Loading...
RPVCCA_CC_SS_2013_11_19_SS2a_View_Ordinance_Requirements_In_Relation_To_Sale_Of_HomesCrTYOF MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS SUSAN BROOKS, MAYOR NOVEMBER 19, 2013 VIEW RESTORATION COMPLIANCE AT THE TIME OF SALE AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS RECOMMENDATION Agendize View Ordinance and Tree Removal concerns pursuant to the two submittals from residents Clara Duran Reed and Ann Marinovich. DISCUSSION Rancho Palos Verdes has one of the state's best tested methods of view preservation with the existence of our 25 yr. old View Ordinance. Currently, all homes with significant additions or remodels must fall into compliance with the existing View Ordinance with regard to trees or other obstructions. There is loophole with regard to the Ordinance which involves the biggest changeover possible--the sale of a home. There also exists, implementation concerns concerning definition and enforcement within these confines. Disparities are significant enough to warrant Council oversight. Under the current code, homeowners can sell a home with significant view obstructions for neighboring homeowners, while the offending house might just have an unobstructed view for its own inhabitants. This places the onus on an existing neighbor to pay for the costs for either tree removal or lacing, a $5,000 application, or city-paid mediation, while the seller just passes off the problem to the new owner. If our goal is to eventually bring all homes into compliance so each homeowner has the opportunity to enjoy their justified view, we can accomplish this within a few years and save the city money at the same time. Requiring the selling home to comply with the view ordinance would facilitate a logical answer to this ongoing concern. It is not much different than the existing requirement of coming into compliance before a permit is issued. Thus, the View Ordinance could be a part of the Escrow, just as a termite inspection. SS 2a-1 View Restoration Compliance at the Time of Sale and Other Considerations November 19, 2013 Page 2 of 2 There is a more disturbing trend to assess with regard to views. The View Ordinance, The General Plan, City Code, Planning Commission and Planning Department regulations are the subjects of ongoing questions and concerns regarding inconsistency, compatability and compliance. Existing problems with Tree Removal and trimming continue. I believe we need to examine these problems and address them with a unified hand-that of City Council approval. Attached to this memo are two distinct requests from valuable members of our communi~y: Clara Duran-Reed (former Planning Commissioner, attorney and Realtor) and Ann Marinovich (Community leader and County professional). I submit these to assist Council and staff with pertinent information regarding the aforementioned concerns, and look forward to addressing these issues at a future Council meeting. I understand this is no small task, but it is very important that we pay attention to the needs expressed by our community. SS 2a-2 Consistency and Enforcement of the View Ordinance I. Introduction The City's General Plan recognizes the scenic value of potential vista points and view lots and calls for their protection. The purpose of the Rancho Palos Verdes View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance which was passed by voters in 1989 is to "protect[], enhance[] and perpetuate []views available to property owners and visitors because of the unique topographical features of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. These views provide unique and irreplaceable assets to the City and its neighboring communities ... " The Ordinance purpose is also to "define[] and protect[] finite visual resources by establishing limits which construction and plant growth can attain before encroaching onto a view." It "requires the pruning of dense foliage or tree growth which alone, or in conjunction with construction, exceeds defined limits." (Emphasis added). II. The Ordinance as Applied Is Not Sufficiently Protecting Views Almost a quarter of a century has passed since the adoption of the Ordinance. And with each passing year the Peninsula's vistas are decreasing and the purpose of both the General Plan and Ordinance is being defeated. Lack of a view can decrease the value of a home by at least $50,000 to $100,000 or more. Some homeowners treasure their scenic views but have no problem in blocking their neighbors' views. Fortunately, with some adjustments to the code, the scenic views can gradually and consistently be restored. An added benefit is that home values will be increased, thus generating more funds to the city through taxes and making this City even more prized. The modifications included here support the purpose of the General Plan and the Ordinance. The modifications will provide incentives for homeowners to maintain and protect the scenic value of vista points and view lots, all while decreasing costs and time unnecessarily