CC SR 20151201 05 - Code Amendment City Tree Review PermitPublic Hearing
Cover Page
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: December 1, 2015
Subject: Code Amendment Proposal to Amend Title 17 of Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code, City Tree Review Permit (Case No.
ZON2015-00383)
Subject Property: Citywide
1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale
2. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor
3. Staff Report & Recommendation: John Alvarez, Senior Planner
Nicole Jules, Deputy Director of Public Works
4. Public Testimony:
Appellant: N/A
Applicant: City
5. Council Questions:
6. Rebuttal:
7. Council Deliberation:
8. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor
9. Council Action:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
Project Managers:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS LJ
JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DI RECTO ~ r-. ~·P.·
DECEMBER 1, 2015
CODE AMENDMENT PROPOSAL TO AMEND TITLE 17 OF
RPVMC, CITY TREE REVIEW PERMIT (CASE NO. ZON2015-
00383)
DOUG WILLMORE, CITY MANAGER1tf
John Alvarez, Senior Planner
Nicole Jules, Deputy Director of Public Works
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council 1) Adopt
Resolution No. 2015-_, adopting Addendum No. 9 to the Negative Declaration for
Ordinance No. 510, for code amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code; and 2) Introduce Ordinance No . __ amending the City's Municipal
Code to a) rescind Section 17.76.100 (City Tree Review Permit), b) delete references
to the City Tree Review Permit procedures contained in Sections 17.02.040(C)(2)(e)
and 17.86.050(A)(2), and c) add language to Section 17.80.030 to clarify the appeal
process for City decisions involving the trimming/removal of city trees.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed action is expected to have a fiscal impact because neither the interim city
tree Public Works process nor the anticipated permanent process includes the
application fees that were previously required under the City Tree Review Permit
process. Since no fees are involved at this time, Staff anticipates a large influx of new
complaints against view impairing city trees. Since the inception of the interim Public
Works' process in August 2015, City Staff has received 12 complaints involving view
impairing city-owned trees. Based on the volume of complaints thus far, the City could
potentially receive 36 complaints in the first year involving multiple City-owned trees.
01203 .0005 /275908.1 2
01203.0005/275908.1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As directed by the City Council on June 30, 2015, the Public Works Department is in the
process of developing a City trimming and removal program that will be presented to the
Council in early 2016. Until then, the Public Works Department has developed an
interim review process to deal with view impairing City trees given previous City Council
direction to streamline the current process under the Public Works Department. The
interim process consolidates City tree trimming and removal activities under the Public
Works Department, streamlines the process from complaint-to-action to restore views,
and focuses on trimming trees as opposed to automatic removal. The Municipal Code
currently includes a City Tree Review Permit process administered by the Community
Development Department. Given Public Works’ interim process, to avoid confusion, the
current City Tree Review Permit process that is administered by the Community
Development Department is proposed to be deleted from the code.
BACKGROUND
On June 30, 2015, the City Council directed Staff to implement a streamlined Public
Works City tree review process that includes trimming or removal of view-impairing City
trees. The Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code currently includes a process by which
the Community Development Department reviews requests to trim or remove view-
impairing City trees. In order to transition this process to the Public Works Department,
the City must remove the Municipal Code sections referring to the Community
Development Department’s process. Under Municipal Code section 17.68.040 the
Planning Commission must hold a public hearing prior to considering any proposed
Municipal Code amendment, and then must make a recommendation to the City
Council.
On September 8th, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and discussed
the proposed code amendments that would replace the current City Tree Review Permit
process with a new streamlined process that would be administered by the City’s Public
Works Department. The Commission continued the public hearing to September 22nd so
that Staff could obtain a written interim public tree process from the Public Works
Department that is designed to replace the City Tree Review Permit procedure. At the
September 22nd Commission meeting, Staff presented a verbal summary of the interim
public tree view process instituted by the Public Works Department. After reviewing the
interim process, the Commission expressed a number of concerns. One of the primary
issues raised by the Commission is that the interim process did not allow an appeal
procedure. As such, the Commission continued the public hearing to October 27, 2015
to allow Staff time to present the interim written process to the Commission and have
the Deputy Public Works Director attend the October 27th meeting to clarify certain
issues.
On October 27th, after reviewing the updated interim City tree review process, the
Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2015-18 (attached) forwarding a
recommendation to the City Council to amend the City’s Municipal Code to rescind
Section 17.76.100 (City Tree Review Permit); delete references to the City Tree Review
Permit procedures contained in Sections 17.02.040(C)(2)(e) and 17.86.050(A)(2); and
3
01203.0005/275908.1
add language to Section 17.80.030 to clarify the appeal process for City decisions
involving the trimming/removal of city trees. The Planning Commission also
recommended that the Public Works’ interim review process have a 2-week appeal
period.
DISCUSSION
Proposed Code Amendments
Given the City Council’s directive to Staff on June 30, 2015 to implement a streamlined
Public Works city tree review process, the City’s Public Works Department is taking the
necessary steps to gear up for the new streamlined process with the intent of presenting
the new formalized process to the City Council in early 2016. In the interim, so as to not
turn away residents who may have situations of city trees blocking their views, the
Public W orks Department has instituted an interim process to address incoming
complaints about City trees that impair views, as discussed later in this report.
In order to avoid confusion to the public by the inclusion of conflicting policies regarding
City trees that impair views, Staff proposes to delete the City Tree Review Permit
procedure outlined in Section 17.76.100 now instead of in early 2016 when Public
Works’ formalized process is presented to the City Council. In addition to deleting
RPVMC Section 17.76.100, Staff proposes to also amend Sections 17.02.040(C)(2)(e)
and 17.86.050(A)(2) to delete references to the current City Tree Review Permit
process. Those strikethrough amendments are noted below:
Sections 17.02.040(C)(2)(e):
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.)
Section 17.86.050(A)(2):
A. The city shall not accept for processing or grant:
1. Any application for a development, use or other permit or entitlement on any lot or
parcel on which the director has verified that a violation of this Code exists; or
2. A view restoration or a view preservation application or an application for a city
tree review permit submitted by the owner of a lot or parcel on which the
director has verified that a violation of this Code exists.
Furthermore, given that decisions on city tree review permits made by the Public Works
Department, under the interim or final process, are subject to the appeal provisions of
existing Municipal Code Section 12.08.100, Staff proposes to amend Development
Code Section 17.80.030 (Appellate Authority) to clarify that any view determinations
4
01203.0005/275908.1
made by planning staff in support of Public Works’ city tree decisions are not
themselves appealable to the Planning Commission. This would avoid the possibility of
a cumbersome two-pronged appeal process where an aggrieved resident could appeal
the Community Development Director’s determination of a significant view impairment
citing Section 17.80.030 while concurrently appealing the Public Works Department’s
decision to remove a City tree under a separate appeal process to the City Council.
As such, Staff proposes to amend Section 17.80.030 (Appellate Authority) as follows
(see underlined text):
A. Unless otherwise expressly provided in Title 16 or Title 17 of this Code, any decision
made by the director pursuant to Title 16 or Title 17 of this Code, with the exception
of decisions described in subsection C below, may be appealed to the planning
commission and any decision made by the planning commission or view restoration
commission pursuant to Title 16 or Title 17 of this Code may be appealed to the city
council.
B. The director is designated as a zoning administrator pursuant to Section 65900 of the
California Government Code with respect to these decisions which may be rendered
by that officer or his or her designees pursuant to this Title 17. When acting as a
zoning administrator pursuant to this subsection B, the director shall exercise the
authority conferred by this title and authorized by Section 65901 of the California
Government Code.
C. Any view assessment or trimming/removal determinations made by the Director in
association with the processing of applications by the Public Works Department for
the trimming or removal of City trees are not appealable to the Planning Commission
since such Public Works Department decisions are appealable to the City Council
pursuant to Municipal Code section 12.08.100.
Interim Public Works Department Process for Dealing with City Tree View Requests
The Public Works Department’s interim city tree review process is attached for the
Council’s review (see attached October 19, 2015 Public Works Dept. Interim process).
The interim process will be posted to the City’s website so that it is easily accessible to
residents.
The interim process includes a neighbor notification and appeal process. Specifically,
the Public Works Department notifies adjacent residents, in writing, of pending City tree
trimming and/or removal 2 weeks prior to the work being performed (No. 5 of the interim
process). This notification, which was originally 1 week, has been changed to 2 weeks
in response to the Planning Commission’s recommendation, thus allowing residents to
make timely inquires to the City about pending tree trimming or removals and appeal
the Staff determinations if necessary. If notified residents have concerns with the
proposed City tree trimming or removal work, they have an opportunity to appeal the
Director of Public Works decisions directly to the City Council pursuant to existing
Municipal Code Section 12.08.100. This Municipal Code section makes it clear that no
person shall prevent, delay or interfere with the Public Works Department’s execution of
Chapter 12.08 which governs city trees and shrubs and establishes an appeal process
for any person aggrieved by any determination made by the Director of Public Works in
5
01203.0005/275908.1
the course of exercising the authority granted by said chapter. This appeal process is
incorporated into the attached interim process (No. 6).
Environmental Assessment
On June 29, 2010, the then City Council certified a Negative Declaration (ND), which
was prepared in conjunction with the adopted Ordinance No. 510, adopting the
Residential Development Standards Steering Committee (RDSSC) Code Amendment
and Zone Change (Planning Case No. ZON2007-00377). The RDSSC Code
Amendment involved modifications to miscellaneous provisions of the Development
Code, which (with the certification of the ND) the City Council found to have no
significant impacts upon the environment. Since then, several other addendums have
been adopted in order to address Development Code language changes that were
consistent with the original ND.
The proposed code amendment is to rescind the section of the code relating to the City
Tree Review Permit process of Section 17.76.100 to provide a more efficient process
for handling view impairing City-owned trees. Thus, Staff believes that the proposed
code amendment revisions are within the scope of the miscellaneous Development
Code revisions analyzed in the ND for Ordinance No. 510 for the RDSSC Code
Amendment. The RDSSC Code Amendment was similar to the currently proposed
amendment in that it clarified existing codes and processes. The currently proposed
code amendment does not propose any new project, but rather moves current City
functions from one department to another. Therefore, Staff has prepared and
Addendum to the RDSSC Code Amendment ND to address the compliance of the
revisions to Section 17.76.100 with the provisions of CEQA, are attached to the City
Council Resolution.
Public Notification
Notice of the City Council’s public hearing on the proposed amendments to Title 17 of
the Municipal Code was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on November 5,
2015. No written correspondence has been received from the public regarding this
matter.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the discussion above, Staff recommends that the Council adopt Resolution
No.__, adopting Addendum No. 9 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510,
for the following code amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal
Code and introduce Ordinance No. __ amending the City’s Municipal Code to 1) rescind
Section 17.76.100 (City Tree Review Permit), 2) delete references to the City Tree
Review Permit procedures contained in Sections 17.02.040(C)(2)(e) and
17.86.050(A)(2), and 3) add language to Section 17.80.030 to clarify the appeal process
for City decisions involving the trimming/removal of city trees, as recommended by Staff
and the Planning Commission.
6
01203.0005/275908.1
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the
City Council to consider:
1) Propose alternative or additional amendments to RPVMC Section 17.76.100
and/or Title 17 and direct Staff to modify the proposed amendments as such for
further discussion by the City Council at a future public hearing date; or,
2) Maintain RPVMC Section 17.76.100 as currently codified.
Attachments
• Resolution No. ____ (Page 8)
• Ordinance No. ____ (Page 17)
• P.C. Resolution No. 2015-18 (Attachment – 1)
• P.C. Staff Reports from September 8, 2015, September 22, 2015 & October 27,
2015 (Attachment – 12)
• City Council Report from the June 30, 2015 (Attachment – 27)
• RPVMC Section 17.76.100 (Attachment - 83)
• RPVMC Section 17.02.040 (C)(2)(e) (Attachment - 87)
• RPVMC Section 17.86.050 (A)(2) (Attachment - 89)
• RPVMC Section 17.80.030 (Attachment - 91)
• Interim Public Works Department Process for Dealing with City Tree View
Requests (Attachment - 93)
7
Resolution No. __
8
01203.0005/275945.1
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES CERTIFYING ADDENDUM NO. 9 TO THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 510, FOR A CODE
AMENDMENT TO RESCIND RPVMC CHAPTER 17.76.100 (CITY TREE
REVIEW PERMIT) AND DELETING REFERENCES TO THE CITY TREE
REVIEW PERMIT PROCEDURES CONTAINED IN SECTIONS
17.02.040(C)(2)(E) AND 17.86.050(A)(2), AND ADDING LANGUAGE TO
SECTION 17.80.030 TO CLARIFY THE APPEAL PROCESS FOR CITY
DECISIONS INVOLVING THE TRIMMING OR REMOVAL OF CITY
TREES (CASE NO. ZON2015-00383)
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2010-43,
thereby adopting a Negative Declaration for miscellaneous amendments to Title 17 of the
City’s Municipal Code to enact the Residential Development Steering Committee Code
Amendment and Zone Change (Ordinance No. 510) and,
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2010, the City Council adopted Addendum No. 1 to
the certified Negative Declaration (ND) for Ordinance No. 510 and adopted Ordinance
No. 513U, approving minor changes to Chapter 17.38 of the Development Code to
correct the omission of Specific Plan District VII, and to change the designation of specific
plan districts from numbered to descriptive titles; and,
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2011, the City Council adopted Addendum No. 2 to
the certified Negative Declaration (ND) for Ordinance No. 510 and adopted Ordinance
No. 529, approving miscellaneous “clean-up” code amendments to Title 17 (Zoning) of
the City’s Development Code which clarified code language, removed code language
discrepancies, and codified existing policy procedures and/or application requirements;
and,
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2012, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 532,
thereby approved Addendum No. 3 to the certified ND and approving a change in the
allowable movement of an open space hazard boundary line from thirty feet to one
hundred feet through an interpretation procedure; and,
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2012, the City Council approved adopted Ordinance No.
