Municipal Code Section 17.02.040 (page 8)
Attachment B: Resolution 89-119 (page 20)
Attachment C: Municipal Code Section 17.76.100 City Tree Review Permit Policy (page 25)
Attachment D: November 19, 2013 Study Session Item (page 28)
Attachment E: Resolution No. 97-18 (page 49)
Attachment F: November 2008 Tree Trimming, Planting and Removal Policy & Guidelines
(page 51)
Attachment G: Proposed Moratorium Ordinance (page 53)
FA
Attachment A
17.02.040 - View preservation and restoration.
The residents of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, by the adoption of this section, have made a finding
that the peace, health, safety and welfare of the community will be served by the adoption of this section
and by the regulations prescribed herein.
A. Definitions. When not inconsistent with the context, the words used in the present tense include
the future; words in the singular number include the plural; and those in the plural number include
the singular. In carrying out the intent of this section, words, phrases and terms shall be deemed
to have the following meanings ascribed to them:
1. "City" means the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and its employees and staff and those
designated by the city council to act on behalf of the city.
2. "City council' means the duly elected legislative body of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
3. "Director" means the director of the planning, building and code enforcement department of
the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
4. "Foliage" means natural growth of trees, shrubs and other plant life.
5. "Lot coverage" means that portion of a lot or building site which is occupied by any building
or structure, including trellises; decks over thirty inches in height (as measured from existing
adjacent grade); parking areas; driveways; or impervious surfaces (impervious surfaces less
than five feet in width and/or one patio area less than five hundred square feet in area shall
be excluded from the lot coverage calculation).
6. "Neighborhood character" means the existing characteristics in terms of the following:
a. Scale of surrounding residences;
b. Architectural styles and materials; and
c. Front, side and rear yard setbacks.
7. "Planning commission" means the planning commission of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes
as defined in Chapter 2.20 (Planning Commission) of this Municipal Code.
8. "Privacy" means reasonable protection from intrusive visual observation.
9. "Scale" means the total square footage and lot coverage of a residence and all ancillary
structures.
10. "Setback" means the minimum horizontal distance as prescribed by this Code, between any
property line or private easement boundary used for vehicular and/or pedestrian access and
the closest point on any building or structure, below or above ground level, on the property.
In cases where there is no structure on a lot, setback shall mean the minimum horizontal
distance between the property line or easement boundary line and a line parallel to the
property line or easement boundary line. Please refer to Chapter 17.48 (Lots, Setbacks,
Open Space Area and Building Height) for setback regulations.
11. Shall and May. "Shall' is mandatory and "may" is permissive.
12. "Structure" means anything constructed or built, any edifice or building of any kind, or any
piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite
manner, which is located on or on top of the ground on a parcel of land utilized for residential
purposes, excluding antennas, skylights, solar panels and similar structures not involving the
construction of habitable area.
13. "Style" means design elements which consist of, but are not limited to:
a. Facade treatment;
b. Height of structure;
Page 1
Feel
Attachment A
c. Open space between structures;
d. Roof design;
e. The apparent bulk or mass of the structure; and
f. The number of stories.
14. View. On the Palos Verdes peninsula, it is quite common to have a near view and afar view
because of the nature of many of the hills on the peninsula. Therefore, a "view" which is
protected by this section is as follows:
a. A "near view" which is defined as a scene located on the peninsula including, but not
limited to, a valley, ravine, equestrian trail, pastoral environment or any natural setting;
and/or
b. A "far view" which is defined as a scene located off the peninsula including, but not
limited to, the ocean, Los Angeles basin, city lights at night, harbor, Vincent Thomas
Bridge, shoreline or offshore islands.
A "view" which is protected by this section shall not include vacant land that is
developable under this Code, distant mountain area not normally visible, nor the sky, either
above distant mountain areas or above the height of offshore islands. A view may extend in
any horizontal direction (three hundred sixty degrees of horizontal arc) and shall be
considered as a single view, even if broken into segments by foliage, structures or other
interference.
15. "Viewing area" means that area of a structure (excluding bathrooms, hallways, garages or
closets) or that area of a lot (excluding the setback areas) where the owner and city
determine the best and most important view exists. In structures, the finished floor elevation
of any viewing area must be at or above existing grade adjacent to the exterior wall of the
part of the building nearest to said viewing area.
16. The "view restoration commission" means the planning commission of the city of Rancho
Palos Verdes.
B. Regulations.
FIGURE 1
Building Height. Any individual or persons desiring to build a new structure or an addition to
an existing structure shall be permitted to build up to sixteen feet in height pursuant to
subsection B of this section provided there is no grading, as defined in Section 17.76.040 of
this title, to be performed in connection with the proposed construction, and further provided
that no height variation is required, and all applicable residential development standards are
or will be met. In cases where an existing structure is voluntarily demolished or is demolished
as a result of an involuntary event, a height variation application will not be required to
exceed sixteen feet in height, provided that the replacement structure will have the same or
less square footage and building height as the existing structure and will be reconstructed
within the building envelope and footprint of the pre-existing structure. Approval for proposed
structures or additions to existing structures exceeding sixteen feet in height, may be sought
through application for a height variation permit, which, if granted pursuant to the procedures
contained herein, will permit the individual to build a structure not exceeding twenty-six feet
in height, except as provided in subsection (8)(1)(d) of this section, or such lower height as
approved by the city, measured as follows:
a. For sloping lots which slope uphill from the street of access or in the same direction as
the street of access and for which no building pad exists, the height shall be measured
from the preconstruction (existing) grade at the highest point on the lot to be covered
by the structure to the ridgeline or the highest point of the structure, as illustrated in
Figure 1 below.
Page 2
9
FIGURE 2
Attachment A
b. For sloping lots which slope downhill from the street of access and for which no building
pad exists, the height shall be measured from the average elevation of the setback line
abutting the street of access to the ridgeline or the highest point of the structure, as
illustrated in Figure 2 below.
i
c. For lots with a "building pad" at street level or at a different level than the street or lot
configurations not previously discussed, the height shall be measured from the
preconstruction (existing) grade at the highest elevation of the existing building pad
area covered by the structure to the ridgeline or highest point of the structure, as
illustrated in Figure 3 below. Portions of a structure which extend beyond the "building
pad" area of a lot shall not qualify as the highest elevation covered by the structure, for
the purposes of determining maximum building height. Structures allowed pursuant to
this subsection shall not exceed twenty feet in height, as measured from the point where
Page 3
W
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 4
Attachment A
the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade, to the ridgeline or highest point of
the structure. Otherwise, a height variation permit shall be required.
— T��ak
.-
r r r
d. On sloping lots described in Sections 17.02.040(B)(1)(a) and 17.02.040(B)(1)(b) of this
chapter, the foundation of the structure shall contain a minimum eight foot step with the
slope of the lot, as illustrated in Figure 4 below. However, no portion of the structure
shall exceed thirty feet in height, when measured from the point where the lowest
foundation or slab meets finished grade to the ridge line or highest point of the structure.
The thirty foot height shall not exceed a horizontally projected sixteen foot height line
(from the high point of the uphill step of the structure).
Setbacks for Sloping Lots. On lots which slope uphill from the street of access and where
the height of a structure is in excess of sixteen feet above the point where the lowest
foundation or slab meets the ground, areas in excess of the sixteen foot height limit shall be
set back one foot from the exterior building facade of the first story, most parallel and closest
to the front property line, for every foot of height in excess of sixteen feet, as measured from
the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets the ground, as illustrated in Figure 4
below.
Page 4
11
Attachment A
3, Foliage Obstruction. No person shall significantly impair a view from a viewing area of a lot
by permitting foliage to grow to a height exceeding:
a. The height determined by the view restoration commission through issuance of a view
restoration permit under Section 17.02.040(C)(2) of this chapter; or
b. If no view restoration permit has been issued by the view restoration commission, a
height which is the lesser of:
I. The ridge line of the primary structure on the property; or
Sixteen feet.
If foliage on the property already exceeds the provisions of subdivisions (i) and (ii) of Section
17.02.040(8)(3) of this chapter on the effective date of this section, as approved by the voters on
November 7, 1989, and significantly impairs a view from a viewing area of a lot, then
notwithstanding whether any person has sought or obtained issuance of a view restoration permit,
the foliage owner shall not let the foliage exceed the foliage height existing on the effective date
of this section (November 17, 1989). The purpose of this paragraph is to ensure that owners of
foliage which violates the provisions of this paragraph on the effective date of this section shall
not allow the foliage to increase in height. This paragraph does not "grandfather" or otherwise
permit such foliage to continue to block a view.
4. Removal of Foliage as Condition of Permit Issuance. The city shall issue no conditional use
permit, variance, height variation, building permit or other entitlement to construct a structure,
or to add livable area to a structure on a parcel utilized for residential purposes, unless the
owner removes that part of the foliage on the lot exceeding sixteen feet in height or the ridge
line of the primary structure, whichever is lower, that significantly impairs a view from the
viewing area of another parcel. The owner of the property is responsible for maintaining the
foliage so that the views remain unimpaired. This requirement shall not apply where removal
of the foliage would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the occupants of
the property on which the foliage exists and there is no method by which the property owner
can create such privacy through some other means allowed within the development code
that does not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another property. The initial
Page 5
12
Attachment A
decision on the amount of foliage removal required or the reasonable degree of privacy to
be maintained shall be made by the director, the planning commission or the city council, as
appropriate for the entitlement in question. If the permit issuance involves property located
within the Miraleste recreation and park district, the findings of Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(c)(vi)
of this chapter shall apply. A decision by the director on either of these matters may be
appealed to the planning commission, and any decision of the planning commission may be
appealed to the city council.
