RPVCCA_SR_2011_07_05_03_Appeal_PC_City_Tree_Review_Permit_No_178PUBLIC HEARING
Date:July 5,2011
Subject:Appeal of the Planning Commission's Concurrence with the Director's
Interpretation Review of the Conditions of Approval of City Tree Review
Permit No.178
Location:Via Cambron,Via Collado and Berry Hill Drive
1.Declare the Hearing Open:Mayor Long
2.Report of Notice Given:City Clerk Morreale
3.Staff Report &Recommendation:Associate Planner Trester
4.Public Testimony:
Appellants:Mr.and Mrs.Larry Marinovich
Mr.James Morrison
Mr.and Mrs.Joseph Yousefpour
Applicants:N/A
5.Council Questions:
6.Rebuttal:
7.Declare Hearing Closed:Mayor Long
8.Council Deliberation:
9.Council Action:
3-1
MEMORANDUM
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO:HONORABLE MA OR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM:JOEL ROJAS,CO
DATE:JULY 5,2011
SUBJECT:APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONCURRENCE
WITH THE DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION REVIEW OF THE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF CTRP NO.178
REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER ~
Staff Coordinator:Amy Trester,Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Dismiss the appeal as staff is recommending that the City trees that are the subject of this item
be removed as part of Item No.2 on this agenda.
BACKGROUND
In JUly 2003,City Tree Review Permit (CTRP)No.178 was approved by the Director to address
the significant impairment to the view at 7318 Berry Hill Drive caused by ten trees located in the
City-owned public right-of-way.These trees consisted of seven (7)Canary Island Pine trees
located adjacent to 30317,30405,and 30327 Via Cambron and 7313 Via Collado,and three (3)
Elm trees located adjacent to 7310 Via Collado.The Staff Report for this permit recommended
that the crowns of the three Elm trees be trimmed down approximately six feet and shaped,and
that the crowns of the Pine trees be raised by trimming the lower branches up to the trimming
level illustrated in the photo attachment for CTRP No.178.At the time this CTRP was
processed,Development Code Section 17.76.100 required the City to pay for the costs of
trimming trees that are part of a City-identified Uniform Street Program.These trees were
identified to be part of a City-identified Uniform Street program,and as indicated by the City's
records and the applicant,the initial trimming per CTRP No.178 was completed in 2003.
During the consideration of CTRP2008-00031 (Item #2 on tonight's agenda),it was noted that
seven of the ten City trees involved with that decision (Nos.4-10)were also part of the decision
involVing CTRP No.178.As a result,Staff noted that after the trimming was completed per P.C.
Resolution 2011-01,seven of the ten trees would be assessed for compliance with the CTRP
No.178 decision.After the initial trimming of the trees related to CTRP2008-00031 was
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD./RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275-5391
PLANNING &CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310)544-5228/BUILDING &SAFETY DIVISION (310)265-7800/DEPT.FAX (310)544-5293
E-MAIL:PLANNING@RPVCOM /WWW.PALOSVERDESCOM/RPV
3-2
Appeal of P.C.Resolution 2011-00017
July 5,2011
completed,Staff assessed the view impairment from the property of Mr.&Mrs.Liberman (7318
Berry Hill Drive),the sole applicant related to CTRP No.178.Because the amount of trimming
that had occurred per the Planning Commission's approval of CTRP2008-00031 had
significantly changed the condition of the trees that are also subject to CTRP No.178,the
Director determined that circumstances warranted an Interpretation Review of the conditions of
approval related to CTRP No.178,pursuant to Development Code Section 17.78.050.This is
because strict application of the CTRP No.178 conditions of approval would mean that the
seven trees recently trimmed in accordance with the Planning Commission's decision on
CTRP2008-00031 would have to be completely denuded of branches and/or possibly removed.
Therefore,the Director issued an Interpretation Review on March 4,2011,which modified the
conditions of approval related to CTRP No.178 which allowed additional trimming of the trees in
a manner that would maintain the trees and eliminate the significant view impairment from the
applicant's viewing area (Mr.and Mrs.Liberman).
The Director's Interpretation Review was appealed to the Planning Commission on March 21,
2011 by residents in the neighborhood who were concerned with the decision to perform
additional trimming to the City trees.The appellants stated several reasons for their appeal,
including the claim that any additional trimming would diminish the trees'chance of survival,that
the additional trimming would not improve the Liberman's view,and that the additional trimming
should not be completed,as the trees had not been maintained per CTRP No.178 for quite
some time.The Planning Commission denied this appeal at it April 12,2011 meeting and
approved P.C.Resolution No.2011-17 which upheld the Director's Interpretation Review and
required that some additional trimming be completed to seven of the ten trees to eliminate the
significant view impairment from 7318 Berry Hill Drive.
On April 27,2011,during the 15-day appeal period,P.C.Resolution 2011-17 was appealed by
Mr.Larry Marinovich,Mr.Joseph Yousefpour,and Mr.James Morrison,three of the four
applicants.These are the same appellants who have appealed P.C.Resolution 2011-18,which
is being addressed under Item #2 on this evening's agenda.This appeal is before the City
Council for review this evening.
DISCUSSION
Appeal Issues
The appellants state several main issues in their April 27,2011 letter appealing P.C.Resolution
2011-17.However,the only issue that specifically relates to the Interpretation Review is that
the appellants take exception with the methodology behind the trimming performed on Tree
Nos.4-10.
