| Back To Agenda | Print Page | ||
|
|
|||
|
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: DECEMBER 17, 2002 SUBJECT: VIEW RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION GUIDELINE REVISIONS RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review the recommended revisions to the Guidelines that have been forwarded from the View Restoration Commission (VRC) and provide Staff with any additional input and direction. BACKGROUND On April 20, 2002, the City Council, after hearing a presentation on the view restoration process, decided to retire the View Restoration Commission and to transfer its workload to the Planning Commission. Council also agreed that the VRC should review and make recommendations for improving the existing View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines, prior to the final disbandment of the Commission. In June of 2002 after receiving direction from the City Council to review the Guidelines, the VRC appointed a sub-committee and directed Staff to work with the committee to review the guidelines and to discuss how the process, via the Guidelines, could be clarified and possibly streamlined. The sub-committee met in July 2002 and from that meeting, several issues were discussed and presented to the VRC as suggested modifications. The issues were presented to the full VRC on October 3, 2002 (minutes attached). The issue areas discussed are listed below:
On November 21, 2002, Staff presented the final draft of the proposed Guideline revisions (as discussed on October 3, 2002) to the VRC to ensure that they reflected the intent of the Commission. The VRC approved the Guideline revisions and directed Staff to present the recommended changes to the City Council for final approval and adoption (minutes attached). The proposed modifications are now being presented to the City Council for its review. DISCUSSION Guideline Amendments The draft Guidelines have been amended by the VRC based on the eight issue areas noted above and a copy of the amended version of the Guidelines is attached. Language that is proposed to be inserted is shown in underlined text, while language that is to be deleted is shown in Issue 1 What is a View, and should the significance determination be taken out of the equation. The VRC's subcommittee proposed to revert back to the language of the original Ordinance and not let a determination of significance come into consideration. The subcommittee believed that this approach would help to eliminate the subjectivity in the review process and the possibility of missing foliage that may not be visible at the time of the site visit for staff report preparation. This would mean that the words "significant" and "significantly" would no longer be used to describe the threshold for allowable view impairment and that any foliage that blocked any part of the defined view frame would have to be trimmed to a specified point. Conversely, this would have also required an amendment to the Ordinance. The VRC did not agree with this approach and agreed to keep the significance determination as part of the review process. Additionally, the Commission believed that the sub-committee's desired result could be achieved without removing the word "significant". As such, this issue was addressed by making amendments to the text of the attached draft Guidelines in the following section: Section VII Application Procedures (E) Issue 2 Simplify the determination on how often to trim by establishing specific trim levels and allowable growth heights. The VRC established an extra provision to the existing maintenance schedule provisions whereby the Commission could craft conditions that allow for acceptable growth between the time of the initial trimming and subsequent scheduled trimming. This approach reduces the potential for disputes over a few leaves and inconsequential branches exceeding the established view frame. The concept would help reduce the unnecessary requests to Staff for review of insignificant foliage growth and it would eliminate the need to trim all foliage, which can grow at different rates. The following Section of the Guidelines has been modified to accommodate this change: Section V Commission Action (H). Issue 3 Establish incentives for the view enforcement process. Enforcement for current view preservation cases is generally based on a complaint made by the applicant that the foliage is in violation. Often the requests are made before the condition mandated maintenance trimming is to occur, which can be annually, semi-annually, quarterly, etc., and frequently the requests are investigated and determined to be unfounded. In order to reduce these types of requests, the VRC suggested that a financial deterrent be added to the maintenance request (or view code enforcement) process. Under the current process, Staff has to respond to almost every complaint call. The suggested process would make the applicant and foliage owner more accountable. The change would require that the applicant notify the foliage owner and the City, via a copy of the letter sent to the foliage owner, of the encroachment on their view. The foliage owner would then have 30 days to correct the view encroachment. If during that time the foliage owner and the applicant disagree on the view encroachment, then Staff would visit the site and make a determination. The inspection fee would be charged to the person (applicant or foliage owner) who is in error. The following Section of the Guidelines has been modified to accommodate this change: Section VIII View Preservation (A) 1 (b). Issue 4 Restrict lacing (a trimming technique) to the left and right edges of a view frame. The subcommittee suggested that lacing should be used as a method to restore a view only when the view impairing foliage is located on the edges of an applicant's view frame. However, the VRC did not want to be as restrictive and felt that in some cases lacing a tree located in the middle of a view frame may be a viable option to restoring a view. The Guidelines were not modified and no change was made. Issue 5 Assure that all required work is done with reasonable quality. The VRC wanted a way to have more confidence that work ordered by the Commission was being done with reasonable quality. As a result, the VRC agreed to modify the instructions to the applicant for obtaining bids, so as to require an ISA certified tree trimmer or accredited arborist on site to perform or supervise the work being done. The following Section of the Guidelines has been modified to accommodate this change: Section V Commission Action (K). Issue 6 Review the tree replacement guidelines. The VRC found an inconsistent statement in Section V (A) of the Guidelines that appeared to be in conflict with Section V (A) 4 related to the tree replacement Guidelines. However, after discussing the matter with the City Attorney, this issue was remedied by striking one sentence