RPVCCA_SR_2010_07_20_08_Proposed_View_Restoration_And_Preservation_Guideline_Revisions
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: July 20, 2010
Subject: Proposed View Restoration and Preservation Guideline Revisions
Location: Citywide
1. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Wolowicz
2. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale
3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Senior Planner Alvarez
4. Public Testimony:
Appellants: N/A
Applicants: N/A
5. Council Questions:
6. Rebuttal: N/A
7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Wolowicz
8. Council Deliberation:
9. Council Action:
8A
CllY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING,BUILDING,&CODE ENFORCEMENT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEVEL~T DIRECTOR
JULY 20,2010
SUBJECT:PROPOSED VIEW RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION GUIDELINE
REVISIONS
REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER &-
Project Planner:John Alvarez,Senior Planner ~
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No.2010-_thereby approving a number of minor amendments to
clarify the City's View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines &Procedures.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since the last revision of the City's View Restoration Guidelines &Procedures
(Guidelines)approved by the City Council in 2006,Staff has encountered situations in
processing and implementing View Restoration and Preservation permits,which Staff
believes could be better addressed in the Guidelines in order to provide better clarity.
Accordingly in March 2010 Staff initiated a proposal to the Planning Commission to
make minor revisions to the existing Guidelines.The Planning Commission completed
its review of the proposed revisions on May 11,2010 and adopted P.C.Resolution No.
2010-14 recommending City Council approval of said amendments.The proposed
revisions are now being presented to the City Council for its review and approval.
BACKGROUND
In November 1989,the voters of Rancho Palos Verdes passed Proposition M,which
established the right of property owners to restore and preserve views.Subsequently,
the City codified the language contained in Proposition M as an Ordinance.The
Ordinance language ultimately was incorporated into Section 17.02.040 of the City's
Municipal Code and Guidelines were established by the Council to implement and
facilitate the view restoration process.
Throughout the 1990's the City Council held public hearings and reVISions to the
Guidelines in order to clarify and streamline the view restoration and preservation
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD./RANCHO PALOS VErmES,CA 90275-5391
PLANNINC/CODE ENFOI{CEMENT (310)544-5228 /BUILDINC (310)265-7800 /DEPT.FAX (310)544-5293/E-MAIL PLANNING@RPV.COM8-1
Staff Report:Proposed View Restoration and Preservation Guideline Revisions
July 20,2010
process and procedures.The most recent Guideline revision occurred in 2006,when
the City Council adopted changes to clarify and make consistent certain portions of the
Guidelines and to streamline the View Preservation Permit process.All these past
amendments to the Guidelines have been crafted to ensure consistency with the intent
of the View Ordinance.
2010 Staff-initiated Guideline Changes
At the April 13,2010 Planning Commission meeting,City Staff presented a number of
proposed revisions to the Guidelines as Staff believed that there was a need to clarify
specific issues that are not clearly addressed in the existing Guidelines.Staff's
proposed revisions to the Guidelines are consistent with Proposition M and do not alter
the language contained in the City's codified View Restoration and Preservation
Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 17.02.040).
During the Planning Commission review of Staff's proposed amendments,the Planning
Commission recommended additional suggested changes to the Guidelines and
considered public testimony,with considerable attention given to Mr.Mike O'Sullivan's
suggested amendments to the Guidelines (see attached Mr.O'Sullivan's suggested
Guideline amendments dated March 15,2010).
On May 11,2010,the Planning Commission approved specific amendments to the View
Guidelines and directed Staff to present the recommended changes to the City Council
for adoption.Since then,the City Attorney has reviewed the proposed amendments
made by the Planning Commission and has made some minor revisions to further
strengthen the amendments.Accordingly,Staff is presenting the recommended
changes tonight for the Council's review and adoption.
DISCUSSION
Suggested Guideline Amendments
A copy of the proposed final amended version of the Guidelines is attached.Below,
Staff has provided the proposed revision and text that is proposed to be inserted as
shown in underlined text,while language that is proposed to be deleted is shown in
strike out text.By sequential Guideline Section order,the proposed changes are
summarized in bold as follows:
1.Section 111-8:Add to Section 111-8 the following language that
makes it clear that viewing area determinations made by the City in conjunction
with the processing of View-related permits are appealable by any interested
party.This revision is proposed because the Planning Commission believes that
the proposed language (with minor language adjustments made by the City
8-2
Staff Report:Proposed View Restoration and Preservation Guideline Revisions
July 20,2010
Attorney)relating the rights to appeal the City's establishment of viewing areas
did not exist in the related section of the Guidelines:
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 the 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 City Council)of the City's determination of the viewing area.
2.Section 111-8(5):Add to Section 111-8 the following new subsection
(5)which addresses situations where residences have been remodeled and the
previously established viewing area has been changed or eliminated.This
revision (with minor language adjustments made by the City Attorney)is
proposed because the Planning Commission and Staff recognize that clarification
of the issue of viewing area determinations for remodeled homes is needed:
5.Situations involving residential remodels that affect previously existing viewing
areas:
a.If a residence is legally 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 and 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.
b.If a residence is legally 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 structure may be established by the Planning Commission or City Council or
Community Development Director pursuant to a decision on a new View Restoration,View
Preservation or City Tree Review Permit application filed by the subject property owner.In such
situations,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 Development Director.
3.Section V-A(6):Rephrase the reference to the City being
represented at a pre-application meeting.This revision is proposed because the
Planning Commission believes that the proposed language is clearer:
The City shag bo represontod at tho pro applioation mooting by tho Director of
Community Development Planning,Bf:Ji!df.ng and Code Enforoemont or his/her designee shall
8-3
Staff Report:Proposed View Restoration and Preservation Guideline Revisions
July 20,2010
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.
4.Section V-B(5):Clarify that the Planning Commission can require
a View Restoration Permit applicant to obtain,at his/her costs,a consulting
biologist or ornithologist during the review of said permit case.This revision is
proposed because the Planning Commission and Staff agree that the costs of
hiring biologists or ornithologists as consultants is the responsibility of View
Restoration applicants and the Commission may require such opinions on a
case-by-case basis during its review of View Restoration applications:
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 professional§..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 be responsible for bearing those costs.
5.Section V-D(1):Add language to clarify that a lot's recordation
date is the lot's creation date.This revision is proposed because the Planning
Commission and Staff agree that clarification of lot creation would be better
defined if strong consideration is given to a lot's recordation date in order to
make one of the permit findings for View Restoration application cases:
Where the applicant's property and the property containing the foliage in
question,are both located in the same subdivision or in adjacent subdivisions,Staff will
determine the date at which the lots were created.Generallv.the lots'recordation date shall be
the lots'creation date.
6.Section V-D:Add subsection (3)to Section V-D for situations
not considered to be lot creation dates.Related to the proposed revision above,
this revision is proposed because the Planning Commission believes it would be
appropriate to clarify that properties subject to lot line adjustments are not
considered to be new lots when determining a lot's creation date:
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.
7.Section VI-B:Change the one year monitoring of trimmed trees to
two years.This revision is proposed because the Planning Commission,the City
Arborist,and Staff agree that a two year monitoring period is a more reasonable
period of time to ascertain whether a tree initially trimmed for View Restoration
purposes will survive its initial pruning:
If any tree or shrub that is ordered to be culled,laced,or trimmed dies within -eRe
8-4
Staff Report:Proposed View Restoration and Preservation Guideline Revisions
July 20,2010
two year,§of the initial work being performed due to the performance of the work,the applicant
or any subsequent owner of the applicant's property shall be responsible for providing a
replacement tree or shrub to the foliage owner.
8.Section VI-F:Remove the reference to an approved list of
foliage types provided by the City.Generally,property owners make their tree
selections based on their own needs with the understanding that any newly
planted trees cannot grow to impair one's view.Therefore,this revision is
proposed because the Planning Commission and Staff agree that there is no need
to restrict property owners from choosing the type of replacement trees from a
list:
The Commission shall ensure that replacement foliage is reasonably comparable to the
foliage removed in terms of function and/or aesthetics while understanding that the replacement
foliage will not be of the same height,size and breadth as the pre-existing mature foliage.For
example,if replacement foliage is determined to be necessary to replace foliage located on a
slope,the replacement foliage should be of a woody-root species variety that provides soil
stability.The selection of the type of replacement foliage shall be made by the foliage owner:.
from an appro'oleEi Hst of foliage types pro'olideEi by the Direotor of PJanning,Building anEi Code
EnforG8FRent or appro'oleEi by the City arborfst.
9.Section VI-I:Add language to ensure that a trust account is
established by applicants to cover the costs of tree or shrub removal in the event
a tree or shrub dies as a result of the initial trimming.The proposed added
language ensures that after the approval of a View Restoration application is
rendered,monies deposited by an applicant are held by the City to cover the
expenses of tree trimming or removal as well as the costs associated with any
tree replacement:
The Commission shall require that a property owner trim or remove foliage within ninety
(90)days.If no date is specified by the Commission,the ninety day time frame shall commence
upon the receipt of a letter from the City notifying the foliage owner to trimlremove the foliage.
Such a letter is sent by the City once a trust account has been established by the applicant for
the cost of the trimminglremoval and tree or shrub replacement.
10.Section VI-I:Implement language ensuring tree trimming or
removal activities are performed in compliance with Federal and State
environmental regulations by addressing situations where nesting birds are
found to occupy view impairing trees sUbject to View Restoration applications.
Since nesting birds and their eggs are protected by Federal and State law,the
proposed revision (with minor language adjustments made by the City Attorney)
allows the Planning Commission to defer View Restoration trimming to a
seasonal time period when nests is considered to be inactive:
If evidence is provided to the Commission that a tree or shrub,subject to tree trimming
8-5
Staff Report:Proposed View Restoration and Preservation Guideline Revisions
July 20,2010
or removal.contains nests (or eggs)of birds that are designated under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act and California Department of Fish and Game Code.the Commission may reguire that the
subject foliage be trimmed within a ninety (90)day time period after the nest(s)is determined by
a gualified biologist or ornithologist to be inactive.
11.Section VI-J:Related to Section VI-B revision,add language to
ensure that a trust account is established by applicants to cover the costs of tree
or shrub removal in the event a tree or shrub dies as a result of the initial
trimming.The proposed added language is meant to reinforce the requirement
that applicants are obligated to cover tree removal and replacement costs (within
a 2 year time period)in the event a tree dies as a result of tree trimming:
The Commission shall require that an applicant submit one (1)to three (3)itemized
estimates to the City for carrying out the work required by an approved View Restoration Permit.
The work estimate shall also include tree or shrub removal and replacement costs for any tree
or shrub that dies as a result of 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
estimates shall be submitted within thirty (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 cleanup and 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 applicant
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 of the work as verified by City
Staff.
Upon completion of the work,the foliage 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 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 Staff's 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 actual cost of the
trimming.In such situations,the balance of the trust account Oess 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}or app!lod to tho app!lcant's pormit proco88ing accol:JRt,if that
accol:JRt contains a nogatillO balanco.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
8-6
Staff Report:Proposed View Restoration and Preservation Guideline Revisions
July 20,2010
compensated from the City trust account and the amount in the trust account shall be refunded
to the applicant(s).
12.Section VIII-A(2):Add language to clarify that only new foliage
growth exceeding the lesser of the ridge line of the primary structure on the
property or 16 feet is subject to tree trimming maintenance and such new growth
is to be maintained on a cycle equivalent to the minimum trimming cycle imposed
against foliage subject to the associated View Restoration Permit conditions.
This revision addresses situations where new foliage growth occurs following the
initial View-restoration tree trimming and that foliage, not previously identified in
the Commission's decision,grows into an applicant's protected view.Staff has
encountered numerous situations whereby the new foliage did not meet the
minimum height threshold levels established by the Ordinance.The Planning
Commission and Staff agree that the only foliage (new growth or growth
addressed previously in a City decision)subject to control by the City is foliage
that exceeds the ridgeline of the foliage owner's residence or 16 feet:
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,thEm 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 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.
13.Section VIII-B(3):Modify subsection (a)to remove the number "2"
reference and add language to subsection (b)clarifying only foliage growth that
exceeds the ridgeline or 16 feet is subject to View Preservation determinations
and action.Similar to the proposed revision above,the Planning Commission
and Staff agree that only foliage exceeding the lesser of the ridge line of the
primary structure on the property or 16 feet is SUbject to View Preservation
determinations:
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 2!2J sixteen (16)feet,and significantly impaired the view from a
8-7
Staff Report:Proposed View Restoration and Preservation Guideline Revisions
July 20,2010
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;
b.That foliage which exceeds the lesser of:a)the ridgeline 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.
14.Section VIII-B(4}:Modify language concerning Staff's preliminary
field determination for View Preservation request whereby Staff's determines that
an applicant's view is not significantly impaired.In cases where Staff's
preliminary assessment is that the subject foliage is not considered to be
significantly impairing a view,the applicant is discouraged from formally
applying for a View Preservation Permit.However,the Guidelines are not clear as
to what recourse applicants have in instances when Staff's preliminary
assessment is that the subject foliage does not significantly impair the view yet
applicants insist on proceeding with a formal View Preservation application
request.The Planning Commission and Staff agree that the following proposed
language addresses these situations:
Upon receipt of a Notice of Intent to File a View Preservation Application,Staff
will visit the applicant's 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.If 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 reguest.
Notwithstanding Staff's initial field determination.the applicant still may formally apply for a View
Preservation Permit seeking the Director's Final Determination on the permit reguest.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.
15.Section VIII-B(5}:Remove the out of context reference to the City'S
final determination for View Preservation applications and insert it into the
appropriate paragraph in Section VIII-B(4}.
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 his/her 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,
8-8
Staff Report:Proposed View Restoration and Preservation Guideline Revisions
July 20,2010
pursuant to Title 8,Chapter 24 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.
!f the City's fina!determination in response to an application is that view
presep;ation aotion is not warFanted on a partiou'ar property,no flJrther aotion by the foliage
ovmer is neo88sary in response to the filed applioation.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Minor typographical or grammatical revIsions throughout the View Guidelines are
needed.These revisions include the following:
•Section 1-0:removed box text and replaced with hyphenated "City-
owned"
•Section V-B(4):Removed double comma
•Section V-B(5):Added "s"to "other appropriate professionals"
•Section VIII-B:Changed "In"to "in"to title of subsection
•Various sections:Update Director title to "Community Development
Director"
PUBUCCORRESPONDENCE
On July 12,2010,Mr.Mike O'Sullivan submitted correspondence to the City Council
(see attached email message).Mr.O'Sullivan asks the Council to give consideration to
his suggested amendments that were proposed to the Planning Commission during its
review of the matter.
It should be noted that Mr.O'Sullivan presented his list of proposed Guideline changes
to Staff prior to the Planning Commission's consideration of the matter.Staff reviewed
all of the changes proposed by Mr.O'Sullivan and provided its feedback on all his
proposed amendments to the Planning Commission (see attached April 13,2010 P.C.
Staff Report).On April 13th ,the Planning Commission reviewed each of Mr.O'Sullivan's
suggestions along with Staff's input and agreed to make some of Mr.O'Sullivan's
suggested changes.Staff and the Planning Commission did not agree with most of the
suggestions made by Mr.O'Sullivan because they were either not consistent with the
intent of the View Ordinance and/or were redundant or not necessary.However,Staff
and the Commission did agree with a few suggestions made by Mr.0'Sullivan,namely
the suggestions that extend tree monitoring period beyond one year (Revision topic 7)
and clarifying that residents can appeal the City's determination of a viewing area
(Revision topic 1).
Mr.O'Sullivan's suggested amendments are attached to this report.
8-9
Staff Report:Proposed View Restoration and Preservation Guideline Revisions
July 20,2010
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
According to the City Attorney,all of the proposed Guideline amendments described in
this Staff Report may be adopted by the City Council without the need for amendments
to the View Ordinance or the City's Municipal Code Section 17.02.040.
FISCAL IMPACT
None of the suggested View Guideline amendments will have any direct fiscal impacts
as the core of the proposed amendments requires View Restoration Permit applicants
to bear the costs of consulting fees and tree trimming or removal.
CONCLUSION
On May 11,2010,the Planning Commission approved certain modifications to the View
Guidelines and directed Staff to present their suggestions to the City Council for final
adoption.As a result,Staff recommends that the City Council review and approve the
attached draft View Guidelines.Should the City Council approve and adopt the
proposed amendments,the new Guideline language shall be effective immediately.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staffs recommendation,the following alternatives are available for City
Council to consider:
1.Review the draft Guideline language and provide Staff with additional input and
direction on the proposed language.
2.Identify any issues that require additional Staff review and input and continue this
item to a future meeting to allow Staff time to prepare such review and input.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Draft City Council Resolution No.2010 -
2.Exhibit "A"-Draft View Restoration Guideline language amendments with strikeouts and
underlining
3.Planning Commission Staff Reports dated May 11,2010 &April 13,2010
4.Excerpted Planning Commission Meeting Minutes,May 11,2010 &April 13,2010
5 Late correspondence from the Planning Commission meeting dated May 11,2010
6.Mr.Mike O'Sullivan's emailed correspondence dated July 12,2010 and his suggested
Guideline amendments dated March 15,2010
8-10
Draft City Council Resolution No.2010 -
8-11
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING THE CITY'S VIEW
RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION GUIDELINES &
PROCEDURES
WHEREAS,Chapter 02.040 of Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code (the "Municipal Code")sets forth procedures and regulations
regarding the restoration and preservation of views;and,
WHEREAS,the City Council adopted View Restoration and Preservation
Guidelines &Procedures (the "Guidelines")to accomplish the purpose of
Municipal Code Section 17.02.040;and,
WHEREAS,on September 19,2006,after public review,the City Council
adopted the current View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines &Procedures;
and,
WHEREAS,by the initiative of City Staff,the Planning Commission or City
Council,the Guidelines are amended from time to time to clarify,amplify,and
further define the processes and procedures related to view restoration and
preservation;and,
WHEREAS,on February 25,2010,notice of a public hearing on the
proposed amendments to the View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines &
Procedures was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News;and,
WHEREAS,on March 23,2010,the Planning Commission,without
discussion,continued the hearing to April 13,2010;and,
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on April
13,2010 and May 11,2010,at which time all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding the proposed Guideline
amendments;and,
WHEREAS,on May 11,2010,the Planning Commission adopted P.C.
Resolution No.2010-14,thereby forwarding its recommended Guideline
amendments to the City Council for consideration;and,
WHEREAS,on June 17,2010,a notice of a City Council public hearing on
the proposed Guideline amendments was published in the Palos Verdes
Peninsula News;and,
WHEREAS,the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the
proposed amendments to the Guidelines on June 20 2010,at which time all
interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence;
8-12
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1:The City Council has reviewed and considered the proposed
amendments to View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines &Procedures.
Section 2.The City Council finds that the proposed amendments to the
View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines &Procedures are consistent with
the purposes and intent of Proposition M in that the revisions concerning the City
View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines &Procedures further the goals of
Proposition M and further clarify the View Restoration and Preservation
processes and procedures.Because these amendments are consistent with
Proposition M and advance its purposes,they do not need to be approved by the
voters.
Section 3:The amendments to the View Restoration and Preservation
Guidelines &Procedures shall be effective on July 20,2010.
