PC RES 2020-012P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES,
CONDITIONALLY APPROVING VIEW RESTORATION
PERMIT PLVRP NO. 2020-0007 THEREBY REQUIRING
THE FOLIAGE OWNER TO REDUCE 2 BIRCH TREES
AND 1 CHINESE PISTACHE TREE TO THE HEIGHT
LEVEL OF THE FOLIAGE OWNER'S SINGLE STORY
RIDGELINE AT 3242 PARKHURST DRIVE, IN ORDER TO
RESTORE THE APPLICANT'S VIEW.
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2020, Mr. and Mrs. Goodman, owner and resident of 3255
Parkhurst Drive (herein the "Applicant"), filed an application requesting a View
Restoration Permit ("Permit") to restore a view that is significantly impaired by trees
owned by Thomas Gibbs (herein the "Foliage Owner") located at 3242 Parkhurst Drive.
WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission hearing was published in the
Palos Verdes Peninsula News on July 23, 2020, and the Public Notice was also mailed
to the Applicant and to the Foliage Owner.
WHEREAS, on August 25, 2020, the Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the request and tree trimming remedies to restore the view, at which
time, all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The recitals above are true and correct, and incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2: Property Ownership
(a) Applicant Mr. and Mrs. Goodman, own and reside at 3255 Parkhurst Drive.
(b) Foliage owner Mr. and Mrs. Gibbs own and reside at 3242 Parkhurst Drive.
Section 3: Views
Section 17.02.040(A)(14) of the RPVMC defines a far view as including the
ocean or offshore islands. A "view" which is protected by this section shall not
include distant mountain areas not normally visible.
(a) On the subject property at 3242 Parkhurst Drive there are: two (2) Birch trees
located in the front yard; one (1) Chinese Pistache in the front yard; and one (1)
P.C. Resolution No. 2020-12
Page 1 of 10
Liquid Amber tree located in the rear yard. The trees may be collectively referred
to as the subject trees.
(b) As defined by Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) Section
17.02.040(A)(14), Mr. and Mrs. Goodman at 3255 Parkhurst Drive have the
following views: Pacific Ocean and Catalina Island.
Section 4: Viewing Areas.
Section 17.02.040(A)(15) of the RPVMC defines viewing areas as 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. Section 17.02.040(B)(5) of the RPVMC states that
the City determines a viewing area based on 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. Per the View Restoration Guidelines Section III -13.2, the viewing
area may include multiple rooms or locations on the applicant's property if those
locations share the same view.
(a) Viewing area from 3255 Parkhurst Drive:
The property located at 3255 Parkhurst Drive, in the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes, is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Goodman, who reside there. As defined by
Section 17.02.040(B)(5) of the RPVMC, the viewing areas from 3255 Parkhurst
Drive are the dining room, the kitchen and the family room. The dining room is
the best and most important viewing area because the dining room view captures
the most expansive and panoramic view of the Pacific Ocean with Catalina
Island. Since the dining room is the best and most important view, for consistent
analysis of the subject trees' impairment, the findings relate to this viewing area.
Section 5: View Restoration Mandatory Findings.
The Commission makes the following findings, in accordance with Section
17.02.040(C)(2)(c) of the RPVMC:
(1) The Applicants have complied with the early neighbor consultation process and
have shown proof of cooperation on their part to resolve conflicts.
a) On June 11, 2018, the Applicant mailed a certified letter to the Foliage Owner
regarding their prior discussions about trimmed trees and their intent to seek
City help about the remaining view impairing trees.
b) On June 22, 2018, the Applicant submitted a Notice of Intent to File a View
Restoration Permit (case PLVR2018-0021) requesting that the City mediate
the issue with the Foliage Owner.
P.C. Resolution No. 2020-12
Page 2 of 10
c) On June 22, 2018, in response to the Applicant's request, the City mailed a
pre -application mediation meeting invitation to the Foliage Owner and the
Foliage owner subsequently accepted the City's invitation.
d) On August 9, 2018, the City's View Restoration Mediator and City staff met
with the Foliage owner to discuss the matter. City staff met with the Applicant
on the same day to seek a resolution.
e) Following the August 9, 2018 meeting with the City's mediator, the Applicant
and the Foliage owner had continuing discussions about trimming the trees.
