The URL can be used to link to this page

RPVCCA_CC_SR_2012_09_18_02_View_Restoration_Denial_Appeal_22_Narcissa_DriveCfTYOF MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: DATE:. SUBJECT: REVIEWED: Project Manager: HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNC .......s-... JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEVELOP SEPTEMBER 18,2012 APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION REQUEST TO TRIM AND/OR REMOVE FOLIAGE AT 22 NARCISSA DRIVE (GERRARD PROPERTY)AND 24 NARCISSA DRIVE (PAULUCCI PROPERTY)IN ORDER TO RESTORE VIEW FROM 25 NARCISSA DRIVE (MAKHLOUF PROPERTY)[VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT 2011-00064] CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER c£J--. Amy Seeraty,Associate Planner /6 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No.2012-_;denying the appeal and affirming the Planning Commission's decision to deny View Restoration Permit No.2011-00064. Quasi-Judicial Decision This item is a quasi-judicial decision in which the City Council is being asked to affirm whether specific findings of fact can be made in order to support approval of a View Restoration Permit application.The specific findings of fact are listed and discussed in the "Discussion"portion of the attached 8-7-12 Staff Report. DISCUSSION On May 8,2012,the Planning Commission denied View Restoration Permit No.2011-00064, thereby denying the Applicant's request that trimming and/or removal of eight (8)trees located at 22 2-1 Narcissa Drive (Gerrard)and eleven (11)trees located at 24 Narcissa Drive (Paulucci)be required by the City to restore the Applicant's view.Within the 15-day appeal period,the applicant,Ms. Da'ad Makhlouf ("Appellant")at 25 Narcissa Drive submitted an appeal fee and letter appealing this decision.Also,on July 16,2012,a representative from Wellman and Warren,LLP,submitted a supplementary appeal letter on Ms.Makhloufs behalf containing the grounds of the appeal.The applicant's appeal letter stated that the City had provided no evidence that Tree Nos.1-4 (Aleppo Pine trees located at 24 Narcissa Drive)were view-impairing trees when the Appellant's lot was created,which is a requirement per Finding D of the View Restoration Guidelines. On August 7,2012,the City Council opened the public hearing for the appeal.However,before Staff could present a staff report,the Council heard a request from the appellant's representative to continue the public hearing to allow her additional time to review the August 7,2012 staff report. The appellant's representative also requested the continuance to allow for her arborist and surveyor to be available to testify at a future meeting,as they were not available for the August ]'h meeting. The Council then heard comments from the two foliage owners,requesting that the City Council not continue the public hearing to another meeting,and that they make a decision that evening on the appeal.After hearing this testimony from the appellant's representative and the two foliage owners, the City Council voted (5-0)to continue the public hearing to the September 18,2012 City Council meeting. A thorough discussion of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the Applicant's application along with a discussion of the Appellant's initial arguments for appeal is contained in the Staff Report prepared for the August 7,2012 City Council meeting.A copy of said Staff Report,along with all the attachments is attached as Exhibit C.Staff has also enclosed a disc (Exhibit D) containing four videos that were submitted with the Appellant's original appeal letter,but were not initially distributed to the Council,as the original format of the videos did not allow them to be played. (They have since been reformatted by the City IT staff.)Staff has reviewed these videos and they show the Appellant's view as well as inside and outside the Appellant's residence.Since the hearing was continued on August 7th to September 18th with no discussion,Staff's analysis, conclusions and recommendation remain unchanged from the August 7th Staff Report.However, some additional information obtained after the August ]'h meeting is discussed below. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Site Visit Staff completed a site visit on September 5,2012 to take current photos from the primary viewing area of the family room (Exhibit B).Staff also took photos from the kitchen,dining room,guest bedroom,master bedroom,and exterior deck,should the City Council wish to assess the views from the other locations of the appellant's residence beyond the vieWing area identified by Staff.It should be noted that Staff did not observe anything at this site visit in regards to the foliage located at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive that would change Staff's original recommendation for the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of VRP2011-00064. CORRESPONDENCE Request for City Arborist Staff also received an email from the appellant's representative on September 10,2012,which requested that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,"...issue a subpoena for the City's arborist,David Hayes,to attend the September 18,2012 City Council Hearing at 7:00 p.m.and produce for inspection the core sample he obtained from Tree No.1 taken from the Paulucci properly located at 2-2 24 Narcissa Drive,Rancho Palos Verdes."City Staff contacted Mr.Hayes,asking him if could attend the September 18,2012 meeting and he replied,stating that he would attend the meeting and bring the core sample of Tree No.1 with him.Staff then relayed this information to the Appellant's representative. Secondary Supplementary Appeal Letter Staff has received additional correspondence from the Appellant since the August 7,2012 City Council meeting.This correspondence (Exhibit E)was submitted on September 11,2012,and consists of a secondary supplementary appeal letter and additional photos of the Appellant's property and view,an additional report from their arborist,Mr.Greg Monfette,and an additional video showing the view as viewed from the deck outside the master bedroom.A disc containing this video is also enclosed with this Staff Report.(Exhibit D) In this mqst recent appeal letter,the Appellant differs on several points explained by Staff in the August 7,2012 staff report.The Appellant reiterates her opinion made in the initial appeal letter regarding Staff's research and interpretation of Finding D and makes a new statement regarding the location of the primary viewing area.The main points in the secondary supplementary appeal letter (attached Exhibit E)are addressed below. Finding D View Restoration Guidelines Section V.D.states: "The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist as view impairing vegetation when the lot from which the view is taken was created. Although the Appellant does not seem to dispute that Tree Nos.1-4 were approximately 20 feet tall in 1951,she states that she believes that the large Aleppo Pine trees (Tree Nos.1-4)at 24 Narcissa Drive did not impair the view at the time the Appellant's lot was created (Finding D).Thus,per the Appellant,Staff's statement that Tree Nos.1-4 did impair the view at the time the Appellant's lot was created is incorrect.The Appellant has included another report from their arborist,Mr.Greg Monfette,dated September 4,2012,in which he reiterates his belief that Tree Nos.1-4 did not impair the view at the time the Appellant's lot was created. Although this issue was discussed at length in the August 7,2012 staff report,Staff completed some additional research that substantiates Staff's determinations made in this original City Council staff report.On September 13,2012,Staff made some additional measurements and took some photos (Exhibit F)of Tree Nos.1-4 and the adjacent power poles using an eight-foot long range pole,as well as with a laser range finder device,which can measure the vertical height of an object.These photos and measurements are used in Exhibit F to show the extent to which the trees most likely extended into the Appellant's view in 1951.As the August 7,2012 staff report stated,the height of Tree Nos.1-4 was likely approximately 20 feet in 1951,when the Appellant's lot was created.And, as the dashed black and white line shown on the first page of Exhibit E indicates,trees of at least 20 feet in height would clearly be extending into and thus impairing the ocean view. The Appellant also states that because the family room viewing area is not located at the extreme edge of her property,she believes Staff's statement that"...because the Appellant's view of the ocean begins at a fairly steep angle,a tree of very minimal height will extend into the ocean view, and impair the view..."is false.However,as Exhibit F also shows,a length of yellow tubing that encases the lower portion of one of the support wires for the utility pole closest to Narcissa Drive is 2-3 visible from the family room viewing area.Staff measured the height of this yellow tubing and found that it extends up six feet from ground level.Although there is some other foliage located behind this tubing that obstructs the view,it is apparent that a tree of only 15-20 feet in height would still impair the Appellant's ocean view from the family room viewing area. The Appellant disputes Staff's interpretation of the meaning of Finding 0,but as stated in the August 8,2012 Staff Report,the City Attorney concurs with Staff's past practice and interpretation of this finding.In the secondary supplementary appeal letter,the Appellant states that if the trees did not significantly impair the view in 1951,this automatically means that they caused an insignificant view impairment that should not be considered.This line of reasoning is flawed,in that it does not allow for any intermediate level of view impairment between a significant view impairment and an insignificant view impairment.As previously discussed in the August 7,2012 Staff Report,View Restoration Guidelines Finding 0 only requires that that trees existed as "view impairing"vegetation, not vegetation that significantly impairs a view. The question for the City Council to answer is if,when the Appellant's lot was created in 1951,Tree Nos.1-4 did indeed impair the Appellant's ocean view.The Planning Commission agreed with Staff's assessment that because trees in this location that are twenty feet tall would extend into the Appellant's ocean view,they did exist as view impairing vegetation when Appellant's lot was created.If the Council concurs with the Planning Commission's determination of that issue,then Finding No.0 cannot be made,and the application/appeal should be denied with respect to Tree Nos.1-4. The Appellant also states that Tree Nos.1-4 would have actually been considered part of the near view if they extended in to the view at the time the applicant's lot was created.This is incorrect,as trees located on developable property within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes cannot be considered a protected view.Municipal Code Section 17.02.040.A.14 states,"...A "view"which is protected by this section shall not include vacant land that is developable under this Code ..."Therefore,a portion of the property at 24 Narcissa Drive cannot be considered a protected view. Viewing Area The Appellant also disputes Staff's determination of primary viewing area.In the August 7,2012 Staff Report,Staff describes the family room as the primary viewing area.The Appellant previously stated that the primary viewing area should be the living room,which she stated includes the main living room area,the family room,the dining room,as well as the kitchen. In the Sept 11,2012 secondary supplementary appeal letter,the Appellant states that the "family room"as described by Staff should not be considered the primary viewing area because of its current use as a workroom,and also because the view is not the most expansive of all the viewing areas in the residence.The Appellant states that the room that Staff called "family room"in the August 7,2012 staff report currently"...contains furniture in the process of restoration,and that storage of such furniture is its normal function ..."It is important to note that the room that Staff determined to be the primary vieWing area,and called "family room"in the August 7,2012 staff report is located within the primary living area of the Appellant's residence.It is directly accessible from the kitchen area and is located directly adjacent to the kitchen and living room.It was labeled by Staff as a "family room"because of the partition that separates it from the kitchen and living room. However,this partition does not extend all the way to the ceiling,so clearly,this room is a habitable room and an integral component of the residence.Labeling this room as a "workroom"insinuates that it is an unfinished accessory structure,and not a part of the main residence.Although the current resident may use it as a workroom,it is certainly possible that a future resident of 25 2-4 Narcissa Drive would utilize that room as habitable living space,e.g.,as a family room. The Appellant now provides a revised opinion that the secondary bedroom,master bedroom and deck located at the south side of the residence should be defined as the primary viewing area.The Appellant goes on to state that from these viewing areas,the twisted Juniper tree (shown in Photo Nos.4,5 and 11 that are attached to the Appellant's September 11,2012 letter-Exhibit E)is blocking the Appellant's view of the cove and should be trimmed.The Appellant also states the view from the family room is not the most expansive,and that Staff's photo in Exhibit C of the August 7, 2012 was taken from outside this family room.This is not true,as Staff took this photo from inside the family room,which is located within the residence,standing at the edge of the exterior glass doors which open to the south.If one enjoys the view from this location within the family room,this room does indeed have the most expansive view. The views from the secondary bedroom and master bedroom are less expansive than the family room because the views to the east are partially blocked by the residence itself.(Please refer to Exhibit H in the August 7,2012 Staff report for photos of these alternate views.)It is only when one observes the view from the exterior of the residence,on the deck,that the view becomes comparable with the family room.However,it must be noted that a view from inside a residence is given more weight for protection than a view from outside the residence.View Restoration Guidelines Section 111.8.1 states: "...In determining the viewing area on a developed lot,greater weight generally will be given to locations within the primary structure where a view is taken than to locations outside of the primary structure where a view is taken,unless no view is taken from within the primary structure." Thus,as there are views taken from inside the primary structure,this would eliminate the exterior deck as a possible viewing area.And as the views from the secondary bedroom and master bedroom are not the best and most important views on the property,Staff still believes that the Appellant's family room would thus be the primary viewing area. CONCLUSION Staff has found no basis contained in the Appellant's appeal,including all the information submitted by the Appellant since the May 8,2012 Planning Commission hearing,that would warrant altering the Planning Commission's decision on this matter.Staff therefore recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission's decision memorialized in PC Resolution No.2012-08. ALTERNATIVES As an alternative to Staffs recommendation,pursuant to Section VII of the View Restoration Guidelines and Municipal Code Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(i),the City Council may wish to consider the following options: 1.Approve View Restoration Permit No.2011-00064, 2.Refer the matter back to the Planning Commission to conduct further proceedings.The remanded proceedings may include the presentation of significant new evidence which was raised in conjunction with the appeal.The City Council shall state the ground(s)for the remand and shall give instructions to Planning Commission concerning any error found by the City Council in the Commission's prior determination. 2-5 ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A -Draft C.C.Resolution 2012- Exhibit B -View Photo taken September 4,2012 Exhibit C -City Council Report dated August 7,2012 and related attachments Exhibit D -Videos submitted by Appellant (on enclosed discs) Exhibit E -Correspondence received since August 7,2012 City Council Meeting Exhibit F -Tree Height Measurements 2-6 Exhibit A Draft C.C.Resolution 2012- 2-7 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.2012-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-08 WHICH DENIED VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO.2012-00064 TO TRIM AND/OR REMOVE FOLIAGE LOCATED AT 22 NARCISSA DRIVE AND 24 NARCISSA DRIVE. WHEREAS,on March 28,2012,Ms.Da'ad Makhlouf,owner of property located at 25 Narcissa Drive,(herein "the Applicant"),in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,filed an application requesting a View Restoration Permit ("Permit")to restore a view from her property that she believed to be significantly impaired by foliage owned by Ms.Corinne Gerrard at 22 Narcissa Drive,and by Mr.Mark Paulucci at 24 Narcissa Drive (herein "the Foliage Owners"),in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City");and, WHEREAS,notice of the Planning Commission ("Commission")hearing was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News and mailed to the Applicant and the Foliage Owners on April 5,2012;and, WHEREAS,on April 24,2012,a staff report was distributed to the Planning Commission,the Applicant (Makhlouf),and the foliage owners at 22 Narcissa Drive (Gerrard) and 24 Narcissa Drive (Paulucci);and, WHEREAS,on May 2,2012,a follow-up staff memo was distributed to the Planning Commission,the Applicant (Makhlouf),and the foliage owners at 22 Narcissa Drive (Gerrard) and 24 Narcissa Drive (Paulucci);and, WHEREAS,on May 8,2012,after all eligible voting members of the Planning Commission had visited the site,the Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request,at which time,all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence;and, WHEREAS,on May 8,2012,the Planning Commission adopted P.C.Resolution 2012- 08,thereby denying View Restoration Perm it 2011-64;and, WHEREAS,on May 22,2012,within the 15-day appeal period,Ms.Da'ad Makhlouf appealed the May 8,2012 Planning Commission decision (P.C.Resolution 2012-08)to the City Council;and, WHEREAS,a supplemental letter of appeal containing the grounds of appeal was submitted on July 16,2012 by the Appellant's representative from Wellman and Warren,LLP on behalf of Ms.Makhlouf;and, WHEREAS,notice of the public hearing was issued on July 19,2012 pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code;and, WHEREAS,on August 7,2012,the City Council opened the public hearing and after hearing testimony from the appellant's representative and the two foliage owners,voted (5-0)to Resolution No.2012-_ Page 1 of7 2-8 continue the duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal to the September 18,2012 City Council meeting;and, WHEREAS,another supplemental letter of appeal containing responses to the August 7, 2012 Staff report and additional information regarding the grounds of appeal was submitted on September 11,2012 by the Appellant's representative from Wellman and Warren,LLP,on behalf of the Appellant;and, WHEREAS,on September 13,2012,a staff report was distributed to the City Council, the Appellant (Makhlouf),the foliage owners at 22 Narcissa Drive (Gerrard)and 24 Narcissa Drive (Paulucci),and the Appellant's representatives from Wellman and Warren,LLP ;and, WHEREAS,on September 18,2012,the City Council held the continued noticed public hearing ,to consider the appeal,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:As defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code,the Applicant at 25 Narcissa Drive has a view of the ocean,offshore Islands (Catalina &Santa Barbara),coastline,Long Point,Abalone Cove,and portions of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. Section 2:The Appellant's primary viewing area at 25 Narcissa Drive,as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code,is the family room because the family room has a panoramic view of the ocean,Catalina Island,the coastline,Abalone Cove and Long Point,and a small portion of the City's Nature Preserve.The additional rooms in the house:the living room,dining room and kitchen do not share the same view as the family room,since they either do not contain as many view components and do not have the same expansive view when com pared to the panoram ic view from the family room. In the Appellant's secondary supplementary appeal letter,submitted on September 11,2012, the Appellant disputes Staffs determination of the location of the primary viewing area,based on the current resident's usage of the room.The Appellant states that this room is currently used as a "workroom",for refinishing and storing furniture.However,the room,described as the "family room"by Staff,is located within the main residence immediately adjacent to the kitchen and the living room.Since this room is part of the primary living area of the home and is the area where the most expansive view is located,the City Council hereby finds that this is the primary viewing area of the home. The appellant states that that the secondary bedroom,master bedroom and exterior deck should be the primary viewing area instead.However,the views from the secondary bedroom and master bedroom are less expansive than the view from the family room because the views to the east are partially blocked by the residence itself.Regarding the view from the exterior deck,a view from inside a residence is given more weight for protection than a view from outside the residence,pursuant to the View Restoration Guidelines.Thus,if the view from the deck is not considered,the view from the interior of the family room is more expansive than the Resolution No.2012-_ Page 2 of? 2-9 views from both the secondary bedroom and master bedroom.Thus,the City Council defines the "family room"as the primary viewing area of the home. Section 3:Finding "A"of the View Restoration Guidelines states:"The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process and has shown proof of cooperation on his/her part to resolve conflicts."On November 21,2011,Ms.Da'ad Makhlouf submitted a Notice of Intent to File for View Restoration Application No.2011-00064,which requested a pre- application meeting with Mr.Mark Paulucci,and Corinne Gerrard,(the "Foliage Owners") Foliage Owners at 24 Narcissa Drive and 22 Narcissa Drive,respectively.Staff and the City's mediator then held separate pre-application meetings with the Foliage Owner at 24 Narcissa Drive,as well as with the Applicant on December 20,2011.Therefore,in accordance with Section V (A)of the View Restoration Guidelines,the Applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultati on process. Section 4:Finding liB"of the View Restoration Guidelines states:"Foliage exceeding sixteen (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 when combined with foliage located on more than one proper ty." The miscellaneous trees located in the rear yard of 24 Narcissa Drive (Paulucci)property do not exceed sixteen feet or the ridge line of the primary structure,nor do they significantly impair the view.They are located at the bottom of the view frame and only block a very small portion of the applicant's ocean view from the primary viewing area.As such,the City Council cannot make Finding liB"for these trees. Tree Nos.1-4 (Paulucci property at 24 Narcissa Drive)are located in the approximate center of the view frame as seen from the primary viewing area (family room);they exceed 16 feet in height or the ridgeline of the primary structure and significantly impair the Appellant's view of the ocean and Catalina Island.As such,the City Council can make Finding liB"for Tree Nos.1-4 (four Aleppo Pine trees). Tree Nos.5-10 (Paulucci property at 24 Narcissa Drive)exceed sixteen feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure.However,the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and finds that these trees do not significantly impair the Appellant's view because they impair a only a minimal portion of the Appellant's ocean view.As such,the City Council cannot make the required View Restoration Finding liB"for these trees. Tree Nos.11-15 (Gerrard property at 22 Narcissa Drive)extend into the Appellant's ocean view,but because they are located towards the periphery of the view frame,and because they impair only a minimal portion of the Appellant's ocean view,the City Council finds that these trees do not significantly impair the Appellant's view,and as such,the City Council cannot make the required View Restoration Finding liB"for these trees. Tree No.16 (Gerrard property at 22 Narcissa Drive)extends minimally into the ocean view,but the view that this tree impairs is a view of developed land in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which is not a protected view,as defined by Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 17.02.040 A 14.Also,the tree is located towards the far right periphery of the view frame,and has been recently heavily thinned.Because of these aforementioned reasons,as well as the fact that Tree No.16 impairs only a minimal portion of the Appellant's ocean view,the City Resolution No.2012-_ Page 3 of? 2-10 Council finds that this tree does not significantly impair the Appellant's view,and as such,the City Council cannot make the required View Restoration Finding "B"for this tree. Tree No.17 (Gerrard property at 22 Narcissa Drive)only impairs views of developed land in Rancho Palos Verdes,which is not a protected view as defined by Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 17.02.040 A 14.As such,the City Council cannot make the required View Restoration Finding "B"for this tree. Tree No.18 (Gerrard property at 22 Narcissa Drive)extends very minimally into the ocean view. Most of what the tree impairs is a view of developed land in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which is not a protected view as defined by Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 17.02.040 A 14.Also,because it is located towards the extreme right periphery of the view frame,and because it impairs a comparatively minimal portion of the Appellant's ocean view, the City.Council finds that this tree does not significantly impair the Appellant's view.As such, the City Council cannot make the required View Restoration Finding "B"for this tree. Tree No.19 (Gerrard property at 22 Narcissa Drive)extends very minimally,if at all,into the ocean view.Most of what the tree impairs is a view of developed land in Rancho Palos Verdes, which is not a protected view as defined by Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 17.02.040 A 14.Also,because it is located towards the extreme right periphery of the view frame,and because it only potentially impairs a very small portion of the Appellant's ocean view, the City Council finds that this tree does not significantly impair the Appellant's view,and as such,the City Council cannot make the required View Restoration Finding "B"for this tree. Tree No.20 (Gerrard property at 22 Narcissa Drive)The Appellant's supplemental appeal letter states that a twisted juniper tree located on Ms.Gerrard's property at 22 Narcissa Drive is significantly impairing the Appellant's view of a cove along the coastline and that it should be trimmed to restore the view of the cove.The twisted Juniper tree was not originally identified in the May 8,2012 Staff Report,and so has been identified in Exhibits F & G to the Staff Report as Tree No.20.In her initial appeal letter,the Appellant provides a photo of the twisted juniper tree as seen from the dining room window of the dwelling at 25 Narcissa Drive.However,the dining room is not the primary viewing area,and so any impact the twisted juniper tree has on the Appellant's view cannot be assessed from this window. As part of the Appellant's secondary supplementary appeal letter,submitted on September 11, 2012,the Appellant provides a photo of the twisted jUhiper tree as seen from the exterior deck located to the south of the residence.However,this exterior deck is also not the primary viewing area,and so any impact the twisted juniper tree has on the Appellant's view cannot be assessed from this location.As viewed from the Appellant's primary viewing area in the family room,the twisted juniper impairs only a view of the developed area of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which is not a protected view as defined by Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 17.02.040 A 14.Accordingly,the City Council finds that the twisted juniper tree does not significantly impair the Applicant's protected view from the primary viewing area and as such,the City Council cannot make the required View Restoration Finding "B"for this tree. Section 5:Finding "C"of the View Restoration Guidelines states:"The foliage to be removed is located on properly,any parl of which is less than one thousand (1,000)feet from the applicant's properly line."The Foliage Owners'properties at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive are Resolution No.2012-_ Page 4 of? 2-11 located less than 1,000 feet from the Applicant's property at 25 Narcissa Drive;thus Finding "C" can be made. Section 6:Finding "0"of the View Restoration Guidelines states:"The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist as view impairing vegetation when the lot from which the view is taken was created."The Applicant's lot was created in September 1951 by the record ation of Tract Map No.13836. Regarding the miscellaneous trees located in the rear yard of 24 Narcissa Drive,Staff was not able to find evidence,and the Appellant did not present any evidence,that these trees existed as view-impairing trees when the lot from which the view is taken was created.As such,the City Council can make Finding "0"for these trees. Regarding Tree Nos.1-4,the City's Arborist has inspected the trees out at the site,reviewed historic photos,and since the May 8,2012 meeting,has also performed a successful core sample of Tree No.1.The City's Arborist reports that Tree Nos.1-4 were likely planted sometime between 1937 and 1941,and thus are approximately 75 years old.Also,based on two historic photos,one taken in 1951 and another taken sometime between 1949 and 1951, the City Council and the City Arborist believe that trees at 24 Narcissa Drive were approximately 20 feet in height in 1951,and thus impaired the view from Appellant's property at that time. Also,because Tree Nos.1-4 are located on an elevated portion of the 24 Narcissa property, and because the Appellant's view of the ocean begins at a fairly steep angle,a tree of very minimal height will extend into the ocean view,and impair the view.Because Staff and the City's Arborist have agreed that Tree Nos.1-4 were likely at least 20 feet tall in 1951,the trees would have been view impairing trees at the time when the lot from which the view is taken was created.As such,the City Council cannot to make the required View Restoration Finding "0"for these trees. In the Appellant's supplementary appeal letter submitted September 11,2012,the Appellant disputes the determination made by the Planning Commission that Finding 0 could not be made for Tree Nos.1-4.The Appellant does not believe that Tree Nos.1-4 could have impaired the view from 25 Narcissa Drive at the time the Appellant's was created,because of the topography of 25 Narcissa Drive and 24 N arcissa Drive.The Appellant also disputes Staffs interpretation of required Finding D. In response to the Appellant's second supplemental letter,Staff conducted some additional research that substantiates Staffs determinations made in the August 7,2012 City Council staff report.On September 13,2012,Staff made some additional measurements and took some photos (Exhibit F to the Staff report)of Tree Nos.1-4 and the adjacent power poles using an eight-foot long range pole,as well as with a laser range finder device,which can measure the vertical height of an object.These photos and measurements show the extent to which the trees most likely extended into the Appellant's view in 1951.As the August 7,2012 staff report stated, the height of Tree Nos.1-4 was likely approximately 20 feet in 1951,when the Appellant's lot was created.And,as Staffs photos and measurements demonstrate,the City Council hereby finds that trees of at least 20 feet in height would have extended into and thus impaired the ocean view from Appellant's property. Resolution No.2012-_ Page 5 of? 2-12 In the second supplemental appeal letter,the Appellant states that if Tree Nos.1-4 did not significantly impair the view in 1951,this automatically means that they caused an insignificant view impairment that should not be considered.The City Council hereby finds that this line of reasoning is flawed,in that it does not allow for any intermediate level of view impairment between a significant view impairment and an insignificant view impairment.As previously discussed in the August 7,2012 Staff Report,View Restoration Guidelines Finding 0 only requires that that trees existed as "view impairing"vegetation,not vegetation that significantly impairs a view at the time Appellant's lot was created.Thus,the City Council agrees with the Planning Commission that Tree Nos.1-4 impaired the Appellant's view at the time her lot at 25 Narcissa Drive was created,and thus the City Council still cannot make the required View Restoration Finding "0"for these trees that would allow them to be trimmed to restore the view. Regarding Tree Nos.5·17 and 19,Staff was not able to find evidence,and the Appellant did not pre~ent any evidence,that these trees existed as view-impairing trees when the lot from which the view is taken was created.As such,the City Council can make the required View Restoration Finding "0"for these trees. Regarding Tree No.18,Staff completed research into the history of this tree and found based on a historic photo of the tree taken around 1952 as compared with current aerial photos,as well as input from the City's arborist regarding his review of this historic photo,that this tree would have impaired the view from the Appellant's property in 1951 when the Appellant's lot was created.As such,the City Council cannot make the required View Restoration Finding "0" for this tree. Section 7:Finding "E"states:"Removal or trimming of the foliage will not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the property upon which the foliage is located."As discussed in Sections 4 and 6,due to non-compliance with Findings "B" and/or "0",respectively,no trimming or removal of any of the trees located at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive will occur.As such,the finding "E"is not applicabl e. Section 8:Finding "F"of the View Restoration Guidelines states:"For property located within the boundaries of the Miraleste Recreation &Park district,the Committee shall also find that removal or trimming of the foliage strikes a reasonable balance between meeting the purposes of section 17.02.040 set forth in Section 1 of the Ordinance approved by the voters on November 7,1989,and preserving the historical development of the Miraleste Recreation & Park District area with large numbers of trees."The subject properties are not located in the Miraleste Recreation and Park District.As such,this finding does not apply. Section 9:Pursuant to Section 15270 (a)of the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project is statutorily exempt because CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves.The City Council hereby disapproves this View Restoration Permit based on its inability to make all of the required findings for any of the trees. Accordingly,the application and the appeal are hereby denied and no trimming or removal of these trees will occur. Section 10:Based on the foregoing information,and on the information and findings included in the Staff report and evidence presented at the public hearing,the City Council hereby denies the appeal,thereby upholding the Planning Commission's denial of VRP2011- Resolution No.2012-_ Page 6 of? 2-13 00064,which requested to trim and/or remove foliage located at 22 Narcissa Drive and 24 Narcissa Drive. Section 11:The time within which 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 and other applicable short periods of limitation. PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED on the 18th day of September 2012. 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.2012-_was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting held on September 18,2012 City Clerk Resolution No.2012-_ Page 70f7 2-14 Exhibit B View Photo taken from Family Room Viewing Area on September 5, 2012 ATTACHMENTS 2-1 Ex h i b i t B – V i e w P h o t o t a k e n f r o m F a m i l y R o o m V i e w i n g A r e a o n S e p t e m b e r 5 , 2 0 1 2 ATTACHMENTS 2-2 Exhibit C City Council Report dated August 7, 2012 and related attachments ATTACHMENTS 2-3 CrrvOF MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: DATE:. SUBJECT: REVIEWED: Project Manager: HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR~F;t.s.e. AUGUST 7,2012 APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION REQUEST TO TRIM AND/OR REMOVE FOLIAGE AT 22 NARCISSA DRIVE (GERRARD PROPERTY)AND 24 NARCISSA DRIVE (PAULUCCI PROPERTY)IN ORDER TO RESTORE THE VIEW FROM 25 NARCISSA DRIVE (MAKHLOUF PROPERTY)[VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT 2011-00064] CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER Cl9-- Amy Seeraty,Associate Planner f6' RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No.2012-_;denying the appeal and affirming the Planning Commission's decision to deny View Restoration Permit No.2011-00064. Quasi-Judicial Decision This item is a quasi-Judicial decision in which the City Council is being asked to affirm whether specific findings of fact can be made in order to support approval of a View Restoration Permit application.The specific findings of fact are listed and discussed in the "Discussion"portion of the Staff Report. ATTACHMENTS 2-4 BACKGROUND Site Description and View The subject properties are located on Narcissa Drive,off of Palos Verdes Drive South in the gated Portuguese Bend Community on the south side of the City.The properties in the general vicinity tend to have views generally southward, eastward,and westward,overlooking the ocean,offshore Islands (Catalina &Santa Barbara),coastline,Long Point,Abalone Cove,and portions ofthe Palos Verdes Nature Preserve.All of these components can be viewed from the Applicant's viewing area as described below. Applicant's Property &Viewing Area Determination The Applicant's property (25 Narcissa Drive)is developed with a one-story residence built in 1953. The Applicant's lot was created in September 1951 by Tract No.13836.The Applicant has views taken from all interior rooms (living room,family room,kitchen,dining room,guest bedroom and master bedroom).There is a semi-enclosed area next to the kitchen that Staff called the "living room"in the May 8,2012 Staff Report.Since this room is separate from the formal living room,this room could also be referred to as the "family room",which is how this room is referred to throughout this report.The family room is considered by Staff to be the primary viewing area,because it is the area of the residence where the best and most important view is taken;it contains the widest and most unobstructed view of all the aforementioned components of the multi-component view.The photos that were used in the Planning Commission Staff Report for the May 8,2012 meeting were taken from this family room.(EXhibit G,Updated View Photo Diagram). Section III.B.2 of the View Restoration Guidelines states:On properties where the applicant claims that he or she has a view from one or more locations either within or outside ofthe primary structure, it must be determined where the best and most important view is taken to determine the "viewing area"which is to be protected.The "viewing area"may only include multiple rooms or locations on the applicant's property if those locations share the same view. The additional rooms in the house:the living room,dining room and kitchen do not share the same view as the family room,since they either do not contain as many view components and/or do not have as extensive of a view as compared to the panoramic view from the family room.Thus,they are not considered by Staff to be part of the primary viewing area.For reference,Staff has attached photos of the views that are taken from the other rooms in the house,inclUding those listed above, as well as views from the guest bedroom and master bedroom.(Exhibit H) Also,Section III.B.4 of the View Restoration Guidelines states:"...In documenting the views,Staff usually will conduct the view analysis in a natural standing position."The Appellant states in her letter that the Appellant's view is taken from the living room,which,in Appellant's opinion,consists of the living room,family room,kitchen and dining room.However,one can only see a view from the kitchen window that is similar to the view from the family room,if one leans over the sink towards the window.In observing the view from a natural standing position in the kitchen,dining room or from the living room,it is clear that these views are not the best and most important views because each of them only contains a fraction of the entire view that is visible from the family room. ATTACHMENTS 2-5 Foliage Owners'Properties The Foliage Owners'properties at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive are each developed with a one-story residence.Both of the Foliage Owners'lots were created in April 1948 by Tract No.14500.Both properties are located at a lower elevation and across Narcissa Drive from the Applicant's property. The building records on file indicate that the home at 22 Narcissa Drive was constructed in 1953, and the home at 24 Narcissa Drive was constructed in 1957.1 Permit Process History On March 28,2012,the Appellant,Ms.Da'ad Makhlouf,submitted a formal View Restoration Permit application (VRP2011-00064)to the City requesting that foliage at 22 Narcissa Drive (the Gerrard property)and 24 Narcissa Drive (the Paulucci property)be trimmed to restore the view from her property.. The Appellant's request was ultimately heard by the Planning Commission on May 8,2012,at which time the Commission heard public testimony,discussed the item,and then voted to deny the requested View Restoration Application as recommended by Staff.(6-0 vote with Commissioner Leon having recused himself from the matter).The Resolution memorializing the Commission's decision was adopted by the Commission atthe same meeting,P.C.Resolution 2012-08.(Exhibit C) Within the fifteen-day appeal period,on May 22,2012,the Appellant appealed the Commission's decision to the City Council.However,because the grounds of the appeal were not submitted,Staff notified the appellant that the appeal would not be scheduled until said grounds were submitted.On July 16,2012,a representative from Wellman and Warren,LLP,submitted a supplemental appeal letter on Ms.Makhloufs behalf containing the grounds of the appeal.On Thursday,July 19,2012,a public notice was mailed out notifying interested parties that the City Council will conduct a public hearing on August 7,2012 to hear the appeal.A notice of public hearing was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News,and this notice was also mailed to the Appellant,the Appellant's representative,the Foliage Owners,and all properties within 500 feet of the Foliage Owners' properties.The appeal is now before the City Council for consideration. DISCUSSION Planning Commission Decision In order for the City Council to approve a View Restoration Permit application,six required findings must be made.These findings are listed below along with the justification for the Planning Commission's ability or inability to make these findings,the Appellant's arguments (if any)regarding the findings,and Staff's responses to these arguments. A.The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process and has shown proof of cooperation on his/her part to resolve conflicts. 1 In the May 8,2012 Planning Commission Staff Report,Staff mistakenly stated that both residences at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive were constructed in 1950. ATTACHMENTS 2-6 In November of 2011,the Applicant sent correspondence requesting that the Foliage Owners contact her to discuss potential work on their trees.The Applicant obtained no satisfactory solution so,in turn,on November 21,2011,the Applicant submitted a Notice of Intent to File for View Restoration Application No.2011-00064.Per the early neighbor consultation process,a pre- application meeting was requested with Ms.Gerrard,Mr.Paulucci,and Ms.Patricia Horan and Joan Bauer (trustee),foliage owners located at 22,24,and 28 Narcissa Drive,respectively.(Ms.Patricia Horan and Joan Bauer (trustee)were contacted regarding their vacant lot known asAPN 7572-017- 014,located next to 28 Narcissa Drive.)Staff and the City's mediator then held separate pre- application meetings with the Foliage Owners at 24 and 28 Narcissa Drive,as well as with the Applicant on December 20,2011.Thus,the Planning Commission was able to make Finding "A". Issues Raised by the Appellant in the Appeal Regarding the Role of Private Mediation Agreements The Appellant's supplemental appeal letter asserts that the foliage owner at 24 Narcissa,Mr. Paulucci,failed to trim his trees pursuant to an agreement that was reached through the City's mediation process and the subsequent tree trimming estimate that was obtained.The Appellant's supplemental appeal letter (Exhibit B)provides information and exhibits regarding this disagreement.However,it is very important for the Council to note that pursuant to City policy,any private agreements that come out of the City's meditation process are not enforced by the City,and that the outcome and/or opinions about a mediation process and/or agreement have no bearing on the findings that the Planning Commission and City Council must make in rendering their decisions. The only finding at all related to mediation is that:"The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process and has shown proof of cooperation on his/her part to resolve conflicts."(Finding "A")Since the Appellant sent letters to the foliage owners and participated in a mediation,as stated above,Staff and the Planning Commission agreed that this finding could be made. B.Foliage exceeding sixteen (16)feet or the ridge line ofthe primary structure,whichever is lower,significantly impairs a view from the applicant's viewing area,whether such foliage is located totally on one property,or when combined with foliage located on more than one property. As discussed in the section above entitled:"Applicant's Property &Viewing Area Determination",the primary viewing area was determined to be the family room by the Planning Commission.The Appellant contests this because she believes the view should taken from an area,which she calls the living room,that includes the main living room area,the family room,the dining room,as well as the kitchen.The determination of the location of the viewing area,which is the location where the protected view is located,is important because it affects the determination whether certain trees are causing a significant impairment of the protected view. 1.The miscellaneous trees located in the rear yard of 24 Narcissa Drive (Paulucci)property do not exceed sixteen feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure,and do not significantly impair the view.They are located at the bottom of the view frame and only block a very small portion of ocean view.As such,the Planning Commission was not able to make Finding "B"for these trees. 2.Tree Nos.1-4 (Paulucci property at 24 Narcissa Drive)are located in the approximate center of the view frame as seen from the primary viewing area (family room),exceed 16 feet in height or the ridgeline of the primary structure,and significantly impair the Appellant's view of the ocean and Catalina Island.Therefore,the Planning Commission was able to make ATTACHMENTS 2-7 Finding liB"for Tree Nos.1-4 (four Aleppo Pine trees).2 3.Tree Nos.5-10 (Paulucci property at 24 Narcissa Drive)exceed sixteen feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure.However,the Planning Commission found that these trees do not significantly impair the Appellant's view because they are located at the bottom of the view frame and impair a minimal portion of the Appellant's ocean view.Therefore,the Planning Commission was not able to make the required View Restoration Finding liB"for these trees. The Appellant does not dispute this finding in her appeal letter. 4.Tree Nos.11-15 (Gerrard property at 22 Narcissa Drive)extend into the Appellant's ocean view,but because they are located towards the periphery of the view frame,and because they impair only a minimal portion of the Appellant's ocean view,the Planning Commission did not find that these trees significantly impair the Appellant's view,and therefore,the PI~nning Commission was not able to make the required View Restoration Finding liB"for these trees.The Appellant does not dispute this finding in her appeal letter. 5.Tree No.16 (Gerrard property at 22 Narcissa Drive)extends into the ocean view,but the majority of the view that the tree impairs is a view of developed land in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which is not a protected view.Also,the tree is located towards the far right periphery of the view frame,and has been recently heavily thinned.Because of these aforementioned reasons,as well as the fact that Tree No.16 impairs a comparatively minimal portion of the Appellant's ocean view,the Planning Commission did not find that this tree significantly impairs the Appellant's view,and therefore,the Planning Commission was not able to make the required View Restoration Finding liB"for this tree.The Appellant does not dispute this finding in her appeal letter. 6.Tree No.17 (Gerrard property at22 Narcissa Drive)only impairs views of developed land in Rancho Palos Verdes,which is not a protected view.3 Therefore,the Planning Commission was not able to make the required View Restoration Finding liB"for this tree.The Appellant does not dispute this finding in her appeal letter. 7.Tree No.18 (Gerrard property at 22 Narcissa Drive)extends very minimally into the ocean view.Most of what the tree impairs is a view of developed land in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which is not a protected view.(See footnote 3 below.)Also,because it is located towards the extreme right periphery of the view frame,and because it impairs a comparatively minimal portion of the Appellant's ocean view,the Planning Commission did not find that this tree significantly impairs the Appellant's view.Therefore,the Planning Commission was not able to make the required View Restoration Finding liB"for this tree. The Appellant does not dispute this finding in her appeal letter. 8.Tree No.19 (Gerrard property at 22 Narcissa Drive)extends very minimally,if at all,into the ocean view.Most of what the tree impairs is a view of developed land in Rancho Palos Verdes,which is not protected.(See footnote 3.)Also,because it is located towards the 2 In their appeal letter,the Appellant argues that Tree Nos.1-4 are significantly impairing the view,which Staff and the Planning Commission do not dispute,as the trees impair a portion of the ocean and Catalina Island view. 3 The View Restoration Ordinance and Guidelines exclude from the definition of the term "view"any "vacant land that is developable under this Code,a distant mountain area that is not normally visible or the sky that is visible over distant mountain areas or above the off-shore islands.(RPV Municipal Code Section 17.02.040 A 14.) ATTACHMENTS 2-8 extreme right periphery of the view frame,and because it only potentially impairs a very small portion of the Appellant's ocean view,the Planning Commission did not find that this tree significantly impairs the Appellant's view,and therefore,the Planning Commission was not able to make the required View Restoration Finding liB"for this tree.The Appellant does not dispute this finding in her appeal letter. 9.Tree No.20 (Gerrard property at 22 Narcissa Drive)The Appellant's supplemental appeal letter also states that a twisted juniper tree located on Ms.Gerrard's property at 22 Narcissa Drive is significantly impairing the Appellant's view of a cove along the coastline and that it should be trimmed to restore the view of the cove.The twisted Juniper tree was not originally identified in the May 8,2012 Staff Report,and so has been identified in the attached Exhibits F & G as Tree No.20.In her appeal letter,the Appellant provides a photo of the twisted juniper tree in this view as seen out the west (or dining room)window of the dwelling at 25 Narcissa Drive.However,the dining room is not the primary viewing area, anp so any impact the twisted juniper tree has on the Appellant's view cannot be assessed from this window.As viewed from the Appellant's primary viewing area of the family room, the twisted juniper impairs only a view of the developed portion of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which is not a protected view per the City's Municipal Code and the View Restoration Guidelines.So,in Staff's opinion,the twisted juniper tree does not significantly impair the view and consequently,required View Restoration Finding liB"for this tree cannot be made. Please see Exhibit G,Updated View Photo Diagram for an illustration of the above information. C.The foliage to be removed is located on property,any part of which is less than one thousand (1,000)feet from the applicant's property line. The Foliage Owners'properties at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive are located less than 1,000 feet from the Applicant's property at 25 Narcissa Drive,as the Applicant's and Foliage Owner's properties actually abut each other.As such,the Planning Commission was able to make this finding for all the trees on the Foliage Owners'properties.The Appellant does not dispute this finding in their appeal letter. D.The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist as view impairing vegetation when the lot from which the view is taken was created. 