Section 4.The City's View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines &
Procedures are hereby amended,as shown in the attached Exhibit "A,"with
strikethrough font for text to be removed and underline font for text added,which
is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
PASSED,APPROVED and ADOPTED this 20th day of July 2010.
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,do
hereby certify that the above Resolution No.2010-_was duly and regularly
passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on
July 20,2010.
City Clerk
8-13
Exhibit "A"
Draft View Restoration Guideline language amendments
with strikeouts and underlining
8-14
Exhibit A
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 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
8-15
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration 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 Section 2 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners
Association and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Cooperative View
Preservation and Restoration Ordinance,which was passed by the voters of the 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 measure,which was approved by the voters,states the purposes
of the Ordinance as follows:
liThe hillsides of the City constitute a limited natural resource in their
scenic value to all residents of and visitors to the City.The hillsides
provide potential vista points and view lots.The City's General Plan
recognizes these natural resources and calls for their protection.The
public health,safety and welfare of the City require prevention of
needless destruction and impairment of these limited vista points and
view lots.The purpose of this Ordinance is to promote the health,safety
and general welfare of the public by accomplishing the purposes set
forth below,and this Ordinance shall be administered in accordance with
such purposes.Where this Ordinance is in conflict with other City
ordinances,the stricter shall apply.
Specifically,this Ordinance:
1.Protects,enhances and perpetuates views available to property
owners and visitors because of the unique topographical features of the
Palos Verdes Peninsula.These views provide unique and irreplaceable
assets to the City and its neighboring communities and provide for this
and future generations examples of the unique physical surroundings
which are characteristic of the City.
2.Defines and protects finite visual resources by establishing limits
which construction and plant growth can attain before encroaching onto
a view.
3.Insures that the development of each parcel of land or additions to
residences or structures occur in a manner which is harmonious and
maintains neighborhood compatibility and the character of contiguous
sub-community development as defined in the General Plan.
4.Requires the pruning of dense foliage or tree growth which alone,or
in conjunction with construction,exceeds defined limits.II
Page 2
8-16
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
Thus,the general purpose of the Ordinance is to promote the health,safety and
general welfare of the residents of the City,by balancing the rights of the residential
property owner with foliage against the rights of the residential property owner to have a
view from a viewing area restored so that it can be enjoyed,when that view has been
significantly impaired 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 jurisdiction is limited to issues regarding view
impairment caused by foliage,through the 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 area of a structure (excluding bathrooms,
hallways,garages or closets)or that area of a lot (excluding the setback areas)
where the owner and City determine the best and most important view exists.In
structures,the finished floor elevation of any viewing area must be at or above
the existing grade adjacent to the exterior wall of the part of the building nearest
to said viewing area.II
Section 17.02.040 (A)(14)of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code defines
"view"as follows:
liOn the Palos Verdes Peninsula,it is quite common to have a near view
and a far view because of the nature of many of the hills on the peninsula.
Therefore,a 'view',which is protected by this section,is as follows:
Page 3
8-17
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
a.A 'near view'which is defined as a scene located on the
peninsula including,but not limited to,a valley,ravine,equestrian trail,
pastoral environment or any natural setting;and/or
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 normally
visible nor the sky,either above distant mountain areas or above the height of off
shore islands.A 'View'may extend in any horizontal direction (360 degrees of
horizontal arc)and shall be considered as a single view even if broken into
segments by foliage,structures or other interference."
III.ESTABLISHING THE VIEWING AREA
A.Section 17.02.040 (B)(5)establishes the procedure for determining the
"viewing area"as follows:
"The determination of a viewing area shall be made by balancing the nature
of the view to be protected and the importance of the area of the structure or lot
from where the view is taken.Once finally determined for a particular application,
the viewing area may not be changed for any subsequent application.In the
event the city and owner cannot agree on the viewing area,the decision of the
city shall control.A property owner may appeal the determination of viewing
area.In such event,the decision on the viewing area will be made by the body
making the final decision on the application.A property owner may preserve his
or her right to dispute the decision on viewing area for a subsequent application
without disputing the decision on a pending application by filing a statement to
that effect and indicating the viewing area the property owner believes to be more
appropriate.The statement shall be filed with the city prior to consideration of
the pending application by the City."
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 the 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 City Council)of the
City's determination of the viewing area.
1.On developed lots,the "viewing area"may be located on any level
surface within the house (excluding bathrooms,closets,hallways or garages),which is
Page 4
8-18
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
at or above the existing grade adjacent 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 located on the same general grade on
the lot as the primary structure,excluding the required setback areas and 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 locations 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 a view
from one or more locations either within or outside of the 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 IViewing area"may only include multiple rooms or
locations on the applicant1s property if those locations share the same view.
3.The "viewing area"may only be located 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 Municipal Code,or would 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 area is located in a part of the structure that constitutes
the primary living area of the house,which is the living room,dining room,family room
or kitchen.However,the viewing area may be located in the master bedroom,if a view
is not taken from one of the rooms comprising the primary living area,and the master
bedroom is located on the same story of the house as the primary living area.
4.In documenting the views,Staff usually will conduct the view analysis
in a natural standing position.In those cases where the view is enjoyed from a seated
position,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 than three (3)feet,six (6)inches.
5.Situations involving residential remodels that affect previously existing
viewing areas:
a.If a residence is legally 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 and 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 Councilor Community Development Director.
Page 5
8-19
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
b.If a residence is legally 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 structure may be established by the
Planning Commission or City Councilor Community Development Director pursuant to
a decision on a new View Restoration,View Preservation or City Tree Review Permit
application filed by the subject property owner.In such situations,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 Development Director.
IV.APPLICATION PROCEDURES
A.Once an applicant completes the early neighbor consultation process
described in Section V-A (Mandatory Findings)of these Guidelines and the view
problem is not resolved and the applicant wishes to proceed,the applicant(s)may
complete and submit a View Restoration Permit application form (see attached form)to
the City's Department of Community Development Planning,Building and Code
Enforcement,accompanied by the appropriate filing fees,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 separate flat fees as follows:
1.The first fee is a fixed amount that is paid by an applicant to cover the
City's costs associated with processing steps,such as reviewing the application for
completeness,conducting the initial site visit and 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 Resolution(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,and 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.
Page 6
8-20
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
D.Once a formal View Restul<.dion Permit application has been submitted,the
City will review the application to determine if the information is complete,before
beginning processing the application.If any information is missing or components of
the application are incomplete,the applicant will be notified of any deficiencies in
writing,and the application will be held in abeyance until the necessary materials are
received by the City.If an applicant does not submit the necessary information and the
application remains incomplete for six (6)months,the City shall administratively
withdraw the application.
E.Once the application is deemed complete,the following sequence of steps
shall occur in order to process an application for a View Restoration Permit (also see
attached flow chart):
1.Staff notifies the foliage owner(s),in writing,that a formal request for
view restoration has been filed with the City,attaching a copy of the application.
2.Staff schedules and conducts site visit(s)to the applicant's and foliage
owner's properties.During the first site visit to the foliage owner's property,Staff will
inquire as to whether the foliage owner wishes to have the Commission members visit
their property.A foliage owner may request Commissioners visit his/her property in
order to fully assess the case or demonstrate unique site conditions,such as special
landscaping,slope stability or privacy concerns.Requests for the Commission to visit a
foliage owner's property must be made in writing by the foliage owner and will be
honored by the Commission.
3.Staff prepares a Staff Report to the Planning Commission,which will
include the 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 the disposition of the application;
e.Determination if any of the Commission members are ineligible to
participate on the application,based on a conflict of interest due to the proximity of a
Commissioner's properties to the property that is the subject of the application.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.
Page 7
8-21
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
4.Staff establishes a date for the public hearing 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
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.
Page 8
8-22
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
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.
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
Page 9
8-23
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(c)of the Municipal Code requires that,in order for a View
Restoration notice to be issued,the Planning Commission must make the following six
mandatory findings:
A.liThe applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation
process and has shown proof of cooperation on his/her part to resolve conflicts.II
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-ef Planning,Building and Code Enforcement 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-of Planning,Building and
Code Enforcement 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.
Page 10
8-24
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
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
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 City shall be represented at the pre applioation meeting by the
Community Development Director at Planning,Building and Code Enforcement 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).
Page 11
8-25
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
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.II
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 "8".
Figure 1
Foliage 'A'
Shall be ./"-...
trimmed to
the height of
Roofline 'A'
RoofHne 'B'
.-/"¥---.------...-.......N"'-
-~../'>-~.~"A__~.
N"'-Roofline 'A'
Multiple Roofline Structure with Foliage
(Example:Ocean view from the applicant's viewing area)
<A_Foliage 'B'
fi...Shall be
-"'"-trimmed to
the height of
Roofline '8'
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 lower,these cases shall be referred to the City's
Page 12
8-26
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
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 professional§.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
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
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 (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
8-27
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
IT •
C.liThe 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.II
Staff from the Department of Community Development Planning,Building and
Code Enforcement will determine the distance from the applicant's property line to the
nearest property line of the site containing the foliage under consideration.
D.liThe foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist as view
impairing vegetation when the lot from which the view is taken was created.II
1.Where the applicant's property and the property containing the foliage
in question,are both located in the same 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 date.
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 photographs taken on known dates indicating the presence of
vegetation or lack of vegetation.
c.Property descriptions prepared in connection with the sale of
property (e.g.multiple listing information,newspaper advertisements,
real estate flyers,etc.).
d.Testimony of witnesses.
e.Any reports documenting land conditions or site surveys that include
information about vegetation.
Page 14
8-28
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
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.II 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.II
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.
2.Given the variety and number of options which are available to
preserve indoor privacy,greater weight generally will be given to protecting outdoor
privacy than to protecting indoor privacy.
F.IIFor 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.II
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 owned by the District are not subject to the City's View
Restoration Permit process.
2.Properties located within the boundaries of the District,but owned by a
person or entity other than the District,are subject to the View Restoration Permit
process and the additional finding above.
3.A map of the boundaries of the Miraleste Recreation and Parks District
and a list of the streets within the Miraleste Homeowners'Association are attached.
VI.COMMISSION ACTION
A.If the Commission is able to make all of the mandatory findings set forth in
Section V (Mandatory Findings)above,then the Commission must determine the
action(s)which must be taken to restore the view.Such action(s)may include culling,
lacing,trimming,or removal of the foliage,which is significantly impairing the view from
the viewing area.These terms are defined as follows:
1.Culling shall mean the removal of dead,decayed,or weak limbs or
foliage from a tree or shrub.
Page 15
8-29
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
2.Lacing shall mean a comprehensive method of pruning that
systematically removes excess foliage from a tree or shrub,but maintains its shape.
3.Trimming shall mean the removal of limbs or foliage from a tree or
shrub.Trimming includes,but is not limited to:
a.IICrown reducing ll
,which is a comprehensive method of pruning that
reduces a tree's or shrub's height and/or spread.Crown 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,
b.IICrown raising ll
,which is a comprehensive method of pruning that
removes limbs and foliage from the lower part of a tree or shrub in order to raise the
canopy of the tree or shrub over the view.
c.II Topping ll
,which is the cutting of branches and/or trunk of a tree or
shrub in a manner which substantially reduces the overall height of the tree or shrub.
4.Removal shall mean the removal and disposal of a tree or shrub,by
grinding the shrub's or tree's stump to the existing grade or a depth below existing
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 contractor.If a
foliage owner wishes to keep the stump,he or she may so elect;then,in no case,may
the remaining stump height exceed 18 inches above grade.Unless otherwise directed
by the Commission in connection with the decision on a particular application,removal
of the foliage shall not include the removal and disposal of a plant's root system.
B.If any tree or shrub that is ordered to be culled,laced,or trimmed dies within
two year§of the initial work being performed due to the performance of the work,the
applicant or any subsequent owner of the applicanfs property shall be responsible for
providing a replacement tree or shrub to the foliage owner.This time period may be
extended by the Commission if evidence is provided by a certified arborist that a longer
monitoring period is necessary for 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
probability cause the tree or shrub to die,and the foliage owner chooses not to accept
removal and replacement as an option,either in writing or in public testimony during the
public hearing,then the applicant will not be responsible for providing a replacement
tree or shrub to the foliage owner.The replacement foliage shall be provided in
accordance with the specifications described in section VI-E (Commission Action)of
these Guidelines.If the work is performed by the foliage owner,said foliage owner shall
forfeit the right to replacement foliage if the trimmed tree dies.If a tree or shrub dies it
is subject to removal pursuant to Section 8.24.060 (property maintenance)of the RPV
Municipal Code.
Page 16
8-30
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
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,lacing,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
2.That upon the advice of the City's arborist,culling,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.In 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 applicant to replace trees or shrubs
which have been removed if the owner of the property where the foliage is located
consents to the replacement of the tree or shrub and the Commission finds:
1.That removal without replacement foliage will cause a significant
adverse impact on:
a.The public health,safety and welfare;
An example of this would be a situation where there 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 loss of privacy provided by pre-existing foliage is
needed to help screen or block views from the applicant's property into the foliage
owner's usable yard area (deck,patio,pool/spa area,barbecue area)and/or residence
(unless interior privacy can be achieved by other means).
c.Shade provided to the dwelling or 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 is needed to help provide shade to an area of the foliage
Page 17
8-31
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
owner1s 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.The energy-efficiency of the dwelling where the foliage is located;
An example of this would be a situation where 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.
e.The health or viability of the remaining landscaping where the
foliage is located;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 is receiving 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 before the Commission
that replacement foliage is needed to replace foliage that is a focal point or integral
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 other similar structure on an adjacent property.
An example of this would be a situation where there is evidence before the Commission
that replacement foliage is needed to replace foliage that provides effective screening of
unsightly feature(s)located on an adjacent upslope property.Such features may include
but 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 and/or aesthetics while
understanding that the replacement foliage will not be of the same height,size and
breadth as the pre-existing mature foliage.For example,if replacement foliage is
determined to be necessary to replace foliage located on a slope,the replacement
foliage should be of a woody-root species variety that provides soil stability.The
selection of the type of replacement foliage shall be made by the foliage owner.:.from an
approved list of foliage types pro'Jided by the Director of Planning,Building and Code
Enforcement or approved by the City arborist.
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
Page 18
8-32
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
ordered removed.Replacement trees or Shl ....:JS generally should be of a 15-gallon size,
and should not be larger than a 24-inch box size,unless warranted by the need to
reasonably protect privacy or exceptional circumstances 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 Restoration 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
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 Commission.In establishing the maintenance schedule,the
Commission may take into account seasonal dormant periods of the subject foliage,
when trimming is least harmful to the foliage.
I.The Commission shall require that a property owner trim or remove foliage
within ninety (90)days.If no date is specified by the Commission,the ninety day time
frame shall commence upon the receipt of 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 account
has been established by the applicant for the cost of the trimming/removal and tree or
shrub replacement.Within the ninety (90)day time frame,but not less than two weeks
before the trimming/removal date,the foliage owner shall inform City Staff of the date
and approximate time the work is scheduled to occur,so that staff may be available on-
site to ensure the work is performed in accordance with the Commission's decision.
Staff strongly encourages that the foliage owner to schedule a date during the Monday
thru Friday workweek.Staff's on-site monitoring of the tree trimming/removal work shall
include,if necessary,directing the foliage owner to trim additional foliage that was not
specifically designated by the Planning Commission but found by staff to be significantly
impairing the same view after the specified foliage is trimmed,provided the Planning
Commission had imposed such a condition in its decision.Said additional foliage 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.
If evidence is provided to the Commission that a tree or shrub,subject to tree
trimming or removal,contains nests (or eggs)of birds that are designated under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Department 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 period,the Commission may require that the subject
foliage be trimmed ninety (90)days from an established date.In situations where
Page 198-33
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
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.
2.Establish a specified time period for trimming the time-sensitive foliage
and require that the remaining foliage also be trimmed at that time.
J.Unless the Commission specifies the amount of allowable growth pursuant to
subsection VI-H the Commission may require that all maintenance schedules
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 adequacy 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 subject foliage,as well as any other factors that the
Commission finds are pertinent to the decision.On or about the specified review date,
City Staff will inspect the foliage sites and transmit a brief report to the Commission
which describes whether the foliage is being maintained in accordance with the
conditions of approval.The report shall also contain a recommendation from City Staff
as to whether the maintenance schedule should be amended.The Commission shall
consider the report and determine if a public hearing to amend the conditions of
approval is necessary.If a public hearing is determined to be necessary,Staff shall
transmit to the Commission a report with recommendations for additional or modified
conditions of approval.Notice of the public hearing shall 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 hearing is appealable to the City Council
pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.02.040.
The Commission shall require that an applicant submit one (1)to three (3)
itemized estimates to the City for carrying out the work required by an approved View
Restoration Permit.The work estimate shall also include tree or shrub removal and
replacement costs for any tree or shrub that dies as a result of 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 estimates shall be submitted within thirty
(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 cleanup and removal of debris.
Page 20
8-34
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
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 applicant 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 of the work as verified by City Staff.
Upon completion of the work,the foliage 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
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 Staff's 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 actual 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 fwithin
30 days of receipt of the appropriate billing)or appliod to the applicant's permit
processing account,if that account contains a negative balance.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:
Page 21
8-35
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
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(C)(2)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(C)(2)have not been complied
with;or
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.
B.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(B)(3)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.
Page 22
8-36
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
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 foliage
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.1I
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 City1s permanent records and shall be kept on
file at the Planning,Building and Code Enforoement 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 applicant1s property,that foliage subject to a
VRP decision has exceeded the height limit 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
Attorney1s 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.
Page 23
8-37
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
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
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 "v iewing area",then Staff will
advise the property owner that the documentation has been rejected.Any verified
Page 24
8-38
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
photographs will be kept on file in the Department of Community Development
Planning,Building,and Code Enforoement 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 2-'2)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;
b.That foliage which exceeds the lesser of:a)the ridgeline 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 applicant's 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.If 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 Staff's 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.
Page 25
8-39
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
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.
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 his/her 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.
If the City's final determination in response to an application is that view
preservation action is not 'Narranted on a particular property,no further action by the
foliage O'Nner is necessary in response to the filed application.
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
Page 26
8-40
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
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 applicant's 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
order that thp.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 VPP,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 VPP,no further action will be taken in response 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-ef Planning,Building and Code Enforcement must make the
following five findings:
1.The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation
process and has shown proof of cooperation on his/her part to resolve conflicts.
a.Each applicant must provide evidence of early neighbor
consultation with each foliage owner,utilizing the process described below.
b.Evidence of adequate early neighbor consultation shall consist of
each applicant filing a "Notice of Intent to File a View Preservation Application"with the
City prior to the submittal of a formal View Preservation 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 Preservation 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.
Page 27
8-41
Exhibit"A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
(1).Upon receipt of a signed and complete Notice from an
applicant,the Community Development Director---ef Planning,Building and Code
Enforoement 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 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 the applicant(s)may immediately file a formal View Preservation
Application with the City if the foliage owner fails to voluntarily perform 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.
