Loading...
RPVCCA_CC_SR_2013_09_17_01_City_Tree_Review_Permit PUBLIC HEARING Date: September 17, 2013 Subject: Adoption of Addendum No. 7 to a Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510 and Introduction of an Ordinance to Amend Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Chapter 17.76.100 – City Tree Review Permit (Case No. ZON2012-00239) Subject Property: Citywide 1. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Brooks 2. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale 3. Staff Report & Recommendation: John Alvarez, Senior Planner 4. Public Testimony: Appellants: N/A Applicant: City 5. Council Questions: 6. Rebuttal: 7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Brooks 8. Council Deliberation: 9. Council Action: 1-1 CrTYOF MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: REVIEWED: HONORABLE MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE ITV COUNCIL JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEVELOP SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 I RECTOR ADOPTION OF ADDENDUM NO. 7 TO A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 510 AND INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND RPVMC CHAPTER 17.76.100- CITY TREE REVIEW PERMIT (CASE NO. ZON2013-00239). (SUPPORTS 2013 CITY COUNCIL GOALS: TRANSPARENCY, EVALUATING CITY TREE REVIEW PROCESS) CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER o..Q_ Staff Coordinator: John Alvarez, Senior Planne,d~ RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. __ , adopting Addendum No. 7 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510, for a code amendment to revise Chapter 17. 76.100 of the Municipal Code (City Tree Review Permit); and introduce Ordinance No. _, amending RPVMC Chapter 17.76.100 of the Municipal Code (City Tree Review Permit) to expand public notification of City Tree Review Permit decisions as recommended by Staff and the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND At the May 21, 2012 City Council Study Session, Mayor Brooks introduced a proposal for the City Council to initiate a code amendment to improve and expand the notification procedures pertaining to City Tree Review Permit (CTRP) decisions (see attached Memorandum dated May 21, 2013). The City Council agreed with the proposal and directed Staff to initiate the code amendment process. Pursuant to Council direction, Staff prepared draft code amendment language and presented it to the Planning Commission for its review and consideration on July 9, 2013. After considering the proposed code amendment language, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to July 23, 2013 so that Staff could finalize the amended language in a Resolution. On July 23rd, the Commission reviewed the amended language and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2013-17 (attached), recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending RPVMC Section 17. 76.1 OO(G) to increase public 1-2 City Council Meeting Code Amendment: City Tree Review Permit Approval Notification September 17, 2013 notification of City Tree Review Permit decisions. Notice of the City Council's public hearing on the proposed amendments to Section 17. 76.100 of the Municipal Code was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on August 26, 2013. As of the writing of this report, no comments have been received in response to the notice. DISCUSSION City Tree Review Permit (CTRP) The City Tree Review permit (CTRP) policy was not part of the original View Ordinance (Proposition M), which was adopted by the voters in November 1989. However, shortly thereafter the City Council adopted Resolution No. 89-119, which established the City Tree Review Permit policy to address City owned trees impairing residents' views. The City Tree Review Permit policy was eventually codified into the RPV Municipal Code as Section 17.76.100. Since then, there have been few revisions to the CTRP code. However, the most relevant change to the CTRP code occurred in 2005, when the then City Council amended the code to expand the CTRP approval notification from notifying only the property directly adjacent to a tree subject to a permit's approval to notifying the ten (10) closest properties to the subject tree. The 2005 CTRP amendment also added a requirement that the City also notify any applicable Homeowners Association (HOA). City Tree Review Permit (CTRP) Application process The City Tree Review Permit process is administered by the City's View Restoration Staff in the Community Development Department. When a City Tree Review Permit application is submitted by a resident to address view-impairing City street trees, and if such application is approved by the Community Development Director, Staff mails a Staff Report with a recommendation and a preliminary Notice of Decision to the ten (10) closest properties adjacent to the subject tree(s) and to the underlying HOA pursuant to Section 17.76.100(G). In choosing the ten (10) closest properties, Staff selects the ten (10) closest properties on the same street as that of the tree(s) subject to the permit request and approval. Proposed CTRP amendments In keeping with the City Council's objective to improve and expand the public notification procedures for City Tree Review Permit approvals, Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending three (3) proposed revisions to Section 17.76.100(G). The main recommendation is to expand the number of properties notified of City decisions from the 10 properties closest to the subject tree(s) to the 20 closest properties closest to the subject tree(s). Staff and the Planning Commission agree that this method is preferable to using a 300 or 500-foot radius method to generate a notification list. As noted in the 1-3 City Council Meeting Code Amendment: City Tree Review Permit Approval Notification September 17, 2013 attached July 9, 2013 P.C. Staff Report, requiring a fixed minimum number of properties to be notified of CTRP decisions guarantees that a sizeable number of residents will be notified and can be consistently applied City-wide, whereas a radius based notification may not increase notification in areas of the City containing large lots. This proposed amendment is contained in subsection 1 of Section 17.76.1 OO(G). The second revision is to clarify subsection 1 of Section 17.76.100(G) that the notified properties are to be only within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. This clarification ensures that only RPV property owners will be eligible to "adopt" a City tree by entering into an agreement with the City to maintain the City tree at a specific non-significant view impairing height. This proposed revision will also guarantee that Rancho Palos Verdes property owners will make up the entire "20 closest" property owner notification list should non-RPV residents reside closer to a subject City tree. Finally, Staff and the Planning Commission agree that Mayor Brooks' suggestion to post a Notice on a conspicuous location on a tree subject to CTRP decision, further achieves the Council's goal to expand public notification of these decisions. Accordingly, Staff and the Planning Commission are proposing to add such language as subsection 3 of Section 17.76.100(G). However, since there may be situations where trees on City property may be difficult to access due to rugged topography, Staff and the Commission propose to exempt the posting of City trees that are too difficult or hazardous to access. Accordingly, Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending the following specific text changes to Section 17. 