535, thereby approving Addendum No. 4 to the Certified ND for a code amendment to
revise Chapters 17.02, 17.04, and 17.98 of the Municipal Code to regulate the number of
residential garage sales; and,
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2013, in consideration of a proposed code amendment to
RPVMC Section 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges), the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 2013-48, thereby approving Addendum No. 5 to the certified ND for
Ordinance No. 510; and,
9
01203.0005/275945.1 Resolution No. 2015-__
Page 2 of 2
WHEREAS, on August 6, 2013, in consideration of a proposed code amendment
to RPVMC Section 17.76.030(F) (Arterial Walls and Fences), the City Council approved
Addendum No. 6 to the certified ND for Ordinance No. 510; and,
WHEREAS, on September 17, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 547,
thereby approved Addendum No. 7 to the certified ND and approving a code amendment
to revise Chapter 17.76.100 of the Development Code pertaining to the City Tree Review
Permits; and,
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 546,
thereby approved Addendum No. 8 to the certified ND and approving a code amendment
to revise Section 17.76.030 of the Development Code pertaining to Fences, Walls and
Hedges; and,
WHEREAS, Section 17.76.100 of Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal
Code sets forth various procedures and regulations regarding City Tree Review Permits;
and,
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2013, Mayor Pro Tem Brooks presented a study
session item for the Council to consider agendizing an item to discuss proposed changes
to the current City tree trimming and maintenance practices, at which time, the Council
directed Staff to review the current City tree trimming and maintenance practices for
improvements; and,
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2014, Staff presented to the City Council an overview of
the Public Works Department’s City street tree trimming maintenance practices and the
Community Development Department’s City Tree Review Permit procedure pertaining to
view impairing City trees. After hearing Staff’s presentation, the City Council directed Staff
to hold public workshops with the goal of creating a proposal that would reconcile the
Departments practices and procedures; and,
WHEREAS, on June 30, 2015, after the numerous public workshops were held by
the City, and after receiving feedback and suggestions from the public, Staff presented a
proposal to the City Council that considered eliminating the City Tree Review Permit
process from the Development Code (Title 17) and to introduce a view restoration
analysis component into the existing Public Work’s Department City-owned tree trimming
and maintenance policy; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council on June 30, 2015 initiated a code amendment to
make the appropriate changes to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code,
namely Section 17.76.100 (City Tree Review Permit); and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code,
Section 17.68.040 the Planning Commission must consider any proposed code
amendment; and
10
01203.0005/275945.1 Resolution No. 2015-__
Page 3 of 3
WHEREAS, on August 13, 2015, a 30-day public notice on the proposed
amendments to the Municipal Code was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News;
and,
WHEREAS, after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearings on September 8, 2015 and September 22, 2015, at which time Staff presented a
proposal to rescind Municipal Code Section 17.76.100 (City Tree Review Permit),
amend related code sections and presented an interim city tree process for handling view
impairing City trees that is to be administer by the City’s Public Works Department. After
reviewing and discussing the matter, the Planning Commission continued the public
hearing to October 27, 2015; and,
WHEREAS, on October 27, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted P.C.
Resolution No. 2015-18, thereby recommending that the City Council adopt Addendum
No. 9 to the previously Council-adopted Negative Declaration and an Ordinance
amending the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to rescind from Chapter 17.76,
section 100, City tree review permit and delete references to the City tree review permit
procedures contained in sections 17.02.040(C)(2)(e) and 17.86.050(A)(2) and add
appeal exemption language to Section 17.80.030 of the City’s Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2015, notice of a City Council public hearing on the
proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code was published in the Palos
Verdes Peninsula News; and,
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 Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq., and the City’s Local CEQA
Guidelines, the City determined that there is no substantial evidence that the code
amendments would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment.
Accordingly, Addendum No. 9 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510, has
been prepared; and,
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2015, the City Council held a public hearing, at which
time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Addendum No. 9 is for an environmental assessment in conjunction
with a code amendment that rescinds Municipal Code Section 17.76.100, the City Tree
Review Permit procedures and deletes references to the City Tree Review Permit
procedures contained in sections 17.02.040(C)(2)(e) and 17.86.050(A)(2) and adds
appeal exemption language to Section 7.80.030 of the City’s Municipal Code.
.
11
01203.0005/275945.1 Resolution No. 2015-__
Page 4 of 4
Section 2: In approving Addendum No. 9 to the Negative Declaration for
Ordinance No. 510, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Addendum No. 9
document, attached hereto and made a part thereof as Exhibit "A".
Section 3: The Addendum No. 9 identifies no new significant adverse
environmental impacts to the areas listed below:
1. Landform, Geology, and Soils
2. Hydrology and Drainage
3. Biological Resources
4. Cultural and Scientific Resources
5. Aesthetics
6. Land Use and Relevant Planning
7. Circulation and Traffic
8. Air Resources
9. Noise
10. Public Services and Utilities
11. Population, Employment and Housing
12. Fiscal Impacts
Section 4: The Addendum No. 9 identifies that the proposed revisions will not
result in any significant environmental impacts, and the circumstances under which to
code amendment is being undertaken have not substantially changed since the CEQA
determination was made for the Negative Declaration adopted through Resolution No.
2010-43 for Ordinance No. 510.
Section 5: No new information of substantial importance, which was not known
and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the
prior Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510 was adopted, identifies a significant
environmental effect.
Section 6: All findings and attachments contained in Resolution No. 2010-43, as
adopted by the City Council on June 1, 2010 are hereby incorporated by reference.
Section 7: The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this
Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California
Code of Civil Procedure or any other applicable short period of limitations.
Section 8: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
contained in the staff reports, minutes, and evidence presented at the public hearings, the
City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Addendum No. 9 to the
Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510, based on the City Council’s determination
that the document was completed in compliance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act and State and local guidelines with respect thereto.
12
01203.0005/275945.1 Resolution No. 2015-__
Page 5 of 5
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 1st day of December 2015.
_________________________________
Mayor
Attest:
_________________________________
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the
above Resolution No. 2015-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said
City Council at a regular meeting held on December 1, 2015.
_________________________________
City Clerk
13
01203.0005/275945.1 Resolution No. 2015-__
Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT “A”
(Addendum No. 9 to Negative Declaration)
Project Background: On June 1, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2010-43,
thereby adopting a Negative Declaration for miscellaneous amendments to Title 17 of the
City’s Municipal Code to enact the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee
Code Amendment and Zone Change (Ordinance No. 510). Prior to its adoption, the Negative
Declaration was circulated for public comment from April 1, 2010, through May 1, 2010. In
adopting the Negative Declaration, the City Council found that: 1) the Negative Declaration
was prepared in the manner required by law and that there was no substantial evidence that,
with appropriate mitigation measures, the approval of the Residential Development
Standards Steering Committee Code Amendment and Zone Change (Case No.
ZON2007-00377) would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment; and 2)
that the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee Code Amendment and
Zone Change were consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and with the
Coastal Specific Plan. On September 21, 2010, the City Council adopted Ordinance No.
513U, thereby approving Addendum No. 1 to the certified ND, to make minor changes to
Chapter 17.38 of the Development Code to correct the omission of Specific Plan District VII,
and to change the designation of specific plan districts from numbered to descriptive titles.
On November 15, 2011, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 529, thereby approving
Addendum No. 2 to the certified ND and approving miscellaneous “clean-up” code
amendments to Title 17 (Zoning) of the City’s Development Code which clarified code
language, removed code language discrepancies, and codified existing policy procedures
and/or application requirements. On February 7, 2012, the City Council adopted Ordinance
No. 532, thereby approved Addendum No. 3 to the certified ND and approving a change in
the allowable movement of an open space hazard boundary line from thirty feet to one
hundred feet through an interpretation procedure. On April 3, 2012, the City Council
approved adopted Ordinance No. 535, thereby approving Addendum No. 4 to the Certified
ND for a code amendment to revise Chapters 17.02, 17.04, and 17.98 of the Municipal Code
to regulate the number of residential garage sales. On July 16, 2013, the City Council
approved Resolution No. 2013-48 that approved Addendum No. 5 to the Certified ND for a
code amendment to revise Chapter 17.76.030 of the Development Code pertaining to the
Fences, Walls and Hedges permits. On August 6, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance
No. 510 that approved Addendum No. 6 to the Certified ND for a code amendment to revise
Chapter 17.76.030(F) of the Development Code pertaining to arterial walls and fences. On
September 17, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 547 that approved Addendum
No. 7 to the Certified ND for a code amendment to revise Chapter 17.76.100 of the
Development Code pertaining to the City Tree Review Permits. On March 18, 2014, the City
Council adopted Ordinance No. 546 that approved Addendum No. 8 to the Certified ND for a
code amendment to revise Section 17.76.030 of the Development Code pertaining to Fences,
Walls and Hedges.
Proposed Amendments: The proposed code amendment to rescind Chapter 17.76.100 of
the Municipal Code (City Tree Review Permit) and to amend Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(e) and
Section 17.86.050(A)(2) of the Municipal Code eliminating the City Tree Review Permit
procedure and those sections of the code that makes reference to the City Tree Review
Permit procedure in order to transfer City tree trimming and removal, for the purposes of view
restoration, to the City’s Public Works Department. In addition, the proposed code
14
01203.0005/275945.1 Resolution No. 2015-__
Page 7 of 7
amendment adds language to Municipal Code Section 17.80.030 exempting appeal rights for
determinations made by the Community Development Director for view determinations
specific to city-owned trees.
Purpose: This Addendum to the previously Council-certified Negative Declaration is being
prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines which allows for the lead agency to prepare an addendum to an adopted Negative
Declaration if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the
conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or
Negative Declaration have occurred. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15162, no subsequent
Negative Declaration shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines, on
the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the
previous Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new, significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project
is undertaken which will required major revisions of the previous Negative Declaration
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity or previously identified significant effects; or,
3. New information of substantial importance identifies one or more significant effects
not discussed in the previous Negative Declaration, significant effects previously
examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous Negative
Declaration, mitigation measures or alternative previously found not to be feasible or
not analyzed in the Negative Declaration would be feasible and would substantially
reduce one or more significant effects but the project proponents decline to adopt a
measure or alternative.
Findings Regarding the Proposed Project Revisions:
Staff analyzed the proposed code amendment revisions to Title 17, namely Section
17.76.100, to determine if any impacts would result. The City Council has independently
reviewed this item and has determined that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, a
new Negative Declaration is not required for this revision because the proposed amendments
will not result in any new significant environmental effects:
1. The proposed revisions do not result in any new significant environmental effects and,
like Ordinance No. 510, 513U, 529, 532, 535, and 546 no significant impacts have
been identified. The revisions to Title 17 (Zoning) do not present new significant
environmental impacts because the practices and procedures of the rescinded City
Tree Review Permit procedure will be replaced with the existing City street tree
practices, policies and procedures that are in place and administered by the City’s
Public Works Department. Therefore, the proposed revisions do not represent a
substantial change in the code, and will not result in new significant environmental
impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any impacts.
15
01203.0005/275945.1 Resolution No. 2015-__
Page 8 of 8
2. The proposed revisions will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and
the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken have not substantially
changed since the CEQA determination was made for Ordinance No. 510. The
rescinded Section 17.76.100 is to be replaced with existing City street tree
maintenance practices, policies and procedures that are currently in place. There are
no changes with respect to the circumstances under which the revisions are
undertaken that will require major revisions of the previous Negative Declaration.
3. No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the prior
Negative Declaration was adopted, identifies a significant environmental effect.
Because the proposed revisions would not result in any new or more severe
environmental impacts than those associated with Ordinance No. 510, there is no
need for new or substantially modified mitigation measures.
Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, the City Council finds that no further environmental review is
necessary other than the City Council’s adoption of this Addendum No. 9.
16
Ordinance No. __
17
01203.0005/275942.1 Ordinance No. __
Page 1 of 8
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE 1) RESCINDING RPVMC SECTION
17.76.10, 2) DELETING REFERENCES TO THE CITY TREE REVIEW
PERMIT PROCEDURES CONTAINED IN SECTIONS 17.02.040(C)(2)(E)
AND 17.86.050(A)(2), AND 3) ADDING LANGUAGE TO SECTION
17.80.030 TO CLARIFY THE APPEAL PROCESS FOR CITY
DECISIONS INVOLVING THE TRIMMING OR REMOVAL OF CITY
TREES (CASE NO. ZON2015-00383)
WHEREAS, Chapter 76.100 of Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal
Code (the “Municipal Code”) sets forth various procedures and regulations regarding
City Tree Review Permit applications; and,
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2013, Mayor Pro Tem Brooks presented a study
session item for the Council to consider agendizing an item to discuss proposed
changes to the current City tree trimming and maintenance practices, at which time, the
Council directed Staff to review the current City tree trimming and maintenance
practices for improvements; and,
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2014, Staff presented to the City Council an overview of
the Public Works Department’s City street tree trimming maintenance practices and the
Community Development Department’s City Tree Review Permit procedure pertaining
to view impairing City trees. After hearing Staff’s presentation, the City Council directed
Staff to hold public workshops with the goal of creating a proposal that would reconcile
the Departments practices and procedures; and,
WHEREAS, on June 30, 2015, after the numerous public workshops were held
by the City, and after receiving feedback and suggestions from the public, Staff
presented a proposal to the City Council that considered eliminating the City Tree
Review Permit process from the Development Code (Title 17) and to introduce a view
restoration analysis component into the existing Public Work’s Department City-owned
tree trimming and maintenance policy; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council on June 30, 2015 initiated a code amendment to
make the appropriate changes to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code,
namely Section 17.76.100 (City Tree Review Permit); and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code,
Section 17.68.040 the Planning Commission must consider any proposed code
amendment; and
WHEREAS, on August 13, 2015, a 30-day public notice on the proposed
amendments to the Municipal Code was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula
News; and,
18
01203.0005/275942.1 Ordinance No. __
Page 2 of 8
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and
present evidence, then continued the public hearing to September 22, 2015; and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and
present evidence, then continued the public hearing to October 27, 2015; and
WHEREAS, on October 27, 2015, the Planning Commission adopted P.C.
Resolution No. 2015-18, thereby recommending that the City Council adopt an
ordinance to rescind Chapter 17.76, Section 100 of the City’s Municipal Code, delete
references to the City tree review permit procedures contained in Sections
17.02.040(C)(2)(e) and 17.86.050(A)(2) and add appeal exemption language to Section
17.80.030 of the City’s Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2015, notice of a City Council public hearing on the
proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code was published in the Palos
Verdes Peninsula News; and,
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 Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq., and the City’s
Local CEQA Guidelines, the City determined that there is no substantial evidence that
the code amendment would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment.
Accordingly, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2015- ___ certifying Addendum
No. 9 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510; and,
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2015, the City Council held a public hearing, at
which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present
evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code are consistent
with the zoning amendment procedure in California Government Code Section 65853.