1.Regarding the miscellaneous trees located in the rear yard of 24 Narcissa Drive,Staff was not able to find evidence that these trees existed as view-impairing trees when the lot from which the view is taken was created.Therefore,the Planning Commission was able to make the required View Restoration Finding liD"for these trees.The Appellant does not dispute this finding in her appeal letter. 2.Regarding Tree Nos.5-17 and 19,Staff was not able to find evidence that these trees existed as view-impairing trees when the lot from which the view is taken was created. Therefore,the Planning Commission was able to make the required View Restoration Finding liD"for these trees.The Appellant does not dispute this finding in her appeal letter. 3.Regarding Tree No.18,Staff completed research into the history of this tree and believes based on a historic photo of the tree taken around 1952 as compared with current aerial photos,as well as input from the City's arborist regarding his review of this historic photo, that this tree impaired the Appellant's view in 1951 when the Appellant's lot was created. ATTACHMENTS 2-9 Therefore the Planning Commission was not able to make the required View Restoration Finding "D"for this tree.The Appellant does not dispute this finding in her appeal letter. 4.Regarding Tree Nos.1-4 (Paulucci property at 24 Narcissa),Staff completed research into the history of these trees and believes,based on the estimated tree heights derived from historic photos of the trees,as well as input from the City's arborist,that these four trees impaired the Applicant's view in 1951 when the Applicant's lot was created.Therefore,the required View Restoration Finding "D"cannot be made for Tree Nos.1-4.The Planning Commission agreed with Staffs determination of this finding at the May 8,2012 meeting. City Arborist Information for Tree Nos.1-4 While writing the May 8,2012 Planning Commission Staff Report,Staff consulted with the City's Contract Arborist,Mr.Dave Hayes,to determine if Tree Nos.1-4 existed as view-impairing trees at the time the Appellant's lot was created.Mr.Hayes inspected the trees out at the site,reviewed historic ptiotos,and since the May 8,2012 meeting,has also performed a successful core sample of Tree No.1 to better determine the age of the trees. In Mr.Hayes'attached follow-up arborist report dated July 26,2012,(Exhibit I)he states that he attempted to take core samples from Tree Nos.16 and 18 at 22 Narcissa Drive,and from Tree Nos. 1 and 4 at 24 Narcissa Drive.However,only the coring of Tree No.1,which is the 26-inch diameter Aleppo Pine tree,was successful.4 Through this coring technique he was able to determine that Tree No.1 was approximately 75 years old.Mr.Hayes estimates that the tree was most likely planted sometime between 1937 and 1941.Mr.Hayes also stated that a young Aleppo Pine tree has an average growth rate of between 3 and 5 feet per year,which would mean that the tree would have been be somewhere between 25 and 30 feet tall in 1951,the year the Appellant's lot was created.This measurement agrees with Staffs determinations that Tree Nos.1-4 would have been view-impairing trees at the time the Appellant's lot was created based on Staffs research of historic photos,which is discussed in the following paragraphs. Historic Research for Tree Nos.1-4 The Foliage Owners'properties are located directly above the Wayfarers Chapel property,and as a result,Staff was able to locate numerous historic photos of the Chapel that also show Tree Nos.1-4 located at 24 Narcissa Drive in the background.(Exhibit D)Mr.Paulucci also provided Staff with a photo taken in June of 1951 at 28 Narcissa Drive,looking towards the Wayfarers'Chapel and the properties at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive.Staff has reviewed these historic photos with the Mr.Hayes, and he believes that the trees shown in these photos are indeed Tree Nos.1-4 currently located at 24 Narcissa Drive. Two utility poles are visible in the 1951 photo,and they appear to be the same standard height utility poles that exist today,and are located along the property line between 24 Narcissa and the vacant property next door (APN 7572-017-014).These utility poles are 30 feet tall,and so when Staff compares Tree Nos.1-4 with these poles,one can extrapolate that the trees are approximately 66%5 of the total height of the poles,or ~bout 20 feet tall.Staff also obtained a photo taken of the 4 Although only one (Tree No.1)out of the four large Aleppo Pine trees located at 24 Narcissa was successfully sampled,this tree was one of the smaller trees,and so the two larger trees are likely even older. S The May 8,2012 Staff Report,Staff mistakenly stated that the trees appeared to be approximately 33%of the height of the power poles.Staff meant to say that the trees appeared to be approximately 66%of the height of the power poles.The estimate of 20 feet in height remains the same. ATTACHMENTS 2-10 Wayfarers Chapel while it was under construction (sometime between 1949 and 1951)from the Chapel's website (www.wayfarerschapel.org),and Tree Nos.1-4 are visible.(Exhibit D)This calculation agrees with Mr.Hayes assertion above that the trees would have been somewhere between 25 and 30 feet tall in 1951,the year the Appellant's lot was created. It is critical to note that because the Pine trees are located on an elevated portion of the 24 Narcissa property,and because the Appellant's view of the ocean begins at a fairly steep angle,a tree of very minimal height will extend into the ocean view,and impair the view.Because Staff and the City's Arborist have agreed that Tree Nos.1-4 were likely at least 20 feet tall in 1951,the trees would most certainly have been view impairing trees at that time. Appellant's Argument The Appellant's appeal letter submitted on July 16,2012 states that the City has provided no evidence that Tree Nos.1-4 were view-impairing trees when the Appellant's lot was created."The Appellant asserts that reports from another certified arborist and a professional land surveyor attached to their JUly 16,2012 letter confirm that it was"...impossible for the trees to have blocked the view in 1951." Appellant's Arborist Report The Appellant's arborist asserts in his report dated July 12,2012 that the 1951 photograph,(Exhibit D)shows trees in the background at height of two-thirds the height of the lower power pole.The Appellant's arborist also cites the age and growth characteristics of the subject trees,aerial photography produced by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,as well as a survey conducted on July 11,2012 as evidence why the trees could not have blocked the view at the time of the Appellant's lot creation.However,he does not further explain these reasons,nor provide his estimate ofthe trees' age.The Appellant's arborist's contention that the trees did not block the Appellant's view does not focus on the actual language of the finding,as this finding simply asks if the trees extended into the Appellant's view at the time the Appellant's lot was created,not if the trees significantly impaired the view and/or blocked the view. Finding 0 states:"The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist as view impairing vegetation when the lot from which the view is taken was created."(Emphasis added.) Also,the Council may reference an excerpt from the July 12,2012 report (found in Exhibit B)from Appellant's Arborist:"1.When the lot at 25 Narcissa was created (September 1951)the height of the subject trees did not exceed the lower yellow line in the above photograph."This yellow line is located at approximately 66%the height of the utility poles shown in the photograph and blocks a portion of the ocean view from the Applicant's property.Thus,the Appellant's Arborist's report actually supports the Planning Commission's determination that the foliage was indeed view impairing at the time the Appellant's lot was created.Again,the Appellant has misunderstood the language of Finding "0",as although the view is not completely blocked,to make this finding,the trees are only required to impair any portion of the view,not significantly impair the view.The City Attorney concurs with Staffs past practice and interpretation of this finding. Furthermore,Section V.D.2 of the View Restoration Guidelines states that,"...the following sources of information may be used to determine the time when the foliage under consideration began to impair the view."This is additional confirmation that the rationale of this finding is to merely require that the trees impair a portion of the view,and not significantly impair the view at the time the applicant's lot is created. ATTACHMENTS 2-11 Appellant's Surveyor Report The report submitted by David F.Grimes,Professional Land Surveyor,claims that the trees significantly impairing the view did not exist,as view impairing vegetation,when the lot at 25 Narcissa Dr.was created.However,this report contains no discussion,reasoning or data explaining why the Tree Nos.1-4 were not view impairing at the time the Appellant's lot was created. Therefore,based on the above discussion,Staff has found no basis contained in the Appellant's supplemental appeal letter,nor uncovered any other evidence or information since the May 8,2012 Planning Commission hearing,that would warrant altering the Planning Commission's decision. E.Removal or trimming of the foliage will not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the property upon which the foliage is located. Due to non-compliance with Findings liB"and liD",Staff is not recommending that any trimming or removal occur to the trees located at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive.As such,this finding does not apply.However,it should be noted that if any of the trees were to be trimmed to expose the portion of view they do impair,this would not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the property upon which the foliage is located,as the portions of trees in the view do not screen the Foliage Owners'properties. F.For property located within the boundaries of the Miraleste Recreation and Parks District,the Commission shall also find that removal or trimming of foliage strikes a reasonable balance between meeting the purposes of Section 17.02.040 set forth in Section 1 of the Ordinance approved by the voters on November 7,1989,and preserving the historical development of the Miraleste Recreation and Parks District with large numbers of trees. The subject properties are not located in the Miraleste Recreation and Park District.As such,this finding does not apply. FISCAL IMPACT The cost of processing this appeal is borne by the payment of the appeal fees.Should the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision,then the appellants (Ms.Makhlouf)shall not receive appeal fee refund of $2,575.Should the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's denial of the permit completely,the appellant will receive the full appeal fee refund of $2,575.If the City Council modifies the Planning Commission's decision,the appellants will be refunded half of the appeal fee.($1,287.50) CONCLUSION Staff has found no basis contained in the Appellant's appeal,including the new evidence that was not presented to the Commission,or uncovered any other information since the May 8,2012 Planning Commission hearing,that would warrant altering the Planning Commission's decision on this matter.Staff therefore recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission's decision memorialized in PC Resolution No.2012-08. ATTACHMENTS 2-12 ALTERNATIVES As an alternative to Staffs recommendation,pursuant to Section VII of the View Restoration Guidelines and Municipal Code Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(i),the City Council may wish to consider the following options: 1.Approve all or part of View Restoration Permit No.2011-00064, 2.Refer the matter back to the Planning Commission to conduct further proceedings.The remanded proceedings may include the presentation of significant new evidence which was raised in conjunction with the appeal.The City Council shall state the ground(s)for the remand and shall give instructions to Planning Commission concerning any error found by the City Council in the Commission's prior determination. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A -Draft City Council Resolution 2012- Exhibit B -Appeal Letter dated May 22,2012 &Supplementary Appeal Letter dated July 16, 2012 Exhibit C -P.C.Resolution 2012-08 Exhibit D -P.C.Staff Report dated May 8,2012 Exhibit E -Late Correspondence from May 8,2012 PC Meeting Exhibit F -Updated Site Map Exhibit G -Updated View Photo Diagram Exhibit H -Non-Primary Viewing Area Photos Exhibit I-Follow-Up City Arborist Report &Correspondence Exhibit J -Correspondence Received from Interested Parties Exhibit K -Site Visit Scheduling Form (City Council Members only) ATTACHMENTS 2-13 Exhibit A Draft C.C. Resolution 2012- ATTACHMENTS 2-14 Resolution No. 2012-__ Page 1 of 5 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2012-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-08 WHICH DENIED VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 2012-00064 TO TRIM AND/OR REMOVE FOLIAGE LOCATED AT 22 NARCISSA DRIVE AND 24 NARCISSA DRIVE. WHEREAS, on March 28, 2012, Ms. Da’ad Makhlouf, owner of property located at 25 Narcissa Drive, (herein "the Applicant"), in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, filed an application requesting a View Restoration Permit (“Permit”) to restore a view from her property that she believed to be significantly impaired by foliage owned by Ms. Corinne Gerrard at 22 Narcissa Drive, and by Mr. Mark Paulucci at 24 Narcissa Drive (herein "the Foliage Owners"), in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (“City”); and, WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission (“Commission”) hearing was mailed to the Applicant and the Foliage Owners on April 5, 2012; and, WHEREAS, on May 8, 2012, after all eligible voting members of the Planning Commission had visited the site, the Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request, at which time, all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, WHEREAS, on May 8, 2012, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution 2012- 08, thereby denying View Restoration Permit 2011-64; and, WHEREAS, on May 22, 2012, within the 15-day appeal period, Ms. Da’ad Makhlouf appealed the May 8, 2012 Planning Commission decision (P.C. Resolution 2012-08) to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, a supplemental letter of appeal containing the grounds of appeal was submitted on July 16, 2012 by Appellant’s representative from Wellman and Warren, LLP on behalf of Ms. Makhlouf; and, WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was issued on July 19, 2012 pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, and WHEREAS, on August 7, 2012, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal, 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: As defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City’s Development Code, the Applicant at 25 Narcissa Drive has a view of the ocean, offshore Islands (Catalina & Santa Barbara), coastline, Long Point, Abalone Cove, and portions of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. ATTACHMENTS 2-15 Resolution No. 2012-__ Page 2 of 5 Section 2: The Appellant’s primary viewing area at 25 Narcissa Drive, as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City’s Development Code, is the family room because the family room has a panoramic view of the ocean, Catalina Island, the coastline, Abalone Cove and Long Point, and a small portion of the City’s Nature Preserve. The additional rooms in the house: the living room, dining room and kitchen do not share the same view as the family room, since they either do not contain as many view components and do not have the same expansive view when compared to the panoramic view from the family room. Section 3: Finding “A” of the View Restoration Guidelines states: "The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process and has shown proof of cooperation on his/her part to resolve conflicts." On November 21, 2011, Ms. Da’ad Makhlouf submitted a Notice of Intent to File for View Restoration Application No. 2011-00064, which requested a pre- application meeting with Mr. Mark Paulucci, and Corinne Gerrard, (the “Foliage Owners”) Foliage Owners at 24 Narcissa Drive and 22 Narcissa Drive, respectively. Staff and the City’s mediator then held separate pre-application meetings with the Foliage Owner at 24 Narcissa Drive, as well as with the Applicant on December 20, 2011. Therefore, in accordance with Section V (A) of the View Restoration Guidelines, the Applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process. Section 4: Finding “B” of the View Restoration Guidelines states: "Foliage exceeding sixteen (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 when combined with foliage located on more than one property." The miscellaneous trees located in the rear yard of 24 Narcissa Drive (Paulucci) property do not exceed sixteen feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure, nor do they significantly impair the view. They are located at the bottom of the view frame and only block a very small portion of the applicant’s ocean view. As such, the City Council cannot make Finding “B” for these trees. Tree Nos. 1-4 (Paulucci property at 24 Narcissa Drive) are located in the approximate center of the view frame as seen from the primary viewing area (family room); they exceed 16 feet in height or the ridgeline of the primary structure and significantly impair the Appellant’s view of the ocean and Catalina Island. As such, the City Council can make Finding “B” for Tree Nos. 1-4 (four Aleppo Pine trees). Tree Nos. 5-10 (Paulucci property at 24 Narcissa Drive) exceed sixteen feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure. However, the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and finds that these trees do not significantly impair the Appellant’s view because they impair a only a minimal portion of the Appellant’s ocean view. As such, the City Council cannot make the required View Restoration Finding “B” for these trees. Tree Nos. 11-15 (Gerrard property at 22 Narcissa Drive) extend into the Appellant’s ocean view, but because they are located towards the periphery of the view frame, and because they impair only a minimal portion of the Appellant’s ocean view, the City Council finds that these trees do not significantly impair the Appellant’s view, and as such, the City Council cannot make the required View Restoration Finding “B” for these trees. ATTACHMENTS 2-16 Resolution No. 2012-__ Page 3 of 5 Tree No. 16 (Gerrard property at 22 Narcissa Drive) extends minimally into the ocean view, but the view that this tree impairs is a view of developed land in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which is not a protected view, as defined by Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 17.02.040 A 14. Also, the tree is located towards the far right periphery of the view frame, and has been recently heavily thinned. Because of these aforementioned reasons, as well as the fact that Tree No. 16 impairs only a minimal portion of the Appellant’s ocean view, the City Council finds that this tree does not significantly impair the Appellant’s view, and as such, the City Council cannot make the required View Restoration Finding “B” for this tree. Tree No. 17 (Gerrard property at 22 Narcissa Drive) only impairs views of developed land in Rancho Palos Verdes, which is not a protected view as defined by Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 17.02.040 A 14. As such, the City Council cannot make the required View Restoration Finding “B” for this tree. Tree No. 18 (Gerrard property at 22 Narcissa Drive) extends very minimally into the ocean view. Most of what the tree impairs is a view of developed land in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which is not a protected view as defined by Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 17.02.040 A 14. Also, because it is located towards the extreme right periphery of the view frame, and because it impairs a comparatively minimal portion of the Appellant’s ocean view, the City Council finds that this tree does not significantly impair the Appellant’s view. As such, the City Council cannot make the required View Restoration Finding “B” for this tree. Tree No. 19 (Gerrard property at 22 Narcissa Drive) extends very minimally, if at all, into the ocean view. Most of what the tree impairs is a view of developed land in Rancho Palos Verdes, which is not a protected view as defined by Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 17.02.040 A 14. Also, because it is located towards the extreme right periphery of the view frame, and because it only potentially impairs a very small portion of the Appellant’s ocean view, the City Council finds that this tree does not significantly impair the Appellant’s view, and as such, the City Council cannot make the required View Restoration Finding “B” for this tree. Tree No. 20 (Gerrard property at 22 Narcissa Drive) The Appellant’s supplemental appeal letter states that a twisted juniper tree located on Ms. Gerrard’s property at 22 Narcissa Drive is significantly impairing the Appellant’s view of a cove along the coastline and that it should be trimmed to restore the view of the cove. The twisted Juniper tree was not originally identified in the May 8, 2012 Staff Report, and so has been identified in Exhibits F & G to the Staff Report as Tree No. 20. In her appeal letter, the Appellant provides a photo of the twisted juniper tree as seen from the dining room window of the dwelling at 25 Narcissa Drive. However, the dining room is not the primary viewing area, and so any impact the twisted juniper tree has on the Appellant’s view cannot be assessed from this window. As viewed from the Appellant’s primary viewing area in the family room, the twisted juniper impairs only a view of the developed area of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which is not a protected view as defined by Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 17.02.040 A 14. Accordingly, the City Council finds that the twisted juniper tree does not significantly impair the Applicant’s protected view from the primary viewing area and as such, the City Council cannot make the required View Restoration Finding “B” for this tree. Section 5: Finding “C” of the View Restoration Guidelines states: “The foliage to be removed is located on property, any part of which is less than one thousand (1,000) feet from the applicant's property line." The Foliage Owners’ properties at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive are ATTACHMENTS 2-17 Resolution No. 2012-__ Page 4 of 5 located less than 1,000 feet from the Applicant’s property at 25 Narcissa Drive; thus Finding “C” can be made. Section 6: Finding “D” of the View Restoration Guidelines states: "The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist as view impairing vegetation when the lot from which the view is taken was created." The Applicant’s lot was created in September 1951 by the recordation of Tract Map No. 13836. Regarding the miscellaneous trees located in the rear yard of 24 Narcissa Drive, Staff was not able to find evidence, and the Appellant did not present any evidence, that these trees existed as view-impairing trees when the lot from which the view is taken was created. As such, the City Council can make Finding “D” for these trees. Regarding Tree Nos. 1-4, the City’s Arborist has inspected the trees out at the site, reviewed historic photos, and since the May 8, 2012 meeting, has also performed a successful core sample of Tree No. 1. The City’s Arborist reports that Tree Nos. 1-4 were likely planted sometime between 1937 and 1941, and thus are approximately 75 years old. Also, based on two historic photos, one taken in 1951 and another taken sometime between 1949 and 1951, the City Council and the City Arborist believe that trees at 24 Narcissa Drive were approximately 20 feet in height in 1951, and thus impaired the view from Appellant’s property at that time. Also, because Tree Nos. 1-4 are located on an elevated portion of the 24 Narcissa property, and because the Appellant’s view of the ocean begins at a fairly steep angle, a tree of very minimal height will extend into the ocean view, and impair the view. Because Staff and the City’s Arborist have agreed that Tree Nos. 1-4 were likely at least 20 feet tall in 1951, the trees would have been view impairing trees at the time when the lot from which the view is taken was created. As such, the City Council cannot to make the required View Restoration Finding “D” for these trees. Regarding Tree Nos. 5-17 and 19, Staff was not able to find evidence, and the Appellant did not present any evidence, that these trees existed as view-impairing trees when the lot from which the view is taken was created. As such, the City Council can make the required View Restoration Finding “D” for these trees. Regarding Tree No. 18, Staff completed research into the history of this tree and found based on a historic photo of the tree taken around 1952 as compared with current aerial photos, as well as input from the City’s arborist regarding his review of this historic photo, that this tree would have impaired the view from the Appellant’s property in 1951 when the Appellant’s lot was created. As such, the City Council cannot make the required View Restoration Finding “D” for this tree. Section 7: Finding “E” states: “Removal or trimming of the foliage will not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the property upon which the foliage is located." As discussed in Sections 4 and 6, due to non-compliance with Findings “B” and/or “D”, respectively, no trimming or removal of any of the trees located at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive will occur. As such, the finding “E” is not applicable. Section 8: Finding “F” of the View Restoration Guidelines states: “For property located within the boundaries of the Miraleste Recreation & Park district, the Committee shall also find ATTACHMENTS 2-18 Resolution No. 2012-__ Page 5 of 5 that removal or trimming of the foliage strikes a reasonable balance between meeting the purposes of section 17.02.040 set forth in Section 1 of the Ordinance approved by the voters on November 7, 1989, and preserving the historical development of the Miraleste Recreation & Park District area with large numbers of trees.” The subject properties are not located in the Miraleste Recreation and Park District. As such, this finding does not apply. Section 9: Pursuant to Section 15270 (a) of the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project is statutorily exempt because CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves. The City Council hereby disapproves this View Restoration Permit based on its inability to make all of the required findings for any of the trees. Accordingly, the application and the appeal are hereby denied and no trimming or removal of these trees will occur. Section 10: Based on the foregoing information, and on the information and findings included in the Staff report and evidence presented at the public hearing, the City Council hereby denies the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s denial of VRP2011- 00064, which requested to trim and/or remove foliage located at 22 Narcissa Drive and 24 Narcissa Drive. Section 11: The time within which 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 and other applicable short periods of limitation. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on the 7th day of August 2012. _______________________ 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. 2012-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting held on August 7, 2012 City Clerk ATTACHMENTS 2-19 Exhibit B Appeal Letter dated May 22,2012 &Supplementary Appeal Letter dated July 16,2012 ATTACHMENTS 2-20 Da'ad Makhlouf 25 Narcissa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 City of Rancho Palos Verdes View Restoration Dept. RECEIVED 22,2012 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT May 22,2012 Re:25 Narcissa Drive,RPV 90275 Permit Application:~(;\I _0 0 Dear Sir or Madam: I () J jL j 2 Z I hereby formally request an appeal of the matter referenced above on various grounds_Further information and bases for appeal will be for-thcoming_ Sincerely, /~~~L..-/--- Da'ad Makhlouf ATTACHMENTS 2-21 Scott W.Wellman Scott R.Warren David Van Sambeek Bimali Walgampaya Anabella Bonfa Matthew Nguyen 949/580-3737 800/444-6587 FAX 949/580-3738 'VI-V'V.w-wlaw.com Via Personal Delivel:V WELLMAN &WARREN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 24411 Ridge Route,Suite 200 Laguna Hills,California 92653 JUL 16 2012 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Of Counsel Stllart Miller' Cathy Phal1l Zo~ti** Derek BanduccI** Martin Hagerman*** Ogorman &Hagerman Iglesia 2E -201 Tizapan San Angel Mexico City,D.F.01090 www.Ollorman.com.l1lX "'Admitted in CA and NY. *":'AdmiLLcd in CA onl\'. **-*Admitted in Mexico only. NOTICE OF APPEAL OF VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT CASE NO.VRP2011-00064 AND P.e.RESOLUTION 2012-08 DATE:July 16,2012 TO:Amy Seeraty Joel Rojas City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthome Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 TO:Rancho Palos Verdes City Council City Hall 5970 Palos Verdes Dr.South Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 APPLICANT:Da'ad Makhlouf 25 Narcissa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 The attached Appeal,together with exhibits,are respectfully submitted and offered in support of Applicant's Appeal to the Rancho Verdes City Council,which is requested to be scheduled on August 7,2012. ATTACHMENTS 2-22 July 16,2012 Page 2 of9 FACTS &PROCEDURAL HISTORY This appeal relates to View Restoration Permit Application No.VRP2011-00064,filcd by Applicant,Da'ad Makh10uf,the owner of25 Narcissa Drive in Rancho Palos Verdes.The subject propcrties which block the Applicant's view are 22 Narcissa Drive (Owner Mark Paulucci)and 224 Narcissa Drive (Owner Corrine Gerrard). A.The City Determined that Plaintiff's Living Room was the Designated "Viewing Area"and that the Viewing Area Consists of a Multi-Component View The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has guidelines and procedures which govern restoration of views where foliage is involved.These are set out in guidelines (A copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A")and in Municipal Code Section 17.02.040 (See Exhibit "B").As set out in the City's Guidelines,the ordinance"...[protects],enhances and perpetuates views available to property owners and visitors because of the unique topographical features of the Palos Verdes Peninsula.These view provide unique and irreplaceable assets to the City and its Neighboring communities and provide for this and future generations examples of the unique physical surroundings which are characteristic of the City."(Exhibit "A",page 3). Pursuant to the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code,Section 17.02.040 (A)(l5)the Applicant's viewing area is dete1111ined as the following: "...that area of a structure (excluding bathrooms,hallways,garages or closets)or that area of a lot (excluding setback areas)where the owner and the City determine the best and most important view exists."[Exhibit "A"at page 3]. Section 17.02.040 (A)(14)of the Municipal Code defines what a "view"is as follows: "On the Palos Verdes Peninsula,it is quite common to have a near view and a far view because of the nature of many ofthe hills on the peninsula.Therefore,a 'view',which is protected by this section,is as follows: a.A 'near view'which is defined as a scene located on the peninsula including,but not limited to,a valley,ravine, equiestrian trail,pastoral environment or any natural setting;and/or 2 ATTACHMENTS 2-23 July 16,2012 Page 3 of9 b.A 'far view'which is defined as a scene located off the peninsula including,but not limited to,the ocean,Los Angeles basin,city lights at night,harbor,Vincent Thomas Bridge, shoreline or off shore islands.[Exhibit "A",page 3-4] Section 17.02.040 (B)(5)provides how the City establishes the relevant viewing area for purposes of View Restoration issues: The "viewing area"of the applicant's propetiy is where the best and most important view is taken ....On developed lots,the "viewing area"may be located on any level surface within the house ... b.The viewing area is located in a pari of the structure that constitutes the primary living area of the house,which is the living room,dining room,family room or kitchen.[Exhibit "A",pages 4- 5] Pursuant to the City's own Guidelines,the Commission may take action on foliage which significantly impairs a view fj'Oln the applicant's viewing area: The following criteria may be used to help determine whether a view is being "significantly"impaired by foliage: a.Foliage Position within the View Frame.Foliage that is located in the center of a view frame is more likely to be found to create a significant view impairment than foliage located on the outer edge of a view fj·ame. b.Single-component view vs.Multi-component View. Some view frames contain a combination of different view components,such as a view of the ocean,harbor and City lights (multi-component view);while some view frames consist entirely of one component,such as only a view of the ocean (single- component view).Foliage that entirely obscures one of the components of a "multi-component"view is more likely to be found to create a significant view impairment than foliage that impairs the same degree of view of a "single-component"view ... c.Prominent Landmarks.Greater weight should be given to prominent landmarks or other significant features in the 3 ATTACHMENTS 2-24 July 16,2012 Page 4 of9 view fi'ame such as the Vincent Thomas Bridge,harbor,shoreline, distant mountain areas,city skylines,and Channel Islands.As a result,foliage which impairs a view of any of these landmarks is more likely to bc found to create a significant view impairment. [Exhibit "A",page 13]. The City's own Community Development Depmiment determined that the Applicant's viewing area was the living room and that the view was a "multi-component view".See the Staff RepOli (Exhibit "L",page 3).Applicant's living room consists of one large area with the living room,dining room and kitchen combined.There are views fi-om two windows,one facing straight out the ocean (South)and one facing towards the West,as ean be seen in the photographs and videos at Exhibit "C").Exhibit "D"consists of photographs showing the layout of the residence.Photographs taken by the City are attached as Exhibit "E"hereto and confirm the vantage point of the viewing area. As can be seen from the photographs and videos,Applicant's mnlti-component view includes a view of various coves,the ocean and Catalina Island,all of which are protected views pursuant to the City's Municipal Code. B.The City Has Already Determined that Trees 1-4 are Blocking Applicant's Protected View The City has already determined that the four trees in the middle ofplaintiffs Viewing area (Designated as Trees 1-4)are "significantly"blocking plaintiffs views of protected areas. See the Staff RepOli,Exhibit "L'''page 3). C.Failure to Trim Trees Pursuant to Mediation Agreement and Finley Estimate In 20 10 Paulucci and the Applicant pmiicipated in mediation related to Trees I -4 which are at issue in this appeal.As a result of this mediation,the trees on the east side of Applieant's vista view were trimmed.The trees on the west side in the bank of trees were not trimmed sufficiently to restorc Applicant's view.Applicant advised Paulucci that the west side needed to be taken care of. Following the mediation,Paulucci filed an application to remodel his home.As a result of his application,Applicant was told by the City that all of the foliage,including the subject trees, would be reassessed by the City.Therefore,she was asked to wait before attempting to file a view restoration permit.However,Paulucci did not pursue remodeling of his home,and the City never reassessed the foliage around the home,leaving Applicant with no recourse to restore her view other than filing a view restoration permit. 4 ATTACHMENTS 2-25 July 16,2012 Page 5 of9 Pursuant to the City's recommendation,in January,2012,Paulucci and the Applicant pmiicipated in mediation before Coleen Berg of Choice Mediation and Arbitration Services,a mediator insisted upon by the City.As a result of the mediation,the following agreement was made between Paulucci and Applicant: The "Foliage Owner"agrees to the following: I.Perf01111 the prescribed pruning to the following trees: a.Remove one (I)Aleppo Pine located in the side yard of the property.Tree indicated by blue line in the attached photo.Removal defined as flush cut to the ground as close as possible. b.Lace remaining four (4)large Aleppo pine trees,defined as removing 30%foliage reduction,per the attending arborist's recommendation.Trees located in the side yard ofthe property. Note:Branches and foliage to be removed as part of the lacing described in item 1b will be determined by the attending arborist for the trees health. If the arborist feels appropriate,the View Owner would appreciate if the foliage in the areas circled in yellow on the attached photo could be part of that 30%foliage reduction. [Attached as Exhibit "F"is the Memorandum of Understanding"dated January 5,2012. Coleen Berg of Choice Mediation and Arbitration Services recommended Finley's Tree & Landscape,Inc.,who regularly does work for the City.Steve Finley of Finley's inspected the trees,made the determination of what work could be performed safely on the trees,and prepared an estimate for the work,a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "G".The estimate specifically stated the following work was to be perfol111ed: East Side of Property (3)Pines 5 Lace out 30%of green foliage,remove yellow highlighted limbs to Scott's specs for view restoration ATTACHMENTS 2-26 July 16,2012 Page 6 of9 Middle Remove to ground level (I)Pine Closest to House Lace out 40-45%of green foliage,remove (I)Pine selected limbs over house to balance (Scott will be present will be onsite for balancing of tree) Pursuant to the $4,000 estimate,attached as Exhibit "C",Palucci was to pay SI ,000 of the total job cost and Applicant was to pay $3,000 of the total job cost.However,at the time Finley conducted thc work,on January 6,2012,while in the process of conducting the work,Finley stopped work before complying with the terms of the estimate,stating that Mr.Paulucci had told him the trees were cut enough.At that time the trees were not "laced out 40 -50%and were not balanced",therefore,the view on only one side of the trees was partially restored. Specifically,in the mediation,the City provided the photograph which is on the 151 page of the arborist's report of Greg Monfette,at Exhibit "H".The City determine trimming of Trees 1-4 was to consist of the area between the yellow lines.The second page of Exhibit "H"shows the subject trees,1-4 after the trimming. Although applicant demanded that Finley comply with the contract,he refused.Therefore,she withheld the funds owed to him,ultimately causing the parties to end up in small claims court. Finley ultimately agreed that the full work was not performed and accepted $1,500 (half the amount allegedly owned by Applicant).Following the mediation,and to this day,Paulucci refuses to further trim the subject trees. The View Restoration Permit Process On March 28,2012,the Applicant submitted her fonnal View Restoration application.In that application,she identified view impairments at 24 Narcissa Drive (Mark Paulucci),28 Narcissa Drive (Joan Bauer,Trustee and Patricia Horan),and 22 Narcissa Drive (Corinne Gerard).The City,in a hearing on May 8,2012,detennined that the Applicant was not entitled to a view restoration pem1it.On May 22,2012,Applicant submitted her request for an appeal and paid $2,275.00 to the City. GROUNDS FOR APPLICANT'S APPEAL A.Applicable Law and Applicability to the Subject Residence 6 ATTACHMENTS 2-27 July 16,2012 Page 7 of9 Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 17.02.040 is the view preservation and restoration section applicable to this case.A complete copy of the Municipal Code is attached as Exhibit "B""hereto and incorporated herein by reference.The Code states,in pertinent part,as follows: c.In order for a view restoration notice to be issued,the commission must find: i.The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process and has shown proof of cooperation on his/her part to resolve conflicts; ii.Foliage exceeding sixteen feet or the ridge line ofthe primary structure,whichever is lower,significantly impairs a view from the applicant's viewing area,whether such foliage is located totally on one property,or when combined with foliage located on more than one property; Ill.The foliage to be removed is located on property,any part of which is less than one thousand feet from the applicant's propeliy line(s); IV.The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist, as view impairing vegetation,when the lot from which the view is taken was created .... d.Should the commission make findings requiring issuance of a view restoration permit,the director shall send a notice to the property owner to trim,cull,lace or otherwise cause the foliage to be reduced to sixteen feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure,whichever is lower,or such limit above that height which will restore the view ... The City concedes that plaintiff complied with (i)by completing the early neighborhood consultation process and plaintiflhas participated in at least two mediations with the City-chosen mediator in this matter.The City also concedes,and it is obvious from the photographs,that the subject foliage,trees No.1-4,exceed 16 feet,or the ridgeline of the residence.The other foliage at issue in this appeal are the shrubs and/or trees pictured at C4 on the Gerard property (see circled foliage).Both the propeliies ofPaulucci and Gerard are at least 25 feet below that of Applicant,a11d the trees and shrubs are plainly visible from Applicant's propeliy,thcrefore,page (ii)of the applicable section is complied with.Trees Nos.1-4 and the foliage previously mentioned are less than 1,000 feet from Applicant's property,complying with section (iii)of the 7 ATTACHMENTS 2-28 July 16,2012 Page 8 of9 applicable code.Finally,neither the subject trees nor the shlUbs were in existence as view impairing vegetation when Applicant's lot was created. I.The City has Not Established that Any of the Blocking Foliage was View Impairing Vegetation when Applicant's lot was Created While the City contends that Trees 1-4 were pre-existing the building of plaintiff s home and allegedly blocked her view,no evidence has been provided of this fact.The photograph of the little girl,exhibit 56 to the Staff Report,confinns that trees 1-4 were below the height of the telephone poles.In fact,the City Staff Report,page 8,confirms that the trees were only 33% as high as the telephone poles.Given the fact that the Paulucci property is 25 feet in elevation below plaintifI's property,these trees admittedly did not impair Applicant's view.This fact is obvious from photographs attached as Exhibit "I",which show the subject trees and subject poles.The difference in elevation in the propel1ies can be seen in the photographs.It is impossible for the trees to have blocked the view in 1951.Also attached as Exhibits "J"and "K"rep0l1s of surveyor David Grimes and arborist Greg Monfette confirming this fact. The other historic photographs provided by the City do not confirm any pre-existing view blockage.The photographs fi'om Los Angeles Home Magazine do not show the subject home of Paulucci at all,or the subject trees,which rest further east of the home in the photograph.The only other photof,'Taph,consisting of one taken from the Wayfarer's Chapel,do not indicate the height of the trees either. All evidence,including the City's own photographs and Staff Report,confirm that Trees 1-4 did not block Applicant's view in 1951. 2.The Snbject Trees and Shrubs Comply with all of the View Restoration Criteria Applicant contends that the only photograph shows at the May 8,2012 hearing misrepresented the Applicant's Viewing area and was taken from the f,'uest room,instead of the living room. This fact is obvious from the City's own photographs of the viewing area,which werc never presented at the Planning Commission Hearing. As discussed above,all criteria relating to plaintiff s View Restoration Permit,has been complied with.FU11hermore,there is not evidence that Trees 1-4 cannot be trimmed further. One side of the trees has already been trimmed and the trees are in perfect health.A further trimming on the other side,which was prematurely stopped by Mr.Paulucci,can be conducted with ease. 8 ATTACHMENTS 2-29 July 16,2012 Page 9 of9 SPECIFIC ACTION REOUESTED OF CITY COUNCIL Applicant request the following: I.That trees]-4 on the Pau]ucci property be trimmed and feathered to allow Applicant to restore her affected view of Catalina Island and be maintained in the future; 2.That the shrubs covering plaintiffs cove view be trimmed to restore her affected view of the cove. 3.That the City modify P.C.RESOLUTION 2012-08 in accordance with the above. 9 ATTACHMENTS 2-30 EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHMENTS 2-31 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES FOR RESTORATION OF VIEWS WHERE FOLIAGE IS INVOLVED (VIEW RESTORATION PERMITS) AND PRESERVATION OF VIEWS WHERE FOLIAGE IS INVOLVED (CODE ENFORCEMENT) ADOPTED ON: July 20,2010 Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS 2-32 TABLE OF CONTENTS I.PURPOSE .2 II.DEFINITIONS 3 III.ESTABLISHING THE VIEWING AREA 4 IV.APPLICATION PROCEDURES 6 V.MANDATORY FINDINGS 9 VI.COMMISSION ACTION 15 VII.APPEAL OF COMMISSION DECISION 21 VIII.VIEW PRESERVATION 22 ATTACHMENTS Notice of Intent to File a View RestorationNiew Preservation Permit Application Form View RestorationNiew Preservation Permit Application Form View Restoration Permit Early Neighbor Consultation Process View RestorationNiew Preservation Permit Process Flowchart View RestorationNiew Preservation Appeal Process Flowchart Map of Miraleste Recreation and Park District Boundaries List of Streets within the Miraleste Homeowners'Association RPV Development Code Section 17.02.040 Sample View Restoration Private Agreement Documentation of Existing View or Foliage Form ATTACHMENTS 2-33 View RestQration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures July 20,2010 I.PURPOSE A.The View Restoration Commission was created in accordance With Article 17 of Paragraph A of SectionZ of the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners Association and the City of Rql1(:ho Palos Verdes City COuncil Cooperatiye View Preservation and Restoration ordinance,which Was passed by the voters ofthe City on November 7,1989.The Ordinance has been codified into the City's Municipal Code as Section 17.02.040,View Preservation and Restoration. B.The ballot me<\sure,which was approyed by the voters,states the purposes of the Ordinance as folloWs: "The hillsidesQf the CitycQnstltute a limited natural resource in their Scenic V;;ilue to all resiclents pf;;ind visitprs to the City.The hillsideS provide potenti.1l vista points a"d VieWlot~..The City'sGeneral Plah recol'Jnizes lhese natural resources and calls for their protection.The public health,safety and welfare of the City .require prevention of n!!edlessc!estruction and imp;;iirment of these limited vista points and vieW lots•.The purpose ofthis Orc!il1~nce is lopromote the health,sMety and general Welfare of the public by accomplishing the purposes set forth below,and this Ordinance shall be administered in aecordance with such purposes.Where this Ordinance is in cpnflict with other City ordinances,the stricter shall apply. Speeifieally,this OrdinaMe; 1.Protects,.enhances .and perpetuates views available to.property owners and visitors because of the unique tq:pPgraphical features of the Palos V!!!rd!!!s Peninsula.These..vi!!ws previa!!!unique arId irreplaceable assets to the City and its n!!!ighbpringcommunitiesand provide for this anc!future :generatjfms examples of the unique physicalsurr(lundings Which are characteristic of the City. 2.Defines and protects finite visual res(lurces by establishing limits which construction and plant growth can attain b!!fpre encroachingpnto a view. 3.Insures that the development of each parcel of land or ac!ditions to residences or structures occur in a manner which is harmonipus and maintains neighborhood compatibility alld the character of contiguous sub-community development as defihed iii the General Plan. 4.Requires the pruning of dense foliage or tree growth which alone,or in conjunction with construction,exceeds defined limits." Page 2 ATTACHMENTS 2-34 View Restorationandf>reservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures July 20.,2010 ThllS,Ihegeneral purpose of the Ordinance is 10 promote theheaIth,safety and general welfare of the residents of the City,by balancing the rights of the residential property owner with foliage againsttherights oftheresidential property owner to have a view frpm a viewing area restored so that it can be enjoyed,when that view has been significantly impairer;i by foliage. C.The Planning Commission accomplishes its purpose through a process of View Restoration Permit application,site inspection,public hearings and a decision on the application.The Commission's jUri!,diction is limited 10 issues regarding view impairment caused by foliage,through tl)e issuance of View Restoration Permits,and appeals of City Tree Review Permits and view preservation determinations. D.View restoration requests involving trees located on City-owned property, such as public parks,parkways and medians along public streets,are administered by City Staff through the issuance of a City Tree Review Permit issued pursuant to Section 17.76.100 of the Municipal Code.Staff decisions on City Tree Review Permits,and view preservation determinations are appealable to the Planning Commission.When reviewing Staff decisions regarding City Street Tree Review Permits,the CommisSion shall utilize the same process as is followed when the Commission reviews a View Restoration Permit application,excluding the early neighbor consultation process. Decisions of the Planning Commission on all view related permits are appealable to the City Council. II.DEFINITIONS A Viewing Area Section 17.02.040 (A)(15)of the Rancho PalOS Verdes Municipal Code defines "viewing area"as follows: "Viewing area"means that arei\of astructlire (exclUding bathrooms, hallways,garages or closetS)or that area.of a lot (excluding the setback areas) where the owner and City determine the best<lnd most important view exists.In structures,the finished floor elevation of<lny viewing area must be at or above the existing grade adjacent to the exterior Wall of the part of the building nearest to said viewing area." B.View Section 17.02.040 (A)(14)of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code defines "view"as follows: "On the Palos Verdes Peninsula,it is quite common to have a ne<lr view and a far view bec<luse of the nature of m<lny of the hills on the peninsula. Therefore,a 'view',which is protected by this section,is as follows: Page 3 ATTACHMENTS 2-35 View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures July 20,2010 a.A 'near view'Which Is defined as a scene located on the peninsula including,but not liittited to,a valley,ravine,equestrian trail, pastoral environment or .any natural settingj8ndfor b.A 'far view'which is defined as a scene located off the peninsula including,but not limited to,the ocean,Los Angeles basin, city lights at night,harbor,Vincent Thomas Bridge,shoreline or off shore iSlands. A 'View'which is protected by this Section shall not include vacant land that is developable under the city code,distant mountain areas not nonnally visible nor the sky,either above distant mountain areas or above the height of off shore islands.A 'Vi.ew'may extend in any horizontal direction (360 degrees of hori~ontalarc)and shall be consideradas a single view even if broken into segments by foliage,structures(lr other interference." Ill.ESTABLISHING THE VIEWING AREA A.Section 17.02.040 (B}(5)estabHshl;lS the procedure for determining the "viewing area"asfollbws: "The determination of a vieWing areit shall be made by balancing the nature of the villw to be protected and the importance ofthe area of the structure or lot from where the view is taken.Once finally determined for a particular lipplication, the viewing area may not be changed for any subsequent application.In the event the city and owner cannot ilIgrE!1l on thE!viewing area,thll dllcislon of the city shall control.A property owner may appeal tile detenninatiC:>n of viewing area.In such event,the decision on the viewing area Will be made by the body making the final decision on the application.A proPElrtyownE!r may preserve his or her rigllt to dispute the decision on viewhlQ area for ill subsequent application without disputing the decision (In a pending applicatic)O by filing a statement to that effect and indicating the viewing area the property owner believes to be more appropriate.The statement shall be filed with the city prior to consideration of the pending application by the City." B.The "viewing area"of the applicant's property is where the best and most important view is taken.The determination of the "viewing area"is made "by balancing the nature of the view to be protected and the importance of the area of the structure or lot from where Ihe view is taken".After adoption of a Resolution or after a decision is rendered on a View Restoration Permit,View Preservation Application,or City Tree Review Permit,the applicant(s),foliage owner(s)or any interested person may file a timely appeal (accompanied With the appeal fee established by the Cily COunCil)of the City's detennination of the viewing area. 1.On developed lots,the "viewing area"may be iocated on any levei surface within the house (excluding bathrooms,closets,hallways or garages),which is Page 4 ATTACHMENTS 2-36 View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures July 20,2010 at or above theexistihg gradeadjaCeht to the exteriOr wall of the part ·of the building nearest to the "viewing area"or within the buildable area of the lot.A viewing area may be located on a patio,deck,balcony or lawn area.which is adjacent to the primary .structure (generally within ten feet)and which is loC<Jted on the same generCllgr<Jde on the lot as the primary structure,excluding the required setback areas aM used as a gathering area,in determining the viewing area on ·a developed lot,greater weight generally will be given to locations within the primary structure where a view is taken than to 10Gf:lfions outside of the primary structure where .a view is taken,unless no view is taken from within the primary structure. 