5. Determination of Viewing Area.
a. The determination of a viewing area shall be made by balancing the nature of the view
to be protected and the importance of the area of the structure or lot from where the
view is taken. Once finally determined for a particular application, the viewing area may
not be changed for any subsequent application. In the event the city and owner cannot
agree on the viewing area, the decision of the city shall control. A property owner may
appeal the city's determination of viewing area. In such event, the decision on the
viewing area will be made by the body making the final decision on the application. A
property owner may preserve his or her right to dispute the decision on the viewing area
for a subsequent application, without disputing the decision on a pending application,
by filing a statement to that effect and indicating the viewing area the property owner
believes to be more appropriate. The statement shall be filed with the city prior to
consideration of the pending application by the city.
C. Procedures and Requirements.
Preservation of Views Where Structures are Involved.
a. Any person proposing to construct a structure above sixteen feet shall submit a height
variation permit application to the city. A determination on the application shall be made
by the director in accordance with the findings described in Section 17.02.040(C)(1)(e)
of this chapter. The director shall refer a height variation application directly to the
planning commission for consideration under the same findings, as part of a public
hearing, if any of the following is proposed:
I. Any portion of a structure which exceeds sixteen feet in height extends closer than
twenty-five feet from the front or street -side property line; or
ii. The area of the structure which exceeds sixteen feet in height (the second story
footprint) exceeds seventy-five percent of the first story footprint area (residence
and attached garage);
iii. Sixty percent or more of a garage footprint is covered by a structure which exceeds
sixteen feet in height (a second story);
iv. The portion of the structure which exceeds sixteen feet in height is being
developed as part of a new single-family residence; or
V. Based on an initial site visit, the director determines that any portion of a structure
which is proposed to exceed sixteen feet in height may significantly impair a view
as defined in this chapter.
b. The applicant shall take reasonable steps established by the city council to consult with
owners of property located within five hundred feet of the applicant's property. The
applicant shall obtain and submit with the application the signatures of the persons with
whom the applicant consulted. Where a homeowners' association existing in the
neighborhood affected has provided written notice to the director of its desire to be
notified of height variation applications, the applicant shall mail a letter to the association
requesting its position on the application. A copy of this letter and the response of the
association, if any, shall be submitted with the application. A fee shall be charged for
the application as established by resolution of the city council.
Page 6
13
Attachment A
c. The director shall, by written notice, notify property owners within a five -hundred -foot
radius of the subject property and the affected homeowners' association, if any, of the
application and inform them that any objections to the proposed construction must be
submitted to the director within thirty calendar days of the date of the notice.
d. The applicant shall construct on the site at the applicant's expense, as a visual aid, a
temporary frame of the proposed structure.
e. A height variation application to build a new structure or an addition to an existing
structure, either of which exceeds sixteen feet in height up to the maximum height
permitted in subsection (13)(1) of this section, may be granted with or without conditions
if the following findings can be made:
i. The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process
established by the city;
ii. The proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an
existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height does not significantly impair
a view from public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or
equestrian trails) which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal
specific plan, as city -designated viewing areas;
iii. The proposed new structure is not located on a ridge or a promontory;
iv. The area of a proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition
to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height, as defined in subsection
B of this section, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not
significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. If the viewing
area is located in a structure, the viewing area shall be located in a portion of a
structure which was constructed without a height variation permit or variance, or
which would not have required a height variation or variance when originally
constructed had this section, as approved by the voters on November 7, 1989,
been in effect at the time the structure was constructed, unless the viewing area
located in the portion of the existing structure which required a height variation
permit or variance constitutes the primary living area (living room, family room,
dining room or kitchen) of the residence;
V. If view impairment exists from the viewing area of another parcel but it is
determined not to be significant, as described in subsection (C)(1)(e)(vi) of this
section, the proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition
to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height is designed and situated
in such a manner as to reasonably minimize the impairment of a view;
vi. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the
application. Cumulative view impairment shall be determined by: (a) considering
the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the proposed new
structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to a structure that is above
sixteen feet in height; and (b) considering the amount of view impairment that
would be caused by the construction on other parcels of similar new structures or
additions that exceed sixteen feet in height;
vii. The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements;
viii. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character;
ix. The proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an
existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height does not result in an
unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences.
Written notice of the director's or planning commission's decision shall be sent to the
applicant, his/her representative and to all parties who responded to the original notice.
Page 7
14
Attachment A
g. The decision of the director may be appealed to the planning commission by the
applicant or any person who responded in writing to the director prior to the director's
decision; provided, the appeal is filed in writing within fifteen calendar days after the
date of the director's decision. The appellant shall pay an appeal fee as established by
resolution of the city council.
h. Notice of the public hearing for an initial determination of a height variation application
by the planning commission or an appeal to the planning commission and/or city council
shall be mailed thirty calendar days prior to the hearing, to property owners within five
hundred feet of the applicant's property, as well as any additional property owners
previously determined by the city to be affected by the proposal.
I. In hearing an appeal of the director's decision, the planning commission shall grant the
application and cause a permit to be issued, only if it finds that all of the requirements
of subsection (C)(1)(e) of this section have been met.
j. A decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council by the
applicant or any person who commented orally or in writing to the planning commission;
provided, the appeal is filed in writing within fifteen calendar days after the date of the
planning commission's decision. The appellant shall pay an appeal fee as established
by resolution of the city council. In order to grant a permit, the city council must
determine that all of the requirements listed in subsection (C)(1)(e) of this section have
been met.
2. Restoration of Views Where Foliage is a Factor.
a. Any resident owning a residential structure with a view may file an application with the
city for a view restoration permit. The applicant shall file with the application proof that
the applicant consulted, or attempted to consult, with the property owner whose foliage
is in question. The applicant shall pay a fee for the view restoration permit as
established by resolution of the city council.
b. The application shall be submitted to the view restoration commission. Written notice of
the time and place for the hearing on the application shall be sent to the applicant and
the property owner(s) of the foliage involved at least thirty calendar days prior to the
meeting of the commission. Commission members shall inspect the site prior to the
public hearing. Only view restoration commission members who make a site inspection
may participate in the public hearing.
c. In order for a view restoration notice to be issued, the commission must find:
i. The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process and has
shown proof of cooperation on his/her part to resolve conflicts;
ii. Foliage exceeding sixteen feet or the ridge line of the primary structure, whichever
is lower, significantly impairs a view from the applicant's viewing area, whether
such foliage is located totally on one property, or when combined with foliage
located on more than one property;
iii. The foliage to be removed is located on property, any part of which is less than
one thousand feet from the applicant's property line(s);
iv. The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist, as view impairing
vegetation, when the lot from which the view is taken was created;
v. Removal or trimming of the foliage will not cause an unreasonable infringement of
the privacy of the occupants of the property upon which the foliage is located;
vi. For property located within the boundaries of the Miraleste recreation and park
district, the commission shall also find the removal or trimming of the foliage strikes
a reasonable balance between meeting the purposes of this section, as set forth
in the ordinance approved by the voters on November 7, 1989, and preserving the
Page 8
15
Attachment A
historical developments of the Miraleste recreation and park district area with a
large number of trees.
Should the commission make findings requiring issuance of a view restoration permit,
the director shall send a notice to the property owner to trim, cull, lace or otherwise
cause the foliage to be reduced to sixteen feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure,
whichever is lower, or such limit above that height which will restore the view. The
property owner will have ninety calendar days to have the foliage removed. The
applicant shall be responsible for the expense of the foliage removal and/or
replacement ordered pursuant to this subsection only to the extent of the lowest bid
amount provided by contractors licensed to do such work in the city of Rancho Palos
Verdes and selected by the applicant. After the initial trimming, culling, lacing or removal
of the foliage, the owner, at the owner's expense, shall be responsible for maintaining
the foliage so that the view restoration required by the view restoration permit is
maintained.
e. To the extent legally permissible, trees or foliage on property owned by any
governmental entity, except the city and the Miraleste recreation and park district, shall
be subject to view restoration control, as per the provisions of this section; except, that
the foliage shall be trimmed or removed thirty calendar days following issuance of the
notice. Trees and/or foliage located on city property, or in the public right-of-way, as
defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), shall be subject to view restoration control, as
per the provisions of this section, pursuant to the city tree review permit procedure
contained in Section 17.76. 100 (City tree review permit.)
f. The view restoration commission may impose such reasonable conditions or
restrictions on the approval of a view restoration permit as may be found to be
appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare or the foliage
owner's reasonable enjoyment of his or her property. Such conditions or restrictions
may include, but are not limited to: (1) requiring the complete removal of the subject
foliage when the commission finds that the trimming, culling, lacing or reducing of that
foliage to sixteen feet or the ridge line is likely to kill the foliage, threaten the public
health, safety and welfare, or will destroy the aesthetic value of the foliage that is to be
pruned or reduced in height, provided that the property owner consents to the removal;
and (2) requiring replacement of such foliage when the commission finds that removal
without replacement will cause a significant adverse impact on: (a) the public health,
safety and welfare, (b) the privacy of the property owner, (c) shade provided to the
dwelling or the property, (d) the energy -efficiency of the dwelling, (e) the health or
viability of the remaining landscaping, or (f) the integrity of the landscape plan, provided
that the property owner consents to the replacement.
g. The applicant, the owner of the property where the foliage is located, or any other
interested person may appeal the decision of the view restoration commission to the
city council by filing with the city clerk a written notice of appeal, including the grounds
for the appeal, and any specific action being requested by the appellant, together with
the appeal fee established by resolution of the city council, within fifteen calendar days
after the view restoration commission adopts the resolution setting forth its decision.