Section 2: The City Council further finds, based upon its own independent
review, that there is no substantial evidence that the amendments to Title 17 would
result in new significant environmental effects, or a substantial increase in the severity
of the effects, as previously identified in the Negative Declaration adopted in conjunction
with Ordinance No. 510 for amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code because the
practices and procedures of the rescinded City Tree Review Permit procedure will be
replaced with the existing City street tree practices, policies and procedures that are in
place and administered by the City’s Public Works Department. The Public Works
Department’s City street tree practices, policies and procedures that are currently in
19
01203.0005/275942.1 Ordinance No. __
Page 3 of 8
place or will be otherwise improved on have the same environmental effect as the
rescinded City Tree Review Permit procedure. Accordingly, the City Council hereby
adopts an Addendum (No.9) to the prior Council-approved Negative Declaration, which
is attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” in compliance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section 3: That the amendments to Title 17 are consistent with the Rancho
Palos Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in that they uphold, and do not
hinder, the goals and policies of those plans.
Section 4: That the amendments to Chapter 17.76, Section 100, Section
17.02.040(C)(2)(e), Section 17.86.050(A)(2), and Section 17.80.030 of the Municipal
Code will preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare achieved by preventing
the needless impairment of views from vista points and view lots, as the proposed
amendments will streamline the process and procedures to have view impairing City
trees trimmed or removed. The proposed amendments will further preserve more trees
in the community because City-owned, view impairing trees, will not be automatically be
removed, as is the current procedure.
Section 5: That Chapter 17.76, Section 100 of the Municipal Code, be hereby
rescinded as follows (strike-out text is for removed language and underlined text is for
new language):
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
20
01203.0005/275942.1 Ordinance No. __
Page 4 of 8
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:
1.
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:
i.
The director determines that the pruning of the subject tree and/or foliage will
eliminate the significant impairment of the applicant's view;
ii.
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.
21
01203.0005/275942.1 Ordinance No. __
Page 5 of 8
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.
22
01203.0005/275942.1 Ordinance No. __
Page 6 of 8
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 appeal may be appealed to the city council. Any appeal must be accompanied by payment of the
appropriate appeal fee, as established by city council resolution. No city tree review permit shall be
effective until all applicable appeal periods have been exhausted.
(Ord. 415 § 4, 2005: Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997)
(Ord. No. 547, § 5, 10-1-13)
Section 6: That Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(e) of the Municipal Code is hereby
amended as follows (strike-out text is for removed language and underlined text is for
new language):
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.)
Section 7: That Section 17.86.050(A)(2) of the Municipal Code is hereby
amended as follows (strike-out text is for removed language and underlined text is for
new language):
A. The city shall not accept for processing or grant:
1. Any application for a development, use or other permit or entitlement on any lot or
parcel on which the director has verified that a violation of this Code exists; or
2. A view restoration or a view preservation application or an application for a city
tree review permit submitted by the owner of a lot or parcel on which the
director has verified that a violation of this Code exists.
Section 8: That Section 17.80.030 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended
as follows (strike-out text is for removed language and underlined text is for new
language):
A. Unless otherwise expressly provided in Title 16 or Title 17 of this Code, any decision
made by the director pursuant to Title 16 or Title 17 of this Code may be appealed to
the planning commission and any decision made by the planning commission or view
restoration commission pursuant to Title 16 or Title 17 of this Code, with the
exception of decisions described in subsection C below, may be appealed to the city
council.
23
01203.0005/275942.1 Ordinance No. __
Page 7 of 8
B. The director is designated as a zoning administrator pursuant to Section 65900 of the
California Government Code with respect to these decisions which may be rendered
by that officer or his or her designees pursuant to this Title 17. When acting as a
zoning administrator pursuant to this subsection B, the director shall exercise the
authority conferred by this title and authorized by Section 65901 of the California
Government Code.
C. Any view assessment or trimming/removal determinations made by the Director in
association with the processing of applications by the Public Works Department for
the trimming or removal of City trees are not appealable to the Planning Commission
since such Public Works Department decisions are appealable to the City Council
pursuant to Municipal Code section 12.08.100.
Section 9: Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence,
clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court
of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of
this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this
ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause,
phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared
invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 10: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3)
public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage, in accordance with the
provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk shall further certify
to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and its
certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of
the Council of this City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Section 11: This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at
12:01 AM on the 31st day after its passage.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1st day of December 2015.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
24
01203.0005/275942.1 Ordinance No. __
Page 8 of 8
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the
above Ordinance No. __ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City
Council at a regular meeting thereof held on December 1, 2015.
________________________
City Clerk
25
P.C. Resolution No. 2015-18
Attachment - 1
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY COUNCIL-
ADOPTED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO
RESCIND FROM CHAPTER 17.76, SECTION 100, CITY TREE REVIEW
PERMIT AND DELETE REFERENCES TO THE CITY TREE REVIEW
PERMIT PROCEDURES CONTAINED IN SECTIONS 17.02.040(C)(2)(e)
AND 17.86.050(A)(2) AND ADD APPEAL EXEMPTION LANGUAGE TO
SECTION 17.80.030 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE (CASE NO.
ZON2015-00383).
WHEREAS, Chapter 76.100 of Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code (the "Municipal Code") sets forth various procedures and
regulations regarding City Tree Review Permit applications; and,
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2013, Mayor Pro Tern Brooks presented a
study session item for the Council to consider agendizing an item to discuss
proposed changes to the current City tree trimming and maintenance practices,
at which time, the Council directed Staff to review the current City tree trimming
and maintenance practices for improvements; and,
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2014, Staff presented to the City Council an
overview of the Public Works Department's City street tree trimming maintenance
practices and the Community Development Department's City Tree Review
Permit procedure pertaining to view impairing City trees. After hearing Staff's
presentation, the City Council directed Staff to hold public workshops with the
goal of creating a proposal that would reconcile the Departments practices and
procedures; and,
WHEREAS, on June 30, 2015, after the numerous public workshops were
held by the City, and after receiving feedback and suggestions from the public,
Staff presented a proposal to the City Council that considered eliminating the City
Tree Review Permit process from the Development Code (Title 17) and to
introduce a view restoration analysis component into the existing Public Work's
Department City-owned tree trimming and maintenance policy; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council on June 30, 2015 initiated a code
amendment to make the appropriate changes to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code, namely Section 17. 76.100 (City Tree Review Permit);
and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal
Code, Section 17.68.040 the Planning Commission must consider any proposed
code amendment; and
P.C. Resolution No. 2015-18
Page 1
Attachment - 2
WHEREAS, on August 13, 2015, a 30-day public notice on the proposed
amendments to the Municipal Code was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula
News; and,
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2015, the Planning Commission held a
public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to
be heard and present evidence, then continued the public hearing to September
22,2015;and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2015, the Planning Commission held a
public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to
be heard and present evidence, then continued the public hearing to October 27,
2015; and
WHEREAS, on October 27, 2015, the Planning Commission held a
continued public hearing; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: That the amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code are
consistent with California Government Code Section 65853, zoning amendment
procedures.
Section 2: That the removal of Chapter 17.76 section 100, and the
amendments of Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(e), Section 17.86.050(A)(2), and
Section 17.80.030 of the Municipal Code are consistent with the Rancho Palos
Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in that they uphold, and do not
hinder, the goals and policies of those plans.
Section 3: The Planning Commission further finds, based upon its own
independent review, that there is no substantial evidence that the amendments to
Title 17 would result in new significant environmental effects, or a substantial
increase in the severity of the effects, as previously identified in the Negative
Declaration adopted in conjunction with Ordinance No. 510 for amendments to
Title 17 of the Municipal Code, because the practices and procedures of the
rescinded City Tree Review Permit procedure will be replaced with the existing
City street tree practices, policies and procedures that are in place and
administered by the City's Public Works Department. The Public Works
Department's City street tree practices, policies and procedures that are currently
in place or will be otherwise improved on, have the same environmental effect as
the rescinded City Tree Review Permit procedure. Accordingly, the Planning
Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt an Addendum
(No.9) to the prior Council-approved Negative Declaration, which is attached
hereto as Exhibit "A," complies with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
P.C. Resolution No. 2015-18
Page 2
Attachment - 3
Section 4: That the amendments to Chapter 17.76, Section 100,
Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(e), Section 17.86.050(A)(2), and Section 17.80.030 of
the Municipal Code will preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare
achieved by preventing the needless impairment of views from vista points and
view lots, as the proposed amendments will streamline the process and
procedures to have view impairing City trees trimmed or removed. The proposed
amendments will further preserve more trees in the community because City-
owned, view impairing trees, will not be automatically be removed, as is the
current procedure.
Section 5: That Chapter 17.76, Section 100 of the Municipal Code, be
hereby rescinded as follows (strike out text is for removed language):
17. 76 .1 00 Gity-Tr·ee-Review-Pen'.llit
Purp0s~T'.his-chapter-previtles-a-pr-0cedure.for.tl1e-pruning-ar:id/0Hemoval.0f .. trees-and/0F
foliage-wl'lich-are.-l0cated·0n-city-property,a-city .. easement0r-within-the-public-right-0f-wayin
order-te..protectthe-publis-health,safety-and-welfare-byprever:iting-tl'le-needless-impairment
of-views.from-vista-points-and-view-lots,.
Apprsvat-Required.-Acity-tree-review-permit-is-r-equired-prior-to.the-pruning-and/or-removal
0f-any-tr-eeand/0r.fGliage.looatea-on-sitypropeFty,-a-0it:feasemeRt-or-within-thepubliG·right-
of-way,for-the-purposes-of.view.rest0ration.
Exempti0n,..Trees.and/or---foliage-located-within·the-boundaries-0f-the·MiralesteRecreati0n
andPark-Q.istriot-shall-nGt-be-subject-to-the-pmvisions-of-this-section,
Gity-+ree.Heview-Permit-ApplieatioR-;-Any-pernon-ewning-laRd-in.the-sity-may-filean
appliGati0n-for-a.0itytree-r-eview-.permit.,..AR-appliGati0r:i-for-asity-tree-review-perm it.shall be
made-t04he-dirwter-oo-fGr-ms-provided·-by41ie-Gity,-aRd·-s"1all-include-tlie.fGUowing .. ltems:
+.
A-oompleted-applicati0n ... form--signed·-by-the-pr-eperty.owner-of-the-pmpertywher-e-t.Jie
view-is-impaired-;-and
A-plan-0r-map,--drawn-t0the-satisfaction-of-the·dire0tor 1 which-Glearly-shows-the
l0sati0n-0f.-each-tfee--and/or-.fofiage-located-on-Gityproperty,a-city-easement.or·within
the-publis-right-e.f..way-that-is-impair1ng--tl'le-viewe.f..the-applicant;-and
AGurr-ent-pl10tograp1i.of-the-·alleged-view-impairment-taKen-fromthe..appficanrs
viewing-area;..-ar:id
An-applisation.:fee,.as-established-by .. Gity-counoil-resolution7
Review-Griteria,...l'.he-dif-ect0r--or-the-OireGtor!s-designea-shall--eithergr-aRt,-0r-conditionaUy
gr-ant.the-Gity-tree-review-per-mit-if,-after--sonductingaA··investigation-of..the-applicant~s
property.it.fs-Getermined-that-trees.and/or-foliage-located--on--city--property.-a-Git.y-easement
orin-the-public-right-of-way-are-signifisantly~mpairing-a-view.from-a-viewing-ar-eaof-the
applicant'.s-l0t;.as-defined-in-.Se9tion 1.?-,02c040-(View·P,feservationand-Restoratl0n)-of-this
title,.
P.C. Resolution No. 2015-18
Page 3
Attachment - 4
Gonditions-0f-Permit-lssuanooc-ln-granting-anY-aPPFOVai-1:1ntler-this-seGtlon,-the·-Oireot0i:.may
lmpose-sL1Gh-conditions-tfiereonasmaybe--reasonal:>ly.-neoossary-tG-pr-event-danger-to
pL1l:>li<:ror-private-property+-to-prevent--the-tr-ee.rem0val-or-pr1:1ning..ffom-being-ooAGIJGte<il-in..a
manner-that-is-likely-to-GreateanuisanGa;-or-t0-preserve-the-iRtent-ofany-goalor-policy-of
the-general-planT'No-per-son--shall-violate-any--cond~tions--so-imposed-by-the·direGtorAi>uGl:i
Gonditionsmay-·include,-but--shall--not-oe-limited--to,-the-following,;
4-,.
