Loading...
PC RES 2020-017 P.C. Resolution No. 2020-17 Page 1 of 13 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING CONDITION NOS. 3, 4, 5, & 6 OF P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-12 CONDITIONALLY APPROVING VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT PLVR NO. 2020-0007 THEREBY REQUIRING THE FOLIAGE OWNER TO REDUCE TWO BIRCH TREES, ONE CHINESE PISTACHE TREE, AND ONE LIQUID AMBER 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 AND TO MODIFY CONDITION NOS. 7 & 13 TO MAKE REFERENCE TO THE LIQUID AMBER TREE AS PART OF CONDITIONS THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO FOLIAGE GROWTH AND ENFORCEMENT (CASE PLVR NO. 2020-0007) 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; and, 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; and, 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; and, 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; and, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2020-12, conditionally approving a View Restoration Permit (Case No. PLVR No. 2020-0007), requiring the Foliage Owner at 3242 Parkhurst Drive to crown reduce two Birch trees and one Chinese Pistache tree to the Foliage Owner’s roofline height level by January 31, 2021, and for the Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the associated Conditions of Approval on October 27, 2020, or as soon thereafter as practicable, to consider whether one Liquid Amber tree meets the criteria of the permit findings after the City makes a decision to trim or remove a City Pine tree adjacent to the Liquid Amber tree; and, P.C. Resolution No. 2020-17 Page 2 of 13 WHEREAS, on September 17, 2020, the City’s Community Development Department transmitted a memorandum to the City’s Public Works Department recommending the removal of one City-owned Pine tree within the public right-of-way of Crest Road, adjacent to and behind 3234 Parkhurst Drive, as the tree is creating a significant view impairment from 3255 Parkhurst Drive (Case No. CTRP2020-0022); and, WHEREAS, on September 25, 2020, a timely appeal of the Community Development Department’s recommendation to remove the City Pine tree was filed by Mrs. Lili Gu, the property owner at 3234 Parkhurst Drive, requesting that the City Council deny the City Pine tree removal recommendation; and, WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission hearing to consider amending P.C. Resolution No. 2020-12 on October 27, 2020 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; and, WHEREAS, on October 27, 2020, the Planning Commission continued the P.C. Resolution amendment matter, without discussion, to November 10, 2020 to allow the City Council time to hear and render a decision of an appeal to remove a City-owned Pine tree, adjacent to the subject Liquid Amber tree located on the tree owner’s property, 3242 Parkhurst Drive; and, WHEREAS, on November 4, 2020, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, and adopted C.C. Resolution No. 2020-61, denying the appeal, therefore requiring the City to remove a City owned Pine tree; and, 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. P.C. Resolution No. 2020-17 Page 3 of 13 (a) On the subject property at 3242 Parkhurst Drive there are: two Birch trees located in the front yard; one Chinese Pistache in the front yard; and one 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-B.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 Planning Commission finds that the amendments to the original Planning Commission-adopted Conditions of Approval for PLVR No. 2020-0007 are warranted because 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. P.C. Resolution No. 2020-17 Page 4 of 13 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. 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. l) On July 29, 2020, the Applicant filed a formal View Restoration Permit application since no agreement was reached. The proposed revisions will not change the Early Neighbor Consultation finding, which the Planning Commission made for P.C. Resolution No. 2020- 12. Therefore, the Commission’s ability to make the finding, that the Applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process and have shown proof of cooperation on their part to resolve conflicts, remains unchanged. P.C. Resolution No. 2020-17 Page 5 of 13 (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. The two Birch trees, the Chinese Pistache tree and the Liquid Amber tree 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, 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 Commission further finds that trimming or removal of the Liquid Amber tree, which significantly impairs the Goodmans’ view because the tree is assessed in combination with other foliage on the subject property and off the subject property and because the Liquid Amber tree is within the center of the view frame, would result in an appreciable improvement to the Goodmans’ view. As such, the Planning Commission finds that the foliage from the Liquid Amber tree, 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. The foliage on the Liquid Amber tree, the Chinese Pistache and the two Birch trees that is to be removed are located within 1,000 feet of the Applicant’s property. Therefore, the Commission’s ability to make the finding, the foliage that is to be removed is located less than 1,000 feet from the Applicant’s property, remains unchanged. P.C. Resolution No. 2020-17 Page 6 of 13 (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 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. The Liquid Amber tree, part of the subject foliage, did not exist on the subject property when the Applicant’s lot was created and therefore did not impair the Applicant’s view based on the preceding discussion. Therefore, the Commission’s ability to make the finding, that the subject trees did not exist, as view impairing vegetation, when the Applicant’s lot was created, remains unchanged. (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 subject foliage, which includes the Liquid Amber tree, 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 on the Liquid Amber tree, Chinese Pistache tree and the two Birch trees 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. P.C. Resolution No. 2020-17 Page 7 of 13 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”. 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 PLVR 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 10th day of November 2020. AYES: COMMISSIONERS CHURA, JAMES, SAADATNEJADI, SANTAROSA, VICE- CHAIRMAN PERESTAM, AND CHAIRMAN LEON NOES: COMMISSIONER HAMILL ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: RECUSALS: P.C. Resolution No. 2020-17 Page 8 of 13 __________________ Gordon Leon Chairman _____________________ Ken Rukavina, PE Community Development Director P.C. Resolution No. 2020-17 Page 9 of 13 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 within 90 days of the Foliage Owner receiving notification from City Staff: 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. Or 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2020-17 Page 10 of 13 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. AMENDED PER P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-__ 4. This approval shall require the Foliage Owner at 3242 Parkhurst Drive to perform only one of the following options within 90 days of the Foliage Owner receiving notification from City Staff: 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 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. AMENDED PER P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-__ 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2020-17 Page 11 of 13 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. This approval shall require the Foliage Owner at 3242 Parkhurst Drive to perform only one of the following options within 90 days of the Foliage Owner receiving notification from City Staff: a. The Liquid Amber tree, labeled “C” 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. In the event that the tree dies within two years of the initial trimming event or two years after the last 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. Or b. Voluntarily remove the Liquid Amber tree 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. AMENDED PER P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-__ 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 within 90 days of the Foliage Owner receiving notification from City Staff 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2020-17 Page 12 of 13 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. AMENDED PER P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-__ 7. Upon completion of either trimming or removal described in Condition of Approval Nos. 3, 4, 5, & 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. AMENDED PER P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-__ 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 Applicant 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 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2020-17 Page 13 of 13 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, 5 & 6, may be cause for the City to issue administrative citations as described in Section 1.16 of the City’s Municipal Code. AMENDED PER P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-__ 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).