Loading...
PC RES 2020-019 P.C. Resolution No. 2020-19 Page 1 of 12 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT PLVR NO. 2019-0017, REQUIRING THE FOLIAGE OWNER TO CROWN REDUCE, WITH THE OPTION TO REMOVE AND REPLACE, FOUR MONTEREY PINE TREES, AND TO CROWN REDUCE BOUGAINVILLEA TREES, PITTOSPORUM TREES, BOTTLEBRUSH TREES AND BRAZILIAN PEPPER TREES AT 30739 VIA LA CRESTA, IN ORDER TO RESTORE THE APPLICANTS’ VIEWS WHEREAS, on October 19, 2020, Bob Daly, owner and resident of 6844 Vallon Drive, Abbas Saadat, owner and resident at 6854 Vallon Drive, and Chris Klodnicki, owner and resident at 6862 Vallon Drive, (collectively, the “Applicants”), filed an application requesting a View Restoration Permit (“Permit”) to restore a view that is significantly impaired by trees owned by Asghar Ghassemy (“Foliage Owner”) located at 30739 Via La Cresta. WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission hearing was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on November 5, 2020, and the Public Notice was also mailed to the Applicants and to the Foliage Owner. WHEREAS, on December 8, 2020, the Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request and crown reduction 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. Bob Daly, owns and resides at 6844 Vallon Drive. (b) Applicant Mr. Abbas Saadat, owns and resides at 6854 Vallon Drive. (c) Applicant Mr. Chris Klodnicki, owns and resides at 6862 Vallon Drive. P.C. Resolution No. 2020-19 Page 2 of 12 (d) Foliage owner Mr. Asghar Ghassemy, owns and resides at 30739 Via La Cresta. Section 3: Views Section 17.02.040(A)(14) of the RPVMC defines a far view as including the ocean or offshore islands. (a) On the subject property at 30739 Via La Cresta there are four Monterey Pine trees located on the rear yard slope. On the upper rear slope, next to the rear yard property line, there are Bougainvillea hedges and a grouping of Pittosporum, Bottlebrush and Brazilian Pepper trees. 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), the Applicants have the following views: Pacific Ocean and Catalina Island, which are significantly impaired by the subject trees. 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 an applicant’s property if those locations share the same view. (a) Viewing area from 6844 Vallon Drive (Daly): The Daly residence at 6844 Vallon Drive has multiple locations that share the same view: the kitchen, the dining room, and the living room. Staff determined that the kitchen area offers the best and most important viewing area because from the kitchen sliding glass door the Pacific Ocean and Catalina Island views are most expansive. Since the kitchen offers the best and most important view, for consistent analysis of the subject trees’ impairment, the findings relate to this viewing area. Note, the lower den is not a viewing area because it not located on the same story or living level as the viewing areas of the kitchen, dining room, and living room. (b) Viewing area from 6854 Vallon Drive (Saadat) P.C. Resolution No. 2020-19 Page 3 of 12 The Saadat residence at 6854 Vallon Drive contains multiple locations that share the same view: the dining room, the kitchen, the living room, and the office. Staff determined that the living room offers the best and most important viewing area because the central location of the living room captures the most expansive view of the Pacific Ocean and Catalina Island. Since the living room offers the best and most important view, for consistent analysis of the subject trees’ impairment, the findings relate to this viewing area. Note, the viewing area is not the master bedroom located on the second story of the house because the view is taken from one of the rooms comprising the primary living area (living room, dining room, family room or kitchen) and the master bedroom is not located on the same story of the house as the primary living areas (View Restoration Guidelines III-B.3.b). (c) Viewing area from 6862 Vallon Drive (Klodnicki) The Klodnicki residence at 6862 Vallon Drive contains multiple rooms that have the same views: the master bedroom, the living room, and the kitchen. Staff determined that the living room offers the best and most important viewing area because the central location of the living room window captures the most expansive view of the Pacific Ocean and Catalina Island. Since the living room offers the best and most important view, for consistent analysis of the subject trees’ impairment, the findings relate to this viewing area from this property. 