spent by city staff and homeowners. -1- SS 2a-3 A. Foliage Height Limitations In general, the code provides that "No person shall significantly impair a view from a viewing area of a lot by permitting foliage to grow to a height exceeding: a. [The height permitted pursuant to a view restoration commission/permit] -b. If no view restoration permit has been issued by the view restoration commission, a height which is the lesser of: i. The ridge line of the primary structure on the property; or ii. Sixteen feet." We need only look around to see that trees are overgrown, are currently blocking views, and pitting neighbor against neighbor. When homeowners move, they should leave a view behind. B. Foliage Owners Need An Incentive to Bring their Trees and Shrubs to Code The current code seeks to protect both near and far views. Under the code, the property owner with foliage that significantly impairs a neighbor's view has no financial or other incentive to bring it to code. He can sit back knowing that the homeowner with the significantly impaired view must pay all fees and costs to restore or preserve their view. The foliage owner pays nothing. Most of the Peninsula population is made up of seniors who originally moved here in the 1960s. These seniors generally don't have the strength or sometimes the ability to seek to restore or preserve their view. They should not be punished by view obstructing neighbors who are just stubborn or who have a sense of entitlement as to maintaining their own view but destroying their neighbors' view. View obstructing foliage owners need an incentive to comply with the Ordinance in maintaining views. C. Costs to Preserve/Restore Views under the Code As Implemented Are Very High Currently, the Application to restore or preserve a view is over $5,000 (five thousand dollars), payable by-not the person causing the view obstruction -but by the applicant-the person whose view is obstructed. The applicant must also pay for all fees and costs to trim, remove, and replant foliage as necessary for his neighbor's obstructing foliage. There is little fairness in making the injured party pay all the costs -2- SS 2a-4 and fees of the person causing the obstruction and instead allowing the view blocking owner to ignore the Ordinance. It has been stated that this is only a one time fee for the injured homeowner (applicant) and that the majority of the time, the applicant never has to pay for the Application because the city mediates the view obstruction with "neither party getting everything they want." The reality is that this may not be a one time fee because the obstructing foliage owner can replant obstructing foliage -foliage which is not included in the Application and not included in any agreement mediated by the city. And so, the foliage grows and the process and Application start all over again. The city states that the cost to process an Application is more than twice the cost of the applicatiqn. Thus, right now, it is costing the city over $10,000 (ten thousand dollars) to process an Application. This is a loss to the city of about $5,000 (five thousand dollars). It may not be commonplace, but each $5,000 loss is too much for the city to lose. According to the Planning Department, the rate of success in mediation is about 90% or so. However, the mediation still requires payment to staff and the mediators and does not have any way for the parties to enforce the voluntary agreement. Nor do the mediated agreements take into account future planted or growing foliage that can significantly impair views. By enforcing the Ordinance with less staff time, the city will experience increased savings. D. Removal of Foliage as a Condition of Permit Issuance Is Not Enforced as Titled Subsection 4 of the Code is entitled "Removal of Foliage as Condition of Permit Issuance." However, this is not what the code provides. Removal of view blocking foliage is only required to be removed under very narrow circumstances. Specifically, foliage is to be removed when only the following is sought: a conditional use permit, variance, height variation, building permit or other entitlement to construct a structure, or to add livable area to a structure on a parcel utilized for residential purposes. Nothing else. Thus, a homeowner can gut a large part of his home, extensively remodel, obtain permits for new windows, plumbing, electrical and the like, significantly improve and increase the value of his home and never trigger the requirements to remove view blocking foliage. While the foliage owners improves and increases the value of his -3- SS 2a-5 home, his neighbor's view obstructed home value remains reduced, thus directly contradicting both the General Plan and the purpose of the Ordinance. E. Foliage Owners can Freely Replant View Impairing Trees and Shrubs, Which Is Against the Purpose of the Ordinance The purpose of the Ordinance is to establish "limits which construction and plant growth can attain before encroaching onto a view." (Emphasis