76.100 (strike-out text is for removed language and bold and underlined text is for new language): 17.76.100-City Tree Review Permit 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 teA twenty (-1-020) 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 teA: twenty (-1-020) 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 1-4 City Council Meeting Code Amendment: City Tree Review Permit Approval Notification September 17, 2013 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. Applicability of New Amendments The proposed code amendments will go into effect after 30 days from Ordinance adoption. Thus, only applications submitted after the effective date will be subject to the new requirements. 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 revise code language related to the City Tree Review Permit requirements of Section 17. 76.100 of the Municipal Code. Staff believes that the proposed code amendment revisions are within the scope of the miscellaneous code revisions analyzed in the ND for Ordinance No. 510 for the RDSSC Code Amendment. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached Resolution approved addendum No. 7 to the RDSSC Code Amendment ND to address the compliance of the revisions to Section 17. 76.100 with the provisions of CEQA. Also, because the changes to the Code will increase noticing of City Tree Review Permit decisions, opportunities for property owners of Rancho Palos Verdes to adopt and trim City trees may increase, and therefore preserving City trees that otherwise would be removed, the proposed Code amendment does not result in an environmental impact that was not evaluated previously in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. FISCAL IMPACT The fee for processing a City Tree Review Permit application is $688. This fee covers 100% of the City's cost in processing these permits. The proposed notification expansion would result in a minor increase in postage and Staff time. Any necessary adjustments to the fee will be made when the next City-wide fee study is prepared. CONCLUSION Based upon the discussion above, Staff recommends that the Council adopt Resolution 1-5 City Council Meeting Code Amendment: City Tree Review Permit Approval Notification September 17, 2013 No. __ , adopting Addendum No. 7 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510, for a code amendment to revise Chapter 17.76.100 of the Municipal Code (City Tree Review Permit); and introduce Ordinance No._, amending RPVMC Chapter 17.76.100 of the Municipal Code (City Tree Review Permit) to expand public notification of City Tree Review Permit decisions as recommended by Staff and the Planning Commission. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City Council to consider: 1) Pmpose alternative or additional amendments to RPVMC Section 17. 76.100 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. • Ordinance No. • P.C. Resolution No. 2013-17 • Minutes from July 9, 2013 & July 23, 2013 P.C. Meetings • Staff Reports from July 9, 2013 & July 23, 2013 P.C. Meetings • Mayor Brooks' Memorandum from the May 21, 2013 Study Session • Minutes from the May 21, 2013 City Council meeting • Existing Code Language from Section 17.76.100 (City Tree Review Permit) 1-6 Resolution No. -- 1-7 RESOLUTION NO. __ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CERTIFYING ADDENDUM NO. 7 TO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 510, FOR A CODE AMENDMENT TO REVISE RPVMC CHAPTER 17.76.100 (CITY TREE REVIEW PERMIT) 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. 51 O; and, 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. 51 O; and, 1-8 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 May 21, 2013, Mayor Brooks presented a request for the City Council to initiate a code amendment to improve and expand public notification for City Tree Review Permit (CTRP) decisions; and, WHEREAS, on May 21, 2013, the City Council initiated a code amendment to increase public notification for CTRP application decisions to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 17.76.100 (City Tree Review Permit); and, WHEREAS, on June 20, 2013, notice of a public hearing on the proposed amendments to Section 17.76.100 of 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 hearing on July 9, 2013, at which time Staff presented proposed language to revise Municipal Code Section 17.76.100 (City Tree Review Permit). After reviewing and discussing the matter, the Planning Commission moved to continue the public hearing to July 23, 2013, with direction to Staff to draft a resolution for adoption, which would recommend that the City Council adopt specific code amendments to RPVMC Section 17.76.100; and, WHEREAS, on July 23, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2013-17, thereby recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance revising Section 17.76.100 of the City's Municipal Code, as recommended by Staff; and, WHEREAS, on August 29, 2013, notice of a City Council public hearing on the proposed amendments to RPVMC Section 17.76.100 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, Addendum No. 7 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510, has been prepared; and, WHEREAS, on September 17, 2013, 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: Resolution No. 2013-_ Page 2 of 2 1-9 Section 1: Addendum No. 7 is for an environmental assessment in conjunction with a code amendment to revise the City Tree Review Permit Section of the Municipal Code (RPVMC Section 17. 76.100) that would: 1) expand public notification of City Tree Review Permit application decisions so that the closest twenty (20) properties adjacent to the subject tree(s) are notified; 2) clarify that only the closest twenty (20) properties adjacent to the subject tree(s) and within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are notified; and 3) require tree posting of a City Tree Review Permit decisions. Section 2: In approving Addendum No. 7 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Addendum No. 7 document, attached hereto and made a part thereof as Exhibit "A". Section 3: The Addendum No. 7 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. 7 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. Also, because the new amendments merely expand or clarify certain notification requirements and/or codify policies and procedures that are currently in place, the proposed Code amendment does not result in an environmental impact that was not evaluated previously in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 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. Resolution No. 2013-_ Page 3 of 3 1-10 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. 7 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. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this_ day of September 2013. 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. 