2.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.
a.After the location of the "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.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.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 2.
d.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 Preservation Permit application,if the top of the hedge exceeds sixteen feet in
height or the ridge line of the primary structure,whichever measurement is lower.In
such cases,the Director may require a hedge to be trimmed to the lesser of sixteen (16)
feet or the ridge line of the primary structure,if necessary to restore the view.However,
Page 28
8-42
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
if the top of the hedge is below sixteen feet or the ridge line of the primary structure,
whichever measurement is lower,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.
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 help determine whether a view is being "significantly"impaired by foliage:
(1).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.
(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
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 (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 view of any of these landmarks is more
likely to be found to create a significant view impairment.
3.liThe 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.II
Staff from the Department of Community Development Planning,Building
and Code Enforcement will determine the distance from the applicant's property line to
the nearest property line of the site containing the foliage under consideration.
4.The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist as view
impairing vegetation in November 1989 or thereafter.
5.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.II
a.The burden of proving an "unreasonable infringement of indoor
and/or outdoor privacy"shall be on the foliage owner.The Director will make a
determination on a case-by-case basis.
Page 29
8-43
Exhibit "A"Draft View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
b.Given the variety and number of options which are available to
preserve indoor privacy,greater weight generally will be given to protecting outdoor
privacy than to protecting indoor privacy.
Page 30
8-44
Planning Commission Staff Reports dated
May 11,201 0 &April 13,201 0
ATTACHMENT 8-1
CITY OF
PLANNING,BUILDING,&CODE ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEVELO~DIRECTOR
MAY 11,2010
SUBJECT:PROPOSED VIEW RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION GUIDELINE
AMENDMENTS
Project Planner:John Alvarez,Senior Planner JP(
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission review the proposed draft View Restoration and
Preservation Guideline amendments;and,if deemed acceptable,adopt P.C.Resolution
No.2010-_thereby forwarding approval to the City Council.
BACKGROUND
At its meeting on April 13,2010 the Planning Commission was presented with
recommendations from Staff to amend the View Restoration Guidelines and
Procedures.After considering input from the residents and Staff's proposed
amendments,the Commission made some additional suggestions and directed Staff to
bring back the draft language for further:review and continued the public hearing to the
May 11,2010 meeting (please see attached draft April 13,2010 PC excerpt minutes).
Since that time,Staff has made the suggested amendments and obtained the City
Attorney's input on specific issues the Planning Commission requested.Staff is now
presenting the revised draft language for the Commission's review and approval.
DISCUSSION
On April 13,2010,the Planning Commission accepted with some modification Staff's
recommended amendments,as well as adding their own suggestions.The Commission
directed Staff to make the changes and bring back the amended language to tonight's
meeting.In some instances,the Commission asked Staff to confer with the City
Attorney to review its suggested language.Staff has prepared the requested
amendments (see attached draft View Guidelines)and the City Attorney has reviewed
the draft language.Staff is now seeking additional Commission feedback on the
proposed language so that a recommendation of adoption can be forwarded to the City
Council.
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD./RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275-5391
PLANNINC/CODE ENFORCEMENT (310)544-5228 /BUILDING (310)265-7800 /DEPT.FAX (310)544-5293/E-MAil PLANNING@RPV.COMATTACHMENT 8-2
MEMORANDUM:Proposed View Restoration and Guideline Amendments
May 11,2010
By Guideline Section sequence order the suggestions raised by the Commission are
summarized below:.
1:Section V-A(6):The Commission suggested to rephrase the
reference to the City being represented at a pre-application meeting by the
Director or his/her designee.
The City sha.'l be refl:,:eseRtsfl at the pre BfJpliGatieR FReetiRg by the Director.gf
PJaRRiRfJ,8l:Jik:JiRg aRfl Coc:Js ERfsFGeFReRt 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.
2:Section V-D(1):The Commission suggested to clarify that strong
consideratiuZ':will be given to a lot's recordation date as being the lot's creation
date.
1.Where the applicant's property and the property containing the foliage in
question,are both located in the same subdivision or in adjacent subdivisions,Staff will
determine the date at which the lots were created.Generallv.the lots'recordation date shall be
the lots'creation date.
2a:Add subsection 3 to Section V-D where the Commission suggested
including situations not considered to be lot creation dates.
3.Recorded lot line adiustments shall not be considered to create a new lot for
the purpose of determining the date when the lot was created.
3:Section VI-B:The Commission agreed with Staff to change the
one year monitoring of trimmed trees to two years.
If any tree or shrub that is ordered to be culled,laced,or trimmed dies within 6R6
two year§of the initial work being performed due to the performance of the work,the applicant
or any subsequent owner of the applicant's property shall be responsible for providing a
replacement tree or shrub to the foliage owner.
4:Section VI-F:The Commission agreed with Staff to remove the
reference to an approved list of foliage types provided by the City.
The Commission shall ensure that replacement foliage is reasonably comparable to the
foliage removed in terms of function and/or aesthetics while understanding that the replacement
foliage will not be of the same height.size and breadth as the pre-existing mature foliage.For
example,if replacement foliage is determined to be necessary to replace foliage located on a
slope,the replacement foliage should be of a woody-root species variety that provides soil
stability.The seJeG#oo sf the type sf Fep/aGf)FfleRt feJjage shaH be mac:Js by the fe/iags S'IIRer
ATTACHMENT 8-3
MEMORANDUM:Proposed View Restoration and Guideline Amendments
May:_,2010
fFoFR an appro'IBd ,list of fE).liage typos provid8d by the 1Ji.FeGtor of PlannlRg,8ui1d!ng and Cod8
lEnfo.rs9FRont or approved by the City arborist.
5:Section VI-I:Related to Section VI-B,Staff added language to
ensure that a trust account is established by applicants to cover the costs of tree
or shrub removal in the event a tree or shrub dies as a result of the initial
trimming.
The Commission shall require that a property owner trim or remove foliage within ninety
(90)days.If no date is specified by the Commission,the ninety day time frame shall commence
upon the receipt of a letter from the City notifying the foliage owner to trimlremove the foliage.
Such a letter is sent by the City once a trust account has been established by the applicant for
the cost of the trimminglremoval and tree or shrub replacement.Within the ninety (90)day time
frame,but not less than two weeks before the trimming/removal date,the foliage owner shall
inform City Staff of the date and approximate time the work is scheduled to occur,so that staff
may be available on-site to ensure the work is performed in accordance with the Commission's
decision.
6:Section VI-J:Related to Section VI-B,Staff added language to
ensure that a trust account is established by applicants to cover the costs of tree
or shrub removal in the event a tree or shrub dies as a result of the initial
trimming.
The Commission shall require that an applicant submit one (1)to three (3)itemized
estimates to the City for carrying out the work required by an approved View Restoration Permit.
The work estimate shall also include tree or shrub removal and replacement costs for anv tree
or shrub that dies as a result of the ordered trimming provided that the tree or shrUb was not a
tree or shrub identified bv the Citv Arborist as likelv to die as a result of said trimming.Said
estimates shall be submitted within thirty (30)days after the adoption of the Resolution and shall
include the cost to have an ISA certified tree trimmer or accreditedarborist 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 cleanup and 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 applicant
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 of the work as verified by City
Staff.
Upon completion of the work,the foliage 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 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 vears or longer if determined by the Planning Commission until it is determined bv Citv Staff
ATTACHMENT 8-4
MEMORANDUM:Proposed View Restoration and Guideline Amendments
May 11,2010
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 Staff's 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 actual cost of
the trimming.In such situations,the balance of the trust account fless 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)e...apptied ro the applisaRt's peFFRit pr:fJG8ssiRg a669l:1R1,,if that
afJGfJl:IRt 60RtaiRs a Regativ9 balaR69.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).
7.Section VIII-A(2):The Commission suggested to rephrase the
paragraph to make it clear that new foliage growth that exceeds the ridgeline or
16 feet is subject to tree trimming maintenance.
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 onlv 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 propeny to verify that the new view-impairing foliage is not in
compliance with the foliage conditions shown in the documented photo...
8:Section VIII-B(3):The Commission suggested to remove the comma
(now removed)in subsection b.As indicated below,Staff has also modified
subsection a and subsection b.
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~!lJ 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;
b.That foliage which exceeds the lesser of:a)the ridgeline 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.
ATTACHMENT 8-5
MEMORANDUM:Proposed View Restoration and Guideline Amendments
May 11,2010
9:Section VIII-B(4):The Commission suggested to modify (in bold)
Staff's proposed language (underlined)concerning the preliminary field
determination for View Preservation request.
Upon receipt of a Notice of Intent to File a View Preservation Application,Staff
will visit the applicant's 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.If 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 Staff's initial field determination.the
applicant may formally apply for a View Preservation Permit seekinq 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 bv
the foliage owner is necessary in response to the filed application.The Director's Final
Determination is appealable to the Planning Commission.
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
The Commission requested that the City Attorney provide comment on whether it is
necessary to add language to Section III clarifying whether a former View applicant,
whose home has been remodeled can claim a·new viewing area or require tree
trimming enforcement based on an old viewing area that had been established in a
previous View Restoration,View Preservation and/or City Tree Review Permit case.In
looking at this issue,the City Attorney and Staff agree that clarification of this issue
ought to be added to Section III.
On this issue,the City Attorney opines that a)a property owner whose home is legally
remodeled in a manner that eliminates the pre-existing viewing area does not surrender
his/her rights to the view that was restored through the issuance of an approved View
Restoration,View Preservation or City Tree Review Permit based on the previous
viewing area;and b)if a property owner's home is legally remodeled after the issuance
of an approved View Restoration,View Preservation or City Tree Review Permit,
whereby the viewing area changes,a new View application can be assessed from a
different viewing area so long as the new viewing area is considered to have the "best
and most important view".If such a situation exists,it would be appropriate that the
previous decision made from the previous "viewing area"become void.
Accordingly,Staff is proposing to add to Section III the following new subsection 5
which is recommended to state the following:
"5.Situations involving residential remodels that affect previously existing viewing areas:
a.If a residence is legally 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 location is eliminated,the approved View
ATTACHMENT 8-6
MEMORANDUM:Proposed View Restoration and Guideline Amendments
May 11,2010
Restoration.View Preservation or City Tree Review Permit shall remain in full force and
effect unless the determination is amended or repealed subsequentlv bY a decision of
the Planning Commission or City Council.
b.If a residence is leqally 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 structure may be established bY the Planning
Commission or City Council pursuant to a decision on a new View Restoration.View
Preservation or City Tree Review Permit application filed by the subject property owner.
In such situations.any previously issued View Restoration.View Preservation or City
Tree Review Permit decision shall be superseded and shall become null and void."
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Commission review the proposed draft View Restoration and
Preservation Guideline amendments;and,if deemed acceptable,adopt P.C.Resolution
No.2010-_thereby forwarding approval to the City Council.
ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission's consideration in
addition to Staff's recommendation:
1.Identify any issues of concern with the proposed amendments,and provide
Staff with modifications,and continue the public hearing to a date certain;or,
2.Identify any issues of concerns that differ from Staff's analysis and
recommendation,and direct Staff to modify the proposed amendments for consideration
by the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 'A'-Draft Planning Commission Resolution No.2010-_
Exhibit 'B'-Draft View Restoration &Preservation Guideline language amendments
Exhibit 'c'-Draft excerpted Planning Commission Minutes from April 13,2010
Exhibit 'D'-Staff Report dated April 13,2010
Exhibit 'E'-Late Correspondence submittals dated April 13,2010
ATTACHMENT 8-7
Exhibit 'C'
Draft excerpted Planning Commission
Minutes from April 13,2010
ATTACHMENT 8-8
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items):
None
CONTINUED BUSINESS
1.Height Variation &Minor Exception Permit (Case No.ZON2009-00497):
30939 Rue Valois
Director Rojas reported that this item was heard by the Planning Commission at an
earlier date and direction was given by the Commission to the applicant to work with the
neighbors on a solution regarding the privacy impact.He stated that the applicant is
requesting more time to work with the neighbors,and therefore staff is recommending
the public hearing be continued to May 11,2010.
The Commission agreed,without objection,to continue the public hearing to the May
11,2010 meeting.
2.Proposed revision to the View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines
Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report,explaining this is a staff initiated
proposed revision to the existing view restoration and preservation guidelines.He
explained that staff believes there are a number of specific issues that have been raised
over the course of several years that need to be addressed in the language of the
guidelines.He noted that the changes proposed by staff do not change the original
Proposition M or the View Ordinance,City Tree Review Permit,or the Development
Code pertaining to views.He explained the proposed changes merely seek to clarify
how the view restoration and preservation ordinance is to be implemented through the
view guidelines.He explained the two key changes,as presented in the staff report.
He also reviewed the nine suggested amendments to the view guidelines as submitted
by a resident,Mr.Michael O'Sullivan.He reviewed staff's recommendation to review
the proposed amendments,provide staff with direction,and to continue the hearing for
adoption of a resolution.
Director Rojas added that these are amendments that staff has been putting into
practice for quite some time,however felt they should be added to the guidelines.He
stated that the City Attorney has reviewed these amendments and supports the
changes.He reminded the Commission that amendments to the actual Ordinance are
not an item for discussion.
Commissioner Leon asked if city trees are part of the View Restoration process.
Director Rojas answered that view impairment caused by city trees is not part of the
view ordinance and is a different City regulation adopted after the City's view ordinance
was put into affect.He stated that this issue is not on this Agenda.
Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 13.2010
Page 2
ATTACHMENT 8-9
Michael O'Sullivan showed three photos of his canary island pine tree before and after it
was trimmed.He then addressed the suggestions he made on the proposed revisions,
noting that he felt these suggestions created a win-win situation.He also explained that
some of the language he suggested that staff was opposed to is actually part of the
guidelines existing language that he modified.
Commissioner Knight noted that Mr.O'Sullivan suggested adding language to the view
restoration ordinance that would preclude the Commission from ordering the foliage
owner to plant replacement trees that cannot be maintained at height levels that would
disfigure a tree.He asked Mr.O'Sullivan to give him an example.
Mr.O'Sullivan explained that he felt it would be reasonable to replace a tree with a tree
that is reasonably mature,not a 24 inch box,which is not of the kind that will grow into
the view.He agreed with staff that a replacement tree should not be restricted to those
on the City list of approved trees.He also felt that certain types of trees that are kept
trimmed at a certain level may be permanently disfigured.
Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr.O'Sullivan what message he was trying to convey to
the Commission when he showed the pictures of his canary island pine.
Mr.O'Sullivan explained that everyone benefits if a tree can be saved and preserved to
be a reasonable tree at a height that does not impair a neighbor's view.He felt that
there has been a real disproportion between the loss of a tree which is extremely
expensive to replace and a very valuable asset in terms of property value and the cost
to the applicant to replace a tree.He stated that in many cases trees may recover from
a drastic cutting and felt it was reasonable to allow a tree the time to recover.He stated
that the amount it would cost the applicant to replace the tree after giving it time to
recover is still trivial when compared to the value the tree adds to the foliage owner's
home.
Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr.O'Sullivan how long it took before he felt his canary
island pine was going to survive and be something that would be aesthetically pleasing.
Mr.O'Sullivan answered that it was about three years from him to determine the tree
would survive and be adequate,but five years before the tree looked like it does in the
photograph he showed earlier.
Regina O'Melveny asked that the Commission's deliberations be guided by fairness,
balance,and a sense of integrity.She felt the sense of community has been fractured
by the contentious way the ordinance has been implemented to exploit of foliage
owners.She also felt that when view owners abuse their neighbors by making
unbalanced demands that are then supported by the City,there is a loss of the
ordinance's original intent to bear in mind the concerns of all residents.She stated that
one of the most important aspects that should be addressed is the mediation process,
Planning Commission Minutes
April 13,2010
Page 3
ATTACHMENT 8-10
and suggested that no application should go forward without first going through
meaningful mediation.
Commissioner Knight asked Ms.O'Melveny if she had any specific suggestions that
might help the Commission with the language in the guidelines.
Ms.O'Melveny stated that in reading the guidelines she felt there were several things
already in place that could be followed.She felt that language could be clarified around
the mediation process,noting that during her mediation phase she never met the
applicants.She also noted that in her case there were seven applicants,which made
her feel very intimidated.She suggested that there be a restriction on the number of
applicants allowed on a view restoration permit.
Barbara O'Sullivan stated that was very frustrating for her was after the public hearing
for her case was finished and staff and the Commission or the City Council would be
discussing the information,some of the information was incorrect.She stated that there
is no way for a member of the public to then correct any misinformation.
Commissioner Lewis asked staff to explain how the mediation process works.
Director Rojas gave a history of the mediation process and how it currently is working
with a hired professional mediator.
Director Rojas then explained staff's intent to clarify foliage height test for view
preservation requests, and noted the specific places in the Ordinance where the
changes would be placed.
Commissioner Lewis stated that he reap the proposed language several times and had
trouble understanding it.He suggested alternative language stating if foliage not
subject to the view restoration permit subsequently grows into the VRP applicant's
documented view,the new foliage will be considered significant view impairing foliage
only if the new foliage exceeds the lesser of the ridgeline of the primary structure on the
property or 16 feet.
Chairman Gerstner felt that Commissioner Lewis'suggested language was clearer than
that proposed by staff.
Director Rojas stated that staff will ask the City Attorney to review the proposed
language.
Moving to staff's next proposed change,Director Rojas explained the proposal of
matching language for view preservation permits.
Senior Planner Alvarez explained that this would be a situation where an applicant has
not gone through the view restoration process,but rather has documented their view at
Planning Commission Minutes
April 13,2010
Page 4
ATTACHMENT 8-11
a point after 1989 and wish to protect and preserve that view.Staff is introducing
language which will ensure foliage meets the criteria of the view oralnance.
After some discussion the Commission agreed that height language should be added
that the Director's decision is appealable.
Senior Planner Alvarez discussed the next item,referring to the staff report showing the
strike-out language and the reason for it.The Commission agreed.
Senior Planner Alvarez discussed the next issue,discussing the language added to
deal with the Migratory Bird Act and the need to hire a consultant to advise on matters
that deal with nesting birds within view impairing trees.
Chairman Gerstner felt that the proposed language was consistent with existing
language,and the Commission agreed.
The Commission had a lengthy discussion as to the language suggested on how to
determine when a lot was created.The Commission and staff determined that the
suggested language needed clarification and therefore the Commission added its own
language clarifying lot recordation.
Senior Planner Alvarez reviewed the minor clean-up items,as noted in the staff report.
The Commission agreed with staff's suggestions on the minor clean-up items.
Senior Planner Alvarez then discussed the suggestions that were made by Mr.
O'Sullivan.He explained that staff did not feel the language in his first two suggestions
was necessary,as the language in the Development Code and Guidelines already
provides the ability for the tree owner to appeal the determination of the viewing area.
He noted that adding the suggested language in suggestion number three would
basically redefine the Ordinance.He stated that staff agrees with Mr.O'Sullivan's
suggestion about monitoring the tree's health for a longer period than what currently
occurs.He noted that Mr.O'Sullivan suggested three years while staff would support a
two year monitoring period.He also noted that staff does not agree with Mr.
O'Sullivan's addition of language regarding a disfigured tree,as it would be too
subjective for staff to make a determination on a disfigured tree.
The Commission discussed the option of two years versus three years,and agreed with
staff that two years would be more appropriate.Director Rojas noted that there is
language in the Guidelines which would allow an option for a longer period if needed.