added). The ordinance must address foliage before it blocks a view. Now, after either a decision on the View Restoration/Preservation Application or through mediation, or even when a specific building permit above is issued, the foliage owner is free to replant tall foliage and again block his owner's view, thus restarting the Application process all over again at the injured homeowner's expense. [In one current example, a homeowner sought a building permit, removed 1 (one) view blocking tree and then replanted 58 tall trees directly in front of his neighbor's ocean view. In a year or so, the "protected" view will again be impaired and the injured homeowner will need to bear the costs of an Application and removal of the foliage]. Repeated and non-fully inclusive decisions which do not address future view blocking foliage by the view blocking property is a tremendous waste of time for the city (more Application processing, inspections, more mediations, staff time, time spent by the Planning Commission, and potential appeals to the City Council). It is also more wasted time to the parties, and more fees and costs for the injured, view blocked homeowner since he has to again pay for an Application and the removal of the foliage. Although one specifically stated purpose of the ordinance is to address foliage before it blocks a view, the Code does not fully address this discrepancy, and should therefore, be modified. Ill. How to Strengthen, and Attain Consistency and Accuracy Throughout the Code A. Point of Sale and Certificate of Compliance Provide Consistent Enforcement of the View Ordinance California law requires homes to meet certain standards prior to the sale of the property. For example, water heaters must be inspected and comply with the code, same with -4- SS 2a-6 smoke detectors. Certain cities have other requirements such as requiring low flow toilets, safety glass in bathrooms and kitchens, C02 sensors, etc. All of these properties must pass inspection prior to sale. The latter inspections require a certificate of compliance. Palos Verdes Estates, the beach cities, San Pedro, Lawndale, Harbor City and surrounding cities all have these requirements. This is nothing new and the same can be done in Rancho Palos Verdes. Homeowners can be required to obtain a Certificate of Compliance from the City when selling or transferring their property (these are distinguishable). The Certificate would assure that their foliage meets the View Ordinance of not significantly blocking the view of another property. The Certificate can be valid for six months and renewable for another 3 months. Thus, if a homeowner is considering selling, this would be something they can take care of at the same time as their upgrading, staging, painting, etc. prior to the sale. This is not much different than the current code which requires foliage compliance upon the issuances of certain permits. In both cases, the homeowners are motivated and can handle the tree issues rather quickly. Currently, having a homeowner trim/cut their foliage prior to having the city issue them a permit is a very simple matter. The city, as part of their conditions of approval, inspects the foliage and makes a determination. Unfortunately, nearby homeowners are not currently advised that a view determination is taking place. Nonetheless, those homeowners who are aware of the code requirements can ask the city to inspect their blocked view. If the city determines that the view is significantly blocked, it adds the trimming/cutting of the foliage as a condition to issuance of a permit. The homeowner trims/removes their foliage. The homeowner with the obstructed view is contacted (typically by phone or email) and asked if the trimming/removal has alleviated the view obstruction. If so, the permit is issued. It would be interesting to know how many people, if any, in the last five years, who had to trim/remove foliage as a condition to the issuance of a permit as indicated above, appealed the director's decision. In the past five years, over 1,650 single family residences have been sold in Rancho Palos Verdes. In the last 12 months, about 433 single family homes have been sold. If only 20% of the homes had view issues, with a Certificate of Compliance with the ordinance at the Point of Sale, within the last five years 320 homes would have restored views. And in the last year over 86 homes would have restored views. This translates to a tremendous savings of time and effort by the city and homeowners as well as a consistent way of maintaining the increasingly limited vista points and view lots. -5- SS 2a-7 1. The System for Compliance * Seller decides to sell or otherwise transfer property * City-inspector/ View Staff is called by escrow, agent, or homeowner, to inspect the property and determine if trees and shrubs are in compliance with the View Ordinance. Seller is notified of the city's decision and is given a list of foliage to be trimmed or removal of foliage. Seller trims or removes the trees