2.On properties where the applicant Claims that he or she has <J view from one or mOre locations either within or outside of the primary structure,it must be d.etermined where the b.est <Jnd most important view is t<Jken to determil1ethe "viewing area"which is to be protected.The "viewing area"May only include multiple rooms or locationS on the applicant's property if those Jocations share the same Vi.ew. 3.The "viewing area"may only be 10C<Jted on a second (or higher)story of a structure if; a.The construction of that portion of the structure did not require approval of a height variation permit or variance,pursuant to Chapter 17.02.040 of the Rancho Palos Verdes MUnh:;ipal Code,or wpuld not have required such a permit if that Section had been in effect at the time that portion of the structure was constructed;or b.The viewing areClis looatedin a PClrt pf the structure thatcpnstitutes the prim<Jry living area pf the house,which is the living room,dihing room,family room or kitchen.HoweVer,the.vieWing area may be located in the master bedroom,!fa View is not taken from one of the rooms comprisinl,j the primary living area,and the master b.edroom is located on the same story of the hQuse <Jsthe prima.ry living arep. 4,In documenting the Views,Stafflisually Will cdnduct the vieW analysis in a natural standing position.In lhose Gf:lsesWhere the view is enjoyed from a seated pQsition,Staff will verify if that is the case,and if so,will conduct the view analYsis from the seated position in that area at a height of not less thpn three (3)feet,six (6)inches. 5.Situations involving residential remodels that affect previously existing viewing Clreas: a.If a residence is leg<JJlY remodeled whereby the viewing area, which had been established preViously through the issuance of an approved View Restoration,View Preservation or City Tree Review Permit,is eliminated,the approved VieW Restoration,View Preservation or City 'Tree Review Permit shall remain in full force <Jnd effect,unless a new application is filed by the subject property Owner,and the prior determination is amended or repealed by a subsequent decision of the Planning Commission or City Council or Community Development Director. Page 5 ATTACHMENTS 2-37 View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures July 20,2010 b.lfa residence Isleg.aUy remodeled whereby the vieWing area, which had been established previously through the issuance of an approved View Restoration.View Preservation or City Tree Review Permit,is modified so that the vieWing area is in a different location in the residence or is significantly altered by the remodel,a neW vieWing area in the remodeled structllrema.y be established by the Planning Commission or City Council or Community Development Director purSuant to a decision.on",new View Restoration,View Preservation Or City Tree Review Permit application filed by the subject property owner.In such situl:ltions,any previously issued View Restoration,View Preservation or City Tree Review Permit decision may be entirely or partially amended or repealed by the subsequent decision of the Planning Commission Or City COuncil or Community DevelopmenlDireclor. IV.APPLICATION PROCEDURES A.Once an applicant completes the early neighbor consultation process described in Section V,A (M",ndatol)'Findings)of these Guidelines and the view problem is not resoJved",nd theapplic",nt wishes to pr{)ceed,the applicant(s)rlll:lY complete and submit a View Restoration PermitappJicationform (see attached form}to the City's Department of Community Development,accomPa.nied by the appropriate filing feel',in order to initiate a formal request for.a View Restoration Permit. B.It should be noted that the fees required for a View Restoration Permit are established by the City Council by resolution. C.The following fee structure Pertains to View Restoration Permits only and is designed so that the applicant pays tWo separale.flatfeesasfolloWs· 1.The first fee is a fixed amountthat is paid by an applicant to cover the City's costs associClted with processing steps,such as reViewing the application for completeness,conducting the initial site visita~d processing a formal application from submittal through a Planning Commission deciSion.Specifically,said fees would cover the costs of reviewing an application for completeness,conducting site visits,attending the public hearing(s)and preparing the Staff Report(s)and Resplution(s). 2.The second fee or follow"up fee is a fixed amount established by City Council resolution that would be paid by an applicant if an application is approved by the Planning Commission.Specifically,this fee would cover the review of the trimming/removal bids,the monitoring of the work,",nd the documentation of the restored view. 3.The establishment of a trust deposit account by an applicant to cover the cost of the actual foliage trimming/removal,as described in Section VI-K (Commission Action)is separate from the two processing fees described herein. D.Once a formal View Restoration Permit application has been submitted,the City will review the application to determine if the information is complete,before Page 6 ATTACHMENTS 2-38 Villw Restoration and Pres.llrvation Permit Guidelines and Procedures July 20,2010 beginning processing the application.lfat1yinfonnatibh is missing or components of the application are incomplete,the applicant wm be notified of any deficien.eies in writing,and the application wUl be held in abeyance until thEl nElcessary malElrialsare receiVed by the City.If anapplicl;lntdoes not submit the necessary informatiqnl:md the applicatlqn remains incomplete for six (6)months,the City shall administratively withdtaWthe application. f.Once the application is deemed complete,the following sequence .of steps shall occur in order to process an application fqr a View Restoration Permit (I;llso see attached flow chart): 1.Staff notifies the foliage oWO$r(s),in writing,that a format request for view restorl;ltion hl;lsbeenfilad with the City,attl;lchinga copy oUheiapplication. 2,Staff schedules and Condllctssite Ylsit(s)to the applicant's andfoJiage owner's properties.During the first site visit to the foliegeowner's property,Staff will inquire as to whethar thafoli;:iga Qwnar wishas toh;:ive the Commission members visit their property.A foliage Ownarm;:iy H,lquesl COmmissioners visit his/her proparty in order.to fUlly assess the case or demonstrate unique site conditions,sllchasspecial landscaping,slope stability or privacy concerns.Requests for the Commission to visit a foliage owner's prOPElrty must be mada in writing by the foliage owner and will be honored by tha Commission. 3.Staff prepares a Staff Report to the Planning COmmission,which will inClude thEl following: a.Application form; b.Early Neighbor Consultation documentation; c.An analysis of the six mandatory findings as set forth in Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(c)of the City's Municipal Code; d.Recommendation(s)on tha disposition of the application; e.Determination if any of the Commission members are ineligible to participate on the application,based on a conflict of interast dua to the proximity of a Commissioner's properties to the property that is the subject of thaapplication.If a Commissioner owns property that is located within 500 feet of the subject property,a conflict is presumed; f.A tentative site visitation schedule for Commission members. 4.Staff establishes a date for the public haaring on the application and provides written notice of the hearing to the applicant(s)and the foliage owner(s)a minimum of 30 days prior to the hearing date.Notice of the hearing date shall also be Page 7 ATTACHMENTS 2-39 View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures July 20,2010 published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City or clearly posted on each applicant's property. 5.Staff distributes the staff report to members of the Planning Commission a minimum of two weeks prior to the actual hearing date,and the Commissioners visit the site{s). a.Commissioners are required to visit the applicant's property. Eligibility to participate in the decision on a View Restoration Permit application is dependant on the Commissioner visiting the applicant's site{s)prior to the public hearing.If an applicant refuses access to his or her site,the request for a View Restoration Permit will be denied. b.Commissioners will visit the foliage owner's property if requested to do so by the foliage owner{s),in writing.Even if no request is made,Commissioners frequently will attempt to visit a foliage owner's property unless the foliage owner denies a Commissioner access.Although a foliage owner has discretion as to whether to allow Commissioners into his/her property,by not allowing site visits of their property,it may be more difficult for Commissioners to evaluate issues raised by the foliage owner when considering an application. c.Commissioners are responsible for arranging visits to the site{s). However,no more than three (3)Commissioners may visit the site at the same time. 6.The Planning Commission conducts a public hearing pursuant to the Commission's adopted Administrative Procedures.The Chairperson's instructions to the audience will generally follow these guidelines: a.Any person desiring to speak must first be recognized by the Chairperson. b.All participants must speak from the podium. c.All speakers must first state their full names and addresses,and the names of any persons in whose behalf they are appearing (if any). d.All comments must be made clearly and audibly. e.Repetition of comments should be avoided,and speakers will be discouraged from reading a submission which has been copied and distributed to the Commission or is contained in the agenda packet. f.Normally,the applicant{s)and foliage owner{s)will be limited to a five (5)minute presentation and a three (3)minute rebuttal (if requested).All other persons will be generally limited to a three (3)minute presentation each. Page 8 ATTACHMENTS 2-40 View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures July 20,2010 g.Except when necessary for immediate clarification of a particular point,no person shall be allowed to speak a second time until all others wishing to speak have had an opportunity to do so,and then only at the direction of the Chairperson. h.Due to unusual complexity of the case,submission of expert testimony or a large number of speakers on a particular case,the Chairperson,at his or her discretion,may allocate more than five (5)minutes per side and allow those wishing to speak on each side to designate a spokesperson or to divide the allotted time among themselves. 7.After the public hearing is closed and the Commission has reached a decision on the application,a resolution reflecting the Commission's decision shall be adopted by the Commission.The resolution shall be drafted by Staff and,where appropriate,reviewed by the City Attorney.If necessary,at a subsequent meeting,the resolution may be placed on the Commission's Consent Calendar for final action. Adoption of the resolution shall result in the issuance of a View Restoration Permit or denial of the request. F.Foliage not Specifically Designated Conditions of approval of View Restoration and Preservation Permit Applications specify individual trees or plants to be trimmed or removed.However,view-impairing foliage often grows in clusters or is screened by foliage in the foreground so that individual plants are not readily discernible.Therefore,foliage which is located on the same property and is in the view that was analyzed by Staff but was not specifically designated in the view analysis because it was behind other foliage which was specifically designated in the view analysis and was trimmed pursuant to the decision and the conditions of approval,shall be trimmed to the same height that was established by the Commission,for the designated foliage and the applicant shall pay the additional expense of having the foliage trimmed. G.Once the work is performed,Staff will document the applicant's view with photographs taken from the applicant's viewing area with a standard camera lens that will not alter the actual image that is being documented from the viewing area.The photographs will be kept on file with the City and copies shall be given to all involved parties to maintain the foliage in accordance with the City's final decision. V.MANDATORY FINDINGS Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(c)of the Municipal Code requires that,in order for a View Restoration notice to be issued,the Pianning Commission must make the following six mandatory findings: A."The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process and has shown proof of cooperation on his/her part to resolve conflicts." Page 9ATTACHMENTS 2-41 View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures July 20,2010 1.Each applicant must provide evidence of early neighbor consultation with each foliage owner,utilizing the process described below. 2.Evidence of adequate early neighbor consultation shall consist of each applicant filing a "Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Permit Application"with the City prior to the submittal of a formal View Restoration Permit Application.Said notice shall be on a form provided by the City and shall be signed by the owner of the applicant's property.Each applicant shall indicate,by marking the appropriate box on the "Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Permit Application"that the applicant has made an attempt to contact the foliage owner prior to submittal and shall submit written proof of that attempt in the form of a copy of a registered letter and the return receipt The notice shall include a signed statement from the applicant agreeing to meet with City representatives and each foliage owner that will be named in the pending application,to attempt to resolve any issues between the parties.The notice also shall indicate at least three days and times when the applicant is available to attend the pre- application meeting (see attached flowchart). 3.Upon receipt of a signed and complete Notice from an applicant,the Community Development Director shall provide written notification to each foliage owner listed in the Notice,via certified mail,of the pending application.The City's notification letter shall also request that the foliage owner attend one pre-application meeting at City Hall to discuss the City's view restoration process with City representatives and the applicant(s).The notification letter to each foliage owner shall contain three possible meeting times (date and time)identified by the City from which the foliage owner may select.The determination of the three meetings shall be based on the applicants'and City representatives'availability.The notification letter shall require that the foliage owner respond back to the City in writing,within 10 working days of the City's certified mailing of the notification,with one selected date. 4.If any foliage owner responds in writing with a date selection within the specified time frame,the Community Development Director shall arrange a pre- application meeting at City Hall between the applicants,the foliage owners and City representatives.Notice of the meeting shall be provided by the City to all parties,at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date. The purpose of the pre-application meeting is to discuss the City's view restoration process with the affected parties and attempt to resolve the issues in order to avoid the filing of a formal application. 5.The initial pre-application meeting arranged by the City shall occur no later than 60 calendar days from the date that a "Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Permit Application"is filed by an applicant with the City.Additional pre- application meetings with the City shall occur only if there is written consent from every applicant and foliage owner.This does not preclude foliage owners and applicants from meeting on their own with no City participation.If the applicant requests more than one Page 10ATTACHMENTS 2-42 View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures July 20,2010 meeting within a 12-month period,then the City shall charge the applicant a mediation fee (as established by City Council resolution)for each additional meeting,and the applicant shall pay the fee to the City prior to the scheduling of any additional mediation meetings. 6.The Community Development Director or his/her designee shall attend the pre-application meeting.In addition,a view restoration mediator shall attend the pre- application meeting.Mediators who reside within 500 feet of the applicant or foliage owner properties are ineligible to participate in the pre-application meeting. 7.Once an applicant submits a "Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Permit Application"and the City provides notification to a foliage owner of the pending application and requests their attendance at a pre-application meeting,the early neighbor consultation process shall be deemed to be terminated and the applicant(s)may immediately file a formal View Restoration Permit Application with the City if any of the following occurs: a.A foliage owner fails to respond in writing with a date selection within the time frame specified in the City's notification letter; b.A foliage owner notifies the City in writing that he/she does not wish to attend the pre-application meeting; c.A foliage owner fails to attend the arranged pre-application meeting; or d.Unless waived in writing by every applicant for a particular application,sixty (60)calendar days have elapsed from the date that a complete "Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Permit Application"was submitted to the City by the applicant(s). 8.If an agreement is reached between the parties as a result of the pre- application meeting,Staff and/or the Mediator will encourage the participants to prepare and will assist in the preparation of the private agreement for the parties to sign (see attached sample). 9.At the public hearing,the applicant may be asked to explain his/her specific efforts to comply with the ordinance requirement for attempting to resolve conflict. B."Foliage exceeding sixteen (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 when combined with foliage located on more than one property." Page 11ATTACHMENTS 2-43 View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures July 20,2010 1.After the location of the "viewing area"on the applicant's property is determined,the Commission must find whether foliage,which exceeds the lower of sixteen feet or the ridge line of the primary structure,significantly impairs a view from the "viewing area". 2.To determine which of the two measurements referenced in the paragraph above is the lowest,the sixteen (16)foot height measurement shall be measured from the base of the plant or tree (where it emerges from the ground), 3.For structures with multiple roofline heights that would block the view if the foliage were not present,foliage on the property,shall be lowered to the roofline of that portion of the structure that otherwise would block the view,as illustrated below in Figure 1.Where a structure with multiple roofline heights does not otherwise block a view,foliage on the property shall be trimmed to the applicable height limit set forth in this paragraph "B". Figure 1 Foliage 'A' Shall be ........ trimmed to the height of Roofline 'A' Roofline 'B'..........,..,....------................................ ""'"-J""--./'0-.......... ........Roofline 'P< Multiple Roofllne Structure with Foliage (Example:Ocean view from the appfic:ant's viewing area) ........Foliage'S' ........Shall be ........trimmed to the height of Roolline 'B' 4.Section 17.76.030 of the City's Development Code limits the height of hedges.A "hedge"is defined by the Code as "shrubbery or trees planted and maintained in such a manner as to create a physical barrier."A hedge can be included in a View Restoration Permit application,if the top of the hedge exceeds sixteen feet" the Planning Commission may require a hedge to be trimmed to the lesser of sixteen (16)feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure,if necessary to restore the view. However,if the top of the hedge is below sixteen feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure,whichever measurement is iower,these cases shall be referred to the City's Code Enforcement Division for resolution.Foliage which is determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department to be a fire hazard also shall be referred to the City's Code Enforcement Division for immediate resolution. 5.The Planning Commission may,at its discretion,require the review of any case by a qualified biologist or ornithologist,soils engineer,landscape architect, arborist,or other appropriate professionals.The Staff shall be responsible for obtaining qualified consultants to review and comment on the specific cases requested by the Commission.In cases where expert advice is sought by the City,the applicant(s)shall Page 12 ATTACHMENTS 2-44 View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures july 20,2010 be responsible for bearing those costs.Staff will advise the applicant of the estimated additional expense for the expert advice.If the applicant refuses to pay for that expense and does not augment the trust deposit to cover that expense,then the application will be administratively withdrawn by City Staff.If the applicant agrees to pay for the expert advice,and the advice is provided to the Commission,the Commission, again at its discretion,may abide by,or reject,the advice of the consultant(s). Commission decisions must be supported by substantial evidence in the record before the Commission. 6.The Commission shall only take action on foliage which significantly impairs a view from the applicant's viewing area.Foliage which does not significantly impair a view may remain in the applicant's view frame.The following criteria may be used to help determine whether a view is being "significantly"impaired by foliage: a.Foliage Position Within the View Frame.Foliage that is located in the center of a view frame is more likely to be found to create a significant view impairment than foliage located on the outer edge of a view frame. b.Single-component View vs.Multi-component View.Some view frames contain a combination of different view components,such as a view of the ocean,harbor and City lights (mUlti-component view);while some view frames consist entireiy of one component,such as only a view of the ocean (single-component View). Foliage that entirely obscures one of the components of a "multi-component"view is more likely to be found to create a significant view impairment than foliage that impairs the same degree of view of a "single-component"view (see diagram below). c,Prominent Landmarks.Greater weight should be given to prominent landmarks or other significant features in the view frame such as the Vincent Thomas Bridge,harbor,shoreline,distant mountain areas,city skylines,and Channel Islands.As a result,foliage which impairs a view of any of these landmarks is more likely to be found to create a significant view impairment. Page 13 ATTACHMENTS 2-45 View Restorationand'Preservatlon Permit Guidelines and Procedures July 20,2010 C."The foliage to be removed is located on property,any part of which is less than one thousand (1,000)feet from the applicant's property line.n Staff from the Department of Community Development will determine the distance from thee applicant's property line to the nearest property line of the site containing the foliage under consideration. D.''The foliage signIficantly impal-:ing the view did not exist as view impairing vegetation when the lot from which the view is taken was created." 1.Where the applicant's property and the property containing the foliage in question.are l>oth located in the 1>3me subdivision or In adjacent subdivisions,Staff will determine the date at which the lots were created.Generally.the lots'recordation date shall be the lots'creation data. 2.In other cases,the following sources of information may be used to determine the time when the foliage under consideration began to impair the view: a.Aerial photographs maintained by the City. b.Other phot09ra,phs taken on known dates indicating the presence ~f vegetation or lack of vegetation. c.Property descriptions prepared in ,connllQtion with the sale of property (e.g.multiple listing information,newspaper advertisements. real estate flyers,etc.). d.Testimony ofwltnesses. e.Any reports documenting land conditions or site surveys that include information about vegetation. 3.Recorded lot line adjustments shall not be considered to create a new lot for the purpose of determining the date when the lot was created. E."Removal or trimming of the foliage will not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the property upon which the foliage is located.n 1.The burden of proving an "unreasonable infringement of indoor and/or outdoor privacy·shall be on the foliage owner.The Commission will make a determination on ,a case-by-case basis. Page 14 ATTACHMENTS 2-46 View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures July ~O,2010 2.Givl3n the variety and number of options Which .<lre ava.ilable to preserve indoor privacy,greater weight generally will be .given to Protecting out(JGQr privacy than to protElcling indoor privacy. F."FoI ,property located within the boundaries of the Miraleste Recreation and Parks District,the Commission shall also find that removal or 'trimming of foliage strikes a reasonable balance between meeting the purposes of Section 17.02.040 s.et forth in Section 1 of the Ordinance approved by the voters on November 7,1989,and preserving 'the histo,rical development of the Miraleste Recreation and Parks District with large numbers oftrees." 1.The Miraleste Recreation and Parks District has adopted a procedure for responding to view restoration and maintenance requests for foliage located on its property.Such properties own'ed by the District are not sUbject to the City's View Resto~ation Permit process. 2.Properties located within the boundaries oUhe District,but owned by a person or entity other than 'the Disltict,are sUbject to the View Reslor~tion Permit process and the additional finding above. 3.A map of the boundaries of the Miraleste Recreation and Parks District and ,a iist of the streets within the Miraleste Homeowners'Association are attached, VI.COMMISStON ACTION A.If the CommisSion is able to make ,all of the mandatory findings set forth in Sj3ction V (Mandatory F'indings)abQve,then the Commission must determine the action{s)which mustt1e taken t9 restore the view.Suph action(s)m<lyinl;:lude culling, lacing,trimmirig,or removal otthe foliage,which is significantly impairing the View from the vieWing area.These terms are defined as 'follows: 1.Culling~hall me<;ln the removal of dead,decayed,or weak limbs or foliage from a tree or shrub.. 2.Lacing shall mean a comprehensive method of pruning that systematically removes excess foliage from a tree or shrub,but maintain~its shape, 3,Trimming shall mean the removal of limbs or foliqge from a tree or shrub,Trimming includes.but is notlitnited to: a,"Crown reducing",which isa comprehensive method of pruning that reduces a tree's or shrub's height and/or spread.Crewn reduction entails the reduction of the top,sides or individual limbs by means of removal of the leaders or the longest portion of limbs to a lateral branch large enough to assume the terminal;and, Page 15 ATTACHMENTS 2-47 View Restoration and Preservation Permit GUidelines i\nd Procedures July 20,2010 b.·Crown raising",which i$~'Comprehensive methoQ of pruning that removes limbs and foliage froni the lower part ofa tree or shrub In order to raise the canopy of the tree or shrub over-the view. c."Topping",which is the cuttin.g otbranches andlor trunk of a tree or shrub in a manner which substantially reduces the overal!height of the tree or shrub. 4.Removal shall mean the removal and disposal ota tree or shrub,by grinding the shrub's or tre,e's stump to the eXisting grade or a depth beloWE'!JCisting grade to be determined by the Planning Commission on a case,by,case basis.If existing topography or other physical limitations identified by the 'tree service contractor preclude mechanical stump grinding,the stump shall be 'flush cut to existing grade or as close to existing grade as possible,as determined by thE'!tree :service 'contraotor.If a foliage Qwner'Wishes tq keep th'e stump,he or she may so eIElP!;·!.hlilO.in nO case,may therernaihii1£l slumP hei.ght exceed 18 inches aboVegraqe.Unless othelWisedlrecfed by the Commissioh in connection with the deCision M a particular appllcalion,removal of the foliage shall not include the removal and disposal ofa plant~ro.ot system. B.If COlny tree .orshr:ub thatis ordereel to be culled,laced.Qr trimm.ed dies within two years of the initial work being pelformed ,due to,the performance .anITa Work,the applicant or any subsequent owner of the applicanl's property shall be responsible for providing a replacement tree or shrub to the foliage owner.This time period may be extended by the Commi!1sjcln if eviqence is prDvided bya certified aieporist"that a longer monitoring period is .necessary·fOi"a specific type of 'tree or shrub.However,if.the city arborist determines that culling,lacing,or trimming ,said tree or shrub will"in all probabillty "Gaulle the tree or shrup t9 die,and the foliagE!QWner chOOSes not toaccl;lpt removal Clnd replacement as an option,eitn,er in writing or in public te$timony dyringthe public hearing,then the applicant will not be responsible for provIding a tepiacernent tree or shrub to the foliage owner.The .repla.cement foliage shall be provided in accordan.ce wi~h the.·specificatlons :describE'ldin s.ec:tion VI-E'(Commission Aci)ori)of these GUidelines.If the work is performed 'by the foliage 'owner,;:laid foliage owner .shall forfeit tlie right :to replacement foliage if the trimmed tree dies.lf a tree or shrub dies it is subject to removal pursuant to Section 8.24.060 (property maintenanCe)of the RPV Municipal Code. C.Complete removal of any remaining portion of the tree or shrub that does not significantly impair the view will only be ordered if the owner of the property where the foliage is located consents to the complete removal of the remaining tree or shrub and the Commission finds: 1.That upon the advice of the City's arborist,CUlling,~adng,or trimming the foliage to sixteen (16)feet or the ridge line is likely to kill the tree or shrub or threaten the public health,safety and welfare;or Page 16 ATTACHMENTS 2-48 View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures July 20,2010 2.That upon the advice of'the.City's arborist,cullhig,lacing,or trimming the foliage to sixteen (16)feet or the ridgeline will destroy the aesthetic value of the foliage that is to be trimmed,laced or reduced in height D.ln order to balance trimming,the commission may require trimming portions of a tree or shrub that are below 16 feet or the ridgeline provided the foliage owner agrees.If a foliage owner agrees to such trimming,then he must do so either in writing,within 30 days of final approval of a View Restoration or View Preservation Permit or in public testimony taken during the hearing.If the foliage owner does not agree,then the foliage owner will not be reqUired to trim,lace or prune below that level and the applicant will not be required to pay for the additional work. E.The Commission also may order the <lpplicant to replace trees or shrubs which have been removed if the owrier of the property where th·e foliage Is located consents to the replacement of the tree or shrub and the Commission finds: 1.That removal without replacement foliage will ca\lse a significant adverse impact on: a.The public health,safety and welfare; An example of this would be a situation Where tI')6re is evidence before the Commission that replacement foliage is needed to help stabilize a slope or minimize slope erosion. b.The privacy of the owner of the property where the foliage is located; An example of this WOuld be a sitUation where there is evidence before the Commission that replacement foliage to mitigate the 105$of privacY proVided by pre-existing foliage is needed to !lelp screen Qr block vieM;from the appljcant'~property into the foliage owrier'~usable yard area (deck,patio,pooUspa area,barbecue ar$)and/or residence (unless interior privacy can be achieved by other means). c.Shade proVided to the dwelling or the property where the folla.ge is located; An example of this would be a situation where there is evidence before the Commission that replacement foliage is needed to help provide shade to an area of the foliage owner's property,such as a usable yard area (deck,patio,pool/spa area,barbecue area)or residence,that is receiving shade from the foliage that is to be removed. d.Theenergy-efficiency of the dwelling where the foliage is located; An example of this would be a situation whwe there is evidence before the Commission that replacement foliage is needed to help cool an area of the foliage owner's residence in the summer months that is being kept cool by foliage that is to be removed. Page 17 ATTACHMENTS 2-49 View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines .md Procedures July 20,2010 -e.The hei3lth or viability of the remaining lanqscl'.\ping where the foliage is 10Gated;or An example of this would be a situation where there is evidence before the Commission that replacement foliage is needed to help provide shade to existing sun-sensitive landscaping on the foliage owner's property,that i.s receivin.g shade from the foliage that ·is to be removed. f.The integrity of the landscaping of the property on which the foliage is located. An example of this would be a situation where there is evidence befere the Commission that replacement foliage is needed to replace foliage that is a focal point or integr<!ll element of an existing landscaping plan. g.The function of the landscaping as screening of an unfinished wall or structural elements of a deck or{)fuersimilar structure on an adjacMt property. An example of this would be a sit\l<ition where tnereis evidence pefore the ·Commission that replacement foliage.is needed to replace foliage that provides effective Screening of unsightly featur-e(s)located M ahMjacent upslope property.Such featureS may include bL!t are not limited to unfinished walls,or the support elements underneath.decks and structures. F.The Commission shall ensure that replacement foliage is reasonably comparable to the foliage remOved in terms of function ,mdlor·aesthetics while understanding th?t the Tepla.cement foliage will not be onhe same height,size l'.\nd breadth as the pre-~lxisting mature foliage.For .example,if replacement foliage is determined to be necessary to replace foliage located on a slope,the replacement fonag~should be of a WQody.root species lIariety that provides soil stability.'rhe se.lectJon of the type of replacement foli~ge 1'ihall b€made by the foliage oW[1er subject to approval by the Community Development Director. G.The Commission is not obligated to order replacement of every tree or shrub ordered removed with a new tree or shrub.For example.,two new replacement trees may be able to provide the same level of privacy as five pre-existing trees that are ordered removed.Replacement trees or shrubs geITer-ally should be of a 15-ga1l6n size, and should not be larger than a 24-inch box size,unless warranted by the need to reasonably protect privacy or exceptional circ.umstances and the tree or shrub that is being replaced is substantially larger than a 24-inch box size. H.The Commission may require that a long-term foliage maintenance schedule be incorporated into the conditions of approval of an approved View ~estoration Permit. The purpose of the maintenance schedule is to dictate the minimum frequency of future trimming (I.e.semi-annual,annual or biennial)based on the growth rates of the subject foliage so as to not significantly impair a view.Alternatively, the Commission may Page 18 ATTACHMENTS 2-50 View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures July 20,201{) spe<;:ify the amount of llllqwable growth ,as m.easured with respect to a fixed point,of reference that will not significantly ,en'croaCh ihto the view,arid requite that When this point is reached,the foliage owner may be required to trim the foliage back 10 ihe height established by the Commission.In esillblishing :the maintenance schedule,the Commission may take into account seasonal dormarit periods of the subj~t foliage, when trimming is least harmful to the foliage, L The Commission shall require that a property owner trim or remove foliage within ninety (90)days.If no date is specified bY the Commis.sion,the ninety day lime frame shall commence upon the receipt {)f·a letter from the City notifying the foliage owner to trim/remove the foliage.Such a letter is sent bY the City once a trust accolJht has beenestabiished by the applicarit for the cost of the trimming/removal and tree or shrub replacement.Wifhinthe ninety (9.0)day time frame,but nol'less th<ln ·two weeks before the trimniing/removal ,d<:lte,the folilolgfl owner shall inform C-lty St!!ff of fhe9!!te apd loIpprqx.imate time'the work is scheduled tooceur.so that 'staff may be avallab!eon- site to ensure the Work is performed in actdtdatlce -With the Commlssiori's t1etisi.on, :Staff strOl'tgly encourages lhatthe foliage 'owner .to schedule a date during the Monday fhru FridaY workweek.Staffs on-site rnQnitoring af the treefiimming/rernaval work sh.all include,if necessary,directing the foliage owner to trim additional foliage that was not specifically designated by the Plahnihg ConimisSioh but found by ;staff to be significantly impairing the same view after the specified foliage is triiTlmed,provided the Planning Commission had impos--ed such a c.ondition in its decision.Said additional foliage shall be trimmeq to the same heigl)t that was established by the CommissiOn for the designated foliage arid lhe applicant shall pay the additional expense of having the foiiage ttimmed,. If evjderwe is provided to the Commission that a tree or shrl!b,subject to tree trimming ot removal,contains nests (or .e.ggs)·of birds that ate designated under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California aepartment of FiSh and Game Code,the Commission may require that the -subject foliage be trimmed -Within a ninety (90)day time period after the nest(s}is determined by a qualified biologist or ornithologist to be inactive, If evidence is provided to the Commission that it is less harmful to trim certain foliage during the foliage's dormant periqd;the Commissiol)m<3.Y require thatthe subject foliage be trimmed ninety (90)days from an established date.In situations where foliage is dormant during the winter months,the Commission shall require that the trimming be performed during the months of November through March,In situations where the Commission determines that not all of the foliage on a property needs to be trimmed during a specific time of the year,the Commission may take either of the follOWing actions: 1,Establish a specified time period for trimming the time-sensitive foliage and establish a different time period for trimming the remaining foliage.This will require the foliage owner to perform two separate trimming .actions. Page 19 ATTACHMENTS 2-51 View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures July 20,2010 2.Establish a specified time periOd fOr trimnung the time-sensitive faiiage and require that the remaining foliage also be trimmed at that time. J.Unless the Commission specifies the <;Imount of allowable growth pursuanHo subsection Vl-H the Commission mllY require that all maintenance sc/iedules incorporated into the conditions of approval of a View 'RestoratiOn Permit be reviewed at a future date to allow the CommiSSion an opportunity to assess the adequaoy of the maintenance schedule,as well as the foliage owner's ability to maintain the foliage in compliance with the conditions of approval.The review date shall occur a minimum of one year after the initial trimming is performed.The specific date shall be set by the Commission at the time it makes its decision on a View Restoration Permit,and shall be based on the growth rates of the sObject foliage,as well as any other factors that the Commission finds are pertinent to the decision.On or about thespecifiecl review date, City Staff will inspect the foliage sites and transmit a brief report to the Commis,sion which describes whether the foliage is being maintained in accordance with the conditions of approval.The report shall aiso contain a recommendation from City Staff as to whe.ther the maintenance schedule should b.e amended.The Commission shall consider the report and determine If a public hearing to amend the l;:Oncfitlons of approval is necessary.If a pUblic hearing is dete'r'niiried 10 beneeessary;Staff shall transmit to the Commission a report With recommendations for additional Or modified conditions of approval.Notice of the puollc hearing shail be provided In the same manner as required by Municipal Code Section 17.02.040 for the original public hearing. The Commission decision on the review heaiing is appealable 10 the City Council pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.02.040. The Commission shall re,qllire that an appli~nl submit one (1)to three (3) itemized estimates to the City for carrying out the'work required by an approved View Restoration Penuit.The WOrk estimate shall also include tree or shrub removal and replacement costs for any trea or shrub that dies as a res.ult ~f the ordered trimming, provided that the tree or shrub Was not a tree or shrub identified by the City Arborist as likely to die as a result of said trimming.Said astim,ales shall be submitted within thitty (30)days after the adoption of the Resolution and shall include the cost to have an ISA certified tree trimmer or accredited arborist on site to perform or supervise the work being done.Said estimates are to be supplied by licensed landscape or licensed tree service contractors,acceptable to the City,which provide insurance by insurers in a form acceptable to the City,and shall include all costs of cieanupand removal of debris. Said insurance shall identify the property owner and the City (and its officers,agents and employees)as additionally named insuredS,and shall have a coverage amount of no less than $1,000,000 for each occurrence and no less than $2,000,000 in the aggregate.In addition,the applicanl shall pay to the City an amount equal to the lowest of the estimates and such funds shall be maintained by the City,in a City trust account until completion ofthe work as verified by City Staff. Upon completion of the work,the fonage owner shall submit a copy of a paid invoice to the City.Within 10 calendar days of the submittal of the invoice and verification by City Staff of compliance,the City shall authorize the transmittal of funds Page 20 ATTACHMENTS 2-52 View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures July 20,2010 from the City trust account to the foliage owner.If there are remaining funds in the trust account to cover the costs of removing and replacing trees or shrubs,then the funds shall remain in the trust account for a period of two years or longer if determined by the Planning Commission until City Staff determines that removal of dead trees or shrubs is not warranted.A reimbursement check to the foliage owner shall be released by the City no later than 30 days following Staffs authorization.If the paid invoice submitted by the foliage owner is for an amount less than the funds in the City's trust account,the foliage owner shall only be transmitted an amount equal to the aelual cost of the trimming.In such situations,the balance of the trust account (less the monies needed to remove and replace dead trees or shrubs)shall be refunded to the applicant within 30 days of receipt of the appropriate billing.If the paid invoice submitted by the foliage owner is for an amount that exceeds the funds in the City's trust account established for the initial trimming or removal and replacement of trees or shrubs,the foliage owner shall only receive the funds from the City trust account and the foliage owner shall be responsible for paying the difference.If a foliage owner chooses to do the reqUired work himself/herself,the foliage owner shall not be compensated from the City trust account and the amount in the trust account shall be refunded to the applicant(s). If the required work as specified herein is not completed,as verified by Staff, within the stipulated time periods,then the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will utilize the City's code enforcement process to authorize a bonded tree service to perform the work at the SUbject property at the foliage owner's expense,and the applicant's deposit will be refunded.In the event that the City is required to perform the work,the foliage owner will be billed for all City expenses incurred in enforcing the View Restoration order.If the foliage owner does not pay the invoice,a lien or assessment may be recorded against the foliage owner's property,pursuant to Title 8,Chapter 24 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. VII.APPEAL OF COMMISSION DECISION A.A decision of the Commission on a view related permit is appealable to the City Council.After considering the written and oral testimony at the appeal hearing,the City Council may take one of the following actions: 1.Affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and approve the application upon finding that all applicable findings have been correctly made and all provisions of Section 17.02.040(CX2)of the Municipal Code have been complied with; or 2.Approve the application but impose additional or different conditions as the City Council deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of Section 17.02.040(C)(2);or 3.Disapprove the application upon finding that all applicable findings cannot be made or all provisions of Section 17.02.040(CX2)have not been complied with;or Page 21 ATTACHMENTS 2-53 View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures July 20,2010 4.Refer the matter back to the Planning Commission to conduct further proceedings.The remanded proceedings may include the presentation of significant new evidence which was raised in conjunction with the appeal.The City Council shall state the ground(s)for the remand and shall give instructions to Planning Commission concerning any error found by the City Council in the Commission's prior determination. 8.The appeal hearing may be conducted in a room other than the regular City Council chambers (e.g.the Fireside Room at the Hesse Park Community Center).The establishment of specific time allotments for speakers is optional and may be set or waived by the Mayor at the Mayor's discretion.The room may be arranged in a manner that promotes a "round table"discussion among the involved parties. VIII.VIEW PRESERVATION With regard to foliage obstructing a view after the issuance of a View Restoration Permit or upon the effective date of the Ordinance (November 17,1989),Section 17.02.040(BX3)of the Municipal Code states: "Foliage Obstruction.No person shall significantly impair a view from a viewing area of a lot: a.By permitting foliage to grow to a height exceeding the height determined by the View Restoration or Planning Commission through the issuance of a View Restoration Permit under subsection C.2 of this section;or b.If no View Restoration Permit has been issued by the View Restoration Commission or Planning Commission,by permitting foliage to grow to a height exceeding the lesser of: (i)The ridge line of the primary structure on the property,or (Ii)Sixteen (16)feet. If foliage on the property already exceeds the provisions of subdivisions (i) and (ii)referenced above on the effective date of this Section,as approved by the voters on November 7,1989,and significantly impairs a view from a viewing area of a lot,then notwithstanding whether any person has sought or obtained issuance of a view restoration permit,the foliage owner shall not let the foliage exceed the height existing on the effective date of this section (November 17, 1989).The purpose of this paragraph is to ensure that the owners of foilage which violates the provisions of thIs paragraph on the effective date of this section shall not allow the foliage to increase in height.This paragraph does not 'grandfather'or otherwise permit such foliage to continue to block a view." Page 22 ATTACHMENTS 2-54 View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures July 20,2010 A.View Preservation After the Issuance of a View Restoration Permit (Maintenance Trimming) 1.After the issuance of a View Restoration Permit (VRP)and the initial foliage trimming and/or removal has been'completed in accordance with the approved permit,Staff shall document the restored view through the use of color or black and white photography or other method approved by the Commission.The photographic documentation shall be made part of the City's permanent records and shall be kept on file at the Community Development Department.Once the initial work associated with an approved View Restoration Permit is performed and the restored view is documented with a photograph,the photographic documentation of the restored view shall be used as a benchmark by City Staff for making a determination of significant view impairment in any future view preservation enforcement actions that become necessary. Upon receipt of a complaint from a View Restoration Permit (VRP) applicant or the subsequent owner of an applicant's property,that foliage subject to a VRP decision has exceeded the height Jimit imposed by a View Restoration Permit,City Staff shall visit the site and examine the photographic documentation on file or other evidence to determine whether the foliage has been maintained in a manner that is consistent with the approved View Restoration Permit (VRP).If foliage which is the subject of an approved VRP exceeds the height limits prescribed in the approved VRP, the City shall order that the foliage owner bring the foliage into compliance within 30 days.If the foliage owner does not comply within the specified time,the City will impose a fine (established by Council Resolution)and the matter will be forwarded to the City Attorney's office.Alternatively,if the foliage does not exceed the height limits prescribed in the approved VRP,the City will impose a fine (established by Council resolution)against the applicant.If City Staff determines that the foliage is in compliance with the VRP,no further action will be taken in response to the complaint. Unless specified in a Commission approved long-term maintenance schedule,a property owner shall be limited to filing a complaint about foliage subject to an approved VRP,without payment of a fee a maximum of once every twelve (12)months.If a property owner wishes to file a complaint more frequently than once every twelve (12) months,the property owner may do so upon payment of a fee established by City Council Resolution. 2,If foliage not subject to the View Restoration Permit subsequently grows into the VRP applicant's documented view,said new foliage shall be considered significant view impairing foliage only if the new foliage exceeds the lesser of the ridge line of the primary structure on the property or sixteen (16)feet.Upon notification from a property owner that the new foliage has grown into the documented view,Staff will visit the VRP applicant's property to verify that the new view-impairing foliage is not in compliance with the foliage conditions shown in the documented photo.If such a situation is found,then Staff shall issue a written notice to the foliage owner informing him/her that Staff has verified that the documented view is significantly impaired by foliage on the property.Such notice shall require that the foliage owner trim or remove Page 23 ATTACHMENTS 2-55 View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures July 20,2010 the offending foliage to the condition shown in the documented view photograph on file with the City,within 30 days of receiving such notice and maintain such foliage on a schedule equivalent to the minimum trimming maintenance cycle imposed by the Commission or Council for the foliage that is subject to the associated View Restoration Permit. 3.If the maintenance trimming described in Sections VIII-A2 and A3 is not completed by the foliage owner as specified by City Staff,within the stipulated time periods,then the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will utilize the City's code enforcement process to authorize a bonded tree service to perform the work at the subject property at the foliage owner's expense.In the event that the City is required to perform the work,the foliage owner will be billed for all City expenses incurred in enforcing the View Restoration permit.If the foliage owner does not pay the invoice,a lien or assessment may be recorded against the foliage owner's property,pursuant to Title 8,Chapter 24 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. B.View Preservation in Absence of a View Restoration Permit 1.An owner of foliage is responsible for protecting any right he or she has to exceed the foliage height limitations that went into effect on November 17,1989,by submitting the appropriate documentation,which can include photographs. 