2013-_ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting held on September_, 2013. City Clerk Resolution No. 2013-_ Page 4 of 4 1-11 EXHIBIT "A" (Addendum No. 7 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 proposed code amendment to revise Chapter 17.76.030 of the Development Code pertaining to the Fences, Walls and Hedges permits. Finally, 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. Proposed Amendments: The proposed code amendment to revise Chapter 17.76.100 of the Municipal Code (City Tree Review Permit) would revise code language to expand public notification of City Tree Review Permit approvals, clarify that only City of Rancho Palos Verdes property owners are notified of the permit decisions and require City Tree Review Permit decisions to be posted on City trees subject to a permit's approval. Purpose: This Addendum to the previously-certified Negative Declaration is being Resolution No. 2013-_ Page 5 of 5 1-12 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 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 they merely modify or clarify certain requirements and/or codify policy procedures application requirements. 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 Resolution No. 2013-_ Page 6 of 6 1-13 substantially changed since the CEQA determination was made for Ordinance No. 510. The scope of the proposed revisions relate to minor modifications that merely modify or clarify certain requirements and/or codify 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 has independently reviewed this item and determines that other than the City Council's adoption of this Addendum No. 7, a new Negative Declaration is not required for this revision to the Municipal Code Resolution No. 2013-_ Page 7 of 7 1-14 Ordinance No. -- 1-15 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING RPVMC SECTION 17.76.100(G)(1) TO INCREASE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF A CITY TREE REVIEW PERMIT DECISION TO THE 20 CLOSEST PROPERTIES; AMENDING RPVMC SECTION 17.76.100(G)(1) TO CLARIFY THAT THE NOTIFIED PROPERTIES ARE TO BE PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES; AND AMENDING RPVMC SECTION 17.76.100(G)(3) TO REQUIRE THE CITY TO POST A NOTICE OF DECISION ON EACH TREE SUBJECT TO PERMIT APPROVAL, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF POSTING NOTICES ON TREES LOCATED IN AREAS THAT ARE TOO DIFFICULT OR HAZARDOUS TO ACCESS (CASE NO. ZON2013- 00239) WHEREAS, on May 21, 2013, Mayor Brooks presented a request for the City Council to initiate a code amendment to improve and expand public notification for City Tree Review Permit (CTRP) decisions; and, WHEREAS, on May 21, 2013, the City Council initiated a code amendment to increase public notification for CTRP application decisions to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) Section 17.76.100 (City Tree Review Permit); and, WHEREAS, on June 20, 2013, notice of a public hearing on the proposed amendments to Section 17.76.100 of 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 hearing on July 9, 2013, at which time Staff presented proposed language to revise Municipal Code Section 17.76.100 (City Tree Review Permit). After reviewing and discussing the matter, the Planning Commission moved to continue the public hearing . to July 23, 2013, with direction to Staff to draft a resolution for adoption, which would recommend that the City Council adopt specific code amendments to RPVMC Section 17.76.100; and, WHEREAS, on July 23, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2013-17, thereby recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance revising Section 17. 76.100 of the City's Municipal Code, as recommended by Staff; and, WHEREAS, on August 29, 2013, notice of a City Council public hearing on the proposed amendments to RPVMC Section 17.76.100 of the Municipal Code was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and, Ordinance No. Page 1 of 6 1-16 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, Addendum No. 7 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510, has been prepared; and, WHEREAS, on September 17, 2013, 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 California Government Code Section 65853, zoning amendment procedures. 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 the Negative Declaration adopted in conjunction with Ordinance No. 510 for amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code, because the new amendments merely expand or clarify certain notification requirements and/or codify policies and procedures that are currently in place. Accordingly, the City Council hereby finds that Addendum (No. 7) to the prior Negative Declaration, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," complies 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. Specifically, the revisions to Section 17. 76.100 will expand public notification for permit decisions where City trees significantly impair views from adjoining lots, which assists the Community Development Department to implement and uphold the Goals and policies of the City's General Plan. Section 4: That the amendments to Chapter 17. 76.100 are necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare, as the proposed amendments will increase noticing of City Tree Review Permit decisions, which increases opportunities for property owners of Rancho Palos Verdes to adopt and trim City trees, so as to preserve City trees that otherwise would be removed. Section 5: Section 17.76.100 (City Tree Review Permit) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (strike-out text is for removed language, and bold and underlined text is for new language): Ordinance No. Page 2of6 1-17 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 (Single-Family Residential Districts) 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: Ordinance No. Page 3 of 6 1-18 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 7 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 G1 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. Ordinance No. Page 4 of 6 1-19 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 teR twenty (4-020) 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 teR twenty (4-020) 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 fifteen 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. Section 6: 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. Ordinance No. Page 5 of 6 1-20 Section 7: 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 8: This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 AM on the 31 5 t day after its passage. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this_ day of September 2013. 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 Ordinance No. _ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on September_, 2013. City Clerk Ordinance No. Page 6 of 6 1-21 P.C. Resolution No. 2013-17 1-22 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING RPVMC SECTION 17.76.100(G)(1) TO INCREASE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF A CITY TREE REVIEW PERMIT DECISION TO THE 20 CLOSEST PROPERTIES; AMENDING RPVMC SECTION 17.76.100(G)(1) TO CLARIFY THAT THE NOTIFIED PROPERTIES ARE TO BE PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES; AND AMENDING RPVMC SECTION 17.76.100(G)(3) TO REQUIRE THE CITY TO POST A NOTICE OF DECISION ON EACH TREE SUBJECT TO PERMIT APPROVAL, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF POSTING NOTICES ON TREES LOCATED IN AREAS THAT ARE TOO DIFFICULT OR HAZARDOUS TO ACCESS (CASE NO. ZON2013- 00239) WHEREAS, Section 17. 