to bring property into compliance. A Certificate of Compliance is issued with a condition that the owner of the property must maintain fill trees and shrubs on the property so as to not impair views of neighboring properties. This accomplishes the intent of the current View Ordinance to establish ·"limits which ... plant growth can attain before encroaching onto a view." The requirement to maintain all foliage (which is already in the code) is now active, instead of passive and dormant. Cost to the seller As with all improvements made by sellers, Buyers and Sellers can negotiate the cost of the foliage removal. Otherwise, just like with any other upgrade to the home (painting, upgrading, etc.), the price of foliage removal can be added to the sales price of the property. (* If sellers want buyers to pay for the removal, buyers will be permitted up to 45 days to remove the foliage after close of escrow or transfer. However, failure to do so will require more work on the part of the city to enforce compliance as otherwise stated in the code. It is therefore, better to have the sellers handle this item prior to sale and transfer of the property) *If necessary, the City can charge $50-$150 for property inspections for Point of Sale Compliance and issuance of the Certificate of Compliance. In the last five years, with over 1,650 homes being sold, that would mean between $82,500 to $247,500 in added revenue to the City. In addition, it would mean substantially less overall work to the city for which it is not currently being paid and therefore, losing money. Currently, the city determines whether the view has been improved by a phone call or email to the affected homeowner. Since other cities have similar Point of Sale and Certificate of Compliance requirements in place, drafting this amendment should be straightforward. Real estate agents may initially have a push back but when they understand that increased home values and sales prices translate to higher commissions, they will welcome this change. -6- SS 2a-8 B. Include Maintenance of All Current and Future Foliage on the Property Right now, after an Application is processed or mediated, and limited permits are issuetl, only existing view impairing foliage is removed or trimmed and required to be maintained. The Code is silent as to all future foliage on the property, whether existing at the time of the decision/mediation/permit issuance, or not. Thus, after a decision or mediation, or permit issuance, the view blocking homeowner can allow other foliage to overgrow and block views or he can plant view blocking foliage. In accordance with the purpose of the Ordinance, to "limit[] ... plant growth ... before encroaching onto a view" (emphasis added), the Code needs to include that all foliage, whether existing at the time of the decision/mediation/permit issuance, or not (i.e., future growth) must be maintained so as not to cause a view impairment. In other words, all foliage should be maintained at a maximum level of 16 feet or the lowest ridge line of the property, whichever is lower, so as not to cause a significant blockage of views to other properties. Again, the owner who has been building for 12 years received new permits for more massive, continuous, construction and was free to plant a solid row of 58 trees across his neighbor's ocean view. When this was raised to the city, staff indicated he was free to do so and was not "currently" blocking a view. These trees in 1-2 years will block that view. -7- SS 2a-9 C. Include Removal of Foliage as a Condition of Permit Issuance Although currently entitled as such ("Removal of Foliage as Condition of Permit Issuance") the code's section on removal of foliage as a condition of permit issuance only pertains to a few, limited types of permits. The title of the section and what it actually pertains to is inaccurate. Removal of view obstructing foliage ought to be, as titled, a condition of the issuance of all permits, and not a condition of just a limited few permits. Currently, when a city inspector inspects for example, construction or additions, if he notices an item that is not to code, he will require the homeowner to bring that item to code before signing off on the inspection. Adding removal of foliage (i.e., compliance with the ordinance) as a condition of permit issuance is in line with current practices. Consistency in the code is important. This year, sellers of an RPV property who had not lived in their house for over 10 years (30648 PV Dr. E.), spent several months remodeling, changing floors, plumbing, electrical, etc. in preparation for the sale of their house. Although they may have received permits because the city apparently inspected their home, they repeatedly and absolutely refused to trim or remove their significantly view blocking trees. They advertised their home as having "Majestic Ocean and Canyon Views", received $1,450,000 CASH for their home in 3-4 weeks and likely walked away with nearly $1,000,000.00 (one million