Below is Staff's response to the appellants'main appeal point regarding trimming methodology.
Trimming Methodology
In their appeal letter,the appellants take exception to the trimming methodology recommended
by Staff and used by the PC in making its final determination with regards to the trimming of
Tree Nos.4-10.Given the degree of view impairment from 7318 Berry Hill Drive,the
Commission's decision for Tree Nos.4-10 eliminated all foliage above the horizon so Catalina
Island,a unique landmark,would not be impaired,and while some additional lacing and branch
removal was also required,some foliage would still be present below the horizon,albeit heavily
laced,in the ocean view.The appellants state that there is no provision in the Municipal Code
3-3
Appeal of P.C.Resolution 2011-00017
July 5,2011
for trimming "only to the horizon".They state that the sky is not a protected view and that the
ocean is a protected view and thus the trees should be trimmed further to protect the ocean
view.In other words,they believe that the methodology of removing all foliage above the
horizon (to protect the view of Catalina Island)should be applied below the horizon so that the
view of the ocean is completely restored as opposed to leaving portions of laced trees in the
ocean view of the resident at 7318 Berry Hill Drive as well as their own ocean view.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.76.100.F.1.c.i,in order for a tree to be eligible for
adoption,the City must determine that,"...the pruning of the subject tree and/or foliage will
eliminate the significant impairment of the applicant's view ..."The review criteria do not require
that the City-owned tree be trimmed completely out of an applicant's view,only that the trimming
eliminates the significant view impairment.Because the portions of trees that are left in the view
are been heavily laced,and/or have additional branches proposed to be removed,the Planning
Commission determined that the methodology of trimming the trees down to the horizon line,
out of the Catalina Island view,and then completing additional branch removal as well as heavy
lacing of the trees below the horizon line was sufficient to eliminate the significant view
impairment.In making its trimming recommendations to the Planning Commission,Staff simply
used the 'horizon line as the demarcation line for trimming down the subject trees below Catalina
Island.The additional branch removal and heavy lacing of the remainder of the trees that
impaired the ocean was intended to eliminate the significant view impairment.The Planning
Commission agreed with this trimming method for eliminating the significant view impairment.
Furthermore,at the April 12,2011 review hearing,the Commission agreed that the result of this
trimming methodology eliminated the applicant's significant view impairment caused by these
City trees.
Therefore,Staff believes that the trimming methodology applied to the City trees that are also
associated with CTRP No.178 is appropriate and that the modified trimming of these trees
required through the Interpretation Review of CTRP No.178 should be upheld.
Correspondence
Staff has received one letter from the appellants,two letters from the tree-adjacent residents,as
well as letter from an applicant who is not part of the current appeal.
Correspondence From Appellants
The appellants submitted a supplementary packet,which included additional comments and
photos from each of the three appellants.(attached)
Non-Appellant Applicant Correspondence
Staff has received a letter from Mr.&Mrs.Galvin (attached),who are view applicants but who
did not join in on the current appeal that is before the City Council this evening.Their letter
states that:1)Tree Nos.1-3 and 10 still significantly impair their view,2)that the trees should
have been trimmed completely out of the ocean view,and 3)that the trimming has resulted in
unsightly trees.
Correspondence From Tree-Adjacent Residents
Staff has received one email from Nancy Parsons,as well as a letter with attached petition,
timeline and photos from Marjorie Carter,both of whom are tree-adjacent residents.
3-4
Appeal of P.C.Resolution 2011-00017
July 5,2011
Nancy Parsons Correspondence
Specifically,Staff has received an emailed letter (attached)from Nancy Parsons with several
statements.Nancy believes that no additional trimming should be required in relationship to the
Director's Interpretation Review of the Conditions of Approval of CTRP No.178 (P.C.Resolution
2011-17),as the original decision for the trimming of the trees was crown-raising,which would
have left all the tree trunks still in the view of the ocean as well as Catalina Island.Nancy also
states that Tree Nos.1-3 provide shade and aesthetic value to her property as well as the
entrance of the Berry Hill neighborhood.She also states that she believes that Tree Nos.1-3
were not,and are not causing a significant view impairment,and should not be topped.
Staff and the Planning Commission have agreed that Tree Nos.1-3 were causing a significant
view impairment,but that because they were indeed located toward the periphery of the view,
that heavily lacing (thinning)of the trees was sufficient to eliminate the significant view
impairment.
Also,it is true that the original decision for the trimming of the trees under CTRP No.178 was
crown raising,but Staff did determine that because of the way the trees were trimmed per P.C.
Resolution 2011-01,this changed the condition of the trees,and thus the trimming that was
needed to eliminate the significant view impairment from the applicant's property and the
Planning Commission agreed with Staff's recommendation at the April 12,2011 Planning
Commission meeting.
Marjorie Carter Correspondence
Staff has also received a letter from Ms.Marjorie Carter with an attached petition to save the
trees signed by 39 neighbors,a timeline showing the process for CTRP2008-00031,as well as
several photos.(attached)The letter basically states that the City Council should uphold the
Planning Commission's decision to allow the adoption of the trees.This issue has been
addressed earlier in this Staff Report.