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 Permits; and, WHEREAS, on May 21, 2013, Mayor Brooks presented a request for the City Council to initiate a code amendment to improve and expand public notification for City Tree Review Permit (CTRP) decisions; and, WHEREAS, on May 21, 2013, the City Council initiated a code amendment to increase public notification for CTRP application decisions to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 17.76.100 (City Tree Review Permit); and, WHEREAS, on June 20, 2013, notice of a public hearing on the proposed amendments to Section 17.76.100 of 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 hearing on July 9, 2013, at which time Staff presented proposed code amendments to RPVMC Section 17.76.100. Based upon the recommendation of Staff, the Planning Commission moved to continue the public hearing to July 23, 2013; and, WHEREAS, on July 23, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: P.C. Resolution No. 2013-17 Page 1of6 :...: ... 1-23 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 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. Specifically, the revisions to Section 17.76.100 will expand public notification for permit decisions where City trees significantly impair views from adjoining lots, which assists the Community Development Department to implement and uphold the Goals and policies of the City's General Plan. 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 th~ severity of the effects, as previously identified the Negative Declaration adbpted in conjunction with Ordinance No. 510 for amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code, because the new amendments mer.eJy expand or clarify certain notification requirements and/or codify policies and procedures that are currently in place. Accordingly, the Planning Commission hereby finds that Addendum (No. 6) to the prior Negative Declaration, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4: That the amendments to Chapter 17.76.100 are necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare, as the proposed amendments will increase noticing of City Tree Review Permit decisions, which increases opportunities for property owners of Rancho Palos Verdes to adopt and trim City trees, so as to preserve City trees that. otherwise would be removed. Section 5: That the subsections listed below of Section 17. 76 .100 (City Tree Review Permit) of Title 17 of the Municipal Code are hereby amended as follows (strike-out text is for removed language, and bold and underlined text is for new language): 17.76.100-City Tree Review Permit 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 teR twenty (.:1-020) 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 teR twenty (.:1-020) closest lots within the City of Rancho Palos P.C. Resolution No. 2013-17 Page 2of6 1-24 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 subject of an application decision. For trees located on Citv 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. Section 6: 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 City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Section 17.76.100 of the City's Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of July 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Emenhiser, Commissioners Nelson, Tomblin, Gerstner NOES: None ABSTENTION: None ABSENT: Vice Chairman Leon, Commissioners Lewis, Tetreault RECUSALS: None P.C. Resolution No. 2013-17 Page 3 of 6 1-25 EXHIBIT "A" (Addendum No. 6 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 Gen·eral Plan and with the Coastal Specific Plan. On September 21, 2010, the City Council adopte&I 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 approvin"g 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 CH:y 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. Proposed Amendments: The proposed code amendment to revise Chapter 17.76.100 of the Municipal Code (City Tree Review Permit) would revise code language to expand public notification of City Tree Review Permit approvals and clarify that only City of Rancho Palos Verdes are notified of the permit approvals. Purpose: This Addendum to the previously-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 P.C. Resolution No. 2013-17 Page 4 of 6 1-26 light of the whole record, one or more of the following: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the 1oject 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 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 they merely modify or clarify certain requirements and/or codify policy procedures application requirements. 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 rev1s1ons 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 scope of the proposed revisions relate to minor modifications that merely modify or clarify certain requirements and/or codify 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2013-17 Page 5 of 6 1-27 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. 6. P.C. Resolution No. 2013-17 Page 6 of 6 1-28 Excerpted Minutes from July 9, 2013 & July 23, 2013 P.C. Meetings 1-29 Co issioner Tetreault asked staff, given the testimony of Ms. Goddard and the staff has conducted, if staff still felt the exemption should be given and why. Director Rojas ted that staff felt the exemption should be given. He explained that there is discretion 1 lved in this decision and much of that discretion has to do with the degree of difficulty 1 dergrounding the utilities. He stated that most undergrounding projects ar ore straightforward where one would simply trench to the nearest pole. On this property is more difficulty in that there is a steep slope, a large retaining wall that was possibl ilt prematurely by the applicant, and a neighbor who will not allow access onto their prop . Therefore, staff felt that these circumstances, combined with Edison's state t that there is no planned undergrounding in this area and that the neighbo o not have their utilities underground warranted approval of the exemption. knowledged that while the undergrounding could be done, staff felt the degree of di 1 to do so was higher than with typical situations. Commissioner Nelson moved to accept staff's recommendation to nt the waiver to the requirement that the utilities to this new home be placed underground, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. The motion was approv Cl, (5- 2) with Commissioners Tomblin and Gerstner dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Zone Text Amendment -Notice procedures for City Tree Review Permits (Case No. ZON2013-00239) Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report, explaining this is a City Council initiated code amendment proposing to amend the City Tree Review permit procedure to increase the public notification of permit approvals. He gave a brief background of what led up to this proposed amendment and noted the specific language proposed by ·the City Council for the Planning Commission to consider. He stated that staff carefully reviewed the two proposed changes and concluded that a change to a radius notification method is not recommended, but an amendment that would allow for posting approval notices on trees can be supported. He explained staff's concerns regarding changing the notification process to a radius method, which included notifying a less than desirable number of properties being captured within the radius; capturing properties on streets other than the street where the tree is located; and the notification would be subject to accuracy of staff to locate a tree trunk using aerial images. He explained staff was recommending using the current method of notification which is notifying the ten closest neighbors, and increasing that notification to the twenty closest neighbors and that those properties be in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. He stated staff was recommending the Planning Commission review the City Council's proposed amendments, provide feedback on staff's suggestions, and continue the public hearing to July 23rd so that staff can bring back any amended language for the consider in a Resolution. Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 2013 Page4 1-30 Cornmissioner Tetreault asked if the notification of the twenty closest residences was sent to the property owner or to the resident. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that the code specifies the notification go to the property owners. Commissioner Tetreault asked if a renter of a property can adopt a city tree. Senior Planner Alvarez noted the existing code language specifies that property owners can adopt a city tree. Commissioner Lewis pointed out that Mayor Brooks asked for the Planning Commission to consider a very specific proposal, which was a notification radius. He asked if the Planning Commission were to vote to approve the very specific proposal that the Mayor has recommended, would staff then go before the City Council and state that staff was recommending not going with the radius but rather increasing the notification from the ten closest homes to the twenty closest homes. Director Rojas explained he has spoken to the Mayor and her intent was to increase the notification. She recognized that her proposal would be vetted through staff and the Planning Commission. Staff will report to the City Council of its reasons to support an increase in number not radius. Chairman Emenhiser asked staff what they envisioned for the notices that would be posted on actual trees. Senior Planner Alvarez stated the notices would be placed in weather-proof sleeving and stapled to the tree. He explained the notice would be of the Director's decision and would include appeal dates and comment periods. The notice will most likely be a bright color, either yellow or orange. Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve staff's recommended language to expand the current notification to include the twenty closest properties, limiting adoption to only Rancho Palos Verdes residents, and posting the notice of decision on the tree with certain hazardous exceptions, and to continue the public hearing to July 23, 2013 to review the draft Resolution. Seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (7-0). 3. Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff repo tated that the Commission had directed staff to change the name of the "Hazard" design · "Open Space Hillside" and to change the boundaries of the Hazard areas where there wo e a reduction proposed by the City Geologist. The item before the Commission 1s Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 2013 Page 5 1-31 CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Zone Text Amendment -Noticing procedure for City Tree Review Permits (Case No. ZON203-00239) Director Rojas presented the staff report, briefly reviewing the proposed modifications to the noticing procedure presented by staff at the previous meeting. He stated staff has worked with the City Attorney to craft the proposed code amendment language that is attached to the staff report in the form of a Resolution. He stated staff is seeking the Planning Commission's feedback on the language, and if it is acceptable staff is recommending the Commission adopt the Resolution included with the staff report, which will be forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Tomblin moved to approved staff recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. The motion was approved, and PC Resolution 2013-17 was adopted, (4-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. General Plan Update -Revisions to draft text Deputy irector Pfost presented the staff report, explaining the Commission has reviewe d approved all of the text currently before them this evening. Staff has reviewed the cument and what is before the Commission is the Planning Commission approved text w1 taff's recommended changes as noted in strikethrough or underlined text in th ocument. He stated staff was recommending the Commission go through the element , eginning with the introduction, and give direction to staff in regards to the recommend changes, or any additional changes, in the document. Deputy Director Pfost began with ief overview of the Table of Contents, briefly noting it is a guide to lead one throug ch of the elements, as in some cases the elements are quite long. Commissioner Gerstner stated he was satisfied questioned why nothing is numbered or lettered, as to a specific page number. the Table of Contents, however he text loses value if you can't go Deputy Director Pfost stated he will add the numbers once the final stage. Commissioner Nelson noted that in reading the document he found it very · icult to find the goals in each section, as they were near the end or somewhere in th iddle. He questioned if the policies could be placed directly after the goals at the front of each section. Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 2 1-32 Staff Reports from July 9, 2013 & July 23, 2013 P.C. Meetings 1-33 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DATE: JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY JULY 9, 2013 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT TO MODIFY RPVMC SECTION 17.76.100 TO EXPAND THE NOTICING REQUIREMENTS FOR CITY TREE REVIEW PERMITS (Case No. ZON2013-00239) Staff Coordinator: John Alvarez, Senior Planner RE COMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission review the proposed code amendments to expand the noticing requirements for City Tree Revtew Permits, provide Staff with any feedback and continue the public hearing to July 23. 2013 so that Staff could finalize the amended language in a Resolution for the Commission's consideration. BACKGROUND On May 21, 2013, during a City Council study session, Mayor Susan Brooks introduced a proposal to improve and expand the notification procedures pertaining to City Tree Review Permit (CTRP) applications (see attached Memorandum dated May 21. 2013 from Mayor Brooks). After a brief discussion. the City Council agreed with the proposal and instructed Staff to initiate the code amendment process to implement the Mayors' proposal. Since the existing CTRP processing procedures are contained in the City's Development Cade (Section 17.76.100G) expanding the noticing requirements as directed by the Council necessitates a formal code amendment pursuant to Development Code Section 17.86.040. All proposed Development Code amendments must be first reviewed by the Planning Commission with a recommendation forwarded to the City Council. Therefore, the proposed code amendment is being presented to the Commission for review and consideration. 30940 I IAW'fl!Olmr BLVD, I RAN(;ll() D\IOS VERDES, CA il0275·5391 P~i\N~i!~ih & ~.:ODE rNFO!?U=MENT DM:>ION (3tDl ">44·0 ,228 / 2l'll C•INC & '~'\FET\' OIVISKJN D'O) '.Jc>f"->·i"a(J<J 1 mr I F.'.<:< (3h.1) ~-:4 c,;]ff} E -M,.1JI. ~21 i\~·lf'HNCi~=f..t"JV C ~\~!"I; \\1\/1/\f\iP1\L()S\•Ff~~Cf f:.