2.The property owner wishing to protect his/her existing view is responsible for submitting:1.)documentation of the view,as it existed on or after the effective date of the Ordinance;and/or 2.)documentation of the view impairing foliage as it existed on November 17,1989.Documentation shall consist of the submittal of a "Documentation of Existing View or Foliage"Form (attached)accompanied by color or black and white photographs,which clearly provide evidence that accurately depicts the view and/or foliage as it existed from the property owner's Viewing area on the date the photograph was taken.The submitted documentation shall be verified by City Staff with a visit to the view impaired site.If Staff is able to verify that the photographs accurately depict the view from the property owner's viewing area,as defined in these Guidelines, then the property owner's photographs will be incorporated into the City's files.If said photographs do not accurately depict the view from the "Viewing area",then Staff will advise the property owner that the documeniation has been rejected.Any verified photographs will be kept on file in the Department of Community Development and shall be used as a bench mark in future view preservation enforcement actions. 3.Once documentation of a view and/or foliage has been submitted to the City and verified by City Staff,a property owner may file a Notice of Intent to File a View Preservation Application requesting one of the follOWing view preservation actions: a.That foliage which exceeded the lesser of:a)the ridgeline of the primary structure on the property;or b)sixteen (16)feet,and significantly impaired the view from a viewing area of a lot on November 17,1989 be trimmed to the height that existed on November 17,1989,as shown in the submitted and verified documentation; Page 24ATTACHMENTS 2-56 View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures July 20,2010 b.That foliage which exceeds the lesser of:a)the ridge line of the primary structure on the property;or b)sixteen (16)feet and has grown into a property owner's view,as documented and verified by City Staff on or after the effective date of the ordinance (November 17,1989),and significantly impairs the view from a viewing area of the lot,be trimmed so as to eliminate the significant view impairment. 4.Upon receipt of a Notice of Intent to File a View Preservation Application,Staff will visit the applicanfs property to verify if there is a significant impairment and to eliminate the need to proceed further in the process if there is no significant view impairment.(f Staff determines that no significant view impairment exists from the viewing area,then Staff shall advise the applicant that there is no need to proceed with the Notice of Intent to File request.Notwithstanding Staffs initial field determination,the applicant still may formally apply for a View Preservation Permit seeking the Director's Final Determination on the permit request.If the Director's Final Determination in response to said application is that View Preservation action is not warranted,no further action by the foliage owner is necessary in response to the filed application.The Director's Final Determination is appealable to the Planning Commission. If a significant view impairment is found,then Staff shall issue a written notice to the foliage owner informing him/her that Staff has verified that the documented view is significantly impaired by foliage on the property,and such notice shall request that the foliage owner trim or remove the offending foliage to the condition shown in the provided documented view photograph within 30 days of receiving such notice. a.If the foliage owner voluntarily performs the necessary work within 30 days of receiving notice,then no further permit processing shall be required. b.If no work is performed within 30 days of receiving the notice,then the applicant may file a formal application.Once a formal View Preservation Permit application has been submitted,a Notice of the Director's Determination shall be issued to the applicant and foliage owner(s)giving the foliage owner ninety (90)days to perform the necessary work. c.The Director may require that a long-term foliage maintenance schedule be incorporated into the conditions of approval of an approved View Preservation Permit.The purpose of the maintenance schedule is to dictate the minimum frequency of future trimming (i.e.semi-annual,annual or biennial)based on the growth rates of the subject foliage so as to not significantly impair a view. Alternatively,the Director may specify the amount of allowable growth as measured with respect to a fixed point of reference that will not significantly encroach into the view,and require that when this point is reached,the foliage owner may be required to trim the foliage back to the height established by the Director.In establishing the maintenance schedule,the Director may take into account seasonal dormant periods of the subject foliage,when trimming is least harmful to the foliage. Page 25 ATTACHMENTS 2-57 View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures July 20,2010 d.The Director's Determination may be appealed to the Planning Commission by the applicant,the foliage owner or any interested party by filing a written appeal and submitting the appropriate fee,as established by City Council resolution,to the City within fifteen (15)days of the receipt of the Director's Determination Notice. Prior to the public hearing,Commissioners shall conduct a site visit to the applicant's property pursuant to Section IV (E)(5).Commissioners will also visit the foliage owner's property if requested in writing to do so by the foliage owner(s).The decision of the Commission may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant,the foliage owner or any interested party by filing a written appeal and submitting the appropriate fee,as established by City Council resolution,to the City within fifteen (15)days of the Commission's decision. 5.Once the appeal process has been exhausted,the City's View Preservation Determination Decision shall be final.If the City's final determination is that view preservation action is warranted on a particular property,the foliage owner shall be responsible for trimming the foliage,at hislher expense,as so ordered by the City.If the reqUired work as specified herein is not completed,as verified by Staff, within the stipulated time periods,then the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will utilize the City's code enforcement process to authorize a bonded tree service to perform the work at the subject property at the foliage owner's expense.In the event that the City is required to perform the work,the foliage owner will be billed for all City expenses incurred in enforcing the View Preservation permit.If the foliage owner does not pay the invoice,a lien or assessment may be recorded against the foliage owner's property, pursuant to Title 8.Chapter 24 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. 6.Once the initial work associated with a formal View Preservation decision is performed,Staff will document the applicant's view with photographs taken from the applicant's viewing area with a standard camera lens that will not alter the actual image that is being documented from the viewing area.The photographs will be kept on file with the City and copies shall be given to all involved parties to use for future trimming purposes. 7.The filing of an application by a property owner requesting a view preservation action without payment of a fee shall be limited to a maximum of once every twelve (12)months.If a property owner wishes to file an application more frequently than once every twelve (12)months,the property owner may do so upon payment of a fee established by City Council Resolution. 8.Upon receipt of a written complaint from a View Preservation Permit (VPP)applicant or the subsequent owner of an applicanfs property,that foliage has exceeded the height limit imposed by a View Preservation Permit,City Staff shall visit the site and examine the photographic documentation on file or other evidence to determine whether the foliage has been maintained in a manner that is consistent with the approved View Preservation Permit (VPP).If foliage.which is the subject of an approved VPP,exceeds the height limits prescribed in the approved VPP,the City shall Page 26 ATTACHMENTS 2-58 View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures July 20,2010 order that the foliage owner bring the foliage into compliance within 30 days.If the foli!lge owner does not comply within the specified tinie l the City will impose a fine (established by Council R€solution)and the matter Will be foiWarded to the CitY Attorney's office.Alterrtatively,jf the foliage does not exceed the height limits prescribed in th-e approved VPP,the City will impose a fine {established by Council resolution)against the applicant.If CitY Staff determines that the folipgeis in compliance With the VPP,no further action Will be taken in respolise to the complaint. C.Review Criteria for View Preservation Applications in the Absence of a View Restoration Permit In order for a View Preservation Application to be approved,the CommunitY Development'Director must make the.following five findings: 1.The appliCant h.asCQ!llplied with the early neighbor ,c~ms!Jlt;ltion process and has shown proof of cooperation On his/her part to resolve conflicts. a.Each applicant must pro\ide eVidence of -early neighbor consultation with each foliage owner,utilizing the process descriPed berow. b.Evidelice of adequateear:ly neighbor consultation shall colis.ist of Mchapplicant filing a "Noticeo!Intent to File a View Preservation Application"with the City prior to the submittal of a formal Vil;lW Preservation App.!ication.S.aid notiCe shall be on a form provided by the City and shall be sighed 'by the oWner oflhe applicant's property.Each applicant shall indicate,by marking the appropriate box on the "Notice of Intent to File a v'iew Preservation Permit ApplicatiQn"that the applic,mt has made ~n attempt to con.tact the foliage pwner prior to submittal and shall submit written proof pf that attempt in the form ota copy of a regjstered letter anI'!the return receipt. (1 ).UPOh .receipt of a signed andcQmplete Notice from an applicant,the Community Development Pire,dor shall prqvide written noiification to each foliage owner listed in the Notice.via certified mail,of the pending applicatioh.The City's notification letler shall also request that each fOliage owner trim 'or remove 'the offending foliage to the height ,and condition shown in the proVided documented view photograph within 30 days of receiving such notice. (2).Once an applicant submits a "Notice of Intent to File a View Preservation Permit Application".and the CitY proVides notification to a foliage owner of the pending application,the early neighbor consultation process shall be deemed to be terminated and lhe applicant(s)may Immediately file a formal View Preservation Application with the City if the foliage owner fails to voluntarily perfurm the work within 30 days of receiving written notice from the City. (3).If an appeal hearing is necessary,the applicant may be asked to explain his/her specific efforts to comply with the ordinance requirement for attempting to resolve conflict. Page 27ATTACHMENTS 2-59 View Re.storation and Preservation Permit GUidelines and Procedures July 20,2010 2.Foliage exceeding:sixteen (16)feet .of the ridge lilie ~f the primary structure,whichever is lower,significantly'impairs a view from the applicant's Viewing an~a,whether such foliage 'is located totally on One property,or when combined With foliage loc,lted on more ,than one property. a.After the location ofthe "viewing area"on the applicant's property is determined,the Director must find whether foliage,which exceeds the lower of sixteen feet or the ridge line of the primary structure,significantly impairs a view from the "viewing area". b.To determine which of the two measurements referenced in the paragraph above is the lowest,the :sixteen (16)foot height measurement shall be measured from the base of the plant or tree (where it'emerges from the ground). c,ForstructLires with multiple roofline heights.that would block the view if the foliage were not preseni,foliage.on the property shall be loweted to the roofllne of that portion of the structure that o.therwise would ,block the view.Where a structure with multiple roofline heights dOes not otherwise block a view,foliage on the property shall be trimmed to the ~pplicable height Iimit-setforth in this paragraph 2, d.Section 17,7t:l.Q30 of the City's Development COde limits the height of hedges.A "hedge"is defined by the Code as "shrubbery or trees planted and maintained in such a manner as to create a'physical barrier."A hedge can be included in a View Preservation Petrl:Ut application,jf the lop of the hedge exceeds s.ixteen feet in height or the ridge line of the primary structure,whichever meas\Jrementis lower,In such cases,lhe Director m~y reql,Jirea hedge to be trimmed to the lesser ofsixteen (16) feet or the ridge line of the primary strUcture,if necessary to restore the view.However, if 'the top of the hedge .is below sixteen 'feet or the ridge line of the primary structure, Whichever measurement is lower,these cas.es shall be referr~d to the City'sCo:de Enforcement Division for resolution.Foliage which is determined 'by the los Angeles County Fire Department to be a fire hazard also shall be referred to the City's Code Enforcement Division for immediate resolution. e.The Director shall only take action on foliage which significantly impairs a view"from the applicant's viewing area,Foliage which does not significantly impair a view may remain in the applicant's view frame.The following criteria may be used to heip determine whether a view is being "significantly"impaired by foliage: (1),Foliage Position Within the View Frame.Foliage thOlt is located in the center of a -view frame Is more likely to be found to create a significant view impairment than foliage loCated on the Quter edge of a view frame. (2),Single-component View vs.Multi-component View.Some view frames contain a combination of different view components,such as a view of the ocean,harbor and City lights (multi-component View);While some view frames consist Page 28ATTACHMENTS 2-60 View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures July 20,2010 entirely of one component,such l!S only ~vieW of the ocean (single-component vie~). Foliage that entir'€iiy obseures orie of the components cfa "multi-compOnent"viaw is more likely to be found to create a significant view jrnpairment than foliage that impairs the same degree of view .of a "single-component"view (see attached diagram). (3).Prominent Landmarks'.Greater weight should be given to prominent landmarks or other significant features in the view frame such ·as the Vincent Thomas Bridge,harbor,shoreline,distant mountain areas,city skylines,and Channel Islands.As a result,foliage which impairs a vir;lw of any of these landma*s is more likely to be found to create a significant view impairment. 3."The foliage to be removed is located on property,any part of which is less than one thousand (1.,000)f&et from the appltcant'sproperty .Iine," Staff from the Department :of Community DeVelopment wil!determine the distance frOin the applicant's property line to the nearest property Hne of the sitE! containing the foliage un"der consideration. 4.The foliage significantly impairil'lg the vieW did hot exist as View impairing vegetation in November 19B9 or thereafter. 5.Removal Or trimming of the foliage will not calise ·an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the property upo,"Which the foliage is located." a.The b.urden of Rfovingan "unreasonable infringement of indoor and/or outdoor privacy"shall be on the foliage owner.The Dir.ector will make a determination on a case-by-case baSis. b.Giv~m ~he variety and number of options which are .available to preserve indoor privacy,grea~er weight generally will be given to protecting outdoor privacy than to protecting indoor privacy. Page 29ATTACHMENTS 2-61 EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHMENTS 2-62 Applicable Municipal Codes: Municipal Code Section 17.76.100 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 ohhis section. D.City Tree Review Permit Application.Any person owning land in the city may file an application for a city tree review penni!.An application for a city tree review pennit shall be made to the director on fonns 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 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 light-of-way that is impairing the view of the applicant; 3.A current photograph ofthe alleged view impainnent 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 pennit if,after conducting an investigation of the applicant's property,it is detennined 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. ATTACHMENTS 2-63 F.Conditions of Pennit 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: I.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 twenty-four-inch box size tree by the city.The city shall pay for all costs of tree and/or foliage removal and replacement. Trees and/or foliage that are removed shall not be replaced if the following conditions exist: i.The replacement tree or foliage will immediately cause a significant impainnent of the view from the applicant's viewing area; 11.The director of public works detennines 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 pedesltian access within the public right- of-way; b.The city shall make the final detennination as to the type and number of replacement trees and/or foliage,if any. c.If a person who has received notification of the director's decision files a written request to not remove the tree or foliage (within seven days of the notification),then the tree and/or foliage may be pruned instead of removed,provided the following conditions can be met: I.The director detennines that the pruning of the subject tree and/or foliage will eliminate the significant impainnent of the applicant's view; ATTACHMENTS 2-64 II.The director detelmines that the pruning of the subject tree and/or foliage will not result in an unsightly tree and lor likely kill or weaken the tree; 111. 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)(l) of this section enter into an agreement that is recorded on the title ofthe 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 detennined 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 detennines that the tree and/or foliage needs to be removed in order to restore the applicant's view,the city shall determine whether the tree and/or foliage shall be replaced,and shall make the final detennination as to the type and number of replacement trees and/or foliage. b.If the city detennines 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 impainnent by the tree and/or foliage. ATTACHMENTS 2-65 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 perfonned 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: I.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. 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)ofthe 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 pennit shall be effective until all applicable appeal periods have been exhausted. ATTACHMENTS 2-66 EXHIBIT "C" ATTACHMENTS 2-67 C1..ATTACHMENTS 2-68 ATTACHMENTS 2-69 C!J ATTACHMENTS 2-70 ATTACHMENTS 2-71 EXHIBIT "D" ATTACHMENTS 2-72 ATTACHMENTS 2-73 ATTACHMENTS 2-74 ATTACHMENTS 2-75 EXHIBIT "E" ATTACHMENTS 2-76 Crown raise by removing lower limbs containing pine needles witbin red rectangle outline to expose Catalina Island vicw .,-"....' -....~,. 2 Pine trees- Thin out the lower crown within yellow outline to expose ocean view Reduce crown of Pepper tree to yellow line level ~/ A T T A C H M E N T S 2 - 7 7 ~"'''''''1 ••'••"'"-.=..._....,•.~...... -:q~--__"l l ......... ~_.~-~.--..~- -.......~....-- ATTACHMENTS 2-78 ATTACHMENTS 2-79 ATTACHMENTS 2-80 ATTACHMENTS 2-81 ~-, T __"~'"."f.""-.~4i1 ~~~.~....""'--~Ii' ATTACHMENTS 2-82 EXHIBIT "F" ATTACHMENTS 2-83 Memorandum of Understanding Be it known to all parties that Da'ad Makhlouf residing 3125 Narcissa Drive,Rancho Palos Verdes,CA,hereinafter referred to as "View Owner".Mark Paulucci residing at 24 Narcis}3 Drive,Rancho Palos Verdes,CA hereinafter referred to as "Foliage Ovmer" on this ~day of January 2012,agree as follows: The "Foliage Owner"agrees to the following: I.Perform the prescribed pruning to the following trees: a)Remoye one (1)Aleppo Pine tree located in the side yard of the property.Tree indicated by blue line in the attached photo. Removal defined as flush cut to the ground as close as possible. b)Lace remaining four (4)large Aleppo pine trees,defined as removing 30%foliage reduction,per the attending arborist's recommendation.Trees located in the side yard of the property. Note:Branches and foliage to be removed as part of the lacing described in item 1b will be determined by the attending arborist for the trees health.Ifthe arborist feels appropriate, the View Owner would appreciate if the foliage in the areas circled in yellow on the attached photo could be part of that 30%foliage reduction. 2.The Foliage Owner has obtained a bid from a licensed and bonded tree service.Bid attached.The Foliage Owner will pay Finley's Tree and Landscape $1000.00 of the total cost for the work as described in items 1a and Ib above to be performed.Method of payment dependent on the approved vendor's policies and procedures. 3.The Foliage Owner will schedule the work as described in Item No.la-b above.The initial work to be completed within thirty (30)days from the date the agreement is signed by all participants,pending the tree vendor's schedule. In consideration of the above,the "View Owner"agrees to the following: I.Upon completion of the work as described in items I a-b above,pay Finley's Tree and Landscape $3000.00 of the total cost for the foliage and removal as described in item 1a-d above.Method of payment dependent on the approved vendor's policies and procedures. ATTACHMENTS 2-84 Foliage Owner·.-1.~_=::::====~_ 2.If the tree(s)die due to the trimming the View Owner will pay for the complete removal of the dead or dying tree(s)and replacement with a 24"box tree,or the fmancial equivalent.The detennination of the trees condition and cause to be made by a certified arborist and provided in writing." Please be aware that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,its employees,officers, contractors or any other persons,corporations or entities acting on behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are not Party to this agreement,and shall have no responsibilit},or liability ny costs or damages that arise ont of this agreement. D""~C View Owner -".(-_~----~'~·~.:;_~'-/----'-'==-------- ;)1' Date .I -..s.'.-j;A ATTACHMENTS 2-85 EXHIBIT "G" ATTACHMENTS 2-86 222D8 S.Vermont Ave. Torrance,CA.9D502 Ucense#B97701 e27,D49 January 5,2012 Mark Palucci 24 Narcissa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA.90275 Finley's Tree and Landcare,Inc.proposes to provide the necessary labor and materials to do the following work: East Side of Property (3)Pines Middle (1)Pine Closest to Ho use (I)Pine Lace out 30%of green foliage,remove yellow highlighted limbs to Scott's specs for view restoration Remove to ground level Lace out 40-45%of green foliage,remove selective limbs over house to balance (Scott will be present wiIJ be onsite for balancing of tree) TOTAL COST TO PERFORM:$4,000.00 PAYMENT TERMS:1_( Mark Palucci agrees to pay $1,000 ofrora/jab cosl (upon comp/etian)x~__l/\_If-_ -V •.~-::;>---.,....Da'Ad Maklllouf ogrees 10 pay S3,000 ofrora/job cosr (upon completion)x,---=~'",~:;..-_"'_-_ In preparation for work to be performed on your property please use the following guidelines to pre'l'ent damage to your property: •NotifY neighbors that you are having your property worked on especially if we will be trimming their trees/plants overhanging your property. •Move any landscape lights and/or other various garden lights out ofthe work area •Removefurniture,fountains,garden art,birdfeeders or any other breakable items hanging in the trees or in work area. On Day of Work: •Move cars out ofdriveway andfrom under trees. •Block offstreet parkiJlg in front ofproperty with trashcans or cones. ATTACHMENTS 2-87 22208 S.Vermont Ave. Torrance,CA.90502 License#897701 e27,D49 **We remove any debris generated from onr work.We are not responsible to damage due to hidden conditions,especially underground installations.Payment is due upon compietion of work.*** In the event any decisions regarding final specifications for the above work need to he made,either now or while work is in progress,please print or type name and telephone number of designated individual who will be em owed to make those decisions. Name.-"<-'-._~~.=::)'___~_::':-_~_-_·_·_·--_·"7"---Telephone '"j L 1:.."i.J.",J }(\C\:/i "k..,.'J.')1.,J t'" ~. Please indicate acceptance by signing this proposal and returning to the above address.Upon receipt,work will be scheduled to begin. Sincerely, Steve Finley Steve Finley@finleystreeandlandcare.com Accepted By --"'~~·~.._.'_....:~'_-/_.-_._-_._ ATTACHMENTS 2-88 EXHIBIT "H" ATTACHMENTS 2-89 Greg J.Monfette INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT -SPECIALIST IN ARBOR/CULTURE AND URBAN FORESTRY 4617 Purdue Avenue 0 Culver City,CA 90230 0 (310)902-6581 0 ncatree!lUca.n.colJ1 January 16,2012 D.Makhlouf 25 Narcissa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes Re:View of the water and Catalina Island Tree Case Management (TCM)was asked to evaluate the situation regarding the subject trees located across the street fTom you (at 24 Narcissa Dr)and fOlmulate an opinion as to if the conditions of the agreement with the mediator was met. TCM reviewed the photograph that was provided by the mediator (which has the yellow highlighted lines distinguishing the focal area of concem in this case),the contract from Finley's dated January 5,2012 (which identifies the scope of work),photograph taken after the pruning incident (which shows the trees current condition,then conducted a site visit on January 16,2012 to personally observe the conditions at the site,and the following is our observations and findings: The above below identifies the area (between the yellow lines)of the view that was to be restored. The scope in Finley's contract states the following: "Lace out 40-45%of green foliage,remove selected limbs over house to balance" ATTACHMENTS 2-90 The photo below was taken after the tree trimming incident and it depicts the cunent condition of the tree as seen by TCM on January 16,2012. Observations: TCM visited the site on January 16,2012 to visually observe what took place.We observed that the trees in question were trimmed,meaning,a small amount of foliage was laced out from the trees and a few limbs were removed.It is apparent by the photos (and confirmed at my site visit on JanuaIy 16,2012)that maybe 10-20% of the green foliage was removed from the trees but the selective limbs over the house were not removed in order to balance the growth.This is visible from the site visit as well as the photographs provided in this report. Findings: The view of the water and Catalina Island remains obstructed as it was prior to the tree-trimming event. In order to rectify this situation the trees should be trimmed to remove the selected limbs over the house to balance the trees growth and provide the view of the water and Catalina Island. ATTACHMENTS 2-91 TCM feels the correct measure would be to remove the tree closest to the house entirely as this would provide a free and clear view of the water and Catalina Island.(Also,this trees growth is only toward the house which creates a dangerous condition for the homeowner because these trees are know to fall over in windy conditions and being that this tree is extremely out of balance it makes it a good candidate for failure) Note:TCM did not enter the property at 24 Narcissa Drive nor did we perform an evaluation of any of the trees on the site.However,TCM is highly recommending that the homeowner at 24 Narcissa Drive hire a consultant and have the trees evaluated to ensure they're structurally sound. I hope you find this information helpful in assisting to make the important decisions about dealing with these challenging tree issues. Assumptions and limiting conditions: 1.Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct.Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable.No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear,under responsible ownership and competent management. 2.It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes,ordinances,statutes,or other governmental regulations. 3.Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources.All data have been verified insofar as possible;however,the consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 4.The consultant will not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason ofthis report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made,including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement. 5.Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed,without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant. 6.This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant,and the consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value,a stipulated result,the occurrence of a subsequent event,nor upon any finding to be reported. 7.Unless expressed otherwise:I)information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection;and 2)the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection,excavation,or coring.There is no warranty or guarantee,expressed or implied,that problems or deficiencies ofthe trees or property in question may not arise in the future. 8.Arborists are tree-specialist who uses their education,knowledge,training and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees,and attempt to reduce the risk ofJiving near trees.It is higWy recommended that you follow the arborist recommendations and your "licensed/professional" tree care company's directions specifically.Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist,or seek additional advice. ATTACHMENTS 2-92 9.Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree.Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand.Conditions are often hidden within (rees and below ground.Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances,or for a specific period of time.Likewise,remedial treatments,like any medication,cannot be guaranteed.It is highly recommended that all trees be inspected at least two times a year. 10.Treatment,pruning and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist's services such as property boundaries,property ownership,site lines,disputes between neighbors,and other issues.Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. II.Trees can be managed,but they cannot be controlled.To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. Trees are a risk.The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.Trees should be inspected on a regular basis (monthly,quarterly,biannually,and annually). If you have any questions at anytime please contact me directly at 310-902-6581. Thank you, Greg J.Monfette Tree Case Management ATTACHMENTS 2-93 EXHIBIT "I" ATTACHMENTS 2-94 ATTACHMENTS 2-95 I u v :>"I !-,sv '0~+A-.<'~ \ ATTACHMENTS 2-96 ATTACHMENTS 2-97 ATTACHMENTS 2-98 ATTACHMENTS 2-99 EXHIBIT"J" ATTACHMENTS 2-100 1 1 ~JREE CAsE MANAGEMENT TCM M"~"'O(lI'"A1-L YuUK 'flt",~~1f,.D. Greg J.Monfette INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT -SPECIALIST IN ARBORlCULTURE AND URBAN FORESTRY 46 J7 Purdue Avenue 0 Culver City,CA 90230 0 (3 I 0)902-658 I 0 ncatree@ca.IT.com July 12,2012 D.Makhlouf 25 Narcissa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes Re:Water and Catalina Island View Tree Case Management (TCM)was asked to evaluate the situation regarding the subject trees,listed as trees #1 through #4 in the City reports,located at 24 Narcissa Dr and formulate an opinion to the fonowing: I.The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist as view impairing vegetation when the lot from which the view is taken was created. 2.If the pruning as identified by the mediator (the additional pruning needed to restore the view)will compromise the health of the tree and ultimately lead to its demise. TCM reviewed the photograph below,provided by the mediator,which identifies the scope of work and shows the trees condition.The photo below identifies the area (between the yellow lines)of the view that was to be restored. Findings: I.When the lot at 25 Narcissa was created (September 1951)the height of the subject trees did not exceed the lower yellow line in the above photograph.Therefore,the foliage that now significantly impairs the view did not exist as view impairing vegetation when the lot was created.This is evident by the fonowing facts: ATTACHMENTS 2-101 a.The photograph,produced by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,ofthe "little girl"that shows the trees in the background at height of only two-thirds the height of the lower power pole (photo taken June 1951). b.The age and growth characteristics of the subject trees. c.Aerial photography produced by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. d.The Survey conducted July 11,29012. Greater weight should be given to prominent landmarks or other significant features in the view frame such as the Vincent Thomas Bridge,harbor,shoreline,distant mountain areas,city skylines,Catalina Island,and Channel Islands. The view of the Water and Catalina Island remains significantly impaired as it was prior to the tree-trimming event.In order to rectify this situation the trees should be trimmed to remove the selected limbs over the house to balance the trees growth and provide the view of the water and Catalina Island. 2.If the trees are professionally pruned as required to remove the impairing vegetation the trees will not die and,with the proper care and maintenance,they shaH live for many years to come.This is evident by the foHowing fact: a.I have personally visited the site on two occasions (January 16,20 12 and July 9,2012)and two of the four trees that are subject of this case were already trimmed the way the other two should be trimmed (to remove the impairing vegetation)and they have not died and are doing very well at this time. It is important to note that Pine trees shall be pruned in the months ofNovember through February under the care and direction of a Registered Consulting Arborist to ensure they are pruned in a professional manner, according to the specifications set forth by the mediator,and to maintain their vigor. I hope you find this information helpful in assisting to make the important decisions about dealing with these challenging tree issues.If you have any questions at anytime please contact me directly at 310-902-658 I. Thank you, Greg Monfette Registered Consulting Arborist #481 State Contractors License #953525 wvvw.ncatree.com ATTACHMENTS 2-102 EXHIBIT "K" ATTACHMENTS 2-103 tG·.~~·lA~,c ..~IVI GRIMES SURVEYING &MAPPING,INC. ,.>:::.:.5248 HUNTINGTON DRIVE.LOS ANGELES CA 90032'323·223-1011 FAX 323·223·0265 REPORT OF SURVEY July 13,2012 Anabella Bonfa Wellman &Warren LLP 24411 Ridge Route Suite 200 Laguna Hills,Ca 92653 Re:View survey of trees at 24 Narcissa Drive,Rancho Palos Verdes GSM file no.2012090 BACKGROUND GRIMES SURVEYI G &MAPPING,was given the assignment of conducting a site view survey of the trees located at 24 Narcissa Drive,Rancho Palos Verdes. Specifically the assignment was to: (I)Review background photographs,including Exhibit E - a 1951 photograph. (2)Conduct a site inspection and survey (3)Prepare this Report of Survey. DISCUSSION On July 12.2012,I conducted a site inspection and survey to determine view conditions at the site. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The site inspection and survey revealed: 1)That the trees on the 24 Narcissa Drive property exceed sixteen feet in height. 2)These trees significantly impair a view of Catalina Island from the property at 25 Narcissa Dr. 3)The trees are located on property which is less than 1000 feet from 25 Narcissa Dr. ATTACHMENTS 2-104 4)The trees significantly impairing the view did not exist as view impairing vegetation,when the lot at 25 Narcissa Dr.was created. Sincerely, David F.Grimes, Professional Land Surveyor No.3774 ATTACHMENTS 2-105 EXHIBIT "L" ATTACHMENTS 2-106 CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PROJECT ADDRESS & APPLICANT: STAFF ~I COORDINATOR: THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 853 CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION \ COMMUNITY~ENT DIRECTOR MAY8,201r - VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT APPLICATION CASE NO.VRP2011·00064 MS.DA'AD MAKHLOUF,25 NARCISSA DRIVE,RPV AMY SEERATY T\~ ASSOCIATE PLANNER ~ REQUESTED ACTION:A REQUEST TO TRIM AND/OR REMOVE FOLIAGE LOCATED AT 22 AND 24 NARCISSA DRIVE,TO RESTORE THE VIEW FROM 25 NARCISSA DRIVE. RECOMMENDATION:ADOPT P.C.RESOLUTION No.2012.~DENYING CASE NO.VRP2011·00064 TO TRIM AND/OR REMOVE FOLIAGE ON PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 22 AND 24 NARCISSA DRIVE. REFERENCES: ZONING:SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-1) GENERAL PLAN:RESIDENTIAL TRAILS PLAN:NONE CODE SECTIONS:17.02.040 CEQA:CATAGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS IV) ACTION DEAOLlNE:N/A COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500 FEET OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:NONE 30040 HAWTHORNE BLVD.1 RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275-5391 PLANNING &COOl [NFOI~CEMENT DIVISION (3101544-52281 BUILDING &SAFETY DIVISION (:1101265-7800 /DtPT FAX 13101 544-' E·MAIL PLANi'ilNG11lRP\lCOi'1l WWWPALOSVERDESCOMJRPV ATTACHMENTS 2-107 Staff Report:View Restoration Permit No.2011·00064 May 8,2012 BACKGROUND: On November 21,2011,Ms.Da'ad Makhlouf,(the "Applicant")submitted a Notice of Intent to File for View Restoration Application No.2011-00064.(See attached Exhibit I.)Per the early neighbor consultation process,a pre-application meeting was requested with Mr.Mark Paulucci. and Corinne Gerrard,(the "Foliage Owners·)Foliage Owners at 24 Narcissa Drive and 22 Narcissa Drive,respectively.The applicant also requested a pre-application meeting with Ms. Patricia Horan and Joan Bauer (trustee)foliage owners at 28 Narcissa Drive,regarding their vacant lot known as APN 7572-017-014,located next to 28 Narcissa Drive. Subsequently,separate pre-application meetings were held at the applicant and foliage owners' properties.The mediator and CitY Staff held separate meetings with the foliage owners at 24 and 28 Narcissa Drive,as well as with the Applicant at 25 Narcissa Drive on December 20, 2011.It was determined that there was no foliage located on the vacant lot known as APN 7572-017-014 that extended into the view,and so mediation was concluded for this property. As a result of the pre-application meetings,the Applicant and the Foliage Owner at 24 Narcissa Drive were able to come to a private agreement regarding tree trimming and removal.This private agreement was memorialized by the City's mediator and signed by both parties.The trimming and removal work was completed on January 6,2012.However,after the trimming work was completed,it is Staff's understanding that although the trimming/removal work was completed per the private agreement,the Applicant was not satisfied with the amount of improvement of the view and so she filed a formal View Restoration Application with regards to 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive.(Although a private agreement was reached initially in this case,this does not preclude the applicant from filing a formal View Restoration Application.) Ms.Gerrard (22 Narcissa Drive)signed and mailed back the return receipt on November 23, 2011 from the certified letter requesting a pre-application meeting with the applicant.However, she did not submit the form indicating that she wished to attend a pre-application meeting,and so the applicant was released to proceed with the filing of a formal View Restoration application for the property at 22 Narcissa Drive.(It should also be noted that Ms.Gerrard did complete trimming of her Aleppo Pine tree and Eucalpytus tree in December 2011,per a request from and discussion with the applicant.Please see the ·Correspondence"section for additional information.) On March 28,2012,the Applicant (Ms.Makhlouf)submitted a formal View Restoration application along with the applicable fee.(See attached Exhibit I.)On March 29,2012,Staff mailed letters via certified mail as well as first class mail to the Foliage Owners informing them that the View Restoration Permit Application was submitted and scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on May 8,2012.On April 12,2012,Staff visited the Applicant's property to view the trees and take photos.Formal notice of the May 8,2012 public hearing was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News and provided to the affected parties on April 5, 2012 ANALYSIS: Site Description and View The subject properties are located on Narcissa Drive,off of Palos Verdes Drive South in the gated Portuguese Bend Community on the south side of the City.The properties in the general ATTACHMENTS 2-108 vicinity tend to have views generally southWard,eastward,and westward,overlooking the ocean,offshore Islands (Catalina &Santa Barbara),coastline,Long Point,Abalone Cove,and portions of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve.All of these components can be viewed from the Applicant's viewing area as described below. Applicant's Property The Applicant's property (25 Narcissa Drive)is developed with a one-story residence built in 1953.The Applicant's lot was created in September 1951 by Tract No.13836.The Applicant has views taken from all interior rooms (jiving room,kitchen,dining room,guest bedroom and master bedroom).The living room is consideret!by Staff to be the best and most important viewing area (primary viewing area)taken from the residence as the living room contains a view of all the aforementioned components of the multi-component view.(See Exhibit C,View Photo Diagram).The reason why the living room was selected by Staff as the primary viewing area is because the other rooms either have a narrower view extent,or some of the protected view components are not visible. Foliage Owners'Properties The Foliage Owners'properties at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive are each developed with a one- story residence.Both of the Foliage Owners'lots were created in April 1948 by Tract No. 14500.Both properties are located at a lower elevation and across Narcissa Drive from the Applicant's property.The bUilding records on file in'dicate that the homes at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive were both constructed in 1950. Type and Height of Subject Foliage Staff visited the Applicant's property in April 2012.During the site visit,Staff was able to identify nine (9)trees on the Gerrard property and ten (10)trees on the Paulucci property from the Applicant's viewing area.Staff also noted various other miscellaneous trees located in the rear yard of the Paulucci property,but determined that the trees did not exceed 16 feet in height,nor the ridgeline of the primary structure on the property,ahd did not significantly impair the Applicant's view.Table 1 below is a summary of Staff's recommendation for each tree on the two subject properties assessed by Staff.The tree locations are keyed to the site map and view photo diagram attached as Exhibit B and Exhibit C,respectively. Table 1 Tree Foliage Type Staff Recommendation Alternative Number Recommendation Trees located in rear yard of Mise trees No aclion as the required finding "S"No alternative Paulucci cannot be made for this tree.recommendation prODertv 1 Aleppo Pine No action as the required finding No alternative"D"cannot be made for this tree. (Paulucci)recommendation 2 Aleppo Pine No action as the required finding No alternative (Paulucci)"0"cannot be made for this tree.recommendation ATTACHMENTS 2-109 Staff Report:View Restoration Permit No.2011-00064 May 8,2012 Table 1 Continued Tree Foliage Type Staff Recommendation Alternative Number Recommendation 3 No action as the required finding No alternative (Paulucci)Aleppo Pine "0'cannot be made for these recommendationtree. 4 Aleppo Pine No action as the required finding No alternative (Paulucci)"0'cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 5 Pepper No action as the required ·finding No altemative (Paulucci)'B'cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 6 Aleppo Pine No action as the required finoing No alternative (Paulucci)"B'cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 7 Magnolia No action as the reqUired finding No alternatiVe (Paulucci)"B'cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 8 Olive No action as the required finding No alternative (Paulucci)"B'cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 9 Olive No action as the required finding No alternative (Paulucci)"B'cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 10 Olive No action as the required finding No alternative (Paulucci)"B'cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 11 Palm No action as the reqUired finding No alternative (Gerrard)"B'cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 12 Palm No action as the reqUired finding No alternative (Gerrard)'B'cannot be made forthis tree.recommendation 13 Palm No action as the required finding No alternative (Gerrard)"B'cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 14 Palm No action as the reqUired finding No alternative (Gerrard)"B'cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 15 Palm No action as the required finding No alternative (Gerrard)"B'cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 16 Aleppo Pine No action as the required finding No alternative (Gerrard)"B'cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 17 Pepper No action as the reqUired finding No alternative (Gerrard)"B"cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 18 No action as the required No alternative (Gerrard)Eucalyptus findings 'B'and "0"cannot be recommendationmadeforthistree 19 Canary Island Pine No action as the required finding No alternative (Gerrard)"B'cannot be made for this tree.recommendation ATTACHMENTS 2-110 Staff Report:View Restoration Permit No.2011-00064 May 8,2012 Summary of Staffs Recommendation It is Staffs opinion that only four (4)of the 19 trees located on the Foliage Owners'properties that are visible in the Applicant's view significantly impair the Applicant's mUlti-component view. However,Staff is not recommending any tree trimming action to occur for the reasons described below. From the Applicant's viewing area (living room)Tree Nos.1-4 are located in the approximate center of the view frame,and significantly impair the Applicant's view of the ocean and Catalina Island.However,Staff recommends no restoration action occur to these four (4)Aleppo Pine trees,Tree Nos.1-4,as Staff believes based on the estimated ttee heights shown in a 1951 photo of the trees,as well as input from the City's arborist,and other various historic photos, that the these fQur trees impaired the Applicant's view in 1951 when the Applicant's lot was created.Therefore,one of the six required View Restoration Permit approval findings (finding "0")cannot be made for these four Aleppo Pine trees. In regards to the remainder of the trees located on the Paulucci property,Tree Nos.5-10, although these trees each exceed sixteen feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure,Staff does not believe that these trees significantly impair the Applicant's view.Although some of these trees are located towards the center of the Applicant's view frame,they all impair a Qomparatively minimal portion of the Applicant's ocean view,and therefore,Staff cannot make the required View Restoration finding 'B"for these trees, Tree Nos.11-15 are located on the Gerrard property and although they do extend into the ocean view,because they are located towards the periphery of the view frame,and because they impair a comparatively minimal portion of the Applicant's ocean view,Staff does not believe these trees significantly impair the Applicant's view,and therefore.Staff cannot make the required View Restoration finding "B"for these trees. Tree No.16 is located on the Gerrard property,and although it extends into the ocean view, most of what the tree impairs is a view of developed land in Rancho Palos Verdes,which is not a protected view.Also,the tree is located towards the far right periphery of the view frame,and has been recently heavily thinned.Elecause of these aforementioned reasons,as well as the fact that Tree No.16 impairs a comparatively minimal portion of the Applicant's ocean view, Staff does not believe that this tree significantly impairs the Applicant's view,and therefore,Staff cannot make the required View Restoration finding "B"for this tree. Tree No.17 is located on the Gerrard property,and only impairs views of developed land in Rancho Palos Verdes,which is not a protected view.Therefore,Staff cannot make the required View Restoration finding "B"for this tree. Tree No.18 is located on the Gerrard property,and extends very minimally into the ocean view. Most of what the tree impairs is a view of developed land in Rancho Palos Verdes.Also, because it is located towards the extreme right periphery of the view frame, and because it impairs a comparatively minimal portion of the Applicant's ocean view,Staff does not believe that this tree significantly impairs the Applicant's view,and therefore,Staff cannot make the required View Restoration finding 'B"for this tree. Tree No.19 is located on the Gerrard property,and extends very minimally,if at all,into the ocean view.Most of what the tree impairs is a view of developed land in Rancho Palos Verdes, ATTACHMENTS 2-111 Staff Report:View Restoration Permit No.2011-00064 May 8,2012 Also,because it is located towards the extreme right periphery of the view frame,and because it only potentially impairs a very small portion of the Applicant's ocean view,Staff does not believe that this tree significantly impairs the Applicant's view,and therefore,Staff cannot make the required View Restoration finding "B"for this tree. Please see Exhibit C,View Photo Diagram for an illustration of the above information. City Arborist Comments Staff visited the foliage owners'properties on April 16,2012 with the City Arborist,Mr.David Hayes,to view the trees and take additional photos.Mr.Hayes has noted the folloWing in an arborist report dated April 16,2012.(Exhibit K) Aleppo Pine tree (Tree No.16)and Lemon Scented Gum (Eucalyptus,Tree No.18)at 22 Narcissa Drive: Mr.Hayes believes that the tree locations are consistent with the trees shown in the 1951 photo, and therefore the photo does show these trees existing in 1951. Aleppo Pine trees (Tree Nos.1-4)at 24 Narcissa Drive: It is Mr.Hayes opinion that the 1951 photo shows Ihe four Aleppo pine trees at 24 Narcissa.He believes that although two of the four trees have narrower trunks,they were all planted at the same time,most likely sometime in the 1940s. Staff also asked Mr.Hayes if the trees showed any evidence of land movement in the last 70 years,and he stated that it did not appear so. Mr.Hayes also stated that if these trees were to be crown raised for view purposes,they would not survive the trimming. MANDATORY FINDINGS: In order to grant the requested view restoration action,the Planning Commission must make all the following findings required by Section 17.02.040 of the Municipal Code: A)The Applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process and has shown proof of cooperation on his/her part to resolve conflicts. In November of 2011,the Applicant sent correspondence requesting that the Foliage Owners contact her to discuss potential work on their trees.The Applicant obtained no satisfactory solution so,in turn,on November 21,2011,the Applicant submitted a Notice of Intent to File for View Restoration Application No.2011-00064.Per the early neighbor consultation process,a pre-application meeting was requested with Ms.Gerrard,Mr.Paulucci,and Ms.Patricia Horan and Joan Bauer (trustee),foliage owners located at 22,24,and 28 Narcissa Drive,respectively. (Ms.Patricia Horan and Joan Bauer (trustee)were contacted regarding their vacant lot known as APN 7572-017-014,located next to 28 Narcissa Drive.)Staff and the City's mediator then held separate pre-application meetings with the Foliage Owners at 24 and 28 Narcissa Drive,as well as with the Applicant on December 20,2011. ATTACHMENTS 2-112 Staff Report:View Restoration Permit No.2011-00064 May 8,2012 APN 7572-017-014 (adjacent to 28 Narcissa Drivel As a result of this pre-application meeting,it was determined that there was no foliage located on the vacant lot known as APN 7572-017-014 that extended into the view,and so mediation was concluded for this property. 22 Narcissa Drive Ms.Gerrard did sign and mail back the retum receipt on November 23,2011 from the certified letter requesting the pre-application meeting.However,she did not submit the form indicating that she wished to attend a pre-application meeting,and so the applicant was released to proceed with the filing of a formal View Restoration application for the property at 22 Narcissa Drive.It should also be noted however that Ms.Gerrard did complete some trimming of her Aleppo Pine tree (Tree No.16)and Eucalyptus tree (Tree No.18)in December 2011,per a request from the applicant.Please see the "Correspondence"section for additional information. 24 Narcissa Drive As a result of the pre-application meetings,the Applicant and the Foliage Owner at 24 Narcissa Drive were able to come to a private agreement regarding tree trimming and remoyal.This prjYat~a£!.f:.eernent was memorialized by the ~J!Y.'s mediato[and signed by both parties.The tr!!!