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) Between May 27, 2019, and August 11, 2019, Applicant Abbas Saadat exchanged texts and emails with the Foliage Owner concerning an arborist quote to trim trees blocking views. Mr. Saadat wrote that the Foliage Owner stopped responding to contact efforts by November 12, 2019. b) On October 27, 2019, Applicant Chris Klodnicki emailed the Foliage Owner concerning Applicants obtaining an arborist quote to trim trees. Mr. Klodnicki wrote that the Foliage Owner stopped responding to contact efforts by November 12, 2019. c) On November 12, 2019, the Applicants each mailed certified letters to the Foliage Owner regarding their prior discussions to trim trees that block the ocean and Catalina Island. The Applicants indicate that no response was received. P.C. Resolution No. 2020-19 Page 4 of 12 d) On November 25, 2019, the Applicants submitted a Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Permit (case PLVR2019-0017) requesting that the City mediate the issue with the Foliage Owner. e) On November 25, 2019, in response to the Applicants’ request, the City mailed a pre-application mediation meeting invitation to the Foliage Owner and the Foliage owner subsequently accepted the City’s invitation for separate mediation. f) On January 24, 2020, the City’s view restoration mediator and City staff met with the Applicants onsite to discuss the matter. g) On January 29, 2020, the City’s view restoration mediator and City staff met with the Foliage owner onsite to discuss the matter. h) Following the January 29, 2020 meeting, the Applicants and the Foliage Owner had continuing discussions through the mediator, but they were not able to reach a private agreement for trimming. i) On October 19, 2020, the Applicants filed a formal View Restoration application since no agreement was reached. As such, the Planning Commission finds that the Applicants have 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. The four Monterey Pine trees in the rear yard exceed 16 feet in height and exceed the ridgeline of the Foliage Owner’s residence. The Bougainvillea, Pittosporum, Bottlebrush, and Brazilian Pepper trees exceed the ridgeline of the Foliage Owner’s residence. Section V-B.6 of the View Restoration Guidelines and Procedures clarifies that a significant impairment is likely to exist when the foliage is located within the center of the view frame and/or impairs “prominent landmarks” of a view, and/or entirely obstructs one of the components of a multi- component view. From the kitchen viewing area at 6844 Vallon Drive (Daly), the Monterey Pine trees labeled “A” and “B” on Attachment No. 3 exceed the Foliage Owner’s ridgeline and are located within the center of the view frame and impair the view of Catalina Island, which is a prominent landmark. Therefore, Monterey Pine trees “A” and “B” on Attachment No. 3 cause a significant view impairment from the viewing area at 6844 Vallon Drive. From the living room viewing area at 6854 Vallon Drive (Saadat), the Monterey Pine trees labeled “A”, “B”, “C”, & “D” on Attachment No. 3 and the Bougainvillea, Pittosporum, Bottlebrush and Brazilian Pepper trees, exceed the Foliage Owner’s P.C. Resolution No. 2020-19 Page 5 of 12 ridgeline and are located within the center of the view frame. Furthermore, the Monterey Pine trees labeled “C” and “D” on Attachment No. 3 and the Bougainvillea, Pittosporum, Bottlebrush and the Brazilian Pepper trees impair the view of Catalina Island, which is a prominent landmark. Therefore, Monterey Pine trees “A”, “B”, “C”, & “D” on Attachment No. 3 and the Bougainvillea, Pittosporum, Bottlebrush and Brazilian Pepper trees cause a significant view impairment from the viewing area at 6854 Vallon Drive. From the living room viewing area at 6882 Vallon Drive (Klodnicki), the Monterey Pine trees labeled “C” and “D” on attachment No. 3 and the Pittosporum, Bottlebrush and the Brazilian Pepper trees exceed the Foliage Owner’s ridgeline and impair the view of the ocean view. These trees are located left, center of the view frame and are causing a significant view impairment of the ocean. The Monterey Pine trees labeled “A” and “B” on attachment No. 3 are visible, but they do not impair a protected view. In sum, the subject trees cause a significant view impairment because the trees are found to be located within a center location of a view frame (Saadat view) and/or impairing a prominent landmark (Catalina Island) from the Saadat and Daly viewing area, as described above. As such, the Planning Commission finds that the subject foliage exceeding sixteen (16) feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower, significantly impairs a view from the Applicants’ viewing areas, whether such foliage is located totally on one property, or when combined with foliage located on more than one property. (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 Applicants’ properties. The property at 6854 Vallon Drive shares the rear property with the Foliage Owner. The properties at 6844 and 6862 Vallon Drive meet the property line at the rear corners with the Foliage Owner. 