~.t :Oi\·l.il<~~\; 1-34 Staff Report: CTRP Code Amendment CASE No. ZON2013-000239 July 9, 2013 DISCUSSION An application process for residents to request the trimming or removal of city trees that significantly impair their view was not originally part of Proposition M passed by the voters in 1989. In consideration of the View Ordinance that was adopted, the City Council adopted a City Tree Review Permit policy (Resolution 89-119) in 1989. This resolution made the City accountable to the spirit of the view restoration process by implementing a policy that set a procedure for residents to have view-impairing City trees trimmed or removed. The City Tree Review Permit policy was subsequently modified and codified into the RPV Municipal Code in 1996 as Section 17. 76.100. In 2005, the then Clty Council adopted streamlining and cost-saving changes to Section 17.76.100. As part of the 2005 amendments, the City Council inserted language to allow for tree "adoption'' and expanded the permit notification list to the closest 10 properties and the appropriate Homeowners Association (HOA). City Tree Review Permit Process When City Tree Review Permit applications are approved by the Community Development Director, Section 17. 76. 1 OO(G) requires Staff to provide written notice of the decision. In accord with said Section, City Staff provides both a Staff Report and the Director's Notice of Decision to the applicant, the appropriate HOA and to the closest 10 properties located on the same street where the subject City tree is located. In cases where the subject tree is located within a City park, the code states that only the applicant is notified of the CTRP decision. The existing code language pertaining to CTRP approval noticing is found in subsection G and reads as follows: 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 detennination to grant the application shafl be sent to the applicant(s), the appropriate Homeowners Association, and the ten (1 O) closest adjacent properties 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 ten (1 OJ closest lots, which are on the same street, directly abutting and adjacent to the property where the tree and/or foliage are located. Notice of denial shalf be given only to the applicant. 1-35 Staff Report: CTRP Code Amendment CASE No. ZON2013-000239 July 9, 2013 2. When the fol1age is located 1n a City park. notice of the director's decision shall be given only to "tne applicant. ''' Proposed Text Amendment As noted m Mayor Brooks' May 21, 2013 memorandum. a situation recently occurred where residents living beyond the 10 closest lots to an approved CTRP application became very upset when they discovered that two mature City trees were removed wrth no widespread neighborhood notification. Said residents stated that if they were notified of the pending tree removal, they would have stepped up to adopt the trees. It is important to note that only property owners notified of a CTRP decision are eligible to adopt a City tree. After consulting with Staff, Mayor Brooks put forth her recommendation to expand the CTRP notification process by increasing the notification from the 10 closest lots to all lots within 300 feet of each subject City tree and to post Notices of CTRP applications on a conspicuous location on each tree subject to a CTRP application. Below are Staff's comments to each proposal under consideration: 1. Changing the public notification from the 1 O closest properties to each tree on the same street to properties within a 300 foot radius of each subject tree. In areas of the City where there are large, custom shaped lots, radius notification could be less effective because custom residential lots tend to be larger in size than tract developed lots. As such, there could be situations where switching to a 300-foot radius notification may result in notification to less than 10 properties as is currently required. Furthermore, a radius notification will extend the notification to properties located on ·" ~treets other than where the subject City trees are located. Some may argue that only those residents living on the street where a subject city tree is located, and would be impacted the most by its removal, should have influence on a proposed CTRP decision. In fact, this is one the main subjects of debate when the then Council reviewed the expansion notification amendment in 2005. Ultimately, it was decided that that notification of CTRP approvals would be issued to only those closest 1 O residents "on the same street, directly abutting and adjacent to the property where the tree and/or foliage are located". See Section 17.76. 100(G)( 1 ). Further, since most of the City trees subject to CTRP requests involve trees with full canopies, it may be difficult to identify the location of a tree trunk solely from an aerial image. As such, a ground based measurement (distance measurement from tree trunk to some identifiable feature) would be required of Staff to get better accuracy on the center of the required 300-foot radius. Any attempt to estimate the location of a tree trunk using a combination of GIS aerial imagery mapping and ground measurements may result in 1-36 Staff Report: CTRP Code Amendment CASE No. ZON2013-000239 July 9, 2013 some degree of error ranging from plus/minus 5 feet in the radius buffer itself. This difference could result in some properties being excluded or captured within the radius area. Based on the discussion above, Staff believes that rather than changing the notification process to all properties within a 300-foot radius of each tree, that the notification be increased from the 10 closest properties on the same street to the 20 closest properties on the same street Staff believes that increasing the number of notified surrounding properties to a fixed number achieves the purpose of the Council's intent to expand the number of residents to be notified of CTRP decisions. Also, the number ls fixed to 20 properties and therefore can be consistently applied City-wide, As noted earlier, only property owners notified of a CTRP decision are eligible to adopt a City tree. Thus, the expanded notification requirement will allow more residents to adopt a City tree that is eligible for adoption. However. because the expanded notification requirement could result in more residents located outside the RPV City limits to receive notice, Staff recommends that if the Planning Commission were to agree with this proposed notification expansion that the code language be written in a way so that only RPV property owners are eligible to adopt a City tree. 2. Notice be posted on a conspicuous location on each subject tree Staff supports the idea to post the Notice of Decision on City trees subject to CTRP approvals. Staff also concurs with Mayor Brooks' suggestion that the Notice be posted within a weatherproof sleeve. It would be helpful to clarify that posting notices on City trees ought to include posting notices on both City-owned trees located within its public right-of-ways and in its Parks. Staff's only concern with posting a document on a City tree is that some trees are located on ravine cliffs and within steep canyon draws (ex. Abalone Cove Park, Agua Amarga Canyon) and thus may be hazardous to access. If the Commission agrees with this proposed code amendment, Staff will craft language to address this concern. · CONCLUSION In response to the City Council's direction to expand the notification process for City Tree Review Permits, Staff has presented the proposals articulated by Mayor Brooks in her May 21, 2013 memo along with Staffs input At this time, Staff is seeking the Planning Commission's feedback on the proposed code amendment before working with the City Attorney to craft the actual code amendment language. 