The decision of the view restoration commission is final if no appeal is filed within fifteen
calendar days. If such an appeal is timely and properly filed, a copy of the findings of
the view restoration commission and all materials on file with the director shall be
transmitted to the city council, which shall be part of the appeal hearing record, together
with the notice of appeal and any other written materials submitted by interested parties.
Additional written materials shall be submitted to the city clerk at least seven calendar
days prior to the date that the appeal will be heard by the city council.
Upon receiving the notice of appeal, the city clerk shall schedule the matter for review
at a forthcoming meeting of the city council. At the city council meeting, oral testimony shall
be limited to five minutes in length for each of the parties whose properties are affected by
Page 9
16
Attachment A
the decision and two minutes per person for other individuals. Oral testimony shall be limited
to the issues raised in the written appeal. At the conclusion of the oral presentation, the city
council may do one of the following:
i. Affirm the decision of the view restoration commission and approve the application
upon finding that all applicable findings have been correctly made and all
provisions of subsection (C)(2) of this section are complied with;
ii. Approve the application but impose additional or different conditions as the city
council deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of subsection (C)(2) of this section;
iii. Disapprove the application upon finding that all applicable findings cannot be made
or all provisions of subsection (C)(2) of this section have not been complied with;
or
iv. Refer the matter back to the view restoration commission to conduct further
proceedings. The remanded proceedings may include the presentation of
significant new evidence which was raised in conjunction with the appeal. The city
council shall state the ground(s) for the remand and shall give instructions to the
view restoration commission concerning any error found by the city council in the
commission's prior determination.
h. If, after ninety calendar days, the foliage has not been removed or trimmed in
accordance with the requirements of a view restoration or view preservation permit, the
city of Rancho Palos Verdes will authorize a bonded tree service to trim, cull, lace or
remove the identified foliage at the owner's expense. In the event that the city is required
to perform the work, the foliage owner will be billed for all city expenses incurred in
enforcing the view restoration or preservation permit (including reasonable attorney's
fees). If the property owner does not pay the city for the amount set forth on the invoice,
the city may record a lien or assessment against the foliage owner's property, pursuant
to Chapter 8.24 of this Code.
(Ord. ,181 �j 1{1, 2008 ()rd 142 1, 20061 Qfd. 405 §§ ;r _.q, 2004, Ord, 4001,1 7--91, 004; C)rd.
89 ` £ 200', t:)rv' 386 200"3; Ord. 3,_15 § 8: 20(}t}; Ord. '40 § 8 (pelt). ;0198, Ord '29U 1
..)f'r:1 :J 3 8,997: 0T -c1, 298 § i s 10 9 4 0r,i. 26' § ?, 3 1 91 i i op c) aitio`1 Iv!, p? tSa; C#
crn1,er 71 19 895, 0 do '104 § 5 (part), 1985 Card, ;14 1. 19 9J 0 r U0 1977:0rd_ 18 (pa
TABLE 02-A: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
For exceptions and explanatory descriptions of these standards and for other development standards
that apply to single-family residential areas, see Articles VI and VII of this title. The number which follows
an "RS-" designation indicates the maximum number of lots per acre permitted in the zone; the "RS -A"
number indicates the minimum number of acres per lot permitted.
i . MINIMUM SETBACKS MAXIM s
MAXI
3, 6 FOR I nTS CRFATFD ' UM PARKING;
DISTR LOT MINIMUM SETBACKS3•6
ICT DIMENSIONSI1 FOR CITY CREATED LOTS
I MUM
PRIOR TO LOT 1
I HEIGH
INCORPORATION/ANN ! COVER i T3,4,7
EXATION E AGE"
REQUIRE
MENTS
Page 10
m
Attachment A
16
16
16
16
16
16
less than
5,000 s.f.
of
habitable
space = 2
enclosed
garage
spaces
5,000 s.f.
or more
of
habitable
space = 3
4 enclosed
garage
j
spaces
1. For an existing lot which does not meet these standards, see Chapter 17.84 (Nonconformities).
2. Lots of record, existing as of November 25, 1975 (adoption of this Code), orwithin Eastview and existing
as of January 5, 1983 (annexation), shall use these development standards for minimum setbacks.
Page 11
im
INTERI
STR
INTER i
STR E
ARE r
WID
DEP ,
FRO
RE
FRO
RE
OR
EET ;
IOR ;
EET
A
TH
TH
NT
1 AR
NT
AR
SIDE
SIDE
SIDE i
SIDE
TTL
!BO'O
j
NE;
}TH
jSt
}
SID
,
i ,DE:
ES
i
#
5
RS-A-
200
300
20 j 30 10
20 ; 20
20
5
10
1acre 15 j
6%
5
s
;
1
RS -1
100
150
20 Z5 10
20 ', 20
20
"s 5
10
i 15
25°10
acre
t 20,0
I
RS -2
00
90
120
20 20 10
20 > 20
20
5
10
i 15
40%
S.T.
{
13,0
RS -3
00 .i
80
110 3
20 20 i 10
20 15 !
20
5
10
' 15 E
45%
s.f.
10,0
RS -4
00
75
100
20 20 `: 10
20 115
20
5
10
; 15 i
50%
sf. f
8,00
f
RS -5
0
65
100
20 ` 20 10 '
20 15
20
S
10
{ 15
52%
s.f.
16
16
16
16
16
16
less than
5,000 s.f.
of
habitable
space = 2
enclosed
garage
spaces
5,000 s.f.
or more
of
habitable
space = 3
4 enclosed
garage
j
spaces
1. For an existing lot which does not meet these standards, see Chapter 17.84 (Nonconformities).
2. Lots of record, existing as of November 25, 1975 (adoption of this Code), orwithin Eastview and existing
as of January 5, 1983 (annexation), shall use these development standards for minimum setbacks.
Page 11
im
Attachment A
3. For description, clarification and exceptions, see Chapter 17.48 (Lots, Setbacks, Open Space Area and
Building Height).
4. For a description of height measurement methods and the height variation process, see Section
17.02.040 of this chapter. A height variation application shall be referred directly to the planning commission
for consideration, if any of the following is proposed:
A. Any portion of a structure which exceeds sixteen feet in height extends closer than twenty-five feet
from the front or street -side property line.
B. The area of the structure which exceeds sixteen feet in height (second story footprint) exceeds
seventy-five percent of the existing first story footprint area (residence and garage);
C. Sixty percent or more of an existing garage footprint is covered by a structure which exceeds sixteen
feet in height (a second story).
D. The portion of a structure that exceeds sixteen feet in height is being developed as part of a new
single-family residence; or
E. Based on an initial site visit, the director determines that any portion of a structure which is proposed
to exceed sixteen feet in height may significantly impair a view as defined in this chapter.
5. For parking development standards, see Section 17.02.030(8) of this chapter.
6. A garage with direct access driveway from the street of access shall not be less than twenty feet from
the front or street -side property line, whichever is the street of access.
7. Exterior stairs to an upper story are prohibited, unless leading to and/or connected to a common hallway,
deck or entry rather than a specific room.
8. For purposes of calculating lot coverage, a private street easement shall not be considered a part of
the lot area and the improved area of a private street easement shall not be counted as lot coverage.
Page 12
KILVA
Attachment B
RESOLUTION NO. 89--U9
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING
REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE RANCHO PALOS
VERDES COUNCIL OF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS
AND CITY COUNCIL COOPERATIVE VIEW
PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION ORDINANCE BY
AMENDING THE POLICY FOR STREET TREE
PRUNING AND REMOVAL.
WHEREAS, on November 7, 1989, the People of the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved the "Rancho Palos Verdes
Council of Homeowners Associations and City Council
Cooperative View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance"
("Proposition M") with an effective date of November 17,
1989; and,
WHEREAS, Section 5 of Proposition M empowers the
City Council to adopt procedures and rules or regulations
which may be necessary for its implementation; and,
WHEREAS, Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code section
17.02.040 C.2.(e) as set forth in Section 2 of Proposition M
provides that, to the extent legally permissible, trees or
foliage on property owned by the City or any other
governmental entity, except the Miraleste Recreation & Park
District, shall be subject to view restoration control by way
of trimming or removal pursuant to the terms of a view
restoration notice and permit; and,
WHEREAS, Proposition M further requires a view
restoration permit applicant to file with the application
proof that he or she has consulted, or attempted to consult,
the property owner whose foliage is in question; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is
AM desirable to assist applicants for view restoration permits
which involve foliage in a City easement or on City property
("City trees") by requiring the City to take action in
response to early neighborhood consultation efforts by the
applicant; and
WHEREAS, it is the City Council's intent to
minimize the expense and burden upon the public which would
be caused by unnecessary view restoration permit applications
by attempting to satisfy City tree view restoration requests
at the early neighborhood consultation stage; and
20
Attachment B
WHEREAS, on November 1, 1988, the City Council
adopted a policy permitting applications to the City for the
removal of view -impairing City street trees, entitled a
"Policy for Street Tree Pruning and Removal to Protect Views
in Areas of the City not subject to the Palos Verdes Homes
Association Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions" ("Street
Tree Policy"); and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is
necessary and desirable to amend the Street Tree Policy in
order to assure consistency with Proposition M, in order to
re-enact the Street Tree Policy as a city-wide supplemental
regulation necessary for the implementation of Proposition M,
and in order to implement the Council's determination that
the City should take action as to City trees in response to
early neighborhood consultation efforts by view restoration
permit applicants;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Street Tree Policy, as amended and
set forth in this Resolution, is both necessary to the
implementation of, and consistent with, Proposition M.
section 2. These regulations are intended to
supplement the provisions of Proposition M, and they shall be
interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with
Proposition M.