}ming and removal work was completed on January 6,2012.However,after the trimming work was completed,it is Staffs understanding that although the trimrningLreffiQYal wprk wa§. l{,ompleted per the private agreement,the Applicant was not satisfied with the amount of improvement of the view and so flied a formal View Restoration Application. Therefore,in accordance with Section V (A)of the View Restoration Guidelines,the Applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process,and this finding can be adopted. B)Foliage exceeding sixteen feet or the ridgeline of the primary structLire,whichever is lower,significantly impairs a view from the'Applicant's viewing area,whether such foliage is located totally on one property,or when combined with foliage located on more than one property. The miscellaneous trees located in the rear yard of the Paulucci property do not exceed sixteen feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure,nor do they significantly impair the view.As such,this finding cannot be adopted for these trees. Tree Nos.1-4 exceed sixteen feet and the ridgeline of the primary structure,and also significantly impair the view of the ocean and Catalina Island,as they are located in the center of the view and impair a portion of the ocean and Catalina Island View.As such,this finding can be adopted for these trees. Tree Nos.5-19 exceed sixteen feet or the ridge line of the primary structure,but do not significantly impair the Applicant's view.Accordingly,this finding cannot be adopted for these trees. ATTACHMENTS 2-113 Staff Report:View Restoration Permit No.2011-00064 May 8,2012 C)The foliage to be removed is located on property,any part of which is less than one thousand (1,000)feet from the Applicant's property. The Foliage Owners'properties at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive are located less than 1,000 feet from the Applicant's property at 25 Narcissa Drive,as the Applicant's and Foliage Owner's properties actually abut each other.As such,this finding can be adopted. D)The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist,as view impairing vegetation, when the lot from which the view is taken was created. 24 Narcissa Drive The Foliage Owner's lot at 24 Narcissa Drive was created in April 1948 by Tract No.14500. The Applicant's lot was created in September 1951 by Tract No.13836.Because the Foliage Owners'properties are located directly above the Wayfarers'Chapel property,Staff was able to locate numerous historic photos of the Chapel that also show the large Aleppo Pine trees (Tree Nos.1-4)located at 24 Narcissa Drive in the background.Mr.Paulucci also provided Staff with a photo taken in June of 1951 at 28 Narcissa Drive,looking towards the Wayfarers'Chapel and the properties at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive.(Exhibits 0 and E.)The trees at 22 Narcissa Drive (Tree Nos.16 &18)and 24 Narcissa Drive (Tree Nos.1-4)are visible in this photo.Two utility poles are also visible in the 1951 photo,and they appear to be the same standard height utility poles that exist today,(or at least new poles in the same locations)located along the property line between 24 Narcissa and the vacant property,APN 7572-017-014.These utility poles are 30 feet tall,and so when Staff compares the Aleppo Pine trees (Tree Nos.1-4)at 24 Narcissa Drive with these poles,one can extrapolate that the trees are approximately 33%of the total height of the poles,or about 20 feet tall.Staff also obtained a photo taken of the Wayfarers' Chapel while it was under construction (sometime between 1949 and 1951)from the Chapel's website (www.wayfarerschapel.org),where the large Aleppo Pine trees are visible.(Exhibit G) Staff also visited the property at 28 Narcisse Drive and took photos from the same angle that the historic 1951 photo was taken,to verify that the trees in the historic photo are currently in the same location,and thus are confirmed to be the same trees currently located at 24 Narcissa Drive (Exhibit E).Staff also reviewed a historic air photo of 22 Narcissa Drive from 1952 and compared the location of the Eucalyptus tree (Tree No.18)with current aerial photos to confirm the existence of this tree.(Exhibit H)Both of these determinations were confirmed by the City's arborist as well. Staff then considered the configuration of the Applicant's view.Upon examination of the view out in the field,as well as detailed review of the view photo,(Exhibit C),Staff observed that because of the topography of the Applicant's and Foliage Owner's properties,the Applicant's ocean view begins very close to where the Aleppo Pine trees (Tree Nos.1-4)emerge from the ground.Essentially,where the Applicant's view of the ocean begins is visible at a fairly steep "angle,and thus a tree of minimal height will extend into the ocean view,and impair the View. Staff has also reviewed these historic photos with the City's arborist,Mr.Dave Hayes,and he has verified that the trees shown in these photos are indeed the same trees currently located at 24 Narcissa Drive,most likely planted sometime in the 1940s. Accordingly,per this research,Staff believes it is ciear that Tree Nos.1-4 existed as view impairing vegetation when the lot from which the view is taken was created.As such,Staff cannot adopt Finding "0"for Tree Nos.1-4. ATTACHMENTS 2-114 Staff Report:View Restoration Permit No.2011-00064 May 8,2012 Also,as they are much smaller,it is likely that the other trees (Nos,5-19)located at 24 Narcissa Drive did not exist as view impairing vegetation when the Applicant's lot was created.So, although Staff can make finding "0"for Tree Nos.5-19,as noted above,Staff cannot make finding "8"for these same trees, 22 Nardssa Drive The Foliage Owner's lot at 22 Narcissa Drive was created in April 1948 by Tract No.14500, The Applicant's lot was created'in September 1951 by Tract No.13836.Staff reviewed the same 1951 photo provided by Mr,Paulucci (Exhibits 0 &E),as well as several historic photos from 1952 prOVided by the property owner at 22 Narcissa (Exhibit F),Staff reviewed the 1951 photo with the City's arborist,Mr.Dave Hayes and he believes that the Aleppo Pirie (Tree No. 16)and the Eucalyptus tree (Tree No.18)are visible in the photo.However,Staff believes that although these trees did exist when the Applicant's lot was created,(which is supported by the additional historic photos)only the Eucalyptus tree (Tree No.18)was likely a view impairing tree at that time,and not the Aleppo Pine (Tree No.16).Staff believes this is because as seen in the view photo (Exhibit C),the lower portions of the trees only impair views of Rancho Palos Verdes,and only the upper portions of the trees impair the protected view.In the 1951 photo, as well as the 1952 photos,only the Eucalyptus tree appears tall enough to have been impairing the view when the Applicant's lot was created. Also,as Tree No.17 is much shorter and Tree No,19 appears to be a younger tree,it is likely that these trees located at 22 Narcissa Drive did not exist as view impairing vegetation when the Applicant's lot was created,So although Staff can adopt this finding for Tree Nos.16,17 &19, Staff cannot adopt this finding for Tree No.18.However,as noted above,Staff cannot make Finding "8"for Tree Nos,11-19. E)Removal·or trimming of the foliage will not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the property upon which the foliage IS located. Due to non-compliance with Findings "8"and "0",Staff is not recommending that any trimming or removal occur to the trees located at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive.As such,this finding does not apply, However,it should be noted that if any of the trees were to be trimmed to expose the portion of view they do impair,this would not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the property upon which the foliage is located,as the portions of trees in the view do not screen the Foliage Owners'properties, F)For property located within the boundaries of the Miraleste Recreation &Park district, the Committee shall also find that removal or trimming of the foliage strikes a reasonable balance between meeting the purposes of section 17.02.040 set forth in Section 1 of the Ordinance approved by the voters on November 7,1989,and preserving the historical development of the Miraleste Recreation &Park District area with large numbers of trees. The subject properties are not located in the Miraleste Recreation and Park District.As such, this finding does not apply, ATTACHMENTS 2-115 Staff Report:View Restoration Permit No.2011-00064 May 8,2012 Correspondence 22 Narcissa Drive Staff received one letter from Ms.Gerrard,property owner of 22 Narcissa Drive.In her letter (Exhibit J),she states that she had met with Ms.Makhlouf in September 2011 to discuss the trimming of her trees to improve Ms.Makhloufs view.She states they met one additional time as well.Ms.Gerrard also attached an email conversation that occurred between herself and Ms.Makhlouf regarding their meetings and the tree trimming.Ms.Gerrard states in her letter that after these two meetings,she had trimmed her Aleppo pine'tree (Tree No.16),thinning the tree as well as removing additional branches to improve Ms.Makhlouf's view.She stated that she also trimmed her Eucalyptus tree (Tree No.17)and included the invoice from her tree trimmer for this work. 24 Narcissa Drive Staff received one letter from Mr.Mark Pau)ucci,property owner of 24 Narcissa Drive.In his letter (Exhibit J),Mr.Paulucci explains that he has participated in mediation with his neighbor at 25 Narcissa Drive on two occasions.He stated that he has removed several trees per agreements resulting from these two mediations.Mr.Paulucci also states that he believes the (Aleppo Pine)trees to pre-date the grading of his lot,and thus his trees should be protected per the View Guidelines.He has attached a photo from his next door neighbor (28 Narcissa Drive) as evidence.Mr.Paulucci also attached materials from the most recent mediation to his letter as well. CONCLUSION Staff believes that there is not sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested view restoration permit.Specifically,finding "8"cannot be made for Tree Nos.5 through 17 and 19, Finding "D"cannot be made for Tree Nos.1 through 4,and findings "8"and "0"cannot be made for Tree No.18.Therefore,Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution (Exhibit A)denying the Applicants'request for View Restoration by trimming andlor removing foliage on the properties located 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A -Draft P.C.Resolution Exhibit 8 -Site Map Exhibit C -View Photo Diagram Exhibit D -1951 Photo from 28 Narcissa Drive Exhibit E -1951 Photo from 28 Narcissa Drive with Current Photo Exhibit F-Historic Photos of 22 Narcissa Drive Exhibit G -Historic Photo of Wayfarers'Chapel Exhibit H-1952 Aerial Photo of 22 Narcissa Drive and Current Oblique Aerial Photo showing Eucalyptus tree (Tree No.18) Exhibit I -Application and Early Neighbor Consultation ExhibitJ - Correspondence Received from Interested Parties Exhibit K -City Arborist Report dated 4/16/12 Exhibit L -Site Visit Scheduling Form (Commission Members only) ATTACHMENTS 2-116 Exhibit A Draft P.C.Resolution ATTACHMENTS 2-117 P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2012- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSiON OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO.2012-00064 TO TRIM AND/OR REMOVE FOLIAGE LOCATED AT 22 AND 24 NARCISSA DRIVE WHEREAS,on March 28,2012,Ms.Da'ad Makhlouf,owner of property located at 25 Narcissa Drive,(herein '1he Applicant"),in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,filed an application requesting a View Restoration Permit ("Permit")to restore a view from her property that she believed to be significantly impaired by foliage owned by Ms.Corinne Gerrard at 22 Narcissa Drive,and by Mr.Mark Paulucci at 24 Narcissa Drive (herein "the Foliage Owners"),in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City");and, WHEREAS,notice of the Planning Commission ("Commission")hearing was mailed to the Applicant and the Foliage Owners on April 5.2012;and, WHEREAS,on May 8,2012,after all eligible voting members of the Planning Commission had visited the site,the Commission held a duly noticed pUblic hearing to consider the request,at which time,all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1:As defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code,the Applicant at 25 Narcissa Drive has a view of the ocean,offshore Islands (Catalina &Santa Barbara),coastline,Long Point,Abalone Cove,and portions of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. Section 2:The Applicant's viewing areas at 25 Narcissa Drive,as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code,are the living room,kitchen,dining room,guest bedroom and master bedroom,with the primary viewing area being the living room. Section 3:The Applicant at 25 Narcissa Drive has a view that is significantly impaired by four (4)trees (Nos.1-4)located at 24 Narcissa Drive. Section 4:Finding "A"of the View Restoration Guidelines states:"The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process and has shown proof of cooperation 017 his/her part to resolve conflicts."On November 21,2009,Ms.Da'ad Makhlouf submitted a Notice of Intent to File for View Restoration Application No.2009-00020,which requested a pre- application meeting with Mr.Mark Paulucci,and Corinne Gerrard,(the "Foliage Owners") Foliage Owners at 24 Narcissa Drive and 22 Narcissa Drive.respectively.The applicant also requested a pre-application meeting with Ms.Patricia Horan and Joan Bauer (trustee)foliage owners at 28 Narcissa Drive,regarding their vacant lot known as APN 7572-017-014,located next to 28 Narcissa Drive. Therefore,in accordance with Section V (A)of the View Restoration GUidelines,the Applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process. P.C.Resolution 2012- Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENTS 2-118 Section 5:Finding "B"of the View Restoration Guidelines states:"Foliage exceeding sixteen (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 when combined with foliage located on more than one properly."All of the foliage that significantly impairs the view (Tree Nos.1-4)exceeds 16 feet in height and the ridge line of the primary structure on the property at 24 Narcissa Drive.However,Staff has determined that Tree Nos.5 through 19 do not significantly impair the view.This is because the trees impair a minimal portion of the overall view andlor are located towards or at the periphery of the view. (EXPAND THIS FURTHER?) Section 6:Finding "C"of the View Restoration Guidelines states:"The foliage to be removed is located on properly,any parl of which is less than one thousand (1,000)feet from the applicant's properly line."The Foliage Owners'properties at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive are located less than 1,000 feet from the Applicant's property at 25 Narcissa Drive,thus Finding "C" can be made. Section 7:Finding "D"of the View Restoration Guidelines states:"The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist as view impairing vegetation when the lot from which the view is taken was created."Both of the Foliage Owners'lots were created in April 1948 by Tract No.14500.The Applicant's lot was created in September 1951 by Tract No. 13836.Historic photos,one taken in 1951 and another sometime between 1949 and 1951 which show the trees at 24 Narcissa Drive already approximately 20 feet in height.Because of the topography of the Applicant and Foliage Owner's properties,even a small tree would almost immediately impair the Applicant's view.As such,the foliage significantly impairing the view (Tree Nos.1-4)existed as view impairing vegetation,when the lot from which the view is taken was created. Tree Nos.5-10 are much smaller,and most likely did not impair the view when the lot from which the view is taken was created. Regarding the trees at 22 Narcissa Drive,historic photos taken in 1952 appear to show the Eucalyptus tree (No.18)at a relatively tall height,thus this tree likely existed as view impairing vegetation,when the lot from which the view is taken was created.However,the other trees on the property,(Nos.11-17 &19)appeared much smaller or were not visible at all in the historic photos,and thus did not exist as view impairing vegetation,when the lot from which the view is taken was created Section 8:Finding "E"states:"Removal or trimming of the foliage will not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the properly upon which the foliage is located."As discussed in Sections 5 &7,due to non-compliance with Findings "B" andlor "D",respectively,no trimming or removal of any of the trees located at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive will occur.As such,the finding "E"is not applicable. Section 9:Finding "F"of the View Restoration Guidelines states:"For properly located within the boundaries of the Miraleste Recreation &Park district,the Committee shall also find that removal or trimming of the foliage strikes a reasonable balance between meeting the purposes of section 17.02.040 set forlh in Section 1 of the Ordinance approved by the voters on November 7,1989,and preserving the histon'cal development of the Miraleste Recreation & Park District area with large numbers of trees." P.C.Resolution 2012- Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENTS 2-119 The subject properties are not located in the Miraleste Recreation and Park District.As such, this finding does not apply. Section 10:Pursuant to Section 15270 (a)of the California Environmental Quality Act. the proposed project is statutorily exempt because CEQA does not apply to projects vyhich a public agency rejects or disapproves,and Staff is recommending that the Planning Commision disapprove this View Restoration Permit based on Staff's lack of the ability to fully adopt findings "8"and "0". Section 11:Any interested person aggrieved of this decision or by any portion of this decision may.appeal to the-City Council.Pursuant to Section 17.202.040 (2)(g)of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code,any such appeal must be filed with the City,in writing and with the appropriate appeal fee,no later than fifteen (15)days following the date of the Planning Commission's final action. Section 12:Based on the foregoing information,and on the information and findings included in the Staff report and evidence presented at the pUblic hearing,the Planning Commission hereby denies VRP2011-00064. PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED on the all>day of May 2012. AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: RECUSALS: Paul Tetreault Chairman Joel Rojas,AICP Community Development Director P.C.Resolution 2012- Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENTS 2-120 Exhibit B Site Map ATTACHMENTS 2-121 ATTACHMENTS 2-122 Exhibit C View Photo Diagram ATTACHMENTS 2-123 .xhibit C·View Photo Diagram _~~_o~~S ~~.._',.~_.~~e.e.:,~_~_.._ A T T A C H M E N T S 2 - 1 2 4 Exhibit D 1951 Photo from 28 Narcissa Drive ATTACHMENTS 2-125 Exhibit D-Front and Back of Photo taken from 28 Narcissa Drive in June 1951 ,. ;-.': .&;--,-, J'-,i ::~;, ATTACHMENTS 2-126 Exhibit E 1951 Photo from 28 Narcissa Drive with Current Photo ATTACHMENTS 2-127 Exhibit E-1951 Photo from 28 Narcissa Drive with Current Photo Photo taken from 28 Narcissa Drive on December 23,2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-128 Exhibit F Historic Photos of 22 Narcissa Drive ATTACHMENTS 2-129 J Gl .~ Cl IIIenen .~ III Z N N '0 en ~.= D- o ';:.s,ens:•u.-;e .= )(w ATTACHMENTS 2-130 Exhibit G Historic Photo of Wayfarers'Chapel ATTACHMENTS 2-131 Exhibit G-Photo of Wayfarers'Chapel Under Construction-Sometime between 1949 and 1951 ATTACHMENTS 2-132 Exhibit H 1952 Aerial Photo of 22 Narcissa Drive and Current Oblique Aerial Photo showing Eucalyptus tree (Tree No.18) ATTACHMENTS 2-133 Web ":I bing Maps Exhibit H -1952 Aerial Photo of 22 Narcissa Drive and Current Oblique Aerial Photo showing Eucal ptus tree (Tree No.18 ATTACHMENTS 2-134 Exhibit I Application and Early Neighbor Consultation ATTACHMENTS 2-135 RECEIVED MAR 2.8 2.012. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENY DEPARIMENTFORMALAPPLlCAnONFOR: VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT No.'2-011-DOO<O l( or VIEW PRESERVATION PERMIT No.__ I Date Filed:~/~i III Applicant Name: APPLICANT INFORMATION J)(',Leu]n fb 1}",\-:ltA{ Address:--6":.:J"'-S->------"h....\""CA'"'-(...L.(.....i....:>(~s"-'t\"'-----"'li"""--'--'IJ><-.<--=_ Telephone No.(Home)(Work) How many applicants are included in this application?: How many foliage owners are included in this application?: MANDATORY FINDINGS 1.Explain what steps you have taken to comply with the early neighbor consultation process and/or your effort to resolve the conflict and seek cooperation from your neighbors prior to filing a Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Application form.. -.'"-ftetx>~~OCffit2iM?~(t\-k~~h a€~t]'t <X.>1~(~ I 2.Describe the viewing area on your property from which the best and most important view is taken.Describe the view that is being obstructed.Does the foliage in question exceed 16 feet in height or the ridgeline of the residence on •the property on which it is located?L..\.1 .~!22/<l\~I;A;::gm~'P~i!n.cJ'K(j;;UA(,;Clyni,eP ~. 3.Is the foliage in question located on a property,any part of which is less than one thousand feet (100 from your property? ~" 30 ATTACHMENTS 2-136 4.Did the foliage in question exist prior to the creation of the lot from which the view is taken?(Not applicable for View Preservation Permit applicants) lA(\lD~Jr"_"I &.()r)J helAed ,yo 5.Will the removal of the foliage cause an unreasonable infringement on the privacy of the occupants of the property on which the foliage is located? YLo 6.Is the property on which the foliage is located,within the boundaries of the Miraleste Recreation and Parks District?If so,is the foliage located on parkland owned by the Miraleste Recreation and Parks District? f:Q I HEREB Y CERTIFY,under penalty of perjury,that the information and materials submitted with this application are true and correct. Date c ).7 ---<- Applicant (Property Owner)Signature NOTE:Each applicant must complete and sign a formal application form. ATTACHMENTS 2-137 ~ECEIVED NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE VIEW RESTORATION OR VIEW PRESERVATION PURPOSE: View Restoration-Te rest::>re views.which are s;gniflcantly 'rrpa"ed by foliage on pnvate property. View Preservation-To preserve views.which eXisted in November 1989,or any time tnereafter,and have since become slgmficantly Jn1palfed. Prior 10 filing this form,all prospective applicants shall first contact the foil age owner(s}10 attempt to resolve the view impairment issue.Proof of this attempt in the form of a copy of the registered letter and return receipt sent to the foliage owner must be attached to lhis application. If no resolulion is reached,then prospeclive applicants may complete and sUbmii this form to the City If the application If for V;ew Restoration.then upon receipt of thiS completed form.a Staff member will schedule a pre-application meeting with a'i of the applicants and foliage owners Involved and with one View Restoration Mediator.The purpose of the pre-application meeting is to discuss the Clty's view restorat'on process with all of t~e property owners involved and to attempt to resolve the view impairment issues in order to aVOId the filing of a formal application. If the foliage owner(s}fail to attend a pre-application meeting within 60 cays of the date that this forr1 is flIed.or If no agreement ,s reached.then the eany neighbor consultation process shall be teemed complete and a formel applicahon may be submitted. Subsequent to Slaff verification of an applicant's documentation of view photograph.View Preservallon applications require a sile visit by City Siaff to verify lhal a significant view impairment exists.If the SUbject foliage significantly impairs the view as verified by City Staff, then Staff shall contact lhe foliage owner requesting that the foliage trimming/removal be performed in a voluntary manner.If lhe foliage owner(s)does not voluntarily perform the work, lhen the early neighbor consultalion process shall be deemed complete and a formal application may be submitted. Please indicale tre type of application you are filing by checking Ihe appropriate box belcw: I VIEW RESTORA~'ON PERMIT (VRP) VIEW PRESERVATION PERMIT (VPP) ---- ATTACHMENTS 2-138 Notice of Intent to File View Restoration Permit No.2 (/I _L:'('>0 (,.L/ or View Preservation Permit No. APPLICANT(S)INFORMATION Apoliean!NO.1 Na me:.J,..L..L;....LJ'-.!.'-_ Ad dress :__-'''''"'''''-__ Telephone: «fV (home)_----<.ff=-(work) Please descClbe your specific efforts to attempt to resolve conniet with each foliage owner. lA ( 0 t e...CQ...(-\'\ruf-.\..e....th.r "'.eJY\p.-'d-vi,-I\:-KJ ~(~~ Applicant NO.2 Name:_ Address:_ Telephone:_(home)_(work) Please describe you,specific efforts to attempt to resolve conflict with each loliage owner. Please attach additional sheet for more applicants View Restoration Permit Pre-Application Meeting Dates And Times:Pre-application meetings are held during City Hall business hours.Monday thru Friday.The meetings may occur between the hours of 8:CO AM and i 0:00 AM.and again between 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM Please select three dates and times when all of the applicants wili be available and allow at least 1-2 hours for the meeting.The first date selected must be at least 30 days after this form is submitted to the City. ~Date -_.----,-___-Time ~ 1 ~Lf .I ~-t----Q..J..J(\""'jf-----'-bLL.~,A •--..-.. -l~"I k ..Uc,"-'-"f--"U ~ ;c----,--+-l7'-L.-1Gb-------' P ease do not fill OtA above (able If yeu are a VIew Preserval'PErmjt ?ppkam ATTACHMENTS 2-139 The bllC!ge c:\\ner(s~':/:11 f·t:fr.-en 10 cushess ;:ays to c:lcose fror.-:one of the meetmg dates andlirr:f:5 lndicatec abo'.'e Up,::;r selection of a dale hy ihe foliage ownErs.a five-day r.ollce t)~ the pre·copllcat1on fT.ee1lr·~~date a;"1Q l:me 'II 'J be Y1ven to all parl.!es mvolved. FOLIAGE OWNER(S)INFORMATION Foliage Owner No.1 Name __J::::l..MK_fLt(,l.d~;"',~~·CCA~L·_ Address'__£;d""--jl--.....lW~(}.,>L(-'-W4-:~(,)..}IC>0-~.:Dj..Ll.(-+1'>1-(<J,,-,dC...._-r--'e.""---'p_·-"-V _ Teleptlone.(home)_ Foliage Owner No 2 (work) Telephone:(home)_ Please attach additional sheets for more foliage owners (work) Please describe each applicant's view.viewing area,and indicate the location,type and approximate height of the foliage that creates significant view impairment I APPLICANT VIEWlNG AREA"VIEW· I IINo.NAME , \),'.'r.J 11.,-lo.Li .V \III';"-"(.,,~,In Arol::1 Ih 1 (...,(,,{NoUD."""""'I 2 ~VIr. ,,:(h.." I 3 , 4 "The Viewing area is limited to the primary Jiving areas on the main floor of the residence or.if no view IS from within the primary structure.to gathering areas outdoors generally wilhin 10 feet of the residence.excluding Ihose areas within Ihe required setbacks . ••Protected views are "far views"which include views of Ihe ocean.offshore islands.the Los Angeles c\asin.c:ty I:ghls.harbor.shorelne.apd prominent landmarks and "near views"which include scenes located on the pen,nsula mcludlng a valley.ravire equEstrian tra1:,pastoral enVlronrTlent :::~any natural sethng.Views cf Vncant developable la'1c,d:s:am 1l0lJ'lta1l1S rot ncrrncll:.'."s:t;.!e ai'S lhe ~ky ?ore net o"ole:tec ATTACHMENTS 2-140 Tr.e fo :;)9=c·.·::~e(sj ...·.<!i t'e gl""e:1 10 bUSI:tsS CaYS 10 ch(;~se -:r0r.1 C'":\::o~~'i9 rTIeet t :"g dates anj !IP"SS if"\jica!EC 380\":'3 Lipc,r-saJec:::cT'l);a Cf'llc:ry t~s fOliage ri"J\,"f1eT's a h'e".jd~'r0('Ce C1~ \r;e pie-:::;':';::dlca~'G;~f':'"",e61w~;J date a;:j :l'IE '1.'lll be q \'en :c a~1 can:es ,C'.-:I':eO Foliage OWiler No.1 FOLIAGE OWNER(S)INFORMATION Name (0 (I D AI-(1'(.(6-(J.... Address ,)d-Nt\(Cd ,s""-1>(i,....:'le--e...-=------t---'[(""--'.f_"'-'--(_ Telephone (home)_ F:Jhace Owrer No 2 ______(wor~) N2(Tle AddrESS Telephone _____________(ho'TlE (work) Please ailach additlona(sheets fur more foliage owners Please describe each applicant's view.viewing area,and indica Ie the location,type and approximate height of the foliage lhal creates significant view impairment. No, 1 2 APPLICANT NAME VIEWING AREA'VIEW" 3 4 J ---'---------.J 'The viewing area is limited to the primary Jiving areas on the main floor of the residence or,if no view IS from wilhin the primary structure.to gathering areas outdoors generally wilhin 10 feet of the residence.excluding lhose areas within Ihe required setbacks, ..Protected Views are'far views"which include views of the ocean,offshore Islands.the Los Angeles basin city I:ghts,]larbor shorelme,and plom,nent landmarks and "'lear views"Mlicil indurie scenE'S loca::ed en !t,l:;peninsula rnCLJdrng a valley raVl'"',e eqUEstrian trail.pastorel er.Vlrun·'l~I·!or ary r;a:L;ral spttl!'1g"VIews cf VRC=3:l1 deve'opable J.;nO.rj;s:ar'!'TlQ~,r.1atnt;rei ncrr>2:I'-,....S,b l e 2nd tr-e s ...y :i~e nct pr~~e:.ted ATTACHMENTS 2-141 FOLIAGE OWNER NO.1 Name:__yJ i d ~~.1J,;:,[V\c::~(-"i,_ Address:__.c..z",,-~-,1_=I~N='('~"~(=v=.,::(.~\=,:...======::::;;=-::===-_ FOLIAGE TYPE T'HEIGHT'rAPPLICANTS AFFECTED ' ;,-:(\-;--;;:-:;/~(I ~~\-T Qm"-j-G,-O-,__'1'_'--'" \J J ..- , L .L-L----' •Approximate /leight as measured from the base of the tree r--.---- ,Address:"...-I..--~,, FOLIAGE TYPE HEIGHT'APPLICANTS AFFECTED n A ~/1,>GIr 'I;'II~'\7 -.-_....- I '0 r I I , Applicant NO.1 Sig'ilature Applicant NO.2 Signat:Jre Dale Date /I ,;U ~II Pursuant 10 Ihe View Restoration and Preservation GUioelines.applicanl(s)must show prooi of conlact wilh the foliage owner(s)prior 10 submillal of this application. I/We have made an attempt 10 contact the foliage owner(s)prior to the submittal of this applicalion and have attached a copy of the registered teller and return receipt sent (0 the foliage owner. NO'--I '-----' 36ATTACHMENTS 2-142 ApprCXIma.te hSJght as measured from the base of the tree ,-----------I----------,--', D f'I'-\t l v ,..{I ~_____,7 I -•I I I I. ,,FOLIAGE/OWNER No,3 Name:Ce.:,;'\.'~L,-(,'",/," -;"JI --,-(-TJ--"-I'Address:~{~..::....""':._~L·~~~_~l..J_(.lL.L2...Jt~~~_---------.-----'--'1 - FOLIAGE TYPE HEIGHT'I APPLICANTS AFFECTED FOLIAGE OWNER NO,2 Name: L_A~dress: ..I - FOLIAGE TYPEf---------> HEIGHT'APPLICANTS AFFECTED--+------------~ 1----------+----------1------------..., i Applicant No,1 Signature Date u -,;U -if; Applicant No 2 Signature Date Pursuant to the View Restoration and Preservalicn Guicelines ar;plicant(s)fT'~sl show proof of coniaci wilh Ihe foliage owner(s)prior to suomitlal of this application I/We have made an attempt to contacl the foliage owner(s)prier to the SUbmittal of this application and have aliached a copy of the registerec leller and relLrn receipt sent to :he 'oliage owner. YES/ W NOr--I i'---_.I ATTACHMENTS 2-143 November 7,2011 Da'ad Makhlouf 25 Narcissa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Pat Horan and Joan Bauer,Trustee 28 Narcissa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Dear Pat and Joan, We have had some contact regarding your pepper trees which are starting to encroach on my view.If allowed to grow,they will completely impair my view.I've asked you to work with me to deal with this issue,unfortunately and sadly,to no avail.I'm contacting you at this time for a final attempt to deal with this issue in a neighborly-like fashion.Should you desire to work with me and communicate with me in a neighborly-like fashion,then please contact me right away.Thank you. Sincerely, Da'ad Makhlouf 38 ATTACHMENTS 2-144 D.Makhlouf From: ')ent: (0: Subject: JL Bauer~~~~~~J,I!~Fnday.November 18.2011 10:41 AM D.Makhlouf Lot 74 trees November 18,2011 Via US Moil and electronic moil Joan L Bauer,Trustee Patricia F.Horan Survivor's Trust St.Augustine,FL 32086 Da'ad Makhlouf 25 Narcissa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Dear Ms.Makhlouf, I have just received a copy of your certified letter,dated November 7,2011,which was delivered to 28 Narcissa Drive,Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275.To avoid delay,please send all future correspondence :oncerning the Trust's Narcissa Drive properties directly to me at my Florida mailing address or via e-mail. I don't view my previous request that you respect our property as being less than neighborly.You took it upon yourselfto repeatedly enter our property without permission,in disregard of our request that you not do so,and chainsaw our trees.That is not neighborly.It isn't respectfui or the right way to open a neighborly dialogue. Frankly,it has neVer seemed to us that the foliage on lot 74 did much,if anything,to impair your view. However,please let me know what you consider your viewing area,what view you think is impaired by the trees and which peppertrees you want trimmed.We will consider your request and get back to you. Sincerely, Joan L Bauer,Trustee Patricia F.Horan Survivor's Trust St.Augustine,FL 32086 ATTACHMENTS 2-145 November 7,2011 Oc'ad Makhlouf 25 Narclssa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Corinne Gerrard 22 Narcissa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Dear Corinne, Thank you for coming to my home and discussing the situation with the trees on your property which are impairing my view.And I appreciate the fact that you st"ted to me that you would take care of trimming them.Nevertheless,I did stress to you my concern that time is of the essence and if the trimming doesn't happen in November,then I could very well miss the boat this year to go to the City.I also asked if we could actually meet as soon as possible with your arborist to agree on the trimming that would be done and put that in writing to allay my concerns that my view will in fact be restored. Unfortunately,nothing has been even scheduled thus tar,and we are already going into the second week of November.If you would like to meet as soon as possible to do this,you know I'll welcome that, Corinne.Thank you for your understanding. Sincerely, Da'ad Makhlouf ATTACHMENTS 2-146 November 7,20U Dc'ad Makhlouf 25 Narcisse Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,cr,90275 Mark Paolucci 24 Narcissa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Dear Mark, I hope you're doing well,Mark,cnd I hope you don't take umbrage at this letter,but unfortunately I need to bring the matter up again.In the past,you and I "mediated"with the City of RPV to deal with trees on your property which impair my view.We did accomplish some work,and then the work was halted,and I was informed by City personnel that the matter would be taken up now by a different department which would be performing a full foliage review and addressing the issue of my view restoration per the application you submitted to the City for plans to add on or to modify your home. Unfortunately,perhaps due to economic conditions,you ultimately didn't go forward with your application/home modification,and the matter re view restoration simply went by the wayside,Now I must re-address the situation again.Mark,if you wish to discuss the matter with me,I would certainly welcome that.Thank you. Sincerely, Da'ad Makhlouf ATTACHMENTS 2-147 Exhibit J Correspondence Received from Interested Parties ATTACHMENTS 2-148 RE:Trees 22 Narcisso Amy Seeroly Associole Pro nne! fi1I:CEIVED APR 16 lOl2 eOMMUNnYDEVELO~ DEPARTMENT /'.1-«16.20 J 2 Amy. You rlove been given p~Gtc5 c f the pine tree 1i101 has been cut.trin-,rl"ed and fec1t,ered.The cuffing was do"e December 02.201 I.N well.yOJ have old p~otos 01 my home bu.'';in 1950. :;25 Norci!5G is Do'ad Mokh;oLJf r,cnle bt.liit ill 1953.The enclosed pla~mop 5tlCW~1he :!ee i'l qlle~1icn is !Q a for North side angie from 1I1e subjecis home. See alloched E-mol;s;September 07.2011 I mel with Oo'od 10 discuss Iww she wonted the pine tree trimmed.She said she dia not core fa look at fhe new Terraneo hotel however would like one bronct,cuI fhal poked towards the cove view.I asked her far pholos 01 the view she said sl-,e hod when she purchased fhe home in 2006.She said she would look 10'them and get them to me.To dole I have not received any pholo's tram Oo'od.I am tamiliae with the view lrom #25 Ncrcisso as i am in Ihe Real Estate business and know the home and view well.la Ihe pain:01 placing on offer on Ihe home a few years back.Thai was when TWO pine Irees were loco led 01 Ihe Norlh side of my properly.now there is only one as one was cuI down. During our September meeling and one following meeling wilh Da'ad she made a slatemenl lI,at lends iJsel1 to an enticement.saying Ihal she was thinking oj selling her home and Ihal perhaps we can do business togelher.If Da'ad's inlent is to clear fhe surrounding trees in order to establish a bigger view in order 10 gel a higher appraised value to fhe disruplian 8.decline in value 10 fhe surrounding homes then her intent fa be a goad neighbor is nof justified and not in good laith.If I co-operale and cut Ihe frees Ihe way she wants them perhaps we could do business remark is nol within my slandards of professionalism and if is agoinsl my values.I made il clear to Oa'od Ihat Ihe frees would be cut based on what fhe professional landscaper said was in the best interest a,-,d heallh of the frees.That it was my intenl to cuI.frim &leolher fhe trees.If would open her fa,angle view more. Amy.thank yOL:for seeing '"e and faking tI,e fime fa meet wiih me when I come by City f<o<l TI'urscoy April 12.2012.All:)10'meeli,-,g me 01 22 "Ja'ci~so of 12:15 fne SC'T'Eo doy.Amy.f1,'s gave you Ihe opporTunity fa see that fhe pine Iree &Euca:yptus Iree 01 my emf wa~feathered with spec:fic branches c...:!in order ~o cper;the view mere than j~eVE'has been in 1he posf.I can O'1ry "ope !nat j do not lose my trees be-couse 0'the additional cuffing Ii,el look place 10 occomrnooa'e a neig'>bor.Please see the allocl1ea INVOICE sieterneni lrom Parker Tree Service. ir,e old photos I showed you indicated a vacant piece 01 land contiguous to boll'.F 22.&2L. NOlcbsa.II lu'lher sl,ows a ridge 01 shrubs and pine Irees that were plarled in 1950 Ihol are now 67 years of age.These p:a'11'ng were prior 10 any I,ome being buill of ~25 Narcissa.Furtller Ihe fwo meetings fhol I have hod with the owner Do'od show infenf on my pan 10 keep peace wilh (J neighbor who from pas:patterns is nof a reasonable person. rUDe One ATTACHMENTS 2-149 Page lwo DO'od come onto my property and cut a pepper tree branch lIl0t angled loword~the lefephone pole 01 the Iront yard.She also hod her crew chop broncfle~Irom a tree in the fran: yard 10 the point that it died leaving a hole in fhe landscaping. Her polfern has sl10wn Ihot she goes onto property without permission as with Mrs.Pot Horan's properly on Narcisso and chops tree branches.A~well.her behavior indicates she makes agreements whether verbal or wrilten and does nol follow through. She is aware that 1do not live at 22 Narcissa however I slill keep Ihe properly well groomed. f have in good faith full filled my agreement wifh Da'ad. Corinne Gerrard ATTACHMENTS 2-150 923771 SHlr TO: l\oonESS: ~;t..fltLC ~htvftcJ~~\{)ftJ)f L/,3 5'({J..~ I NVOICE relit Xell-----.. ~k.~~nb..'-I"c).J-Otl \1<--c::!';LVI,In~r:~(~~"1.-tk'r·-<cl~(),.\-K"0\If\:~~p,oJ lC~ ~()£'"b f'4,It,':> SCVv\~~q,{J1-:;~ :;\'D C]:rtq9~ CIT>,STATE,ZIP R il-J AODrtlSS; (USTO"'lffI"S oaDm:!!iDlD Ill':1U:."'!.:!HU'I'I.D V$.\;f.O..o..: l2..0h _ \2..b f- \5"0- I I L 1':\-+0 - v INVOKE ,10111 nmfFOfU'1~7L7.:l6 ATTACHMENTS 2-151 Gmail -Trimming of Trees Page I of4 GL~1 l··':,\od~ ,r~l Corinne Gerrard Trimming of Trees 8 messages Corinne Gerrard< To: Co: Please conti""receIpt RE:Tree Trimming. Wed,Sep 7,2011 all 0:57 AM ,--------- Dear Da'ad, II was a neighborly meeting we had yesterday al your home. The photo's I tookwill assist the landscapers to understand what trimming will be done 10 oreate a more horizon ocean view for you as well as what is best for the Iree's health. As I mentioned when you first contacted me,the trimming on my trees is done between the months of November and JanuBly the latest in March for the health of the trees. This moming I took more photo's of the trees on the Wayfare(s Chapel properly.Upon completion of e photo legend outlining the trees that have blocked a major coastal whije waler view,I will send said legend wijh photo's certified to the Chapel wllh request to restore the view from my home as well as both yours and Marks. You will be kept posted. Corinne Gerrard,DRE:00499058 Keller Williams Palos Verdes Realtv. Owner GO Team Sells Cerillfed R.E.Marl<et Center Instructor REO Re rasentatfve r I:> Mall Delivery Subsystem <maller·daemon@googlemail.co"... To . Delivery to the following reciplenl failed permanenUy: Wed,Sep 7,2011 at 10:57 AM Technical details of permanent failure: Google tried to deliver your message,but it was rejected by the recipient domain.We recommend comaating the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error.The error thaI the other server returned was:550 550 #5.1.0 Address rejected bdesena@roddanpaoJuoci.com (stale 14). -Original massage - MIME·Version:1.0 Received:by 10.236.181.137 with SMTP id 19mr2915B434yhm.56.1315418242935; Wed,07 Sep 201110:57:22-0700 (pDT) Received:by 10.236.203.68 wijh HnP;Wed,7 Sep 2011 10:57:22 -0700 (PDT) Dale:Wed,7 Sep 2011 10:57:22 -0700 ATTACHMENTS 2-152 limal!-'lrimming cfTrees Message-IO:<CAFgOOJ5roZxmzPMNvwWn66lJ<BxT=NUjTqX2CFrJu51_3yBgQw@mail.gmaiJ.com> Subject:Trimming of Trees From:Corinne Gerrard To: Cc: Content-Type:multiparVattemative;boundary=20cf3040ea1 01geb2604ac5dad98 "Please confirm receipt" -RE:Tree Trimming.· ICuo!EO leX!:.:::It ~. page L ot4 Corinne Gemlrd <To:_Wed,Sep 7,2011 at 11:15AM Corinne Gerrard,DRE:00499058 Keller Williams Palos V~RS,GRS Owner GO Team Sells_ REO Representativer ;:- Diane Yags<~!I!I!1I Reply-To:Diane Yag To:Corinne Gerrard Thu,Sep 8,2011 at 5:00 PM Corrine,thank you.Just keep me apprised re Wayfarer's chapel.I'm glad to be involved because oftentimes trees I think are on Mark's property are actually theirs. I appreciate your willingness to restore my horizon view. thanks, To: Ce: Sent:Wednesday,September 7,2011 10:57 AM Subject:Trimming of Trees Diane Yags < Reply-To:Diane ags To:Corinne Gerrard Wed,Oct 5,2011 at 9:55 AM Hi,Corinne.How are you?Hope you are well.Haven't heard from you;so I'm following up.I understood once you had the photos we would meet again.I know you feel we have time,but I ATTACHMENTS 2-153 Gmail-Trimming of Trees Page 3 of4 feel that time flies and I don't want to miss the boat.That is,I'd like to handle things by end of November.We're in October now.December I'm busy and I'd like to know that it's handled before we're into the new year for my peace of mind on the situation.We're both straighforward with each other,which I do appreciate honesty and candor,and for sake of honesty and candor, the truth is I don't want to miss the boat for this year with the City should we not agree.This way, for my peace of mind,l'd like things set up for November.I appreciate that you can understand my concern.Thank you,Corinne. Da'ad. To: Cc: Sent Wednesday,September 7,201110:57 AM Subject:Trimming of Trees Corinne Gerrard< To:Diane Yags >Wed,Oct 5,2011 al 10:44 AM Good morning. I have discussed with my landscaper and he is meeting with me to discuss the trees.As I have always said the trimming will occur between the months of November and spring.I like doing the trees November,December,January depending on weather and depending on what my landscapers says.It will gel done.It will help my cause as it will cui down on all the squirrels eating Ihe pine nuts and making a mess. Corinne IQuoleCi t~xl hl::l:Ie·1 Corinne Gerrard,DRE:00499058 Keller WiUiams Palos V~S,GRS Owner GO Team Sells_ REO Re resentalive f Diane Ya Reply-To: To:Corinne Gerrard Wed,Oct 5,2011 al 3:30 PM Corinne,what is happening is that you're giving me a promise but you're acting and planning wrilaterally.We're not sitting down,coming up with an agreement and memorializing and formalizing an agreement.I think you're accommodating my needs but that's not entirely clear or defInite at this point.For practical reasons,I'm unable to wait beyond November,Corinne, because as I've stated,if it turns out that we're in fact not agreeing on what should be done,then I will miss my opportunity for an entire year,and I can't do that.I have to be pragmatic, ATTACHMENTS 2-154 umaJ I .Jnrnm lIlg 01 1 fees Corinne,and business-minded about this.That's why we need to come together to form an agreement with you and your landscaper with a timeline,etc.,or ]have to protect my interest on this.I know you're very business-minded and savvy yourself far morc than I,and therefore]am confident that you understand my concern.Thank you. From:Corinne Gerrard To:Diane Yags ••• Sent:Wednesday,October 5,2011 10:44 AM Subject:Re:Trimming ofTrees Corinne Gerrard To:Diane Yags Wed,Oct 5,2011 a15:56 PM Diane, The photos are laKen 01 the trees we discussed how the trees will be trimmed.II you want to be inlonmed of the day the trimming willtal<e place thaI is fine with me.I have never changed the time frame of when the trees wili be trimmed.I thought we had an agreement.Once I go over in detail with my landscapers J will let you know. Co:inne ATTACHMENTS 2-155 Fidelity National Title Company Profile Report Page I of I /Property Overview 25 NARCISSA DR,RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA,90275-5927 Secondary Owner: 3637 S MEYLER ST SAN PEDRO CA 90731 25 NARCISSA DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275 Page Grid:823-A4APN:7572-012-023 Lot Number:6 Housing Tract Number.13836 legal Description:Lot:6 Trad No:13836 Abbreviated Description:LOT:6 CITY:REGIONICLUSTER:14/14085 TR#:13636 TRACT NO 13836 LOT 6 CitylMunifTwp: REGION/CLUSTER:14/14085 , Owner and Geographic Information y:Primary Owner. "..MAKHLOUF,DA AD,j Mail Address: Site Address: Property Details Bedrooms:3 Bathrooms:4 Total Rooms : Zoning:RPRS1 &E' Year Built:1953 Garage: Fireplace : Pool: Square Feet:2,346 SF Lot Size:1.016 AC Number of Units:1 Use Code:Single Family Residential Sale &Loan Seller:MACDONALD,AMY;MACDONALD,JEFFTransferDate:01/0612006 Transfer Value:$1,790,000 Document # :06-0035908 CostlSq Feet:$763 Assessment &Taxes r t - Assessed Value:$840,100 Land Value:$840,000 Improvement Value:$100 Percent Improvement:.01 % Tax Amount:$10,279.80 Tax Status:Current -. Homeowner Exemption: Tax Rate Area:7-148 Tax Account ID : Market Improvement Value:Market Land Value:Market Value: Offered by Fidelity National rrtle Company All infolTTlation producal is deemed reliable but is nol guaranteed,Fidelity National Title' I -.,..'.w.:raaft {:-pu~ ATTACHMENTS 2-156 ·.--'.-.J ..__.~.._...~....~~-··r~,1 -._.~.-'--r-" /.Property Overview 22 NARCISSA DR.RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA,90275-5929 Owner and Geographic Information ~~-Primary ~er:, .'GERRARD,CORINNE TR;GERRARD TRUST '/Mail Address: j-';--,. \Site Address: APN :7572-017-016 Lot Number:76 Secondary Owner: 22 NARCISSA DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275 22 NARCISSA DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275 Page Grid:823-A4 Housing Tract Number:14500 Legal Description:Lot:76 Tract No:14500 Abbreviated Description:LOT:76 CI1Y:REGIONICLUSTER:14/14085 TR#:14500 TRACT NO 14500 LOT 76 CitylMunilTwp: REGION/CLUSTER:14/14085 Property Details Bedrooms:1 Bathrooms : 1 Total Rooms: ZOning:RPRSl &E" Year Built:1950 Garage: Fireplace: Pool: Square Feet:1,324 SF Lot Size:31,799 SF Number of Units:1 Use Code:Single Family Residential Sale &Loan Transfer Date:0211211999 Transfer Value:NlA Seller:NlA Oocument#:CostlSq Feet:N/A .~ Assessment &Taxes Assessed Value:$380,957 Percent Improvement:32.55%Homeowner Exemption:H I t Land-Value :$256;965 -Tax-Amoultl :$5,072.24 Tax RateArea:7~14B-- ,1,.\'::1 Improvemeltl Value:$123,992 Tax Status:Current Tax Account 10 :.- Market Improvement Value:Marl<et Land Value:Marl<et Value: Offered by FJdelity National TltJe Company All information produced is deemed reliable but is nol guaranteed.Fidelity National Title b''Il"....r .....l'l"~ ATTACHMENTS 2-157 Fidelity National Title Company Profile Report Page I of I /Property Overview 24 NARCISSA DR,RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA,90275·5929 Secondary Owner: 24 NARCISSA DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275 24 NARCISSA DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275 Page Grid:823-MAPN:7572-017-015 Lot Number:75 Housing Tract Number:14500 Legal Description:Lol:75 Tract No:14500 Abbreviated Description:LOT:75 CITY:REGION/CLUSTER:14/14085 TR#:14500 TRACT NO 14500 LOT 75 CitylMunifTwp: REGION/CLUSTER:14/14085 Owner and Geographic Informationr:,----.---~ ,. ,Primary Owner: "j'PAULUCCI,MARK TR;MARK PAOLUCCI ..,".FAMILY TRUST ,~\Mall Address: .'-I :Site Address: l..-•.•_ Property Details .Bedrooms:2 I !Bathrooms:2 I Total R~oms: i Zoning:RPRS1 &E' --.~-------- Year Built:1950 Garage: Fireplace : Pool: Square Feet:1,825 SF Lot Size:37,544 SF Number of Units:1 Use Code:Single Femily Residential Sale &Loan /;i-~.!!:;.I e-==1 •gg ;:::: ",. !Transfer Date:07/1012008 ; I Transfer Value:N/A I Seller:N/A Document # :CostlSq Feet:N/A Assessment &Taxes Improvement Value:$220,000 :Mar1<et Improvement Value: \r--_.-~~::::~~:e8~,::~~'Ooo- ,,,., ~'-'. Percent Improvement:20% Tax Amount:$12,695.00 2009 Mar1<et Land Value: Homeowner Exemption: Tax Rate Area:7-148 Tax Account 10 : Market Value: Offered by Fidelity Nallon.'Tille Company All infonnation produced is deemed reliable but Is not guaranteed. ATTACHMENTS 2-158 '~''''''i, / Q'C"-', CO !£ """"~ N :n "'"!D'~ ~ '!'. "', '"'.0 0 C'."',Z CO '",..,c. "0'0 ~ Z Z ~,I-~ ::; or. V U '.),. << 0:0:<"II':# ~,~'.J lo~- ~ >, ~e' '5,-£ ~ 0-'- ,,; ,,-0·' ~- ", ,":: .~"~ .~~, .<;.,.."-~'~~ ,"• ,- !'::. ,~il " I ''. '. .....~:;,. -', '..... " \ .;~T> .':.~:"::~ ~', ":,'" ," ·1·, ATTACHMENTS 2-159 April 19,2012 Torhecir)'ofRPV Planning Commissioners, P:w!Tetraulr Dave Emenhiser Bill Gerstner Gordon Leon ]dfrey L:wis Roben A Ndson David Tomblin Fr,Foliage Owner Rc:View Resotr:uion/2011-0064 Dear Commissioners; RECEIVED /J.t'rI.20 2012 COMMUNITYOEVElOPMENT OEPARTMENT I would like to express my appreciation fOr taking the time ro review this case,read this Ierrer,visit my property and resolve this Tree vs Vicw issue.I believe in the concept of the "middle ground"·which is why I embraced,on two occasions,the enlighreoed approach to medi:uion as provided by theciry.My inttntion from the beginning.as wdl as my willingn~s to abide by the med.iation process,was to bt neighborly.Bur during this process,despite good intentions,and in rhe ateanpr to find the balance between view and ucc,inrcgriey was uprooted.And now,unfurrunatdy,my neighbors senseofhonor and integriey is as questionable and as impaired as her view.. I would like to requesr rhar you r&in to consideration two rdevant points: I.THE TREES PRE-DATE THE GRADING a F MY NIEGHBORS LOT. I cannot state it any morede.arly.The rrees were here first.By some miracle,as shown in historic photos made available by Wayfarers Chapel as well as Ms.Horan,my highly respected next door neighbor,there i.documented pro of that the nee.on my property pre-<!ate the grading ofmy complaining neighbors lot.My trees were fairly mature when The Wayfarers CIupeJ was built in.1951,which is tWoy",",s before my neighborsI!~t was,graded.Additionally, when my neighbor purchased and moved into her homein]anuary 2006,the trees were there, w:liting fOr her,staring her straight into the eyes. 2MYPREVIOUSTWO ATTEMPTS TO FIND THE MIDDLE GROUND. On twO previous occasions,I wdcomed the ida ofmediation as provided by the ciey ofRPV-an enlighrened approach to resolving conflict between nvo reasonable parties.On both oce.asions, despite both parties agrecing to the terms,my neighbor reneged.I not only lost faith in the process,lost faith in my neighbor,but lion several bamiful,majestic pine trees. ATTACHMENTS 2-160 ) .I / I CUt down 3 large trees,7 smaller trecs,as wdl as many other smaJIcr variaic:s (now only 4 majestic pine trca remain)in honor ofthe agreement.in [he beJjcf th:l[ifboth parties signed the agrec:mmt,both partie;would honor the agreement-and this.ae would be resolved and we could all move on.But that was noahe case.And here we ore. Shef.ri1ed to pay her .hare ofthe Finley's Tr«Service bill (S3000)-even alter signing a written conrraetwl agr<anent with Finle'"which spelled oat the agreed upon mediation terms-which were very clcu:ly stated.I agreed to pa)"ashare of the Finley bill,($lOOO)-which was paid within 24houcs afurcompletingthework-even with the knowlc:dge thaahe tree;on my property pre-datedher lot,and most likely wouldn't need to be:cut down,laaod,etc... (Mr.FinJry bad to Wr Ihr mP.1Ur to aJUrt-and nl(IJ!up.lly bad to m/ist tbr sUppur!'!flbr Sbrriffi Drpartmmt,who S/lccw!ully srr1Jrd Ms.Mnk};fotl!on tbefiftb n!templ,after shr failrd 10 "pprar Ot) the prr1Jwusly schrduled dale.The matter issti/!unresolved as '!frarly April.) I am hopeful that yOll will seriously consider thefaet that In)"trees pre-dateher lot,and honor that portion ofche ordinance or code that protects trees over views,in this SitlUrion. Additionally,I have every reason to believe the.intention ofthis neighbor is to CUt my trees, then CUt and run-put the house on the marker,scll it,move out ofthe neighborhood.!Icc the cit)"ofRPV,and leave godknows howmany small vendors and hard working individuals like Scott Finlty chasing her down the street trying to collect as she goes. ATTACHMENTS 2-161 ATTACHMENTS 2-162 ,0 I', .'.. ,, :~ '\ .~_. , ( l..''. "\ " ..~- ",--.. l (IT lrfl 'C;~nH11'l));"nM '';,:;10 -.1.,,~-:'S 'n ·S:Sl ~}J .).~-1. -iN I cld eo;O-;O:)\;/OO){ '"J,.;I ,,:;.I". , ATTACHMENTS 2-163 MemOlrandlllm of Understanding Be it known 10 all parties that Da'ad Makhloufresiding at 25 Narcissa Drive,Rancho Palos Verdes,CA,hereinafter referred to as "View Owner".Mark Paulucci residing at 24 NarcisJII Drive,Rancho Palos Verdes,CA hereinafter referred to as "Foliage Owner" on this L day of January 2012,agree as follows: The "Foliage Owner"agrees to the following: 1.Perform the prescribed pruning to the following trees: a)Remove one (1)Aleppo Pine tree located in the side yard of the property.Tree indicated by blue line in the attached photo. Removal defined as flush cut to the ground as close as possible. b)Lace remaining four (4)large Aleppo pine trees,defined as removing 30%foliage reduction,per the attending arborist's recommendation.Trees located in the side yard of the property. Note:Branches and foliage to be removed as part of the lacing described in item Ib will be determined by the attending arborist for the trees health.If the arborist feels appropriate, the View Owner would appreciate if the foliage in the areas circled in yellow on the attached photo could be part of that 30%foliage reduction. 2.The Foliage Owner has obtained a bid from a licensed and bonded tree service.Bid attached.The Foliage Owner will pay Finley's Tree and Landscape $1000.00 ofthe total cost for the work as described in items 1a and Ib above to be performed.Method of payment dependent on the approved vendor's policies and procedures. 