1-37 Staff Report: CTRP Code Amendment CASE No. ZON2013-000239 July 9, 2013 Al TERNA TIVES The following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission's consideration in addition to Staff's recommendation: 1. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed amendments. and provide Staff with modifications, and continue the public hearing to a date certain; or, 2. Identify any issues of concern that differ from Staffs analysis and recommendation. and direct Staff to modify the proposed amendments for consideration by the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 'A' -Excerpted approved City Council meeting minutes and Mayor Brook's Memorandum to the City Council dated May 21, 2013 Exhibit 'B' -Current Section 17.76.100 of the RPVMC 1-38 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DFl)L\l<TfV!ENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEV~~RECTOR DATE: JULY 23, 2013 u I/ SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT TO MODIFY RPVMC SECTION 17.76.100, CITY TREE REVIEW PERMIT (Case No. ZON2013-00239) Staff Coordinator: John Alvarez, Senior Planner Y RECOMMENDATION Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013""'_ forwarding a recommendation to the City Council to adopt an amendment to RPV Municipal Code Section 17.76.100 to expand public notification for City Tree Review Permit approvals. BACKGROUND At its meeting of July 9, 2013, the Planning Commission was presented with Staff's recommendations to expand public notification for City Tree Review Permit approvals, as previously directed by the City Council (see attached June 9, 2013 Staff Memorandum). After considering Staff's recommendations, the Commission agreed with Staff's recommended code changes and directed Staff to bring back a Resolution with the actual code amendment language for its review. The Commission continued the public hearing to tonight's meeting (see attached July 9, 2013 draft excerpt PC minutes). DISCUSSION On July gth, the Planning Commission agreed to direct Staff to prepare code changes to expand the notification requirements for City Tree Review Permit decisions. Staff has prepared, in consultation with the City Attorney's office, the code changes for Planning Commission consideration (see attached Draft Resolution). The language that is proposed to be inserted is shown in underlined text, while language that is proposed to be deleted is shown in strike-out text. 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. I l<A:-<CHO P'\LUS Vl:ROb, (;,<\ Sl0275·539' f-'U\NNJN(; & CODE ENFOr~CEMENT DIVISION (310) 544-ti228 /BUILDING & SAF:Tr' DIVISl()N (:310) <>GS-7800 ! !J[JJ 1. F"\X (310) Ci4 1;-•;?9:3 E-MAIL PcANNING@l·<r'V.C:Ofvi / vvWWP;\! OSVEFiDl::S.COfvill<f'V 1-39 Staff Report: CTRP. Code Amendment CASE No. ZON2013-000239 July 23, 2013 In summary, the amendments achieve the following: 1: Increase the public notification from the 10 closest property owners to the 20 closest property owners for trees within the City's public right-of-way 2: Clarify that notified properties are limited to the City boundaries of Rancho Palos Verdes, thus ensuring that only RPV property owners are eligible to "adopt" a City tree 3: Require that Notices of City Tree Review Permit decisions be posted on trees subject to the decision, with the exception of City trees located in areas that are <;iifficult or hazardous to access · ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Environmeht~l' 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 revise code language relating to the City Tree Review Permit requirements of Section 17. 76.100 of the Development Code. 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 Addendum No. 6 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 July 23, 2013 public hearing. Public Notification A notice of public hearing announcing the Planning Commission's July 9, 2013 hearing date was published in the Peninsula News on June 20, 2013. To date, no public comments have been received from the public regarding this matter. On July 9, 2013, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to July 23, 2013. 1-40 Staff Report: CTRP Code Amendment CASE No. ZON2013-000239 July 23, 2013 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing discussion, Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the attached Resolution, which recommends the approval of certain amendments to Section 17. 76. 100 of the Municipal Code by 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 language amendments and provide Staff with modifications. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft PC Resolution No. 2013- 2. Exhibit "A" Addendum No. 6 to Negative Declaration 3. PC Memorandum dated July 9, 2013 4. Excerpted Draft Planning Commission Minutes from July 9, 2013 1-41 Mayor Brooks' Memorandum from the May 21, 2013 Study Session 1-42 CITY OF MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable City Council Members FROM: Mayor Susan Brooks DATE: May 21, 2013 SUBJECT: Amendment to the Notification Section of the View Ordinance related to City Trees RECOMMENDATION Revise Municipal Code Section 17.76.100G to read: "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 app/icant(s), the appropriate homeowner's association, and a/J property owners within 300' of each subject tree. In addition, notice of the determination shall be posted on a conspicuous location on each subject tree. BACKGROUND This request comes to the Council as a result of several trees, some of them historic that were removed from the Miraleste community along PV Drive East a few months ago. The current code under the View Restoration Ordinance calls for notification to the 10 closest neighbors for a proposed tree removal. Unfortunately, several neighbors living outside the required parameters were surprised and disturbed to find out too late that these trees were even under consideration for removal. Options such as "Adopt-a-Tree,, or objections were not considered and there was considerable disruption with the surrounding neighbors. I was called to the scene where I conferred with neighbors and city staff regarding history of the project notification and possible options going forward. (Replacement trees are currently under review with neighbors and the Miraleste Parks District.} Listed below are suggested options to improve existing policy. Since this involves logical solutions for improvement, I believe the Council has the ability to act on these this evening, thus bringing the item back as a Consent Calendar resolution for an upcoming meeting to afford community input, if necessary. 