CONCLUSION
Staff is recommending that the City Council dismiss the appeal of P.C.Resolution 2011 since
staff is recommending that the City trees that are the subject of this item be removed as part of
Item No.2 on this agenda.If the City Council agrees with this recommendation,a resolution
affirming this recommendation will be brought to the next City Council meeting for adoption.
FISCAL IMPACT
If the City Council agrees with Staff's recommendation on Item #2,there will be there would be
a one-time,up-front cost for the work.If the City Council wishes to direct Public Works to
initiate a neighborhood beautification project for the areas adjacent to the removed trees,the
cost for the repairs to the public right-of-way,as well as the proposed beautification would be
approximately $30,000.These monies would be from the Public Works Department's
Beautification Program funds which are included in the current city bUdget.
ALTERNATIVES
Staff has indentified one alternative available for consideration by the City Council:
3-5
Appeal of P.C.Resolution 2011-00017
July 5,2011
1.If Council disagrees with Staff's recommendation on Item #2 and either affirms the PC's
decision or a modified version whereas one or more of Tree Nos.4-10 are allowed to be
trimmed and adopted,Staff recommends that the appeal of this item be rejected and that a
Resolution be brought back for adoption that upholds the modified trimming of these trees
required through the Interpretation Review of CTRP No.178.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A -Planning Commission Resolution 2011-17
Exhibit B -April 12,2011 Planning Commission Staff Report with Late Correspondence and
minutes attached
Exhibit C -Correspondence
3-6
Exhibit A -Planning Commission Resolution No.2011-17
Attachment 3-1
Attachment 3-2
Attachment 3-3
Attachment 3-4
Attachment 3-5
Attachment 3-6
Attachment 3-7
Attachment 3-8
Attachment 3-9
Attachment 3-10
Attachment 3-11
Exhibit B - April 12,2011 Planning Commission Staff Report with Late
Correspondence and Minutes Attached
Attachment 3-12
MEMORANDUM
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBE .S OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
COMMUNITY DEVELOPME T DIRECTOR
APRIL 12,2011
APPEAL OF CASE ZON2011-00053:DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION
REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF CTRP NO.178
Staff Coordinator:Amy Trester,Associate Planner~
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Planning Commission (P.C)Resolution No.2011-_,thereby denying the appeal and
upholding the Director's Interpretation Review of the Conditions of Approval of CTRP No.178
(Case lON2011-00053).
BACKGROUND
In July 2003,City Tree Review Permit (CTRP)No.178 was approved by the Director to address
the significant impairment to the view at 7318 Berry Hill Drive caused by ten trees located in the
City-owned public right-of-way.These trees consisted of seven (7)Canary Island Pine trees
located adjacent to 30317,30405,and 30327 Via Cambron and 7313 Via Collado,and three (3)
Elm trees located adjacent to 7310 Via Collado.The Staff Report for this permit recommended
that the crowns of the three Elm trees be trimmed down approximately six feet and shaped,and
that the crowns of the Pine trees be raised by trimming the lower branches up to the trimming
level illustrated in the photo attachment for CTRP No.178.At the time this CTRP was
processed,Development Code Section 17.76.100 required the City to pay for the costs of
trimming trees that are part of a City-identified Uniform Street Program.These trees were
identified to be part of a City-identified Uniform Street program,and as indicated by the City's
records and the applicant,the initial trimming per CTRP No.178 was completed in 2003.
In January 2011,the Planning Commission upheld the appeal of CTRP2008-00031,which is the
subject of a separate item on tonight's agenda.This decision required that the seven (7)
Canary Island Pine trees adjacent to 30317,30405,and 30327 Via Cambron and 7313 Via
Collado,as well as three (3)Canary Island Pine trees adjacent to 30303 Via Cambron be
trimmed per Planning Commission Resolution 2011-01 (attached).As a result,seven of the
trees directed to be trimmed as part of the Planning Commission's January 2011 decision are
also subject to trimming pursuant to the July 2003 decision on CTRP No.178.As noted at the
January 11,2011 public hearing before the Planning Commission,Staff noted that after the tree
trimming is completed for the CTRP2008-00031 decision,the trees would be assessed for
compliance with the CTRP No.178 decision.
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD./RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275-5391
PLANNING &CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310)544-5228/BUILDING &SAFETY DIVISION (310)265-7800 I DEPT FAX (310)544-5293
E·MAll PLANNINC;@I,PVCOM/WWWPAlOSVERDESCOM/RPV
MEMORANDUM
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPME T DEPARTMENT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBE S OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 12,2011
APPEAL OF CASE ZON2011-00053:DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION
REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF CTRP NO.178
Staff Coordinator:Amy Trester,Associate Planner~
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Planning Commission (P.C)Resolution No.2011-_1 thereby denying the appeal and
upholding the Director's Interpretation Review of the Conditions of Approval of CTRP No.178
(Case lON2011-00053).
BACKGROUND
In July 2003,City Tree Review Permit (CTRP)No.178 was approved by the Director to address
the significant impairment to the view at 7318 Berry Hill Drive caused by ten trees located in the
City-owned public right-of-way.These trees consisted of seven (7)Canary Island Pine trees
located adjacent to 30317, 30405,and 30327 Via Cambron and 7313 Via Collado,and three (3)
Elm trees located adjacent to 7310 Via Collado.The Staff Report for this permit recommended
that the crowns of the three Elm trees be trimmed down approximately six feet and shaped,and
that the crowns of the Pine trees be raised by trimming the lower branches up to the trimming
level illustrated in the photo attachment for CTRP No.178.At the time this CTRP was
processed,Development Code Section 17.76.100 required the City to pay for the costs of
trimming trees that are part of a City-identified Uniform Street Program.These trees were
identified to be part of a City-identified Uniform Street program,and as indicated by the City's
records and the applicant,the initial trimming per CTRP No.178 was completed in 2003.