Section 3. The following regulations are hereby
adopted as set forth in the paragraphs below:
1. Any person (hereafter the "Applicant")
desiring the City to remove or trim trees or foliage located
in a City easement or on City property (hereafter "tree(s)")
to protect or restore a view in accordance with Municipal
Code section 17.02.040 C.2. shall first file an application
pursuant to these regulations with the Environmental Services
Department. Such application shall, with respect to the
City, initiate consultation and early neighborhood
consultation within the meaning of Municipal Code sections
17.02.040 C.1.(a), C.1.(d)(1), C.2.(a) and C.2.(c)(1). No
person may file a view restoration permit application
pursuant to Municipal Code section 17.02.040 C.2.(a) with
respect to City trees except upon completion of the process
set forth in these regulations and as specified below in
paragraph 8;
-2- RESOL. 89-119
21
Attachment B
2. The Director or the Director's designee
(hereafter "Director") will conduct an investigation of the
Applicant's property to determine whether the tree(s) is(are)
impairing a view from any portion of the Applicant's property
other than within the required setbacks. If the Director
determines that a view, as defined in Municipal Code section
17.02.040 A.15., exists and the tree(s) is(are) impairing
that view, the Director shall determine whether the tree(s)
must be removed to restore the view or whether trimming will
be sufficient to restore the view. For property located
within the boundaries of the Miraleste Recreation & Park
District, in reaching his or her determination the Director
shall strike a reasonable balance between meeting the
purposes of Municipal Code section 17.02.040 set forth in
Section 1 of the Ordinance approved by the voters on November
7, 1989, and preserving the historical development of the
Miraleste Recreation & Park District with large numbers of
trees;
3. If the Director determines a defined view
exists and the tree(s) impairs that view, and if the
Applicant provides his or her written agreement that the
proposed trimming or removal is acceptable in lieu of a view
restoration notice or permit, the Director shall send a
Notice of Intention to remove or trim the tree(s) to the
owners of the property adjacent to the tree(s). The Notice
shall specify that the Director will cause the tree(s) to be
removed or trimmed, as the case may be, within thirty (30)
days;
4. The Notice from the Director shall also inform
the owners of the property adjacent to the tree(s) a) that
the owners may request that a new tree(s) be replanted, and
b) which varieties of tree(s) are acceptable for replanting.
No tree(s) will be replanted unless the owners adjacent to
the tree(s) makes such a request. The list of acceptable
trees will be as designated for the area to assure that the
future tree(s) will not impair the view. The owners of the
property adjacent to the tree(s) will be permitted to select
the tree(s) to be replanted from the approved list. A
maximum of two (2) trees per lot frontage, or a maximum of
three (3) trees on a corner lot, shall be allowed;
Ask 5. The Applicant shall pay all costs of trimming
or removal and replacement of the tree(s);
6. The Applicant must file with the City a
covenant to run with the land providing that the Applicant
will trim and remove foliage on the Applicant's property in
order to protect the views of other persons in a manner
consistent with the provisions of section 17.02.040. The
covenant shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney.
-3- RESOL. 89-119
22
Attachment B
No application will be processed without the filing of the
required covenant. The covenant will be returned to the
Applicant if the Director renders a decision that the tree(s)
will not be removed or trimmed. The covenant will be
accepted and recorded if the Director renders a decision that
the tree(s) will be removed or trimmed; and,
7. If the Director renders a decision that the
tree(s) will be removed or trimmed, the City shall enter into
an agreement with the Applicant binding the City to maintain
the tree(s) which have been removed or trimmed so as to
prevent future view impairment by such tree(s). The
agreement will require the City to undertake such maintenance
on at least an annual basis. The City Attorney shall prepare
a standard form agreement for use by the City and Applicant.
8. If the Director renders a decision that the
tree(s) will not be trimmed or removed, or if the Applicant
does not agree that the proposed trimming or removal is
acceptable in lieu of a view restoration notice or permit,
the Applicant will, for the purposes of Municipal Code
section 17.02.040 C.2.(a) and C.2.(c)(1), be deemed to have
complied with the early neighborhood consultation process and
to have shown proof of cooperation on his/her part to resolve
conflicts. The Applicant may thereafter seek a view
restoration permit pursuant to Municipal Code section
17.02.040 C.2. upon payment of the required application fee.
Section 4. The City Clerk is directed to prepare a
system for the filing and codification of procedures and
rules or regulations adopted pursuant to the authority
granted under Proposition M. The City Clerk is further
authorized and directed to maintain a legislative history of
the City Council's actions adopting or rejecting procedures
and rules or regulations. The City Clerk is authorized to
number, renumber, arrange or index the procedures and rules
or regulations adopted pursuant to the authority granted
under Proposition M in any manner deemed necessary for the
convenient maintenance of such matters.
Section 5. The City Council expressly disclaims any
intention to create, and no person shall acquire, any
property right or interest through the adoption, enforcement,
amendment, or repeal of these regulations.
-4W RESOL. 89-119
23
Attachment B
ayor
ATTEST:
City Cler
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City Council of the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above
Resolution No. 89 -LU was duly and regularly passed and
adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof
held on the 19th day of December, 1989.
CITY CLERK
CITY RANCHO PALOS VERDES
-5-
RESOL. 89-119
24
Attachment C
17.76.100 - City tree review permit.
A. Purpose. This chapter provides a procedure for the pruning and/or removal of trees and/or foliage
which are located on city property, a city easement or within the public right-of-way in order to protect
the public health, safety and welfare by preventing the needless impairment of views from vista points
and view lots.
B. Approval Required. A city tree review permit is required prior to the pruning and/or removal of any tree
and/or foliage, located on city property, a city easement or within the public right-of-way, for the
purposes of view restoration.
C. Exemption. Trees and/or foliage located within the boundaries of the Miraleste Recreation and Park
District shall not be subject to the provisions of this section.
D. City Tree Review Permit Application. Any person owning land in the city may file an application for a
city tree review permit. An application for a city tree review permit shall be made to the director on
forms provided by the city, and shall include the following items:
1. A completed application form signed by the property owner of the property where the view is
impaired; and
2, A plan or map, drawn to the satisfaction of the director, which clearly shows the location of each
tree and/or foliage located on city property, a city easement, or within the public right-of-way that
is impairing the view of the applicant; and
3. A current photograph of the alleged view impairment taken from the applicant's viewing area; and
4. An application fee, as established by city council resolution.
E. Review Criteria. The director or the director's designee shall either grant, or conditionally grant the city
tree review permit if, after conducting an investigation of the applicant's property, it is determined that
trees and/or foliage located on city property, a city easement or in the public right-of-way are
significantly impairing a view from a viewing area of the applicant's lot, as defined in Section 17.02.040
(View Preservation and Restoration) of this title.
F. Conditions of Permit Issuance. In granting any approval under this section, the director may impose
such conditions thereon as may be reasonably necessary to prevent danger to public or private
property; to prevent the tree removal or pruning from being conducted in a manner that is likely to
create a nuisance; or to preserve the intent of any goal or policy of the general plan. No person shall
violate any conditions so imposed by the director. Such conditions may include, but shall not be limited
to, the following:
For a city tree and/or foliage that is located within the parkway and roadway median, or within any
other city property or city easement (except city parks):
a. A view -impairing tree and/or foliage shall be removed and replaced with a similar 24 -inch
box size tree by the city. The city shall pay for all costs of tree and/or foliage removal and
replacement. Trees and/or foliage that are removed shall not be replaced if the following
conditions exist:
i. The replacement tree or foliage will immediately cause a significant impairment of the
view from the applicant's viewing area;
ii. The director of public works determines a replacement tree would cause damage to the
improvements in the public right-of-way (street, curb, sidewalk, etc.) or obscure traffic
visibility or create an impediment to pedestrian access within the public right-of-way;
b. The city shall make the final determination as to the type and number of replacement trees
and/or foliage, if any.
C. If a person who has received notification of the director's decision files a written request to
not remove the tree or foliage (within seven days of the notification), then the tree and/or
foliage may be pruned instead of removed, provided the following conditions can be met:
25
Attachment C
The director determines that the pruning of the subject tree and/or foliage will eliminate
the significant impairment of the applicant's view;
The director determines that the pruning of the subject tree and/or foliage will not result
in an unsightly tree and/or likely kill or weaken the tree;
iii. The director of public works determines that the tree and/or foliage has not, and will not,
cause damage to improvements in the public right-of-way (street, curb, sidewalk, etc.);
iv. Upon receipt of the written agreement of the owner(s) of the property directly abutting
or underlying the public right-of-way or parkway where the tree and/or foliage is located,
the city and any of the parties who were notified pursuant to subsection (G)(1) enter
into an agreement that is recorded on the title of the agreeing party's property, binding
that property owner and any future owners of that property to maintain the trees and/or
foliage so as to prevent future significant view impairment by such tree and/or foliage.
The agreement between the city and the property owner shall specify the maximum
time interval, as determined to be appropriate by the director, within which the property
owner shall undertake and pay for such maintenance;
v. Should the property owner, who has entered into an agreement with the city to maintain
a city tree or foliage, within 30 days of receiving a notice from the city requesting
maintenance, fail to adhere to the maintenance provisions of the agreement, then the
city shall terminate the agreement and shall remove the subject tree(s)/foliage at the
city's expense.
2. For trees and/or foliage located within a city park:
a. If the city determines that the tree and/or foliage needs to be removed in order to restore the
applicant's view, the city shall determine whether the tree and/or foliage shall be replaced,
and shall make the final determination as to the type and number of replacement trees and/or
foliage.
b. If the city determines that the tree and/or foliage can be pruned to restore the applicant's
view without damaging or killing the tree or foliage, the City shall maintain the tree and/or
foliage so as to prevent future view impairment by the tree and/or foliage.
c. The city shall pay for all costs of tree and/or foliage pruning, removal and/or replacement.