3.The Foliage Owner will schedule the work as described in Item No.Ia-b above.The initial work to be completed within thirty (30)days from the date the agreement is signed by all participants,pending the tree vendor's schedule. In consideration ofthe above,the "View Owner"agrees to the following: 1.Upon completion of the work as described in items 1a-b above,pay Finley's Tree and Landscape $3000.00 of the total cost for the foliage and removal as described in item 1a-d above.Method of payment dependent on the approved vendor's policies and procedures. ATTACHMENTS 2-164 Foliage Owner·-...L~::::::::::::::====_ 2.If the tree(s)die due to the trimming the View Owner will pay for the complete removal of the dead or dying tree(s)and replacement with a 24"box tree,or the fmandaI equivalent.The determination of the trees condition and cause to be made by a certified arborist and provided in writing." Please be aware that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,its employees,officers, contractors or any other persons,corporations or entities acting on behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are not Party to this agreement,and shall have no responsibility or liability nJ'costs or damages that arise ont of this agreement. "",-14z.. View Owner -L<~~----~.'·~~:,4~'--./~--~.-=="'--------- /)1' Date .I -::,-.-.,LA 'i iii i .iii i'III !I111 II , ATTACHMENTS 2-165 22208 S.Vermont Ave. Torrance,CA.90502 License#897701 C27,D49 January 5,2012 Mark Palucci 24 Narcissa Drive RAncho Palos Verdes,CA.90275 Finley's Tree and Landcare,Inc.proposes to provide the necessary labor and materials to do the following work: East Side of Property (3)Pines Middle (I)Pine Closest to House (I)Pine Lace out 30%of greeD foliage,remove yellow highlighted limbs to Scott's specs for view restoration Remove to ground level Lace out 40-45%of green foliage,remove selective limbs over house to balance (Scott will be present will be onsite for balancing of tree) TOTAL COST TO PERFORM:$4,000.00 PAYMENT TERMS:I ~f Mark Palucci agrees 10 pay $1,000 oflolaljob cosl (upon complerion)x~__V_'If---.V _-;--:7 _".......Da'Ad MaklzIouf agrees to pay $3,000 oflOla/job cosi (upon complerion)x~-=~·~~"-'_"'~_ In preparation for work to be performed on your property please use the following guidelines to prevent damage to your property: •Notify neighbors that you are having your property worked on especially if we will be trimming their trees/plants overhanging your property. •Move any londscape lights and/or other various garden lights out ifthe work area •Removefzuniture,fountauls,garden art,birdfeeders or any other breakable items hanging in the trees or in work area. On Day ofWark •Move CarS out ofdriveway andfrom under trees. •Block offstreetparking iJlfront ofproperty with trashcans or cones. ATTACHMENTS 2-166 22208 S.Vermont Ave. Torrance,CA.90502 License#897701 e27,D49 HWe remove any debris generated from our work.We are not responsible to damage due to hidden conditions,especially underground installations.Payment is due upon completion of work.*** In the event any decisions regarding final specifications for tbe above work need to be made,either now or while work is in progress,please print or type name and telepbone number of designated individual who will be em owed to make those decisions. Name.-'<_•.~.~.~.=:)__~_-:;_:::._--_·_-_--_·~---Telephone Please indicate acceptance by signing this proposal and returning to the above address.Upon receipt,work will be scheduled to begin. Sincerely, Steve Finley Steve Finley@finleystreeandlandcare.com Accepted By -=,,:'-"."_;"_"_~_-/_-._.-_._--_.-_ ATTACHMENTS 2-167 Exhibit K City Arborist Report dated 4/16/12 ATTACHMENTS 2-168 nECEIVED .~]g 2012 COMMUNITY DEVELOl'l,iENI DEPARTMENT April 16,2012 Amy Seeraty,Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA.90275 SUBJECT:VRP 2011-00064 Dear Mrs.Seeraty: david hayes,consulting arborist fullerton,ca.92831-2911 This morning you and I visited the foliage owner sites at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive and also reviewed record photograhs in your office. You asked that; 1.I estimate the probable age of the affected trees, 2.Provide my professional assessment of prior pruning and the impact of possible additional pruning,and 3.Provide comment on any evidence that the tree(s)had been impacted by earth movement during the past 60 years. .Applicant's View You furnished two recent photographs from the applicants property.One is a broad panorama showing the alleged view impairment by trees at both 22 and 24 Narcissa; the second is a closer view of thc Aleppo Pines (Pinus Izalepensis)at 24 Narcissa. A third photo,dated 1951,was taken near the view site from 28 Narcissa. The 1951 photo shows the grove of Aleppo Pines at 24 Narcissa just righ of ccnter. Further to the right it shows trees at 21 Narcissa.Although they are somewhat indistinct,I believe that one is an Aleppo Pine and the other a Lemon Scented Gum (Corymbfa citriodora).The speCies was confirmed djjring~hesite viSIt: 24 Narcissa The Aleppo Pine grove consists of four specimen trees.The body language of trees is quite informative.Two trees are dominant and may be considered codominant;the other two trees are suppressed in growth habit.This is a normal·occurrence in tree groupings.Some individual trees grow more vigorously due to SUD exposure,soil fertility,genetics or other factors we have yet to understand. ATTACHMENTS 2-169 VRP 2011-00064 2 This vigorous growth monopolizes resources and suppresses the growth of nearby trees,often forcing one sided crowns and cur'vmg trunks.In my professional opinion this is tbe casc with these four trees.The dominant trees approximate 35 inches in diameter at standard ne.ignt while the suppn:,ssed trees are half that diameter.The crowns of the suppressed trees are definitely one-sided and exhibit no vertical growth in the upper third.The larger trees are of a size consistent with plantings from the 1940's,The photographic exhibits support the time frame.I do not believe the suppressed trees would have formed such vertically straight trunks had they been planted in later years. These trees have been pruned in recent years.The tVI'D smaller pines have had significant crown raising and some crown thinning.In my professional opinion,the trees will not survive further crown reduction. Crown raising of the two large pines would also,in my professional opinion,result in the demise of the trees.Effective opening of the crowns for view purposes would require removal of most of the scaffold branches and their attendant foliage which comprise about SO per cent of the crown. Tree body language also informs us of what is happening in the rhizospbere,the root zone.Trunk lean is the first assessment factor.If the trunk is straight,but at an angle Jess than vertical,it indicates that either the root pIa te is rotating or that slope creep is taking place.Given time,the tree as a living organism strives to restore structural balance.That result is an upward curving trnnk witb vertical crown leaders. There is no evidence that these four trees have been affected by soil movement. 22 Narcissa The Lemon Scented Gum and the Aleppo Pine are evident in other photographs, but I am not sure of the dates.The tree locations,however,are consistent with the 1951 photo. Both trees are of.size consistent-with planting in the 1940'.5.' Considerable crown thinning has been performed on both trees.In my opinion,the Aleppo Pine is a1read}'pruned to the maximum extent;further pruning will destroy the trees'ability to recover.The Lemon Scented Gum is an open crowned species and has also been pruned to the minimum sustainable crown.Further pruning will disfignre tbe tree,but it is possible that it could survive. ATTACHMENTS 2-170 VRP 201-00064 Conclusions 1.The six enumerated trees probably date from the 1940·s. page 3 2.The fIVe Aleppo Pines will not survive the additional pruning required to restore views as proposed. 3.There is no tree body language evidence of eartb movement. Should you have any question related to the contents ofto is repon,please call me at It is always a pleasure to work with yon. Respectf~Il~Ubmitted' Q~v ~ David Hayes,SCA,ASLA ISA Certified Arborist WE-1053A CA Registered Landscape Architect 1080 (Inactive) PNW-ISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor CTRA 1214 ATTACHMENTS 2-171 ATTACHMENTS 2-172 ATTACHMENTS 2-173 ATTACHMENTS 2-174 I • I I ATTACHMENTS 2-175 ATTACHMENTS 2-176 ATTACHMENTS 2-177 ATTACHMENTS 2-178 ATTACHMENTS 2-179 ATTACHMENTS 2-180 ATTACHMENTS 2-181 ATTACHMENTS 2-182 ATTACHMENTS 2-183 ATTACHMENTS 2-184 .~ATTACHMENTS 2-185 ATTACHMENTS 2-186 Exhibit C P.C.Resolution 2012-08 ATTACHMENTS 2-187 PC RESOLUTION NO.2012-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO 2012-00064 TO TRIM ANDIOR REMOVE FOLIAGE LOCATED AT 22 AND 24 NARCISSA DRIVE. WHEREAS,on March 28.2012.Ms.Da'ad Makhlouf,owner of property located at 25 Narcissa Drive.(herein "the Applicant"),in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,filed an application requesting a View Restoration Permit ("Permit")to restore a view from her property that she believed to be significantly impaired by foliage owned by Ms,Corinne Gerrard at 22 Narcissa Drive,and by Mr.Mark Paulucci at 24 Narcissa Drive (herein "the Foliage Owners"),in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City");and, WHEREAS,notice of the Planning Commission ("Commission')hearing was mailed to the Applicant and the Foliage Owners on Apnl 5,2012;and, WHEREAS,on May 8,2012,after all eligible voting members of the Planning Commission had visited the site.the Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request,at which time,all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present eVidence. NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND.DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1:As defined by Section 17.02040 of the City's Development Code.the Applicant at 25 Narcissa Drive has a view of the ocean,offshore Islands (Catalina &Santa Barbara),coastline,Long Point,Abalone Cove,and portions of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. Section 2:The Applicant's viewing areas at 25 Narcissa Drive,as defined by Section 17,02.040 of the City's Development Code,are the living room,kitchen,dining room,guest bedroom and master bedroom.with the primary viewing area being the living room. Section 3:The Applicant at 25 Narcissa Drive has a view that is significantly impaired by four (4)trees (Nos.1-4)located at 24 Narcissa Drive. Section 4:Finding "A"of the View Restoration Guidelines states "The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultalion process and has shown proof of cooperation on his/IJer part 10 resolve conflicts."On November 21.2011.Ms.Da'ad Makhlouf submitted a Notice of Intent to File for View Restoration Application No.2011-00064,which requested a pre- application meeting with Mr.Mark Paulucci,and Corinne Gerrard,(the "Foliage Owners") Foliage Owners at 24 Narcissa Dnve and 22 Narcissa Drive,respectively.The applicant also requested a pre-application meeting with Ms.Patricia Horan and Joan Bauer (trustee)foliage owners at 28 Narcissa Drive,regarding their vacant lot known as APN 7572-017-014.located next to 28 Narcissa Drive, Therefore.in accordance with Section V (A)of the View Restoration Guidelines.the Applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process. PC.Resolution 2012-08 Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENTS 2-188 Section 5:Finding "B"of the View RestoralJon Guidelines states:"Foliage exceedmg sixteen (IG)feet or the ridge line of the primary structure.whichever is lower.significantly Impairs a View from the applican/'s vlewlllg area.wllether such foliage 1$located /otally on one propeny.or when combined with foliage locateel on more than one propelly."All of the foliage that significantly impairs the view (Tree Nos 1-4)exceeds 16 feet in height and the ridgeline of the pnmary structure on the property at 24 Narcissa Drive.However.Staff has determined that Tree Nos.5 through 19 do not sl9nificantly impalf the view.This IS because the trees impair a minimal portion of the overall view andlor are located towards or at the periphery of the view Section 6:Finding "C"of the View Restoration Guidelines states:"The foliage to be removed is located on propeny.any paft of which is less than one thousand (I,OOO)feet from the applicant's property line."The Foliage Owners'properties at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive are located less than 1,000 feet from the Applicant's property at 25 Narcissa Drive,thus Finding "G' can be made. Section 7:Finding "0"of the View Restoration Guidelines states:"The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist as view impairing vegetation when the lot from which the view is taken was created."Both of the Foliage Owners'lots were created in April 1948 by Tract No,14500 The Applicant's lot was created in September 1951 by Tract No, 13836,Historic photos,one taken in 1951 and another sometime between 1949 and 1951 which show the trees at 24 Narcissa Drive already approximately 20 feet in height.Because of the topography of the Applicant and Foliage Owner's properties,even a small tree would almost immediately impair the Applicant's view.As such,the foliage significantly impairing the view (Tree Nos,1-4)existed as view impairing vegetation,when the lot from which the view is taken was created. Tree Nos 5-10 are much smaller,and most likely did not impair the view when the lot from which the view is taken was created. Regarding the trees at 22 Narcissa Drive,historic photos taken in 1952 appear to show the Eucalyptus tree (No 18)at a relatively tall height,thus this tree likely existed as view impairing vegetation,when the lot from which the view is taken was created.However,the other trees on the property,(Nos.11-17 &19)appeared much smaller or were not visible at all in the historic photos,and thus did not exist as view impairing vegetation,when the lot from which the view is taken was created Section 8:Finding "E"states:"Removal or trimmmg of the foliage will not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the propeny upon which the foliage is focated."As discussed in Sections 5 &7,due to non-compliance With Findings "B" andlor "0",respectively,no trimming or removal of any of the trees located at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive will occur.As such.the finding "E"is not applicable. Section 9:Finding "F"of the View Restoration Guidelines states:"For propeny located within the boundaries of the Miraleste Recreation &Park district,the Committee shall also find that removal or trimming of the foliage strikes a reasonable balance between meeting the purposes of section 17.02.040 set faith in Section 1 oUhe Ordinance approved by the voters on November 7,1989,and preserving the historical development of the Miraleste Recreation & Park District area with large numbers of trees." PC.Resolution 2012-08 Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENTS 2-189 The subject properties are not located in the Miraleste Recreation and Park District.As such. this finding does not apply. Section 10:Pursuant to Section 15270 (a)of the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project is statutorily exempt because CEQA does not apply to projects which a pUblic agency rejects or disapproves,and Staff is recommending that the Planning Commision disapprove this View Restoration Permit based on Staffs lack of the ability to fully adopt findings "B"and "0", Section 11:Any interested person aggrieved of this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council.Pursuant to Section 17,202.040 (2)(g)of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code,any such appeal must be filed with the City.in writing and with the appropriate appeal fee,no later than fifteen (15)days following the date of the Planning Commission's final action. Section 12:Based on the foregoing information,and on the information and findings included in the Staff report and evidence presented at the public hearing,the Planning Commission hereby denies VRP2011-00064. PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED on the 8th day of May 2012. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Gerstner,Lewis,Nelson,Tomblin, Vice Chairman Emenhiser,Chairman Tetreault None ABSTENTIONS ABSENT: RECUSALS: None None Commissioner Leon ","R'»~commut~eveIOPnie'ntDirector P.C,Resolution 2012-os. Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENTS 2-190 Exhibit 0 P.C.Staff Report dated May 8,2012 ATTACHMENTS 2-191 MEMORANDUM CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Staff Coordinator: DISCUSSION CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNITY DEVELOPME~OR MAY 8,2012 VIEW RESTORATION APPLICATION NO.2011·00064 Amy Seeraty,Associate Planner /'IS The Staff Report for View Restoration Permit Case No.2011-00064 was transmitted to the Commission on Tuesday,April 24,2012.For convenience,a copy of the original Staff Report and a copy of the original Resolution are attached for the Commission's Reference.Staff has received no correspondence from the Applicant or the Foliage Owners since transmitting the Staff Report to the Commission and the affected parties. SITE VISIT INFORMATION As a reminder,eligibility to participate in the decision on a View Restoration Permit application is dependent on the Commissioners visiting the Applicant's site prior to the public hearing.Therefore,please schedule a site visit with Ms.Makhlouf (the Applicant) if you have not already done so. The Foliage Owners have requested that the Commissioners visit their properties as well.Although Commissioner visits to foliage owners'properties are not required by the City Ordinance or the View Guidelines,please contact Mr.Paulucci (Foliage Owner) and Ms.Gerrard (Foliage Owner)to schedule site visits if you wish to visit their properties.The Applicant's &Foliage Owners'contact information is included in the attached Site Visit Scheduling Form which includes a corrected phone number for Mr. Paulucci.Please contact Staff at (310)544-5228 if you have any questions. ATTACHMENTS 1.Site Visit Scheduling Form (Commission Members only) 2.Copy of Staff Report and attachments for VRP No.2011-00064 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD!RANCHO flIlOS VERDES.CA 90275'5391 PlANNING &CODE ErFORCEMENT []VISION (310)544-5228 !EIULDING &SAFETY DIVISION (3101 265-7800 I [)£PT FAX (310)544'5293 E·MAIL:PlANNING@RPV.COM/WWWPAlDSVERDES.CO..1lRPVATTACHMENTS 2-192 CITYOF STAFF REPORT RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 853 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PROJECT ADDRESS & APPLICANT: STAFF ~...COORDINATOR: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNITY ~ENT DIRECTOR MAY 8,201//- VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT APPLICATION CASE NO.VRP2011-00064 MS.DA'AD MAKHLOUF,25 NARCISSA DRIVE,RPV AMY SEERATY T\L, ASSOCIATE PLANNER IV REQUESTED ACTION:A REQUEST TO TRIM AND/OR REMOVE FOLIAGE LOCATED AT 22 AND 24 NARCISSA DRIVE,TO RESTORE THE VIEW FROM 25 NARCISSA DRIVE. RECOMMENDATION:ADOPT P.C.RESOLUTION No.2012-,DENYING CASE NO.VRP2011-00064 TO TRIM AND/OR REMOVE FOLIAGE ON PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 22 AND 24 NARCISSA DRIVE. REFERENCES: ZONING:SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-1) GENERAL PLAN:RESIDENTIAL TRAILS PLAN:NONE CODE SECTIONS:17.02.040 CEQA:CATAGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS IV) ACTION DEADLINE:N/A COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500 FEET OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:NONE 30940 HAW1HORNE BLVD.I RANCHO fl\LOS VEROES,CA 90275-5391 PLANNING &COO£lI'FORCEMENT DIVISION 1310)544-5228 I BU~DlNG &SAFETY DIVISKJN 13101265'7800 I DEPT FAX 1310)544'5293 E·MAJl PLANN ,@RI'VCOM/VY'WWPAlOSVEROESCOf'o1JRPVATTACHMENTS 2-193 Staff Report:View Restoration Permit No.2011-00064 May 8,2012 BACKGROUND: On November 21,2011,Ms.Da'ad Makhlouf,(the "Applicant")submitted a Notice of Intent to File for View Restoration Application No.2011-00064.(See attached Exhibit I.)Per the early neighbor consultation process,a pre-application meeting was requested with Mr.Mark Paulucci, and Corinne Gerrard,(the "Foliage Owners")Foliage Owners at 24 Narcissa Drive and 22 Narcissa Drive,respectively.The applicant also requested a pre-application meeting with Ms. Patricia Horan and Joan Bauer (trustee)foliage owners at 28 Narcissa Drive,regarding their vacant lot known as APN 7572-017-014,located next to 28 Narcissa Drive. Subsequently,separate pre-application meetings were held at the applicant and foliage owners' properties.The mediator and City Staff held separate meetings with the foliage owners at 24 and 28 Narcissa Drive,as well as with the Applicant at 25 Narcissa Drive on December 20, 2011.It was determined that there was no foliage located on the vacant lot known as APN 7572-017-014 that extended into the view,and so mediation was concluded for this property. As a result of the pre-application meetings,the Applicant and the Foliage Owner at 24 Narcissa Drive were able to come to a private agreement regarding tree trimming and removal.This private agreement was memorialized by the City's mediator and signed by both parties.The trimming and removal work was completed on January 6,2012.However,after the trimming work was completed,it is Staff's understanding that although the trimming/removal work was completed per the private agreement,the Applicant was not satisfied with the amount of improvement of the view and so she filed a formal View Restoration Application with regards to 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive.(Although a private agreement was reached initially in this case,this does not preclude the applicant from filing a formal View Restoration Application.) Ms.Gerrard (22 Narcissa Drive)signed and mailed back the retum receipt on November 23, 2011 from the certified letter requesting a pre-application meeting with the applicant.However, she did not submit the form indicating that she wished to attend a pre-application meeting,and so the applicant was released to proceed with the filing of a formal View Restoration application for the property at 22 Narcissa Drive.(It should also be noted that Ms.Gerrard did complete trimming of her Aleppo Pine tree and Eucalpytus tree in December 2011,per a request from and discussion with the applicant.Please see the "Correspondence"section for additional information.) On March 28,2012,the Applicant (Ms.Makhlouf)submitted a formal View Restoration application along with the applicable fee.(See attached Exhibit I.)On March 29,2012,Staff mailed letters via certified mail as well as first class mail to the Foliage Owners informing them that the View Restoration Permit Application was submitted and scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on May 8,2012.On April 12,2012,Staff visited the Applicant's property to view the trees and take photos.Formal notice of the May 8,2012 public hearing was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News and provided to the affected parties on April 5, 2012. ANALYSIS: Site Description and View The subject properties are located on Narcissa Drive,off of Palos Verdes Drive South in the gated Portuguese Bend Community on the south side of the City.The properties in the general ATTACHMENTS 2-194 Stal!Report:View Restoratiun Permit No.2011-00064 I\Ii"lV 8 2012 vicinity tend to have views generally southward.eastward.and westward.overlooking the ocean,offshore Islands (Catalina &Santa Barbara),coastline,Long Point,Abalone Cove,and portions of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve.All of these components can be viewed from the Applicant's viewing area as described below. Applicant's Property The Applicant's property (25 Narcissa Drive)is developed with a one-story residence built in 1953.The Applicant's lot was created in September 1951 by Tract No.13836.The Applicant has views taken from all interior rooms (living room,kitchen,dining room,guest bedroom and master bedroom).The living room is considered by Staff to be the best and most important viewing area (primary viewing area)taken from the residence as the living room contains a view of all the aforementioned components of the multi-component view.(See Exhibit C,View Photo Diagram).The reason why the living room was selected by Staff as the primary viewing area is because the other rooms either have a narrower view extent,or some of the protected view components are not visible. Foliage Owners'Properties The Foliage Owners'properties at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive are each developed with a one- story residence.Both of the Foliage Owners'lots were created in April 1948 by Tract No. 14500.Both properties are located at a lower elevation and across Narcissa Drive from the Applicant's property.The building records on file indicate that the homes at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive were both constructed in 1950. Type and Height of Subject Foliage Staff visited the Applicant's property in April 2012.During the site visit,Staff was able to identify nine (9)trees on the Gerrard property and ten (10)trees on the Paulucci property from the Applicant's viewing area.Staff also noted various other miscellaneous trees located in the rear yard of the Paulucci property.but determined that the trees did not exceed 16 feet in height,nor the ridgeline of the primary structure on the property,and did not significantly impair the Applicant's view.Table 1 below is a summary of Staffs recommendation for each tree on the two subject properties assessed by Staff.The tree locations are keyed to the site map and view photo diagram attached as Exhibit B and Exhibit C,respectively. Table 1 Tree Foliage Type Staff Recommendation Alternative Number Recommendation Trees located in rear yard of Mise trees No action as the required finding "a-No alternative Paulucci cannot be made for this tree.recommendation orooertv 1 Aleppo Pine No aclion as the required finding No alternative"0"cannot be made for this Iree.(Paulucci)recommendation 2 Aleppo Pine No action as the required finding No alternative (Paulucci)"0"cannot be made for this tree.recommendation ATTACHMENTS 2-195 Staff Report:View Restoration Permit No.2011·00064 May 8.2012 Table 1 Continued Tree Foliage Type Staff Recommendation Alternative Number Recommendation 3 No action as the required finding No alternative (Paulucci)Aleppo Pine "0'cannot be made for these recommendationtree. 4 Aleppo Pine No action as the required finding No alternative (Paulucci)"0"cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 5 Pepper No action as the required finding No alternative (Paulucci)"8'cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 6 Aleppo Pine No action as the required finding No alternative (Paulucci)"8'cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 7 Magnolia No action as the required finding No alternative (Paulucci)'8'cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 8 Olive No action as the required finding No alternative (Paulucci)"8'cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 9 Olive No action as the required finding No alternative (Paulucci)"8"cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 10 Olive No action as the required finding No alternative (Paulucci)"8"cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 11 Palm No action as the required finding No alternative (Gerrard)"8"cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 12 Palm No action as the required finding No alternative (Gerrard)"8"cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 13 Palm No action as the required finding No alternative (Gerrard)"8"cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 14 Palm No action as the required finding No alternative (Gerrard)"8"cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 15 Palm No action as the required finding No alternative (Gerrard)"8"cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 16 Aleppo Pine No action as the required finding No alternative (Gerrard)'8"cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 17 Pepper No action as the required finding No alternative (Gerrard)"8"cannot be made for this tree.recommendation 18 No action as the required No alternative (Gerrard)Eucalyptus findings "8"and "0'cannot be recommendationmadeforthistree 19 Canary Island Pine No action as the required finding No alternative (Gerrard)"8"cannot be made for this tree.recommendation ATTACHMENTS 2-196 Staff Report:View Restoration Permit No.2011-00064 May 8,2012 Summary of Staffs Recommendation It is Staffs opinion that only four (4)of the 19 trees located on the Foliage Owners'properties that are visible in the Applicant's view significantly impair the Applicant's multi-component view. However,Staff is not recommending any tree trimming action to occur for the reasons described below. From the Applicant's viewing area (living room)Tree Nos.1-4 are located in the approximate center of the view frame,and significantly impair the Applicant's view of the ocean and Catalina Island.However,Staff recommends no restoration action occur to these four (4)Aleppo Pine trees,Tree Nos.1-4,as Staff believes based on the estimated tree heights shown in a 1951 photo of the trees,as well as input from the City's arborist,and other various historic photos, that the these four trees impaired the Applicant's view in 1951 when the Applicant's lot was created.Therefore,one of the six reqUired View Restoration Permit approval findings (finding "D")cannot be made for these four Aleppo Pine trees. In regards to the remainder of the trees located on the Paulucci property,Tree Nos.5·10, although these trees each exceed sixteen feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure,Staff does not believe that these trees significantly impair the Applicant's view.Although some of these trees are located towards the center of the Applicant's view frame,they all impair a comparatively minimal portion of the Applicant's ocean view,and therefore,Staff cannot make the required View Restoration finding "B"for these trees. Tree Nos.11·15 are located on the Gerrard property and although they do extend into the ocean view,because they are located towards the periphery of the view frame,and because they impair a comparatively minimal portion of the Applicant's ocean view,Staff does not believe these trees significantly impair the Applicant's view,and therefore,Staff cannot make the required View Restoration finding "8"for these trees. Tree No.16 is located on the Gerrard property,and although it extends into the ocean view, most of what the tree impairs is a view of developed land in Rancho Palos Verdes,which is not a protected view.Also,the tree is located towards the far right periphery of the view frame,and has been recently heavily thinned.Because of these aforementioned reasons,as well as the fact that Tree No.16 impairs a comparatively minimal portion of the Applicant's ocean view, Staff does not believe that this tree significantly impairs the Applicant's view,and therefore,Staff cannot make the required View Restoration finding "B"for this tree. Tree No.17 is located on the Gerrard property,and only impairs views of developed land in Rancho Palos Verdes,which is not a protected view.Therefore,Staff cannot make the required View Restoration finding "B"for this tree. Tree No.18 is located on the Gerrard property,and extends very minimally into the ocean view. Most of what the tree impairs is a view of developed land in Rancho Palos Verdes.Aiso, because it is located towards the extreme right periphery of the view frame,and because it impairs a comparatively minimal portion of the Applicant's ocean view,Staff does not believe that this tree significantly impairs the Applicant's view,and therefore,Staff cannot make the required View Restoration finding "B"for this tree. Tree No.19 is located on the Gerrard property,and extends very minimally,if at all,into the ocean view.Most of what the tree impairs is a view of developed land in Rancho Palos Verdes. ATTACHMENTS 2-197 Staff Report:View Restoration Permit No.2011-00064 May 8,2012 Also,because it is located towards the extreme right periphery of the view frame,and because it only potentially impairs a very small portion of the Applicant's ocean view,Staff does not believe that this tree significantly impairs the Applicant's view,and therefore,Staff cannot make the required View Restoration finding "B"for this tree. Please see Exhibit C,View Photo Diagram for an illustration of the above information. City Arbor'st Comments Staff visited the foliage owners'properties on April 16,2012 with the City Arborist,Mr.David Hayes,to view the trees and take additional photos.Mr.Hayes has noted the following in an arborist report dated April 16,2012.(Exhibit K) Aleppo Pine tree (Tree No.16)and Lemon Scented Gum (Eucalyptus,Tree No.18)at 22 Narcissa Drive: Mr.Hayes believes that the tree locations are consistent with the trees shown in the 1951 photo, and therefore the photo does show these trees existing in 1951. Aleppo Pine trees (Tree Nos.1-4)at 24 Narcissa Drive: It is Mr.Hayes opinion that the 1951 photo shows the four Aleppo pine trees at 24 Narcissa.He believes that although two of the four trees have narrower trunks,they were all planted at the same time,most likely sometime in the 1940s. Staff also asked Mr.Hayes if the trees showed any evidence of land movement in the last 70 years,and he stated that it did not appear so. Mr.Hayes aiso stated that if these trees were to be crown raised for view purposes,they would not survive the trimming. MANDATORY FINDINGS: In order to grant the requested view restoration action,the Planning Commission must make all the following findings reqUired by Section 17.02.040 of the Municipal Code: A)The Applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process and has shown proof of cooperation on his/her part to resolve conflicts. In November of 2011,the Applicant sent correspondence requesting that the Foliage Owners contact her to discuss potential work on their trees.The Applicant obtained no satisfactory solution so,in turn,on November 21,2011,the Applicant submitted a Notice of Intent to File for View Restoration Application No.2011-00064.Per the early neighbor consultation process,a pre-application meeting was requested with Ms.Gerrard,Mr.Paulucci,and Ms.Patricia Horan and Joan Bauer (trustee),foliage owners located at 22,24,and 28 Narcissa Drive,respectively. (Ms.Patricia Horan and Joan Bauer (trustee)were contacted regarding their vacant lot known as APN 7572-017-014,located next to 28 Narcissa Drive.)Staff and the City's mediator then held separate pre-application meetings with the Foliage Owners at 24 and 28 Narcissa Drive,as well as with the Applicant on December 20,2011. ATTACHMENTS 2-198 Staff Report:View Restoration Permit No.2011-00064 May 8,2012 APN 7572-017-014 (adjacent to 28 Narcissa Drive) As a result of this pre-application meeting,it was determined that there was no foliage located on the vacant lot known as APN 7572-017-014 that extended into the view,and so mediation was concluded for this property. 22 Narcissa Drive Ms.Gerrard did sign and mail back the return receipt on November 23,2011 from the certified letter requesting the pre-application meeting.However,she did not submit the form indicating that she wished to attend a pre-application meeting,and so the applicant was released to proceed with the filing of a formal View Restoration application for the property at 22 Narcissa Drive.It should also be noted however that Ms.Gerrard did complete some trimming of her Aleppo Pine tree (Tree No.16)and Eucalyptus tree (Tree No.18)in December 2011,per a request from the applicant.Please see the 'Correspondence"section for additional information. 24 Narcissa Drive As a result of the pre-application meetings,the Applicant and the Foliage Owner at 24 Narcissa Drive were able to come to a private agreement regarding tree trimming and removal.This private agreement was memorialized by the City's mediator and signed by both parties.The trimming and removal work was completed on January 6,2012.However,after the trimming work was completed,it is Staffs understanding that although the trimming/removal work was completed per the private agreement,the Applicant was not satisfied with the amount of improvement of the view and so filed a formal View Restoration Application. Therefore,in accordance with Section V (A)of the View Restoration Guidelines,the Applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process,and this finding can be adopted. B)Foliage exceeding sixteen feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure,whichever is lower,significantly impairs a view from the Applicant's viewing area,whether such foliage is located totally on one property,or when combined with foliage located on more than one property. The miscellaneous trees located in the rear yard of the Paulucci property do not exceed sixteen feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure,nor do they significantly impair the view.As such,this finding cannot be adopted for these trees. Tree Nos.1-4 exceed sixteen feet and the ridgeline of the primary structure,and also significantly impair the view of the ocean and Catalina Island,as they are located in the center of the view and impair a portion of the ocean and Catalina Island View.As such,this finding can be adopted for these trees. Tree Nos.5-19 exceed sixteen feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure,but do not significantly impair the Applicant's view.Accordingly,this finding cannot be adopted for these trees. ATTACHMENTS 2-199 Staff Reporl:View Restoration Permit No.2011-00064 May 8,2012 C)The foliage to be removed is located on property,any part of which is less than one thousand (1,000)feet from the Applicant's property. The Foliage Owners'properties at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive are located less than 1,000 feet from the Applicant's property at 25 Narcissa Drive,as the Applicant's and Foliage Owner's properties actually abut each other.As such.this finding can be adopted. 0)The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist,as view impairing vegetation, when the lot from which the view is taken was created. 24 Narcissa Drive The Foliage Owner's lot at 24 Narcissa Drive was created in April 1948 by Tract No.14500. The Applicant's lot was created in September 1951 by Tract No.13836.Because the Foliage Owners'properties are located directly above the Wayfarers'Chapel property,Staff was able to locate numerous historic photos of the Chapel that also show the large Aleppo Pine trees (Tree Nos.1-4)located at 24 Narcissa Drive in the background.Mr.Paulucci also provided Staff with a photo taken in June of 1951 at 28 Narcissa Drive,looking towards the Wayfarers'Chapel and the properties at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive.(Exhibits D and E.)The trees at 22 Narcissa Drive (Tree Nos.16 &18)and 24 Narcissa Drive (Tree Nos.1-4)are visible in this photo.Two utility poles are also visible in the 1951 photo,and they appear to be the same standard height utility potes that exist today,(or at least new poles in the same locations)located along the property line between 24 Narcissa and the vacant property,APN 7572-017-014.These utility poles are 30 feet tall.and so when Staff compares the Aleppo Pine trees (Tree Nos.1-4)at 24 Narcissa Drive with these poles,one can extrapolate that the trees are approximately 33%of the total height of the poles,or about 20 feet tall.Staff also obtained a photo taken of the Wayfarers' Chapel while it was under construction (sometime between 1949 and 1951)from the Chapel's website (www.wayfarerschapel.org),where the large Aleppo Pine trees are visible.(Exhibit G) Staff also visited the property at 28 Narcissa Drive and took photos from the same angle that the historic 1951 photo was taken,to verify that the trees in the historic photo are currently in the same location,and thus are confirmed to be the same trees currently located at 24 Narcissa Drive (Exhibit E).Staff also reviewed a historic air photo of 22 Narcissa Drive from 1952 and compared the location of the Eucalyptus tree (Tree No.18)with current aerial photos to confirm the existence of this tree.(Exhibit H)Both of these determinations were confirmed by the City's arborist as well. Staff then considered the configuration of the Applicant's view.Upon examination of the view out in the field,as well as detailed review of the view photo,(Exhibit C),Staff observed that because of the topography of the Applicant's and Foliage Owner's properties,the Applicant's ocean view begins very close to where the Aleppo Pine trees (Tree Nos.1-4)emerge from the ground.Essentially,where the Applicant's view of the ocean begins is visible at a fairly steep angle,and thus a tree of minimal height will extend into the ocean view,and impair the view. Staff has also reviewed these historic photos with the City's arborist,Mr.Dave Hayes,and he has verified that the trees shown in these photos are indeed the same trees currently located at 24 Narcissa Drive,most likely planted sometime in the 1940s. Accordingly,per this research,Staff believes it is clear that Tree Nos.1-4 existed as view impairing vegetation when the lot from which the view is taken was created.As such,Staff cannot adopt Finding "0"for Tree Nos.1-4. ATTACHMENTS 2-200 Staff Report:View Restoration Permit No.2011-00064 May 8,2012 Also,as they are much smaller,it is likely that the other trees (Nos.5-19)located at 24 Narcissa Drive did not exist as view impairing vegetation when the Applicant's lot was created.So, although Staff can make finding "0"for Tree Nos.5-19,as noted above,Staff cannot make finding "S"for these same trees. 22 Narcissa Drive The Foliage Owner's lot at 22 Narcissa Drive was created in April 1948 by Tract No.14500. The Applicant's lot was created in September 1951 by Tract No.13836.Staff reviewed the same 1951 photo provided by Mr.Paulucci (Exhibits D &E),as well as several historic photos from 1952 provided by the property owner at 22 Narcissa (Exhibit F).Staff reviewed the 1951 photo with the City's arborist,Mr.Dave Hayes and he believes that the Aleppo Pine (Tree No. 16)and the Eucalyptus tree (Tree No.18)are visible in the photo.However,Staff believes that although these trees did exist when the Applicant's lot was created,(which is supported by the additional historic photos)only the Eucalyptus tree (Tree No.18)was likely a view impairing tree at that time,and not the Aleppo Pine (Tree No.16).Staff believes this is because as seen in the view photo (Exhibit C),the lower portions of the trees only impair views of Rancho Palos Verdes,and only the upper portions of the trees impair the protected view.In the 1951 photo, as well as the 1952 photos,only the Eucalyptus tree appears tall enough to have been impairing the view When the Applicant's lot was created. Also,as Tree No.17 is much shorter and Tree No.19 appears to be a younger tree,it is likely that these trees located at 22 Narcissa Drive did not exist as view impairing vegetation when the Applicant's lot was created.So although Staff can adopt this finding for Tree Nos.16,17 &19, Staff cannot adopt this finding for Tree No.18.However,as noted above,Staff cannot make Finding "S"for Tree Nos.11-19. E)Removal or trimming of the foliage will not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy ofthe occupants ofthe property upon which the foliage is located. Due to non-compliance with Findings "S"and "0",Staff is not recommending that any trimming or removal occur to the trees located at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive.As such,this finding does not apply. However,it should be noted that if any of the trees were to be trimmed to expose the portion of view they do impair,this would not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the property upon which the foliage is located,as the portions of trees in the view do not screen the Foliage Owners'properties. F)For property located within the boundaries of the Miraleste Recreation &Park district, the Committee shall also find that removal or trimming of the foliage strikes a reasonable balance between meeting the purposes of section 17.02.040 set forth in Section 1 of the Ordinance approved by the voters on November 7,1989,and preserving the historical development of the Miraleste Recreation &Park District area with large numbers of trees. The subject properties are not located in the Miraleste Recreation and Park District.As such, this finding does not apply. ATTACHMENTS 2-201 Staff Report:View Restoration Permit No.2011-00064 May 8,2012 Correspondence 22 Narcissa Drive Staff received one letter from Ms.Gerrard,property owner of 22 Narcissa Drive.In her letter (Exhibit J),she states that she had met with Ms.Makhlouf in September 2011 to discuss the trimming of her trees to improve Ms.Makhloufs view.She states they met one additional time as well.Ms.Gerrard also attached an email conversation that occurred between herself and Ms.Makhlouf regarding their meetings and the tree trimming.Ms.Gerrard states in her letter that after these two meetings,she had trimmed her Aleppo pine tree (Tree No.16),thinning the tree as well as removing additional branches to improve Ms.Makhloufs view.She stated that she also trimmed her Eucalyptus tree (Tree No.17)and included the invoice from her tree trimmer for this work. 24 Narcissa Drive Staff received one letter from Mr.Mark Paulucci,property owner of 24 Narcissa Drive.In his letter (EXhibit J),Mr.Paulucci explains that he has participated in mediation with his neighbor at 25 Narcissa Drive on two occasions.He stated that he has removed several trees per agreements resulting from these two mediations.Mr.Paulucci also states that he believes the (Aleppo Pine)trees to pre-date the grading of his lot.and thus his trees should be protected per the View Guidelines.He has attached a photo from his next door neighbor (28 Narcissa Drive) as evidence.Mr.Paulucci also attached materials from the most recent mediation to his letter as well. CONCLUSION Staff believes that there is not sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested view restoration permit.Specifically,finding "8"cannot be made for Tree Nos.5 through 17 and 19, Finding "D"cannot be made for Tree Nos.1 through 4,and findings "8"and "D"cannot be made for Tree No.18.Therefore,Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution (Exhibit A)denying the Applicants'request for View Restoration by trimming andlor removing foliage on the properties located 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A -Draft P.C.Resoiution Exhibit 8 -Site Map Exhibit C -View Photo Diagram Exhibit D -1951 Photo from 28 Narcissa Drive Exhibit E -1951 Photo from 28 Narcissa Drive With Current Photo Exhibit F-Historic Photos of 22 Narcissa Drive Exhibit G -Historic Photo of Wayfarers'Chapel Exhibit H -1952 Aerial Photo of 22 Narcissa Drive and Current Oblique Aerial Photo shOWing Eucalyptus tree (Tree No.18) Exhibit I -Application and Early Neighbor Consultation Exhibit J -Correspondence Received from Interested Parties Exhibit K -City Arborist Report dated 4/16/12 Exhibit L -Site Visit Scheduling Form (Commission Members only) ATTACHMENTS 2-202 Exhibit A Draft P.C.Resolution ATTACHMENTS 2-203 P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2012- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO.2012-00064 TO TRIM AND/OR REMOVE FOLIAGE LOCATED AT 22 AND 24 NARCISSA DRIVE. WHEREAS,on March 28,2012,Ms.Da'ad Makhlouf,owner of property located at 25 Narcissa Drive,(herein "the Applicant"),in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,filed an application requesting a View Restoration Permit ("Permit")to restore a view from her property that she believed to be significantly impaired by foliage owned by Ms.Corinne Gerrard at 22 Narcissa Drive,and by Mr.Mark Paulucci at 24 Narcissa Drive (herein "the Foliage Owners"),in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City");and, WHEREAS,notice of the Planning Commission ("Commission")hearing was mailed to the Applicant and the Foliage Owners on April 5,2012;and, WHEREAS,on May 8,2012,after all eligible voting members of the Planning Commission had visited the site,the Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request,at which time,all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1:As defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code,the Applicant at 25 Narcissa Drive has a view of the ocean,offshore Islands (Catalina &Santa Barbara),coastline,Long Point,Abalone Cove,and portions of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. Section 2:The Applicant's viewing areas at 25 Narcissa Drive,as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code,are the living room,kitchen,dining room,guest bedroom and master bedroom,with the primary viewing area being the living room. Section 3:The Applicant at 25 Narcissa Drive has a view that is significantly impaired by four (4)trees (Nos.1-4)located at 24 Narcissa Drive. Section 4:Finding "A"of the View Restoration Guidelines states:"The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process and has shown proof of cooperation on his/her part to resolve conflicts."On November 21,2011,Ms.Da'ad Makhlouf submitted a Notice of Intent to File for View Restoration Application No.2011 -00064,which requested a pre- application meeting with Mr.Mark Paulucci,and Corinne Gerrard,(the "Foliage Owners") Foliage Owners at 24 Narcissa Drive and 22 Narcissa Drive,respectively.The applicant also requested a pre-application meeting with Ms.Patricia Horan and Joan Bauer (trustee)foliage owners at 28 Narcissa Drive,regarding their vacant lot known as APN 7572-017-014,located next to 28 Narcissa Drive. Therefore,in accordance with Section V (A)of the View Restoration Guidelines,the Applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process. P.C.Resolution 2012- Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENTS 2-204 Section 5:Finding "B"of the View Restoration Guidelines states:"Foliage exceeding sixteen (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 when combined with foliage located on more than one property."All of the foliage that significantly impairs the view (Tree Nos.1-4)exceeds 16 feet in height and the ridgeline of the primary structure on the property at 24 Narcissa Drive.However,Staff has determined that Tree Nos.5 through 19 do not significantly impair the view.This is because the trees impair a minimal portion of the overall view andlor are located towards or at the periphery of the view. Section 6:Finding "C"of the View Restoration Guidelines states:"The foliage to be removed is located on property,any part of which is less than one thousand (1,000)feet from the applicant's property line."The Foliage Owners'properties at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive are located less than 1,000 feet from the Applicant's property at 25 Narcissa Drive,thus Finding "C" can be made. Section 7:Finding "D"of the View Restoration Guidelines states:"The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist as view impairing vegetation when the lot from which the view is taken was created."Both of the Foliage Owners'lots were created in April 1948 by Tract No.14500.The Applicant's lot was created in September 1951 by Tract No. 13836.Historic photos,one taken in 1951 and another sometime between 1949 and 1951 which show the trees at 24 Narcissa Drive already approximately 20 feet in height.Because of the topography of the Applicant and Foliage Owner's properties,even a small tree would almost immediately impair the Applicant's view.As such,the foliage significantly impairing the view (Tree Nos.1-4)existed as view impairing vegetation,when the lot from which the view is taken was created. Tree Nos.5-10 are much smaller,and most likely did not impair the view when the lot from which the view is taken was created. Regarding the trees at 22 Narcissa Drive,historic photos taken in 1952 appear to show the Eucalyptus tree (No.18)at a relatively tall height,thus this tree likely existed as view impairing vegetation,when the lot from which the view is taken was created.However,the other trees on the property,(Nos.11-17 &19)appeared much smaller or were not visible at all in the historic photos,and thus did not exist as view impairing vegetation,when the lot from which the view is taken was created Section 8:Finding "E"states:"Removal or trimming of the foliage will not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the property upon which the foliage is located."As discussed in Sections 5 &7,due to non-eompliance with Findings "B" andlor "D",respectively,no trimming or removal of any of the trees located at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive will occur.As such,the finding "E"is not applicable. Section 9:Finding "F"of the View Restoration Guidelines states:"For property located within the boundaries of the Miraleste Recreation &Park district,the Committee shall also find that removal or trimming of the foliage strikes a reasonable balance between meeting the purposes of section 17.02.040 set forth in Section 1 of the Ordinance approved by the voters on November 7,1989,and preserving the historical development of the Miraleste Recreation & Park District area with large numbers of trees ... P.C.Resolution 2012- Page 2 of3 ATTACHMENTS 2-205 The subject properties are not located in the Miraleste Recreation and Park District.As such, this finding does not apply. Section 10:Pursuant to Section 15270 (a)of the Caiifornia Environmental Quaiity Act, the proposed project is statutorily exempt because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves,and Staff is recommending that the Pianning Commision disapprove this View Restoration Permit based on Staffs lack of the ability to fully adopt findings "8"and "D". Section 11:Any interested person aggrieved of this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City CounciL Pursuant to Section 17.202.040 (2)(g)of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code,any such appeal must be filed with the City,in writing and with the appropriate appeal fee,no iater than fifteen (15)days folloWing the date of the Planning Commission's finai action. Section 12:Based on the foregoing information,and on the information and findings included in the Staff report and evidence presented at the public hearing,the Planning Commission hereby denies VRP2011-00064. PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED on the 8th day of May 2012. AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: RECUSALS: Paul Tetreault Chairman Joei Rojas,AICP Community Development Director p.e.Resolution 2012- Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENTS 2-206 Exhibit B Site Map ATTACHMENTS 2-207 -:c J: )( W ATTACHMENTS 2-208 Exhibit C View Photo Diagram ATTACHMENTS 2-209 Tree No.1~----------------_.