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 Applicants’ lots (Lots No. 82, 83, and 84) and the Foliage Owner’s lot (Lot No. 98) within Tract No. 28083 became legal lots on June 16, 1967. Prior to the creation of the subdivision tract and the lots, no trees were located on the P.C. Resolution No. 2020-19 Page 6 of 12 Foliage Owner’s lot as evidenced in the aerial photo taken on July 30, 1965. Furthermore, the tract housing subdivision consulting engineer, Herbret C. Nikola, produced a report associated with the grading of the tract lots, which include the Applicants’ and the Foliage Owner’s properties. The engineer’s Final Report on Compaction dated October 18, 1967, states that prior to placing the compacted fill, the topsoil was excavated into bedrock and a suitable toe bench established for all side hill fills. As a result, the surface was “stripped of vegetation” as part of a mass excavation and compacted fill operation. Indeed, after grading operations were completed and the housing subdivision was constructed, a subsequent aerial photograph was taken of the site showing that no trees or vegetation existed on the Foliage Owner’s lot in August 1969. As such, the Planning Commission finds that the subject trees did not exist, as viewing impairing vegetation, when the Applicants’ lots were 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. The Foliage Owner’s rear outdoor gathering area is not visible from the Applicants’ properties. However, from the Applicants’ properties, the Foliage Owner’s rear façade windows are visible if an effort was made to observe the rear façade windows. The Saadat residence at 6854 Vallon Drive is set back far enough to prohibit observation into the Foliage Owner’s rear outdoor gathering area because there is a 2-foot solid rear wall and Bougainvillea hedge that provides privacy screening from the viewing area. Should the Bougainvillea be crown reduced to restore the view, there could be some exposure of the Foliage Owner’s outdoor rear yard if one were to make a determined observation from the rear property line at 6854 Vallon Drive (Saadat). However, given that the Foliage Owner’s rear yard slope contains non-view impairing foliage that serves to partially screen the outdoor rear yard area, trimming or removal of any of the subject foliage will not diminish outdoor privacy. From the second story at 6854 Vallon Drive (Saadat), the Foliage Owner’s second floor rear window is currently exposed. Crown reducing the Bougainvillea and the other subject trees, may further expose the rear ground floor windows. However, there is no unreasonable infringement on indoor privacy because the Foliage Owner has curtains and blinds in the rear windows that screen the interior areas of the first and second story rooms, which are already observable from the Applicants’ properties. Indeed, the City’s View Restoration Guidelines state that the Commission consider placing greater weight to the protection of outdoor privacy than indoor privacy, which can be screened by curtains and blinds whereas outdoor areas of the property cannot be easily screened (View Restoration Guidelines Section V- E.2). The Foliage Owner’s rear yard is not visible from the properties at 6844 and 6862 Vallon Drive because of the non-view impairing foliage on the Foliage Owner’s rear yard slope and the steep elevation difference, which is approximately 35 feet below the Applicants’ building pad elevations. P.C. Resolution No. 2020-19 Page 7 of 12 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 crown reduction or voluntary removal of four Monterey Pine Trees and the crown reduction of Bougainvilleas, Pittosporum, Bottlebrush and Brazilian Pepper trees at 30739 Via La Cresta in order to restore the view for the properties located at 6844, 6854 and 6862 Vallon Drive, as provided in, and subject to, the conditions outlined in the attached Exhibit “A”. Section 7: Pursuant to Section 15304 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 Applicants’ 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. 