The city shall make the final determination as to the type and number of replacement trees
and/or foliage. Whenever work is to be performed, it shall be performed by the city.
G. Notification. When the director makes a determination regarding a city tree review permit, written notice
of the decision shall be given as follows:
1. When the foliage is located on a city street or easement, a notice of the determination to grant
the application shall be sent to the applicant(s), the appropriate homeowners association, and the
20 closest adjacent properties within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, including the owner(s) of
the property directly abutting or underlying the public right-of-way where the subject tree(s) and/or
foliage are located. Adjacent properties shall include the 20 closest lots within the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes, which are on the same street, directly abutting and adjacent to the property where
the tree and/or foliage are located. Notice of denial shall be given only to the applicant.
2. When the foliage is located in a city park, notice of the director's decision shall be given only to
the applicant.
3. Notice of the permit determination to grant the application shall be posted by city staff on a
conspicuous location on each tree that is the subject of an application decision. For trees located
on city property, notice of the determination shall not be posted on any tree where the director
determines that access to said tree is too difficult or hazardous to post the notice.
H. Appeals. Any interested person receiving notice of the director's decision may appeal the decision to
the planning commission, in writing, within 15 calendar days of the director's decision. Pursuant to
Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(g) of the municipal code, the decision of the planning commission on such an
wo
Attachment
appeal may be appealed to the city council, Any appeal must be accompanied by payment of the
appropriate appeal feo, as established by city council resolution. No city tree review permit shall be
effective until all applicable appeal periods have been exhausted.
K}niNo547.�5.�01i0)
Attachment D
AA
- w w -
V A, f" NOVEMBER
.,w -,
SUBJECT: VIEW RESTORATION COMPLIANCE
SALE AND r •
Agendize View Ordinance and Tree Removal concerns pursuant to the two submittals
from residents Clara Duran Reed and Ann Marinovich.
r
Rancho Palos Verdes has one of the state's best tested methods of view preservation
with the existence of our 25 yr. old View Ordinance. Currently, all homes with
significant additions or remodels must fall into compliance with the existing View
Ordinance with regard to trees or other obstructions. There is loophole with regard to
the Ordinance which involves the biggest changeover possible-- the sale of a home.
There also exists, implementation concerns concerning definition and enforcement
within these confines. Disparities are significant enough to warrant Council oversight.
Under the current code, homeowners can sell a home with significant view obstructions
for neighboring homeowners, while the offending house might just have an
unobstructed view for its own inhabitants. This places the onus on an existing neighbor
to pay for the costs for either tree removal or lacing, a $5,000 application, or city -paid
mediation, while the seller just passes off the problem to the new owner. If our goal is
to eventually bring all homes into compliance so each homeowner has the opportunity
to enjoy their justified view, we can accomplish this within a few years and save the city
money at the same time.
Requiring the selling home to comply with the view ordinance would facilitate a logical
answer to this ongoing concern. It is not much different than the existing requirement of
coming into compliance before a permit is issued. Thus, the View Ordinance could be
a part of the Escrow, just as a termite inspection.
W
Attachment D
View Restoration Compliance at the Time of Sale and Other Considerations
November 19, 2013
Page 2of2
There is a more disturbing trend to assess with regard to views. The View Ordinance,
The General Plan, City Code, Planning Commission and Planning Department
regulations are the subjects of ongoing questions and concerns regarding
inconsistency, compatability and compliance. Existing problems with Tree Removal and
trimming continue. 1 believe we need to examine these problems and address them
with a unified hand—that of City Council approval.
Attached to this memo are two distinct requests from valuable members of our
community: Clara Duran -Reed (former Planning Commissioner, attorney and Realtor)
and Ann Marinovich (Community leader and County professional). I submit these to
assist Council and staff with pertinent information regarding the aforementioned
concerns, and look forward to addressing these issues at a future Council meeting. I
understand this is no small task, but it is very important that we pay attention to the
needs expressed by our community.
C
Attachment D
The City's General Plan recognizes the scenic value of potential vista points and view
lots and calls for their protection. The purpose of the Rancho Palos Verdes View
Preservation and Restoration Ordinance which was passed by voters in 1989 is to
"protect[], enhance[] and perpetuate []views available to property owners and visitors
because of the unique topographical features of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. These
views provide unique and irreplaceable assets to the City and its neighboring
communities ..." The Ordinance purpose is also to "define[] and protect[] finite visual
resources by establishing limits which construction and plant growth can attain before
encroaching onto a view." It "requires the pruning of dense foliage or tree growth which
alone, or in conjunction with construction, exceeds defined limits." (Emphasis added).
Almost a quarter of a century has passed since the adoption of the Ordinance. And with
each passing year the Peninsula's vistas are decreasing and the purpose of both the
General Plan and Ordinance is being defeated. Lack of a view can decrease the value
of a home by at least $50,000 to $100,000 or more. Some homeowners treasure their
scenic views but have no problem in blocking their neighbors' views.
Fortunately, with some adjustments to the code, the scenic views can gradually and
consistently be restored. An added benefit is that home values will be increased, thus
generating more funds to the city through taxes and making this City even more prized.
The modifications included here support the purpose of the General Plan and the
Ordinance. The modifications will provide incentives for homeowners to maintain and
protect the scenic value of vista points and view lots, all while decreasing costs and time
unnecessarily spent by city staff and homeowners.
-1-
Attachment D
4 • - • UIRMPIr;
In general, the code provides that "No person shall significantly impair a view from a
viewing area of a lot by permitting foliage to grow to a height exceeding:
a. [The height permitted pursuant to a view restoration commission/permit]
b. If no view restoration permit has been issued by the view restoration
commission, a height which is the lesser of:
i. The ridge line of the primary structure on the property; or
ii. Sixteen feet."
We need only look around to see that trees are overgrown, are currently
blocking views, and pitting neighbor against neighbor. When homeowners move, they
should leave a view behind.
The current code seeks to protect both near and far views. Under the code, the
property owner with foliage that significantly impairs a neighbor's view has no financial
or other incentive to bring it to code. He can sit back knowing that the homeowner with
the significantly impaired view must pay all fees and costs to restore or preserve their
view. The foliage owner pays nothing. Most of the Peninsula population is made up of
seniors who originally moved here in the 1960s. These seniors generally don't have the
strength or sometimes the ability to seek to restore or preserve their view. They should
not be punished by view obstructing neighbors who are just stubborn or who have a
sense of entitlement as to maintaining their own view but destroying their neighbors'
view. View obstructing foliage owners need an incentive to comply with the Ordinance in
maintaining views.
C. Costs to Preserve/Restore Views under the Code
As Implemented Are Very High
Currently, the Application to restore or preserve a view is over $5,000 (five thousand
dollars), payable by — not the person causing the view obstruction — but by the
applicant — the person whose view is obstructed. The applicant must also pay for all
fees and costs to trim, remove, and replant foliage as necessary for his neighbor's
obstructing foliage. There is little fairness in making the injured party pay all the costs
-2-
31
Attachment D
and fees of the person causing the obstruction and instead allowing the view blocking
owner to ignore the Ordinance.
It has been stated that this is only a one time fee for the injured homeowner (applicant)
and that the majority of the time, the applicant never has to pay for the Application
because the city mediates the view obstruction with "neither party getting everything
they want." The reality is that this may not be a one time fee because the obstructing
foliage owner can replant obstructing foliage — foliage which is not included in the
Application and not included in any agreement mediated by the city. And so, the foliage
grows and the process and Application start all over again.
The city states that the cost to process an Application is more than twice the cost of the
application. Thus, right now, it is costing the city over $10,000 (ten thousand
dollars) to process an Application. This is a loss to the city of about $5,000 (five
thousand dollars). It may not be commonplace, but each $5,000 loss is too much for
the city to lose.
According to the Planning Department, the rate of success in mediation is about 90% or
so. However, the mediation still requires payment to staff and the mediators and does
not have any way for the parties to enforce the voluntary agreement. Nor do the
mediated agreements take into account future planted or growing foliage that can
significantly impair views. By enforcing the Ordinance with less staff time, the city will
experience increased savings.
D. Removal of Foliage as a Condition of Permit Issuance
Is Not Enforced as Titled
Subsection 4 of the Code is entitled "Removal of Foliage as Condition of Permit
Issuance." However, this is not what the code provides. Removal of view blocking
foliage is only required to be removed under very narrow circumstances.
Specifically, foliage is to be removed when only the following is sought: a conditional
use permit, variance, height variation, building permit or other entitlement to construct a
structure, or to add livable area to a structure on a parcel utilized for residential
purposes. Nothing else.
Thus, a homeowner can gut a large part of his home, extensively remodel, obtain
permits for new windows, plumbing, electrical and the like, significantly improve and
increase the value of his home and never trigger the requirements to remove view
blocking foliage. While the foliage owners improves and increases the value of his
-3-
32
Attachment D
home, his neighbor's view obstructed home value remains reduced, thus directly
contradicting both the General Plan and the purpose of the Ordinance.
The purpose of the Ordinance is to establish "limits which construction and plant growth
can attain before encroaching onto a view." (Emphasis added). The ordinance must
address foliage before it blocks a view. Now, after either a decision on the View
Restoration/Preservation Application or through mediation, or even when a specific
building permit above is issued, the foliage owner is free to replant tall foliage and again
block his owner's view, thus restarting the Application process all over again at the
injured homeowner's expense. [In one current example, a homeowner sought a
building permit, removed 1 (one) view blocking tree and then replanted 58 tall trees
directly in front of his neighbor's ocean view. In a year or so, the "protected" view will
again be impaired and the injured homeowner will need to bear the costs of an
Application and removal of the foliage].