-.--- Exhibit C·View Photo Diagram I Tree No.3 I I A T T A C H M E N T S 2 - 2 1 0 Exhibit D 1951 Photo from 28 Narcissa Drive ATTACHMENTS 2-211 Exhibit D-Front and Back of Photo taken from 28 Narcissa Drive in June 1951 .'.,I.':" .. ,., '"",, , .>.. ATTACHMENTS 2-212 Exhibit E 1951 Photo from 28 Narcissa Drive with Current Photo ATTACHMENTS 2-213 Exhibit E-1951 Photo from 28 Narcissa Drive with Current Photo Photo taken from 28 Narcissa Drive on December 23,2011 ATTACHMENTS 2-214 Exhibit F Historic Photos of 22 Narcissa Drive ATTACHMENTS 2-215 ~ ';:: C III III .!!l E III Z N N '0 III ~.::c.. C) ';::,g .!!l :I:, u..-;g ~ W ATTACHMENTS 2-216 ·Exhibit G Historic Photo of Wayfarers'Chapel ATTACHMENTS 2-217 Exhibit G-Photo of Wayfarers'Chapel Under Construction-Sometime between 1949 and 1951 ATTACHMENTS 2-218 Exhibit H 1952 Aerial Photo of 22 Narcissa Drive and Current Oblique Aerial Photo showing Eucalyptus tree (Tree No.18) ATTACHMENTS 2-219 Maps W~I,". Or..:"";e:....-. iI-:;:zz_o-,"-'_-'O'llml"-_,_ 22_....bing Exhibit H -1952 Aerial Photo of 22 Narcissa Drive and Current Oblique Aerial Photo showing Eucal ptus tree (Tree No.18) ATTACHMENTS 2-220 Exhibit 1 Application and Early Neighbor Consultation ATTACHMENTS 2-221 RECEIVED MAR 28 ZO\?o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTFORMALAPPLICATIONFOR: VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT No.'2-01/-000«'L{ or VIEW PRESERVATION PERMIT No.__ I Date Filed:.~(~i (I 2 Applicant Name: APPLICANT INFORMATION»r;..'aA 1"'10.\;.,'"'.:ItA-( Address:_...':2"'-S-"--h"""'-')O'.8.L(J..(..4A..,(_S"-'IlI"-'------'·J)r.l..L.2..J-"!J-.oL..=_ Telephone No.(Home)(Work) How many applicants are included in this application?: How many foliage owners are included in this application?: ,d:l.tl ~'1 (IlL/'&!\\"Or a'r-'---- MANDATORY FINDINGS 1.Explain what steps you have taken to comply with the early neighbor consultation process and/or your effort to resolve the conflict and seek cooperation from your neighbors prior to filing a Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Application form..--'Adfj(,~·h?1uj (y\1f~/():":U.,~S;Z-0Ui~(l..- --.-<-<-IFe ""J;kd:iY\W a:i~:;::::~~~+,~:;::~:u~:"'~:=:'-'~~:~:~.J~~::=~~~~~~~~~ I 2.Describe the viewing area on your property from which the best and most important view is taken.Describe the view that is being obstructed.Does the foliage in question exceed 16 feet in height or the ridgeline of the residence onJi.e property on which It is JC?cated~hf W·r;3'2\;Ln~';}cDfl5tPC.J (ou'nC)\J,U-Jl >. 3.Is the foliage in question located on a property,any part of which is less than one thousand feet (100 from your property? <...:"' ATTACHMENTS 2-222 4.Did the foliage in question exist prior to the creation of the lot from which the view is taken? (Not applicable for View Preservation Permit applicants) VV\\;,n~vT'r=l &.Cr'\'±beLied',w 5.Will the removal of the foliage cause an unreasonable infringement on the privacy of the occupants of the property on which the foliage is located? f\.il 6.Is the property on which the foliage is located,within the boundaries of the Miraleste Recreation and Parks District?If so,is the foliage located on parkland owned by the Miraleste Recreation and Parks District? fQ I HEREBY CERTIFY,under penalty of perjury,that the information and materials submitted with this application are true and correct. c.)Z Applicant (Property Owner)Signature Date 3'·..2..P - NOTE:Each applicant must complete and sign a formai application form. ATTACHMENTS 2-223 RECEIVED NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE VIEW RESTORATION OR VIEW PRESERVATION PURPOSE: View Restoration-Tc restore views.which are significantly impaIred by tollage on pnvate property. View Preservation-To preserve views.which eXlsled in November 1989,or any tIme lhereafter.and have since become slgnlficanlly mlpalred. Prior 10 filing Ihis form.all prospeclive applicants shall first contact the foliage owner(s)10 attempt 10 resolve the view impairment issue.Proof of lhis attempt in the form of a copy of Ihe registered letter and return receipt sent to the foliage owner must be attached 10 this application. If no resolution is reached.then prospective applicants may complete and submll lhis form to the City If lhe application ,f for View Restoration.lhen upon receipt of thiS completed form.a Staff member will schecule a pre·applicalion meeting with all of the applicanls and foliage owners Involved and with one View Restoration Mediator.The purpose of the pre·application meeting is to discuss the City'S view restoration process with all of the property owners involved and to attempt to resolve the view impairment issues in order to aVOId the filing of a formal application. If the foliage owner(s)fail 10 attend a pre-application meeting within 60 days of the date that thiS form is filed.or ,f no agreement IS reached.then lhe early neighbor consultatlOn process shall be deemed complete and a formal application may be submitted. Subsequent 10 Staff verification of an applicant's documentalion of view pholograph.View Preservation applications require a sile visit by City Slaff 10 verify lhat a significant view impairment exists.If lhe SUbject foliage significanlly impairs the view as verified by City Staff, then Slaff shall contact the foliage owner requesting that the foliage trimming/removal be performed in a voluntary manner.If the foliage owner(s)does not voluntarily perform the work, lhen lhe early neighbor consullation process shall be deemed complele and a formal application may be submitted. Please indicate the type of application you are filing by checking the appropriate box belcw: II VIEW REST.ORATION PERMIT (VRPj I VIEW PRESERVATION PERMtT (VPP)---- ATTACHMENTS 2-224 I 'S_u~®~ed:I L-...:.C-:------C------:Noti ce of I nte nt to Fi Ie View Restoration Permit No.2-,II _..;.(J 0 (..tj or View Preservation Permit No. APPLICANT(S)INFORMATION (home)_~-eJ",-(work)Telephone: Applicant No. Address:·__~<::'-_>=I.W,"",-"....L=--~-L..I.-'-"--"=~-Ie>._-,f_V-,,-_ Name:__--.J~r..uCL Please descnbe your specific efforts 10 atlemplto resolve conflict with each loliage owner. V"(0 t ~G..(k\fiuf-.u.t\-{(",e.rrv-'c Luf..-.II;l(J e..r l--u.~ Applicant NO.2 Name:_ Address:_ Telephone:_(home)_(work) Please describe your specific efforts to atlempllo resolve conflict with each foliage owner. Please attach additional sheel ror more applicants View Restoration Permit Pre-Application Meeting Dates And Times.Pre-applicalion meetings are held during City Hall bUSiness hours.Monday thru Friday.The meelings may occur between the hours 01 8:00 AM and 10:00 AM.and again belween 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM Please selecl three dates and limes when all of the applicants will be available and allow at leas I 1-2 hours lor the meeling.The first date selected must be at least 30 days after this form is submitted to the City. ~__ll-J1t2o.<...::-_'~=+D....:..a....L~e....~>..-----·-=r:....JI-'---=-~o.~c\~"",~·-=",b+,-·",,:im,,",·~,,-e---...~- ~\_~-P:--;}--tl <>--'---.. =:::-=::\:l"-;:-.-L...I.¢-. Please do not flU oul above table if you are a View Preservati ATTACHMENTS 2-225 The foliage owner(s)will be given 10 bushess cays to choose frol1O one of the meetmg dales and limes mdicated above.Upon selection ~f a dale by the foliage owners.a flve·day nolice of the pre-application meeting date and time Will be given to all parties Involved FOLIAGE OWNER(S)INFORMATION Foliage Owner No.1 Name:_~K~fLt(l..IP\~~~CLi..&<L·_ Address'__..cd2i.-'j.\.---.:W~o..:>l.(...J.(4..l:-!..C~~2.0-'--......:DJ..Ll(-IIJ/.i.x..'f..."-,,,---.--,e"'-..JeL.YV _ Telephone.(home)(work) Foliage Owner No 2 (work) 10 Q,.C),{3o.lAf(J ((<A.,m l'l.f0-:t(ICi f-.-~r~ Address:__---".,;2=--''i''--_tJ~O'.L(Ll61~\~S.Jl(;:,'__..JlVL!_{\Li{:.3.f----,-.--J.&~f_V"'___--.JA!....l.~s 7,1.a I '7 0 Telephone:(home)_ Name: Please attach additional sheets for more foliage owners Please describe each applicant's view. viewing area,and indicate Ihe location,type and approximate height of the foliage that creates significant view impairment. APPLICANT VIEWING AREA"VIEW" I I No,NAMEI 1 0r'r,J ('kUI.V-\111<"',r.I.~.1.,Il.lr __OClCAh {~JP( 2 oJ ""h ( 3 4 "The Viewing area is limited to the primary living areas on the main floor of the residence or,if no view IS from within the primary structure,to gathering areas outdoors generally wilhin 10 feet of the residence,exciuding those areas within the required setbacks . ••Protected views are "far views"which include views of the ocean.offshore Isiands,the Los Angeles basin.City I;ghts.harbor.shoreline.and prominent landmarks and "near views"which include scenes located on the peninsula including a valley.ravine.equestrian (raii.pastoral environment or any natural setting.Views of vacant developable land.distant mountams not normally VIsible and the sky are not protected ATTACHMENTS 2-226 FOLIAGE OWNER(S)INFORMATION The foliage owner(s)will be given 10 business days to choose from one of the meeting dales and lrmes mdicatee above.Upon selection uf a dale by the foliage O'Nners.a fIve-day f"Iollce of the pre-applicalion meeting date and Wne WIll be g'ven to all parties Involved. Foliage Owner No."3 Name (()(;n t'V-(r(.{6..(J.... Address ,.)d..N~fA,-,-(~U~\\:uO:"~-,,J)oIoL'.(-,-i 'i-'..-e....-=:..."-r---">R...:fL.V--'--_ Telephone.(home)(wor~) Fohaoe Owner No 2 Name:-''-'''""_ Address:=_=-------------------- Telephone:(home/"""'_=----------(work) Please attach additional sheets {or more foliage owners Please describe each applicant's view.viewing area,and indicate the location,type and approximate height of the foliage that creates significant view impairment APPLICANT VIEWING AREA'VJEW~ No.NAME \}t,'n J H,.\':'hl,woi \.vin,.(,,"~~d\l(.~"",,k.0tt,,~nI Gcl"~~l , I 1 (~."4 p,r ..J •2 3 4 'The viewing area is limited to the primary living areas on the main floor of the residence or,if no view is from within the primary structure.to gathering areas outdoors generaliy within 10 feet of the residence.exclUding those areas within the required setbacks . •,Protected views are "far views"which include views of the ocean.offshore islands.the Los Angeles basin.city lights.hatboro shoreline.and prominent landmarks and "near views"which include scenes located on the peninsula Including a valley.ravine.equestrian tra.l,pastoral environment or any natural sening.Views 01 vacant developable land.distant mountains not normally visible and the sky are not protected • ATTACHMENTS 2-227 -----, FOLIAGE OWNER NO.1 L/I ,.'(~Ir'l "c( .Name:_,-.lL!~~,,.L'J'b,"'_.....;..a.~JJ.!l...l_~~~c.b..l.....t.AL-_~--1 l\JLl (01 ~~<•Address:~ FOLIAGE TYPE HEIGHT'[APPLICANTS AFFECTED _ "'r..~,d;:i'l (I ~"'--\.:"J P I ~ \J 'T , ~ApproXimate height as measured from the bilse of the tree Name: FOLIAGE OWNER NO.2 j.-\"ft,"l ()«.y)Bt<..I.Al'I 'J("".i l J2' ~Address:AH..1 '1 S 7 0"oi J 0 \i .,- FOLIAGE TYPE HEIGHT"APPLICANTS AFFECTED ,.,.,.,fl'/ty"'tr ./<i.,,,\,7 -_.- I 'IT r I Applicant NO.1 Si9r1alure 1/-«/-1/ Dale Applicant NO.2 Signature Date Pursuant 10 the View Restoration and Preservation Guioelines.applicant(s)must show proof of conlact with the foliage owner(s)prior to submitlal of this application. IIWe have made an attempt to contact the foliage owner(s)prior to the submittal of this application and have attached a copy of the registered letter and return receipt sent 10 the foliage owner. YES' [2] NOo ATTACHMENTS 2-228 jName: Add App'Oxlmate height as measured from the base of the tree ress:,LI ,,- i FOLIAGE TYPE HEIGHT'APPLICANTS AFFECTED '----'.,- D'/H,\~vH.,~,7 ~ . FOLIAGE OWNER NO,2 ,Name: Address:_.-"- I FOLIAGE TYPE HEIGHT'APPLICANTS AFFECTED ,, ,......- , I c )2-.--= Applicant NO.1 Signature Date II -':<'1-tI Applicant NO.2 Signature Date Pursuant to the View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines.applicanl{s)must show proof of contact with the foliage owner(s)prior to submittal of this application. IlWe have made an attempl to contact the foliage owner(s)prior to the submittal of this application and have attached a copy of the registered leller and return receipl sent to the foliage owner. NO D ATTACHMENTS 2-229 November 7,2011 Da'ad Makhlouf 2S Nardssa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Pat Horan and Joan Bauer,Trustee 28 Narcissa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 9027S Dear Pat and Joan, We have had some contact regarding your pepper trees which are starting to encroach on my view.If allowed to grow,they will completely impair my view.I've asked you to work with me to deal with this issue,unfortunately and sadly,to no avail.I'm contacting you at this time for a final attempt to deal with this issue in a neighborly-like fashion.Should you desire to work with me and communicate with me in a neighborly-like fashion,then please contact me right away.Thank you. Sincerely, Da'ad Makhlouf ATTACHMENTS 2-230 D.Makhlouf From: Sent: To: Subject: JL Bauer ~~~"'II!!!II!I!"'~Friday,November 18,201110:41 AM D.Makhlouf Lot 74 trees November 18,2011 Via US Mail and electronic mail Joan L Bauer,Trustee Patricia F,Horan Survivor's Trust St.Augustine,FL 32086 Da'ad Makhlouf 25 Narcissa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Dear Ms,Makhlouf, 1have just received a copy of your certified letter,dated November 7,2011,which was delivered to 28 Narcissa Drive,Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275.To avoid delay,please send all future correspondence concerning the Trust's Narcissa Drive properties directly to me at my Florida mailing address or via e-mail. I don't view my previous request that you respect our property as being less than neighborly.You took it upon yourselfto repeatedly enter our property without permission,in disregard of our request that you not do so,and chain saw our trees,That is not neighborly.It isn't respectful or the right way to open a neighborly dialogue. Frankly,it has never seemed to us that the foliage on lot 74 did much,if anything,to impair your view, However,please let me know what you consider your viewing area,what view you think is impaired by the trees and which peppertrees you want trimmed,We will consider your request and get back to you, Sincerely, Joan L.Bauer,Trustee Patricia F,Horan Survivor's Trust St.Augustine,FL 32086 1 ATTACHMENTS 2-231 November 7,2011 Da'ad Makhlouf 25 Narcissa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Corinne Gerrard 22 Narcissa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Dear Corinne, Thank you for coming to my home and discussing the situation with the trees on your property which are impairing my view.And I appreciate the fact that you stated to me that you would take care of trimming them.Nevertheless,I did stress to you my concern that time is of the essence and if the trimming doesn't happen in November,then I could very well miss the boat this year to go to the City.J also asked if We could actually meet as soon as possible with your arborist to agree on the trimming that would be done and put that in writing to allay my concerns that my view will in fact be restored. Unfortunately,nothing has been even scheduled thus far,and we are already going into the second week of November.If you would like to meet as soon as possible to do this,you know I'll welcome that, Corinne.Thank you for your understanding. Sincerely, Da'ad Makhlouf ATTACHMENTS 2-232 November 7,2011 Da'ad Makhlouf 25 Narcissa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Mark Paolucci 24 Narci55a Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Dear Mark, I hope you're doing well,Mark,and I hope you don't take umbrage at this letter,but unfortunately I need to bring the matter up again.In the past,you and I "mediated"with the City of RPV to deal with trees on your property which impair my view.We did accomplish some work,and then the work was halted,and I was informed by City personnel that the matter would be taken up now by a different department which would be performing a full foliage review and addressing the issue of my view restoration per the application you submitted to the City for plans to add on or to modify your home. Unfortunately,perhaps due to economic conditions,you ultimately didn't go forward with your application/home modification,and the matter re view restoration simply went by the wayside.Now I must re-address the situation again.Mark,if you wish to discuss the matter with me,I would certainly welcome that.Thank you. Sincerely, Da'ad Makhlouf ATTACHMENTS 2-233 Exhibit J Correspondence Received from Interested Parties ATTACHMENTS 2-234 RE:Trees 22 Narcisso Amy Seeraty Associate Planner RECEIVED APR 16 2012 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT April I6 2012 Amy. You have been given photos of the pine free that has been cut.trimmed and teathered.The culling was done December 02.2011.As well.you have old photos of my home buill in 1950. "25 Narcisso is Da'ad Makhloul home buill in 1953.The enclosed pial mop shows the tree in queslion is to a for North side angle Irom 1I1e subjecls home. See atlached E-mails;September 07.20TI I met with Da'ad to discuss how she wonted the pine tree lrimmed.She said she did nol care to look 01 the new Terraneo hotel however would like one branch cut that poked towards the cove view.I asked her for photos of the view she soid she hod when she purchased Ihe home in 2006.She said she would look for them and get them 10 me.To dole I have not received any photo's from Da'ad.I am fomiliar with the view from #25 Norcissa as I am in the Real Eslale business and know Ihe home and view well.10 the poinl of placing on offer on the home 0 few years bock.That was when TWO pine trees were locoted 01 the North side of my properly.now there is only one as one was cut down. During our September meeting and one following meeting with Da'ad she mode a statement 11101 lends itself to on enticement.saying fhal she was thinking at selling her Ilome and Ihal perhaps we can do business togelher.II Da'ad's intent is to clear the surrounding frees in order 10 establish a bigger view in order to get a higher appraised value to the disruption &decline in value to the surrounding homes then her inlenl to be a good neighbor is nof justified and not in good faith.111 co-operate and cut the trees the way she wonts them perhaps we could do business remark is not within my slandards of professionalism and il is against my values.I mode il clear to Da'ad thaI the trees would be cut based on what the professional landscaper said was in the best interesl and health ot the frees.That it was my inlent 10 cuI.trim &leather lhe trees.11 would open her lor angle view more. Amy.thank you tor seeing me and laking the time 10 meel with me when I come by Cily Hall Thursday Apri1T2.20T2.Also lor meeting me 0122 Narcisso at 12:T5 the some day.Amy.this gave you fhe oppartunity 10 see that Ihe pine tree &Eucalyptus free at my cosl was feafhered with specific branches cut in order fa open Ihe view more than it ever has been in Ihe past.I can onfy hope that I do nollose my trees because of the additional culling that took place to accommodate a neighbor.Please see the attached INVOICE statement Irom Porker Tree Service. The old photas I showed you indicated a vacant piece of land contiguous 10 both #22.&24. Norcisso.II lurtller SllOWS a ridge 01 shrubs and pine Irees Ihal were planted in 1950 thai are now 62 years of age.These planting were prior 10 any home being built 01 n5 Norcisso.Furlher Ihe two meetings that I have hod with fhe owner Da'ad show intent on my part fa keep peace with o neighbor who from past patterns is not a reasonable person. Page One ATTACHMENTS 2-235 Page Two Da'ad come onto my properly and cut a pepper tree branch that angled towards the telephone pole 01 the front yard.She also had her crew chop branches from a Iree in the fronl yard to the point Ihat it died leaving a hole in the landscaping. Her pattern has shown thaI she goes onto property without permission as with Mrs.Pot Horan's property on Narcisse and chops tree branches.As well,her behavior indicates she makes agreements whether verbal or wrillen and does not follow through. She is aware that I do not live at 22 Narcisso however I still keep Ihe property well groomed. t have in good faith full filled my agreement with Da'ad. Corinne Gerrard ATTACHMENTS 2-236 923771 SHIP'TO: ADDRESS: stAt~~}J~~L1\CJMSf 1..t:3 5(p·~ INVOICE fJwd,eA-_--:.:....:....:, ~cc-mh.'-I'"c).;}-O it -rY<,t'-S c.....':jYl""'ll""C~p<>.-tktv",d. CITY,5TATE,ZI1'R l'--l AOOW§: 2-"2.. CUSlOtolnt"5 atom:SOLVIY: lz.oh _ -.ef(\·uhf\l'''-., ~~~'A>R tt'\1\'l '()"C.I;:"J lUI ~1i'IC.'<e t ~I I>ty\J 1M \IM~ < \2.11 ~ \5"0 - I I V 1~+O - v INVOICE •:!OIU ~0 71-736 ATTACHMENTS 2-237 Omai!-Trimming ofn- Gh~,::.••.:1, Trimming of Trees 8 messages Corinne Gerrard< To: Ce: Ple'"confirm receIpt BE;Tree Trimming Corinne Gerrard Page I of4 Wed,Sep 7,2011 a110:57 AM Dear Da'ed, II was a neighborly meeting we had yesterday al your home. The pholo's I took will assist the landscapers 10 understand whal trimming will be done to create a more horizon ocean view for you as well as whal is best for the tree's heal1h. As i mentioned wilen you first conlactad me,the trimming on my trees is done between the months of November and January the letestln March for the health of the trees. This moming I look more photo's of the trees on the Wayfarer's Chapel properly.Upon completion of a photo legend outlining the trees that have blocked a major coastal while water view,I will send said legend with photo's certified 10 the Chapel wilh mquest to restore the vlew from my home es well as both yours and Marks. You will be kepi posted. Corinne Gerrard,DRE:00499058 Keller Williams PalosV~ Owner GO Team Sells _ CerItlfad R.E.M81ket Center Instructor REORe 've Mall Delivery SUbayatam <meiler-deemon@googlemail.com>To _ Delivery to the following reclplenl failed permanently: Wed,Sep 7,2011 at 10:57 AM Technical details of permanent failure: Google tried 10 deliver your message,but II was rejectad by the recipient domain.We recommend contacting the other emeil provider for further information about the cause of thJs em>r.The error thai the other servor retumed was:550 550 #5.1.0 Address rejected bdesena@roddanpaolucci.com (stale 14). -Original message- MIME-Version:1.0 Received:by 10.236.181.137 wilh SMTP id I9mr2g158434yhm.56.1315418242935; Wed,07 Sep 2011 10:57:22 -0700 (pDT) ReceiVed:by 10.236203.68 with HTTP;Wed,7 Sep 201110:57:22 -0700 (PDT) Dale:Wed,7 Sep 201110:57:22 .{)7oo ATTACHMENTS 2-238 Gmail-Trimming of Trees Message-ID:<CAFgOOJ5roZxmz?MNvwWn66lJ<BxT=NUjTqX2CFrJu51_3yBgQw@mail.gmail.com> Subject Trimming of Trees From:Corinne Gerrard To: Cc Content-Type:multiparVaftemalive;boundary=20cf3040eal01geb2604ac5dad98 ·Please confirm receipt· ·RE:Tree Trimming.· jQuotet3 leXl hldoen) Page 2 of4 CO".'niine.Giie.Traiird.<To: wed,Sep 7,2011 at 11:15 AM IQuoted te ..;hldoenl Corinne Gerrard.DRE:00499058 Keller Williams Palos V~RS,GRS Owner GO Team Sells_ REO Re seotative ,. Diane Yags<_!!II1 Reply-To:Diane Vag To:Corinne Gerrard Thu,Sep 8,2011 at 5:00 PM Corrine,1hank you.Just keep me apprised re Wayfarer's chapel.I'm glad to be involved because oftentimes trees I think are on Mark's property are actually theirs. I appreciate your willingness to restore my horizon view. thanks. To:Cc:iiiiiiiiiiil_ Senl:Wednesday,September 7,2011 10:57 AM Subject Trimming of Trees 1()"lojNII~\l tndrlrn] Diane Yags <.~I!!!!!!I! Reply-To:Diane ags To:Corinne Gerrard Wed.Oct 5,2011 at 9:55 AM Hi,Corinne.How are you?Hope you are well.Haven't heard from you;so I'm following up.I understood once you had the photos we would meet again.I know you feel we have time,but I d!lJ:.nOt') ATTACHMENTS 2-239 Gmail -Trimming of Trees Page 3 of4 Wed,Oct 5,2011 al 10:44 AM feel that time flies and I don't want to miss the boat.That is,I'd like to handle things by end ofNovember.We're in October now.December I'm busy and I'd like to know that it's handled before we're into the new year for my peace of mind on the situation.We're both straighforward with each other,which I do appreciate honesty and candor,and for sake of honesty and candor, the truth is I don't want to miss the boat for this year with the City should we not agree.This way, for my peace of mind,I'd like things set up for November.I appreciate that you can lUlderstand my concern.Thank you,Corinne. Da'ad. From:Corinne Gerrard To: Cc: Sent:Wednesday,September 7,201110:57 AM Subject:Trimming of Trees Corinne Gerrard_> To:DianeYags"'--- Good moming. I have discussed w~h my landscaper and he is meeting w~me to discuss the trees.As J have always said the trimming will occur between the months of November and spring.I like doing the Irees November,December,January depending on weather and depending on what my landscapers says.It will get done.It will help my cause as it will cut down on all the sqUirrels eating the pine nuts and making a mess. Corinne rOUOleCl lexl hlOoenJ Corinne Gerrard.DRE:0049905B Keller WiDiams Palos Verdes Reat CRS,GRS Owner GO Team Sells REO Re tative , Diane Ya Reply·To: To:Corinne Gerrard Wed.Oct 5,2011 a13:30 PM Corinne,what is happening is that you're gi ving me a promise but you're acting and planning unilaterally.We're not sitting down,coming up with an agreement and memorializing and formalizing an agreement.I think you're accommodating my needs but that's not entirely clear or deftnite at this point.For practical reasons,I'm IUl3ble to wait beyond November,Corinne, because as I've stated,if it turns out that we're in fact not agreeing on what should be done,then I will miss my opportunity for an entire year,and I can't do that.I have to be pragmatic, ATTACHMENTS 2-240 lJrnall - 1nmmmg OJ J rees "age 4 014 Corinne,and business-minded about this.That's why we need to come together to form an agreement with you and your landscaper with a timeline,etc~or I have to protect my interest on this.I know you're very business-minded and savvy yourself far more than I,and therefore I am confident that you understand my concern.Thank you. From:Corinne Gerrard To:Diane Yags ••lilililililiii Sent:Wednesday,October 5,2011 10:44 AM Subject:Re:Trimming ofTrees If)uOl:c-d IC\lllldckn) Corinne Gerrard To:Diane Yags Wed,Oct 5,2011 at 5:56 PM Diane, The photos are taken of the trees wa disaJssed how the trees will be trimmed.If you wanllo be informed of the day Ihe trimming will lake place that is fine with me.I have never changed the time frame of when Ihe Irees win be trimmed.I thought we had an agreement.Once I go over in detail with my landscapers I wililel you know. Corinne (QUOled lexl hIl.:ldenJ hllps://mail.~00Jde.com/maiUulO/?ui=2&ik=08c7c84b22&view=pl&cat=NARCISSA %20TREES&search=cat...4/16/2012 ATTACHMENTS 2-241 Fidelity National Title Company Profile Report Page I of I 3637 S MEYLER ST SAN PEDRO CA 90731 25 NARCISSA DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275 Page Grid:823-A4 Secondary Owner: 25 NARCISSA DR,RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA,90275-5927 Primary Owner: MAKHlOUF,DAAD Mail Address: Site Address: APN :7572-012-023 Lot Number:6 Housing Tract Number:13836 Legal Description:lot:6 Tract No:13836 Abbreviated Description:LOT:6 CIlY:REGIONIClUSTER:14114085 TR#:13836 TRACT NO 13836 LOT 6 CitylMuniITwp: REGIONICLUSTER:14/14085 /.Property Overview Owner and Geographic Infonnation \" '"•""j> ,~.'. Property Details Bedrooms:3 Bathrooms:4 Total Rooms : Zoning:RPRS1 &1" Vear Built:1953 Garage: Fireplace : Pool: Square Feet:2,346 SF lot Size:1.016 AC Number of Units:1 Use Code:Single Family Residen~al Seller:MACDONAlD,AMY;MACDONALD,JEFF Saie &Loan ~~~~ Transfer Date :0110612006 Transfer Value :$1,790,000 Document # :06-Q035908 CostlSq Feet :$763 Assessment &Taxes \1 Assessed Value:$840,100 Percent Improvement:.01 'Yo HomeownerExemption: Land Value:$840,000 Tax Amount:$10,279.80 Tax Rate Area:7-148 ,""Improvement Value:$100 Tax Status:Current Tax Accounl 10 ;.,- Marltel Improvemenl Value:Marltel Land Value:Marltel Value: Offered by FIdelity National Title ComPl"Y All jnformation produced is deemed reliable but Is not guaranteed. httn'!I,vurur fi,h·l;hm.:lc:.cnnrf I"nm/rvhPrPrnfPrnvu 'lc:,,?R pnM$lcik='J.l ,.--LtJl1/t /01 /'1 <e ewl.(01., .4Innnt? ATTACHMENTS 2-242 ~·ldellty NatlOnalhtJe Company Prolile Report Page 1 of 1 /.Property Overview 22 NARCISSA DR,RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA,90275-5929 22 NARCISSA DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275 22 NARCISSA DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275 Page Grid:823-A4 Secondary Owner:Primary Owner. GERRARD,CORINNE TR;GERRARD TRUST Mall Address: Owner and Geographic Information 1>: J h P i~, \o....'Site Address: APN :7572-Q17-{)16 Lot Number:76 ,Housing Tract Number:14500 ,Legal Description:Lot:76 Tract No:14500 Abbreviated Description:LOT:76 CITY:REGIONICLUSTER:14/14085 TR#:14500 TRACT NO 14500 LOT 76 CitylMunilTwp: L REGION/CLUS!E~14/1~ Property Details Bedrooms:1 Bathrooms:1 Total Rooms: ,ZOning:RPRS1 &E" Year Built:1950 Garage: Fireplace: Pool: Square Feet:1,324 SF Lot Size:31,799 SF Number of Units:1 Use Code:Sin91e Family Residential Sale &Loan "'n~G~,Transfer Date:0z/12J-1999-- 5""eo s:~~.;:-=_••Transfer Value:NlA ~ seller:N/A Document#:CostlSq Feet:NfA Assessment &Taxes \1 Assessed Value:$380,957 Percent Improvement:32.55%Homeowner Exemption:H Land Value:$256,965 Tax Amount:$5,072.24 Tax Rate Area:7-148 ,0"Improvement Value:$123,992 Tax Status:Currenl Tax Account ID :.- Market Improvement Value:Market Land Value:Market Value: Offered by Fidelity NIIt10lllll TItle Company AIl information produced is deemed reliable but is not guaranteed. htto:llwww.fidelitvnassnort.cnm/CvberProlProxv.asn?RenMask=2-1 4/1312012 ATTACHMENTS 2-243 Fidelity National Title Company Profile Report Page I of 1 /.Property Overview 24 NARCISSA DR,RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA,90275-5929 24 NARC1SSA DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275 24 NARC1SSA DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275 Page Grid:823-M Secondary Owner: Site Address: APN :7572'{)17-015 Lot Number:75 Housing Tract Number:14500 legal Description:Lot:75 Tract No:14500 Abbreviated Description:LOT:75 CITY:REGION/CLUSTER:14/14085 TR#:14500 TRACT NO 14500 LOT 75 CilylMunifTwp: ,REGION/CLUSTER:14/140851_ Owner and Geographic Information 1 ------- Prim;uy OWner:I PAULUCCI,MARK TR;MARK PAOLUCCI I FAMILY TRUST i Mall Address: Property Details t Bedrooms:2 I Bathrooms:2 I Total Rooms : i zonl~~_~PR~1_&:· Year Built:1950 Garage: Fireplace : Pool: Square Feet:1,825 SF Lot Size :37,544 SF Number of Units:1 Use Code:Single Family Residenlial Sale &Loan ~~~'~ ~ .--. I Transfer Date:07/1012008 Transfer Value:N/A Seller:N/A Document#:CostISq Feet :N/A Assessment &Taxes \1 Assessed Value:$1,100,000 Percent Improvement:20%Homeowner Exemption: Land Value:$880,000 Tax Amount:$12,695.00 Tax Rate Area:7-148 ,<t<'Improvement Value:$220,000 2009 Tax Account ID : ,Market Improvement Value:Market Land Value:Market Value: Offered by Fidelity National TJtfe Company AJllnformation produced is deemed reliable but is not guaranteed. httn'lIwww fidelitvna~~nnrt C'.omf~herPrnfPro"v.R.Qn?RenMa.q.k=2~I 4/nnOl? ATTACHMENTS 2-244 ~:, !!!~"C' :l1 "~ :!:x:.,,... .\. ::> 0 <Il J.>/, '7' "', '"0 '"Za""'<Xl C..q ..., "0'0 ~ Z Z ~ "~...,~~ u ~'.J ~ ««"a::x;~....,~J ~, <- >'~~, ~ \oJ .:;~-a~0,'S=:~- g' ..~ ,. ;:... .,:". .'~ ,...~ :3);~.,: • , " !/;..,. /®' / j/ lr'I"! •--..: ~'...-'~":....;.~ " " '.. ;. ..:.. ::..~.'. ~~..,,, \, "',- .' " z '.. '. -----,- -;w --dJ '"\' \'.0~\t.,j-. ~~\";"\-.", V '-.....JJ..:.... \CS'l J4:{:.>._'z.~. ATTACHMENTS 2-245 April 19,2012 Torheciry ofRPV Planning Commissioners: Paul Temauh Dave Emc:nhiscr BWGastner Gordon Leon Jdltey Lewis Rober<A Ndson DavidTomblin Fr:Foliage Owna Rc:View Resotration/20l1-0064 Dear Commissioners; RECEIVED Ar~20 2012 COMMUNITY DEVelOPMENT DEPARTMENT I would like to express my appreciation foreaking the time ro review this case;read this letta,visit my property andrc:solve chis Tree vs View issue.I believe in the concept of the:"middle ground·~which is why I embraced.on two occasions,thecnlightentd approach ro mediation as provided by the city.My intention from the beginning,as well as my willingness to abide by the mediation process,was to be neighborly.But during this process,despite good intentions,and in the attempt to find the balance between view and tree;integrity was uprooted.And now,unfon:unatdy,my neighbors sense ofhonor and integrity is as qucstion2blcandas impaircdas hcrview. I would like to request that you t~into consideration two rdcvant points: 1.THE TREES PRE·DATETHE GRADING OF MY NIEGHBORSLOT. I cannot state it any more clearly.The trees were here firSt.By some miracle;as shown in historic phoros made available by Wayforers Chapel as well as Ms.Horan,my highly respected next door neighbor,there is documented proofthar the trees on my property pre-date the grading ofmy complaining neighbors lot.My trees were f.lirly mature when The Wayforers Chapel was built in 1951.which is two years bcforemy neighbors lot was graded.Additionally. when my neighbor purchased and moved into her home in JanUaty 2006,the trees were there, waiting for hcr,staring hcr Straight into the eyes. 2 MY PREVIOUS TWO ATTEMPTS TO FIND THE MIDDLE GROUND. On two previous occasions,I wdeomed thcidea ofmcdiarion as provided by the ciey ofRPY-an enlightened approach to resolving eonflier between twO reasonable parties.On both occasions, despite both parties agrecing ro the terms,my neighbor reneged.I not only lost f.tirh in rhe process,lost f.lirh in my neighbor,bur I loSt several beamifol,majestic pine nees. ATTACHMENTS 2-246 !Qlt down 3largeltccs.7 smiller ltCCS,as wdl as many other smillc:rvarieties (now only 4 majestic pine trees ranain)in honor ofthe ~rccrncn[.in the belief that ifboth Ftics signed <heogrec:ment.bo<h parties would honor the >gtec:ment-and theissuewould be resolved and wccould211 maveon.But that was not thccasc.And hac we arc. She f.ailed ro pay her share of<he Finley's TreeServicc bill ($3000).even after signing •written contractual ogrec:ment with Finley's which spelled out rhe ogreed upon mediation turns-which werevay dearly stated.!>greed to pay .shareofthe Finley bill.($lOOO)-which was paid within 24hours after completing <he work·even with tbeknowledge th.t the trees on my property pre-datedher lot,and moSt likdywouldn't need to beent down,l.ced.ere... (Mr.Finley had to take the 1114ttCr to <DU1't-IUlJ evmnud/y had to enlist thr tupport ofthr Sh"'iffi DlpArtmm~who tUlUStfuJJ]trrvrJMt.MAkhloufon thefifth Attrmpt,Ajt",the fmlrJ tDApprAT on the prcuimMl]trhrdulcJ datt.Thr TrUZIt",itttiJl unmolveJm ofelUl]ApriL) !am hopdUl <har you will seriously consider <he f..et tharmy trees pre-dace her lot.and honor thar:ponion ofme ordinance or code that protects trees ova views.in this situation. Additionally,!have cvety teas on to believethe intention ofthis neighbor is to CUt my trees. then CUt and run-pUI the house on the markcr,sdl it,move out ofthe neighborhood.flee the city ofRPV,andlcave god knows how many smill vendors andhard working individuals like SCOlt Finley chasing her down rheslteer ttying to collect as she goes. ATTACHMENTS 2-247 , " " ,,, I I I I u..l _ ATTACHMENTS 2-248 :----------------------------- 1 i., , .....:.... .'.": \ i " .-: TT , \'. ,.-rl '(i~~lJnr (l>;"flM ",:f,dD •.1......;.·S on .~:~~IJ ')."Il 'J. ..LN It:ld (:i 0"10;:)\7'00>; ATTACHMENTS 2-249 Memorandum of Understanding Be it known to all parties that Da'ad Makhloufresiding at 25 Narcissa Drive,Rancho Palos Verdes,CA,hereinafter referred to as "View Ownern •Mark Paulucci residing at 24 Narci~Drive,Rancho Palos Verdes,CA hereinafter referred to as "Foliage Owner" on this --L day of January 2012,agree as follows: The "Foliage Ownern agrees to the following: I.PerfOITIl the prescribed pruning to the following trees: a)Remove one (I)Aleppo Pine tree located in the side yard of the property.Tree indicated hy blue line in the attached photo. Removal defined as flush cut to the ground as close as possihle. b)Lace remaining four (4)large Aleppo pine trees,defined as removing 30%foliage reduction,per the anending arborist's recommendation.Trees located in the side yard of the property. Note:Branches and foliage to be removed as part of the lacing described in item Ib will be detenmned by the anending arborist for the trees health.Ifthe arborist feels appropriate, the View Owner would appreciate if the foliage in the areas circled in yellow on the attached photo could be part of that 30%foliage reduction. 2.The Foliage Owner has obtained a bid from a licensed and bonded tree service.Bid attached.The Foliage Owner will pay Finley's Tree and Landscape $I 000.00 of the total cost for the work as described in items Ia and Ib above to be performed.Method of payment dependent on the approved vendor's policies and procedures. 3.The Foliage Owner will schedule the work as descn1>ed in Item No.1 a-b above.The initial work to be completed within thirty (30)days from the date the agreement is signed by all participants,pending the tree vendor's schedule. In consideration of the above,the "View Ownern agrees to the following: I.Upon completion of the work as described in items I a-b above,pay Finley's Tree and Landscape $3000.00 of the total cost for the foliage and removal as described in item I a-d above.Method of payment dependent on the approved vendor's policies and procedures. ATTACHMENTS 2-250 Foliage OwneT~~::::::::::::::=====---_ 2.If the tree(s)die due to the trimming the View Owner will pay for the complete removal of the dead or dying tree(s)and replacement with a 24"box tree,or the [mancial equivalent.The determination of the trees condition and cause to be made by a certified arborist and provided in writing.n Please be aware that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,its employees,officers, contractors or any other persons,corporations or entities acting on behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are not Party to this agreement,and sbaU have no responsibility or liability y costs or damages that arise out of this agreement. Date-d4 c View Owner -'c:..:-_.-_-~.'~·~"'>'-7~.-'.=.==-_/)1' Date .I -.y.JJ- ATTACHMENTS 2-251 22208 S.Vermont Ave. Tommce,CA.90502 License#897701 C27,D49 January 5,2012 Mark Palueei 24 Narcissa Drive Ranebo Palos Verdes,CA.90275 Finley's Tree and Landeare,Inc.proposes to provide the necessary labor and materials to do the following work: East Side of Property (3)Pines Middle (1)Pine Closest to House (I)Pine Lace out 30%of green foliage,remove yellow highlighted limbs to Scott's specs for view restoration Remove to ground level Lace out 40-45%of greeo foliage,remove selective limbs over house to balance (Scott will be present will be onsite for balancing of tree) TOTAL COST TO PERFORM:$4,000.00 PAYMENT TERMS:I-f Mark Palucci agrees to pay $1,000 ojtotaljob cost (upon completion)x.V_4I-, _o "---S~-.-•..."Da'Ad Makhloujagrees to pay SJ,OOO ojtota/job cost (upon completion)x,_-=-,....<'~.=:..._ In preparation for work to be performed on your property please nse the following guidelines to prevent damage to your property: •NotifY neighbors that you are having your property worked On especially if we will be trimming their trees/plams overhanging your property. •Move any landscape lights and/or other various garden lights out ofthe work area •Removefurniture,fountains,garden art,birdfeeders or any other breakable items hanging in the trees or in work area.. On Day of Work: •Move cars out ofdriveway andfrom under trees. o Block offstreet parking in front ofproperty with trashcans or cones. ATTACHMENTS 2-252 22208 S.Vermont Ave. Torrance,CA.90502 License#897701 C27,D49 ··We remove any debris generated from our work.We are not responsible to damage due to hidden conditions,especially underground installations.Payment is due upon completion of work.**· In the event any decisions regarding final specifications for the above work need to be made,either now or while work is in progress,please print or type name and telephone number of designated individual who will be em~ed to_make those decisions. L ~c':' Name'--"<_-.~'__")__,_,,_::::-_-_.-_-_-·...,,_----Telephone j'')(l fa {.P'r·1A F J;i oJ ~r"-' Please indicate acceptance by signing this proposal and returning to the above address.Upon receipt,work will be scheduled to begin. Sincerely, Steve Finley Steve F"mley@finleystreeandlandcare.com Accepted By -'''-=-·~-".._·'_-...:-.,=_..?_--_-_·-_-_ ATTACHMENTS 2-253 Exhibit K City Arborist Report dated 4/16/12 ATTACHMENTS 2-254 RECEIVED i ':~1 R 20\2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT April 16,2012 Amy Sceraty,Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Dcvelopmcnt Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA.90275 SUBJECT:VRP 2011-00064 Dear Mrs.Seeraty: david hayes,consulting arborist fullerton,ca.92831-2911 This morning you and 1 visited the foliage owner sites at 22 and 24 Narcissa Drive and also reviewed record photograhs in yonr office. You asked that; 1.I estimate the probable age of the affected trees, 2.Provide my professional assessment of prior pruning and the impact of possible additional pruning,and 3.Provide comment on any evidence tbat the tree(s)had been impacted by earth movement during the past 60 years. •Applicant's View You furnished two recent photographs from the applicants property.One is a broad panorama showing the alleged view impairment by trees at both 22 and 24 Narcissa; the second is a closer view of the Aleppo Pines (Pinus ha/epensis)at 24 Narcissa. A third photo,dated 1951,was taken near the view site from 28 Narcissa. The 1951 photo shows the grove of Aleppo Pines at 24 Narcissa just righ of center. Fnrther to the right it shows trees at 22 Narcissa.Although they are somewhat indistinct,1 believe that one is an Aleppo Pine and the othcr a Lemon Scented Gum (Corymhia citriodora).The species was confirmed during the site visit. 24 Narcissa The Aleppo Pine grove consists oUour specimen trees.The body language of trees is quite informative.Two trees are dominant and may be considered codominant;the other two trees are suppressed in growth habit.This is a normal occurrence in tree gronpings.Some individual trees grow more vigorously due to sun exposure,soil fertility,genetics or other factors we have yet to understand. ATTACHMENTS 2-255 VRP 2011-00064 2 This vigorous growth monopolizes rcsources and suppresses the growth of nearby trces,often forcing one sided crowns and curving trunks.In my professional opinion this is thc casc with these four trees.The dominant trces approximatc 35 inches in diameter at standard height while the suppressed trees are half that diameter.The crowns of the suppressed trees are definitely one-sided and exhibit no vertical growth in the upper third.The larger trees are of a size consistent with plantings from the 1940·s.The photographic exhibits support the time frame.I do not believe the snppressed trees would have formed such vertically straight trunks had they been planted in later years. These trees have been pruned in recent years.The two smaller pines have had significant crown raising and some crown thinning.In my professional opinion,the trees will not survive further crown reduction. Crown raising of the two large pines would also,in my professional opinion,result in the demise of the trees.Effective opening of the crowns for view purposes would require removal of most of the scaffold branches and their attendant foliage which comprise about 50 per cent of the crown. Tree body language also informs us of what is happening in the rhizosphere,the root zone.Trunk lean is the first assessment factor.If the trunk is straight,but at an angle less than vertical,it indicates that either the root plate is rotating or that slope creep is taking place.Given time,the tree as a living organism strives to restore structural balance.That result is an upward curving trunk with vertical crown leaders. There is no evidence that these four trees have been affected by soil movement. 22 Narcissa The Lemon Scented Gum and the Aleppo Pine are evident in other photographs, but I am not snre of the dates.The tree locations,however,are consistent with the 1951 photo. Both trees are of size consistent with planting in the 1940's. Considerable crown thinning has been performed on both trees.In my opinion,the Aleppo Pine is already prnned to the maximum extent;further prnning will destroy the trees'ability to recover.The Lemon Scented Gum is an open crowned species and has also been pruned to the minimum sustainable crown.Further pruning will disfigure the tree,but it is possihle that it could survive. ATTACHMENTS 2-256 VRP 201-00064 Conclusions 1.The six enumcrated trees probably date from the 1940's. page 3 2.The flVC Alcppo Pines will not survive the additional pruning required to restore views as proposed. 3.There is no tree body language evidence of earth movement. Should you have any question related to the contents oftbis report,please caU me at It is always a pleasure to work with you. Respectfu~lsubmitted' V~V ;rzr David Hayes,SCA,ASLA ISA Certified Arborist WE-I053A CA Registered Landscape Architect 1080 (Inactive) PNW-ISA Certificd Tree Risk Assessor CTRA 1214 ATTACHMENTS 2-257 Exhibit E Late Correspondence from May 8,2012 PC Meeting ATTACHMENTS 2-258 ! 11 11 Crown raise by removing lower limbs containing pine needles within red rectangle outline to expose Catalina Island view 2 Pint:trees- Thin out the lower crown within yellow outline to expose ocean view Reduce crown of Pepper tree to yellow line level A T T A C H M E N T S 2 - 2 5 9 D.Makhlouf From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Coleen Berg Thursday,January 05,2012 2:44 PM D~M<lkhlouf RE:revised draft. Finley's bid.docx /" I received your signed page,thanks!Here is the bid.If you can sign this too and send to me,Mark is calling Scott to COnflTI11 tomorrows trimming. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE The information contained in this message is intended only for the use of the named addressee(s).It is privileged and confidential.Information received is not statement of fact,nor can it be used as so in the court of law.Any duplication or distribution of this communication is unauthorized.If you have received this message in error,please notify us by telephone immediately a --.On Thu,1/5/12,D.Makhlouf From:D.Makhlouf Subject:RE:revise To:"Coleen Berg" .Date:Thursday,January wrote: Got it.Emailing signed page now.Thanks. Here is the one quoting %.I will forward the bid ASAP and you can fax all back to me. Coleen Berg Choice Mediation and Arbitration Services 1 ATTACHMENTS 2-260 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE The information contained in this message is intended only for the use of the named addressee(s).It is privileged and confidential.Information received is not statement of fact,nor can it be used as so in the court of law.Any duplication or distribution of this communication is unauthorized.If you have received this message in error,please notify us by telephone immediately at . 2 ATTACHMENTS 2-261 22208 S.Vermont Ave. Torrance,CA.90502 Licenselt897701 e27,D49 January 5,2012 Mark Palucci 24 Narcissa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA.90275 Finley's Tree and Landcare,Iuc.proposes to provide the necessary lahor and materials to do the following work: East Side of Propertv (3)Pines Middle (I)Pine Closest to House (I)Pine Lace out 30%of green foliage,remove yellow highlighted limbs to Scott's specs for view restoration Remove to ground level Lace out 40-45%of green foliage,remove selective limbs over house to balance (Scott will be present will be onsite for balancing of tree) TOTAL COST TO PERFORM:$4,000.00 PAYMENT TERMS: Mark Palucci agrees to pay $1,000 oftoto/jab cost (UpOll comp/etioll)xc.'_ Da'Ad !tlakh[olljagrees to PO}'$3,000 aflota/job cost (upon completion)x~_ In preparation for work to be performed on your property please use the following guidelines to prevent damage to your property: •NotifY neighbors that you are havillg your propert)'worked 011 especially ifwe will be trimmillg their trees/plants overhangillg your property. •1I10ve any landscape lights and/or other various garden lights out ofthe work area •Removefurniture,foullIains,gardell arl,birdfeeders or an)'other breakable items hal/ging ill the trees or in work area. On Day of Work: •Move cars out ofdriveway alldfrom under trees. •Block offstreet parking illfrollt ofproperty with trash cans or cones. ATTACHMENTS 2-262 22208 S.Vermont Ave. Torrance,CA.90502 License#897701 C27,D49 "We remove any debris generated from our work.We are not responsible to damage due to hidden conditions,especiall)'underground installations.Payment is dne upon completion of \Vork.*** In the event any decisions regarding final specifications for tbe above work need to be made,either now or wbile work is in progress,please print or type name and telephone number of designated individual wbo will be empowered to make those decisions. Name Telephone _ Please indicate acceptance by signing this proposal and returning to the above address.Upon receipt,work will be sched uled to begin. Sincerely, Steve Finley Steve Finley@finleystreeandlandcare.com Accepted By _ ATTACHMENTS 2-263 D.Makhlouf From: Sent: To: Subject: Coleen Berg Monday,January D.Makhlouf RE:calls 1 ~')These things can get emotional and 1 am used to being in the cross-fire,so no problem.My decision to stay out ,of it now is TIot a_TIe because I want to stay neutral or preserve any professional relationsli.iQT1i~v~Yi'!!1!a vendor.I helped you and Mark come to an agreenJellt,the-,-;';~fk~a:sd6i1esOT do -nothave a further ;ole.It w?uT<C~e inapPIQP.riate for me to say to anyone the treeswere ~rimnled30%Qr~ot.So if that is an ongomg- question you have it would have to be worked out with Scott,not in mediation.I hope it all works out for all of you. Amy did send the other neighbor another letter,acknoledging she did some work but you would like to talk with her more about it.Let's keep our fingers crossed she responds. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE The information contained in this message is intended only for the use of the named addressee(s),It is privileged and confidential.Information received is not statement of fact,nor can it be used as so in the court of law,Any duplication or distribution of this communication is unauthorized.If you have received this message in error,please notify us by telephone immediately at ---On Mon,1/9/12,D.Makhlouf wrote: From:D.Makhlouf Subject:RE:calls To:"Coleen Berg" Date:Monday,January 9,2012,10:17 AM Good morning,Coleen.That's fine.I'll handle it with Scott and Mark as best as I can at this point,and if we can't come to terms,perhaps we'll need more mediation or go back to the City if necessary. And I know you are now getting caught in the crossfire,and I don't want you to endure that pain and stress, and I know you don't want to appear unfair to anyone.So I respect your decision to step back now on this one with Mark and let others make the judgment calls on the work that was done -but I do have to say that the expert isn't Scott because you say that below.A£!..~!~Eert is someone who is non-interested and IS oblecbve. Mark lola Scol!to stop and Scott com[llied.This was with regard to the trees in question that are closest to Mark's-house and the sp"eclfic-trees that continue to be the object of obstruction to my veiw.So Scott can't have it both ways.He can't assert he stopped because Mark demanded it;yet the work was accomplished regardless,and if I don't have a view restoration,he should get paid nevertheless because he's holding on to an ambiguous claim of 30 percent,and he gets to act as his own expert.Just making it clear,Coleen.I recognize you have a relationship with Finleys and they work with you regularly and it puts you in an uncomfortable,awkward position,I'm sure.And I'm not callously indifferent,but I have to be fair to myself too. I ATTACHMENTS 2-264 ~\ I don't know anyone who wants to throwaway $3,000 and receive little to no benefit.I'm willing to be reasonable and if Finleys is willing to be reasonable,then perhaps we can come to terms.Scott said,if Mark allows,he'll come back up and do the work,but if Mark doesn't allow it,then again,maybe further mediation or working out alternative arrangements.And,please,please,Coleen,keep in mind this is a job,we all do our best,and it's not personal at all.Thank you. Da'ad From:Coleen Berg Sent:Monday,Jan To:D.Makhlouf Subject:calls Good morning,I received your messages Friday afternoon,If you would like Mark to consider having more branches removed I would suggest giving him a call.It would be outside the scope of the agreement you both signed since the 30%was done on Fridav,There is reali;i1o reason for me to'befuereas·f can't'make .a:'._- judgernentciiTl OlitheworFthat'V;;as(io;e;I h;~·to -rely on the experts,Scott,as I am not an arborist.Tell me how1t goes.---------.---...--------,--,------------ Coleen Berg Choice Mediation and Arbitration Services CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE The information contained in this message is intended only for the use of the named addressee(s).It is privileged and confidential.Information received is not statement of fact,nor can it be used as so in the court of law.Any duplication or distribution of this communication is unauthorized.If you have received this message in error,please notify us by telephone immediately at 2 ATTACHMENTS 2-265 ::{- ~~lREE CASE.MANAG~NT ...~;;;:;;:;:::----TCM.