Senior Planner Alvarez discussed tree removal and Mr.O'Sullivan's suggestion of an
automatic tree replacement policy.
The Commission discussed and agreed that a mandatory one to one tree replacement
ratio would not always be in the best interest of the foliage owner,and agreed with staff
not to change the tree removal and replacement language.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 13,2010
PageS
ATTACHMENT 8-12
Senior Planner continued with Mr.O'bullivan's suggestions about tree replacement size
and the suggestion that the Commission require tree maintenance only when trees
reach a certain height.
Commissioner Tetreault raised the question of an established viewing area on a
residence for view restoration purposes and how staff handles or the Guidelines
address a remodel on that property which would change the primary viewing area.
Director Rojas agreed this was a subject that staff would discuss with the City Attorney.
Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the pUblic hearing to May 11,2010 to
allow staff to address the feedback on the proposed revisions.He also moved
that all of Mr.O'Sullivan's comments be included in the staff report that will go to
the City Council,seconded by Commissioner Knight.
Commissioner Leon addressed staff's practice of conducting a view analysis on
properties where the owners have applied for certain building permits,and requiring
certain foliage be trimmed before the building permit is issued.He felt that as a
consequence,trees are being cut even when there is no view restoration or
preservation case filed.He did not feel trees should be required to be proactively
trimmed if a neighboring viewing area has not been established.
Director Rojas explained that this practice is not an interpretation of the View Guidelines
but rather is a requirement under Prop M.He added that the Ordinance not only
provides a process for dealing with view restoration and view preservation,but also
provides for a process when applicant's request certain bUilding permits.He explained
a past process by which residents were given the option to record a covenant stating
that they would cut any trees on their property if,in the future,they impaired a
neighbor's view.However,the issue then became enforcing these covenants and the
City Council eventually stopped the covenant procedure for foliage.
Commissioner Lewis supported Commissioner Leon in bringing up this issue,however
he was concerned that the Commission was beginning to go beyond what has been
noticed through the public notice and what can be discussed on this item.He felt that if
Commissioner Leon were to suggest bring this issue up as a separate item at a future
meeting,he would support the suggestion.
Commissioner Knight suggested that staff research this and report back to the Planning
Commission at a future meeting.
Commissioner Tetreault discussed the situation where there is a substantial remodel
and there is an opportunity to apply for a new viewing area,would the old viewing area
be surrendered,or could the applicant continue to insist the foliage owner trim the
vegetation even if there is no longer a view from the applicant's property.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 13,2010
Page 6
ATTACHMENT 8-13
Commissioner Lewis moved to incorporate that discussion into his motion,
seconded by Commissioner Knight.
The motion to continue the public hearing to allow staff to address the Planning
Commission feedback was unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3.Coastal Permit,Height Variation,Minor Grading Permit &Site Plan Review
(Case No.ZON2009~00181 ):23 Marguerite Drive
Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report,explaining the scope of the project
and the need for the various applications.She noted that there are two trees that were
identified in a view analysis that impair a neighbor's view and will be required to be
trimmed down to 16 feet in height.She stated that staff was able to make the
necessary findings to recommend approval of the project.
Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing.
Tom Blair (architect)stated that this house was built in the 1940's and has been
expanded over the years.This remodel and addition is an attempt to take care of the
issues of circulation and connection issues throughout the house.He stated he was
available for any questions.
Deanne Shey (applicant)explained that the area in the back of the house where the
proposed addition is located is an area with a detached guest house,which was built
with permits,but is an area that they do not currently use.
Commissioner Leon noted that there are a number of nicely matured trees in the rear
area of the property and he was concerned that may be removed because of the view
ordinance.
Ms.Shey explained that the mature trees on her property are part of the character of
not only her property,but the neighborhood.She noted,however,that it will be very
difficult to build the new foundation in such close proximity to some of the trees,so
some of the trees may have to be removed.
Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Lewis noted that staff has recommended trimming of certain trees on the
property but did not see that as a condition of approval.
Associate Planner Mikhail acknowledged that there should be such a condition and staff
will have to add the condition.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 13,2010
Page?
ATTACHMENT 8-14
Exhibit 'D'
Staff Report dated Apri I 13,2010
ATTACHMENT 8-15
CITY OF
PLANNING,BUILDING,&CODE ENFOI~CEMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ~~..J
.j
APRIL 13,2010
SUBJECT:PROPOSED VIEW RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION GUIDELINE
AMENDMENTS
Project Planner:John Alvarez,Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Review Staffs proposed clarification amendments to the City's View Restoration and
Preservation Guidelines &Procedures ("Guidelines")and provide Staff with direction so
that Staff can bring back a resolution recommending specific amendments to forward to
the City Council for adoption.
BACKGROUND
The current View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines &Procedures ("Guidelines")
were approved by the City Council on September 19,2006.Since the last revision of
the Guidelines in 2006,Staff has encountered situations in processing and
implementing View Restoration and Preservation permits,which it believes could be
better addressed in the Guidelines in order to provide better clarity.Accordingly,Staff is
initiating a proposal to amend the existing Guidelines to address the issues outlined in
this report.In doing so,the Commission has the opportunity to suggest its own changes
to the Guidelines for the City Council's consideration and adoption.Since the Guidelines
were previously reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City
Council,any amendments thereto shall follow the same process.Thus,the draft revised
Guidelines are first being presented to the Commission at tonight's meeting.
DISCUSSION
Staff's Suggested Guideline Amendments
In summary,Staff is proposing to 1)clarify what foliage is subject to View Preservation
requests and action;2)insert new language consistent with Federal and State statutes
protecting bird nests;and 3)make minor clean-up modifications throughout the
Guidelines.The suggested changes are summarized below:
30940 H;\WIHOI~NE BLVD,!RANCHO PALOS VfRDFS,CA 902755391
PI ANNINC!COi)f fNFOR(TMfNT (310)544-5228/BUIlDIN(;(310)265-7800 /DU'1.lAX (310)M4-5293 /[-MIIIl PLANNINC@I~PV,COMATTACHMENT 8-16
Staff Report:Proposed View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines Amendments
April 13,2010
A.Section VIII-A(2)&Section VIII-B(3)(b):Clarify that only foliage which exceeds
the ridge line of the primary structure on the property (foliage owner's residence)
or 16 feet,whichever is lower,is subject to View Preservation control
After a View Restoration Permit has been approved by the Planning Commission and
the view-impairing foliage has been trimmed or removed,an applicant's restored view is
documented with photographs taken from the established viewing area(s).Staff has
experienced situations where new foliage located on the foliage owner's property grows
into an applicant's documented view but such new foliage does not exceed the
threshold height levels which trigger the View Ordinance,i.e.the lesser of the ridge line
of the primary structure on the property or 16 feet.
Staff proposes to make it clear that only new foliage that exceeds the ridge line of the
primary structure on the property or 16 feet,whichever is lower,and which has grown
into a restored view,is subject to subsequent View Preservation actions.The existing
language contained in Section VIII-A(2)does not explicitly state whether new foliage
needs to meet the Ordinance height thresholds,and so residents are having a difficult
time understanding the intent and asking Staff to make determinations for new foliage
growth that does not exceed the minimum height Ordinance thresholds.
Therefore,to address this issue Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission
clarify the intent of the subsection and insert the following underlined language at
Section VIII-A (2):
VIII-A(2)"If foliage.which exceeds the lesser of the ridge line of the
primary structure on the property.or sixteen (16)feet.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.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...11
Along with this amendment,Staff is also proposing to clarify the trimming frequency for
new foliage not subject to an approved View Restoration Permit that later grows into the
view.The existing language found in Section VIII-A(2)does not limit the number of
times a year an applicant could complain about the recurring foliage growth.So as to be
consistent with the tree trimming maintenance cycle imposed by the Commission or
Council for the trees subject to an approved View Restoration Permit,Staff believes it
would be appropriate that the new foliage growth be maintained on a similar basis as
the foliage subject to the approved View Restoration Permit.Accordingly,Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission revise Section VIII-A(2)to add the following
underlined language:
ATTACHMENT 8-17
Staff Report;Proposed View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines Amendments
April 13,2010
VIII-A(2)"...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 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 basis 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".
Also,Staff would like to clarify the review of foliage for View Preservation cases not
involving a View Restoration Permit decision.Similar to the proposed amendment
above,in order to clarify that only foliage exceeding the lesser of the ridge line of the
primary structure on the property or 16 feet is subject to View Preservation
determinations,Staff recommends that the following language be inserted into Section
VIII-B (3)(b):
VIII-B(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 2)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;
b.That foliage which exceeds the lesser of:a)the ridgeline of the
primary structure on the property:or 2)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.
B.Section VIII-B(4):Clarify that if even Staff's preliminary assessment of a View
Preservation request is that no significant impairment exists,that the applicant
may still seek the Director's Determination on a formal View Preservation
Application
In cases where no View Restoration Permit has been issued on a property,property
owners may preserve their views by submitting documentation that a view existed at the
time of adoption of the November 1989 Ordinance or thereafter.Procedurally,such
property owners submit a form titled "Documentation of an Existing View or Foliage"
accompanied with a photograph depicting an unobstructed view taken from their
viewing area.After all materials are submitted to Staff,Staff visits the applicant's
property to determine whether the foliage that has grown into the applicant's view is
considered to be significantly impairing the view from the viewing area.This is the
ATTACHMENT 8-18
Staff Report:Proposed View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines Amendments
April 13,2010
threshold set by the Ordinance for compelling City action against the foliage owner.In
cases where Staff's preliminary assessment is that the subject foliage is not considered
to be significantly impairing a view,the applicant is discouraged from formally applying
for a View Preservation Permit.However,the Guidelines are not clear as to what
recourse applicants have in instances when Staff's preliminary assessment is that the
subject foliage does not significantly impair the view yet applicants insist on proceeding
with a formal View Preservation application request.
To address this issue,Staff proposes to amend Section VIII-B(4)by adding language
which makes it clear that an applicant may file a formal View Preservation application to
the Director,if the applicant is not in agreement with Staff's preliminary assessment that
the foliage in question does not significantly impair a view from a viewing area.Staff
recommends inserting the underlined language in Section VIII-B(4):
VIII-B(4)Upon receipt of a Notice of Intent to File a View Preservation
Application,Staff will visit the applicant's 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.If 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 request.Notwithstanding Staff's initial field determination.the applicant
may formallY apply for a View Preservation Permit seeking the Director's Final
Determination on the permit reguest.If the City's final determination in response to said
application is that View Preservation action is not warranted.no further action by the
foliage owner is necessarv in response to the filed application.
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.
In consideration of the proposed added language in Section VIII-B(4)above,Staff
proposes to delete the following paragraph contained in Section VIII-B(5):
VIII-B(5)If the City's final determination in response to an application is that view
preservation action is not warranted on a particular property,no further action by the
ATTACHMENT 8-19
Staff Report:Proposed View Restoration and PreservatiC''''Guidelines Amendments
April 13,2010
foliage owner is necessary in response to the filed application.
C.Section V-B(5):Insert language ensuring tree trimming or removal activities
are performed in compliance with Federal and State environmental regulations
and clarify that the Planning Commission may require applicants to pay for the
expert opinion of biologists or ornithologists on specific cases to ensure such
compliance
Federal and State statutes (Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 U.S.Code Section 703]and
California Fish &Game Code [Section 3503]),protect active bird nests and their eggs.
When foliage owners make a claim that a bird nest is active in a tree subject to a View
Restoration request,the Planning Commission,in its review of the View application
request,has the ability to require the applicants to pay for the cost of hiring a biologist or
ornithologist to confirm that no active nests will be impacted by a View Restoration
decision.
Section V-B(5)of the Guidelines currently allows the Commission to require the opinion
of specific consultants to assist with issues raised in the processing of View Restoration
Permits with the costs of hiring the consultants the responsibility of the applicant.In
order to clarify that biologists or ornithologists can also be hired for their expert opinion
for View Restoration Permit requests,Staff recommends that Section V-B(5)be
amended as follows:
V-B(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 professional§..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
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.
D.Section VI-I:Implement language ensuring tree trimming or removal activities
are performed in compliance with Federal and State environmental regulations by
adding language allowing the Planning Commission to establish trimming or
removal of view impairing trees or shrubs only during the permitted time period
established by the qualified biologist or ornithologist
Upon the expert opinion from a qualified biologist or ornithologist that an active or
ATTACHMENT 8-20
Staff Report:Proposed View ~estoration and Preservation Guidelines Amendments
April 13,2010
inactive bird nest exists in a tree or shrub subject to tree trimming or removal,the
Planning Commission may at its discretion take the advice of the hired biologist or
ornithologist.Such advisement may include the recommendation to defer View
Restoration trimming to a seasonal time period when the nest is considered to be
inactive.
Staff believes that it is appropriate in light of Federal and State statutes protecting
migratory and non-migratory bird nests to adopt new language allowing the Commission
the ability to defer tree trimming or removal for trees subject to Planning Commission
decisions.Therefore,Staff recommends the following language be inserted into
excepted Section VI-I:
VI-I "....Said additional foliage 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.
If evidence is provided to the Commission that a tree or shrub.subject to tree
trimming or removal.contains nests (or eggs)of birds that are designated under the
Migratory Bird Treatv Act and California Department of Fish and Game Code.the
Commission may require that the subject foliage be trimmed within a ninety (90)day
time period when the nesUs)are considered 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 period,the Commission may..."
E.Miscellaneous Minor Clean-up Changes to the Guidelines
Lastly,Staff has discovered some typographical and grammatical errors in the current
version of the View Guidelines.Staff would like to take this opportunity to correct these
errors,which are reflected in the revised draft View Restoration and Preservation
Guidelines (attached)as a strikeout for language that is being proposed to be deleted or
underlined for language that is being proposed to be inserted.The proposed
miscellaneous changes are summarized as follows:
Section I-D:removed box text and replaced with hyphenated "City-owned"
Section V-B(4):Removed double comma
Section V-B(5):Added "s"to "other appropriate professionals"
Section V-D(1):Added "recorded"at end of sentence to ,help clarify sentence
Section VIII-B:Changed "In"to "in"to title of subsection
ATTACHMENT 8-21
c;taff Report:Proposed View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines Amendments
April 13,2010
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
On March 15,2010,Staff received written correspondence from a resident,Mr.Mike
O'Sullivan whom previously had his trees trimmed as ordered by the Planning
Commission in a past View Restoration Permit case in 2004.Mr.O'Sullivan has made a
number of suggestions to the View Restoration Permit section of the Guidelines (see
attached).A summary of Mr.O'Sullivan's suggestions is outlined below with Staff's
comments.
O'Sullivan Suggestion 1.
Insert language into Section III allowing the foliage owner the ability to
appeal the City's determination of a viewing area.
Staff comment:Staff believes this suggestion is not necessary as the
Definition of "viewing area"contained in the Development Code which is
repeated in Section III of the Guidelines already states that a property owner may
appeal the City's determination of a viewing area.This is typically done during
the hearing proceedings for a View Restoration Permit or through an appeal of a
Staff issued View Preservation determination.
O'Sullivan Suggestion 2.
Insert language into Section V ensuring that foliage shall not be trimmed
below the level of the protected view
Staff comment:Staff believes that this suggested change is not necessary as the
existing language in Section V-B(6)and Section VI-D already addresses this
issue.
O'Sullivan Suggestion 3.
Insert language into Section V-D restricting the City to making the finding
that only vegetation that did not exist ten years prior to a View Restoration
Permit application submittal is subject to the View Ordinance
Staff comment:This suggestion would require an amendment to Proposition M
that needs to be approved by a vote of the residents as the suggested language
undermines the purpose of the original language contained in Proposition M.
O'Sullivan Suggestion 4.
Insert language into Section VI allowing the monitoring of a tree's health
ATTACHMENT 8-22
Staff Report:Proposed View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines Amendments
April 13,2010
and assessment of a tree's aesthetics up to a 3 year time period
Staff comment:This suggested change would allow for a 3 year time period
instead of the 1-year time period presently established by the Guidelines to
monitor the health of a trimmed tree and allow for the replacement of the tree
should it die as a result of the trimming.Staff believes this suggestion has some
merit as it has been mentioned previously by the City Arborist that the existing 1
year monitoring time frame may be too short to properly assess the effects of a
trimmed tree.While Staff believes that a 3 year time frame to monitor the tree
may be too long of a time period,Staff does support establishing a 2 year time
frame.
Mr.O'Sullivan's suggestion also includes and assessment of a trimmed tree's
aesthetics.His suggestion mentions that if a tree is "disfigured"after the trimming
work is carried out,then the disfigured tree should also be subject to removal and
replacement at the applicant's expense.Staff does not agree with this suggestion
because it requires Staff to make very subjective determinations as to what is
"disfigured"and what is not.Also,the suggested requirement to allow the tree to
be trimmed and then removed if disfigured and replaced at the applicant's
expense places an unwarranted financial burden on the applicant because the'
applicant will pay twice for the work.
O'Sullivan Suggestion 5.
Insert clarification language into Section VI-C regarding removal of any
remaining portion of a tree not significantly impairing a view and add a new
paragraph giving the foliage owner the ability to elect replacement trees
Staff comment:Staff does not agree with this suggestion for two reasons.One,
the suggestion to include additional language regarding the removal of any
remaining portion of a tree not significantly impairing a view is not necessary as
the existing language contained in Section VI-C is clear that the Commission
may order tree removal provided that the foliage owner consents and that the
City Arborist determines that trimming the tree would likely be detrimental to its
health or aesthetics.
Secondly,Mr.O'Sullivan's suggested paragraph language (suggested in
subsection 3)is written out of context with Section VI-C because the Section
refers to how the Commission could order complete removal of the remaining
portion of a tree at the time of deliberation and not after a tree is trimmed.
ATTACHMENT 8-23
Staff Report:Proposed View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines Amendments
April 13,2010
O'Sullivan Suggestion 6.
Remove language from Section VI-E referring to reasons the Commission
may order replacement trees or shrubs and add language allowing foliage
owners the ability to be provided replacement trees up to a 3 year time
period after a View Restoration Permit or View Preservation Permit is
approved
Staff comment:This suggestion would mandate that that replacement trees for
the removal of view-impairing trees be automatically provided to foliage owners
sUbject to View Restoration Permit approvals.Staff does not support the idea
that replacement trees are to be automatically provided without having some
justification or purpose.Staff disagrees with Mr.0'Sullivan's suggestion that
foliage owners be allowed to request replacement trees up to a 3 year time
period after the initial trimming is performed.After a View Restoration Permit is
approved and any tree removal work is carried out,the foliage owner is
immediately provided with a replacement tree.It does not make sense that a
foliage owner makes Staff wait for several years to request replacement trees
after his/her trees are removed.
In addition,foliage owners subject to View Preservation Permit approvals are not
provided compensatory replacement trees.Staff does not agree that such
replacement trees are warranted.The suggested compensatory replacement
trees for View Preservation permit approvals would likely require a code
amendment.
O'Sullivan Suggestion 7.
Adding language to Section VI-F precluding the Commission from ordering
the foliage owner to plant replacement trees that cannot be maintained at
height levels that would disfigure the tree
And add language whereby the foliage owner be provided an option to
appeal if the replacement list is not satisfactory to the foliage owner
Staff comment:Staff believes that this suggestion would place unnecessary
restrictions on the Commission and ultimately on foliage owners in allowing
replacement foliage for removed trees.