Repeated and non -fully inclusive decisions which do not address future view blocking
foliage by the view blocking property is a tremendous waste of time for the city (more
Application processing, inspections, more mediations, staff time, time spent by the
Planning Commission, and potential appeals to the City Council). It is also more wasted
time to the parties, and more fees and costs for the injured, view blocked homeowner
since he has to again pay for an Application and the removal of the foliage.
Although one specifically stated purpose of the ordinance is to address foliage before it
blocks a view, the Code does not fully address this discrepancy, and should therefore,
be modified.
Ill. Now to Strengthen, and Attain Consistency and
Accuracy Throughout the Code
A. Point of Sale and Certificate of Compliance
Provide Consistent Enforcement of the View Ordinance
California law requires homes to meet certain standards prior to the sale of the property,
For example, water heaters must be inspected and comply with the code, same with
IMM
33
Attachment D
smoke detectors. Certain cities have other requirements such as requiring low flow
toilets, safety glass in bathrooms and kitchens, CO2 sensors, etc. All of these
properties must pass inspection prior to sale. The latter inspections require a certificate
of compliance. Palos Verdes Estates, the beach cities, San Pedro, Lawndale, Harbor
City and surrounding cities all have these requirements. This is nothing new and the
same can be done in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Homeowners can be required to obtain a Certificate of Compliance from the City when
selling or transferring their property (these are distinguishable). The Certificate would
assure that their foliage meets the View Ordinance of not significantly blocking the view
of another property. The Certificate can be valid for six months and renewable for
another 3 months. Thus, if a homeowner is considering selling, this would be
something they can take care of at the same time as their upgrading, staging, painting,
etc. prior to the sale. This is not much different than the current code which requires
foliage compliance upon the issuances of certain permits. In both cases, the
homeowners are motivated and can handle the tree issues rather quickly.
Currently, having a homeowner trim/cut their foliage prior to having the city issue them a
permit is a very simple matter. The city, as part of their conditions of approval, inspects
the foliage and makes a determination. Unfortunately, nearby homeowners are not
currently advised that a view determination is taking place. Nonetheless, those
homeowners who are aware of the code requirements can ask the city to inspect their
blocked view. If the city determines that the view is significantly blocked, it adds the
trimming/cutting of the foliage as a condition to issuance of a permit. The homeowner
trims/removes their foliage. The homeowner with the obstructed view is contacted
(typically by phone or email) and asked if the trimming/removal has alleviated the view
obstruction. If so, the permit is issued.
It would be interesting to know how many people, if any, in the last five years, who had
to trim/remove foliage as a condition to the issuance of a permit as indicated above,
appealed the director's decision.
In the past five years, over 1,650 single family residences have been sold in Rancho
Palos Verdes. In the last 12 months, about 433 single family homes have been sold. If
only 20% of the homes had view issues, with a Certificate of Compliance with the
ordinance at the Point of Sale, within the last five years 320 homes would have
restored views. And in the last year over 86 homes would have restored views. This
translates to a tremendous savings of time and effort by the city and homeowners as
well as a consistent way of maintaining the increasingly limited vista points and view
lots.
-5-
E
Attachment D
* Seller decides to sell or otherwise transfer property
* City -inspector/ View Staff is called by escrow, agent, or homeowner, to inspect the
property and determine if trees and shrubs are in compliance with the View Ordinance.
Seller is notified of the city's decision and is given a list of foliage to be trimmed or
removal of foliage. Seller trims or removes the trees to bring property into compliance.
A Certificate of Compliance is issued with a condition that the owner of the property
must maintain all trees and shrubs on the property so as to not impair views of
neighboring properties. This accomplishes the intent of the current View Ordinance to
establish "limits which ... plant growth can attain before encroaching onto a view."
The requirement to maintain all foliage (which is already in the code) is now active,
instead of passive and dormant.
Cost to the seller
As with all improvements made by sellers, Buyers and Sellers can negotiate the cost of
the foliage removal. Otherwise, just like with any other upgrade to the home (painting,
upgrading, etc.), the price of foliage removal can be added to the sales price of the
property.
(* If sellers want buyers to pay for the removal, buyers will be permitted up to 45 days to
remove the foliage after close of escrow or transfer. However, failure to do so will
require more work on the part of the city to enforce compliance as otherwise stated in
the code. It is therefore, better to have the sellers handle this item prior to sale and
transfer of the property)
* If necessary, the City can charge $50-$150 for property inspections for Point of Sale
Compliance and issuance of the Certificate of Compliance. In the last five years, with
over 1,650 homes being sold, that would mean between $82,500 to $247,500 in added
revenue to the City. In addition, it would mean substantially less overall work to the city
for which it is not currently being paid and therefore, losing money. Currently, the city
determines whether the view has been improved by a phone call or email to the affected
homeowner.
Since other cities have similar Point of Sale and Certificate of Compliance requirements
in place, drafting this amendment should be straightforward. Real estate agents may
initially have a push back but when they understand that increased home values and
sales prices translate to higher commissions, they will welcome this change.
9.2
35
Attachment D
•' •UK REM =0.
Right now, after an Application is processed or mediated, and limited permits are
issued, only existing view impairing foliage is removed or trimmed and required to be
maintained. The Code is silent as to all future foliane on the property, whether
existing at the time of the decision/mediation/permit issuance, or not. Thus, after a
decision or mediation, or permit issuance, the view blocking homeowner can allow other
foliage to overgrow and block views or he can plant view blocking foliage.
In accordance with the purpose of the Ordinance, to "limit[]... plant growth ... before
encroaching onto a view" (emphasis added), the Code needs to include that all
foliage, whether existing at the time of the decision/mediation/permit issuance, or
not (i.e., future growth) must be maintained so as not to cause a view impairment. In
other words, all foliage should be maintained at a maximum level of 16 feet or the
lowest ridge line of the property, whichever is lower, so as not to cause a significant
blockage of views to other properties.
Again, the owner who has been building for 12 years received new permits for more
massive, continuous, construction and was free to plant a solid row of 58 trees across
his neighbor's ocean view. When this was raised to the city, staff indicated he was free
to do so and was not "currently" blocking a view. These trees in 1-2 years will block that
view.
WA
36
Attachment D
Although currently entitled as such ("Removal of Foliage as Condition of Permit
Issuance") the code's section on removal of foliage as a condition of permit issuance
only pertains to a few, limited types of permits. The title of the section and what it
actually pertains to is inaccurate. Removal of view obstructing foliage ought to be, as
titled, a condition of the issuance of ail permits, and not a condition of just a limited few
permits.
Currently, when a city inspector inspects for example, construction or additions, if he
notices an item that is not to code, he will require the homeowner to bring that item to
code before signing off on the inspection. Adding removal of foliage (i.e., compliance
with the ordinance) as a condition of permit issuance is in line with current practices.
Consistency in the code is important.
This year, sellers of an RPV property who had not lived in their house for over 10 years
(30648 PV Dr. E.), spent several months remodeling, changing floors, plumbing,
electrical, etc, in preparation for the sale of their house. Although they may have
received permits because the city apparently inspected their home, they repeatedly and
absolutely refused to trim or remove their significantly view blocking trees.
They advertised their home as having "Majestic Ocean and Canyon Views", received
$1,450,000 CASH for their home in 3-4 weeks and likely walked away with nearly
$1,000,000.00 (one million dollars) of profit. Despite all the benefits they received, and
the high value of their home resulting from their advertised "Majestic Ocean and Canyon
Views", they refused to cooperate with their neighbor who had their Harbor and Long
Beach views significantly blocked by their trees. The new owner now knows (and was
advised by his real estate agent) that he can also sit and do nothing because the
Ordinance as written calls for the harmed homeowner to submit an Application costing
upwards of $5,000.00 and pay the costs of any foliage removal. When the harmed
homeowner informed the sellers and buyers they would seek to enforce their rights, the
city told the new owner or his real estate agent that the harmed homeowner "can't do
anything".
All of this is hardly what the voters had in mind when the Ordinance was passed. With
the proposed changes, these would not be issues because the views would be
maintained in accordance with the General Plan and the legislative intent behind the
Ordinance.
N
37
Attachment D
l- • .: �. r
Currently, the city can mediate an agreement with the owners of the view blocking
foliage. However, possibly nothing is mentioned about future foliage (e.g., the
landowner who has been building on and off for 12 years, removed one blocking tree
and planted 58 more trees).
The agreements reached in the mediations ought to be recorded against the view
blocking property, at the expense of the parties and should include an agreement that
all other foliage on the property, whether currently existing or not, should be maintained
in a manner so as not to significantly impair the view of other properties. Enforcement
by the city should be borne by the view blocking tree owner, not the harmed owner, and
can be handled as with other city enforcement.
The suggested modifications are consistent with the purpose of the Ordinance to
protect, enhance and perpetuate the views of the Peninsula regarding both existing
foliage and foliage that will exist in the future. The suggested modifications will also
increase property values, thus effectively increasing the desirability of residing in the
city. The savings in personnel time to the city as well as costs to both the city and
homeowners is also very significant. Lastly, the potential additional revenue for the city
can be used to further the numerous projects on hand and in the future.
0
•
Attachment D
TREE
MAINTENANCE PROPOSAL RO
FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
NOVEMBER, 2013
1. Allow homeowners to adopt City trees at their own expense after obtaining approval
from the City. If the tree dies, the homeowner would be required to replace the tree
at his/her own expense. The adoption process should be simple, taking a month or
less to process the request. The adopter should be required to maintain the tree at
16 -feet or less if in a viewing area.