In January 2011,the Planning Commission upheld the appeal of CTRP2008-00031,which is the
subject of a separate item on tonight's agenda.This decision required that the seven (7)
Canary Island Pine trees adjacent to 30317,30405,and 30327 Via Cambron and 7313 Via
Collado,as well as three (3)Canary Island Pine trees adjacent to 30303 Via Cambron be
trimmed per Planning Commission Resolution 2011-01 (attached).As a result,seven of the
trees directed to be trimmed as part of the Planning Commission's January 2011 decision are
also subject to trimming pursuant to the July 2003 decision on CTRP No.178.As noted at the
January 11,2011 public hearing before the Planning Commission,Staff noted that after the tree
trimming is completed for the CTRP2008-00031 decision,the trees would be assessed for
compliance with the CTRP No.178 decision.
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD./RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275-5391
PLANNING &CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310)544-5228/BUILDING &SAFETY DIVISION (310)2 5'7800/DEPT FAX (310)544-5293
E·MAIL PLANNING@I~PVCOM /WWW.PALOSVERDES.COM/RPV
MEMORANDUM
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
COMMUNITY DEVELOP ME T DEPARTMENT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBE S OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 12,2011
APPEAL OF CASE ZON2011-00053:DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION
REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF CTRP NO.178
Staff Coordinator:Amy Trester,Associate PlannerK
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Planning Commission (P.C)Resolution No.2011-_1 thereby denying the appeal and
upholding the Director's Interpretation Review of the Conditions of Approval of CTRP No.178
(Case lON2011-00053).
BACKGROUND
In July 2003,City Tree Review Permit (CTRP)No.178 was approved by the Director to address
the significant impairment to the view at 7318 Berry Hill Drive caused by ten trees located in the
City-owned pUblic right-of-way.These trees consisted of seven (7)Canary Island Pine trees
located adjacent to 30317,30405,and 30327 Via Cambron and 7313 Via Collado,and three (3)
Elm trees located adjacent to 7310 Via Collado.The Staff Report for this permit recommended
that the crowns of the three Elm trees be trimmed down approximately six feet and shaped,and
that the crowns of the Pine trees be raised by trimming the lower branches up to the trimming
level illustrated in the photo attachment for CTRP No.178.At the time this CTRP was
processed,Development Code Section 17.76.100 required the City to pay for the costs of
trimming trees that are part of a City-identified Uniform Street Program.These trees were
identified to be part of a City-identified Uniform Street program,and as indicated by the City's
records and the applicant,the initial trimming per CTRP No.178 was completed in 2003.
In January 2011,the Planning Commission upheld the appeal of CTRP2008-00031,which is the
subject of a separate item on tonight's agenda.This decision required that the seven (7)
Canary Island Pine trees adjacent to 30317,30405,and 30327 Via Cambron and 7313 Via
Collado,as well as three (3)Canary Island Pine trees adjacent to 30303 Via Cambron be
trimmed per Planning Commission Resolution 2011-01 (attached).As a result,seven of the
trees directed to be trimmed as part of the Planning Commission's January 2011 decision are
also subject to trimming pursuant to the July 2003 decision on CTRP No.178.As noted at the
January 11,2011 public hearing before the Planning Commission,Staff noted that after the tree
trimming is completed for the CTRP2008-00031 decision,the trees would be assessed for
compliance with the CTRP No.178 decision.
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD./RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275-5391
PLANNING &CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310)544-5228/BUILDING &SAFETY DIVISION (310)2 5-7800/DEPT FAX (310)544-5293
E-MAIL PLANNING@I~PVCOM /WWW.PALOSVERDES.COM/RPVAttachment 3-13
Appeal of Case lON2011-00053:Director's Interpretation Review of the Conditions of Approval of CTRP No.178
April 12,2011
After the initial trimming of the trees related to CTRP2008-00031 was completed,Staff
assessed the view impairment from the property of Mr.&Mrs.Liberman (7318 Berry Hill Drive),
the sole applicant related to CTRP No.178.The amount of trimming that had occurred per the
Planning Commission's approval of CTRP2008-00031 had significantly changed the condition of
the trees that are also subject to CTRP No.178.As a result,the Director determined that
circumstances warranted an Interpretation Review of the conditions of approval related to CTRP
No.178,pursuant to Development Code Section 17.78.050.The Director issued an
Interpretation Review on March 4,2011,which modified the conditions of approval related to
CTRP No.178.The Director's Interpretation Review was appealed on March 21,2011 by
several appellants.As such,the appeal hearing on this issue is now being presented to the
Planning Commission for consideration.