2019-0017 subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in the attached Exhibit “A”, which are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. P.C. Resolution No. 2020-19 Page 8 of 12 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 8th day of December 2020 by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS JAMES, SANTAROSA, VICE-CHAIRMAN PERESTAM, AND CHAIRMAN LEON NOES: NONE ABSTENTIONS: NONE RECUSALS: COMMISSIONERS CHURA, HAMILL, SAADATNEJADI ABSENT: NONE __________________________ Gordon Leon Chairman of the Planning Commission Ken Rukavina, P.E. Director of Community Development Secretary of the Planning Commission P.C. Resolution No. 2020-19 Page 9 of 12 EXHIBIT “A” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT PLVR NO. 2019-0017 1. The Applicants 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 Applicants 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 30739 Via La Cresta (the subject property) to perform only one of the following: a. Voluntarily remove the four (4) Monterey Pine trees in the rear yard at 30739 Via La Cresta labeled “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” on Attachment No. 4. 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. Flush cutting shall be performed at the Applicants’ expense. The Applicants shall bear the expense replacing each removed tree with one 24-inch box size tree. The costs to perform tree removal, flush cutting, and the installation of replacement tree shall be borne by the Applicants. OR b. Crown reduce the four (4) Monterey Pine trees in the rear yard at 30739 Via La Cresta labeled “A”, “B”, “C”, & “D” on Attachment No. 4, to the 2-foot solid rear wall (at 6854 Vallon Drive (Saadat). The City’s Arborist has determined that the trees are expected to die after crown reduction. After the trees die, then the Applicants’ shall not P.C. Resolution No. 2020-19 Page 10 of 12 bear any of the expense of removing or replacing the dead trees. The cost to remove dead trees shall be borne by the Foliage Owner. 4. This approval shall require the Foliage Owner at 30739 Via La Cresta to perform the following option: Crown reduce the Bougainvillea, Pittosporum, Bottlebrush and Brazilian Pepper trees in the rear yard at 30739 Via La Cresta to the 2- foot solid rear wall at 6854 Vallon Drive (Saadat). In the event that the Bougainvillea, Pittosporum, Bottlebrush and Brazilian Pepper trees die within two years of the initial trimming event, then the Applicants’ shall bear the expense of removing the dead trees and replacing the dead or dying trees with one 24-inch box size tree. The costs to perform tree removal, flush cutting, and the installation of replacement tree shall be borne by the Applicants. 5. Upon completion of either crown reduction or removal described in Condition of Approval No. 3 and crown reduction described in Condition of Approval No. 4 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 crown reduced to a height that eliminates the significant view impairment, and the Applicants shall be responsible for the cost of the additional trimming. 6. The Applicants 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 removal and/or crown reduction work to the extent required by this Permit. Said P.C. Resolution No. 2020-19 Page 11 of 12 90-day deadline may be extended by the Community Development Director should the City-approved tree contractor contact the City indicating that they cannot accommodate the tree trimming, removal or replacement work within the 90-day deadline. However, if the Foliage Owner does not complete the required work within the 90-day time period stipulated by staff or a Director- approved extension period, if one is necessary, then the City may 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 Applicants 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 and 5, 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 crown reduction and/or voluntary removal of the foliage as described in Conditions of Approval Nos. 3 thru 5, the restored view from the Applicants’ viewing areas will be documented by staff. The photographic documentation shall be kept on file at the Community Development Department and used as a P.C. Resolution No. 2020-19 Page 12 of 12 benchmark by City staff for making a staff determination of view preservation enforcement. Upon the anniversary of crown reduction of the subject trees, the Foliage Owner shall maintain the trees subject to the View Restoration Permit decision so that the trees have not exceeded the height limit imposed by a View Restoration Permit. If foliage not subject to the View Restoration Permit subsequently grows into the Applicants’ documented views of the ocean and Catalina Island, said new foliage shall be considered significant view impairment foliage. Such maintenance crown reduction shall occur at the Foliage Owner’s expense. The Applicants or the future owners of the Applicants’ properties may submit a complaint to the City requesting view preservation enforcement on an annual basis. If more frequent enforcement is requested to staff, then such enforcement may occur pursuant to Section VIII-A.