from Section V(A)4. The following Section of the Guidelines has been modified to accommodate this change: Section V Commission Action (A) 4. Additionally, the VRC wanted to eliminate the ability for a foliage owner to obtain replacement foliage (that is paid for by the applicant) when it is clear, based on the City Arborist recommendation, that the action to trim the foliage will likely kill the foliage and that removal with replacement is a more feasible option. The VRC agreed that the foliage owner should forfeit the right to a replacement tree if the work is done under these circumstances. The following Section of the Guidelines has been modified to accommodate this change: Section V Commission Action (B) Issue 7 Review privacy issues. The Commission agreed that some foliage owners overuse the privacy provisions of the Guidelines and that in many cases there really is no real argument for privacy protection. In some cases trees are so tall and the crown of the tree is so high that the only "privacy" afforded the person is by virtue of the tree trunk, yet the owner will insist that his privacy is seriously compromised. As such, the VRC modified the following section of the Guidelines to clarify that only pre-existing privacy is to be mitigated: Section V Commission Action (E) 1 (b). Additionally, a diagram that illustrates this process has been included. Issue 8 Improve neighbor contact prior to the pre-application process. The VRC wanted to require better evidence of early neighbor contact by having a box on a form checked by the applicant and requiring that a copy of a registered letter be submitted indicating that the applicant had made an attempt to contact the other party before filing a Notice of Intent Application with the City. The following Section of the Guidelines has been modified to accommodate this change: Section IV Commission Action (A) 2. Other VRC Suggested Revisions The View Restoration Commission also discussed and made minor changes to the Guidelines in areas that were not covered by the eight issues described above. Those changes are listed below.
Ad Hoc Committee Amendments On November 17, 1998, the then City Council appointed an ad hoc committee made up of then Mayor pro tem Lee Byrd and then Council member Marilyn Lyon. The ad hoc committee was instructed to review the view restoration and preservation process and to develop recommendations for improving the process and reducing the City's overall cost of administering the program. In July of 1999, the ad hoc committee presented its findings at a public workshop held with the full City Council with input from the View Restoration Commission. The ad hoc committee's report and the City Council's discussion focused on the following issues:
At the conclusion of the July 19th meeting, Council directed Staff to amend the Guidelines to reflect the comments and suggestions made on the issues noted above. The Council at that time agreed that the recommended changes would serve to strengthen and streamline the view restoration and preservation process. Thus, on September 7, 1999 the City Council met to discuss the recommended language revisions (September 7, 1999 staff report and minutes see attached). At that time, the Council decided that more time was needed to absorb the long and complex report and the item was continued to a future meeting. However, no action was subsequently taken as the ad hoc committee never met again. Staff included the previous ad hoc committee's recommendations into the version of the Guidelines presented to the VRC for their review. The VRC indicated no objections to implementing any of the amendments suggested in the attached September 7, 1999 staff report. A description of these amendments is contained in the attached September 7, 1999 staff report. Relationship to the View Ordinance 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 additional amendments to the Ordinance. FISCAL IMPACT As described above, one of the View Restoration Commission's proposed recommendations is for the City Council to establish a maintenance request inspection fee. The recommendation was made with the intention that such a fee would encourage participants to work with each other thereby reducing the number of unfounded inspection requests made to staff. If the Council approves such a fee, Staff's workload with regard to these requests, would be reduced and there would be a slight increase in revenue to the City's General Fund. CONCLUSION On April 20, 2002, the City Council, after hearing a presentation on the view restoration process, decided to retire the View Restoration Commission after it concludes a review of the View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines. In June of 2002 after receiving direction from the City Council to review the Guidelines, the VRC appointed a sub-committee and began its review of the Guidelines. On November 21, 2002, the VRC approved certain modifications to the 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 draft Guidelines. Respectfully submitted, Joel Rojas, AICP Les Evans Attachments: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES FOR RESTORATION OF VIEWS WHERE (CODE ENFORCEMENT) ADOPTED ON: Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. PURPOSE II. DEFINITIONS III. ESTABLISHING THE VIEW AREA IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS (View Restoration) V. COMMISSION ACTION (View Restoration) VI. APPEAL OF COMMISSION DECISION (View Restoration) VII. APPLICATION PROCEDURES (View Restoration) VIII. VIEW PRESERVATION (Code Enforcement) ATTACHMENTS
Sample View Restoration Private Agreement 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:
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 View Restoration 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 View Restoration 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 View Restoration Commission on City Street Tree Review Permits, and view preservation determinations are appealable to the City Council. II. DEFINITIONS
B. View Section 17.02.040 (A)(14) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code defines "view" as follows: "On 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:
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 (three hundred and sixty degrees of horizonal 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". 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 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 "viewing area" may only include multiple rooms or locations on the applicant's 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:
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. IV. 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 View Restoration Commission must make the following six mandatory findings: A. "The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process and has shown proof of cooperation on his/her part to resolve conflicts."