dollars) of profit. Despite all the benefits they received, and the high value of their home resulting from their advertised "Majestic Ocean and Canyon Views", they refused to cooperate with their neighbor who had their Harbor and Long Beach views significantly blocked by their trees. The new owner now knows (and was advised by his real estate agent) that he can also sit and do nothing because the Ordinance as written calls for the harmed homeowner to submit an Application costing upwards of $5,000.00 and pay the costs of any foliage removal. When the harmed homeowner informed the sellers and buyers they would seek to enforce their rights, the city told the new owner or his real estate agent that the harmed homeowner "can't do anything". All of this is hardly what the voters had in mind when the Ordinance was passed. With the proposed changes, these would not be issues because the views would be maintained in accordance with the General Plan and the legislative intent behind the Ordinance. -8- SS 2a-10 D. Mediation Agreements Ought to be Recorded and Binding Currently, the city can mediate an agreement with the owners of the view blocking foliage. However, possibly nothing is mentioned about future foliage (e.g., the landowner who has been building on and off for 12 years, removed one blocking tree and planted 58 more trees). The agreements reached in the mediations ought to be recorded against the view blocking property, at the expense of the parties and should include an agreement that all other foliage on the property, whether currently existing or not, should be maintained in a manner so as not to significantly impair the view of other properties. Enforcement by the city should be borne by the view blocking tree owner, not the harmed owner, and can be handled as with other city enforcement. IV. Conclusion The suggested modifications are consistent with the purpose of the Ordinance to protect, enhance and perpetuate the views of the Peninsula regarding both existing foliage and foliage that will exist in the future. The suggested modifications will also increase property values, thus effectively increasing the desirability of residing in the city. The savings in personnel time to the city as well as costs to both the city and homeowners is also very significant. Lastly, the potential additional revenue for the city can be used to further the numerous projects on hand and in the future. -9- SS 2a-11 TREE MAINTENANCE PROPOSAL FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES NOVEMBER, 2013 Proposals 1. Allow homeowners to adopt City trees at their own expense after obtaining approval from the City. If the tree dies, the homeowner would be required to replace the tree at his/her own expense. The adoption process should be simple, taking a month or less to process the request. The adopter should be required to maintain the tree at 16-feet or less if in a viewing area. 2. Trim and shape the City trees to preserve views, minimize sidewalk, storm drain inlet damage and beautify the neighborhoods. Take a proactive approach to maintaining the trees before they become too large and unsightly. The tree trimming contractor needs to maintain trees that have not been adopted. Trees in viewing areas should be maintained at 16-feet or less. 3. Revise the City's Tree Planting Strategy to ensure that trees are not planted in an area that would impair views. Include potentially impacted homeowners in the decision-making process when replacing trees that have been removed or where trees may be planted where they previously did not exist. Implement a tree removal/ replacement program for overgrown trees, especially in viewing areas. 4. Revise the View Restoration/Preservation policy to allow for application and tree trimming/removal if growth of trees into the viewing area is imminent. This change would ensure that concerned homeowners continue to enjoy their views without disruption. Properties would also maintain their values. 5. Revise the ordinance to require trees in viewing areas to be maintained at 16 feet or less. 6. Revise the View Restoration Guidelines and Procedures to reflect the intent of the ordinance. 7. Issue a comprehensive tree and foliage maintenance RFP in order to implement #4 and 5 above. 8. Consolidate all services related to tree and foliage trimming and removal under one Department in order to streamline the process, enhance communication. Page 1of4 SS 2a-12 Proposals 1, 2, 3 and 8 should result in cost savings to the City in the long term. All four of the proposals should be implemented to optimize savings. Proposals 4 through 7 will ensure that the ordinance is followed and homeowners will enjoy their views without disruption. This is a winning proposition for the homeowner and local government, as both will benefit from higher property values if the home is sold. Discussion Two Departments currently manage tree trimming and removal in the City. According to Municipal Code Section 12.08, Trees and Shrubs, Public Works is responsible