F-or-.a-city.-tree-and/or-felia9e-that-is-looated-within-the-parkway-and-foadway.-median1
or-witl1in-any-0ther-tiity--propertyor-city-easement-(except-Oity--paFk-s);-
a-
Aview-impair:in@--tfee-and/or--foliage-shalloe-removedand-replaced-with-a-similar
24-inch-·OOX··Si:z;e-tfee-by-the-oity-,--l=h&-{iity-shall-pay-for-allcostsof-tree-and/or
foliagei:emoval.-and-replacement.,-Trees-and/or-f0liage-that-areremoved--shall--n0t
be-replaced---if-the-fellowing-conditionsexist
h
The-replaGementtree-or-foliage-wUl·-immediately-cause-a-significant
impairment·of--theview--fr0m·-the·applica1~t~s--v~ewing-areai
+he-director-of-public-wofks-determines-a-replacement-treewould-cause
damage.to-the-impr0vements-in-the-publio-right-Of-way-(-street,-BL1rb,
sidewalk;etcc}or-obscure--traffic--visibility-or-create-animpediment-to
pedestrian-access-within-the-.publicright-of-way-;
T.fl&-{iity-shall-make-the-final-determination·as-to-the·-type.and-number-of
replacement-tr-ees-and/.or-f<:>liage,if-any,
lfa-f)ers0n-who-has-received-notification-of-the-direGtor-'-s-deGision·-·files--a-written
request-t0-n0t-remove-the--tree-0r:--f01iage-(-within-seven-days .. 0f--the-notifioati0n},
then-the-tree-and/er-f0liage-may-bepr-t:lned-insteadofremoved,.provided-the
following-conditions-Gan-be-met:
h
The--directer:-deter:mines-ihat-the-pruning-of.-the-subjeet-tree-and/er-foliage
will-eliminate-the--significant-lmpairment .. ofthe-applicant-'s-view+
+he-director-determines-that-the--prun-inQ-of-the-subjeGt-tfee-and/or--foliage
will-not-rasult-ir-i--an-unsightly-tr-ee-and/or-likely-kill-0rweaken-the--tree;
:r.ne-tlire0t0r-ofpublisworks-deten:i:1ines-that-the-tree-and/or-foliage-has-not;
and-will-n0t,.cause-damage-to-impmvements-i11-thepublic-right-of-way
(-street,--cui:b,-sidewalk,-etc,.);
lJpon-reeeipt-0f..the-written-a@reement--0f-tfieownerfsj-of-thepreperty
direGUyabutting-or-uRderlying-thepuoliG-right-0f-way-or-parkway.-where-the
tre-e--and/er-f0liag-e-.is-Josated-i-the-Gity-aRd-aAy-of-the.par:ties-whG-were
noHfied-pur-suant-to-subsection(G)(-1}en ter-into-an-agf-eement-that-is
recorded--oR-the-title·-0f-the·agre-eing--party'.s-property,--bin€1ing-that-pr-eper-ty
0wner-and--any-futt:ir-e-0wAer-s-0f.-that-property-t0-maintain-the-trees-andlor
foliage-se-as--t<:>-pr-event-future--signifisant-view-impair-ment-by-suGhtree
and/or-f01iage,.--The-a@reement··between-the-Gity.and--the--property-·owner
shall-specif.y-the-maximum-time·-interval,.as-de-tennined--to--Oeappropriate-by
the-director,within-whichthe-property--OWner-shall-undertake-and-pay-fer
suGfi.-maintenanGe+
P.C. Resolution No. 2015-18
Page4
Attachment - 5
Sh01;1ld-the-pmperty-{)Wner,-wh0-has-enteFed-int0-an--agFeement-with-the-Gity
to-maintairi-a-city-tree-0r-foliage,within--30days-ofreeeiving-a-n0Uee-from
the--city~equesting-maintenanee,fall-to-adhere-tG-the-maintenanse
prov+siGflS-of-the-agreement,-thEH1-tl:le-Gity-shaU-terminate-the-agreement
anEi-shaH-r-emove-the-subjeGt-tree(-s)lfoliage-at-the-eity's-expense-:
For-trees-and/0r-foliage-loeatedwithin--a-city--park.:-
a-
lf-t.fle--city-determines-tl:lat--t.fle-tree-aAd/or-foliage-Reeds-t0-be-r-em0ved-i11--order-to
rest0re-the-af>pHeant's-v~ew,the---sity-sl1aU-determine--whether-the-tree-andlor
feliage-shall-be-replaeed,aAdshall-make-the-final-detefmination-as-to--thetype
aAd-nYmber-of-replaeement-trees-aAe/or-fGliage-:
lf-the-eity-<:leter::rnines-that-the-tr-ee-and/or-feliage-eanbe;xuned-torestor-e-tFie
applieant's-view-with0ut-damaging-0r-killin9-the-tree-0r-foliage,.theGity-shall
maintain-the-tree-and/or-foliage-so-as-to--pteventfutureview-impair-mentby-tl:ie
tree-and/er-foliage-:
+heeity--shaU-payf0r-all-G0St-s-0f-tree-and/-0r-foliage-pH1nirig,-removal-and/or
r-eplaGement7-'.f'.he-Gay-shall--make-the-firial-detennination-as-t0-tha-type-and
number-of-replaGement--trees-arid/or-foliaga,-Whenever-workisto-be-pe1:formed,
it-shall-be-performed-by-the-Gity"
NotifiGation.When--the--director-makes-a-determinaticm--regardirig-a-Gity-treereview-per+nit,
writteri--not4Ge-(}f-the-deGisien-sl1all-beiJiven-as-follows,.
~
Whefl--tl1e-foliage-is-l0Gatedon-a-Gity--str-eet-0r--easement;-aR0tiee-of-tFie-determination
tG.grant-the--applieation-st:lall-be-serit-totFieapplieant(-s},-theapprepriate-homeowners
asseeiation,andtt:le-20·Glosest--adjasent-propertieswitt:lin-the-Gity--0f-RanGt:loP-al0s
Verdes,-iriGIYding-the-0wrief(&}-of-thepmper:ty-direeHy-ab1;1Uirig-0r--underlying-the-publie
r-ight-of-way-where--the-sYbjeet-tree(:s}-and/-0r-foliage--ai:e-l0eate<:t-Adjaeentproperties
shall-iRGlude--the--20-Glesest-lets·wlthin-theGity-of-RanGho-P.alos-Verdes,.whis~are-ori
the-same-str-eet,-air-eGUY··abllttiRg and adjacent-to-the-property-where-the-tree-and/er
feliage-are-leeated.,.-Notise-of-denial--shall-be-given-only-to-the-apf>lieant7
When-the-foliage-is-losated-in-a-city..park.-flotise--Gf.-the--direGtof'.'c&-desi&ion-shall-be
giveri--0rily-to-the--applisant.,.
N0UGe-Gf-the-permittletermiriati0nto-grarittheapplisatiori-sFiall-be-p0sted-b-y-city..staff
on-a··G0nspisu01:Js-l0eation-0n.ea0Mree-that-is-the-subjeet-of-an .. appliGation--desisi0r:f,
f0r-.tr-ees-loeated-0n-city-preperty,n0tiee--Gf-thedetermination--shall-not-be-posted--on
any-tree-wher-e-the--direGtor-deter-mines-thataGGess-to.said--tree-is-teG-GiffiGult-er
hazardeus-te-post-the rietise,
Apf')eals.Any-inter-ested-persoR-r-eseivirig-neUse-of-tFie-air:eetor'.s-deeisiori-may-appeal-the
cleeision-to-the--plaARing-c0mmissi0ri1iri-writlrig,within-·:t5-calendardays-of-the--director~s
deeisi0n7-Pursuant-t-O::§eet1on-1-7-:-02-,040(-G1(2)(-g}-of-.themYAicipal-Gode,.-the-deGisi0n-0f-the
plarinin9-commissi0F1--0n-susR-an-appeal-may-be-appealed-to-the-eity-eeuncil.Any-appeal
must-be-aGGompanied-by--payment-ef-the-appropriate-a-ppeal-fee,as--established-by--sity
Gounsil-r-eseluti0n,...NG-Gity-tr-ee--rev~ew-permit-shall·be-effeotive-1:Jntilall-applicable-appeal
periods-have-been-exhaustecl,
(GfdA:t-5--§-4;-2005T-Grd,-320·-§··+{part-),-1-997-)
(Grd7"No,-547,--§-&,--1-0-1-13)
P.C. Resolution No. 2015-18
Page 5
Attachment - 6
Section 6: That Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(e) of the Municipal Code is
hereby amended as follows (strike out text is for removed language, and bold
and underlined text is for new language):
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
pr-e\4siofls-.of-this-seetieflt--f}1;1fS1;1aflt-te-the-Gity-tree-r-eview-fler.mit-pr-OGedt:1r-e
GGfltaifletl-in-SeGtiefl-1-7-. ..J~-Gity-tFee-review-permit.)
Section 7: That Section 17.86.050(A)(2) of the Municipal Code is
hereby amended as follows (strike out text is for removed language):
A. The city shall not accept for processing or grant:
1. Any application for a development, use or other permit or entitlement on
any lot or parcel on which the director has verified that a violation of this
Code exists; or
2. A view restoration or a view preservation application 0r-an-applioatioA
fGF-a-Gity....tfee-r.eview-f1ermit-submitted by the owner of a lot or parcel
on which the director has verified that a violation of this Code exists.
Section 8: That Section 17.80.030 of the Municipal Code is hereby
amended as follows (underlined text is for added language):
A Unless otherwise expressly provided in Title 16 or Title 17 of this Code, any decision
made by the director pursuant to Title 16 or Title 17 of this Code may be appealed to the
planning commission and any decision made by the planning commission or view
restoration commission pursuant to Title 16 or Title 17 of this Code, with the exception of
decisions described in subsection C below, may be appealed to the city council.
B. The director is designated as a zoning administrator pursuant to Section 65900 of the
California Government Code with respect to these decisions which may be rendered by
that officer or his or her designees pursuant to this Title 17. When acting as a zoning
administrator pursuant to this subsection B, the director shall exercise the authority
conferred by this title and authorized by Section 65901 of the California Government
Code.
C. Any view assessment or trimming/removal determinations made by the Director in
association with the processing of applications by the Public Works Department for the
trimming or removal of City trees are not appealable to the Planning Commission since
such Public Works Department decisions are appealable to the City Council pursuant to
Municipal Code section 12.08.100.
Section 9: For the foregoing reasons, and based on the information and
findings included in the Staff Report, the testimony and evidence presented at
the public hearings, minutes, and other records of the proceedings, the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby recommends that the
P.C. Resolution No. 2015-18
Page 6
Attachment - 7
City Council adopt Addendum No. 9 to the previously Council-adopted Negative
Declaration and an Ordinance amending Title 17 of the City's Municipal Code
pertaining to the City Tree Review Permit procedures.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 27th day of October 2015, by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, Gerstner, James, Leon,
Vice Chairman Tomblin, Chairman Nelson
NOES: None
ABSTENTION: None
ABSENT: None
RECUSALS: None
Bob Nelson
Chairman
P.C. Resolution No. 2015-18
Page 7
Attachment - 8
EXHIBIT "A"
(Addendum No. 9 to Negative Declaration)
Project Background: On June 1, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
2010-43, thereby adopting a Negative Declaration for miscellaneous amendments to
Title 17 of the City's Municipal Code to enact the Residential Development
Standards Steering Committee Code Amendment and Zone Change (Ordinance No.
510). Prior to its adoption, the Negative Declaration was circulated for public
comment from April 1, 2010, through May 1, 2010. In adopting the Negative
Declaration, the City Council found that: 1) the Negative Declaration was prepared in
the manner required by law and that there was no substantial evidence that, with
appropriate mitigation measures, the approval of the Residential Development
Standards Steering Committee Code Amendment and Zone Change (Case No.
ZON2007-00377) would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment;
and 2) that the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee Code
Amendment and Zone Change were consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes
General Plan and with the Coastal Specific Plan. On September 21, 2010, the City
Council adopted Ordinance No. 513U, thereby approving Addendum No. 1 to the
certified ND, to make minor changes to Chapter 17.38 of the Development Code to
correct the omission of Specific Plan District VII, and to change the designation of
specific plan districts from numbered to descriptive titles. On November 15, 2011,
the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 529, thereby approving Addendum No. 2 to
the certified ND and approving miscellaneous "clean-up" code amendments to Title
17 (Zoning) of the City's Development Code which clarified code language, removed
code language discrepancies, and codified existing policy procedures and/or
application requirements. On February 7, 2012, the City Council adopted Ordinance
No. 532, thereby approved Addendum No. 3 to the certified ND and approving a
change in the allowable movement of an open space hazard boundary line from
thirty feet to one hundred feet through an interpretation procedure. On April 3, 2012,
the City Council approved adopted Ordinance No. 535, thereby approving
Addendum No. 4 to the Certified ND for a code amendment to revise Chapters
17.02, 17.04, and 17.98 of the Municipal Code to regulate the number of residential
garage sales. On July 16, 2013, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2013-48
that approved Addendum No. 5 to the Certified ND for a code amendment to revise
Chapter 17.76.030 of the Development Code pertaining to the Fences, Walls and
Hedges permits. On August 6, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 510
that approved Addendum No. 6 to the Certified ND for a code amendment to revise
Chapter 17. 76.030(F) of the Development Code pertaining to arterial walls and
fences. On September 17, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 54 7 that
approved Addendum No. 7 to the Certified ND for a code amendment to revise
Chapter 17.76.100 of the Development Code pertaining to the City Tree Review
Permits. On March 18, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 546 that
approved Addendum No. 8 to the Certified ND for a code amendment to revise
Section 17.76.030 of the Development Code pertaining to Fences, Walls and
Hedges.
Proposed Amendments: The proposed code amendment to rescind Chapter
17.76.100 of the Municipal Code (City Tree Review Permit) and to amend Section
17.02.040(C)(2)(e) and Section 17.86.050(A)(2) of the Municipal Code eliminating
the City Tree Review Permit procedure and those sections of the code that makes
P.C. Resolution No. 2015-18
Page 8
Attachment - 9
reference to the City Tree Review Permit procedure in order to transfer City tree
trimming and removal, for the purposes of view restoration, to the City's Public
Works Department. In addition, the proposed code amendment adds language to
Municipal Code Section 17.80.030 exempting appeal rights for determinations made
by the Community Development Director for view determinations specific to city-
owned trees.
Purpose: This Addendum to the previously Council-certified Negative Declaration is
being prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines which allows for the lead agency to prepare an addendum to
an adopted Negative Declaration if only minor technical changes or additions are
necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the
preparation of a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration have occurred. Pursuant to
CEQA Section 15162, no subsequent Negative Declaration shall be prepared for the
project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in
light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will required major
revisions of the previous Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new,
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will required major revisions of the previous
Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity or previously identified
significant effects; or,
3. New information of substantial importance identifies one or more significant
effects not discussed in the previous Negative Declaration, significant effects
previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the
previous Negative Declaration, mitigation measures or alternative previously
found not to be feasible or not analyzed in the Negative Declaration would be
feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects but the
project proponents decline to adopt a measure or alternative.
Findings Regarding the Proposed Project Revisions:
Staff analyzed the proposed code amendment revisions to Title 17, namely Section
17. 76.100, to determine if any impacts would result. The Planning Commission has
independently reviewed this item and has determined that, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162, a new Negative Declaration is not required for this
revision because the proposed amendments will not result in any new significant
environmental effects:
1. The proposed revisions do not result in any new significant environmental
effects and, like Ordinance No. 510, 513U, 529, 532, 535, and 546 no
significant impacts have been identified. The revisions to Title 17 (Zoning) do
not present new significant environmental impacts because the practices and
procedures of the rescinded City Tree Review Permit procedure will be
P.C. Resolution No. 2015-18
Page 9
Attachment - 10
replaced with the existing City street tree practices, policies and procedures
that are in place and administered by the City's Public Works Department.
Therefore, the proposed revisions do not represent a substantial change in
the code, and will not result in new significant environmental impacts or a
substantial increase in the severity of any impacts.
2. The proposed revisions will not result in any significant environmental
impacts, and the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken
have not substantially changed since the CEQA determination was made for
Ordinance No. 510. The rescinded Section 17.76.100 is to be replaced with
existing City street tree maintenance practices, policies and procedures that
are currently in place. There are no changes with respect to the
circumstances under which the revisions are undertaken that will require
major revisions of the previous Negative Declaration.