Insert View Restoration Permit Early Neighbor consultation Process Flow Chart 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. 1. 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 to do so. This does not preclude foliage owners and applicants from meeting on their own with no City participation. 2. The City shall be represented at the pre-application meeting by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or his/her designee and one View Restoration Commissioner. The determination of which Commissioner attends a meeting shall be c. 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:
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." 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. 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 in height or the ridge line of the primary structure, whichever measurement is lower. In such cases, the View Restoration Commission 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, 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. 4. The View Restoration Commission may, at its discretion, require the review of any case by a qualified 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, the applicant(s) shall be responsible for bearing the costs associated with this effort. 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 which is in the record before the Commission. Insert Commissioner Franklin's Example of Acceptable Foliage Growth Diagram 5. 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:
C. "The foliage to be removed is located on property, any part of which is less than one thousand (1,000) feet from the applicant's property line." Staff from the Department of 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. "The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist as view impairing vegetation when the lot from which the view is taken was created." 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. 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:
E. "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."
F. "For 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."
Insert View Frame v Privacy Diagram V. COMMISSION ACTION A. If the Commission is able to make all of the mandatory findings set forth in Section IV 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. 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:
4. Removal shall mean the removal and disposal of a tree or shrub. 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, 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 V-E 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 of the RPV Municipal Code. C. Complete removal of any
D. In order to balance trimming, the commission may require trimming portions of a tree that is below 16 feet or the ridgeline. Otherwise, the end result would be foliage that is only partially trimmed and not aesthetically appealing. However, if a foliage owner objects to any trimming that is below the 16 feet or the ridgeline, then he must do so in writing and within 30 days of final approval of a view restoration or preservation application. If a written objection is submitted, then the foliage owner will not be required to trim, lace or prune below that level.
1. That removal without replacement foliage will cause a significant adverse impact on:
VI. APPEAL OF COMMISSION DECISION A. A decision of the Commission on a View Restoration 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:
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. VII. APPLICATION PROCEDURES A. Once an applicant completes the early neighbor consultation process described in Section IV-A of these Guidelines and the view problem is not resolved and the view owner 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 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. 1. The
3. After the initial site visit, Staff will estimate the approximate amount of the trust deposit based upon the anticipated complexity of the case (i.e., the number of trees and/or properties involved, etc.) and provide the estimate to the applicant. 2. The second fee is a fixed amount that would be paid by an applicant if 3. The establishment of a trust deposit account by an applicant to cover the cost of the actual foliage trimming/removal is separate from the two processing fees as described in Section V-J of the Guidelines. C. Once a formal View Restoration 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. D. 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 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 View Restoration Commission, which will include the following:
4. Staff establishes a date (in consultation with the Chairperson of the Commission) 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. The eligible members of the View Restoration Commission visit the site(s) during the 30 day notice period.
6. The View Restoration Commission conducts a public hearing pursuant to the
Commission's adopted Administrative Procedures (VRC Resolution No.
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. E. Foliage not Specifically Designated Conditions of approval of View Restoration 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/or the decision and the conditions of approval, shall be trimmed to the same height that was established for the designated foliage. F. Once the work is performed, Staff will document the applicant's view with photographs taken from the applicant's viewing area with a 50 mm lens camera. 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. VIII. VIEW PRESERVATION
"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 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, by permitting foliage to grow to a height which is the lesser of: (i) the ridge line of the primary structure on the property, or (ii) sixteen (16) feet. 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." A. After Issuance of a View Restoration Permit 1. After the issuance of a View Restoration Permit 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 City's permanent records and shall be kept on file at the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department. Once the maximum height of the foliage that is subject to the approved View Restoration Permit is established, said height 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. 2. Upon receipt of a written complaint from a VRP applicant or the subsequent
owner of an applicant's property, that foliage 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
B. In Absence of a View Restoration Permit 1. The 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)
along with the associated fee established by Council Resolution,
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 form the "viewing area",
then Staff will advise the property owner that the documentation has been rejected.