DISCUSSION
The Interpretation Review procedure outlined by Section 17.78.050 allows the body who made
the last decision on an approved application to,among other things,further define or enumerate
the conditions of approval of an approved application in situations where there are minor
modifications to the approved project as a result of and in conjunction with City decisions on
subsequent discretionary applications.Given that the trimming of the trees related to
CTRP2008-00031 significantly changed the condition of the trees that are also related to CTRP
No.178,the Director issued an Interpretation Review decision to clarify the conditions of
approval of CTRP No.178 as follows:
1)Remove several large branches on Tree No.10 (No.4 in CTRP2008-00031)
2)Selective branch removal on the east side of Tree No.7 (No.6 in CTRP2008-00031);
3)Additional lacing of Tree No.8 (No.7 in CTRP2008-00031);
4)Trim Tree No.5 (No.9 in CTRP2008-00031)down to the horizon line as viewed from the
viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive as well as some selective branch removal on the
west side of the tree;
5)Trim Tree No.4 (No.10 in CTRP2008-00031)down to the horizon line as viewed from
the viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive as well as some selective branch removal on the
west side of the tree;
6)Tree Nos.6 (No.8 in CTRP2008-00031)and 9 (No.5 in CTRP2008-00031)are to be
maintained at the horizon line as viewed from the viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive
and heavily laced.
The trimming required per CTRP No.178 for the three Elm trees located adjacent to 7310 Via
Collado was not proposed to be changed from the original decision.
On March 21,2011,an email was sent to Staff appealing the Interpretation Review of the
Conditions of approval of director's decision on CTRP No.178 by several appellants:Mr.Mike
O'Sullivan,Ms.Marge Carter,Mrs.Nancy Parsons,Mrs.Cindy Hoskins,Mr.Rob Hoskins and
Mr.Stu Thomson.These appellants had several issues listed in their appeal.Staff has listed
these points of appeal below with a short discussion following each point:
Appeal of Case lON2011-00053:Director's Interpretation Review of the Conditions of Approval of CTRP No.178
April 12,2011
After the initial trimming of the trees related to CTRP2008-00031 was completed,Staff
assessed the view impairment from the property of Mr.&Mrs.Liberman (7318 Berry Hill Drive),
the sole applicant related to CTRP No.178.The amount of trimming that had occurred per the
Planning Commission's approval of CTRP2008-00031 had significantly changed the condition of
the trees that are also subject to CTRP No.178.As a result,the Director determined that
circumstances warranted an Interpretation Review of the conditions of approval related to CTRP
No.178,pursuant to Development Code Section 17.78.050.The Director issued an
Interpretation Review on March 4,2011,which modified the conditions of approval related to
CTRP No.178.The Director's Interpretation Review was appealed on March 21,2011 by
several appellants.As SUCh,the appeal hearing on this issue is now being presented to the
Planning Commission for consideration.
DISCUSSION
The Interpretation Review procedure outlined by Section 17.78.050 allows the body who made
the last decision on an approved application to,among other things,further define or enumerate
the conditions of approval of an approved application in situations where there are minor
modifications to the approved project as a result of and in conjunction with City decisions on
subsequent discretionary applications.Given that the trimming of the trees related to
CTRP2008-00031 significantly changed the condition of the trees that are also related to CTRP
No.178,the Director issued an Interpretation Review decision to clarify the conditions of
approval of CTRP No.178 as follows:
1)Remove several large branches on Tree No.10 (No.4 in CTRP2008-00031)
2)Selective branch removal on the east side of Tree No.7 (No.6 in CTRP2008-00031);
3)Additional lacing ofTree No.8 (No.7 in CTRP2008-00031);
4)Trim Tree No.5 (No.9 in CTRP2008-00031)down to the horizon line as viewed from the
viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive as well as some selective branch removal on the
west side of the tree;
5)Trim Tree No.4 (No.10 in CTRP2008-00031)down to the horizon line as viewed from
the viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive as well as some selective branch removal on the
west side of the tree;
6)Tree Nos.6 (No.8 in CTRP2008-00031)and 9 (No.5 in CTRP2008-00031)are to be
maintained at the horizon line as viewed from the viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive
and heavily laced.
The trimming required per CTRP No.178 for the three Elm trees located adjacent to 7310 Via
Collado was not proposed to be changed from the original decision.
On March 21,2011,an email was sent to Staff appealing the Interpretation Review of the
Conditions of approval of director's decision on CTRP No.178 by several appellants:Mr.Mike
O'Sullivan,Ms.Marge Carter,Mrs.Nancy Parsons,Mrs.Cindy Hoskins,Mr.Rob Hoskins and
Mr.Stu Thomson.These appellants had several issues listed in their appeal.Staff has listed
these points of appeal below with a short discussion following each point:
Attachment 3-14
Appeal of Case ZON2011-00053:Director's Interpretation Review of the Conditions of Approval of CTRP No.178
April 12,2011
•Additional trimming,within a period of 1-2 years is likely to weaken the trees
further,and diminish the Trees'chances of survival.
It is true that any additional trimming is not optimal for the trees'survival,but it is also
true that the majority of the trimming that could potentially cause harm has already been
completed on most of the trees per the Planning Commission's approval of CTRP2008-
00031.Although some fairly extensive trimming would be required for Tree NO.4 (10),
this tree would be trimmed to approximately the same level as the other trees have been
trimmed to,and the City's arborist has already opined that Canary Island Pine trees
seem to survive quite extensive trimmings,but that it is difficult to predict how long they
will survive.Also,the trimming recommended per this Interpretation shall be completed
during the cooler months of the year,or November through January.(This time frame
not only takes into consideration the optimal trimming season for Pine trees,but also the
active bird nesting season.)Because that optimal trimming period has elapsed for now,
the earliest date that City would complete additional trimming of these trees is November
1,2011.