Ultimately, the Applicant and the Foliage owner did not reach a formal
agreement, but the Foliage owner offered to trim the view impairing trees to
improve, but not restore, the Applicant's view.
f) In early 2019, the Foliage Owner trimmed the front yard Birch trees and the
rear yard Liquid Amber tree to lower height levels, but the trees continued to
impair the view. The Applicant expressed to staff that they were satisfied with
the trimming work and the case PLVR2018-0021 was administratively closed.
g) Beginning in January 2020, the Applicant corresponded with the Foliage
Owner to discuss the regrowth of foliage on the property and the Foliage
Owner provided a response that the trees were scheduled to be trimmed.
h) In February 2020, the Foliage Owner had the trees trimmed, but the
Applicant was not satisfied with the Birch tree trimming because the Birch
trees continued to impair the Catalina Island view and the rear yard Liquid
Amber had not been trimmed down to a lower height level. The Applicant
continued to correspond with the Foliage Owner requesting additional
trimming work.
i) On June 1, 2020, the Applicant submitted a new View Restoration pre -
application (case PLVR2020-0007) requesting another mediation attempt
with the Foliage Owner.
j) On June 4, 2020, in response to the Applicant's request, the City mailed a
pre -application mediation meeting invitation to the Foliage Owner and the
Foliage Owner subsequently accepted the City's invitation.
k) On July 9, 2020, the Foliage Owner attended a mediation session with City
staff and the View Restoration Mediator. The Foliage Owner was agreeable
to doing additional trimming, but an impasse in mediation occurred because
of the worry that the Birch trees would die as a result of trimming the trees to
the roofline height, as it was requested by the Applicant.
1) On July 29, 2020, the Applicant filed a formal View Restoration Permit
application since no agreement was reached.
As such, the finding can be made that the Applicant has complied with the
early neighbor consultation process and have shown proof of cooperation on
their part to resolve conflicts.
(2) Foliage exceeding sixteen (16) feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure,
whichever is lower, significantly impairs a view from the applicant's viewing area,
whether such foliage is located totally on one property, or when combined with foliage
located on more than one property.
P.C. Resolution No. 2020-12
Page 3 of 10
The two Birch trees in the front yard and the Chinese Pistache tree in the front
yard, exceed 16 feet in height or exceed the ridgeline of the subject property's
residence. The View Restoration Guidelines state that foliage, which is located
within the center of the view frame and/or impairs "prominent landmarks of
significant features" of a view, and/or entirely obstructs one of the components of
a multi-component view, should be considered a significant impairment. From the
Goodman viewing area, which is the interior of the dining room, all the subject
trees impair the view, to varying degrees, of the ocean and Catalina Island view,
which is a prominent landmark feature and center to the view. The central
location of the foliage and the impairment against the prominent landmark feature
(Catalina Island) warrant the determination that the subject trees cause a
significant view impairment.
The Planning Commission also considered whether the Liquid Amber tree
located in the read yard constitutes foliage, which is located within the center of
the view frame and/or impairs "prominent landmarks of significant features" of a
view, and/or entirely obstructs one of the components of a multi-component view,
should be considered a significant impairment. The Commission could not make
the finding that this tree significantly impairs the Goodmans' view because the
major interference with the view at that location is a City -owned Pine tree.
Trimming or removal of the Liquid Amber tree would not, without similar
treatment of the Pine tree, result in any appreciable improvement to the
Goodmans' view. The Planning Commission cannot therefore make the finding at
this time that this tree significantly impairs the view.
As such, the Planning Commission finds that the foliage from the Chinese
Pistache tree and the two Birch trees, exceeding the ridgeline of the primary
structure, significantly impairs the view from the Applicant's viewing areas.
(3) The foliage to be removed is located on property, any part of which is less than
one thousand (1,000) feet from the applicant's property.
In accordance with the City's View Restoration Guidelines Section V -C, the
foliage that is to be removed is located less than 1,000 feet from the Applicant's
property. The front property line of the Applicant's property is 44 feet from the
front yard property line located on the Foliage Owner's property.