3. Once documentation of a view 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, along with a fee established
by City Council resolution 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 it existed on November 17, 1989, as shown in the submitted and verified documentation; b. That foliage which 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 significant view impairment. 4 a. If an agreement is reached between the parties as a result of the pre-application meeting, Staff and/or the assigned mediator will encourage the participants to prepare and will assist in the preparation of the private agreement for the parties to sign. b. If no agreement is reached between the parties during the Pre-application
Process, then the applicant may file a formal application along with the
appropriate fee established by Council Resolution. Once a formal View Preservation
Permit application has been submitted, a Notice of the Director's 5 6 7 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 Director of 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. 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 View Preservation 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). 1. Upon receipt of a signed and complete Notice from an applicant, the Director of 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 each foliage owner attend one pre-application meeting at City Hall to discuss the City's view preservation 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. 2. If any foliage owner responds in writing with a date selection within the specified time frame, the 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 preservation process with the affected parties and attempt to resolve the issues in order to avoid the filing of a formal application. a. 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 Preservation 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 to do so. This does not preclude foliage owners and applicants from meeting on their own with no City participation. b. The City shall be represented at the pre-application meeting by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or his/her designee and one View Restoration Commissioner. The determination of which Commissioner attends a meeting shall be made by the Chairperson of the View Restoration Commission and may be based on a rotational system, a volunteer system, availability or any combination thereof. Commissioners who reside within 500 feet of the applicant or foliage owner properties are ineligible to participate in the pre-application meeting. Any View Restoration Commissioner who attends a pre-application meeting is ineligible to participate in deliberations or voting on the application, if and when the application is before the Commission. 3. 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 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 Preservation 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 Preservation Permit Application" was submitted to the City by the applicant(s). 4. 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. 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, 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. d. 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. "The foliage to be removed is located on property, any part of which is less than one thousand (1,000) feet from the applicant's property line." Staff from the Department of 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 . 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." 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. 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. e. Upon receipt of a filed petition from a property owner requesting the preservation of a documented view, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or his/her designee (Director) shall visit the petitioner's property to verify the request and determine whether a City view preservation action is appropriate. The City's determination will be based on whether the criteria needed for taking either of the actions described in Section VIII-A-2-c is being met. f. After the review of a petitioner's documentation and a site visit to his/her property, the Director shall make a preliminary determination as to whether City view preservation action is appropriate. Written notice of the Director's preliminary determination shall be provided via certified mail to the petitioner and foliage owner. If the Director determines that no view preservation action is warranted, the notice shall state the reasons for not taking view preservation action. If the Director determines that view preservation is warranted, the notice shall explain the actions that the foliage owner must take to bring his/her property into compliance with Section 17.02.040 of the City's Municipal Code. The notice shall also request that the petitioner and foliage owner attend a meeting at City Hall to discuss the City's preliminary determination. The notice shall require the petitioner and foliage owner to respond to the City in writing, within ten (10) working days of the City's certified mailing of the notice. g. If both the petitioner and the foliage owner respond in writing to the notice within the specified time, the Director shall arrange a meeting at City Hall between the two parties to discuss the filed view preservation petition. Notice of the meeting shall be provided to both parties at least five (5) working days prior to the meeting date. h. The City shall be represented at the meeting by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or his/her designee and one View Restoration Commissioner. The determination of which Commissioner attends a meeting shall be made by the Chairperson of the View Restoration Commission and may be based on a rotational system, a volunteer system, availability or any combination thereof. Commissioners who reside within 500 feet of the petitioner or foliage owner properties are ineligible to participate in the meeting. Any View Restoration Commissioner who attends a meeting is ineligible to participate in deliberations or voting on the decision, if the Director's final determination is appealed to the Commission. i. After the meeting or expiration of the specified time period to respond, the Director shall make a final determination on the petition request if: 1. A foliage owner or petitioner fails to respond in writing to the City's request for a meeting within the specified time period; 2. A foliage owner or petitioner notifies the Director in writing that he/she does not want to attend the meeting; or 3. A foliage owner or petitioner fails to attend the arranged meeting. |