3. No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and
could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the
time the prior Negative Declaration was adopted, identifies a significant
environmental effect. Because the proposed revisions would not result in any
new or more severe environmental impacts than those associated with
Ordinance No. 510, there is no need for new or substantially modified
mitigation measures.
Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, the Planning Commission finds that no further
environmental review is necessary other than the City Council's adoption of this
Addendum No. 9.
P.C. Resolution No. 2015-18
Page 10
Attachment - 11
P.C. Staff Reports from
September 8, 2015,
September 22, 2015 &
October 27, 2015
Attachment - 12
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNI G COMMISSION
FROM:
DATE:
JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEVELO
OCTOBER 27, 2015
SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT TO AMEND TITLE 17 OF RPVMC, CITY TREE
REVIEW PERMIT (CASE NO. ZON2015-00383)
Staff Coordinator: John Alvarez, Senior Planner~
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-_ forwarding a recommendation to the
City Council to amend the City's Municipal Code to rescind Section 17. 76.100 (City Tree
Review Permit); delete references to the City Tree Review Permit procedures contained in
Sections 17.02.040(C)(2)(e) and 17.86.050(A)(2); and add language to Section 17.80.030
to clarify the appeal process for City decisions involving the trimming/removal of city trees.
BACKGROUND
On June 30, 2015 the City Council directed Staff to implement a streamlined Public Works
City tree review process that includes trimming or removal of view-impairing City trees. The
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code currently includes a process by which the Community
Development Department reviews requests to trim or remove view-impairing City trees. In
order to transition this process to the Public Works Department, the City must remove the
Municipal Code sections referring to the Community Development Department's process.
Under Municipal Code section 17.68.040 the Planning Commission must hold a public
hearing prior to consider any proposed Municipal Code amendment, and then must make a
recommendation to the City Council.
On September 81h, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and discussed the
proposed code amendments that would replace the current City Tree Review Permit
process with a new streamlined process that would be administered by the City's Public
Works Department. The Commission continued the public hearing to September 22nd so
that Staff could obtain a written interim public tree process from the Public Works
Department that is designed to replace the City Tree Review Permit procedure. At the
September 22nd Commission meeting, Staff presented a verbal summary of the interim
public tree view process instituted by the Public Works Department. After reviewing the
interim process, the Commission expressed a number of concerns. One of the primary
issues raised by the Commission is that the interim process did not allow an appeal
procedure. As such, the Commission continued the public hearing to October 27, 2015 to
01203.0006/272394.1
Attachment - 13
Staff Report: CTRP Code Amendment
CASE No. ZON2015-000383
October 27, 2015
allow Staff time to present the interim written process to the Commission and have the
Deputy Public Works Director attend the October 27th meeting to clarify certain issues.
DISCUSSION
Interim Public Works Department Process for Dealing with City Tree View Requests
Pursuant to the Commission's direction on September 22nd, the Public Works Department's
interim city tree review process is attached for the Commission's review (see attached
October 19, 2015 Public Works Dept. Interim process). The interim process will be posted
to the City's website so that it is easily accessible to residents.
The interim process includes a neighbor notification and appeal process. Specifically, the
Public Works Department notifies adjacent residents, in writing, of pending City tree
trimming and/or removal 7 calendar days prior to the work being performed (No. 5 of the
interim process). This notification allows residents to make timely inquires to the City about
pending tree trimming or removals and appeal the Staff determinations. If notified residents
have concerns with the proposed City tree trimming or removal work, they have an
opportunity to appeal the Director of Public Works' decisions to the City Council pursuant to
existing Municipal Code Section 12.08.100. This Municipal Code section makes it clear that
no person shall prevent, delay or interfere with the Public Works Department's execution of
Chapter 12.08 which governs city trees and shrubs and establishes an appeal process for
any person aggrieved by any determination made by the Director of Public Works in the
course of exercising the authority granted by said chapter. This appeal process is
incorporated into the attached interim process (No. 6).
Proposed Code Amendments
Given the City Council's directive to Staff on June 30, 2015 to implement a streamlined
Public Works city tree review process, the City's Public Works Department is taking the
necessary steps to gear up for the new streamlined process with the intent of presenting the
new formalized process to the City Council in early 2016. In the interim, so as to not turn
away residents who may have situations of city trees blocking their views, the Public Works
Department has instituted the attached interim process to address incoming complaints
about City trees that impair views.
In order to avoid confusion to the public by the inclusion of conflicting policies regarding City
trees that impair views, Staff proposes to delete the City Tree Review Permit procedure
outlined in Section 17.76.100 now instead of in early 2016 when Public Works' formalized
process is presented to the City Council. In addition to deleting RPVMC Section 17.76.100,
Staff proposes to also amend Sections 17.02.040(C)(2)(e) and 17.86.050(A)(2) to delete
references to the current City Tree Review Permit process. Those strikethrough
amendments are noted below:
Sections 17.02.040(C)(2)(e):
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;
01203.0006/272394.1
Attachment - 14
Staff Report: CTRP Code Amendment
CASE No. ZON2015-000383
October 27, 2015
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-pei:-ttle-pFGVisieAs-Gf---this-sestk>n,--pufSuaAt-te the city-tree
r.eview-peFmit-pr.ece4ufe-OORtaif.led-iA-SeGtie~,4QQ-fGity-tr.ee-review-pen:nit.-}
Section 17 .86.050(A)(2):
A. The city shall not accept for processing or grant:
1. Any application for a development, use or other permit or entitlement on any lot or
parcel on which the director has verified that a violation of this Code exists; or
2. A view restoration or a view preservation application er-aR-applicatieA-for-a-0it-y
tree--review-pennit-submitted by the owner of a lot or parcel on which the
director has verified that a violation of this Code exists.
Furthermore, given that decisions on city tree review permits made by the Public Works
Department, under the interim or final process, are subject to the appeal provisions of
existing Municipal Code Section 12.08.100, Staff proposes to amend Development Code
Section 17.80.030 (Appellate Authority) to clarify that any view determinations made by
planning staff in support of Public Works' city tree decisions are not themselves appealable
to the Planning Commission. This would avoid the possibility of a cumbersome two-pronged
appeal process where an aggrieved resident could appeal the Community Development
Director's determination of a significant view impairment citing Section 17.80.030 while
concurrently appealing the Public Works Department's decision to remove a City tree under
a separate appeal process to the City Council.
As such, Staff proposes to amend Section 17.80.030 (Appellate Authority) as follows (see
underlined text):
A. Unless otherwise expressly provided in Title 16 or Title 17 of this Code, any decision made by the
director pursuant to Title 16 or Title 17 of this Code, with the exception of decisions described in
subsection C below, may be appealed to the planning commission and any decision made by the
planning commission or view restoration commission pursuant to Title 16 or Title 17 of this Code
may be appealed to the city council.
B. The director is designated as a zoning administrator pursuant to Section 65900 of the California
Government Code with respect to these decisions which may be rendered by that officer or his or
her designees pursuant to this Title 17. When acting as a zoning administrator pursuant to this
subsection B, the director shall exercise the authority conferred by this title and authorized by
Section 65901 of the California Government Code.
C. Any view assessment or trimming/removal determinations made by the Director in association
with the processing of applications by the Public Works Department for the trimming or removal of
City trees are not appealable to the Planning Commission since such Public Works Department
decisions are appealable to the City Council pursuant to Municipal Code section 12.08.100.
Environmental Assessment
On June 29, 2010, the City Council certified a Negative Declaration (ND), which was
prepared in conjunction with the adopted Ordinance No. 510, adopting the Residential
01203.0006/272394.1
Attachment - 15
Staff Report: CTRP Code Amendment
CASE No. ZON2015-000383
October 27, 2015
Development Standards Steering Committee (RDSSC) Code Amendment and Zone
Change (Planning Case No. ZON2007-00377). The RDSSC Code Amendment involved
modifications to miscellaneous provisions of the Development Code, which (with the
certification of the ND) the City Council found to have no significant impacts upon the
environment. Since then, several other addendums have been adopted in order to address
Development Code language changes that were consistent with the original ND.
The proposed code amendment is to rescind the section of the code relating to the City
Tree Review Permit process of Section 17. 76.100 to provide a more efficient process for
handling view impairing City-owned trees. Thus, Staff believes that the proposed code
amendment revisions are within the scope of the miscellaneous Development Code
revisions analyzed in the ND for Ordinance No. 51 O for the RDSSC Code Amendment. The
RDSSC Code Amendment was similar to the currently proposed amendment in that it
clarified existing codes and processes. The currently proposed code amendment does not
propose any new project, but rather moves current City functions from one department to
another. Therefore, Staff has prepared and Addendum to the RDSSC Code Amendment
ND to address the compliance of the revisions to Section 17. 76.100 with the provisions of
CEQA, are attached to the P.C. Resolution.
Public Notification
A notice of public hearing announcing the Planning Commission's September 8, 2015
hearing date was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on August 13, 2015. To
date, no written correspondence has been received from the public regarding this matter.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing discussion, Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the
attached Resolution, which recommends that the City Council delete Section 17.76.100 of
the Municipal Code in its entirety and amend Sections 17.02.040(C)(2)(e}, 17.86.050(A)(2)
and 17.80.030 of the Municipal Code.
ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission's consideration in
addition to Staff's recommendation:
1. Identify any additional issues of concern with the proposed amendment and provide
Staff with modifications; or
2. Deny the Code Amendment proposal and direct staff to prepare a resolution setting
forth the Planning Commission's reasons for its recommendation not to amend the
Municipal Code, thereby recommending that the City Council take no further action
to modify the City Tree Review Permit procedure.
ATTACHMENTS:
• October 19, 2016 Public Works Department's Interim Process for City Tree
01203.0006/272394.1
Attachment - 16
Staff Report: CTRP Code Amendment
CASE No. ZON2015-000383
October 27, 2015
requests
• Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-_
• Exhibit "A", Addendum to the RDSSC Code Amendment ND
• September 22, 2015 Planning Commission Memorandum with associated
September 8, 2015 Planning Commission Memorandum and June 301h City
Council Staff Report
• RPVMC Section 17. 76.100
• RPVMC Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(e)
• RPVMC Section 17.86.050(A)(2)
• RPVMC Section 17.80.030
01203. 0006/272394.1
Attachment - 17
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMl1_~10N
JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY OEVELOMENT OIRECTOR49' ~J'.~.
SEPTEMBER 22, 2015
SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT TO AMEND TITLE 17 OF RPVMC, CITY TREE
REVIEW PERMIT (CASE No. ZON2015-00383)
Staff Coordinator: John Alvarez, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-_ forwarding a recommendation to
the City Council to adopt an amendment to the City's Municipal Code to rescind Chapter
17.76, Section 100 (City Tree Review Permit) and delete references to the City Tree
Review Permit procedures contained in Sections 17.02.040(C)(2)(e) and
17.86.050(A)(2) of the City's Municipal Code.
BACKGROUND
At its meeting of June 30, 2015, the City Council directed Staff to initiate the process to
replace the City's existing City Tree Review Permit process with a new streamlined
process that will be administered by the City's Public Works Department (see attached
June 30, 2015 City Council Staff Report) rather than the Community Development
Department. The main purpose of replacing the existing City Tree Review Permit
process is to consolidate all City tree trimming and removal under one City department
to minimize confusion by the general public. In response to this Council action, Staff is
proposing to remove the current City Tree Review Permit application and procedure
from the City's Development Code. This will allow the City's Public Works Department
to respond to and address all City tree trimming and removal requests without
conflicting with the City's current Development Code. The proposed code amendment is
before the Planning Commission because any changes to Title 17 of the Development
Code requires a recommendation by the Commission before being forwarded to the City
Council for consideration.
Staff publically noticed the matter in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News noting that the
Planning Commission would consider the proposed code amendment on September 8,
2015. On September ath, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and
discussed the proposed code amendment. While the Commission understood the
Attachment - 18
Staff Report: CTRP Code Amendment
CASE No. ZON2015-000383
September 22, 2015
rationale of the City Council's intent to replace the current City Tree Review Permit
process with a new streamlined process, the Commission expressed concerns with
removing the current City Tree Review Permit process from the Zoning Code before
knowing what the new streamlined process will be. Staff noted that given the Council's
directive to Staff on June 301h, Staff is no longer accepting City Tree Review Permit
Applications and has instituted an interim process for dealing with view issues involving
City trees that is administered by the City's Public Works Department. The Planning
Commission continued the public hearing to September 22, 2015 to obtain more
information on the current interim review process.
DISCUSSION
Interim City Process for Dealing with City Tree View Requests
Given the Council's directive on June 3Qth to replace the current City Tree Review
Permit process with a more streamlined review process administered by the City's
Public Works Department, Public Works Staff instituted an interim review process while
all the steps outlined in the June 30, 2015 City Council Staff Report (attached) are taken
to create a new formal process for City Council approval sometime in early 2016.
The interim review process involves the following steps:
1) If a resident contacts the City with a concern that a tree within the City's right-of-
way or on City property is impairing their view, they are forwarded to the City's
Public Works Department.
2) The City's Public Works Department investigates the matter to confirm whether
the subject view impairing tree is located within the public right-of-way or on City
property.
3) If confirmed to be a City tree, the case is forwarded to the planners in the
Community Development Department assigned to view restoration to conduct a
view analysis of the subject tree(s). The planners assess whether the subject
tree(s) significantly impair(s) the view from the applicant's viewing area.
4) The planner who conducts the view analysis provides a memo to Public Works
which explains the results of the view analysis and makes tree trimming
recommendations. Tree trimming, rather than tree removal, recommendations
are made since the intent of the new process is to maintain healthy City trees.
However, in some cases, tree removal may be the only option to eliminate the
significant view impairment.
5) Before carrying out the tree trimming work, Public Works Staff notifies the
adjacent neighbors that tree trimming will occur. If tree removal is proposed,
replacement tree options would be considered if any neighbors raise a concern
with the tree removal.
6) The tree trimming work is carried out by Public Works crews.
Attachment - 19
Staff Report: CTRP Code Amendment
CASE No. ZON2015-000383
September 22, 2015
Since this interim review process was put in place after June 3Qth, there have been 4
resident requests that have been acted on by the Public Works Department. All involved
the trimming of trees and no issues of concern have been raised by surrounding
neighbors.