2. Trim and shape the City trees to preserve views, minimize sidewalk, storm drain inlet
damage and beautify the neighborhoods. Take a proactive approach to maintaining
the trees before they become too large and unsightly. The tree trimming contractor
needs to maintain trees that have not been adopted. Trees in viewing areas should
be maintained at 16 -feet or less.
3. Revise the City's Tree Planting Strategy to ensure that trees are not planted in an
area that would impair views. Include potentially impacted homeowners in the
decision-making process when replacing trees that have been removed or where
trees may be planted where they previously did not exist. Implement a tree removal/
replacement program for overgrown trees, especially in viewing areas.
4. Revise the View Restoration/Preservation policy to allow for application and tree
trimming/removal if growth of trees into the viewing area is imminent. This change
would ensure that concerned homeowners continue to enjoy their views without
disruption. Properties would also maintain their values.
5. Revise the ordinance to require trees in viewing areas to be maintained at 16 feet or
less.
6. Revise the View Restoration Guidelines and Procedures to reflect the intent of the
ordinance.
7. Issue a comprehensive tree and foliage maintenance RFP in order to implement #4
and 5 above.
8. Consolidate all services related to tree and foliage trimming and removal under one
Department in order to streamline the process, enhance communication.
Page 1 of 4
39
Attachment D
Proposals 1, 2, 3 and 8 should result in cost savings to the City in the long term. All four
of the proposals should be implemented to optimize savings. Proposals 4 through 7 will
ensure that the ordinance is followed and homeowners will enjoy their views without
disruption. This is a winning proposition for the homeowner and local government, as
both will benefit from higher property values if the home is sold.
Discussion
Two Departments currently manage tree trimming and removal in the City. According to
Municipal Code Section 12.08, Trees and Shrubs, Public Works is responsible for tree
trimming, maintenance and removal of trees. Section 12.08.030(A), Maintenance of
Trees, states that Public Works maintains the trees in accordance with established
policies. Section 12.08.030(8), states "trees planted along City streets shall be pruned
to give a clearance of not less than 8 feet over sidewalks and not less than16 feet over
streets as the size of the trees permit." This provision is contrary to the View
Restoration/Preservation provisions, which states that trees should be trimmed to 16
feet or roofline, whichever is less. Public Works staff indicated that this provision is in
place to accommodate UPS trucks.
Public Works is also responsible for tree planting and infrastructure repairs. Tree
planting and maintenance strategies need to be changed. When planting trees in areas
where trees did not previously exist, Public Works asks the homeowners if they want
trees planted in the parking strip in front of their homes, but does not consider the fact
that the trees may eventually impact the views of neighbors across the street.
Residents may ask Public Works to remove trees that have damaged or will likely
damage sidewalks, etc. However, the damage is usually already done before Public
Works takes action. The only way that a sidewalk damage can be averted is if Public
Works takes a proactive approach to tree maintenance. Public Works makes every
effort to save trees instead of removing and replacing them. They cut roots if the
arborist says the tree will survive; however, that does not stop, it only delays, invasive
roots from damaging sidewalks, curbs and storm drain inlets; it only delays it. The roots
continue to grow out of control because the tops of the trees are never trimmed. Public
Works grinds and patches sidewalks and roads instead of maintaining the trees and
foliage. The former Public Works Director said that he could not do anything about it
because of City policy.
Community Development manages Municipal Code Sections 17.76.100, City Tree
Review Permits (CRTP), and17.02.040, View Preservation and Restoration. The
purpose of the Ordinance is to protect, enhance and perpetuate the views of property
owners and visitors because of the unique topographical nature of the Peninsula.
When seeking relief from City tree view impairment, residents are required to submit an
application and a non-refundable fee of $688 to Community Development for staff
review and recommendation to the Planning Commission. The non-refundable
application fee for a view restoration permit for privately owned trees is $5,106.00.
Page 2 of 4
it
Attachment D
Section 17.76.100(F)(1)(a) states that a removed City tree shall be replaced with a
similar 24 -inch box tree. However, the Public Works Director recently approved
replacement of ten removed trees on Via Cambron, Via Collado and Berry Hill Drive
with seventeen 36 -inch trees, which was more costly and exceeded the provisions of
the ordinance. In addition, the view residents were not consulted about the replacement
trees. Under certain circumstances, the CRTP process also allows for the adoption of
any of the City trees by the 10 property owners closest to the subject tree(s); therefore,
procedures are already in place and should be expanded upon to allow for adoption
outside of the view restoration/preservation process. No fee should be charged for the
application process since homeowners would pay the cost for trimming the trees.
The Ordinance requires the pruning of dense foliage or tree growth, which alone, or in
conjunction with other construction, exceeds defined limits. The Ordinance defines
protected views, which includes landmarks, the ocean, etc.; the sky is specifically
excluded. Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(c)(B) states "foliage exceeding 16 feet or the ridge
line of the primary structure, whichever is lower, significantly impairs a view from the
applicant's viewing area, whether such foliage is located totally on one property or
combined with foliage on more than one property." Section D on page 3 of the
guidelines states that the Planning Commission shall review staff reports for City View
permits in the same manner as View Restoration requests. The Code states that if the
Ordinance is in conflict with other City Ordinances, the stricter shall apply. However, the
Planning Commission has a reputation for taking conservative approaches on view
restoration requests, thereby, denying homeowners the benefit of their views as
provided for in the ordinance.
Maneuvering through the two Departments responsible for tree trimming/removal can
be a very daunting task. Public Works refers residents to the Community
Development's View Restoration Section when asked to trim trees to maintain views.
The View Restoration Section says that a tree has to pose a significant view impairment
before considering a recommendation for trimming or removal. The trimming/removal
request will not be considered until the foliage blocks the protected view. It can take
years and much more tree growth before action is taken. Very minimal trimming is
recommended that, oftentimes, does not follow the ordinance or satisfactorily restore
views, e.g., trimming to the horizon. Trimming to the horizon is not consistent with the
Ordinance, nor does it provide residents with their coveted views of the ocean. Under
this scenario, the best that a homeowner can expect is a partial or peak a -boo view
instead of their panoramic views.
The view restoration process is very protracted and, more often than not, causes friction
and discord in neighborhoods. The City engages the services of a mediator when
property owners refuse to trim trees at view owners' requests. While the mediation
process can be effective, the mediator generally recommends that the view owners
compromise for less view than allowed for under the Ordinance.
Page 3 of 4
41
Attachment D
The City's current tree trimming practice is to trim lower branches from trees every three
years to accommodate UPS trucks. The tops of trees are not trimmed; thereby, allowing
the trees to grow out of control. Trimming of lower branches only pushes the trees up,
which causes the roots to grow, resulting in curb, street, sidewalk and storm drain inlet
damage. In addition, the trees grow into residents' viewing areas. Properly manicured
trees will enhance the City's beautification efforts and keep them from creeping into
viewing areas and reduce infrastructure damage.
While the cost of manicuring the trees would be more costly than the City's current
practice, these proposals would result in overall savings to the City. The savings should
result from homeowners adopting trees and trimming them at their own expense. Some
homeowners are already manicuring City trees that are in front of their homes. The
trees look much nicer than those maintained by the City's contractor. The adoption
procesp should include a provision that trees are to be maintained at 16 feet or less if in
viewing areas. In addition, less money would be spent on sidewalk, curb, street and
storm drain repairs and reduced staff costs currently dedicated to view restoration
applications. Personnel resources could be diverted to other priority areas in the City,
e.g., senior services or other Community Development or Public Works projects. Of
course, some of the resources can be moved to services and supplies in order to
enhance the tree trimming contract.
Costly litigation and wasted staff time can be avoided by properly maintaining trees and
employing reasonable planting strategies.
If the City agrees to remove City trees in viewing areas, replacement trees are planted.
City staff consults with homeowners adjacent to the removed trees about the type of
tree to be planted, but do not include residents (view restoration applicants) In the
discussions.
Please refer to the attached photos that clearly show which trees are properly
maintained and those that are not. The photos also reflect damage to the sidewalks
and roads as a result of overgrown trees and invasive roots. The trees in the parking lot
at St. Paul's Lutheran Church have been manicured for years and are beautiful and kept
at an appropriate height as are the City trees that are maintained by homeowners.
On November 11, 2013, trees were trimmed on Via Rivera. As reflected in the attached
photos, lower limbs were removed; the tops were not shaped. The trunk of another tree
was shaved off.
Summary
Implementing the above mentioned proposals will beautify the City, streamline
processes, resulting in less damage to the infrastructure and overall savings to the City.
In addition, valuable resources could be diverted to other priority areas in the City and
create a higher level of responsiveness to the community.
Page 4of4
42
Attachment D
~�. Trimming
�� . . Proposal Tree . ~~.~..~.~.~�� , ~_~�_~_-__~.