•Data from West Coast Arborists,and the city's trimming schedule,indicate that
some of the seven trees that were the subject of the 2003 CTRP No.178,have not
been trimmed for years,pursuant to that CTRP.There is a principle of law,i.e.
"laches",which applies to this case."Laches"provides relief in cases,such as
this one,where a delay in acting on a right negates that right when it predjudices
the rights of other parties-in this case-the rights of residents who have made a
concerted effort to save the trees in question,since their survival is at risk.
It is true that the seven trees that were the SUbject of the 2003 CTRP No.178 were
trimmed in 2003 and do not appear to have been trimmed for view purposes since that
time.However,it is important to note that maintenance trimming completed by the City
for older CTRPs (when the City completed the trimming and not an adopting party)is
done on the basis of requests from the applicants,not on any set schedule.Staff has
consulted with the City attorney,who opined that the principle of "laches"does not apply
because the trees were trimmed in 2003,immediately after approval of CTRP No.178,
and also because these are City-owned trees and thus there is no prejudice against the
rights of the appellants
•Also,the photo you have provided from the Liberman's home does not provide
enough detail to adequately assess the recommended trimming.In the case of
Tree Number 4,one cannot discern the lower branches that it is recommended be
removed.It is apparent,however,that any trimming on Tree Number 4 will only
serve to reveal more of a very large tree that is further in the distance.
Staff believes that the tree being referenced as Tree NO.4 above is numbered as Tree
No.10 in CTRP No.178.Staff has attached an enlarged photo of the view to the
enclosed Resolution that clearly shows the addressed trimming.
•Also,the specific recommendations,in the Director's reinterpretation,do not
seem reasonable.CTRP No.178 specified only that the crown of these seven
trees be raised by trimming lower branches.On Tree No.Four,for example,it is
recommended that additional lower branches be trimmed,after not having been
trimmed for eight years.
Appeal of Case ZON2011-00053:Director's Interpretation Review of the Conditions of Approval of CTRP No.178
April 12,2011
•Additional trimming,within a period of 1-2 years is likely to weaken the trees
further,and diminish the Trees'chances of survival.
It is true that any additional trimming is not optimal for the trees'survival,but it is also
true that the majority of the trimming that could potentially cause harm has already been
completed on most of the trees per the Planning Commission's approval of CTRP2008-
00031.Although some fairly extensive trimming would be required for Tree NO.4 (10),
this tree would be trimmed to approximately the same level as the other trees have been
trimmed to,and the City's arborist has already opined that Canary Island Pine trees
seem to survive quite extensive trimmings,but that it is difficult to predict how long they
will survive.Also,the trimming recommended per this Interpretation shall be completed
during the cooler months of the year,or November through January.(This time frame
not only takes into consideration the optimal trimming season for Pine trees,but also the
active bird nesting season.)Because that optimal trimming period has elapsed for now,
the earliest date that City would complete additional trimming of these trees is November
1,2011.
•Data from West Coast Arborists,and the city's trimming schedule,indicate that
some of the seven trees that were the subject of the 2003 CTRP No.178,have not
been trimmed for years,pursuant to that CTRP.There is a principle of law,i.e.
"laches",which applies to this case."laches"provides relief in cases,such as
this one,where a delay in acting on a right negates that right when it predjudices
the rights of other parties-in this case-the rights of residents who have made a
concerted effort to save the trees in question,since their survival is at risk.
It is true that the seven trees that were the SUbject of the 2003 CTRP No.178 were
trimmed in 2003 and do not appear to have been trimmed for view purposes since that
time.However,it is important to note that maintenance trimming completed by the City
for older CTRPs (when the City completed the trimming and not an adopting party)is
done on the basis of requests from the applicants,not on any set schedule.Staff has
consulted with the City attorney,who opined that the principle of "laches"does not apply
because the trees were trimmed in 2003,immediately after approval of CTRP No.178,
and also because these are City-owned trees and thus there is no prejudice against the
rights of the appellants
•Also,the photo you have provided from the liberman's home does not provide
enough detail to adequately assess the recommended trimming.In the case of
Tree Number 4,one cannot discern the lower branches that it is recommended be
removed.It is apparent,however,that any trimming on Tree Number 4 will only
serve to reveal more of a very large tree that is further in the distance.
Staff believes that the tree being referenced as Tree NO.4 above is numbered as Tree
No.10 in CTRP No.178.Staff has attached an enlarged photo of the view to the
enclosed Resolution that clearly shows the addressed trimming.
•Also,the specific recommendations,in the Director's reinterpretation,do not
seem reasonable.CTRP No.178 specified only that the crown of these seven
trees be raised by trimming lower branches.On Tree No.Four,for example,it is
recommended that additional lower branches be trimmed,after not having been
trimmed for eight years.
Appeal of Case ZON2011-00053:Director's Interpretation Review of the Conditions of Approval of CTRP No.178
April 12,2011
•Additional trimming,within a period of 1-2 years is likely to weaken the trees
further,and diminish the Trees'chances of survival.