for tree trimming, maintenance and removal of trees. Section 12.08.030(A), Maintenance of Trees, states that Public Works maintains the trees in accordance with established policies. Section 12.08.030(8), states "trees planted along City streets shall be pruned to give .a clearance of not less than 8 feet over sidewalks and not less than16 feet over streets as the size of the trees permit." This provision is contrary to the View Restoration/Preservation provisions, which states that trees should be trimmed to 16 feet or roofline, whichever is less. Public Works staff indicated that this provision is in place to accommodate UPS trucks. Public Works is also responsible for tree planting and infrastructure repairs. Tree planting and maintenance strategies need to be changed. When planting trees in areas where trees did not previously exist, Public Works asks the homeowners if they want trees planted in the parking strip in front of their homes, but does not consider the fact that the trees may eventually impact the views of neighbors across the street. Residents may ask Public Works to remove trees that have damaged or will likely damage sidewalks, etc. However, the damage is usually already done before Public Works takes action. The only way that a sidewalk damage can be averted is if Public Works takes a proactive approach to tree maintenance. Public Works makes every effort to save trees instead of removing and replacing them. They cut roots if the arborist says the tree will survive; however, that does not stop, it only delays, invasive roots from damaging sidewalks, curbs and storm drain inlets; it only delays it. The roots continue to grow out of control because the tops of the trees are never trimmed. Public Works grinds and patches sidewalks and roads instead of maintaining the trees and foliage. The former Public Works Director said that he could not do anything about it because of City policy. Community Development manages Municipal Code Sections 17.76.100, City Tree Review Permits (CRTP), and17.02.040, View Preservation and Restoration. The purpose of the Ordinance is to protect, enhance and perpetuate the views of property owners and visitors because of the unique topographical nature of the Peninsula. When seeking relief from City tree view impairment, residents are required to submit an application and a non-refundable fee of $688 to Community Development for staff review and recommendation to the Planning Commission. The non-refundable application fee for a view restoration permit for privately owned trees is $5, 106.00. Page 2 of 4 SS 2a-13 Section 17 .76.1 OO(F)(1 )(a) states that a removed City tree shall be replaced with a similar 24-inch box tree. However, the Public Works Director recently approved replacement of ten removed trees on Via Cambron, Via Collado and Berry Hill Drive with seventeen 36-inch trees, which was more costly and exceeded the provisions of the-ordinance. In addition, the view residents were not consulted about the replacement trees. Under certain circumstances, the CRTP process also allows for the adoption of any of the City trees by the 1 O property owners closest to the subject tree( s); therefore, procedures are already in place and should be expanded upon to allow for adoption outside of the view restoration/preservation process. No fee should be charged for the application process since homeowners would pay the cost for trimming the trees. The Ordinance requires the pruning of dense foliage or tree growth, which alone, or in conjunction with other construction, exceeds defined limits. The Ordinance defines protected views, which includes landmarks, the ocean, etc.; the sky is specifically excluded. Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(c)(B) states "foliage exceeding 16 feet or the ridge line of the primary structure, whichever is lower, significantly impairs a view from the applicant's viewing area, whether such foliage is located totally on one property or combined with foliage on more than one property." Section Don page 3 of the guidelines states that the Planning Commission shall review staff reports for City View permits in the same manner as View Restoration requests. The Code states that if the Ordinance is in conflict with other City Ordinances, the stricter shall apply. However, the Planning Commission has a reputation for taking conservative approaches on view restoration requests, thereby, denying homeowners the benefit of their views as provided for in the ordinance. Maneuvering through the two Departments responsible for tree trimming/removal can be a very daunting task. Public Works refers residents to the Community Development's View Restoration Section when asked to trim trees to maintain views. The View Restoration Section says that a tree has to pose a significant view impairment before considering a recommendation for trimming or removal. The trimming/removal request will not be considered until the foliage blocks the protected view. It can take years and much