43
Attachment D
Tree Trimming Proposal
MAI
Attachment D
Tree TrimmingProposal
45
Attachment D
PACWTAX
I-lat Nv)Jv� vo;d;.,s policy thi'i -eslOonts, lo tilm Dt'y iii close p�joxll
mvWWS Ms us am"M W % WIV
HE hit I
os lo, ihP UY aW a paWMv),IJ sulkiPunt, VI(,�'o" ff",Awcalon
-,FN 1 POLICIf-S, ANU LYU�PIE�,
Gwmdy Irl CqI Vw VwwwM % ommpd ny twos Svi.aW DwWwily RM Wwh mal Vmw RNMA*n PAk YM,
mXPi ges wiifina a0p Vvimmy MA V done evey Me vf,�,am Hovoove,�most ?A ihO YOLIN'W iN-flfnl!K) !� ,(OO I(
c c odale UPS lnuck,No ummmg a We W; Noutumn M 1014 nWMqMWnt t ---very
unn= vow by aso fir -nibs a! Me WWI M now CO Oic, Oei-s, the, lief)s aw. imt sbc pt�!d of""'r, fine
f Ine lloo,F week/ pfopot ;y Vwy Luuic: Do mwmpd it MVMs W wmid immunup cob 'Weat and shmi
:%MWP no "Womn Mews W M(r
Hol
Attachment D
Trimming - Via Rivera n- Noveniber 11, 2013
47
Attachment D
Tree Trimming - Via Rivera - November 114 2013
M
Attachment E
RESOLUTION 97-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING A TREE REMOVAL POLICY
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 12.08.020
allows the Director of Public Works to regulate and control the planting or removal of any
and all trees planted within the public streets rights-of-way along any City streets,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES RESOLVE. TO HAVE A TREE REMOVAL POLICY AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Tree removal may be permitted by the City only when one of the following
conditions is present:
A) The tree is dead, diseased, or in the opinion of the Director, presents a safety
hazard that cannot be reasonably mitigated,
B) The tree has damaged or is likely to damage public or private improvements
including curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement, sewer laterals water lines.
C) The tree has been ordered removed in accordance with the City view
restoration guidelines.
D) The tree is in conflict with an approved development project.
Section 2. The responsibility for the of tree removal shall be as follows:
A) Trees within the public street right-of-way which are dead, diseased, or present
safety hazards, or have damaged public improvements or utilities, or have been ordered
removed in accordance with Laity view restoration guidelines will be removed (or
rehabilitated) by the City at City expense. If the adjacent property owner wishes to plant a
replacement tree, it will be planted on private property outside the street right-of-way at
the discretion and expense of the property owner.
B) Trees ordered removed for conflict with approved development projects will be
removed by private property owners under permits issued by the Public Works
Department,
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 1997.
lsl John C. McTaggart
{ MAYOR
ATTEST:
Jsl Jo Purcell
CITY CLERK
I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the
above Resolution No. 97-18 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City
Council at a regular meeting thereof held on March 4, 1997.
CITY CLERK
i e
Attachment E
RESOLUTION NO. 55--45
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA,
ESTABLISHING A SIDEWALK AND DRIVEWAY
APRON MAINTENANCE POLICY AND REVISING
RESOLUTION NO. 83-28 OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
WHEREAS, Streets and Highways Code Section 5610 requires
property owners to maintain sidewalks and parkway areas in such
condition that the sidewalk will not endanger persons or property
and maintain it in a condition that will uo,t interfere with the
public convenience; and
WHEREAS, Streets and Highways Code Sections 5610 et seq. contain
procedures far assessing the coat of such repairs against property
owners. in the event they fail to maintain adjacent sidewalks in
proper condition; and
WHEREAS, The City desires to encourage property owners to main-
tain sidewalks and driveway aprons in proper condition,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 In order to encourage property owners to maintain
their sidewalks and driveway aprons in proper condition, the City
will initiate repair procedures and assess the entire cost of
repairing the sidewalk and/or driveway apron to the property owner.
Section 2 Each individual assessment will be increased by 30%
of the actual cost of repair to recover the City's costa for
temporary patching, inventory, inspection and administration.
Section 3 Where the property owner, given notice pursuant to
the Improvement Act of 1911 of the requirement to repair a sidewalk
and/or driveway apron, elects to undertake succi work in a timely
fashion,, the City will issue a Highway Permit to the property owner.
Section b In the event the property owner fails to undertake
such repair in a timely fashion, the City shall make the repairs and
assess the entire coat of repair to the property owner.
Section 5 In order to lessen the burden of the assessment, the
property owner -may arrange for installment payments subject to City
approval..- .1
PASSED,
pproval.•-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of July, 1985.
MAYOR
ATTE$T:
CITY CLERK
701CP/RP.10
x, 1.
50
Attachment F ✓
Tree Branches in UtilityPoles
Southern California Edison periodically trims tree branches that are too close to
utility poles. If you notice overgrown tree branches in or near high voltage wires,
do the following: Call Southern California Edison at 1-800-655-4555 and follow
the electronic prompt messages. There are typically 2 to 3 sets of cables on
power poles. The bottom or lowest one is for cable/fiber optics or phone. The
second set that typically comes to your house is secondary power lines that feed
power to your home. These wires are typically coated wires and they belong to
Southern California Edison. The third or highest cable line is high voltage and is
uncoated. These wires should never touch tree foliage or any structure. If you
see that they are touching, or are less than 10' from tree foliage, Call Southern
California Edison at 1-800-655-4555.
City Right- of -Way Tree Trimming
The City trims trees in the parkway areas on a 3 year cycle. The City is divided
into 3 zones and trees in each zone are trimmed once every 3 years.
If tree limbs or branches pose a potential danger (i.e. limbs/branches are less
than 10' above the sidewalk, and/or less than 16' above the street pavement), fill
out an on-line maintenance request form and describe the situation, or call Public
Works for an inspection, at 310-544-5252.
The City does not allow any self trimming of trees or tree branches on City
property or public right-of-way (street, sidewalk, parkway, etc).
Tree Removal
The City does not allow the removal of any trees on City property or City right-of-
way without an authorized Public Works permit. A tree will be considered for
removal only if the following criteria exist:
The tree is dead, diseased, or in the opinion of the Director of Public
Works presents a safety hazard that can not be reasonably mitigated.
Resident shall describe rationale for request.
The tree has damaged or is likely to damage public or private
improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement, sewer laterals,
and/or water lines. Resident shall describe rationale for request (i.e. hired
plumber to clear sewer lateral, ( show receipt ),sidewalk cracked and lifted
repeatedly, driveway planter wall cracked and lifted, etc)
The tree has been ordered removed in accordance with the City View
Restoration guidelines,
51
Attachment F
4. The tree is in conflict with an approved development project.
If you want to request a tree removal for any of the above reasons, please fill
out an on-line maintenance request form, or call Public Works at 310-544-
5252. Your request will be evaluated by the Department, and if warranted
corrective action would be taken.
For a copy of the City Resolution discussing tree removal, please click here
Tree Planting
The City does not pay for the replacement of new trees. If a homeowner wants
a replacement tree, the homeowner needs to follow these steps:
® Call Public Works Dept. at 310-544-5252 and ask for the authorized list of
designated trees for your neighborhood. (get tree name)
• Contact the Maintenance Superintendent to arrange a conference with the
City's contracted tree Maintenance Company and purchase the authorized
tree through them. They will arrange the purchase and planting of the tree.
There will be a fee of approximately $115 to purchase and plant a 15
gallon tree. The cost to purchase a 24" box tree (depending on available)
would be approximately $230, which includes planting.
• Once payment is made, Public Works would arrange for the purchase and
planting of the tree. This process should take approximately 3 to 4 weeks
to complete.
Updated November 2008
52
Attachment G
ORDINANCE NO. U
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PRECLUDING THE PROCESSING AND ISSUANCE OF CITY
TREE REVIEW PERMITS WHILE NEW PROVISIONS OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE ARE EVALUATED AND ADOPTED.
WHEREAS, the City previously established a process by which trees that
are located on City -owned properties, including trees located within street rights-
of-way, could be trimmed or removed to restore the views from other properties
in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to amend and simplify the process to remove
or trim City -owned trees that are significantly impairing the views from other
properties located in the City;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), the
State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section
15061(b)(3) et seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code
Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City
Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has determined that there is no
substantial evidence that approval of this Ordinance would result in a significant
adverse effect on the environment;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Community Development Department shall not accept
an application for processing, continue to process any application, or issue any
permit to allow a City resident to remove, trim or adopt any tree or foliage located
on properties owned by the City, including street rights-of-way, that is filed
pursuant to Section 17.76.100 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.
Section 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the moratorium
on the processing or issuance of permits to residents to maintain City -owned
trees and foliage and agreements to maintain City -owned trees and foliage and
concurs that each of the recitals set forth above is true and correct and are
hereby made a part of this urgency ordinance.
Section 3. The City Council further finds that this urgency ordinance
has no likelihood of causing a significant adverse impact on the environment and,
accordingly, both the City Council's action of adopting this ordinance and the
effects that arise from that adoption are found to be exempt from the application
of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, pursuant to Section
15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 CCR. 15061(b)(3).) This
finding is premised on the fact that the adoption of this urgency ordinance will
18486380
53
Attachment G
maintain the current condition of City -owned trees and foliage and any current
environmental conditions pertaining to those trees and foliage and will not alter
these environmental conditions while this ordinance is in effect.
Section 4: In order to protect the public health, safety and welfare it is
necessary for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to adopt an urgency ordinance to
establish a moratorium processing or issuance of permits and agreements to City
residents that will allow them to trim City -owned trees and foliage while the City is
establishing a consolidated and uniform process by which the City's Public
Works Department will maintain City -owned trees and foliage in a manner that
conforms with best practices for such maintenance and in a manner that will
maintain views from the viewing areas of other properties located within the City.
Therefore, this ordinance is necessary for the public health, safety and welfare
and shall take effect immediately upon adoption as an Urgency Ordinance.
Section 5: The Community Development Director and the City Clerk
shall undertake all actions legally necessary to extend this interim ordinance in
the event the direction desired by the this City Council will not be concluded on or
before the forty-fifth day subsequent to the adoption of this interim ordinance.
Section 6: The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes shall
certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to
be posted in the manner required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of June, 2015
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
1848638v1
MAYOR
54
Attachment G
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
I, CARLA MORREALE, City Clerk of the City of Rancho
do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City
City is five; that the foregoing Urgency Ordinance No. _U
regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular r
held on June 30, 2015, and that the same was passed and
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CITY CLERK
1848638vl
Palos Verdes,
Council of said
was duly and
neeting thereof
idopted by the
55