Proposed Code Amendment
Given the Council's June 3Qth direction and the interim review process described above
that is currently in place, Staff seeks to delete Code Section 17.76.100 (City Tree
Review Permit) now, as opposed to after the formal streamlined review process is
approved by the City Council, to avoid any confusion to the general public on how to
deal with City trees that may be impairing their view during this interim period.
In summary, the proposed code amendment to eliminate the City Tree Review Permit
process from the Development Code achieves the following:
1: Accomplishes view restoration while saving City trees from tree removal,
as required by the current Development Code
2: Allows the consolidation of City tree trimming and maintenance to a single
City Department (Public Works)
3. Eliminates the application fee as called for in the current code
4: Streamlines view complaint-to-tree trimming or removal action
Related RPVMC Sections
In addition to deleting RPVMC Section 17. 76.100, there are other related sections of the
Municipal Code that would need to be deleted as well. One of those sections, Section
17.02.040(C)(2)(e), refers to how trees on City property or within the public right of way
are subject to view restoration control via the City Tree Review Permit. As shown
below, Staff proposes to partially remove (shown as strikethrough) the last sentence of
Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(e) as the remaining language would still hold the City
accountable to trimming or removing City-owned trees that significantly impair a view.
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-provisicm&··Of-this--sestion,.pui:suant--40-..the-.city.-tree
review peFmit-pr-0sedure-eontained-·ifl.SeGtion-17,.+6A0(}..(Gity-tree-review-permitc)
Additionally, Section 17.86.050(A)(2), references how the City prohibits the processing
or acceptance of permit applications, such as the City Tree Review Permit, when the
City has found that a code violation exists on the applicant's property. As shown below,
Staff proposes to delete (shown as strikethrough) the reference to the City Tree Review
Attachment - 20
Staff Report: CTRP Code Amendment
CASE No. ZON2015-000383
September 22, 2015
Permit application described in subsection 2, as the application will no longer exist
should the entire Section 17.76.100 be rescinded.
A. The city shall not accept for processing or grant:
1. Any application for a development, use or other permit or entitlement on any lot or
parcel on which the director has verified that a violation of this Code exists; or
2. A view restoration or a view preservation application ar-aA-appliealion~fGi:-a-city
tFee-review-permit--submitted by the owner of a lot or parcel on which the
director has verified that a violation of this Code exists.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Effectiveness of Code Amendment on Past or Current Applications
This amendment will not affect any past City Tree Review Permit decisions as said
decisions will remain in full force and effect and will be carried out when necessary by
the City's Public Works Department. Likewise, the code amendment will not affect any
currently submitted applications as there are no existing City Tree Review Permits
applications currently being processed.
Environmental Assessment
On June 29, 2010, the City Council certified a Negative Declaration (ND), which was
prepared in conjunction with the adopted Ordinance No. 510, adopting the Residential
Development Standards Steering Committee (RDSSC) Code Amendment and Zone
Change (Planning Case No. ZON2007-00377). The RDSSC Code Amendment involved
modifications to miscellaneous provisions of the Development Code, which (with the
certification of the ND) the City Council found to have no significant impacts upon the
environment. Since then, several other addendums have been adopted in order to
address Development Code language changes that were consistent with the original
ND.
The proposed code amendment is to rescind the section of the code relating to the City
Tree Review Permit process of Section 17. 76.100 to provide a more efficient process
for handling view impairing City-owned trees. Thus, Staff believes that the proposed
code amendment revisions are within the scope of the miscellaneous Development
Code revisions analyzed in the ND for Ordinance No. 510 for the RDSSC Code
Amendment. The RDSSC Code Amendment was similar to the currently proposed
amendment in that it clarified existing codes and processes. The currently proposed
code amendment does not propose any new project, but rather moves current City
functions from one department to another. Therefore, Staff has prepared and
Addendum to the RDSSC Code Amendment ND to address the compliance of the
revisions to Section 17.76.100 with the provisions of CEQA, which will be attached to
Attachment - 21
Staff Report: CTRP Code Amendment
CASE No. ZON2015-000383
September 22, 2015
the P.C. Resolution presented to the Planning Commission at the September 8, 2015
public hearing.
Public Notification
A notice of public hearing announcing the Planning Commission's September 8, 2015
hearing date was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on August 13, 2015.
To date, no public comments have been received from the public regarding this matter.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing discussion, Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the
attached Resolution, which recommends the approval to rescind, in its entirety, Section
17.76.100 of the Municipal Code and amend Sections 17.02.040(C)(2)(e) and
17.86.050(A)(2) of the Municipal Code to the City Council.
ALTERNATIVES
The following alternative is available for the Planning Commission's consideration in
addition to Staff's recommendation:
1. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed amendment and provide Staff
with modifications; or
2. Deny the Code Amendment proposal and direct staff to prepare a resolution
setting forth the Planning Commission's reasons for its recommendation not to
amend the Municipal Code, thereby recommending that the City Council take no
further action to modify the City Tree Review Permit procedure.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-_
• Exhibit "A", Addendum to the RDSSC Code Amendment ND
• June 3Qth City Council Staff Report
• September 8, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report
• RPVMC Section 17. 76.100
• RPVMC Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(e)
• RPVMC Section 17.86.050(A)(2)
Attachment - 22
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OEPN\ !MENT
TO:
FROM:
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEVELO~,/eCTOR
SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 0 V DATE:
SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT TO AMEND TITLE 17 OF RPVMC, CITY TREE
REVIEW PERMIT (CASE No. ZON2015-00383)
Staff Coordinator: John Alvarez, Senior Planner~
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-_ forwarding a recommendation to
the City Council to adopt an amendment to the City's Municipal Code to rescind Chapter
17.76, Section 100 {City Tree Review Permit) and delete references to the City Tree
Review Permit procedures contained in Sections 17.02.040(C)(2)(e) and
17 .86.050(A)(2) of the City's Municipal Code.
BACKGROUND
At its meeting of June 30, 2015, the City Council directed Staff to initiate the process to
replace the City's existing City Tree Review Permit process with a new streamlined
process that will be administered by the City's Public Works Department (see attached
June 30, 2015 City Council Staff Report) rather than the Community Development
Department. The main purpose being to consolidate all City tree trimming and removal
under one City department to minimize confusion by the general public. In response to
this Council action, Staff is proposing to remove the current City Tree Review Permit
application and procedure from the City's Development Code. This will allow the City's
Public Works Department to address all City tree trimming and removal requests
without conflicting with the City's current Development Code. Thus, the proposed code
amendment is before the Planning Commission because any changes to Title 17 of the
Development Code requires a recommendation by the Commission before being
forwarded to the City Council for consideration.
As part of the code amendment process, Staff publically noticed the matter in the Palos
Verdes Peninsula News on August 13, 2015 describing tonight's Commission meeting.
DISCUSSION
As part of the City tree policy change, Municipal Code Section 17.76.100 (City Tree
Review Permit) is to be deleted from the Code because said section of the code, which
30940 I IAW JHOl<~ll:: EliVfJ I RANCHO Pl\1 OS V1:1m1:s CA ~)()?/5·5391
Pl ANNING & CO! le 1-~JrnRC[M[NT DIVISION (310) 544·b22B I GUiii JJNC & Sl\ffTY Div1s1u~1 (310) 265·7800 I DU' I. ~AX (310) !J44 5293
E MAIL: PU\NNll'ICl@l\PVCf\.GOV I wwwrn>VC/\ GOV
Attachment - 23
Staff Report: CTRP Code Amendment
CASE No. ZON2015-000383
September 8, 2015
addresses trimming or removal of City trees when they significantly impair a view, will
not be necessary as the City's Public Works Department is proposing to trim or remove
view-impairing city trees without the requirements of application fees or the intensive
Staff review process currently described in the Development Code (Title 17).
In summary, the proposed code amendment to eliminate the City Tree Review Permit
process from the Development Code achieves the following:
1: Accomplishes view restoration while saving City trees from tree removal,
as required by the current Development Code
2: Allows the consolidation of City tree trimming and maintenance to a single
City Department (Public Works)
3. Eliminates the application fee as called for in the current code
4: Streamlines view complaint-to-tree trimming or removal action
Related RPVMC Sections
In addition to deleting RPVMC Section 17.76.100, there are other related sections of the
Municipal Code that would need to be deleted as well. One of those sections, Section
17.02.040(C)(2)(e), refers to how trees on City property or within the public right of way
are subject to view restoration control via the City Tree Review Permit. As shown
below, Staff proposes to partially remove (shown as strikethroHgt~) the last sentence of
Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(e) The remaining language would still hold the City
accountable to trimming or removing City-owned trees that significantly impair a view.
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-pei:-the-pr-0visiGA&-Gf·-tRis-seGtiGA,·PUr-suaAl-·t<>·-tfie-·Gily-tr.ee
r.eview-permlt-pr-0Gedur.e-oontaiAed-ln·.SeGtion-11~-76~00-(Gity-tr.ae-r.eview-permil-.·)
Additionally, Section 17.86.050(A)(2}, references how the City prohibits the processing
or acceptance of permit applications, such as the City Tree Review Permit, when the
City has found that a code violation exists on the applicant's property. As shown below,
Staff proposes to delete (shown as stfikethml:lgh) the reference to the City Tree Review
Permit application described in subsection 2, as the application will no longer exist
should the entire Section 17.76.100 be rescinded.
A. The city shall not accept for processing or grant:
1. Any application for a development, use or other permit or entitlement on any lot or
parcel on which the director has verified that a violation of this Code exists; or
Attachment - 24
Staff Report: CTRP Code Amendment
CASE No. ZON2015·000383
September 8, 2015
2. A view restoration or a view preservation application or-an-af)f)liGation-for--a-Gity
tfee-feview-pefrmt-submitted by the owner of a lot or parcel on which the
director has verified that a violation of this Code exists.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Current Pilot Program
This amendment will not affect current or past City Tree Review Permit approvals.
There are no existing City Tree Review Permits applications that are being processed.
View Restoration Staff is currently transferring all existing City tree trimming
maintenance requests, for view purposes, to the Public Works Department. For new
view impairment issues that arise regarding City-owned trees, View Restoration Staff
and the City's Public Works Department have developed a pilot program, where View
Restoration Staff conducts a timely view analysis and provides the Public Works
Department with a brief report and recommendation describing how to trim City trees
that significantly impair a view. Shortly after a recommendation is made, the Public
Works Department orders the subject trees to be trimmed by the City's street tree
service. Thus, far Staff has found this practice streamlined, less confusing and
welcoming by the public especially since an application fee is not required and because
trees are not automatically removed.
Environmental Assessment
On June 29, 2010, the City Council certified a Negative Declaration (ND), which was
prepared in conjunction with the adopted Ordinance No. 510, adopting the Residential
Development Standards Steering Committee (RDSSC) Code Amendment and Zone
Change (Planning Case No. ZON2007-00377). The RDSSC Code Amendment involved
modifications to miscellaneous provisions of the Development Code, which (with the
certification of the ND) the City Council found to have no significant impacts upon the
environment. Since then, several other addendums have been adopted in order to
address Development Code language changes that were consistent with the original
ND.
The proposed code amendment is to rescind the section of the code relating to the City
Tree Review Permit process of Section 17.76.100 to provide a more efficient process
for handling view impairing City-owned trees. Thus, Staff believes that the proposed
code amendment revisions are within the scope of the miscellaneous Development
Code revisions analyzed in the ND for Ordinance No. 510 for the RDSSC Code
Amendment. Therefore, Staff has prepared and Addendum to the RDSSC Code
Amendment ND to address the compliance of the revisions to Section 17.76.100 with
the provisions of CEQA, which will be attached to the P.C. Resolution presented to the
Planning Commission at the September 8, 2015 public hearing.
Attachment - 25
Staff Report: CTRP Code Amendment
CASE No. ZON2015-000383
September 8, 2015
Public Notification
A notice of public hearing announcing the Planning Commission's September 8, 2015
hearing date was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on August 13, 2015.
To date, no public comments have been received from the public regarding this matter.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing discussion, Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the
attached Resolution, which recommends the approval to rescind, in its entirety, Section
17.76.100 of the Municipal Code and amend Sections 17.02.040(C)(2)(e) and
17.86.050(A)(2) of the Municipal Code to the City Council.
ALTERNATIVES
The following alternative is available for the Planning Commission's consideration in
addition to Staffs recommendation:
1. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed amendment and provide Staff
with modifications; or
2. Deny the Code Amendment proposal, thereby recommending that the City
Council take no further action to modify the City Tree Review Permit procedure.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-_
• Exhibit "A", Addendum to the RDSSC Code Amendment ND
• June 3Q1h City Council Staff Report
• RPVMC Section 17.76.100
Attachment - 26
June 3Qth City Council Staff Report
Attachment - 27
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
MICHAEL THRONE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS iiJ
JUNE 30, 2015
STREET TREE MAINTENANCE PRACTICES (SUPPORTS
2014 CITY COUNCIL GOAL #2 1 PUBLIC
INFRASTRUCTURE)
DOUG WILLMORE, CITY MANAGER ~
Project Managers: Nicole Jules, Deputy Director of Public Works ;vca
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,
Attachment - 28
Street Tree Maintenance Practices
June 30, 2015
Page 2 of7
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.
BACKGROUND
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 Tern Brooks, at the
November 19, 2013 City Council meeting, proesented 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
Attachment - 29
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 city-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
Attachment - 30
Street Tree Maintenance Practices
June 30, 2015
Page 4 of 7
of covenants against personal properties.
bllow flexibi!it~ in the maintenance of Citv trees via an encroachment permit process and
Include aesthetics i:'S a maintenance OP.tion
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 Cit\! trees and reQlace t~si~s 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 canopy reduction in the maintenance contract for view impairing 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 201€.
Attachment - 31
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/Preservation/City 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
Attachment - 32
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.
NEXT STEPS
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 PreseTVation 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-
Attachment - 33
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 Polley & Guide/Ines 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 Polley 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 Polley (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)
Attachment - 34
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, safely 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 Une 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 17.46 (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 edmce 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
Attachment - 35
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 a far 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;
end/or
b. A "far view" which ls 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 slxtv 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. Regulatlons.