As such, the Planning Commission finds that the foliage to be removed is located
on property less than 1,000 feet from the Applicant's property
(4) The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist, as view impairing
vegetation, when the lot from which the view is taken was created.
The Applicant's lot (Lot No. 11) and the Foliage Owner's lot (Lot No. 3) within
Tract No. 20690 became legal lots in August 1958. With the exception of trees
P.C. Resolution No. 2020-12
Page 4 of 10
lining Crest Road, the then newly created subdivision tract, including the Foliage
Owners lot, was absent of trees (see attached aerial photo dated 6/22/1959). The
tract housing subdivision consulting engineer, Donald R. Warren Co., produced a
report associated with the grading of the tract lots, which include the Applicant's
and the Foliage Owner's properties. The engineer's Final Report on Compaction
dated April 7, 1960 indicates that the Foliage Owner's lot was "stripped of
vegetation" as part of part of a mass excavation and compacted fill operation
(see attached). Indeed, after grading operations were completed, a subsequent
aerial photo was taken of the site showing that no trees or vegetation existed on
the Foliage Owner's lot (see attached aerial photo taken on January 9, 1962).
Therefore, the subject trees on the Foliage Owner's property could not have
impaired the Applicant's view when the Applicant's lot was created.
As such, the Planning Commission finds that the subject trees did not exist, as
view impairing vegetation, when the Applicant's lot was created.
(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.
Trimming the foliage will not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy
of the occupants of the subject property because the portion of the trees' canopy
subject to trimming does not function as effective privacy screening from
surrounding properties. The subject foliage, after view restoration trimming, will
not further expose the indoor or outdoor areas of the Foliage Owner's property.
As such, the Planning Commission finds that removal or trimming of the foliage
will not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of
the subject property.
(6) For property located within the boundaries of the Miraleste Recreation & Park
district, the Committee shall also find that removal or trimming of the foliage strikes a
reasonable balance between meeting the purposes of section 17.02.040 set forth in
Section 1 of the Ordinance approved by the voters on November 7, 1989, and
preserving the historical development of the Miraleste Recreation & Park District area
with large numbers of trees.
Neither the Applicant's nor the Foliage Owner's properties are located within the
Miraleste Recreation and Park District. As such, this finding is moot.
Section 6: Based on all documentary and oral evidence presented, including the
staff report and its attachments, comments from the public, and testimony provided at
the public hearings, the Planning Commission hereby orders the trimming or removal of
trees at 3242 Parkhurst Drive in order to restore the view for the property located at
3255 Parkhurst Drive, as provided in, and subject to, the conditions outlined in the
attached Exhibit "A".
P.C. Resolution No. 2020-12
Page 5 of 10
Section 7: Pursuant to Section 15700 of the California Environmental Quality
Act, the proposed project is categorically exempt under Class IV of that section because
the work required to restore the Applicant's view do not include the removal of scenic
and mature trees as those mature tree groupings defined and identified by the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan (Visual Aspects).
Section 8. Any interested person aggrieved of this decision or by any portion of
this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 17.02.040 (2)(g) of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in
writing and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following the
date of the Planning Commission's final action.
Section 9. Any challenge to this Resolution and the findings set forth therein,
must be filed within the 90 day statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure
§1094.6 and Section 17.86.100(B) of the RPVMC.
Section 10. For the foregoing reasons and based on information and findings
contained in the staff reports, minutes, and records of the proceedings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves View Restoration Permit PLVRP No. 2020-0007 subject
to the Conditions of Approval contained in the attached Exhibit "A", which are necessary
to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on the 25th day of August 2020.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS CHURA, JAMES, SAADATNEJADI, SANTAROSA, VICE-
CHAIRMAN PERESTAM, AND CHAIRMAN LEON
NOES: COMMISSIONER HAMILL
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
RECUSALS:
Gordon Leon
Chairman
Ken Rukavina, PE
Community Development Director
P.C. Resolution No. 2020-12
Page 6 of 10
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT PLVRP NO. 2020-0007
1. The Applicant shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read,
understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution.
Failure to provide the written statement within ninety (90) days following the date
of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City,
and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of
mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside,
void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for
or concerning the project.