- t~A'·u:.n h:.s ~,~•.""'c:::I ......,.....I!:l-Itr ..t..:.s Greg J.Monfette INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT -SPECIALIST IN ARB ORIC ULTURE AND URBAN FORESTRY 4617 Purdue Avenue 0 Culver City,CA90230 0 (310)902-6581 Oncatree!Cl.l.ca.n.com January 16,2012 D.Makhlouf 25 Jarcissa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes Re:View of the water and Catalina Island Tree Case Management (TCM)was asked to evaluate the situation regarding the subject trees located across the street from you (at 24 Narcissa Dr)and formulate an opinion as to if the conditions ofthe agreement with the mediator was met. TCM reviewed the photograph that was provided by the mediator (which has the yellow highlighted lines distinguishing the focal area of concem in this case),the contract from Finley's dated January 5,2012 (which identifies the scope of work),photograph taken after the pruning incident (which shows the trees current condition,then conducted a site visit on January 16,2012 to personally observe the conditions at the site,and the following is our observations and findings: The above below identifies the area (between the yellow lines)of the view that was to be restored. The scope in Finley's contract states the folIO'ing: "Lace out 40-45%of green foliage,remove selected limbs over house to balance" ATTACHMENTS 2-266 The photo below was taken after the tree trimming incident and it depicts the cun'ent condition of the tree as seen by TCM on January 16,2012. Observations: TCM visited the site on January 16,2012 to visually observe what took place.We observed that the trees in question were trimmed,meaning,a small amount of foliage was laced out from the trees and a few limbs were removed.It is apparent by the photos (and confirmed at my site visit on January 16,2012)that maybe 10-20% of the green foliage was removed from the trees but the selective limbs over the house were not removed in order to balance the growth.This is visible from the site visit as well as the photographs provided in this repOli. Findings: The view of the water and Catalina Island remains obstructed as it was prior to the tree-trimming event. In order to rectify this situation the trees should be trinmled to remove the selected limbs over the house to balance the trees growth and provide the view of the water and Catalina Island. ATTACHMENTS 2-267 TCM feels the correct measure would be to remove the tree closest to the house entirely as this would provide a free and clear view of the water and Catalina Island.(Also,this trees growth is only toward the house which creates a dangerous condition for the homeowner because these trees are know to fall over in windy conditions and being that this tree is extremely out of balance it makes it a good candidate for failure) Note:rCM did not enter the property at 24 Narcissa Drive nor did we perform an evaluation of any of the trees on the site.However,TCM is highly recommending that the homeowner at 24 Narcissa Drive hire a consultant and have the trees evaluated to ensure they're structurally sound. I hope you find this information helpful in assisting to make the important decisions about dealing with these challenging tree issues. Assumptions and limiting conditions: 1.Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be COrTect.Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable.No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all propeliy is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear,under responsible ownership and competent management. 2.It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes,ordinances,statutes,or other governmental regulations. 3.Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources.All data have been verified insofar as possible;however,the consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 4.The consultant will not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made,including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement. 5.Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed,without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant. 6.This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant,and the consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value,a stipulated result,the occurrence of a subsequent event,nor upon any finding to be reported. 7.Unless expressed otherwise:I)infonnation contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection;and 2)the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items v,~thout dissection,excavation,or coring.There is no warranty or guarantee,expressed or implied,that problems or deficiencies of the trees or property in question may not arise in the future. 8.Arborists are tree-specialist who uses their education,knowledge,training and experience to examine trees, reconunend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees,and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees.It is highly recommended that you follow the arborist recommendations and your "licensed/professional" tree care company's directions specifically.Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of tl1e arborist,or seek additional advice. ATTACHMENTS 2-268 9.Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree.Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand.Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground.Arborists cannot guarantee that a (ree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances,or for a specific period of time.Likewise,remedial treatments,like any medication,call1Jot be guaranteed.It is higWy recommended that all trees be inspected at least two times a year. 10.Treatment,pruning and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist's services such as property boundaries,property ownership, site lines,disputes between neighbors,and other issues.Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. II.Trees can be managed,but they cannot be controlled.To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. Trees are a risk.The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.Trees should be inspected on a regular basis (monthly,quarterly,bialllJually,and annually). If you have any questions at anytime please contact me directly at 310-902-6581. Thank you, Greg J.Monfette Tree Case Management ATTACHMENTS 2-269 Plaintiff'2;Claim arid ORDER to Go to Small CI~msCourt Netic.10 the person being ~uod; You are the Defendant if your nD"me J5 listed in (2)on pege 2 of this form.Tho Person "uin~\,ou is tho Plaintiff,listed in tn oil page 2. You and the Plaintiff mUSt go to ·court·on m.trial datc lisied below,"If v.ou·d'o'ho,go '0 ~OUt't.vou mav los.the case. If YOU lose,the court een order th.n your W2go~."!l?i'!~V.or prop~rtv be·ta~en to pav this claim.. Superior Coun of c.n'omJa,County 0' Lo.Ang.ln:19u1lflllf'esY tlf:5TFUCT I ·11t48e-l TORRA"=COURT ~e lI!a6 ..pU!AVI!..... T~A"CD...c~.palO) ra'OI 2.12·8400 c...NI;IJnlMor: SeA 12500'25 ell.H.M'~ ANLEY'S TREE VS MAKHLQUF.CA'A aring witness'os,receipts,and ony eVld~nC8 YOU n~d to prove vour case. Rr In ~lIrt n.m~vtd .,r••(.tll/~: Read thi.lonn and all pa9""attached'to undo~wnd tho claim against you and to protei:t vour rights.. Avl,o II Oem.,.~ado: l.!stcd cs el ocmandado si su nombre figo,"en 121 de).paglna 2 de ene formulario.La (lerson.que (0 demanda es .el Demand.nle, la que figuro en 11 I de la pagina L. Usted y et Demandant.tie"en que"present3i'se en 13 cCJne en 1:1 fecha del juido indicod.e conlinu.cion·,SI no s.presenta.puede ·p.rde'el CBSO.. Si pierde'el r;~o-I:'corto podrib ardenllf que 10 quiten'do SlJ Goeldo ..dinero U otrO$bient;S P~r.!pa'gar e6t'a foclamo. Ueve testigos,.reci~os y-culilquie,olra prueba qu.e neeesl!e'para probar sucaso. '.Lee oste !9rrnulorio y.toda.la.'pagl,,'W~dj.un~s para entender In·dcmanda.etHu contlllY para.p(9'090('.~. sus derecho5'.··~.,. . .Order to Go to Court . The people In (1)"and '(2)mlist 9!'til court;{C/e.,,,fills out secvon,be/ow.,.J --.__•-.rlliit,;:'==:l";;_IlOl s:;;:;_1<:1 lIl_a:l:l_="'-=="'"::o~".:;=_=_====:l;~~C;-:C e:;r:.a..,p._...... TRIAL DATE .TIME OEPARTMENT LOCATION'. DAT£04/f-&/2012 08:30-AM 009 825 MAPLE AVENUE: ec==cc===~=;~~.cc~==~==c===c===Q~===ccc=======CDqQA~Cna,o,01/17!201:2'.J9ftN A.Cl.ARKE,"El!ewtlve Officer/Clerk .''9 . By G.BALADAD ,Deputy Instructions for tt1e p8r~11:Bullig:. .You are the Plaintiff.The pEltson you are suing 1."tM Defendant. Before vou fill out this form.read Form SC·'·()()'INFO.Informat/on for rile PIa/miff to know vour rfghls. qe~SC·1-00-fNFO at bay COU"hO~H;e or countY Inw lIb:rary.or go to.:WWW.CD ..rts.C8..~ovl$mlJllcltJlrTiSlforms Fill Out Plllles 2 and 3 'Of this form.Then make'wPics .of all pages 01 this form,(Mllicil 1 COPy fOi eael>pertY named in this cas."lind·an extra o;oPY for yourself.)Tak.or mail tho original and theSe!copiet 10 ·tl1e court cJe,k's office llnd-pay tlie filing f;'e.The clerk >1(111 wriiethe !late of vour ",lal in the box abo ••. You must h•••·someone at leaST 18··00t you or anY~ile ~Ice IlttOd ii,this c"'e-glYe e~Ch OofendDnl a court· slamped copv of .11 5 pages.of Iill.form and any pages this fom,.,all'veu to attach.Theie are special n~es for"serving,"o,ilelivering,this torm',o pUblic entllies.ilssoclatlons,Bnd some busln.sses.See'Form.SC·l04. SC·l04e,and ·50:1040. Gil to court on"vour trial date lilted -eboire.MOlJ witri....es.recelpts.aM any evld.nce vou olioo to prove your casco JlIdlcf..e;,-.t "~...__....s-.. ~J~'1.Z11,.~.MInlItbty .._ G,".I CI...t1 !'1~\lI'"(le~11a"fl.t«I.. 110.nOkl.11 '::J.olOUll, Plalnliff's Claim tind ORDER to ..G"o ~o.Small ClililtUi Court (Smell Clelmol ~-'m).""0_1 Il'f G !""> ATTACHMENTS 2-270 ]c...~umbor.seA 12S()OT25 P(alntlff (Ijliill'l&mh):FINLeY'S 1"A~E &LANPCAAE,INC, 4 _.;_-..._.:.-~_._·••_··,;..__•••______ _ •._..___.. Slate ~p Phone;(~101 ~i8·9818 CA 90602 SQt.ZIp ·Chy S"e.'.odd,••u:22208 S.VERMONT AVENUE TORRANCE.,St,",.. .Citr· Moiling odd,.;.prdlff"f"ntl:.'.'SUI'" (11 The PlaIntiff (file ~erson,business,or public entfty thllt Is suln~llS; .Nom.:FINL€Y'SiREE HANDCARE,INC. U more than DOe ·Plaintiff.list;next PJaltltiff here: Name: Phone: Street eddreu; Sr.Ht Mailing oddr~,~.(if 11;[{tmmt): .SIr••t C;ty PhOI'\e: air RANtHO PALOS V tA 90.275 CJrY $I.i,ZIp Street odd,...:26 NARtlSSA DRIVESt,nt ... M"iling addr...lit dlfftv.-t:mf}.: '..'Sr'.!'~ If more [h,",ona Defendant.list iillxt Defendant here: { 1 ChllOk ha,e I(mora thltn 2 flBintlff~end ttrtill#J Form SC..1QOA. ( 1 Cllet;k hBT'if tJithtJf Pt'!lnriff I{&ted ,QQOVO ,'I doIng lJus~ntJSs undsr B ficTitious nams.If so,srt,ch Form SC-103. 12.1 The Defendant liM perso!!>business,or public .entlty beill9 sued)Is: .Nem·o:Mki<HlOUF.ITA'A9 Phone: Street flCldr&8!: St~to ZJp MalJlflY lrdd~n (il d/t(DTent): .Sri••r ( 1 ChDCk hor./f mor"then 2 .Dofl1m1imt8 Dnd mach FOlm SC·I.00A. I .)'CfuJck here ""~ny Defeniiant Is..on:Bc.tlVII m~/it~ry duty,end wrlrs'his or her name here! _F-~~-;:n~;~:;:::~-~e~~~:::::-~···~~~~:o~:~;~;~~:~e~~ u.WMy does the Pilfendeni owe the PielQbH mone.vi '-~'-- .WORK COMfUTED,MEDIATOR·ADVISED FINLEY'S THAT WORK WAS COMPLETED PER CONTMCTIMEDJA'TlDN,STOPPIlJ:)PAYMENT ON CHECK'·. h.Wilen Io!;d.u..~hc;;;r.:r:?(~teJ: If no ~pMiflo dono.give \he time porlod:D.f.Stluted:01 ~04/2012 71vough.·~1 iOS/20l2 C.HOW.dId yoli CeTcul8to 1he mOMV owOd to VOll?tOo not Indlido court CioatB or fool 10r .eNloe,).PER .cgNTRACT ... ... t 1 Check hers if you nsod fTJOfe ~D¢Q.ATtsch.one shBlJ~ofpap or or Form MC-D31 -and wr1rs "SC-100,lIem 3"oflhB10p. Plaintiff's Claim and ORDER to GO to 6mall Claims COUrt ISmol1 ct.....l BC-lOO,Pqa 2 oJ..6' -> ATTACHMENTS 2-271 Pl-.inliff (lid ltointq;);FINLfY'~TREE &.~NOCARE,INC.---_..-._.__._....,....,._.. (4-i You must ask tHo 08fend""t"(In parso!'.In writing-.or by -phonel to pay \IOU bafore you sue. H~a you :~Qne tt;tJ.s~~Y~t tl No If no,e"pleln wh.y nOt: (51 Why are.you filing your C1a!m -at this courthouse? This courthous'e covers the erae (Check'rhe one thsr sppliesl:'0 (I (ll Wh.r.lho D.'.n~'nlllv ••or doea bu.ln •••• f2J Wher'o tbe Ptarnti'Ff:{.~operly W!JC demeged. (3)WMro th.PlaIntiff ~••injUl'1lld, (4)whero Q c;ontrl\c;t (wrinon or .poken)wet medo,slgned.ptu1ormod.or brol:on by tho O<llendant at Where the 'Oefendan(li\)ed at 'did ·bW.lnIl!lRl when the OefeMent made the ·cootracl. b.£Xl Whore-the buyer or las:a~tioned the ContraCl,Iivetllow,or INed when the contract we.mftde.If this c~lm 10 eoulAn offer or (Ion\ioct f~i p<;)tlonel.familY.oiholl'ohold goodl ••ervlooD,or loeM,(Code Civ.Proc-,395{b).) o.I J Where the buycr oignad thb-conli,cl,l;vet"nOW J or IIvcd when-tho oontteot wac mada,if this oleim il about" !I reUlill~n,f!'ien~C4.l1l1iCl~t.uJka'e irodlt eflrdl,(Civil Coif~'18'2.10.' d_[J Wher.the buy«,'lgned the contract..llvet now,or lived when the ConUlet WII mad...or whero the veNr:la Is Is pcrmanamJv ..;aroged,I.~thI~C1Qlm 'I .~O\lt •vOhlCI6 &ancI eele.(CitIIJ CDtM,2984..4./ •.( J Oth<r !<psr.lfyl: (61 171 List tft6 -zip code'of tha placa cheCked fil (SI tlbove (if you knowl:90276 Is 'lour claiiruibout an attomay-ellent fae dbPute?I i.Y..(Xl 'No . /I y~,.atidIf you hIve hid i'rfjrrnrlo':';fJ71'OUf Form SC-101,m.ch h to rhis form snd r:hock hor~:11 Aro'you suing.ollubllc ontlty?I )Y..IX)No II yn.yDU mun111••.wHrton clelm 'wlth,the lIflt/tV 11m.(1 A claim wow flIed on fd«'~): d rl)s,piibll~'df'Iflry.·ifonlu your c/~im <Jr does not IJf1SWel within the timr:QI/ow~d by JiJw,you ~file this form. (91 Hall.e you'flloe!~ro'ttian 12-ot!'illr small claims within thllillst 12 months In California?' [ I v...·IXj No'I(Yo.~,ttwt flJlnQ.tec forthJs t:'tf~.,WIll be Nghor. (10].,.,mdarstal!d.tIl.afby filing 8 claim In small el~court,I I)alle "0 right to appeal tIlla·ciafm. (1 1I I hav'e nOl flied,and understand that I cannot file,more than two small claims cases for more then '$2,500 in CelLforn\a dur\ng this CBlenl;lar year.-.. I declare,und'er penalN Of ~erjury under Calffornia State law,that the iMormation ebove and on any attachments'to this fOrm is true end cQrreet. Oa,,:-01 /1 S/20i 2 STEllE FINLEY ,,=====.--~__~ Ffaintlff rypos Ol prints nDma here Piain!Jlj 31gn$/'8!tJ SdCOnd P}~I;'tllj.types'or pRn,,,f')4m~h"flt Second "Pfomtm IJlgrwlHlife .Rliques.ts·for Ac;eommodations .'...,. . . . Auretlvlt'118tenl~.Y'tem."oompute"':•••latllld.'1II1Hlme:C.ptlornng.OI:<6lgn longu"pn ImorPl'lI'tcr aervJc".oro Ilvllllab}Q~r ych:i oale.lUll 5 do ....birlore 'the ttllIl.Contael ttM:cl"rit'..offlea 'ur Fofrri MC-41 0,RltfJult..'C1 Inr Accommodations .by Person,W/rJi Di..bllh(ef .nd.Il.'J>l!fI$O,(Civil Cod.,54;8.1 Plalntiff's ClaIm arid ORDER'to GO to 'Sinall Claims 'Court .ISmoll.~_.1 6C.tOG.'''.:l 01 Ii .-? ATTACHMENTS 2-272 ~~r=illielri'j \J")'Vour cou~ly's 8m""Ct.i"",Adviso'0""~el~fo'flw. I I "svnoll i:"1li11OO I;oiliff'Is.B~clol COO"wlleIe oW"",!:ll!I1 halla 1l~1l~?"' fOl $5.000 0,I...BIll .~611ided.A "natul'll!po1llOft"(Il<ltfi Vell:If)101l8N blling 000:1,)1""OM: b1tclne>ls 111 pllbllG I1fIrily)maygor.l<l'IlIly ~lalm Il\IlIa l1c'dIIe lillOl.O'=19 ~OiuQl QuioU1~ou ell~m.. lil O,QUO,inylu;1ln~B DOle prol'l:!Glllr.(.~~I~w til?Plalnliff IlllIV3 Oft how·til oottJ.1lls ~S.b<!1It of you mullt OlIooptlo.B.)'"'"ll~~qUioh ~cheap.The rul"n fJ'o MillY lh:>cou~Alk ~"Ilm!l!1 Cleill'lllAdv!sm'fm hel". simple en:Hn)'ol1l\BI.1".1I¢'e l\!I!c;!a :@ie tmlltll ~Pi!.~,'1'-Ie ii\. You ere Ihe u.rendlilll-lho """""baing ~.''N!9 COllrl bifope ~00ll'mal,llllplllb1log why yO\!!hin1,Ihill Is r-mm who III suing ~6U III '""I'lclnlifi':llJo """n8 co"".Ash tlt~coUltll>dlmhs'Ill.el!!1~. Kl@ 8 O'lootlll 1m'''''i'?You mum acrV,l;(give)~~opy of yourfenar (by mell 01 . .~vll in ~n)to 011 "",,!ell.(VoU\'tell.'laIM ~l!II mus! You may 1Il)Il.to &lnWYiM bllrOll'l cw~I!le <:cD'"iliW ?~".""~h""e ~""el!lls.). ""'J'I10r 1m.".Iswy",re;rrosenl You I~.Olll'l (""I"""til..... . lun appaalliooJ e small claims ""..!Il).1>~tI!I~q Qflal.Blld l1\IllII \:1iR.17~'reoo.6mB .~IllC<llpm.and l!lIy ovl,bnO(i you ...e:l to H6w dill.'gell'OOllyfDr ~..ptOI'O YOUI'ClISe.To mll!<..IIl9·!hlI witnous=;GO III th~ Y'"'do~llmvo·to fll ..BI1Y """"""Iiolirnl YG...1lIIsI,lUll.."triel,Jjll.oul FOm!5C·l07.EIll!·lIti .Iork \";11 tu~ne yc~lhinlll!llll.lo tho """"8 court ~r yClll'callO.Bill brioB (ordor)thim l:l go. 10 yeu,mal ti!lJI •.ollnW ........ipm,IIIl(\BVI~tll2i SIIe the ""reoD'l~..I(l o~tll\'l Villi!.1'110 form sup!"'''''y .....=.And r=I."Be ~Ib7 V"""sc,120.DaIP,ldalll"Claim,TI....."'"mlel filing TriBl"eI rJfIl1.~l9'I:f.CQ;p;a"'cl1lQl!.clalm$Mpm"Q.~~II~you must fell=. Whet Ie 1nO'S'oi...,."""",mcolailoll?Ali"'"~1110 PIlltnl!Wo doll'll llil>t iISlI ~ Ifyo"ha.~..Gi.Dbllity lit ~""",-i"lllmp:>l=l.fill olrt IiIoROY.O>\l,you c:en'Il"'.l'tho ""'..,.""".8'''· Perm MC4t 0,ROqwstji"Acco~'Iom.01.0 tho yo"!'trI'e1l!lll1 ....y you """'I \0 malx.pll)'l'iI""lll. f<mn 10)'ClUl'oeu"c!ori(Or .Ihe I>ONA"""..Cc-ordinDto.,..I..~the eeGO "dc!M3I1I~N ,fyoc do.'1 zel'll.lllld do nol Wltd.t Iq I doll'C opoolt Illne lloIJ =191 go 10 Ih.triot (dOraa'.l).ti,.Judge may gl.olh.Plalnliff . .,, •wlmlh=....I.osk,"i\fovpl"'courI .......lfthID 6MI!'""~llwho'ls nola""\nollS 10 ln~1l'l"I fat YOl!,0'h!lPJIOM.Ih.Plainiii\'can legel!)1leito yOIl\'m<llia:r. ash the ClO1lit .lorl:for ....l~01 lCllllll fl••days bofol'a ""llll!l,end ~'"P"l'.tlla JlldsmOll!.. )'o",oOUR d&1lO'A e01JR1ltOv1decl-1IlIetprolor _nul "".. . oven.bl.or the...maybe cree for ..Ing.court Inloq>""or lMJat if I nooa~I!"?O~ unlesll yOll quo!l/y fo/,,~..Wllivl"-.Yoa 1IlllfukflrJ,,,,,WlI-Yo!"':'".~e the trW,dcta .f:. .... for 0 list ofilllDl'p_'"end ...."'"App/lcalIORPP W./vop •You ca'mot go III CO""Gn tlla1lCh$dulod dolo (you Will o/Co,,,'Fee>ami COS"{.ronn fW.ooI).hevo to ""y •foe to ",,'lpIlrie Ih.triol)... ~cOlli e"'!l'ihe'-~""_I nacol?Vou did Illll.ilul"',,¥\icl (mol.ethis cmlav to 110 "'. Go '"e"';ceurIh...,.or.your COUl1~law 11"--Of ";nl courl)01.100011 5 ~~"'"t!lo trlol (01 ZO dG)'Q "·y"c..,,.."VO_"r"lI.e OlI!liide I!Ilt C<liInly)·or fa""",Ell:·''''''If).<o ...ts.co.Ii''...._lfcl.,~OI'I;n... ..'.Vo~1IOt4 rna",time 10 6et en inl.e>prelar.OIlS Wl\QC ooPi*'ne ee iIIlG irl<l!?Jll!'Il;!l>llllmonlls llllGWed,end yOIl .,i11 not he"....per Th.juds.~1tI11~to ""'".Joles.n:.jllds."l"l'~.8 c'f""\II .dehly 1h.ll:iol.,. deol,lon "I )'0,",trilll oVlll1llllha @tImon to yC>ll!')Io1.Ask the S1iIIl11 CIIli"",Clollr elioullh.ruloil end ....for Wi!at IV'looo~cooo?poj,lpllnlng a tri.l.Oi'flll aU!Porin SCoISO (or wme a Jryou 10'"you oca~.You'll """.to pay 0 iCl'l.1_)llIId mall il",Ihe COO"omtl'>l.1l Olhol"~le trrlO<! (PloInl)".OllmRTlllJlllOllltllolr own clw"",,).on )'0'....=P"I'Ofll1:ef01ll1ll<l4ee4linll.Bnol ....0 ,*",h Iryou""';'ot llio lrlel,llIel'OlllI SCI 40.Nortce 01 r...y~r cClln f60s,UII~e ~waiver.,..gmnte<l. A.ppml.You mll!\mo willlin 30 doyuflw llIe j1r.lgo',d...i.lon. I ryou wen>IIDI1iII!I,rlriel.fill oull!llll fiI.1'0,," SCoIJS.Null.e olMollon 10 "",.or.Judcmen'and .Decl",.,lon.Ie uh l!l<:judge 10 cenocl '""jud!l""'nl (dec1slon).Iftho judge d=nOl 81••)'ou 0 now 1Ii.1.you he.e IO-d.y.10 sppoellh:>"..Islon.AI. Ponn SC·140.. Fo;,moro i~PtmAticn 0.:1 o;pteJs.,soc: VJt!J'lf).cal!Tlr.•ci~vlcmoll(/QI"'fapF"w.. .~~lfml~~)'inM&.~osobtl De-r_l;'~kJO ~.(!a:Cct:C1\1".P7=.IIIG.22Olc~)In ClllltUo:t ~~hrD !tQturol p:trtlr.llbt lli~rat bUil1 injllrllumdlina h'n ~eomobilQ ==~l:l $7)CQ limn elJP.lb:l IfD ~~tO~tJ (!II Ot!DmDbtltln.!:urnl'=P't:v 1ftM1ntlut=0 pJt:;y 19 tkrllft4,ISQ:C~CIV.Prcc Q I16.Dl.j ATTACHMENTS 2-273 .~~nro~..Jd52.l f,\!:L~lG'ft7 @f!h'·;JOO~IDOO:{,J 'iPf@J :;:..:.3~1j';{)~~3:::{='{;-C~?~u:i",t'1);rn~~!~:£DJ~ij'':J1: (CA~!JP)0 (eCR)0 ~~AII.IL (6o.IilU,J$E1'1 Hi ii1~-1 til "W~j <C1()~1 "~!Qliii ~\ru-JlAU if'ii ~::;.A'IrIE il'J IE I'J-" ThS Small Claims Court Mediation Program of the Center for Conflict R~solu:l0n (CCR)and The California Acad~my of f\ReeJjation Professionals (CAMP) provides disputing parties with an effective alternative to going before the judge.l..s 8 free setv;ce,CAl'iiP/CCR providas trained.neutral Mediators v/ho help the partias talk through their dispute to find a solution to which both parties can agree.l"f the pertias rasch a settlement,the case is nOrTrl:3lly dismissed without the need (or a court hearing.The undersigned parties agr-ee to ent:a:r discussions and ne90118tion5 in an attempt to resolve their dispute.In order to promote communication c:lmong the parties and the mediator and to facilitate settlement of the dlspuia.all parlies agree as follows: 1.The p2rties consent to the appointment of . a mediator (or the CAMP/CCR,to oct ~s m5djalor in this matie .. CAMP/CCR is a non~profit organization funded by a grant frorn th~los Angeles County Dispute R~olution Program.Grt:nt Contact Los Angeles Counly Dispute Resolution Program,DRP Grants Admin,3175 W,6"Street,Los Annelos_CA Tel:(213)738-2621 2.Participation ir.this dispute resolullon procZ'ss is voluntary and mey be terminated by any party or by the madiator at any lime 3.Mediation is a voluntary process for settlement .negotiation.In this context,mediator:;act as impartial third parties exclusively and will not give legal advice.Each party agrees and acknowledges that no attorney-cliant third party relationship is created between the party and CAl\np/CRR or any of the mediators or any other person associated with CAMP/CCR. 4.In order,to preserve the confidentiality of this mediation,CAMP/CCR and iha parTIes to this mZdi'ltion agree that the pro'lis:ons of California Evidence Code Soclions 703.5 and 11151hrough 1128 and California Code of Civil Procadure Section 1775.10 applies 10 this medialion. This means thet,all communicatipns,negotiations,or settlement discussions by and betwean participants in the course of this med,ation shall remain confidential.No writings.evid2nce of anything said,or admission made for the purpose of,in thi;course of..or pursuant to this mediation is admissible or subject to discovery,and disclosure of the e\rideQce shall not be compelled,in any arbitration.administrative adjudication,cilJiI action,or other non criminal prooec-dings in which,pursuant to law.testimony can be compelled to be given.However,each party further undarslands and acknowledges that evidence presented during this mediation may be verified outside of the madiation procass ~nd used as evidence in subsequent legal proceedings. 5.The rn-adiator shall acl 25 an edvoeate for the resolution of this dispute 2nd shall use his/her b:;!st good faith efforts to assist the parti~s in reaching a mutually acceptable agreament.Each part')agrees that the mediator cind CAMP/CCR have no liability for any ect or omission in connection with this mediation. 6.This Mediation/Confidentiality Agreement shall be admissible in any subsequent proceeding to prove the e;<iscence of the 2greemenl and/or enfares- S2id egreement 7.The neutral person (mediator)has no conflict of interast in this case. 8.For oortifiabla low-incoma disputants and par contractor's fee polley,fess may not be accessed to csrtaln disputants.If fees are charged,CI copy of the sliding scale is availabla. 9,Disputants may elact·to make their written settlement agreements enforcasble or admissible at law. 10.Disputants may offer the testimony o(witnsss2s. 11.Disputants may be represented by counsef during the procsedings,SUbject to ths grsntees poJicl.'and COUit Wl2S governing such r:presentation 12.The mediator has the authority to .terminate the dispute resolution proce-eding if at any time he/she ~ncfudes that any disputanl is uninformed or doss not understand hislher rights or potential obligations;and it is the mediator's duty to encourage such a disputant to SG~t,qualified legal,financial,or other professional advice 13.Due to court fqcility constraints.mediations may take-place within surroundings that may seem Jess than confidential.but are not '.vithin earshot of those passing by.By initialing below you are hereby agreeing your rights to confidentiality hava not bssn compromised by the <lrea in l.Allich your mediation is baing conducted,n A _ 14.Should a p;3rty have a complaint,comment,or concern about tha mediation serviC2S offered or the mediator,he/she shOUld contact: Wondy Wright California Academy of Mediation Proiessionals o 16501 Venlura Blvd._Suite 606 Encino,CA 91436 Phone:(818)377-7250 Fa:::(818)784-1836 Email:wendy@firstrmdiation.com Christopher Welch Center for Conflict Resolutiono78OS·Reseda Blvd R....."'<la,CA 91335 Phone:(818)705-1090 Fa:::(818)668-3094 E-mail:office@ccr4peace.org __I ..•fParty Signature ,I,',.-" By signing this .agresmant,the parties 2Cknowfedge that they have reed and und~rstand the in(ormation contained herein,acknowledge that California Evidance Code Sections 703.5 and 1115 through 1128 and California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1775.10 applies to this mediation,and ac.'mowtedga that it is th~intention of the parties that any written settlement agffiement prepared in the course of or pursuant to this mediation be admissible,one:;!signed by the setUing parties,as provided in the California Evidence Code. I t'...)C.l.~!\p,.:.-..'l './,..'",Dale:~~_-'-_="'.!_...--'. ~._.:--:".,/irf........v~.".<Par!)' Name / f;.:ec!i2t.JT(S)'_~-,-__,--,-_,,-__-,;~.-,--,-_ ATTACHMENTS 2-274 I 'S r,')(•c..._'._~U I "-.J ,'. CASE#: , ,,.",~.' Center For Conflict Resolution (CCR)o ,•r ! .",..,J 1;-'I "'-1(:.i\'·'-(_..(.'...l J I I .,_..t../ 1'1 \.l.~:'...,........='\L t- California Academy of Mediation Professionals (CAMP)o SMALL CLAIMS AGREEMENT PLAINTIFF (I1),_(-\.·~.,,:--:-".!.;.l\_I.l.(_·.:.'\-;..;'~:..'_t.l.'.l·l·,;,-·-\.L-"(__'.:.'_....!.I-\.I-\.ll:.'t'i,=i..;{"-!-I!.:',_-<..'_-"-'.Li.l.i.l.l--'-and DEFENDANT (A),--,!_-"_,_,,-,-....,...:\_....i .;..i...:,'..:.'.-,,",,-_,-".....:....1.,...:..•:.;..,$.....~------- THE UNDERSIGNED PARTIES,ON THIS i !,(DAY OF --"'-':\'T'',-",,-,-\----,,20 \7-HAVE AGREED TO THE FOLLOWING ,SETILEMENT OF THEIR DISPUTE:_ .~".,\!~.~..,; '-I,)C 'n \~\.... ,-. .I,\'.' t"•""'-J I \II \..i \.~l ,",'.IL J j .,·'t'.••\L '.. + ,.,\/,(\\.t', , i: ,- '.i",.,. -.\ f V~:"_:.f...--j i I:I ,, ~·:.l.Lr..._,.-.~-".j I.. Cl1)(·1 \,l\·\·,\ ..----., _V'Ytlli /-0'Party Signature \ "p ....(Party Name Case dismissed:Witbout prejUdicl,"With prejudice [J THIS SETTLEMENT IS BINDING DN lliE PARTIES IN COURT PURSUANT TO CAUFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 1119.THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE lliAT lliE FOREGOING TERMS ACCURATELY REFlECT lliEIR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.THE PARTIES RJRlliER AGREE TO ABIDE BY lliE TERMS AND CONDmONS SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT.BY SIGNING BELOW,lliE PARTIES EXPRESSLY AGREE THAT lliIS WRITTEN SETTLEMENT MAY BE DISCLOSED IN A COURT OF LAW.UPON DISCLOSURE,llilS AGREEMENT MAY BE ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE AND/OR ENFORCED AS DETERMINED TO BE APPROPRIATE BY lliE COURT. , ..-..; Mediator(s)Mediator(s),_-".-~.,_~_:-_~""'-:--;-'__ Name /'\I .i "\-'Signature "\.1.,//.'I } \\\(\i,.U:~\/--'i\!;'t'{!I f I I (_.,L .... .\I ;.I L.----.-/.! For any comments.concerns andlor questions with regards 10 this agreement or the mediation pl~contact onc ofthe organizations below' California Academy of Mediation Professionals 16501 VennuaBlvd.•Suite 606.Encino.California 91436 Tel:818-377-12S0.Fax:818-784~J836 Email:wendy@firsunediatioD,com Centcr for Conflict Resolution 7806 Reseda Blvd.RescdaCA 91335 Tel:818-705·1090.Fax:818-668-3094 •Email:officc@ccr4peaceorg If there are further problems or concerns about the service provided and the formal grievance procedure of each organization has been fuJIy exercised please contact: Los Angeles County Department of Community and Senior Services,Dispute Resolution Grants Administration,3175 W.6th Street_Los Angeles,CA 90020 Tel:213-738-2621 ATTACHMENTS 2-275 ATTACHMENTS 2-276 ATTACHMENTS 2-277 ATTACHMENTS 2-278 ATTACHMENTS 2-279 ATTACHMENTS 2-280 ATTACHMENTS 2-281 \ \ \ \ \, \, \ \ \ ATTACHMENTS 2-282 ATTACHMENTS 2-283 ATTACHMENTS 2-284 ATTACHMENTS 2-285 ATTACHMENTS 2-286 ATTACHMENTS 2-287 ATTACHMENTS 2-288 ATTACHMENTS 2-289 ATTACHMENTS 2-290 ATTACHMENTS 2-291 Exhibit F Updated Site Map ATTACHMENTS 2-292 ATTACHMENTS 2-293 Exhibit G Updated View Photo Diagram ATTACHMENTS 2-294 Tree No.1s-------~--------------- EXhi2.~t G-Updated View Photo Diagram-Photo taken in April 2012 1 T,••"'"'I .... A T T A C H M E N T S 2 - 2 9 5 Exhibit H Non-Primary Viewing Area Photos ATTACHMENTS 2-296 III Bo ~ D- III Gl...< Clr:: o~ Gl:> ~ III E0;: D- Or::o Z I J:....:c:c ><w ATTACHMENTS 2-297 ATTACHMENTS 2-298 ATTACHMENTS 2-299 ,,, \\ \ \l ' "I" \<.\'\\. \\ \ \ \ \\\\\ ~\\\,\ \\, \\ ,\ \\'\\.,\ \\'\ \\\ \\\ \ 1 \ N.....a N .;:: ~ .!: c ~ El o-o ~a.. .!2 E ~o C ella.., Eoe "0 Q) CD-(J) Q) ::> C) Eg ATTACHMENTS 2-300 1\ , \ \, \ \ \ \ :~ \,, i \'\\ \\ I \ I \I II \ II' N 1'1~ 0 N 'C I\« C C Q) .:£ CIl-0-0 I .r: 0... () I'E CIl.... t. 0 C CIl 0..., ! E 0 r· e , I "0 Q) III.... I Q)-'"CIl :2 E.g 3: Q) :>ATTACHMENTS 2-301 Exhibit I Follow-Up City Arborist Report &Correspondence ATTACHMENTS 2-302 Amy Seeraty From:Davehaye Sent:Monday,July 30,2012 2:17 PM To:Amy Seeraty Subject:Re:VRP 2011-00064 Amy Discounting the first year,young Aleppo Pines grow at a rate between 3 feet and 5 feet per year and gradually slow down thereafter.In my professional opinion,a 10 year old Aleppo would be somewhere between 25 and 30 feet tall. Dave In a message dated 7/30/2012 1 :32:25 P.M.Pacific Daylight Time,AmyS@rpv.com writes: Hi Dave- Thank you for your report below.Based on your comment that the 26-inch diameter Aleppo Pine tree is was planted sometime between 1937 and 1941,this would mean that the tree would have been approximately 10 years old at the time the lot at 25 Narcissa Drive was created,which was in 1951.Can you give me an estimate for the average rate of grow1h for a young Aleppo pine tree,so I can estimate the height the trees would have been in 1951?Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty,Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv amys@rpv.com -(310)544-5228 ATTACHMENTS 2-303 From:Davehaye Sent:Monday,July 30,2012 12:40 PM To:Amy 5eeraty Subject:VRP 2011-00064 Amy During our site visit on July 25,20121 took three core samples of Allepo Pine trees and attempted to take one on a Eucalyptus.Core samples were obtained using a 15 inch long increment borer. The core borings at 22 Narcissa Drive were unsuccessful.The first was taken on a 29 inch diameter Allepo Pine.The theoretical center of that tree is at 14 inches.The sampling penetrated less than 12 inches;the core removed was broken.The 8 inch remnant gives inconclusive eveidence.I was unable to penetrate the Eucalyptus more than 4 inches before the borer bound due to excessive fluid in the tree. Two successful borings were taken at 24 Narcissa Drive. The first was on a 36 inch diameter Allepo Pine and penetrated 12 inches.The core rings distorted and neared parallel at the 7 inch mark.Rings should be concentric. Distortion was probably due to branch attachment. The coring of a 26 inch diameter Allepo Pine was successful.A 10 inch core that penetrated to heartwood was taken at 36 inches above grade. I counted 71 annual rings before encountering the heartwood.In my professional opinion,this tree is approximately 75 years old. There is no way to know what size the tree was at the time of planting,but it is reasonable to assume that it was 24-inch box size or smaller.That means it was planted sometime between 1937 and 1941. ATTACHMENTS 2-304 A picture of the core sample is attached.I glued it to a piece of molding,sanded it, and coated it with clear lacquer.Ring count was made under strong light with the aid of magnification. Should you have any question,please call me at David Hayes Consulting Arborist ATTACHMENTS 2-305 r ATTACHMENTS 2-306 From:Davehaye Sent:Thursday,July 26,2012 11:36 AM To:Amy 5eeraty Subject:Re:Report? Amy: I was out all morning on another assignment with another city.The process for reading the boring cores requires that I glue the core to a stable surface,sand it to expose the rings,and apply a coating to make them legible.The gluing is done,but the remainder will take most of this afternoon. Because I could not core to the center of the large pines,those results will be inconclusive and require some assumptions.The core from the smaller pine will provide the best results,but you won't know that until Monday. Based on your responses to my preliminary,I have no reason to change my prior opinions.The lower pine (closest to the house)will be destroyed by view pruning. I concur with your statement concerning view obstruction by scaffold branches remaining following foliage removal. Dave ATTACHMENTS 2-307 Amy Seeraty From:Amy Seeraty Sent:Wednesday,July 25,2012 3:33 PM To:'Davehaye Subject:RE:VRP2011-00064-Pine trees &Euc Hi Dave- Thanks for your preliminary comments.Please do not spend any additional time addressing the outcome of the mediation trimming,because the outcome or opinions about a mediation actually have no bearing on the Planning Commission's decision,nor on the City Council's deliberation or decision.The View Restoration Guidelines only require that "The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process and has shown proof of cooperation on his/her part to resolve conflicts."Since the applicant sent letters to the foliage owners and participated in mediation,I have no problem making that finding. Also,whether or not the pine trees can be trimmed to adequately restore the applicant's view is secondary to the fact that Staff believes and the Planning Commission has agreed that we still cannot make the following finding for these pine trees:"The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist as view impairing vegetation when the lot from which the view is taken was created."This is required to approve a View Restoration Permit,and is the more critical issue for the City Council's deliberation.So verifying the age of the trees,as best we can,is the most important issue.Please concentrate on the four large pine trees located at 24 Narcissa Drive regarding this issue.Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty,Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 HaW1horne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv amys@rpv.com -(310)544-5228 From:Davehaye Sent:Wednesday,Ju y 25,2012 2:27 PM To:Amy 5eeraty Subject:Re:VRP2011-00064-Pine trees &Euc Hi Amy: This is a preliminary comment on the exhibits you sent me. The Surveyor's comments are just that:comments or assertions.He does not justify his opinion of view impairment,so at this point it has no factual basis. Greg Monfette's letter,on the other hand,does provide some food for thought. Although I do not know the location from which he took his photograph,I have to concur in his opinion that the pruning done on the pine closest to the house does not restore the view.If,as he alleges,the mediation requirement was 40%-45%of the ATTACHMENTS 2-308 foliage impairment,then the pruning fell far short of that requirement. In my opinion,that tree was stable at the time of my first visit and does not appear to have changed since then.Subject of course to all the disclaimers enumerated by Greg. Please enlighten me concerning the mediation requirements and any backup from the surveyor. In a message dated 7/24/2012 11 :14:39 A.M.Pacific Daylight Time,AmyS@rpv.com writes: Hi Dave- Thanks again for your help out in the field today. The entire appeal packet is too large to email,so please see Greg Monfette's reports attached.I have also attached a report from a surveyor they are utilizing to assert that the trees significantly impairing the view did not exist,as view impairing vegetation,when the lot at 25 Narcissa Dr.was created.As you know,that is the key.The lot at 25 Narcissa was created in September 1951. Pi ease let me know if you have any questions.Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty,Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv amys@rpv.com -(310)544-5228 ATTACHMENTS 2-309 Exhibit J Correspondence Received from Interested Parties ATTACHMENTS 2-310 'VIr.Joel Rojas Community Development Director 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Dear Mr.Rojas, RECEIVED JJL 24 2012 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT July 23,2012 n answer to your letter of July 6111 concerning the appeal of Ms.Makhlouf to the denial resolution 2012·03,I strongly urge that your resolution be enforced and the denial confrrmed.The trees and foliage in question have already been trimmed to the limit of survival (1 has already died).They are deserving of better treatment. The lot directly across the road from Ms.Makhlouf belongs to me,as do the house and lot adjacent to it.I have had dealings with her in the past.I have found her:o be a very strong person who is determined to get what she wants. The trees to which she objects have been here since the 1920's,decades before the lot upon which her house sits was graded. The pines have long been a landmark of the west side of Portuguese Bend.They are of great unportance to me and Lo the Portuguese Bend Community. I am adamantly opposed to Ms.Marddouf's appeal. Sincerely, /)1 'iUt,,-/7((£('L/i5 era'lL. a 8 ha.'2c-(~ Lawrence Horan &Associates I~I 2A NARCISSA DRIVE.RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CALtFORNIA 90215 5929 U S.A ATTACHMENTS 2-311 Exhibit D Videos submitted by Appellant (on enclosed disc) ATTACHMENTS 2-312 Exhibit E Correspondence received since August 7, 2012 City Council Meeting ATTACHMENTS 2-313 Amy Seeraty From: Anabella Bonfa [abonfa@w-wlaw.com] Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 5:01 PM To: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Amy Seeraty Cc: stuartmiller@earthlink.net; abonfa@w-wlaw.com Subject: Request for subpoena to be issued re: Appeal of Da'ad Maklouf on September 18, 2012 Re: View Restoration Permit 2011-00064 Page 1 of 1 9/10/2012 Dear Ms. Lynch & Ms. Seeraty: Pursuant to Government Code Section 11450.10 and 11450.20, et al., appellant, Da’ad Maklouf, requests that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes issue a subpoena for the City’s arborist, David Hayes, to attend the September 18, 2012 City Council Hearing at 7:00 p.m. and produce for inspection the core sample he obtained from Tree No. 1 taken from the Paulucci property located at 24 Narcissa Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Anabella Q. Bonfa Attorney at Law Wellman & Warren LLP 24411 Ridge Route, Suite 200 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Phone: 949-580-3737 Fax: 949-580-3738 ***Privilege and Confidentiality Notice*** The information contained in this e-mail message is attorney-client privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the named recipient only. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic e-mail or call us at 949-580-3737. Thank you. ATTACHMENTS 2-314 Scott W.\'Vellman Scott R.Viarren David Van Sambeek RimaE \Va!gampnya Anabdla BODf<l 949/580-3 n 7 800/444-6587 FAX 949/580-3738 \-\:~$,/\V,~</"/-\;,;·'If..V(~;9Jn. Via Persrmal Delive!)' \VELI.lIVlAN &\VARRENLLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 24411 Ridge .Roule,Suite 200 Laguna Hills,CaHfurnia 92653 September 10,2012 :Martin Hagenwln*** Og(lffil3n &Hagerman Iglesia 2E -20 I Tizapfll1 San /\ngel M6xicQ City,D.F 01090 W\,\;"w.QR0.1Ill§!LC{lJ1J:1l:lli 'i'Admittd ill CA and NY ''>'~'Adrnittt-''j Ul C/\only. :<-~:0$:Adrahtcrl .in ~1 t>xi(p only. RECEIVED SEPt 1 2012 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Amy Seeraty Joel Rojas City of Rancho Palos Verdes Commurlit:v Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA.90275 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Re;DA'AD l'v1A..KHLOUF -SUPPLEt\<1ENI'AL APPEAL RE:CASE NO.'VRP20l 1-000M i\ND P,c.RESOLUTION 20t 2-08 Dear rvts.Seeraty &City Council 1\'lembers: \Ve represent Da'ad r.Vlakhlout:the appellant in this proceeding,who resides at 25 Narcissa Drive.We submit this letter and accompanying exhibits in support of her appeal from the Planning Commission's denial of her application fiJI'view restoration pcnnit 201 1-00064, The appeal concerns t\\o'o issues:a vicw impllirment by "trees 1-4"on the Paulucci property at 24 Narcis~;a Drive.and a view impairment by "tree 20"on the Gerrard property at 22 Narcisse.Drive. Vh~,y impairment by trCt's 1-4 (Paulucci property) Trees 1-4 impair IVIs.!'.Aakhlout's view of the ocean and Catalina Island,as .you can see from photograph No.1 (Trees 3&4)attached. ATTACHMENTS 2-315 September 10,20 i 2 Page 2 of'S ----_._..__•.._.•....._._.._._--_..... \i1s.Makhlouf and J\k Paulucci rtb'Teed that the trees would be thinned fo1Jmvmg mediation by the City's chosen lI1cdiatoL They Ub'Teed that the trees v,ould be thinned and balanced so as restore lYk Makloufs view.Trees number 1 and 2 (on the left)and the left halves oftrees number 3 and 4 (on th(:~right)have lx~en trimmed,:v15 ..Makhloufdoes not seek destruction of the trees,but only that the trimrning of trees 3 and 4 continue as shmvn on photograph No.2 (Trees 3&4 marked). City Staff ab'Tces that trees number 3 and 4 impair the view.(See August 7,2012 staff report p.2-6 footnote 2,)The CJty's arhorist,David Hayes,also agrees that following mediation that the trees "vere not trimmed in a manner so as to restore Ms.Maklouf's vie\\?The issue is wbether those trees impaired the vie\v fhm.the lot when the Jot \vas created in 1951.(fd p,2-8 item 4.) According to the City's arbonst the trees were ahout 20 feet tall in 1951.(lei.pp.2-8 to 2·9,)Our arbmist,Greg Monfette,disputes this conclusion because the vie\v was not blocked if the trees \vere only 20 feet tall,Furthermore,\tll'.ivlonfette disputes the City's statement that his last rep0l1 states that the trees anegedly blocked the view of the ocean.As pointed om in his report included in the attached disc hereto as The Tree Case T\1anagement Report,he comrnented in his last report as to the photograph provided by the mediator which contained double yellmv lines marking the area that Paulucci agreed to trim 011 trees 1-4 only, Our surveyor,David Grimes,has also confinlled that 20 {{)Ot ruU trees would noth1ock the view. Previous photof,'Tapbs sutHnjth:.~d co01111n the diHerence in elevation of the properties,'Nhicb is 20 feet plus.Mr.Grimes will testi(y at the hearing that the height of the trees in the historic photographs provided by the City,do not support tbe claim of the City that the trees wuuld block tbe viev>;'given the difJerence in elevation and vie\v iiom the applicant's vie'.\'ing area.\Vhile the City contends that the Applicant's "view of the ocean hegins at a fairly'steep ;mgJe"and that it "very 111inimal height will extend into the ocean vievl/"(Jd.p_2·9)this is not true.EVTn the view designated by lhe City as the "vic\ving area"does not have a view \vhich begins at a steep angle as the propelty extends out by at least 20 feet into the }/ard bcf~)re the 20 f()ot ur more drop in devation to th(~height ofPauJucci's property,The PauJucci prOptTty cannot even be ~cel1 in the vie\v!'taken from the vie\ving area. Even accepting Staffs conclusion that the trees were 20 teet tall in 1951,StatT is \vmng f(})'hvo reasons in conduding that tbe trees impaired the vie','.'from the lot at that time. First,"l'v1andatory Finding D"of the City's "Guidelines and Procedures f\.))'Restoration of "'iews"reqUlres a finding that "'rhe foliage significantly hnpairing the view did not exist as view inlpairing vegetation \vhen the lot from which the view is taken was created."StaiT takes the pllsition that under "Finding D,""the tte(~s arc only required to impair any l:wrtion of the V1e\\. ATTACHMENTS 2-316 September 10,2012 Page 3 of5 _.........••..._..._._--------- not significantly impair the view,"(StafT report p.2-9 remphasis in original].) A factor that is not "signiflcant"is irrelevant to any evaluation of any issue.Signi.llcam means "having significance"or "tneaning something:'Anything that is not sig;nt./1cant is insignijica.nt.lnsignt.ficanl means "not signifying anything:'or "meaningless."By definition,any decision based 011 a meaningless factor is arbitrary and capricious and will not withstand judicial reV1CVl. Second,Ms.Makhloufs lot is about 20 teet higher in elevation than the Paulucd lot If trees 3 and 4 \.vere 20 feet tan in 1951 as Staff contends,they \vere part of the linl~of other J{)!iage at the base of the view frOln the lot as shown in yellow on photograph No.3 (foliage [inc).In other words,they were not blocking the view;but were part ~lthc "near view"\vhich,as defined in the City"s "Guidelines,"includes a "pastoral environment or any natural setting." The Council theret{}re should order the limited trimming of trees numher 3 and 4 as shown in picture Trees marked. View impairment hy tree numher 20 (Gerrard property) As.shown in photographs No.<1 (Tree 20 far (far view)and No.5 Tree 20 near (closeup),tree 20 on the GelTani property blocks Ms.Ivia1<.hlouf's view of a cove.Staff does not dispute this fact,but disagrees yvith Ms.Mak:hloufrcgarding whether the cove is visible from the relevant "vie"\ving area." The City's Guidelines define "viewing area"as the area "\vhere the best and rnost ilTlportant vicwis taken.""'fhe detem1ination of/he 'viewing area'is made by hahmcing the nature of the vie\\!to be protected and the impclliance of the structure or lot from where the view is taken.""On developed lots,.the 'viewing area'ma)l be located on any level.surface within the house (excluding bathromns,.closers,haUways or garages),'"[and]may be located on a patio, deck,bakony or lawn area \\illicIt is adjacent to tbe primary structure.,..In detennining the view area.greater weight gent'Tally will be given to locations within tbe primary structure \vherl;: a view is taken than to }()cations outside the primary structure where a vie\-\'is taken."If a view is taken il'om morc than one area,Hit must be determined \~'here the best and.most important view is taken 10 detennille the o<viev/ing area"which is to be protected." As one stands in tv1s.l\flakhlouf's home 111cing the ocean,a workrooul i~on the tar left:. followed by a great room,secondary bedroom,and master bedroom suite on the f.ar right.The deck is accessible from the two bedrooms.The great room (which has views ofJesser quality than the other morns)is an expansi\/e open space containing a kitchen,dining area,and large Iiviug room. ATTACHMENTS 2-317 September 10,2012 Page4Df5 Staff contends that the "vie\ving area"is the \vorkroom,\vhich it has arhitrarily and l1tistakenly heen named the "family room."(Staff report p.2-3.)That room is in reality a small storeroom and \vorkshop,as shown in the foHmving photograph No.6 (\yorkmom interior ).It contains furniture in the process of restoration,and the storage of such furniture is its normal function.Ms.rVlakhlouf does not use it as Hving space,and in its current state it is IKJt usable as li ving space. The vic\-\'fi'om the patio outside the workroom is set~n i11 the photograph No.7 (workroom vie,,,,).'['he vic\vs from the secondary hedroom,master bedroom,and deck (taken :from 10 feet of the wall)are 5ho\vn in photographs No.8 (bedroom view).No.9 (master bedroom view)~and No,10 (deck view},respectively.Importantly,the view taken from outside the workroom is the view the City contends is the appHcab1e Viev/area,(See Exhibit C to the City's StafYRepoft,induded on the attached disc),Exhibit C is misleading because the City represents that the view'is taken from the vlOrkroom,when.in tact,it was taken irom outside tbe workroom.This is obvious when vie\ving the attached photographs No.7A and No,7:8,which 3ho\\'the vie\\'from the vvorkroom 10\vards the ocean and a view from the ocean side of the property into the workroom.As can he seen in photographs No.7A and No<713,the door and narrow side windmvs of the workroom prevent any person in the mom from seeing a panoramic view ofthe ocean and garden.Photograph 713 also shows that if one is to step outside ofthe workroom,only a nB.1TO\V ,,,,'aIbvay exists,whereas the patio outside the great room,seeondary bedroom and master room lS at least 30 feetiong and 20 feet long,as can be seen in photograph No.12 (patio),A video clip showing the patio area (MVI 1422)is included hereto on the attached disc. The vim'"from the \Vorkro0111 is limited in comparison v:hh the view shared hy the t\VO bedrooms and the deckt and is therefi.)l'e not "the best and most irnponant viev;"under the City's Guidelines. Nevertheless,Staff contends that the \vorkro01H is the "viev,;'ing area"because it perceives the view fi'o111 the \vorkroom as the lnost "pm1ora:mic"and containing the most "view cOlnponents,"(Staff report p.2-3,)These conclusions are objectively false,as the pictures submitted with this fetter prove.The vie\\!'shared by the bedrooms and deck is far more panoramic than the vie',.v fi'om the workroom<h'om left to right,both views include a southern portion of Palos Verdes Drive,the promontory,Catalina,and Ternlnea Resort.The broader view from the bedrooms and deck includes features absent from the 'vic\\from the\vorkmom, including more ofthc area inland fj'om the portion of Palos Verdes Drive on the left,a more northerly portion of Palos Verdes Drive to the right of the TelTanea Resort,and a large area of undeveloped hillside on the far right. Morecl'l'cr.the larger vievi is visible from three features of the house (secondary hedroom, master bedroom,<lI1G deck)\vhilc the VleW tl'om the \vorkroom can be seen [[On1 only a single ATTACHMENTS 2-318 September 10,2012 Page 5 of 5",. worn of lin1ited utility. According to hoth the City's "'Guidelines"and common sense,theret~}re,the more indusive and panoramic vie\v enjoyed from three areas of the property is "the best and most important view,"while the more limited viev.'enjoyed from one area oftbe pn)perty is noL Since the vic\v fi'om the secondary bedroom,master bedromn,and deck arc the proper "vic'Ning area;'tree 20 on the Gerrard propcl1y blocks the view oflhe cov'c from the viewing area and should be trimmed.'nle CouncH therefore should order tbat tree number 20 be trimmed as shown in photograph N().11{T.rel'20 marked). Very truly yours, ,-~:(/"y //:""~..,y-f4 ././0./\/.~,d,"'",_.-/{I>.(/~ AnahelJa Q.Bonn, Stuart MiHer Attorneys for Dn'ad fvfaklllouf ATTACHMENTS 2-319 Greg J.Monfette INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT -SPECIALIST IN ARBORICULTURE AND URBAN FORESTRY 4617 Purdue Avenue 0 Culver City,CA 90230 0 (310)902-6581 0 ncatree@ca.rr.com September 4,2012 D.Makhlouf 25 Narcissa Dtive Rancho Palos Verdes Re:Water and Catalina Island View Tree Case Management (TCM)was asked to evaluate the situation regarding the subject trees,listed as trees #1 tlu-ough #4 in the City reports,located at 24 Narcissa Dr and fonnulate an opinion to the following: 1.The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist as view impairing vegetation when the lot from which the view is taken was created. 2.If the pruning as identified by the mediator (the additional pruning needed to restore the view)will compromise the health of the tree and ultimately lead to its demise. Since my last report,dated July 12,2012,I have reviewed the City's staff report of August 7,2012 and the City's arborist report,and email interactions,from Mr.David Hayes. TCM reviewed the photograph below,provided by the mediator (yellow lines as well),which identifies the scope of work and shows the trees condition.The photo below identifies the area (between the yellow lines)of the view that was to be restored. Photo provided by the mediator ATTACHMENTS 2-320 Findings: 1.When the lot at 25 Narcissa was created (September 1951)the view from the property was that of the Ocean and Catalina Island.Therefore,the foliage that now significantly impairs the view did not exist as view impairing vegetation when the lot was created. •The above photo is taken from outside the house at 25 Narcissa and not from the main viewing area. •The statement that I made in my last report ["the height of the subject trees did not exceed the lower yellow line"]related to the mediation that took place and the area they (the mediator and the two property owners)identified,between the yellow lines,as the focus area for view restoration. •This statement was not to mean that the foliage that may have existed in September 1951 reached up to the yellow lines at all.I am referring to Mr.David Grimes,the surveyor,for that determination. •The trees did not block any protected area,including the water,at the time the lot was created. •There is no doubt that the view of the Water and Catalina Island was in full view in September 1951. 2.The City's arborist,Mr.David Hayes,has agreed with us in regards to the trimming that took place in an attempt to resolve this issue:"I have to concur in his opinion that the pruning done on the pine closest to the house does not restore the view". •If the trees are professionally pruned as required to remove the impairing vegetation the trees will not die and,with the proper care and maintenance,they shall live for many years to come.This is evident by the following fact: a.I have personally visited the site on two occasions (January 16,2012 and July 9,2012)and two of the four trees that are subject of this case were already trimmed the way the other two should be trimmed (to remove the impairing vegetation)and they have not died and are doing very well at this time. The view restoration guidelines states that "Greater weight should be given to prominent landmarks or other significant features in the view frame such as the Vincent Thomas Bridge,harbor,shoreline,distant mountain areas,city skylines,Catalina Island,and Channel Islands". The view of the Water and Catalina Island remains significantly impaired as it was prior to the tree-trimming event.In order to rectify this situation the trees should be trimmed to remove the selected limbs over the house to balance the trees growth and provide the view of the water and Catalina Island. It is imp0l1ant to note that Pine trees shall be pruned in the months of November through Febmary under the care and direction of a Registered Consulting Arborist to ensure they are pruned in a professional manner, according to the specifications set forth by the mediator,and to maintain their vigor. 1 hope you find this infonnation helpful in assisting to make the important decisions about dealing with these challenging tree issues.If you have any questions at anytime please contact me directly at 310-902-6581. Thank you, Greg Monfette Registered Consulting Arborist #481 State Contractors License #953525 www.ncatree.com ATTACHMENTS 2-321 I "1 '<'I T...No.1 ,1___....•••••.2.(......_ 18 A T T A C H M E N T S 2 - 3 2 2 ATTACHMENTS 2-323 ATTACHMENTS 2-324 ATTACHMENTS 2-325 ATTACHMENTS 2-326 ATTACHMENTS 2-327 ATTACHMENTS 2-328 1 ATTACHMENTS 2-329 ATTACHMENTS 2-330 ATTACHMENTS 2-331 ATTACHMENTS 2-332 ATTACHMENTS 2-333 ATTACHMENTS 2-334 1 E ~ ~.u,--.. .~ s:= ~r ATTACHMENTS 2-335 ATTACHMENTS 2-336 Exhibit F Tree Height Measurements ATTACHMENTS 2-337 Exhibit F -Tree Height Measurements Photo F-1 Panoramic Photo from Family Room Vie~il'lgArea taken September 5,2012 .... A T T A C H M E N T S 2 - 3 3 8 M ~... Q).c E i Q)en c:o Q)>'i: C l'll III IIIl:.~ .21 l'll Q)Z J:E ~eI-...c: I Q) U-N.ll:•l'll_U-_ :Coo._........coo><.c.c Wll..ll..ATTACHMENTS 2-339 Exhibit F -Tree Height Measurements Photo F·3 Photo taken from lot east of 24 Narcissa Drive on September 13,2012 ~ ATTACHMENTS 2-340 Exhibit F -Tree Height Measurements Photo F·4 Photo taken of Tree No.1 from lot east of 24 Narcissa Drive on September 13,2012 ATTACHMENTS 2-341 Exhibit F -Tree Height Measurements Photo F-5 Photo taken of Tree No.3 from lot east of 24 Narcissa Drive on Se-- ATTACHMENTS 2-342 ------ Exhibit F -Tree Height Measurements Photo F-6 Photo taken of Tree No.2 from lot east of 24 Narcissa Drive on September 13,2012.'f.f". ATTACHMENTS 2-343 Exhibit F -Tree Height Measurements Photo F-7 Photo taken of Tree No.4 from lot east of 24 Narcissa Drive on September 13,2012 ,~1 ATTACHMENTS 2-344