However,Staff does believe that the existing language found in Section VI-F
could be revised to omit the reference to an approved list of foliage types.In the
past,Staff and the Commission have allowed foliage owners to plant trees of
their choosing without having to strictly defer to a an approved list.If there are no
ATTACHMENT 8-24
Staff Report:Proposed View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines Amendments
April 13,2010
restrictions given to foliage owners as to tree types,then the potential grounds
for an appeal of the Commission's decision would be reduced to perhaps the
number of replacement trees and/or the tree replacement size.As such,Staff
supports omitting the reference to an approved replacement tree list.
O'Sullivan Suggestion 8.
Adding language to Section VI-G which would require the foliage owner
and the Commission to reach a mutual agreement as to whether there is a
need to order multiple replacement trees or shrub for every removed tree
And insert language where replacement trees or shrubs are planted at a
"size and aesthetics"comparable to the removed trees
Staff comment:In deliberating View Restoration Permit applications,the
Commission must make the finding that removal of the view impairing tree is
warranted and that a replacement tree is necessary.Section Vl-G generally
speaks to the number of replacement trees (if any)that could be ordered by the
Commission.The number of replacement trees ordered by the Commission is
dependent on a number of factors such as the City Arborist's opinion,public
testimony given by the foliage owner and applicant,the Commission's own
observations of the site,etc.If the foliage owner or applicant disagrees with the
number of replacement trees ordered by the Commission,then the foliage owner
or applicant has the ability to appeal the decision to the City Council.Therefore,
Staff does not support addition of the suggested language.
Since 1998,the merits of replacement tree size have been a topic of discussion
during previous Guideline revisions.The existing language contained in Section
VI-G states that replacement tree or shrub size should not be larger than a 24-
inch box size unless warranted by the need to reasonably protect privacy or
under exceptional circumstances.In such cases,the Commission has the
discretion to order a replacement tree of a larger size.However,it should be
pointed out that a larger size tree,such as a 36-inch box size,costs drastically
more than a 24-inch box size tree and generally,the planting of a 36-inch box
size tree is costlier because the tree service contractor may require crane
operations to plant the tree.
Staff believes that the current Guidelines adequately address this issue as they
give the Planning Commission the ability to require larger tree replacement sizes
if so warranted on a case-by-case basis.
ATTACHMENT 8-25
Staff Report:Proposed View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines Amendments
April 13,2010
O'Sullivan Suggestion 9.
Omitting language in Section VI-H which allows the Commission to impose
pre-determined annual/semi-annual foliage maintenance requirements and
add language requiring maintenance of foliage only when the foliage
approaches a level which impairs the applicant's view
Staff comment:The existing language contained in Section VI-H already allows
the Commission to establish pre-determined maintenance cycles or to require
maintenance when the foliage reaches a fixed height.Staff believes the existing
language gives the Commission the flexibility to choose the appropriate long-
term maintenance schedule and this should not be changed.Moreover,most of
the added language Mr.O'Sullivan is suggesting is already addressed in the
View Preservation section of the Guidelines under the title of Section VIII-A "View
Preservation After the Issuance of a View Restoration Permit (Maintenance
Trimming)".Thus,Staff believes that this suggested change is not necessary.
CONCLUSION
The primary purpose of the proposed revisions is to make the View Preservation section
of the Guidelines more clear and to introduce new language consistent with Federal and
State statutes protecting bird nests.If the proposed amendments are adequate to the
Planning Commission,Staff recommends that the Commission forward the draft
amended Guidelines to the City Council for its final approval.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staffs recommendation,the following alternatives are available for the
Commission:
1)Agree with some but not all of the amendments proposed by Staff and adopt
a revised Resolution.
2)Identify additional amendments to the Guidelines not specified by Staff and
adopt a revised Resolution.
3)Identify issues of concern,direct Staff to conduct additional research,and
continue this item to a subsequent Planning Commission agenda.
Attachments:
1)Draft amended View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines &Procedures
2)Migratory Bird Treaty Act,16 U.S.Code Title 16,Chapter 7,subchapter 11,§703
3)California Fish &Game Code,Section 3503
4)Mr.Mike O'Sullivan's suggested Guideline changes dated March 15,2010
ATTACHMENT 8-26
SUBCHAPTER I I -MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY
-End-
-CITE-
16 USC Sec.703
01/05/2009
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 16 -CONSERVATION
CHAPTER 7 -PROTECTION OF MIGRATORY GAME AND INSECTIVOROUS BIRDS
SUBCHAPTER II -MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY
-HEAD-
Sec.703.Taking,killing,or possessing migratory birds unlawful
-STATUTE-
(a)In general
Unless and except as permitted by regulations made as hereinafter
provided in this subchapter,it shall be unlawful at any time,by
any means or in any manner,to pursue,hunt,take,capture,kill,
attempt to take,capture,or kill,possess,offer for sale,sell,
offer to barter,barter,offer to purchase,purchase,deliver for
shipment,ship,export,import,cause to be shipped,exported,or
imported,deliver for transportation,transport or cause to be
transported,carry or cause to be carried,or receive for shipment,
transportation,carriage,or export,any migratory bird,any part,
nest,or eggs of any such bird,or any product,whether or not
manufactured,which consists,or is composed in whole or part,of
any such bird or any part,nest,or egg thereof,included in the
terms of the conventions between the United States and Great
Britain for the protection of migratory birds concluded August 16,
1916 (39 Stat.1702),the United States and the United Mexican
States for the protection of migratory birds and game mammals
concluded February 7,1936,the United States and the Government of
Japan for the protection of migratory birds and birds in danger of
extinction,and their environment concluded March 4,1972 (!1)and
the convention between the United States and the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics for the conservation of migratory birds and
their environments concluded November 19,1976.
(b)Limitation on application to introduced species
(1)In general
This subchapter applies only to migratory bird species that are
native to the United States or its territories.
(2)Native to the United States defined
(A)In general
Subject to subparagraph (B),in this subsection the term
"native to the United States or its territories"means
occurring in the United States or its territories as the result
of natural biological or ecological processes.
(B)Treatment of introduced species
For purposes of paragraph (1),a migratory bird species that
occurs in the United States or its territories solely as a
result of intentional or unintentional human-assisted
introduction shall not be considered native to the United
States or its territories unless -
ATTACHMENT 8-27
(i)it was native to the United States or its territories
and extant in 1918;
(ii)it was extirpated after 1918 throughout its range in
the United States and its territories;and
(iii)after such extirpation,it was reintroduced in the
United States or its territories as a part of a program
carried out by a Federal agency.
-SOURCE-
(July 3,1918,ch.128,Sec.2,40 Stat.755;June 20,1936,ch.
634,Sec.3,49 Stat.1556;Pub.L.93-300,Sec.1,June 1,1974,
88 Stat.190;Pub.L.101-233,Sec.15,Dec.13,1989,103 Stat.
1977;Pub.L.108-447,div.E,title I,Sec.143(b),Dec.8,2004,
118 Stat.3071.)
ATTACHMENT 8-28
CALIFORNIA CODES
FISH AND GAME CODE
SECTION 3500-3516
3503.It is unlawful to take,possess,or needlessly destroy the
nest or eggs of any bird,except as otherwise provided by this code
or any regulation made pursuant thereto.
3503.5.It is unlawful to take,possess,or destroy any birds in
the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey)or to take,
possess,or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as
otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant
thereto.
ATTACHMENT 8-29
Mr.John Alvarez
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-5391
Dear Mr.Alvarez:
March 15,2010
RECEIVED
MAR 15 2010
PlANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Attached you will find my suggestions for revisions of the guidelines for View
Restoration.As you know,I do not believe that the current guidelines achieve the
stated purposes of the View Restoration Ordinance of achieving balance between
the rights of view applicants and foliage owners,and ensuring the health,safety
and welfare of residents.
In the attachment,I have selected only those paragraphs of the existing guidelines
which I believe should be revised.These I have copied from the existing
guidelines,and underlined passages to be revised.
I have then included my suggested revisions,in larger and bold type,followed by
the rationale for each revision,in italics.
Where I have used the pronoun "his,"it should be interpreted as "his or hers."
I have addressed only the View Restoration part of the guidelines.The View
Preservation part should also be revised,I suggest,to make it compatible with the
principles behind my suggested revisions of the View Restoration part of the
guideline
Thank you for your attention.I look forward to the Planning Commission
hearing.
Sincerely,
Michael R.O'Sullivan
30466 Via Cambron
ATTACHMENT 8-30
RECEIVED
MAR 15 2010
PLANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCSMENT
III.ESTABLISHING THE VIEWING AREA
A.Section 17.02.040 (B)(5)establishes the procedure for determining the
"viewing areal!as follows:
'The determination of a viewing area shall be made by balancing the
nature of the view to be protected and the importance of the area of the
structure or lot from where the view is taken.Once finally determined for
a particular application,the viewing area may not be changed for any
subsequent application.In the event the city and owner cannot agree on
the viewing area,the decision of the city shall control.A property owner
may appeal the determination of viewing area.In such event.the
decision on the viewing area will be made by the body making the final
decision on the application.A property owner may preserve his or her
right to dispute the decision on viewing area for a subsequent application
without disputing the decision on a pending application by filing a
statement to that effect and indicating the viewing area the property
owner believes to be more appropriate.The statement shall be filed with
the city prior to consideration of the pending application by the City.II
A.In the event that the city and either the view
applicant or the foliage owner cannot agree on
the viewing area,the decision of the city shall
control.Either the applicant or the foliage owner
may appeal the determination of viewing area.In
such event,the decision on the viewing area will
be made by the body making the final decision on
the application.A property owner may preserve
his or her right to dispute the decision on viewing
area for a subsequent application without
ATTACHMENT 8-31
disputing the decision on a pending application
by filing a statement to that effect and indicating
the viewing area the property owner believes to
be more appropriate.The statement shall be filed
with the city prior to consideration of the pending
application by the City."
Rationale:This change gives the foliage owner a voice ,so that
the view applicant and/or the city are prevented from choosing a
viewing area that maximizes the view impairment.In a past ease,
the City,or view applicants who had a magnificent view from
many points on their properties,chose a viewing area that was
most detrimental to the foliage owners trees.
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 Planning Commission must
make the following six mandatory findings:
V-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."
V-B."Foliage exceeding sixteen (16)feet or the
ridge line of the primary structure,whichever is
lower,significantly impairs a view from the
ATTACHMENT 8-32
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 foliage shall in no case,however,
be reduced below the level at which existing
structures already obscure the view from the
viewing area."
Rationale:In most cases,the viewing area is at a much higher
elevation than the foliage.Consequently,foliage at the ridge line,
or sixteen feet,will leave part of the structure,primarily the roof,
exposed and masking the distant view,from the viewing area.No
doubt,most view applicants would prefer to look at foliage,rather
that the roof of a structure.
Subsequent paragraphs in sections in Section V-B,should be
modified accordingly,to be consistent with the above proposed
revision.
V-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."
V-D."The foliage significantly impairing the view
did not exist as view impairing vegetation ten
years prior to the subject View Restoration
Application.
Rationale:The requirement to revert to the conditions that
existed when the Jot was created is much too severe.Three of the
ATTACHMENT 8-33
candidates for city council,in the recent election,including former
mayor,John MacTaggart,expressed such sentiment.McTaggart
publicly stated that the ordinance generally is unbalanced to the
detriment of foliage owners,and suffers from "unintended
consequences."A number of planning commissioners have
expressed similar sentiment.
The history of the ordinance certainly does not support the stated
goals of balancing rights and promoting the health,safety and
welfare of the citizens.Quite the reverse.Less than three
hundred applicants have had their views restored,to the
detriment of a much broader segment of the community who
value trees.
The courts have ruled that the ordinance does not constitute a
"taking,"in the legal sense of the word.·In any common sense
interpretation of the word,however,something of great value has
been taken from the foliage owner:.Do the citizens of RPV
want a community that seeks to do whatever it can legally get
away with,regardless of public sentiment?
Nevertheless,it may be questionable whether this revision can be
accomplished within the framework of the guidelines,rather than
a modification of the ordinance itself.
ATTACHMENT 8-34
VI.COMMISSI"ON ACTION
VI-B.If any tree or shrub that is ordered to be culled,laced,or trimmed
dies within one year of the initial work being performed due to the
performance of the work,the applicant or any subsequent owner of the
applicant's property shall be responsible for providing a replacement tree
or shrub to the foliage owner.This time period may be extended by the
Commission if evidence is provided by a certified arborist that a longer
monitoring period is necessary for 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 probability cause the tree or shrub to die,and
the foliage owner chooses not to accept removal and replacement as an
option,The replacement foliage shall be prOVided in accordance with
the specifications described in section VI-E (Commission Action)of these
Guidelines.If the work is performed by the foliage owner,said foliage
owner shall forfeit the right to replacement foliage if the tri mmed tree
dies.If a tree or shrub dies it is subject to removal pursuant to Section
8.~4.060 (property maintenance)of the RPV Municipal Code.
VI-B.If any tree or shrub that is ordered to be
culled,laced,or trimmed dies,or is irreparably
disfigured,within three years of the initial work
being performed,the applicant or any subsequent
owner of the applicant's property shall be
responsible for providing a replacement tree or
shrub to the foliage owner.This time period may
be extended,or reduced,by the Commission if
evidence is provided by a certified arborist that a
longer,or shorter,monitoring period is
appropriate for a specific tree or shrub.However,
if the city arborist opines that culling,lacing,or
ATTACHMENT 8-35
trimming said tree or shrub will in all probability
cause the tree or shrub to die,or be irreparably
disfigured,then the foliage owner will have the
option of either;a)choosing to accept
immediate removal and replacement,or b)
choosing to have the tree trimmed and nurturing
and monitoring it for the three year period.If the
tree dies or does not recover to a satisfactory
condition within the three year period,then the
foliage owner may elect,either in writing or in
public testimony during a public hearing,that the
tree be replaced,and the applicant shall be
responsible for providing a replacement tree or
shrub to the foliage owner.
Rationale:
A one year period is much too short to evaluate whether a tree
will die,or recover to be a beneficial and aesthetic asset to the
foliage owners'property_If the tree has a well established root
system,the chances may be very good that it will recover and
with careful care and trimming become a beautiful and useful
component of the foliage owners'landscaping,albeit at a lower
level that does not impair a neighbor's view.
Furthermore,the cost to the view applicant,of trimming,rather
than removal and replacement,will be much less.
ATTACHMENT 8-36
On the other hand,it may take many years for a new tree to
become established,and the chances of it dying are many,i.e.
wind storms,root rot,etc.
The city arborist,or any arborist,is not infallible.In my case,I
had a forty five year old,sixty foot pine tree topped to twenty five
feet.Several arborists,including the city arborist,said it would
surely die.It did not die,and after five years it is an attractive,but
much shotter tree.
VI=C.Initial 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.lacing.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
2.That upon the advice of the City's arborist.culling.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.
VI-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
ATTACHMENT 8-37
remaining tree or shrub and the Commission
finds:
1.For initial trimming,that upon the advice of
the City's arborist,culling,lacing,or trimming the
foliage to the level designated by the Commission
is likely to kill the tree or shrub or threaten the
public health,safety and welfare;or
2.For initial trimming,that upon the advice of
the City's arborist,culling~lacing,or trimming
the foliage to the level designated by the
Commission will irreparably destroy the
aesthetic value of the foliage that is to be
trimmed,laced or reduced in height;or
3.For trimming within the three year period,
that the tree has died,or the foliage owner is
dissatisfied with the progress of the tree's
recovery,and elects for replacement.
Rationale:
In most cases,the foliage owner will likely recognize that an
established tree has a better chance of long term survival and
with repeated trimming and shaping,becoming a desirable
ATTACHMENT 8-38
component of his landscaping,than a newly planted tree.Overall,
this should reduce the cost to the view applicants.
E.The Commission also may order the applicant to replace trees or
shrubs which have been removed if the owner of the property where the
foliage is located consents to the replacement of the tree or shrub and
the Commission finds:
1.That removal without replacement foliage will cause a significant
adverse impact on:
a.The public health.safety and welfare:
An example of this would be a situation where there 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 loss of privacy
provided by pre-existing foliage is needed to help screen or block views
from the applicant's property into the fQliage owner's usable yard area
(deck.patio,pool/spa area,barbecue area)and/or residence (unless
interior privacy can be achieved by other means).
ATTACHMENT 8-39
c.Shade provided to the dwelling or 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 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)Qr residence,that is receiving
shade from the foliage that is to be removed.
d.The energy-efficiency of the dwelling where the foliage is located:
An example of this would be a situation where there is evidence before
the Commission that replacement foliage is needed to help cool an area
of the fol.iage owner's residence in the summer months.that is being kept
cool by foliage that is to be removed.
e.The health or viability of the remaining landscaping where the foliage
is located: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 is receiving shade from the foliage that is to be removed.
f.The integrity of the landscaping of the property on which the foliage is
located.
ATTACHMENT 8-40
An example of this would be a situation where there is evidence before
~he Commission that replacement foliage is needed to replace foliage that
is a focal point or integral 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 other similar structure on an adjacent
property.
An example of this would be a situation where there is evidence before
the Commission that replacement foliage is needed to replace foliage that
provides effective screening of unsightly feature(s)located on an adjacent
upslope property.Such features may include but are not limited to
unfinished walls.or the support elements undernegth decks and
structures.
VI-E.The Commission shall order the applicant
to replace trees or shrubs which have been
removed if,within the three year period after final
approval of a View Restoration or View
Preservation Permit,the owner of the property
where the foliage is located so requests in writing
or in a public hearing.
Remove the remainder of section VI-E.
Rationale:The three year period should be recognized here.The
remainder of section E should be removed.It is not necessary,or
ATTACHMENT 8-41
appropriate,for the guidelines to enumerate the many reasons for
which the foliage owner values his trees.There may be many
reasons in addition to those enumerated in the current guidelines.
If his trees die,or are irreparably disfigured,he should be entitled
to replacements.
VI-F.The Commission shall ensure that replacement foliage is
reasonably comparable to the foliage removed in terms of function
and/or aesthetics while understanding that the replacement foliage will
not be of the same size and breadth as the pre-existing mature foliage.
For example.if replacement foliage is determined to be necessary to
replace foliage located on a slope,the replacement foliage should be of a
woody-root species variety that provides soil stability.The selection of
the type of replacement foliage shall be made by the foliage owner from
an approved list of foliage types provided by the Director of Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement or approved by the City arborist.
VI-F.The Commission shall ensure that
replacement foliage is reasonably comparable to
the foliage removed in terms of function and/or
aesthetics,while understanding that the
replacement foliage will not be of the same size
and breadth as the pre-existing mature foliage.
Specifically precluded shall be foliage which
cannot be maintained at a level that does not
impair the applicants'view without disfiguring
the tree or other foliage.Within this constraint,
however,the replacement foliage shall be as fully
mature as is practicable.The selection of the type
of replacement fol.iage shall be made by the
foliage owner from an approved list of foliage
ATTACHMENT 8-42
types provided by the Director of Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement or approved by
the City arborist.The foliage owner shall have the
option of appealing to the planning commission
and/or the City Council,if the limitation to the
said list is not to his satisfaction.