1. Bullding Height. Any Individual or persons desiring to build a new structure or en addition to
an existing structure shall be permitted to build up to sixteen feet In height pursuant to
subsectlon 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 10 the procedures
contained herein, will permit the indivldual to build a structure not exceeding twenty-six feet
in height, except as provided in subsection (8)(1 )(d) of this seclion, or such lower height as
approved by the city, measured as follows:
FIGURE 1
a. For sloping lots which slope uphill from the street of access or in the same direction as
the street or access and for which no building pad exists, the height shall be measured
from the preconstruclion (existing) grade at the highest point on the lot to be covered
by the structure to the ridgellne or the highest point of the structure, as Illustrated In
Figure 1 below.
Page 2
Attachment - 36
FIGURE :Z
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 tine
abutting the street of access lo the ridgeline or the highest point of lhe structure, as
illustrated in Figure 2 below.
_.,.. _______ -----
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
preconstructlon (existing) grade al the highest elevation of lhe existing building pad
area covered by the structure to the ridgellne 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
Pase a
Attachment - 37
FIGURE3
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.
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 e 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 lo the ridge tine 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).
2. 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.
FIGURE4
Page4
Attachment - 38
Attachment A
-+ -
3. Foliage Obstruction. No person shall significantly Impair a view from a viewing area of a lot
by permitting foliage lo 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
ii. Sixteen feet.
If foliage on the property already exceeds the provisions of subdivisions (I) and (II) of Section
17.02.040(0)(3) of this chapter on the effective date of this section, as approved by the voters on
November 7, 1989, and signlflcantly Impairs a view from a viewing area of a tot, 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 thls 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 enlltlement to construct a structure,
or to add livable area lo 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 responslble 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
Attachment - 39
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 Miralesle recreation and park district, the findings of Section 17 .02.040(C)(2)(c){v!)
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 pla11ning 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 flnally 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
properly owner may preserve his or her right to dispute the decision on the viewing area
for a subsequent applicallon, 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.
1. 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 !his 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 ls proposed:
I. Any portion Of a structure which exceeds sixteen feet In height extends closer than
twenty-five feet from the rront or street-side property line; or
ii. The area of the structure which exceeds si>cteen 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 lo 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' assoclalion 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 mall 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
Attachment - 40
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 lhe 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
pennltted In subsection (6)(1) of this section, may be granted with or without conditions
if the following findings can be made:
i. The applicant has complied with \he 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 (parl<s, 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:
Hi. The proposed new structure ls 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 nol
slgnlflcantly 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 detennined 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 alt 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 \he privacy of the occupants of abutting residences.
f. Written notice of the director's or planning commission's decision shall be sent to the
appllcant, his/her representative and to all parties who responded to the original notice.
Page 7
Attachment - 41
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 ls flied In writing within fifteen calendar days after the
dale 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 andtor city council
shall be malled thirty calendar days prior to the hearing, to property owners within five
hundred feet of the applicant's property, as well as any addltional property owners
previously determined by the city to be effected 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 end place for the hearing on the application shall be sent to the applicant and
the property owner(s) of the follage 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 earty 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
ls 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 feel 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 wlll 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
Attachment - 42
Attachment A
historical developments of the Miraleste recreation and park district area with a
large number of trees.
d. 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, !ace or otherwise
cause the foliage to be reduced to sixteen feet or the rldgellne 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 or the foliage removal and/or
replacement ordered pursuant lo 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 llmlted lo: (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
vlablllty 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 councll, within fifteen calendar days
after the view restoration commission adopts the resotullon setting forth !Is decision.
The decision of the view restoration commission Is final if no appeal is flied within fifteen
calendar days. If such an appeal Is timely and properly flied, a copy of the findings of
the view restoration commission and all materials on file with the director shall be
transmltled 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 Iha! 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 minules In length tor each of the parties whose properties are affected by
Page 9
Attachment - 43
A11achment 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 or subsection (C)(2) or 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 councll 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 assessmenl against the foliage owner's property, pursuant
to Chapter 8.24 of this Code.
(Ord. 4s·1§10. 2008; Otd. 442 § I, 2.00G; OrO. '105 §§ 7--9, 2004; Ord. 400U §§ 7-··9, 200~; Orel.
3!l~l § !), 2003; Ord 3H6 §a, 2003: Ord 35() § B, 2000: Ord :i40 § 8 (part), 1990; Orel 329LJ § ·1,
HHJ7, 01d. :J HJ§ ll, 1997; Ord. 298 § I, 191M; Orci. 262 §§ 2, 3, 1991; P1opo>iilion M, pr.t%eci
November 7. HJS9: Ord. ·194 § [i (pail). 198b; Ord. 114 § 1. 19·r9: Orrl 90 § 1, 1971; Orel. 1e (part),
197(i)
(010. Nu. 5'10, §SJ, G 2\J .. 10)
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.
MINIMUM SETBACKS2
• MAXIM I
. 3•6 FORLOTSCREATED UM MAXl·PARKING I MINIMUM SETBACKS3 •~ · MUM
I 1 PRIOR TO lOT REQUIRE
1 FOR CITY CREATED LOTS: INCORPORATION/ANN· COVER HEIGH MENT5
I • l T3,4, 7 I EXATION AGE 8
DISTR i LOT
JCT DIMENSIONS 1
Page 10
Attachment - 44
Attachment A
l I . ! I 1NTERI ' STR I :
1 ARE I WID DEP : FRO f OR ' EET '1 RE ,i
A . TH TH ; NT I AR I ~ I I I SIDE SIDE . '
I I I I I !
j 5
RS-A-I I
5 1acre I 200
; s 1 : I
·: 1 I i
acre 1 1
RS-1
1
. 100 .·
i ~ I .. -.. ,
,20,0 I I
RS-2 : 00 li 90
I s.f.
' I
I
I I : 13,0 j
RS-3 I 00 ! 80
. I
I s.f. j
' .. . l
1
10,0
RS-4 00 ·75
. I s.f.
! I
ls,oo ·
RS·S J 0 65
I s.t.
I
lnLI 0 l
BO i
TH !NE \
SID! SI I
ES iDE
. I
I 1
: j i
300 I 20
1
. 30 : rn
1
;;o ! 10
' ' I I I : ' I .1 I l
I I I i ! 20 : lO I 20
.. ·,i L ... ·! I
20 I ,J) : iO I 20
110 ! 20 ;
I
; I . I . I
I r
20 110
100 20 20 10
l 20 i 10
l
I INTER I STR I i ! RE,
IOR 'EET I
I AR
SIDE :SIDE I I
I
I
5 ' 10
l I"
I 5 io I 1s l
! I
5 10 151
I I
5 10 115
I
5 110 15
!
5 10 15
i
6% ! 16
25%
I
I I 16
I
1 I less than
1
5,000 s.f.
of
I habitable 1
space= 2 j
enclosed I
!
garage
spaces
I
i
I
I
js,ooos.f.
40% 16 1or more l
lof 1
45%
l h11bitable I
space= 3 l
16 :;;!;:ed l
I spaces I
50% 16
52% 16
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), or within Eastview and existing
as of January 5, 1963 (annexation), shall use these development standards for minimum setbacks.
Page 11
Attachment - 45
Attachment A
3. For description, clarification and exceptions, sfle 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) e><ceeds
seventy-five percent of the existing first story footprint area (residence and garage);
C. Sixty percent or more of an existing garage footprint ls 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 ls 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 ln height may slgnlflcantly 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 1eet 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
Attachment - 46
I
I
Attachment B
RESOLUTION NO. 89-.J..19
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, 1969, 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
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
Attachment - 47
Attachment B
WHEREAS, on November 1 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:
S~ction 1. The Street Tree Policy, as amended and
set forth in this Resolution, is both necessery 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 11 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)(l), c.2.(a) and c.2.(c)(l), 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 B;
-2-RESOL. 89-119
I
I
Attachment - 48
I
I
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 trim:ming 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
treesi
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;
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. 09-119
Attachment - 49
Attachment 8
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 De removed or trimmed. The covenant will De
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.
a. If the Director renders a decision that the
tree(s) will not be tri111J11ed or removed, or if the Applicant
does not agree that the proposed tri:mming 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)(l), 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.
-4-RESDL. 89-119
I
I
Attachment - 50
I
I
Attachment B
AFPROVED and ADOPTED this 19th day of December, 1989.
ATTEST~ /); /) /)
~!.':SL..~f;:...a..·~·'lc.:CL·~l
City Clerk
TATE 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. 09-i1.9wae 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
-5-RESOL. 89-119
Attachment - 51
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.
0. City Tree Review Permit Application. Any person owning land In the city may file an application for a
city tree review permit. An applicr~llon for a city tree review permlt 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 101, as defined in Section 17 .02.040
(View Preservation and Restoration) of this tltle.
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 pollcy of the general plan. No person shall
violate any condlllons so Imposed by the director. Such conditions may Include, but shall not be limited
to, the following:
1. 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 shell be removed and replaced with a similar 24-lnch
box size tree by the city. The city shall pay for all costs of tree and/or foliage removal and
replacement. Trees andfor foliage lha1 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 pru11ed instead of removed, provided the following conditions can be met:
Attachment - 52
Attachment C
i, The director determines that the pruning of the subject tree and/or foliage will elimlnate
the sig nlficant impairment of the applicant's view;
ii. 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)lfoliage at the
city's expense.
2. For trees and/or foliage located within a oily park:
a. If the city de1ermines 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 detennination 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 or the determination lo grant
the application shall be sent to the appllcant(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 lo the property where
the tree end/or foliage are located. Notice of denial shell 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, wlthln 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
Attachment - 53
Attachment c
appeal may be appealed to the city council. Any appeal must be accompanied by payment of the
appropriate appeal fee, as established by city council resolutlon. No city tree review permit shell be
effective until all applicable appeal periods have been exhausted.
(Otd. 4'1t\ {i 4, 200:): Otd il?.O §I (p:·irl) Hltli)
(Ord. hlo. f)47, § !i, 10"1· 13)
Attachment - 54
Attachment D
CITY OF L-...RANCHO 11\LOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUSAN BROOKS, MAYOR
NOVEMBER 19, 2013
VIEW RESTORATION COMPLIANCE AT THE TIME OF
SALE AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
RECOMMENDATION
Agendize View Ordinance and Tree Removal concerns pursuant to the two submittals
from residents Clara Duran Reed and Ann Merinovich.
DISCUSSION
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 deflhltion 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 selilng 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 1he Escrow, just as a termite inspection.
Attachment - 55
Attachment D
View Restoration Compliance at the Time of Sale and Other Considerations
November 19, 2013
Page 2 of 2
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. I 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
communi,ty: Clara Duran~Reed (former Planning Commissioner, attorney and Realtor)
and Ann Marlnovich (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.
Attachment - 56
Attachment D
Consistency and Enforcement of the View Ordinance
I. Introduction
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
"protectO, enhanceO 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 protectn 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).
II. The Ordinance as Applied Is Not Sufficiently
protecting Views
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 lea!ilt $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 - 57
Attachment D
A. Foliage Height Limitations
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 vlew behind.
B. Foliage Owners Need An Incentive to Bring
their Trees and Shrubs to Code
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
no1 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/Bestore 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 pen;on 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-
Attachment - 58
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
applicatiQn. Thus, right now, it is costing the city over $10,000 (ten thousand
dollars) to process an Application. This is a loss to the clty 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 wlll
experience Increased savings.
D. Removal of Foll@ge 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 vefY narrow clrcumstsnces.
Specifically, foliage is 1o 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
Attachment - 59
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.
E. foliage Owners can Freely Replant View Impairing Trees and
Shrubs, Which Is Against 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 tell 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 68 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 blocldng 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 ls to address foliage before it
blocks e view, the Code does not fully address this discrepancy, and should therefore,
be modified.
Ill. How 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
.4.
Attachment - 60
Attachment D
smoke detectors. Certain cities have other requirements such as requiring low flow
toilets, safety glass in bathrooms and kitchens, C02 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 ere 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 66 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-
Attachment - 61
Attachment D
1. :rhe System for Compliance
' " Seller decides to sell or otherwise transfer property
" Clty·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 thsi 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.
-6-
Attachment - 62
Attachment D
B. Jnclude Maintenance of All Current and
Future Foliage on the Property
Right now, after an Application is processed or mediated, and limited permits are
issueCI, only existing view impairing foliage is removed or trimmed and required to be
maintained. The Code is silent as to all future foliage on the propertv, whether
existing at the time of the declslon/medlatlon/12ermlt 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, wbether existing at the time of the declslon/modlatlon/pormlt Issuance, or
not (I.e .. future growgb) 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.
Attachment - 63
Attachment D
C. Include Removal of Foliage as a Condition of Permit Issuance
Although currently entitled as such (11 Removal of Foliage as Condition of Permit
Issuance") the code's section on removal of foliage as a condition of permit issuance
9nly pertains to a few, limited types of permits. The title of the section and what it
actuaUy pertains to is inaccurate. Removal of view obstructing foliage ought to be, as
titled, a condition of the issuance of all 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 mllllon 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 end 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 leglslatlve intent behind the
Ordinance.
-8·
Attachment - 64
Attachment D
D. Mediation Agreements Ought to be R9cordf!Q and Binding
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 blocklng 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.
IV. Conclusion
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 wlll 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 clly 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 .
• g.
Attachment - 65
Attachment D
TREE MAINTENANCE PROPOSAL
FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
NOVEMBER, 2013
PrQposals
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
a1 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. Ttlm and shape the City trees to preserve views, minimize sidewalk, storm drain Inlet
damage and beautify the neighborhoods. 'fake a proactive approach to maintaining
the trees before lhey 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
woulcl 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 S 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 1ol4
Attachment - 66
Attachment D
Proposals 1, 2, 3 and B 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 wlll
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 ls 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 12.0B.030(A), Maintenance of
Trees, states that Public Works maintains the trees In accordance with established
pollcles. 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 roofllne, whichever is less. Public Works staff Indicated that this provision Is In
plaoe 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 oan be averted Is If Public
Works takes a proacllve approach to tree maintenance. Public Works makes every
effort lo save trees Instead of removing and replacing them. They cut roots If the
arbortst says the tree will survive; however, that does not stop, It only delays, invasive
roots from damaging sidewalks, curbs and stonn 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 Plannlng Commission. The non-refundable
appllcatlon fee for a view restoration permit 1or privately owned trees Is $5, 106.00.
