Loading...
RPVCCA_CC_SR_2012_10_02_F_Appeal_PC_Denial_Narcissa_DriveCITY OF MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: REVIEWED: Project Manager: RECOMMENDATION HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEVELO~.-NI'&N;rDIRECTOR OCTOBER 2,2012 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 MANAGE~Qrc::..L. Amy Seeraty,Associate Planner ~ Adopt Resolution No.2012-_;denying the appeal and affirming the Planning Commission's decision to deny View Restoration Permit No.2011-00064. DISCUSSION .At the last City Council meeting on September 18,2011,the City Council heard an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny View Restoration Permit No.2011-00064,which was 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.After hearing public testimony and considering the merits of the appeal,the City Council voted (3-1) with Councilmember Duhovic dissenting and Councilmemeber Brooks absent,to deny the appeal,thereby affirming the Planning Commission's denial of View Restoration Permit 2011- 00064 (Planning Commission Resolution 2012-08).The City Council agreed with the City Attorney's request to allow Staff to bring back the resolution memorializing this decision at the next City Council meeting on October 2,2012. F-1 Pursuant to the City Council's action,the resolution to deny the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of View Restoration Permit No.2011-00064 is before the City Council this evening for adoption. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A -Draft City Council Resolution No.2012-_ F-2 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.2012-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION SET FORTH IN PC 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 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 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 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,the City Resolution No.2012-_ Page 1 of 7 F-3 Council voted (5-0)to 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,which appellant refers to as the workroom,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 or do not have the same expansive view when compared to the panoramic view from the family room. In the Appellant's secondary supplementary appeal letter,submitted on September 11,2012, the Appellant disputes Staff's 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 and the "workroom"by Appellant,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 recently has stated that that the secondary bedroom,master bedroom and exterior deck should be the primary viewing area of the home.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 Section III B 1 of the View Restoration Guidelines. Thus,if the view from the deck is not considered,the view from the interior of the family room is Resolution No.2012-_ Page 2 of? F-4 more expansive than the views from both the secondary bedroom and master bedroom.Thus, the City Council finds that the "family room"is the primary viewing area of the home. Section 3:Finding "A"of the View Restoration Guidelines (Municipal Code Section 17.02.040.C.2.c.i)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 Ms.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 (Municipal Code Section 17.02.040.C.2.c.ii)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 from the primary viewing area.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 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. 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 Resolution No.2012-_ Page 3 of 7 F-5 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 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 juniper 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 (Municipal Code Section 17.02.040.C.2.c.iii)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' Resolution No.2012-_ Page 4 of? F-6 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 6:Finding "D"of the View Restoration Guidelines (Municipal Code Section 17.02.040.C.2.c.iv)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 probably were planted sometime between 1937 and 1941,and thus are approximately 75 years old.This estimate was confirmed by the core sample taken from Tree No.1 on July 25,2012.Also,based on two historic photos,one taken in 1951 and another taken sometime between 1949 and 1951,and the growth pattern of these trees (approximately 3-5 feet per year)the City Arborist has opined that Tree Nos.1-4 at 24 Narcissa Drive were at least 20 feet tall in 1951,and thus impaired the view from Appellant's property when the lot was created. 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 substantial evidence demonstrates that Tree Nos.1-4 were likely at least 20 feet tall in 1951,that evidence also demonstrates that the trees would have been view impairing trees at the time when the lot from which the view is taken was created. In the Appellant's supplementary appeal letter submitted September 11,2012,the Appellant disputes the determination made by the Planning Commission that Finding D 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 Narcissa 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 further substantiates Staff's 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 September 18,2012 Staff report)of Tree Nos.1-4 and the adjacent power poles using an eight-foot-Iong 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 at least approximately 20 feet in 1951,when the Appellant's lot was created.And,as Staff's 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 7 F-7 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 or "meaningless"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 caused an impairment of 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 19-20,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 "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"of the View Restoration Guidelines (Municipal Code Section 17.02.040.C.2.c.v)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 applicable. Section 8:Finding "F"of the View Restoration Guidelines (Municipal Code Section 17.02.040.C.2.c.vi)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. Resolution No.2012-_ Page 6 of? F-8 Section 10:Based on substantial evidence that was presented to the City Council,the City Council could not make all of the required findings for each of the trees (Numbered 1-20) that are the subject of this application,VRP2011-00064.Specifically,Finding B cannot be made for Tree Numbers 5-20.Although the trees exceed the required height of 16 feet or the ridgeline of the dwelling of the properties on which they are located,Tree Nos.5-20 do not significantly impair the Appellant's view from the primary viewing area,which is the family room/workroom. Finding D cannot be made for Tree Numbers 1-4 and 18,as Staff's historical research and the City's Arborist's opinion,based on the age of the trees,which was substantiated by the core sample from Tree NO.1 and the growth rates of the trees,demonstrate that these trees existed as view-impairing trees at the time the Appellant's lot was created in 1951. Based on the foregoing information,and on the evidence and findings set forth above, the City Council hereby denies the appeal,thereby upholding the Planning Commission's denial of VRP201 j -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 2nd day of October 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 October 2,2012 City Clerk Resolution No.2012-_ Page 7 of7 F-9