It is true that any additional trimming is not optimal for the trees'survival,but it is also
true that the majority of the trimming that could potentially cause harm has already been
completed on most of the trees per the Planning Commission's approval of CTRP2008-
00031.Although some fairly extensive trimming would be required for Tree NO.4 (10),
this tree would be trimmed to approximately the same level as the other trees have been
trimmed to,and the City's arborist has already opined that Canary Island Pine trees
seem to survive quite extensive trimmings,but that it is difficult to predict how long they
will survive.Also,the trimming recommended per this Interpretation shall be completed
during the cooler months of the year,or November through January.(This time frame
not only takes into consideration the optimal trimming season for Pine trees,but also the
active bird nesting season.)Because that optimal trimming period has elapsed for now,
the earliest date that City would complete additional trimming of these trees is November
1,2011.
•Data from West Coast Arborists,and the city's trimming schedule,indicate that
some of the seven trees that were the subject of the 2003 CTRP No.178,have not
been trimmed for years,pursuant to that CTRP.There is a principle of law,i.e.
"laches",which applies to this case."laches"provides relief in cases,such as
this one,where a delay in acting on a right negates that right when it predjudices
the rights of other parties-in this case-the rights of residents who have made a
concerted effort to save the trees in question,since their survival is at risk.
It is true that the seven trees that were the SUbject of the 2003 CTRP No.178 were
trimmed in 2003 and do not appear to have been trimmed for view purposes since that
time.However,it is important to note that maintenance trimming completed by the City
for older CTRPs (when the City completed the trimming and not an adopting party)is
done on the basis of requests from the applicants,not on any set schedule.Staff has
consulted with the City attorney,who opined that the principle of "laches"does not apply
because the trees were trimmed in 2003,immediately after approval of CTRP No.178,
and also because these are City-owned trees and thus there is no prejudice against the
rights of the appellants
•Also,the photo you have provided from the liberman's home does not provide
enough detail to adequately assess the recommended trimming.In the case of
Tree Number 4,one cannot discern the lower branches that it is recommended be
removed.It is apparent,however,that any trimming on Tree Number 4 will only
serve to reveal more of a very large tree that is further in the distance.
Staff believes that the tree being referenced as Tree NO.4 above is numbered as Tree
No.10 in CTRP No.178.Staff has attached an enlarged photo of the view to the
enclosed Resolution that clearly shows the addressed trimming.
•Also,the specific recommendations,in the Director's reinterpretation,do not
seem reasonable.CTRP No.178 specified only that the crown of these seven
trees be raised by trimming lower branches.On Tree No.Four,for example,it is
recommended that additional lower branches be trimmed,after not haVing been
trimmed for eight years.
Attachment 3-15
Appeal of Case ZON2011-00053:Director's Interpretation Review of the Conditions of Approval of CTRP No.178
April 12,2011
It is true that CTRP No.178 specified only that the crown of the seven trees be raised by
trimming the lower branches,but as stated above,the trimming that has occurred per
the Planning Commission's approval of CTRP2008-00031 has significantly changed the
condition of the trees that are also sUbject to CTRP No.178.As a result,if the trimming
required by CTRP No.178 is completed,only the trunks of the seven trees would
remain.
On this note,if the Planning Commission approves the appeal of the Interpretation of the
Conditions of Approval of CTRP No.178,then the applicants of that permit (Libermans)
have a right to require that the City complete the original trimming as recommended per
the original permit,which is crown raising (the removal of branches)up to a line
specified on the photo diagram that was approved with the original CTRP No.178.If
this original trimming is completed,the level that the trees are to be crown-raised to
(trimmed up to)is approximately the same level that the trees have been trimmed down
to per P.C.Resolution 2011-01.Thus,as noted above,if the trees are trimmed per the
originally-approved Director's recommendation for CTRP No.178,this will result in all
branches being removed from the trees.This would leave unsightly trees that are likely
to die,which could in turn,necessitate removal of these trees.
Correspondence
Immediately after the Director's Interpretation Review Staff Report was mailed to the interested
parties,Staff received an email from the sale applicant of CTRP No.178 at 7318 Berry Hill Drive
in favor of the proposed modified conditions of approval.The sale applicant later sent an email
addressing the proposed modified conditions of approval and had several comments regarding
the modified trimming,which Staff has listed and addressed below.Staff also received
comments from the appellants in the form of their appeal email,which is addressed in the
"Discussion"section above.
•Tree No.10 (No.4 in CTRP2008-00031)should be removed.
It should be noted that per CTRP2008-00031,the property owners of 30317 Via
Cambron,whose property directly abuts Tree.No.4,have indicated to the City in
multiple letters (one recent)that they do not wish the tree to be adopted.Thus,per
Condition NO.4 in P.C.Resolution 2011-01.Staff has scheduled the removal of Tree
NO.4 for sometime in early May 2011.
•Tree No.7 (No 6 in CTRP2008-00031)should be trimmed down rather than
branches removed.
Staff believes that removing a select branch or branches is sufficient to eliminate the
significant view impairment that exists for 7318 Berry Hill Drive.Completing enough
crown reduction to Tree No.7 (6)to trim it completely out of the view would result in an
unsightly tree with almost no foliage and contribute to the likelihood of its demise.Staff
believes that select branch removal is sufficient to eliminate the significant view
impairment without completing additional extensive trimming.