Page 2of 4
Attachment - 67
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 Publlc Works Director recently approved
replacement of ten removed trees on Via Cambron, Via Collado and Berry Hill Drlve
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 11ollage exceeding 16 feet or the ridge
llne 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.0 Section D on page 3 of the
guidelines states that the Planning Commlssion 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 confllct with other City Ordinances, the stricter shall apply. However, the
Planning Commission has a reputation tor 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 Wolits 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 pro1ected view. It can take
years and much more tree growth before action Is taken. Very mlnlmal trimming Is
recommended that, oftentimes, does not follow the ordinance or satlsfactorlly restore
views, e.g., trimming to the horizon. Trimming to lhe 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 partlal 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 seivlces 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.
Page3 of 4
Attachment - 68
Attachment D
The City's current tree trimming practice ls 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
treM wlll enhance 1he 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 thelr homes. The
trees look much nicer than those maintained by the City's contractor. The adoption
proces11 should Include a provision that trees are to be maintained at 16 feet or less If In
viewing areas. In addltlon, less money would be spent on sidewalk, curb, street and
storm drain repairs and reduced staff costs currently dedicated to view restoration
appllcatlons. 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 ln viewing areas, replacement trees are planted.
City staff consults with homeowners adjacent to the removed trees about the type o1
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
lrnplemen1ing the above mentioned proposals wm beautrfy 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.
Pe.ge4of 4
Attachment - 69
Attachment D
Tree Trirnming Proposal
Attachment - 70
Attachment D
Tree Trim·ming Proposal
Attachment - 71
Attachment D
Tree Trimn1ing Proposal
Attachment - 72
Attachment D
f-'l~OPOS/\l
Wo mr.omm~ncl 1hHt Ft01w110 Pruos Vortl!JS 11npltlllrnn! 0 pDl1r.y 11m\ iillows re:Nl0f1\!i lo trim f:ily htia& 1n 1'.IOsti 1-mix11nilv 1<J \heir
f)!OJ>Arlmi. W!lti jlm ~lPf!rllVl'll of 11\\< Cilv .
m;NErn
This propl)SVI will 10:.1J11 1n CO$! ;;twili\JS \o !hr» City iinct fi p1 o~c11vn enrl .~wi1Hor solut1onr, to v1t,1~' 'ot;torotioll issur;s
CUll!U'.N I P(lUCJE~: ANLi PHOCI. DUR[~
CU11nnliv lhr· Cil:t:s llu!' t11n111w111 H· mHl\!ll,W<l l.iy lwo oop!lmlo l.1t!fHJrtm111\1!:. Pu!J111. Woil(~ ti111l Vmw r<os101a11on P"bl•t 'Norr.:.
111<1nr:111c::, 101111110 im« 1t11m111110. wh1ch in !lom; iivr:f'J tt1f(lt• vunr!:. Hv~1(Jvfl1, m0$1 ol 1!1<1 1011111w t111Hm1nr1 rn rioM w
JH i:mmll(I01110 UPS !mr;k~· Mr.i ?1111111111111 !$ lltltt1;1 Jo1 1i110u1.J:1cs110:1 <JI litH\Jlll lllilflH!l(llll11nl l· v\1ty lh1\1(· vo;m; l!in ~r111l11wl 1J1;i;
Hir1mmr; wm1:1 by iilnrl rnmovn 'lhr. hml)f> al tha bonom ol 1>n1m ol lhc 11t1m, llto l11w$ 111" uni s1J11pt1:i m t•inumir1 011 lnp
11 1h(l l1.c0s. w0re prop\nly ma1nlt111100, H1oy ttn1k! bo 1m1nr;gncJ ml li<11pl1ls !ha1 would m1111rni:;w curt1 o;\r(!BI and slorm 111101
1li1r11agn 11n1J niainleiin >1iows or ti 1e
Attachment - 73
Attachment D
Tree Trimming -Via Rivera -November 11, 2013
Attachment - 74
Attachment D
Tree Trimming -Via Rivera ~November 11, 2013
Attachment - 75
Attachment E
RESOLUTION 97-16
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 12.06.020
allows the Director of Public Works to regulate and contr.ol lhe 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 Clly 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 hes damaged or is likely to damage public or private improvements
including curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement, sewei-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.
§~r.:tlon 2. The responslbillly 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 utlllties, or have been ordered
removed in accordance wlth City view restoration guidelines will be removed (or
rehabilitated) by the City at City expense. If the ac1jacent property owner wishes to plan! a
replacement tree, It will be planted on private property outside the street right-of-way at
the discretion end 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.
ATIEST:
/s/ Jo Purcell
CITY CLERK
/al John C. McTaggart
I MAYOR
I, JO PURCELL, City CI erk 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.
CI'l'Y CLERR
Attachment - 76
------·
Attachment E
RESOLUTION NO. 85-45
A u·soLt.JTlOM Of TllE Ol'tY COUNCIL or TBll
CUY OF ~110 PAI.OS V!l\J>ES, CAL11'0RHIA 1
EGTJJlLlBHlNO A SlDEWA'l.¥. AND DIUVBWAY
APRON MA.ttlTP:Ni.lfCE POJ.lCY IJID REVISING
llESOL\ITION 110. 83-28 or Tm IJIT'I' 'or
RANCHO PALOS V!1U>!B
WHEll!AS, StTeet• •nd Higbvaya Code Section 5610 require•
'PfDperty owner• to 111.data:hi ddevalk1 and p1rkv11 ueae in euch
condidon that tl\e 1lhwdk will not endangU' peuon• or property
11nd u.iutaln it in a conditlou that Yi.11 no.t interhr• with t'h•
public convenience1 end
mtell.RAS, Street• and HiQhvay1 Code Section• 5610 et ••q. contain
proceduru fcir .. -.ning the coet of auch rcipab1 ·asain•t \'>l'operty
OW'lltl't· :ln tbe event they hU. to malnt.ain adjalltnt eideva1't• ii1
proper condition; and •
WB!llEAS, Tht City de1ire1 to encourage property Olft\tte to sain-
t.ain eidewe.lke ·and driveway apTont in lJTOpeT i;:ondition.
NOW' 'I:lt!REFOl\E I THE c1n COU'NClL or 'l'1tt CITY OJ llANCllO PALOS
VHDES OOES RESOLVE AS POLLOWS 1
I
Section l In order to el\courag• propnty ovneH to maintli11
thdr ai.dewallo 41nd d.r:l.veway apron• in p!.'Opil\r eondition 1 tha City
~ill initiate repair procedure• and •••••• the entire colt of
repelrins the eidewelk and/or driveva1 apron to tba property O'llQer,
Secttcm 2. Each individual a1uu1111111t will be increand by 30%
of the actual co11t of repdr to recovn the Cit:r• • coate for
te~porary patching• inventory, inepection.and admin!itration.
Section 3 Where th• propnt;r oner, aiven notice punuant to
the lmptoYtment Act of 1911 of the raquirimiant to repair a 1idewalk
and/or drivevay aproD., elecu to uudert:ake 1Uoli work iu a ti11111ly
fuhion" the City will iuue a llighway Permit to the property ovne:t,
Section 4 In the evetit the 'PTOPl'l't:)' owner faila to undertake
such repe~r in • ti•11y fa•hioG, the City •hall make tbe rep•ire •ad
a8'1 u• the entlre coat of repair to th• p·ropert7 cnmar.
Sectioa 5 ln odn to hue11 the burd~~ ·of th.1 aueume11t, the
property o..,ner •may arrange for inttalliae.nt pay1Hnt• 1ubject. to City
approv•l•: .,
; ..
PASSED, AP~ROVBO AND ADOPT~D thie 2nd day ~f July 1 1985.
fSI '.IOHN ·c MCIAGGACI
/.S. I ·•.to· Pltrffftl I
CIT\' OLEltK
7DlCPfRP,10
...... ---·--·--------.----·~----------
Attachment - 77
Attachment F
TREE TRIMMING, PLANTING AND REMOVAL
POLICY & GUIDELINES
Tree Branches In Utility Poles
Southern California Edison periodically trims tree branches that are too close to
utility poles. If you notice overgrown tree branches in or near h lgh 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. lf you
see that they are touching, or are less than 1 O' from tree foliage, Call Southern
California Edison at 1-800-655-4555,
,Citv 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 evety 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
1. 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.
2. 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)
3. The tree has been ordered removed in accordance wlth the City View
Restoration guidelines.
Attachment - 78
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 1ree 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 10 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
Attachment - 79
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
1848638vl
Attachment - 80
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 petmits 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
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
1848638vt 2
Attachment - 81
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 Palos Verdes,
do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of said
City is five; that the foregoing Urgency Ordinance No. _U was duly and
regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof
held on June 30, 2015, and that the same was passed and adopted by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CITY CLERK
1848638v1 3
Attachment - 82
RPVMC Section 17.76.100
Attachment - 83
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Code of Ordinances Page 1of3
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:
1. 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:
about: blank
i. The replacement tree or foliage will immediately cause a significant impairment of the
view from the applicant's viewing area;
ii.
10/22/2015 Attachment - 84
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Code of Ordinances Page 2of3
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:
i. The director determines that the pruning of the subject tree and/or foliage will
eliminate the significant impairment of the applicant's view;
ii. 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.
about:blank 10/22/2015 Attachment - 85
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Code of Ordinances Page 3of3
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 appeal may be appealed to the city council. Any appeal must be accompanied by payment
of the appropriate appeal fee, as established by city council resolution. No city tree review permit
shall be effective until all applicable appeal periods have been exhausted.
(Ord. 415 § 4, 2005: Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997)
(Ord. No. 547, § 5, 10-1-13)
about: blank 10/22/2015 Attachment - 86
RPVMC Section 17.02.040 (C)(2)(e)
Attachment - 87
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 (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 1 QO (City tree
review permit.)
Attachment - 88
RPVMC Section 17.86.050 (A)(2)
Attachment - 89
17.86.050 -Disqualification for violation.
A The city shall not accept for processing or grant:
1. Any application for a development, use or other permit or entitlement on any lot or parcel on which
the director has verified that a violation of this Code exists; or
2. A view restoration or a view preservation application or an application for a city tree review permit
submitted by the owner of a lot or parcel on which the director has verified that a violation of this
Code exists.
An application may be accepted or granted by the city if the subject lot or parcel is brought into
compliance with this Municipal Code, either by removing the violation or by submitting an application
to legalize the violation and a permit or approval is granted pursuant to Section 17.86.050(8) of this
chapter.
B. Notwithstanding an existing violation of this Code, the planning commission may authorize a permit or
approval under this Code if it finds:
1. The permit or approval must be granted by virtue of applicable law or in order to permit the
applicant a reasonable economic use of the property, in which case the permit or approval shall
be conditioned upon elimination of the existing code violations; or
2. The use or activity for which the permit or approval is sought will substantially contribute to the
reduction or elimination of the existing code violations and immediate, total elimination of those
violations is infeasible or would constitute an unreasonable burden upon the applicant.
C. A determination of violation pursuant to subsection A of this section and a permit or approval granted
pursuant to subsection B of this Section 17.86.050 may be appealed by any interested person pursuant
to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title.
(Ord. 356 § 7, 2000: Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997)
Page 1
Attachment - 90
RPVMC Section 17.80.030
Attachment - 91
17.80.030 -Appellate authority.
A.
B.
Unless otherwise expressly provided inTiJlcJ 9 or IitleJ} of this Code, any
decision made by the director pursuant to'.[it]eJ 6 oriiO~ .17 of this Code may be
appealed to the planning commission and any decision made by the planning
commission or view restoration commission pursuant to Title 1 () or Ji tle 17 of this
Code may be appealed to the city council.
The director is designated as a zoning administrator pursuant to Section 65900 of the
California Government Code with respect to these decisions which may be rendered
by that officer or his or her designees pursuant to this Title 17. When acting as a
zoning administrator pursuant to this subsection B, the director shall exercise the
authority conferred by this title and authorized by Section 65901 of the California
Government Code.
(Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997)
Attachment - 92
Interim Public Works Department Process for
Dealing with City Tree View Requests
Attachment - 93
MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Joel Rojas, Director of Community Development
Nicole Jules, Deputy Director of Public Works
November 24, 2015
City's Interim Process for requests to trim and/or remove
view-impairing public trees
On June 30, 2015 the City Council directed staff to initiate the process to replace the City's existing City
Tree Review Permit process (previously administered by the Community Development Department) with
a new streamlined process that will be administered by the City's Public Works Department.
In essence, all city trees, whether in the rights-of-way or city-owned property, will be maintained by the
public works department. The goal is to preserve city trees by trimming to restore residential views. In
cases where trimming may result in the degradation of a tree's health, removal and replacement may be
the recommended action. This will allow the City's to respond quickly and efficiently to view-impairing
requests and align the process with our current process of maintaining trees in the public-right-of-way.
1) When a resident contacts the City with a concern that a tree within the City's right-of-way or on
City property is impairing their view, they are forwarded to the City's Public Works Department
or the Community Development Department.
2) Staff investigates the request to confirm whether the subject view impairing tree(s) is located
within the public right-of-way or on City property.
3) If confirmed to be a City tree, the case is forwarded to the planners in the Community
Development Department assigned to view restoration to conduct a view analysis of the
subject tree(s). The planners assess whether the subject tree(s) significantly impair(s) the view
from the applicant's viewing area.
4) The planner who conducts the view analysis provides a memo to Public Works which explains
the results of the view analysis and makes tree trimming recommendations. Tree trimming,
and in some cases tree removal, recommendations are made since the intent of the new
process is to maintain healthy City trees. However, in cases where tree removal may be the
only option to eliminate the significant view impairment, a replacement tree is recommended.
In the event that a resident disagrees with the recommendation of the view analysis or
subsequent action, a resident may submit their appeal within two weeks of notification to the
City Council in accordance with Municipal Code Section 12.08.100.
5) Before carrying out the tree trimming or removal work, the contractor notifies the adjacent
neighbors, in writing, 72 hours prior to the start of work that tree trimming and/or removal will
Attachment - 94
occur. If tree removal is proposed, replacement trees are installed in accordance with the
City's tree inventory database.
6) The tree trimming and/or removal work is conducted by the City's tree maintenance contractor.
7) Tree trimming and removal practices shall be carried out in accordance with Municipal Code
Chapter 12.08 -Trees & Shrubs. Pursuant to RPVMC Section 12.08.100, no person shall
prevent, delay or interfere with the Director of Public Works, or any of his assistants, in the
execution or enforcement of Chapter 12.08. Any resident has the right to appeal any action by
the Director of public works pertaining to this interim process. The right of appeal shall be
submitted to the City Council whose decision, after public hearing of said matter, shall be final
and conclusive.
End of memo
Attachment - 95