1-43 Amendment to the Notification Section of the View Ordinance Related lo Trees May21,2013 Page 2 of 2 NOTICING METHODS The current method of noticing is via US Mail. An additional action is to post a notice on the subject tree(s}, in addition to mailing the notices. This could simply be the permit itself, maybe with each page printed double-sided in a weather- proof plastic sleeve so it could be read without being removed from the sleeve. NOTICING RADIUS The current radius is the ten closest properties. {See Municipal Code section . below.) Staff and I discussed a couple of methods to extend the noticing radius. One idea would be to notify the 20 closest properties. This is what is typically defined as an "immediate neighborhood when a planner is performing a neighbor.hood compatibility analysis. Another idea would be to notify properties within a 300 or 500-foot radius of the subject tree(s). However, it should be noted that this could result in approximately 50-100 notified properties, which would increase the cost of mailing and staff preparation time. For example, a notification of 10 properties would currently be approximately $4.60, assuming one stamp per notice. A notification of 50-100 properties would cost $23 to $46. Section 17.76.100.G (following and attached) states: G. Notificatfon. When the director makes a determination regarding a city tree review permit, written not;ce of the decision shall be given as folf ows: 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 ten closest adjacent properties 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 ten closest lots, 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. CONCLUSION: Adopting the extended ordinance would extend the notification radius, thus affor,ding residents more input in actions which may directly affect them. This speaks to Transparency and accountability adopted Goals. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposal would result in a small increase in postage costs to the City and staff time to assemble the notification mailing labels and post the trees. 1-44 Minutes from the May 21, 2013 City Council meeting 1-45 MINUTES RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MAY 21, 2013 The meeting was called to order at 6:38 P.M. by Mayor Brooks at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard for a City Council Study Session. City Council roll call was answered as follows: PRESENT: Duhovic, Knight, Misetich, and Mayor Brooks ABSENT; Campbell* *Mayor Brooks noted that Councilman Campbell had notified staff that he would be arriving late. Also present were Carolyn Lehr, City Manager; Carolynn Petru, Deputy City Manager/Interim Director of Recreation and Parks: Carol Lynch, City Attorney; Dennis Mclean, Director of Finance/Information Technology; Joel Rojas, Community Development Director; Les Jones, Interim Director of Public Works; Ron Dragoo, Senior Engineer; and, Carla Morreale, City ~lerk. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA FOR THE STUDY SESSION: None. DISCUSSION TOPICS: Review of Tentative Agendas in Light of City Council Goals, Including Questions of Staff Discussion ensued among Council Members, City Attorney Lynch, and staff regarding items on the upcoming Council Meeting agendas as listed on the Tentative Agendas. Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic moved, seconded by Councilman Misetich, to continue the Draft FY13~14 Budget item (also listed on this evening's Regular Agenda as Item No. 4) to the June 1, 2013 Adjourned Regular Meeting listed on the Tentative Agendas. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Duhovic, Knight, Misetich, and Mayor Brooks None Campbell City Council Minutes May21,2013 Page 1 of 15 1-46 Future Agenda Items Proposed by Council Members to be Prioritized Amendment to the Notification Section of the View Ordinance related to City Trees Mayor Brooks provided a brief report regarding the proposed Code Amendment to modify the notification section of the View Ordinance related to City trees. Discussion ensued among Council Members, staff, and City Attorney Lynch. Councilman Knight moved, seconded by Councilman Misetich, to: Direct staff to prepare an item for the Planning Commission's consideration regarding the proposed Code Amendment to revise Municipal Code Section 17. 76.1 OOG to read: "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 homeowner's association, and all property owners within 300' of each subject tree. In addition, notice of the determinl:tfl'On shall be posted on a conspicuous location on each subject tree." Without objection, Mayor Brooks so ordered. RPV Street Light Acquisition/Retrofit Councilman Knight provided a brief report regarding the proposed Rancho Palos Verdes Street Light Acquisition/Retrofit. Discussion ensued among Council Members and staff. Councilman Misetich moved, seconded by Mayor Brooks, to direct staff to undertake a feasibility analysis of acquiring Southern California Edison (SCE} owned street lights, retrofitting City owned lights with more energy efficient LED bulbs and explore resetting SCE's rate structure as well as programs available for rebates and energy cost savings financing, with staff to return to Council with a Regular Business item on a future agenda. Without objection, Mayor Brooks so ordered. RECESS AND RECONVENE: Mayor Brooks called a brief recess from 6:54 P.M. to 7:03 P.M. REGULAR SESSION: City Council roll call was answered as follows: City Council Minutes May 2i, 2013 Page 2 of 15 1-47 Existing Code Language RPVMC Section 17.76.100 (City Tree Review Permit) 1-48 17.76.100 -City tree ,_view permit. A Purpose. This chapter provides a procedure for the pruning and/or removal of trees and/or fotiage which are located on city property, a city easement or iMthin 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 Mlraleste recreation and park district shall not be subject to the provisions of this section. D. City Tree Review Permit Application. Any person owning !and in the city may fife an application tqr a city tree review permit. An applfcation for a city tree review permit shalt 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; 2. A plan cfr 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 pubfic right-of-way that is impairing the view of the applicant; 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 vieiMng area of the applicant's lot, as defined in Section 17 02 040 (Single-Family Residential Districts) of this title. F. Conditions of Permit Issuance. ln granting any approval under this section, the director may impose such conditions thereon as may be reasonably necessary to prevent danger to pubfic 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 andfor foliage shall be removed and replaced with a similar ti.\enty-four-inch box size tree by the city. The city shalf pay for all costs of tree and/or foliage removal and replacement. Trees and/or fo!iage 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 iMthin the public right-of-way; b. The city shall make the final determination as to the type and number of 1-49 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 wlll 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) of this section 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 thirty 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 appllcant(s), the appropriate homeowners association, and the ten closest adjacent properties 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 ten closest lots, which are on the same street, directly abutting and adjacent to the property where the tree 1-50 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. H. Appeals. Any interested person receiving notice of the director's decision may appeal the decision to the planning commission. in writing, within fifteen calendar days of the director's decision. Pursuant to Section 17 02 Q40(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. 1-51