Rationale:Valuable property is being taken from the foliage
owner in order to enhance his neighbors'view.While fully mature
trees or other foliage might not be practicable,the foliage owner
should not have to wait years,ordecades,to have his
landscaping reasonably restored,as would be the case of a very
small 15 gallon,or even 24 inch box sized plants.
VI-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 trE!es that are ordered removed.Replacement
trees or shrubs generally should be of a IS-gallon size,and should not
be larger than a 24-inch.box size,unless warranted by the need to
reasonably protect privacy or exceptional circumstances and the tree or
shrub that is being replaced is substantially larger than a 24-inch box
size.
VI-G.The Commission is not obligated to order
replacement of every tree or shrub ordered
removed with a new tree or shrub,provided
that the foliage owner assents.For example,
two new replacement trees may be able to
provide the same level of privacy and
ATTACHMENT 8-43
aesthetics,as five pre-existing trees that are
ordered removed.Replacement trees or shrubs
generally should be as close to those removed
in both size and aesthetics as is reasonable and
practicable,without impairing the applicants'
view.
Rationa.le:The ordinance calls for replacement foliage to be
reasonably comparable to the foliage removed.The courts have
specifically delineated this requirement in upholding the
constitutionality of the ordinance.Limiting the size to 15-gallon
size,or even 24-inch box size,prejudices the commissions
discretion in judging what is reasonable.Furthermore,these
sizes are very small and will,in many cases,not approach a
state of reasonable replacement for years,or decades.The only
possible motivation for the existing wording is to minimize the cost
to the view applicant and/or the City,at the expense of the foliage
owner.
VI-H.The Commission may require that a long-term foliage
maintenance schedule be incorporated into the conditions of approval of
an approved View Restoration 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 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 Commission.In establishing the maintenance
schedule,the Commission may take into account seasonal dormant
periods of the subject foliage,when trimming is least harmful to the
foliage.
ATTACHMENT 8-44
VI-H.The Commission may impose a long term
maintenance requirement on the foliage owner
by specifying that,upon a request from the view
applicant and/or monitoring by the view
restoration staff,the foliage owner will be
required to trim the foliage back to the height
established by the Commission,if it begins to
approach a level which might impair the
applicants'view.
This decision will be based on either a)
photographic evidence that the foliage has
significantly grown beyond the condition of
initial trimming,or b)the amount of allowable
growth as measured with respect to a fixed point
of reference is approaching a level that will
significantly encroach into the view ..
For the foliage owners'benefit,the Commission
may suggest seasonal dormant periods of the
subject foliage,when trimming is least harmful
to the foliage.
Rationale:The foliage owner should not be required to abide
by the commission's opinion of what would be an appropriate
trimming schedule,as long as he maintains the foliage at an
acceptable level.Each trimming of a tall tree involves a
considerable expense to the foliage owner,even if the amount of
trimming is negligible.
ATTACHMENT 8-45
In my own case,I have been asked by the VR Staff to top my
Eucalyptus tree by six inches,based upon a schedule
requirement.In another case,the growth on my tree was one of
the least significant view impairing features in the photo from the
applicants'viewing area,and even less significant than the
applicants'own foliage.
ATTACHMENT 8-46
Exhibit IE'
Late Correspondence
submittals dated April 13,2010
ATTACHMENT 8-47
MIKEO'S.
1)MATURE 45 YEAR OLD PINE (60 TO 70 FEET TALL)
ATTACHMENT 8-48
2)PINE AFTER TOPING TO 25 FEET IN 2005
ATTACHMENT 8-49
3)PINE AFTER 5 YEARS OF RECOVERY FROM SEVERE TRIMMING
ATTACHMENT 8-50
4)MATURE PINE 50 YEAR OLD PINE (SMALLER THAN MEDIAN STRIP PINE
REMOVED)
ATTACHMENT 8-51
5)THREE 24 INCH BOX MELALEUCA REPLACEMENTS FOR REMOVED
MEDIAN STRIP PINE,AFTER 13 YEARS OF GROWTH
ATTACHMENT 8-52
6)24 INCH BOX MELALEUCA,AFTER 21/2 YEARS OF GROWTH
ATTACHMENT 8-53
7)MATURE CAMPHOR TREE
ATTACHMENT 8-54
8)24 INCH BOX CAMPHOR TREE AFTER 21 YEARS OF GROWTH
ATTACHMENT 8-55
9)REPLACEMENT FOR MATURE PINE STREET TREES AFTER OVER 20
YEARS OF GROWTH
ATTACHMENT 8-56
10)REPLACEMENT FOR MATURE PINE STREET TREES AFTER OVER 20
YEARS OF GROWTH
ATTACHMENT 8-57
11)REPLACEMENT FOR MATURE PINE STREET TREES AFTER OVER 20
YEARS OF GROWTH
ATTACHMENT 8-58
12)REPLACEMENT FOR MATURE PINE STREET TREES AFTER OVER 20
YEARS OF GROWTH
ATTACHMENT 8-59
From:
John Alvarez
Joel Rojas Uoelr@rpv.com]
Tuesday,April 13,20104:45 PM
johna@rpv.com
Subject:Fw:TUESDAY'S HEARING ON VR GUIDELINE REVISIONS
Attachments:CovecVR Revisions_2010.doc
Page 1 of 1
-----Original Message-----
From:<MikRobOS@ ,n>
Sent 4/10/2010 8:27:25 AM
To:pc@rpv.com
Subject:TUESDAY'S HEARING ON VR GUIDELINE REVISIONS
DEAR COMMISSIONERS:
I
THE RPV STAFF REPORT ON VR GUIDELINE REVISIONS CONTAINS A LETTER FROM ME
RECOMMENDING CERTAIN REVISIONS.UNFORTUNATELY,MY COVER LETTER WAS OMITTED.
I AM SENDING IT HEREWITH AS AN ATTACHMENT.
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF YOU AUTHORITY TO MAKE ANY
REVISIONS THAT DO NOT CONFLICT WITH THE WORDING OF THE VR ORDINANCE,WHICH IS
IDENTICAL TH\O THE ORIGINAL WORDING OF PROPOSITION "M,"WHICH WAS PASSED BY THE
VOTERS IN 1989.ANY REVISIONS,OF COURSE,WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL.
lr~K YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
'"
MIKE O'SULLIVAN
411312010 ATTACHMENT 8-60
Mr.John Alvarez
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-5391
Dear Mr.Klvarez:
March 15,2010
Attached you will find my suggestions for revisions of the guidelines for View
Restoration.As you know,I do not believe that the current guidelines achieve the
stated purposes of the View Restoration Ordinance of achieving balance between
the rights of view applicants and foliage owners,and ensuring the health,safety
and welfare of residents.
In the attachment,I have selected only those paragraphs of the existing guidelines
which I believe should be revised.These I have copied from the existing
guidelines,and underlined passages to be revised.
I have then included my suggested revisions,in larger and bold type,followed by
the rationale for each revision,in italics.
Where I have used the pronoun "his,"it should be interpreted as "his or hers."
I have addressed only the View Restoration part of the guidelines.The View
Preservation part should also be revised~I suggest,to make it compatible with the
principles behind my suggested revisions of the View Restoration part of the
guidelines.
Thank you for your attention.I look forward to the Planning Commission hearing.
Sincerely,
Michael R.O'Sullivan
30466 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
ATTACHMENT 8-61
Page 1 of 1
_JO_h_"_A_IV_a_re_z lt_u _
From:Joel Rojas [joelr@rpv.com]
S~!:Tuesday,April 13,20104:40 PM
l;li ..johna@rpv.com
Cc:marshaz@rpv.com
Subject:Fw:View Restoration meeting 4/13/10
-----Original Message-----
From:<I.'1 I 4@cox.net>
Sent 4/13/2010 1:30:42 PM
To:pc@rpv.com
Subject:View Restoration meeting 4/13/10
--RPV Planning Commission:Regarding the current View Restoration ordinance -I believe that
this ordinance addresses only the concerns of residents with views and does not adequately
consider the residents who have trees on their property and also those residents who have City
trees in their neighborhoods.There must be a better way to enforce this ordinance.The
lladoptionll process of City trees also is not reasonable.If the City decides that certain trees can
be trimmed to satisfy the vit::w ordinance,then it would stand to reason that the City,since it
owns the trees,would take responsibility for their maintenance.Isn't this one of the reasons for
our property taxes?Residents deserve this consideration.Please take into consideration the
comments of residents who want to maintain the trees in our RPV neighborhoods.Thank you.(I
would be happy to be part of any committee/commission of residents selected to research and/or
wgrk toward a satisfactory implementation of the View Ordinance - I think that it is that
i(:c'\rtant in order to maintain the compatibility of our neighborhoods and residents)
";~,........
Marge Carter
(310)~JT._
4/13/2010 ATTACHMENT 8-62
John Alvarez
From:Joel Rojas Uoelr@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,April 13,20104:39 PM
1··'·'":.j johna@rpv.com
Cet marshaz@rpv.com
Subject:Fw:Planning Commission Hearing 13th April 2010
-----Original Message-----
From:"Nancy Parsons"<Li s@cox..net>
Sent 4/13/2010 4:13:33 PM
To:pc@rpv.com
Subject:Planning Commission Hearing 13th April 201 0
Attention Planning Commission:
I understand that the Commission will be addressing issues related to the RPV View Ordinance
at the meeting tonight.13 April 2010.I am a RPV resident.and although I am unable to attend
the meeting.I would like to weigh in with some comments.
I will be referring to the matter of City owned trees at this time.rather than privately owned
trees.as I am aware the situations are handled differently.I believe the City Tree Review Permit
process does not balance the needs and rights of the community with the asserted rights of the
applicant.City trees have a material value to the residents of a neighborhood.ie:how a property
is shaded.aesthetics.softening of hardscape.and curb appeal of the neighborhood.among other
things.
The cost of maintaining trees seems to come into heavy consideration in a CTRP.therefore it
will almost always place the City's decision in favor ofthe applicant.With the City acting as an
advocate for the applicant.who advocates for the others affected by the removal of the trees?
]~'::;e needs to be more balance and fai.mess to all neighbors "":ho also have a vested interest in
tK .,:ook,character.and value of the neIghborhood and propertIes.
City trees which must be trimmed to satisfy a CTRP must then be adopted by by a resident who
must then pay for its maintenance.Again.unfair to the resident who has already paid taxes for
the upkeep of the tree.'bbe city trees should be maintained by the City.or at minimum.shared
by the applicant who wants the tree trimmed.An "adopted"tree is removed if the adopting
resident fails to trim the tree.and the tree is never "noticed"again.or allowed to be adopted by
another willing resident.This procedure almost guarantees the:eventual removal of the tree.and
has even been used to ensure a tree will be removed.
The applicant has the right to file for a CTRP for any trees up to 1000 (!)feet from their
property.Basically this provision allows one resident to "lay waste"to all foliage a considerable
distance from their own property if it lies between themselves and the ocean.This potentially
affects a huge number of neighbors.I don't believe this was the original intent of the view
ordinance.A much more reasonable distance would be 200 feet or less.
Trees which can be trimmed to see through the branches should not be considered a view
impairment."
The value of mature trees to a neighborhood should be given more consideration.and any
removal of trees should be considered only as an absolute last resort.We all need to be thinking
and acting in a greener.more environmentally sensitive manner.
Regards,
Nancy Parsons
7361 Berry Hill Drive RPV,Ca.
email:In@cox.net
4/13/2010
'..
Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT 8-63
Excerpted Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 11,2010 &April 13,2010
ATTACHMENT 8-64
condition of approval,indemnifies the City with respect to any claims or actions that are
made with respect to the City's role as escrow.
Commissioner leon accepted the suggested language regarding escrow,
seconded by Vice Chairman Tomblin.
Commissioner Tetreault felt that through this process the Commission was now putting
upon this neighbor the burden of trying to protect his privacy by planting trees that most
likely will grow into another neighbor's view and will then be subject to view restoration.
Chairman Gerstner disagreed,explaining that he believed the neighbor's privacy is
adequately protected by the fact that the wall is there and by the requirement of the
solid balustrade and that the use of the balcony will be limited as it is not off of a living
room or main gathering area.He clarified that he was saying is that he would not object
to providing the neighbor some restitution to further enhance his privacy if he so
chooses.He felt causing the applicant to build something that doesn't allow any view
onto a neighboring is beyond reasonable privacy.
Commissioner Lewis felt that the $2,000 trust deposit was gratuitous and destroys any
nexus between what the applicant is trying to do and the problem.He felt that the
person who created this problem is the person who wants this balcony and noted that
he would approve this project if the balcony were not included.
Director Rojas stated that if the Planning Commission feels there is no privacy impact
then they cannot impose this condition on the applicant.
Vice Chairman Tomblin equated this proposed condition to a similar condition that the
Planning Commission often uses that windows must be opaque for added privacy to the
neighbors.
Commissioner Lewis felt that the Commission,in attempting to do justice and have all of
the neighbors feel good about the decision,may create a lot of unintended
consequences.
The motion to approve staff's recommendations as amended to add the
conditions that the wall be maintained at the recommended height but without the
recommended vegetation;the balustrade on the second story deck be solid;and
that the applicant establish a $2,000 trust deposit with the city to reimburse the
neighbor for any planting down to enhance the privacy,which must be done
within one year of the building permit final was approved (4-2)with
Commissioners Tetreault and lewis dissenting.
Director Rojas stated that a Resolution will be on the Consent Calendar for approval at
the next meeting.
6.Proposed revisions to the View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines
Planning Commission Minutes
May 11,2010
Page 7ATTACHMENT 8-65
Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report,noting that at the previous meeting
the Commission agreed to accept Staff's proposed amendments clarifying foliage height
test for View Preservation requests and the introduction of language to protect bird
nests per Federal and State Law,reviewed Mr.O'Sullivan's suggested changes,
requested specific amendments,and directed staff to draft amended language.
Commissioner Tetreault questioned what happens in situations where a view applicant
had a viewing area established however they remodel their home and have a new
viewing area in a different location,but do not submit a new view restoration application.
Director Rojas explained that the City Attorney reviewed this scenario and determined
the old decision on a view application would still be binding and the foliage owner would
still be bound to maintain their foliage.He also noted that there are situations where the
decision on an application benefits surrounding property owners.He also noted that
rescinding a previous permit could only occur if the applicant applies for a new view
permit application.
Commissioner Tetreault felt there should be some mechanism in place for a foliage
owner to remove their foliage maintenance requirements if a view is eliminated by a
remodel of the applicant's residence.He felt that the remodel or elimination of a
viewing area could trigger a process to allow a foliage owner to seek possible relief from
his trimming obligations.
Commissioner Knight suggested that when an application is submitted to the City for a
remodel,staff checks to see if there is a view restoration permit for the property,and if
so,whether there will be a reanalysis of viewing area done at that time.
Director Rojas noted that any change in the city approved view restoration permit would
have to come before the Planning Commission for a public hearing.He stated that
these types of scenarios have not yet happened and felt that there was very little
chance that they would happen.
Before opening the public hearing,Senior Planner Alvarez noted that Mr.O'Sullivan had
submitted late correspondence for this item to staff and the Planning Commission.He
noted that staff agrees with Mr.O'Sullivan's comments regarding the determination of
viewing area and the ability of an applicant,foliage owner,or any interested party to
appeal the determination of the viewing area.Therefore staff has modified Section III-B
of the Guidelines to make this clarification,however it was not reflected in the draft
Resolution included in the staff report.
Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing.
Michael O'Sullivan began with his suggestion NO.6 that whenever a tree is removed
that it be replaced with a tree that is reasonably comparable in function and/or
aesthetics.He did not think the City should dictate what functions a tree provides in
Planning Commission Minutes
May 11,2010
PageSATTACHMENT 8-66
justifying the replacement tree.He felt that the entire section listing the conditions
under which a replacement tree is available should be eliminated.He also agreed that
not every tree should be replaced on a one-to-one basis in all cases.In regards to
determining a viewing area,he felt that the foliage owner should also have early input.
He felt that the wording in the Guidelines regarding protected view and 16 feet or the
ridgeline,whichever is lower,would suggest the City is trying to protect a view of the
applicant's upper structure and roof.He felt that the wording should be revised.He felt
that the issue of going back to when the lot was originally created was severe for the
foliage owner.He questioned what can be changed in the Ordinance and Guidelines by
the Commission and what requires voter approval to Proposition M.
Barbara O'Sullivan addressed the balance between the foliage owner and the view
applicants,specifically in addressing the replacement of trees with shrubs.She would
like to see a little more discretion given to the Commission in terms of what they can do
to reestablish the foliage owners landscaping when a mature tree is removed.
Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Knight referred to page 2 section 4,and clarified that the revision should
read "The selection of the type of replacement foliage shall be made by the foliage
owner."
Commissioner Knight also asked staff to clarify what changes can be made to the
Ordinance and Guidelines by the Commission and what type of changes need voter
approval.
Director Rojas explained the City cannot make language changes that are contrary to
the intent of the Ordinance.Through the years when changes are suggested the City
Attorney must make a determination if that proposed revision is consistent with the
intent of the Ordinance.
Commissioner Lewis felt that some of the revisions the O'Sullivans have suggested are
close to or possibly cross the line in regards to changing the intent of or altering how the
Ordinance operates.
Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the draft Guidelines as amended to add
the language that the selection of the type of replacement foliage shall be made
by the foliage owner,to incorporate the language added by staff to clarify the
language of the appeal rights to the viewing area,to change the Director's title to
Community Development Director throughout the document,and that the
O'Sullivans comments be included in the City Council staff report,and to forward
the document to the City Council,seconded by Commissioner Knight.Approved,
(6-0).
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Planning Commission Minutes
May 11,2010
Page 9ATTACHMENT 8-67
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items):
None
CONTINUED BUSINESS
1.Height Variation &Minor Exception Permit (Case No.ZON2009-00497):
30939 Rue Valois
Director Rojas reported that this item was heard by the Planning Commission at an
earlier date and direction was given by the Commission to the applicant to work with the
neighbors on a solution regarding the privacy impact.He stated that the applicant is
requesting more time to work with the neighbors,and therefore staff is recommending
the public hearing be continued to May 11,2010.
The Commission agreed,without objection,to continue the public hearing to the May
11,2010 meeting.
2.Proposed revision to the View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines
Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report,explaining this is a staff initiated
proposed revision to the existing view restoration and preservation guidelines.He
explained that staff believes there are a number of specific issues that have been raised
over the course of several years that need to be addressed in the language of the
guidelines.He noted that the changes proposed by staff do not change the original
Proposition M or the View Ordinance,City Tree Review Permit,or the Development
Code pertaining to views.He explained the proposed changes merely seek to clarify
how the view restoration and preservation ordinance is to be implemented through the
view guidelines.He explained the two key changes,as presented in the staff report.
He also reviewed the nine suggested amendments to the view guidelines as submitted
by a resident,Mr.Michael O'Sullivan.He reviewed staff's recommendation to review
the proposed amendments,provide staff with direction,and to continue the hearing for
adoption of a resolution.