3. This approval shall require the Foliage Owner at 3242 Parkhurst Drive (the
subject property) to perform only one of the following:
a. The Birch Tree, labeled "A" on the site map, shall be reduced to the
Foliage Owner's ridgeline height level at 3242 Parkhurst Drive. The
initial tree trimming shall be performed at the Applicant's expense
beginning November 1, 2020, but no later than January 31, 2021.
In the event that the tree dies within two years of the initial trimming
event, then the Applicant's shall bear the expense of removing the
dead tree and replacing the dead or dying tree with one 24 -inch box
size tree. The costs to perform tree removal, remedial stump work, and
the installation of replacement tree shall be borne by the Applicant.
1679
b. Voluntarily remove the Birch tree, labeled "A" on the site map, by
grinding the stump to or below adjacent grade, whichever is technically
feasible. If stump grinding is not technically feasible, as determined by
a qualified landscape contractor, then the tree trunk shall be cut flush
to or close to the grade adjacent to the tree trunk. In no case shall the
tree's root system be removed. Removal, stump grinding or flush
cutting shall be performed at the Applicant's expense. If requested by
P.C. Resolution No. 2020-12
Page 7 of 10
the Foliage Owner, the Applicant shall bear the expense replacing the
removed tree with one 24 -inch box size tree. The costs to perform tree
removal, remedial stump work, and the installation of replacement tree
shall be borne by the Applicant.
4. This approval shall require the Foliage Owner at 3242 Parkhurst Drive to perform
only one of the following options:
a. The Birch tree, labeled B on the site map, shall be reduced to the
Foliage Owner's ridgeline height level at 3242 Parkhurst Drive. The
initial tree trimming shall be performed at the Applicant's expense
beginning November 1, 2020, but no later than January 31, 2021.
The City's Arborist has determined that the tree is expected to to die in
the next two years due to pre-existing decay conditions. In the event
that the tree dies after the initial, then the Applicant's shall not bear any
of the expenses of removing or replacing the dead tree. The costs to
remove the tree shall be shall be borne by the Foliage Owner.
Or
b. Voluntarily remove the Birch tree, labeled "B" on the site map, by
grinding the stump to or below adjacent grade, whichever is technically
feasible. If stump grinding is not technically feasible, as determined by
a qualified landscape contractor, then the tree trunk shall be cut flush
to or close to the grade adjacent to the tree trunk. In no case shall the
tree's root system be removed. Removal, stump grinding or flush
cutting shall be performed at the Applicant's expense. If requested by
the Foliage Owner, the Applicant shall bear the expense replacing the
removed tree with one 24 -inch box size tree. The costs to perform tree
removal, remedial stump work, and the installation of replacement tree
shall be borne by the Applicant.
5. The Planning Commission recommends that the Public Works department
consider trimming or removing the Pine tree in all due haste. The rear yard Liquid
Amber tree will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 27, 2020,
or as soon thereafter as practicable, to consider an amendment to these
Conditions of Approval. Specifically, the Commission will consider whether the
Liquid Amber tree meets the criteria of the permit findings in light of Public
Works' decision on whether to trim or remove the Pine tree, and if so, will
consider amending the Conditions of Approval that prescribe view restoration
trimming for the Liquid Amber tree. Pursuant to Section 17.78.040(B) of the
RPVMC, the review of the Liquid Amber tree requires the same hearing and
noticing procedures, review criteria, and appeal procedures.
P.C. Resolution No. 2020-12
Page 8 of 10
6. This approval shall require the Foliage Owner at 3242 Parkhurst Drive to crown
reduce the Chinese Pistache tree labeled "D" on the site map to the Foliage
Owner's ridgeline height level at 3242 Parkhurst Drive beginning November 1,
2020, but no later than January 31, 2021. Tree trimming shall be performed at
the Applicant's expense.
In the event that the tree dies within two years of the initial trimming event, then
the Applicant shall bear the expense of removing the dead tree and replacing the
dead or dying tree with one 24 -inch box size tree. The costs to perform tree
removal, remedial stump work, and the installation of the replacement tree shall
be borne by the Applicant. If requested by the Foliage Owner, the Applicant shall
bear the expense replacing the removed tree with one 24 -inch box size tree. The
costs to perform tree removal, remedial stump work, and the installation of
replacement tree shall be borne by the Applicant.