more tree growth before action is taken. Very minimal trimming is recommended that, oftentimes, does not follow the ordinance or satisfactorily restore views, e.g., trimming to the horizon. Trimming to the horizon is not consistent with the Ordinance, nor does it provide residents with their coveted views of the ocean. Under this scenario, the best that a homeowner can expect is a partial or peak a-boo view instead of their panoramic views. The view restoration process is very protracted and, more often than not, causes friction and discord in neighborhoods. The City engages the services of a mediator when property owners refuse to trim trees at view owners' requests. While the mediation process can be effective, the mediator generally recommends that the view owners compromise for less view than allowed for under the Ordinance. Page 3 of 4 SS 2a-14 The City's current tree trimming practice is to trim lower branches from trees every three years to accommodate UPS trucks. The tops of trees are not trimmed; thereby, allowing the trees to grow out of control. Trimming of lower branches only pushes the trees up, which causes the roots to grow, resulting in curb, street, sidewalk and storm drain inlet damage. In addition, the trees grow into residents' viewing areas. Properly manicured trees will enhance the City's beautification efforts and keep them from creeping into viewing areas and reduce infrastructure damage. While the cost of manicuring the trees would be more costly than the City's current practice, these proposals would result in overall savings to the City. The savings should result from homeowners adopting trees and trimming them at their own expense. Some homeowners are already manicuring City trees that are in front of their homes. The trees look much nicer than those maintained by the City's contractor. The adoption proces~ should include a provision that trees are to be maintained at 16 feet or less if in viewing areas. In addition, less money would be spent on sidewalk, curb, street and storm drain repairs and reduced staff costs currently dedicated to view restoration applications. Personnel resources could be diverted to other priority areas in the City, e.g., senior services or other Community Development or Public Works projects. Of course, some of the resources can be moved to services and supplies in order to enhance the tree trimming contract. Costly litigation and wasted staff time can be avoided by properly maintaining trees and employing reasonable planting strategies. If the City agrees to remove City trees in viewing areas, replacement trees are planted. City staff consults with homeowners adjacent to the removed trees about the type of tree to be planted, but do not include residents (view restoration applicants) in the discussions. Please refer to the attached photos that clearly show which trees are properly maintained and those that are not. The photos also reflect damage to the sidewalks and roads as a result of overgrown trees and invasive roots. The trees in the parking lot at St. Paul's Lutheran Church have been manicured for years and are beautiful and kept at an appropriate height as are the City trees that are maintained by homeowners. On November 11, 2013, trees were trimmed on Via Rivera. As reflected in the attached photos, lower limbs were removed; the tops were not shaped. The trunk of another tree was shaved off. Summary Implementing the above mentioned proposals will beautify the City, streamline processes, resulting in less damage to the infrastructure and overall savings to the City. In addition, valuable resources could be diverted to other priority areas in the City and create a higher level of responsiveness to the community. Page 4 of 4 SS 2a-15 Tree Trimming Proposal SS 2a-16 Tree Trimming Proposal SS 2a-17 Tree Trimming Proposal SS 2a-18 PROPOSAL We recommend that Rancho Palos Verdes implement a policy that allows residents to trim City trees in close proximity to their properties with the approval of the City. BENEFIT This proposal will result in cost savings to the City and a proactive and swifter solutions to view restoration issues. CURRENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Currently, the City's tree trimming is managed by two separate Departments, Public Works and View Restoration, Public Works manages routine tree trimming, which is done every three years. However, most of the routine trimming is done to accommodate UPS trucks. No trimming is done for beautification or height management. Every three years the contract tree trimmers come by and remove the limbs at the bottom of some of the trees; the trees are not shaped or trimmed on top. If the tre~s were properly maintain~, they could pe managed at heights tha1 wou1d minimize curb, street and stqrm inlet damage and maintain views of the SS 2a-19 Tree Trimming -Via Rivera -November 11, 2013 -·~, ,., " ~ • r~ • "E'"'ii - . -~; -------- Tree 1 After Tnmmmg SS 2a-20 Tree Trimming -Via Rivera -November 11, 2013 SS 2a-21