Director Rojas added that the proposed amendments are intended to officially recognize
practices that have been utilized by staff for quite some time.He stated that the City
Attorney has reviewed these amendments and supports the changes.He reminded the
Commission that amendments to the actual Ordinance are not an item for discussion.
Commissioner Leon asked if city trees are part of the View Restoration process.
Director Rojas answered that view impairment caused by city trees is not part of the
view ordinance and is a different City regulation adopted after the City's view ordinance
was put into affect.He stated that this issue is not on this Agenda.
Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 13,2010
Page 2ATTACHMENT 8-68
Michael O'Sullivan showed three photos of his canary island pine tree before and after it
was trimmed.He then addressed the suggestions he made on the proposed revisions,
noting that he felt these suggestions created a win-win situation.He also explained that
some of the language he suggested that staff was opposed to is actually part of the
guidelines existing language that he modified.
Commissioner Knight noted that Mr.O'Sullivan suggested adding language to the view
restoration ordinance that would preclude the Commission from ordering the foliage
owner to plant replacement trees that cannot be maintained at height levels that would
disfigure a tree.He asked Mr.O'Sullivan to give him an example.
Mr.O'Sullivan explained that he felt it would be reasonable to replace a tree with a tree
that is reasonably mature,not a 24 inch box,which is not of the kind that will grow into
the view.He agreed with staff that a replacement tree should not be restricted to those
on the City list of approved trees.He also felt that certain types of trees that are kept
trimmed at a certain level may be permanently disfigured.
Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr.O'Sullivan what message he was trying to convey to
the Commission when he showed the pictures of his canary island pine.
Mr.O'Sullivan explained that everyone benefits if a tree can be saved and preserved to
be a reasonable tree at a height that does not impair a neighbor's view.He felt that
there has been a real disproportion between the loss of a tree which is extremely
expensive to replace and a very valuable asset in terms of property value and the cost
to the applicant to replace a tree.He stated that in many cases trees may recover from
a drastic cutting and felt it was reasonable to allow a tree the time to recover.He stated
that the amount it would cost the applicant to replace the tree after giving it time to
recover is still trivial when compared to the value the tree adds to the foliage owner's
home.
Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr.O'Sullivan how long it took before he felt his canary
island pine was going to survive and be something that would be aesthetically pleasing.
Mr.O'Sullivan answered that it was about three years from him to determine the tree
would survive and be adequate,but five years before the tree looked like it does in the
photograph he showed earlier.
Regina O'Melveny asked that the Commission's deliberations be guided by fairness,
balance,and a sense of integrity.She felt the sense of community has been fractured
by the contentious way the ordinance has been implemented to exploit of foliage
owners.She also felt that when view owners abuse their neighbors by making
unbalanced demands that are then supported by the City,there is a loss of the
ordinance's original intent to bear in mind the concerns of all residents.She stated that
one of the most important aspects that should be addressed is the mediation process,
and suggested that no application should go forward without first going through
meaningful mediation.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 13,2010
Page 3ATTACHMENT 8-69
Commissioner Knight asked Ms.O'Melveny if she had any specific suggestions that
might help the Commission with the language in the guidelines.
Ms.O'Melveny stated that in reading the guidelines she felt there were several things
already in place that could be followed.She felt that language could be clarified around
the mediation process,noting that during her mediation phase she never met the
applicants.She also noted that in her case there were seven applicants,which made
her feel very intimidated.She suggested that there be a restriction on the number of
applicants allowed on a view restoration permit.
Barbara O'Sullivan stated that was very frustrating for her was after the public hearing
for her case was finished and staff and the Commission or the City Council would be
discussing the information,some of the information was incorrect.She stated that there
is no way for a member of the public to then correct any misinformation.
Commissioner Lewis asked staff to explain how the mediation process works.
Director Rojas gave a history of the mediation process and how it currently is working
with a hired professional mediator.
Senior Planner Alvarez then explained staff's intent to clarify the foliage height test for
view preservation requests,and noted the specific places in the Ordinance where the
changes would be placed.
Commissioner Lewis stated that he read the proposed language several times and had
trouble understanding it.He suggested alternative language stating if foliage not
subject to the view restoration permit subsequently grows into the VRP applicant's
documented view,the new foliage will be considered significant view impairing foliage
only if the new foliage exceeds the lesser of the ridgeline of the primary structure on the
property or 16 feet.
Chairman Gerstner felt that Commissioner Lewis'suggested language was clearer than
that proposed by staff.
Director Rojas stated that staff will ask the City Attorney to review the proposed
language.
Moving to staff's next proposed change,Director Rojas explained the proposal of
matching language for view preservation permits.
Senior Planner Alvarez explained that this would be a situation where an applicant has
not gone through the view restoration process,but rather has documented their view at
a point after 1989 and wish to protect and preserve that view.Staff is introducing
language which will ensure foliage meets the criteria of the view ordinance.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 13,2010
Page 4ATTACHMENT 8-70
After some discussion the Commission agreed that height language should be added
that the Director's decision is appealable.
Senior Planner Alvarez discussed the next item,referring to the staff report showing the
strike-out language and the reason for it.The Commission agreed.
Senior Planner Alvarez discussed the next issue,discussing the language added to
deal with the Migratory Bird Act and the need to hire a consultant to advise on matters
that deal with nesting birds within view impairing trees.
Chairman Gerstner felt that the proposed language was consistent with existing
language,and the Commission agreed.
The Commission had a lengthy discussion as to the language suggested on how to
determine when a lot was created.The Commission and staff determined that the
suggested language needed clarification and therefore the Commission added its own
language clarifying lot recordation.
Senior Planner Alvarez reviewed the minor clean-up items,as noted in the staff report.
The Commission agreed with staff's suggestions on the minor clean-up items.
Senior Planner Alvarez then discussed the suggestions that were made by Mr.
O'Sullivan.He explained that staff did not feel the language in his first two suggestions
was necessary,as the language in the Development Code and Guidelines already
provides the ability for the tree owner to appeal the determination of the viewing area.
He noted that adding the suggested language in suggestion number three would
basically redefine the Ordinance.He stated that staff agrees with Mr.O'Sullivan's
suggestion about monitoring the tree's health for a longer period than what currently
occurs.He noted that Mr.O'Sullivan suggested three years while staff would support a
two year monitoring period.He also noted that staff does not agree with Mr.
O'Sullivan's addition of language regarding a disfigured tree,as it would be too
subjective for staff to make a determination on a disfigured tree.
The Commission discussed the option of two years versus three years,and agreed with
staff that two years would be more appropriate.Director Rojas noted that there is
language in the Guidelines which would allow an option for a longer period if needed.
Senior Planner Alvarez discussed tree removal and Mr.O'Sullivan's suggestion of an
automatic tree replacement policy.
The Commission discussed and agreed that a mandatory one to one tree replacement
ratio would not always be in the best interest of the foliage owner,and agreed with staff
not to change the tree removal and replacement language.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 13,2010
Page 5ATTACHMENT 8-71
Senior Planner continued with Mr.O'Sullivan's suggestions about tree replacement size
and the suggestion that the Commission require tree maintenance only when trees
reach a certain height.
Commissioner Tetreault raised the question of an established viewing area on a
residence for view restoration purposes and how staff handles or the Guidelines
address a remodel on that property which would change the primary viewing area.
Director Rojas noted that this was a subject that has not been addressed and that staff
would discuss with the City Attorney.
Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to May 11,2010 to
allow staff to address the feedback on the proposed revisions.He also moved
that all of Mr.O'Sullivan's comments be included in the staff report that will go to
the City Council,seconded by Commissioner Knight.
Commissioner Leon addressed staff's practice of conducting a view analysis on
properties where the owners have applied for certain building permits,and requiring
certain foliage be trimmed before the building permit is issued.He felt that as a
consequence,trees are being cut even when there is no view restoration or
preservation case filed.He did not feel trees should be required to be proactively
trimmed if a neighboring viewing area has not been established.
Director Rojas explained that this practice is not an interpretation of the View Guidelines
but rather is a requirement under Prop M.He added that the Ordinance not only
provides a process for dealing with view restoration and view preservation,but also
provides for a process when an applicant requests certain building permits.He
explained a past process by which residents were given the option to record a covenant
stating that they would cut any trees on their property if,in the future,they impaired a
neighbor's view.However,after concerns were expressed with enforcing these
covenants,the City Council eventually stopped the covenant procedure for foliage.
Commissioner Lewis supported Commissioner Leon in bringing up this issue,however
he was concerned that the Commission was beginning to go beyond what has been
noticed through the public notice and what can be discussed on this item.He felt that if
Commissioner Leon were to suggest to bring this issue up as a separate item at a future
meeting,he would support the suggestion.
Commissioner Knight suggested that staff research this and report back to the Planning
Commission at a future meeting.
Commissioner Tetreault discussed the situation where there is a substantial remodel
and there is an opportunity to apply for a new viewing area,would the old viewing area
be surrendered,or could the applicant continue to insist the foliage owner trim the
vegetation even if there is no longer a view from the applicant's property.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 13,2010
Page 6ATTACHMENT 8-72
Commissioner Lewis moved to incorporate that discussion into his motion,
seconded by Commissioner Knight.
The motion to continue the public hearing to allow staff to address the Planning
Commission feedback was unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3.Coastal Permit,Height Variation,Minor Grading Permit &Site Plan Review
(Case No.ZON2009-00181 ):23 Marguerite Drive
Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report,explaining the scope of the project
and the need for the various applications.She noted that there are two trees that were
identified in a view analysis that impair a neighbor's view and will be required to be
trimmed down to 16 feet in height.She stated that staff was able to make the
necessary findings to recommend approval of the project.
Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing.
Tom Blair (architect)stated that this house was built in the 1940's and has been
expanded over the years.This remodel and addition is an attempt to take care of the
issues of circulation and connection issues throughout the house.He stated he was
available for any questions.
Deanne Shey (applicant)explained that the area in the back of the house where the
proposed addition is located is an area with a detached guest house,which was built
with permits,but is an area that they do not currently use.
Commissioner Leon noted that there are a number of nicely matured trees in the rear
area of the property and he was concerned that may be removed because of the view
ordinance.
Ms.Shey explained that the mature trees on her property are part of the character of
not only her property,but the neighborhood.She noted,however,that it will be very
difficult to build the new foundation in such close proximity to some of the trees,so
some of the trees may have to be removed.
Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Lewis noted that staff has recommended trimming of certain trees on the
property but did not see that as a condition of approval.
Associate Planner Mikhail acknowledged that there should be such a condition and staff
will have to add the condition.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 13,2010
Page?ATTACHMENT 8-73
Late correspondence from the Planning Commission
meeting dated May 11,2010
ATTACHMENT 8-74
John Alvarez
From:Joel Rojas [joelr@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,May 10,2010 8:30 AM
To:johna@rpv.com
Subject:FW:VR GUIDELINES
From:MikRobOS@ j [mailto:MikRobOS@ I]
Sent:Friday,May 07,20104:57 PM
To:pc@rpv.com
Subject:VR GUIDELINES
COMMISSIONERS:
BELOW IS A FURTHER EXPLANATION OF MY SUGGESTION #1 FOR VR GUIDELINES REVISIONS.I
DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THE STAFF DISMISSED THE SUGGESTION SO LIGHTLY.ON LAST
WEEK'S HEARING ON STREET TREES,THE SAME ISSUE AROSE RELATIVE TO THE VR APPLICANT
AND THE STAFF CHOOSING A VIEWING AREA THE MAXIMIZED THE TREE LAYERING,AND
THEREFORE THE VIEW IMPAIRMENT.
SECTION III-A
I suggest that the wording in this paragraph be revised.The wording "a property owner may appeal the
determination of the viewing area,"is not clear.Does it mean 1)the view applicant only;2)either the view
applicant or the foliage owner,or 3)any property owner in the city.If either 2 or 3 above is intended,it would be
easy for the foliage owner,or other property owner,to interpret the wording as meaning that only the view applicant
could appeal,thereby not realizing that he or she has a right to appeal.
Furthermore it does not clarify the appeal process.Is it intended to mean that an appeal could be made to the staff
representative,prior to the commission hearing,or during the commission hearing,or to the commission,or city
council,afterward the PC hearing?To whom does one appeal?At what cost?
The viewing area,if I understand correctly,is normally determined,prior to the hearing,by the view applicant in
consultation with the city staff.There seems no protection against the applicant choosing an area that maximizes the
view impairment,the extreme limits of his property,for example,thereby leading to needless destruction of a
neighbor's trees.I believe that the foliage owner should be included in this initial determination,prior to the PC
hearing..
I suggest that the wording be amended,as follows:
"The determination of a viewing area shall be made by balancing the nature of the view to be
protected and the importance of the area of the structure or lot from where which the view is
taken.Once finally determined for a particular application,the viewing area may not be changed
for any subsequent application.In the event the city and owner cannot agree on the viewing
area,the decision ofthe city shall control.
The decision on the specific viewing area shall be made,prior to the planning commission
hearing,by consultation among the city,the view applicant,and the foliage owner.In the
event the three parties cannot agree on the viewing area,the decision of the city shall
control.
A property owner may appeal the determination of viewing area.In such event,the decision on
the viewing area will be made by the body making the final decision on the application.
Either property owner may appeal the determination of viewing area.Either in the PC
hearing,or on appeal to the city council.In such event,the decision on the viewing area
will be made by the body making the final decision on the application
7/12/2010
Page 1 of2
ATTACHMENT 8-75
Page 2 of2
A property owner may preserve his or her right to dispute the decision on viewing area for a subsequent application
without disputing the decision on a pending application by filing a statement to that effect and indicating the viewing
area the property owner believes to be more appropriate.The statement shall be filed with the City prior to
consideration of the pending application by the City.
Either property owner may preserve his or her right to dispute the decision on viewing area for a subsequent
application without disputing the decision on a pending application by filing a statement to that effect and
indicating the viewing area the property owner believes to be more appropriate.The statement shall be filed
with the City prior to the planning commission hearing.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
MIKE O'SULLIVAN
7/12/2010 ATTACHMENT 8-76
John Alvarez
From:MikRobOS@"'_
Sent:Monday,May 10,2010 10:40 PM
To:pc@rpv.com;johna@rpv.com;joelr@rpv.com
Subject:VR GUIDELINES REVISIONS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
I HAVE AGAIN REVIEWED THE VIDEO OF THE APRIL 13,2010 PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS ON VIEW RESTORATION GUIDELINES REVISIONS.I WANT TO THANK THE
COMMISSION,AS WELL AS THE STAFF FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION OF MY SUGGESTED
REVISIONS.IT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT A GREAT DEAL OF THOUGHTFULNESS AND PATIENCE
WAS REQUIRED TO WADE THROUGH ALL NINE OF MY SUGGESTIONS.
I ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT,IN SOME CASES,MY SUGGESTIONS WERE UNNESSISARY,AND
WERE A RESULT OF A LESS THAN COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF THE EXISTING
GUIDELINES.FOR THAT I APPOLOGIZE.IT IS NOT MY DESIRE TO PUT INORDINATE DEMANDS
ON THE TIME OF THE STAFF OR THE COMMISSION.
THERE ARE,HOWEVER,A NUMBER OF AREAS WHERE MY SUGGESTIONS WERE
MISUNDERSTOOD,AND/OR WHERE I FEEL THE EXISTING LANGUAGE SHOULD BE MODIFIED.
SUGGESTION #1 :
I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS IN MY 4/7/10 EMAIL.
SUGGESTION #2:
I AM SATISFIED WITH THE STAFF EXPLANATION HERE,PROVIDED THAT THE "PROTECTED
VIEW'IS INTERPRETED AS NOT INCLUDING ANYTHING BELOW THE ROOFLINE OF ANY
STRUCTURE,AS VIEWED FROM FROM THE APPLICANTS'VIEWING AREA.THE WORDING
"...SIXTEEN FEET,OR THE RIDGELINE OF THE FOLIAGE OWNERS HOME,WHICHEVER IS
LOWER...",WOULD LEAD ONE TO BELIEVE THAT THE ORDINANCE IS TRYING TO PROTECT THE
VIEW OF THE FOLIAGE OWNERS ROOF.
PERHAPS THE LANGUAGE COULD BE IMPROVED HERE.
SUGGESTION #3:
I BELIEVE THAT REVERTING TO THE TIME WHEN THE LOT WAS CREATED IS MUCH TOO
SEVERE A BURDEN ON THE FOLIAGE OWNER.IT HAS BEEN STATED MANY TIMES THAT
REVISIONS OF ANYTHING IN THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES VOTER APPROVAL.I NOTICE,
HOWEVER,THAT PROPOSITION M SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT THE ORDINANCE MAY BE
AMMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.WHERE IS THE DELINEATION OF WHAT CAN BE DONE BY
COUNCIL AMMENDMENT,AND WHAT REQUIRES VOTER APPEOVAL.I DID NOT FOLLOW MR.
ROJAS'EXPLANATION OF THIS ISSUE.
SUGGESTION #4:
I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT A THREE YEAR PERIOD IS ESSENTIAL.AFTER TWO YEARS IT IS
PROBABLY DISCERNABLE THAT THE TREE LOOKS LIKE IT WILL SURVIVE.BUT WHETHER IT
WILL SURVIVE,AND BE HEALTHY AND AESTHETICALLY PLEASING TAKES LONGER.
I ALSO STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THE STAFF POSITION THAT A TREE'S AESTHETICS NOT BE
INCLUDED IN THE CRITERION FOR REPLACEMENT.I BELIEVE THAT,IN MOST CASES,THE
FOLIAGE OWNER WILL WANT TO KEEP A MATURE TREE THAT RECOVERS TO ANY SEMBLANCE
OF ATTRACTIVENESS.THIS WILL REDUCE COST TO THE APPLICANT,AND EVERYONE
BENEFITS.WHY SHOULD AN OWNER NOT BE ENTITLED TO REPLACEMENT OF A
PERMANENTLY DISFIGURED TREE,AS WELL AS A DEAD TREE?
MORE LATER.
MIKE O'SULLIVAN
7/12/2010
Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT 8-77
John Alvarez
From:MikRobOS@"._.,.
Sent:Tuesday,May 11,2010 1:02 PM
To:pc@rpv.com;johna@rpv.com
Subject:GUIDLEINES REVISIONS
SUGGESTION NUMBER 6:
THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE OF ALL,AND THE STAFF HAS NOT CORRECTLY
INTERPRETED MY INTENT.I THINK THAT,PERHAPS,MY EARLIER WORDING WAS NOT CLEAR.
THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT,WHENEVER A TREE IS REMOVED,WHETHER IT BE INITIALLY,OR
BECAUSE IT HAS DIED OR BEEN DIFIGURED,AFTER AN INITIAL TRIMMING AND THE SPECIFIED
WAITING PERIOD.THAT IT BE REPLACED WITH A TREE THAT IS "...REASONABLY COMPARABLE
IN TERMS OF FUNCTION AND/OR AESTHETICS ..."