7. Upon completion of either trimming or removal described in Condition of
Approval Nos. 3, 4, & 6 above, but no more than one week after completion, if
additional foliage on the subject property is found by City staff to be impairing the
view protected by this permit, then the additional foliage shall be trimmed to a
height that does not exceed the Foliage Owner's ridgeline height level, and the
Applicant shall be responsible for the cost of the additional trimming.
8. The Applicant shall present to the City, at least one itemized estimate to carry out
the aforementioned work. Such estimate shall be supplied by a licensed
landscape contractor or by a licensed, bonded, and insured tree service
contractor, acceptable to the City, and shall include all costs of cleanup and
removal of debris, and the cost to have an International Society of Arboriculture
(ISA) certified tree trimmer or accredited arborist on site to perform or supervise
the work being done. In addition, the Applicants shall pay to the City an amount
equal to the City accepted estimate and such funds shall be maintained in a City
trust account until completion of work as verified by City staff.
9. The Foliage Owner shall select a contractor from the estimate(s) provided by the
Applicants, or shall use a state licensed firm (landscape contractor or tree service
contractor) of their choice, subject to approval by the City. However, the Foliage
Owner shall only be reimbursed for the amount of the lowest bid submitted by the
Applicants. If the Foliage Owner chooses to do the required work using his own
equipment, then the Foliage Owners shall not be compensated from the trust
account and the amount in the trust account shall be refunded to the Applicants.
10. The Foliage Owner shall, within a 90 -day period stipulated by staff, complete the
trim/removal work to the extent required by this Permit. If the Foliage Owner does
not timely complete the required work within the stipulated 90 day time period,
then the City will seek a court order that authorizes a bonded, insured tree
service to perform the work at the subject property and at the Foliage Owner's
expense. In the event that the City is required to perform the work at the Foliage
P.C. Resolution No. 2020-12
Page 9 of 10
Owner's expense, the City shall reimburse the Applicant from the City trust
account.
11. Upon completion of the work, the Foliage Owner shall notify the City and if the
Foliage Owner hired a contractor, the Foliage Owner is to submit a copy of a paid
contractor invoice showing that the work was performed. Upon submittal of the
invoice and verification by City staff of compliance, the City shall transmit the
funds from the City trust account to the Foliage Owner no later than
30 days. 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 shall be refunded back to the Applicant (within
30 days of receipt of the appropriate billing), if that account contains a surplus
balance. If the paid invoice submitted by the Foliage Owner is for an amount that
exceeds the funds in the City's trust account, the Foliage Owner shall only
receive the funds from the City trust account and the Foliage Owner shall be
responsible for paying the difference.
12. If the required work as specified herein is not completed within the stipulated time
periods described above, 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 Permit and a lien or assessment may be
recorded against the Foliage Owner's property if the invoice is not paid.
13. Failure to comply with and adhere to the tree trimming conditions of approval,
namely Condition Nos. 3, 4, & 6, may be cause for the City to issue
administrative citations as described in Section 1.16 of the City's Municipal Code.
14. Foliage maintenance shall be subject to the maintenance provisions of the City's
View Preservation Guidelines, Section VIII -A, where subsequent to the
completed trimming and/or removal of the foliage, the restored view from the
Applicant's viewing areas will be documented by staff. The photographic
documentation shall be kept on file at the Community Development Department
and used as a benchmark by City staff for making a determination of whether
view preservation enforcement is necessary. Should future view preservation
enforcement be necessary, as determined by staff, then the foliage shall be
trimmed, at the Foliage Owner's expense. If other foliage, which exceeds 16 feet
in height and/or exceeds the Foliage Owner's ridgeline height, not subject to this
View Restoration Permit should grow on the Foliage Owner's property and impair
the documented views, said new foliage shall be considered significant view
impairing foliage and shall be trimmed by the Foliage Owner to match the views
shown on the documented photograph(s).
P.C. Resolution No. 2020-12
Page 10 of 10