CC RES 2008-071 RESOLUTION NO. 2008-71
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE ANNUAL
TREE TRIMMING MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE
FOR VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 203.
WHEREAS, on December 5, 2005, Mr. and Mrs. Aelony, owners of property
located at 3632 Vigilance Drive (herein "the Applicant"), in the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes, filed a Notice of Intent to File for View Restoration application requesting a View
Restoration Permit ("Permit") pre-application meeting in order to restore the view from
their property that is significantly impaired by foliage owned by Mr. and Mrs. Kuljis at
3642 Vigilance Drive (herein "the Foliage Owner"), in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
("City"); and,
WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission hearing was mailed to the
applicants and foliage owners on April 27, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, the item was continued from July 13, 2006 to allow Commissioners
ample time to visit both the applicant and foliage owner's properties; and,
WHEREAS, the item was continued from July 27, 2006 at the request of the
foliage owners due to a family emergency; and,
WHEREAS, the item was continued to the August 22, 2006 meeting to allow
Staff to address issues raised by the Planning Commission during the July 11, 2006
meeting; and,
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2006, after all voting members of the Planning
Commission had visited the sites, the Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the request, 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. 2006-43, thereby conditionally approving View Restoration Permit No. 203, which
included a requirement for a one-time review of the annual trimming that was required
for the Monterey Pine tree to assess the adequacy of the trimming schedule that the
Commission had established for that tree; and,
WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission ("Commission") hearing on the
maintenance schedule was mailed to the applicants and the foliage owners; and,
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2008, the Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing to review the maintenance schedule for the Monterey Pine tree, at which time,
all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. At
the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission determined via a minute
order that the annual maintenance schedule, which the Commission had previously
established for the Monterey Pine tree, was adequate and should not be altered; and,
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2008, within the 15 day appeal period, Dr. and Mrs.
Aelony (applicants) appealed the May 27, 2008 Planning Commission decision to the
City Council; and,
WHEREAS, on August 5, 2008, the City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the appeal, at which time, all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard and present evidence;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: On August 22, 2006 the Planning Commission granted the
Applicants' view restoration application and established a maintenance schedule for the
foliage that is significantly impairing the Applicants' view, which included a one-year
review for the annual maintenance schedule that was established for the Monterey Pine
tree.
Section 2: On May 27, 2008, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
to review the annual maintenance schedule for the Monterey Pine tree and determined
that it was adequate because unlike other Pine trees such as Canary Island Pine trees,
the limbs that were removed in 2007 have not regenerated and, therefore, continue to
remain out of the Appellants' Catalina Island view. The City Arborist has advised the
City that once limbs are removed from Monterey Pine trees, they usually do not re-grow,
and the needles that are removed when a tree is thinned tend to take up to two years to
re-grow to their view impairing thickness.
Section 3: As was described in the May 27, 2008 Staff Report that was
presented to the Commission, the Monterey Pine's tree needles have not re-grown, and
the limbs that were removed have not re-grown. Given Staffs monitoring report, which
demonstrated that no excessive foliage or branch re-growth has occurred since the
2007 trimming, the City Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission's decision
that no amendment to the annual tree trimming cycle was required and the maintenance
schedule established by the Commission is adequate. Accordingly, the City Council
hereby denies the Appellants' appeal.
Section 4: Pursuant to Section 15304 of the California Code of Regulations, the
proposed project is categorically exempt under Class 4 of the California Environmental
Quality Act because the actions required to restore the applicant's view does not include
the removal of scenic and mature trees as identified by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
General Plan.
Section 5: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, meeting minutes, and other records of proceedings, which
are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, the City Council of the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning
Resolution No. 2008-71
Page 2 of 3
Commission's decision to maintain an annual trimming maintenance schedule for the
Monterey Pine tree located at 3642 Vigilance Drive.
Section 6: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this
Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on t = _th day of Au r. st 2008.
t%lo
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles )ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify
that the above Resolution No. 2008-71 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by
the said City Council at a regular meeting held on August 5, 2008.
deAlet--
City Clerk
Resolution No. 2008-71
Page 3of3