IT SEEMS PRETTY EVIDENT THAT THE TREE OWNER IS BEING DEPRIVED OF LANDSCAPING
THAT HAS SIGNIFICANT VALUE BOTH IN TERMS OF THE OWNERS "HEALTH,SAFETY,AND
WELFARE"AND IN TERMS OF REAL ESTATE PROPERTY VALUE.WHAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE
TO ME IS THAT THE CITY SHOULD DICTATE WHAT FUNCTIONS A TREE PROVIDES THAT WOULD
JUSTIFY REPLACEMENT.THE OWNER MIGHT VALUE HIS TREES BECAUSE THEY BLOSSOM IN
THE SPRING,OR BECAUSE THEY BEAR FRUIT,OR FOR MYRIAD OTHER REASONS NOT ON THE
CITY LIST.
I AGREE WITH CHAIRMAN GERSTNER'S STATEMENT THAT NOT EVERY TREE BE REPLACED,ON
A ONE TO ONE BASIS,IN ALL CASES.FOR EXAMPLE,IN A SITUATION WHERE A LARGE
NUMBER OF TREES HAVE BEEN REMOVED,SUCH AS THE L1EHR'S,THE CRITERION SHOULD BE
THAT THEIR OVERALL LANDSCAPING SHOULD BE RETURNED TO A CONDITION THAT IS
"...REASONABLY COMPARABLE IN TERMS OF FUNCTION AND/OR AESTHETICS ..."
MIKE O'SULLIVAN
7/12/2010
Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT 8-78
Mr.Mike O'Sullivan's emailed correspondence
dated July 12,2010 and his suggested Guideline
amendments dated March 15,2010
ATTACHMENT 8-79
John Alvarez
Page 1 of 1
From:
Sent:
To:
Joel Rojas Uoelr@rpv.com]
Monday,July 12,2010 12:06 PM
'John Alvarez'
Subject:FW:VE GUIDELINES REVISIONS
fyi
From:MikRobOS@C •••[mailto:MikRobOS@ ...]
Sent:Monday,July 12,2010 11:59 AM
To:cc@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com
Subject:VE GUIDELINES REVISIONS
DEAR COUNCIL MEMBERS:
BELOW IS A COPY OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT I MADE AT THE LAST COUNCIL
HEARING (7/6/10),
MIKE O'SULLIVAN
MAYOR WOLOWITZ AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
THE CITY COUNCIL HEARING ON JULY 20TH WILL ADDRESS PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE VIEW
RESTORATION GUIDELINES FOR YOUR APPROVAL.AS SOME OF YOU KNOW,I HAVE A STRONG
INTEREST IN THIS SUBJECT,AND,CONSEQUENTLY,I HAVE SUBMITTED A NUMBER SUGGESTED
REVISIONS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
I BELIEVE THAT THE CURRENT GUIDELINES ARE VERY UNBALANCED IN FAVOR OF VIEW
APPLICANTS.MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAVE VOICED THE SAME OPINION,AS
HAVE CANDIDATES FOR CITY COUNCIL IN THE RECENT ELECTION.EVEN COUNCIL CANDIDATE
AND FORMER MAYOR JOHN MC TAGGART,ONE OF THE SPONSORS OF PROPOSITION M,STATED IN
ONE OF THE CANDIDATE FORUMS,THAT HE BELIEVED THAT THE ORDINANCE HAS HAD
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES,TO THE DETRIMENT OF FOLIAGE OWNERS.
I BELIEVE THAT THE ORDINANCE HAS CERTAINLY NOT ACHIEVED ITS STATED OBJECTIVE OF
PROMOTING THE HEALTH,SAFETY,AND WELFARE OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RESIDENTS.
THE SUGGESTIONS THAT I SUBMITTED ARE DIRECTED TOWARD ACHIEVING A MORE EQUITABLE
BALANCE OF RIGHTS,WHILE STILL RETAINING THE MAJOR GOALS OF THE ORDINANCE.SOME
OF THEM HAVE BEEN ENDORSED,AT LEAST PARTIALLY,BY THE STAFF AND THE PLANNING
COMMISSION.OTHERS HAVE NOT,BUT I STILL BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE MERIT.
ALTHOUGH I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO
THE ORDINANCE REQUIRE VOTER APPROVAL,PROPOSITION M CLEARLY STATES THAT IT IS
SUBJECT TO AMENDMENT BY THE COUNCIL.I FIND THERE NO LIMITATION TO THE TYPE OR
EXTENT OF POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS.
I BELIEVE THAT I HAVE GIVEN CONSIDERABLE THOUGHT TO MY SUGGESTIONS,AND THAT THEY
SHOULD BE VIEWED AS CONSTRUCTIVE,AND WOULD LEAD TO A MORE HARMONIOUS
RELA TIONSHIP AMONG NEIGHBORS.
I WOULD URGE THE COUNCIL TO GIVE THEM A CAREFUL READING AND DUE CONSIDERATION.
MIKE O'SULLIVAN
711212010 ATTACHMENT 8-80
RECEIVED
MAR 15 2010
PLANNING.aUILDING ANn
cooe eNrQ~CSMENT
III.ESTABLISHING THE VIEWING AREA
A.Section 17.02.040 (8)(5)establishes the procedure for determining the
"viewing area"as follows:
liThe determination of a viewing area shall be made by balancing the
nature of the view to be protected and the importance of the area of the
structure or lot from where the view is taken.Once finally determined for
a particular application,the viewing area may not be changed for any
subsequent application.In the event the city and owner cannot agree on
the viewing area,the decision of the city shall control.A property owner
may appeal the deter.mination 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 property owner may preserve his or her
right to dispute the decision on viewing area for a subsequent application
without disputing the decision on a pending application by filing a
statement to that effect and indicating the viewing area the property
owner believes to be more appropriate.The statement shall be filed with
the city prior to consideration of the pending application by the City.1I
A..In the event that the city and either the view
applicant or the foliage owner cannot agree on
the viewing area,the decision of the city shall
control..Either the applicant or the foliage owner
may appeal the determination of viewing area..In
such event,the decision on the viewing area will
be made by the body making the finc:d dec.ision on
the application..A property owner may preserve
his or her right to dispute the decision on viewing
area for a subsequent application without
ATTACHMENT 8-81
disputing the decision on a pending application
by filing a statement to that effect and indicating
the viewing area the property owner believes to
be more appropriate..The statement shall be filed
with the city prior to consideration of the pending
application by the City.."
Rationale:This change gives the foliage owner a voice]so that
the view applicant and/or the city are prevented from choosing a
viewing area that maximizes the view impairment.In a past case,
the City,or view applicants who had a magnificent view from
many points on their properties,chose a viewing area that was
most detrimental to the foliage owners trees.
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 Planning Commission must
make the folloWing six mandatory findings:
V-B.uFolia~.~..c.J~eding 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
.QIoperty,or when combined with foliage located on more than one
property.II
V-B.."Foliage exce.eding sixteen (16)feet or the
ridge line of the primary structure,whichever is
lower,significantly impairs a view from the
ATTACHMENT 8-82
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 foliage shall in no case,however,
be reduced below the level at which existing
structures already obscure the view from the
viewing area.."
Rationale:In most cases!the viewing area is at a much higher
elevation than the foliage.Consequently,foliage at the ridge line,
or sixteen feet will leave part of the structure,primarily the roof,
exposed and masking the distant view;from the viewing area.No
doubt,most view applicants would prefer to look at foliage,rather
that the roof of a structure.
Subsequent paragraphs in sections in Section V-B,should be .
modified accordingly,to be consistent with the above proposed
reVISion.
V-D.tiThe foliage significal1dyimpairing the view did not exjst a~
view impairing vegetation when the lot from which the view is taken
was created."
V-D..uThe foliage significantly impairing the view
did not exist as view impairing vegetation ten
years prior to the subject View Restoration
Application..
Rationale:The requirement to revert to the conditions that
existed when the lot was created is much too severe.Three of the
ATTACHMENT 8-83
candidates for city council,in the recent election,including former
mayor,John MacTaggarl,expressed such sentiment.McTaggart
publicly stated that the ordinance generally is unbalanced to the
detriment of foliage owners,and suffers from "unintended
consequences.#A number of planning commissioners have
expressed similar sentiment
The history of the ordinance certainly does not support the stated
goals of balancing rights and promoting the health,safety and
welfare of the citizens:Quite the reverse.Less than three
hundred applicants have had their views restored,to the
detriment of a much broader segment of the community who
value trees.
The courls have ruled that the ordinance does not constitute a
({taking,"in the legal sense of the word.In any common sense
interpretation of the word,however,something of great value has
been taken from the foliage owner:.Do the citizens of RPV
want a community that seeks to do whatever it can legally get
away with,regardless of public sentiment?
Nevertheless,it may be questionable whether this revision can be
accomplished within the framework of the guidelines,rather than
a modification of the ordinance itself.
ATTACHMENT 8-84
VI.COMMISSION ACTION
VI-B.If any tree or shrub that is ordered to be culled.laced.or trimmed
dies within one year of the initial work being performed due to the
performance of the work.the applicant or any subsequent owner of the
applicant's property shall be responsible for providing a replacement tree
or shrub to the foliage owner.This time period may be extended by the
Commission if evidence is provided by a certified arboris!that a longer
monitoring period is necessary for a specific type of tree or shrub.
However,if the city arbor,s!determines that culling,lacing.or trimming
said tree or shrub will in all probability cause the tree or shrub..to die.and
the foliage owner chooses not to accept removal and replacement as an
Q.Q~ion._The replacement foliage shall be provided in accordance with
the specifications described in section VI-E (Commission Action)of these
Guidelines.If the work is performed by the foliage owner,said foliage
owner shall forfeit the right to replacement foliage if the trimmed tree
dies.If a tree or shrub dies it is subject to removal pursuant to Section
8.24.060 (property maintenance)of the RPV Municipal Code.
VI-B.If any tree.or shrub that is ordered to be
culled J laced,or trimmed dies,or is irreparably
disfigured,within three years of the initial work
being performed,the applicant or any subsequent
owner of the applicant's property shall be
responsible for providing a replacement tree or
shrub to the foliage owner..This time period may
be extended,or reduced,by the Commission if
evidence is prOVided by a certified arborist that a
longer,or shorter,monitoring period is
appropriate for a specific tree or shrub..However,
if the city arborist opines that culling,lacing,or
ATTACHMENT 8-85
trimming said tree or shrub will in all probability
cause the tree or shrub to die,or be irreparably
disfigured,then the foliage owner will have the
option of either;a)choosing to accept
immediate removal and replacement,or b)
choosing to have the tree trimmed and nurturing
and monitoring it for the three year period.If the
tree dies or does not recover to a satisfactory
condition within the three year period,then the
foliage owner may elect,either in writing or in
public testimony during a public hearing,that the
tree be replaced,and the.applicant shall be
responsible for providing a replacement tree or
shrub to the foliage owner.
Rationale:
A one year period ;s much too short to evaluate whether a tree
will die,or recover to be a beneficial and aesthetic asset to the
foliage owners'property.If the tree has a well established root
system,the chances may be very good that it will recover and
with careful care and trimming become a beautiful and useful
component of the foliage owners'landscaping,albeit at a lower
level that does not impair a neighbor's view.
Furthermore,the cost to the view applicant,of trimming,rather
than removal and replacement,will be much less.
ATTACHMENT 8-86
On the other hand,it may take many years for a new tree to
become established,and the chances of it dying are many!i.e.
wind storms!root rot,etc.
The city arbor/sf,or any arborisf,is not infallible.In my case,I
had a forty five year old,sixty foot pine tree topped to twenty five
feet.Several arborists,including the city arbor/sf,said it would
surely die.It did not die,and after five years it is an attractive,but
much shorter tree.
VI=C.Initial complet~removal of any remaining portion of the tree or
shrub that does not significantly.J..!JJ..Qair the View will only b~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:
J,..That upon the advice of the City's arborist,culling,lacing,or trimming
the foliage to sixteen (16)feet or the ridge line is_.fikely to kill the tree or
shrub or threaten the Q..ublic health,safety and welfare:or
.2.That upon the advice of the .city's arborist,cuUing.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.
VI-C.Complete removal of any remaining portion
of the tree or shrub that does not significantly
imp.air the view will only be ordered if the owner
of the property where the foliage is located
consents to the complete removal of the
ATTACHMENT 8-87
remaining tree or shrub and the Commission
finds:
1,.For initial trimming,that upon the advice of
the City's arborist,culling,lacing,or trimming the
foliage to the level designated by the Commission
is likely to kill the tree or shrub or threaten the
public health,safety and welfare;or
2,.For initial trimming,that upon the advice of
the City's arborist,culling,lacing,or trimming
the foliage to the level designated by the
Commission will irreparably destroy the
aesthetic value of the foliage that is to be
trimmed,laced or reduced in height;or
3.For trimming within the three year period,
that the tree has died,or the foliage owner is
dissatisfied with the progress of the tree's
recovery,and elects for replacement..
Rationale:
In most cases,the foliage owner will likely recognize that an
established tree has a better chance of long term survival and
with repeated trimming and shaping,becoming a desirable
ATTACHMENT 8-88
component of his landscaping,than a newly planted tree.Overall,
this should reduce the cost to the view applicants.
E.The Commission also may order the applicant to replace trees or
shrubs which have been removed if the owner of the property where the
fQliage is located consents to the replacement of the tree or shrub and
the Commission finds:
1.That removal without replacement foliage will cause a significant
adverse impact on:
a.The gubik health,safety and welfare;
An example of this would be a situation where there is evidence before
the Commission that replacement foliage is needed to help stabilize a
slope or minimize slope erosion.
b.The privacy of the owneL 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 loss of privacy
Rrovided by pre-existing foliage is needed to heiR screen or block views
from the applicant's property into the foliage owner1 s usable yard area
(deck,patio.pool/spa area.barbecue area)and/or residence (unless
interior privacy ,-an b.e achieved by other means).
ATTACHMENT 8-89
c.Shade provided to the dwelling or the property where the foliage is
IOCql_~
An example of this would be a situation where there is evidence before
the Commission that replacement foliage is needed to help provide shC!.d.g
to an area of the foliage .owner's property,such as a usable yard area
(deck,patio,-p.ooljspa area.barbecue area)QJ.residence,that is receiving
.~ade from the foliage that is to be removed.
d.The energy:-effidency of the dwelling where the foliage is located:
An example of this would be a situation where there is evidence before
the Commission that r.wlacement foliage is needed to help cool an area
of the foliage owner's residence in the sumrn.~r months.that is being kept
cool by foliage that is to be removed.
e.The health Of.viability of the remaining landscaping where the foliage
is located:or
An example oJ this would be a situation where there is evidence before
the Commission that replacement folia,9.-~is needed to help provide shade
to existing sun-sensitive landscaping on the foliage owner's property,
that is receiving shade from the foliage that is to be removed.
f.The integrity of the landscaping of the property on which the foliage is
located.
ATTACHMENT 8-90
An example of this would be a situation where there is evidence before
the Commission that replacement foliage is needed to replace foliage that
is a focal point or integral 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 other similar structure on an adjacent
property.
An example of this would be a situation where there is evidence before
the Commission that replacement foliage is needed to replace foliage that
provides effective screen!og of uns!ghtjy feature(s)located on an adtacent
upslope property.Such features may include but are not limited to
unfinished walls,or the support elements underneath decks and
structures.
VI-E..The Commission shall order the applicant
to replace trees or shrubs which have been
removed if,within the three year period after final
approval of a View Restoration or View
Preservation Permit,the owner of the property
where the foliage is located so requests in writing
or in a public hearing ..
Remove the remainder of section VI-E..
Rationale:The three year period should be recognized here.The
remainder of section E should be removed.It is not necessaryJ or
ATTACHMENT 8-91
appropriate,for the guidelines to enumerate the many reasons for
which the foliage owner values his trees.There may be many
reasons in addition to those enumerated in the current guidelines.
If his trees die,or are irreparably disfigured,he should be entitled
to replacements.
VI-F.The Commission shall ensure that replacement foliage is
r~.as.9nably comparable to the foliage removepin terms of function
andlor aesthetics while understanding that the replacement foliage will
not be of the same sjze and breadth as the pre-existing mature foliage.
For example,if replacement foliage is determined to be necessary to
replace foliage located on a slope,the replacement foliage should be of a
woody'-root species variety that provides soil stability.The selection of
the type of replacement foliage shall be made by the foliage owner from
an approved list of foliage types provided by the Director .of Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement or approved by the City arborist.
VI-F..The Commission shall ensure that
replacement foliage is reasonably comparable to
the foliage removed in terms of function and/or
aesthetics,while understanding that the
replacement foliage will not be of the same size
and breadth as the pre-existing mature foliage.
Specifically precluded shall be foliage which
cannot be maintained at a level that does not
impair the applicants'view without disfiguring
the tree or other foliage..Within this constraint,
however,the replacement foliage shall be as fully
mature as is practicable ..The selection of the type
of replacement foliage shall be made by the
foliage owner from an approved list of foliage
ATTACHMENT 8-92
types provided by the Director of Planning,
BuHdingand Code Enforcement or approved by
the City arborist"The foliage owner shall have the
option of appealing to the planning commission
and/or the City Council,if the limitation to the
said list is not to his satisfaction..
Rationale:Valuable property is being taken from the foliage
owner in order to enhance his neighbors'view.While fully mature
trees orother foliage might not be practicable,the foliage owner
should not have to wait years,or decades,to have his
landscaping reasonably restored,as would be the case of a very
small 15 gal/on,or even 24 inch box sized plants.
VI-G.The Commission is not obligated to order replacement of every
tree or shrub ordered removed with a new tree or shrub.For example,
.t.W{LneW .[eplacement_.t.n~gsm_ay be able to provide the same level of
privacy as five pre-existing trees that are ordered removed.Replacement
trees or shrubs generally should be of a IS-gallon size.and should not
be larger than a 24-inch box size.unless warranted by the need to
reasonably protect privacy or exceptional circumstances and the tree or
shrub that is being replac~d is substantially larger than a 24-inch box
size.
VI-G"The Commission is not obligated to order
replacement of every tree or shrub ordered
removed with a new tree or shrub,provided
that the foliage owner assents..For example,
two new replacement trees may be able to
provide the same level of privacy and
ATTACHMENT 8-93
VI-H.The Commission may impose a long term
maintenance requirement on the foliage owner
by specifying that,upon a request from the view
applicant and/or monitoring by the view
restoration staff,the foliage owner will be
required to trim the foliage back to the height
established by the Commission,if it begins to
approach a level which might impair the
applicants'view..
This decision will be based on either a)
photographic evidence that the foliage has
significantly grown beyond the condition of
initial trimming,or b)the amount of allowable
growth as measured with respect to a fixed point
of reference is approaching a level that will
significantly encroach into the view..
For the foliage owners'benefit,the Commission
may suggest seasonal dormant periods of the
subject foliage,when trimming is least harmful
to the foliage ..
Rationale:The foliage owner should not be required to abide
by the commission's opinion of what would be an appropriate
trimming schedule,as long as he maintains the foliage at an
acceptable level.Each trimming of a tall tree involves a
considerable expense to the foliage owner,even if the amount of
trimming is negligible.
ATTACHMENT 8-94
In my own case,I have been asked by the VR Staff to top my
Eucalyptus tree by six inches,based upon a schedule
requirement.In another case,the growth on my tree was one of
the least significant view impairing features in the photo from the
applicants'viewing area,and even less significant than the
applicants'own foliage.
ATTACHMENT 8-95