•Tree No 8 (No 7 in CTRP2008-00031)Additional lacing of the tree would be helpful
This is what the Director has required as a result of the Interpretation Review.
Appeal of Case ZON2011-00053:Director's Interpretation Review of the Conditions of Approval of CTRP No.178
April 12,2011
It is true that CTRP No.178 specified only that the crown of the seven trees be raised by
trimming the lower branches,but as stated above,the trimming that has occurred per
the Planning Commission's approval of CTRP2008-00031 has significantly changed the
condition of the trees that are also sUbject to CTRP No.178.As a result,if the trimming
required by CTRP No.178 is completed,only the trunks of the seven trees would
remain.
On this note,if the Planning Commission approves the appeal of the Interpretation of the
Conditions of Approval of CTRP No.178,then the applicants of that permit (Libermans)
have a right to require that the City complete the original trimming as recommended per
the original permit,which is crown raising (the removal of branches)up to a line
specified on the photo diagram that was approved with the original CTRP No.178.If
this original trimming is completed,the level that the trees are to be crown-raised to
(trimmed up to)is approximately the same level that the trees have been trimmed down
to per P.C.Resolution 2011-01.Thus,as noted above,if the trees are trimmed per the
originally-approved Director's recommendation for CTRP No.178,this will result in all
branches being removed from the trees.This would leave unsightly trees that are likely
to die,which could in turn,necessitate removal of these trees.
Correspondence
Immediately after the Director's Interpretation Review Staff Report was mailed to the interested
parties,Staff received an email from the sole applicant of CTRP No.178 at 7318 Berry Hill Drive
in favor of the proposed modified conditions of approval.The sole applicant later sent an email
addressing the proposed modified conditions of approval and had several comments regarding
the modified trimming,which Staff has listed and addressed below.Staff also received
comments from the appellants in the form of their appeal email,which is addressed in the
"Discussion"section above.
•Tree No.10 (No.4 in CTRP2008-00031)should be removed.
It should be noted that per CTRP2008-00031,the property owners of 30317 Via
Cambron,whose property directly abuts Tree.No.4,have indicated to the City in
multiple leiters (one recent)that they do not wish the tree to be adopted.Thus,per
Condition NO.4 in P.C.Resolution 2011-01.Staff has scheduled the removal of Tree
NO.4 for sometime in early May 2011.
•Tree No.7 (No 6 in CTRP2008-00031)should be trimmed down rather than
branches removed.
Staff believes that removing a select branch or branches is sufficient to eliminate the
significant view impairment that exists for 7318 Berry Hill Drive.Completing enough
crown reduction to Tree No.7 (6)to trim it completely out of the view would result in an
unsightly tree with almost no foliage and contribute to the likelihood of its demise.Staff
believes that select branch removal is sufficient to eliminate the significant view
impairment without completing additional extensive trimming.
•Tree No 8 (No 7 in CTRP2008-00031)Additional lacing of the tree would be helpful
This is what the Director has required as a result of the Interpretation Review.
Appeal of Case ZON2011-00053:Director's Interpretation Review of the Conditions of Approval of CTRP No.178
April 12,2011
It is true that CTRP No.178 specified only that the crown of the seven trees be raised by
trimming the lower branches,but as stated above,the trimming that has occurred per
the Planning Commission's approval of CTRP2008-00031 has significantly changed the
condition of the trees that are also sUbject to CTRP No.178.As a result,if the trimming
required by CTRP No.178 is completed,only the trunks of the seven trees would
remain.
On this note,if the Planning Commission approves the appeal of the Interpretation of the
Conditions of Approval of CTRP No.178,then the applicants of that permit (Libermans)
have a right to require that the City complete the original trimming as recommended per
the original permit,which is crown raising (the removal of branches)up to a line
specified on the photo diagram that was approved with the original CTRP No.178.If
this original trimming is completed,the level that the trees are to be crown-raised to
(trimmed up to)is approximately the same level that the trees have been trimmed down
to per P.C.Resolution 2011-01.Thus,as noted above,if the trees are trimmed per the
originally-approved Director's recommendation for CTRP No.178,this will result in all
branches being removed from the trees.This would leave unsightly trees that are likely
to die,which could in turn,necessitate removal of these trees.
Correspondence
Immediately after the Director's Interpretation Review Staff Report was mailed to the interested
parties,Staff received an email from the sole applicant of CTRP No.178 at 7318 Berry Hill Drive
in favor of the proposed modified conditions of approval.The sole applicant later sent an email
addressing the proposed modified conditions of approval and had several comments regarding
the modified trimming,which Staff has listed and addressed below.Staff also received
comments from the appellants in the form of their appeal email,which is addressed in the
"Discussion"section above.
•Tree No.10 (No.4 in CTRP2008-00031)should be removed.
It should be noted that per CTRP2008-00031,the property owners of 30317 Via
Cambron,whose property directly abuts Tree.No.4,have indicated to the City in
mUltiple letters (one recent)that they do not wish the tree to be adopted.Thus,per
Condition NO.4 in P.C.Resolution 2011-01.Staff has scheduled the removal of Tree
NO.4 for sometime in early May 2011.
•Tree No.7 (No 6 in CTRP2008-00031)should be trimmed down rather than
branches removed.
Staff believes that removing a select branch or branches is sufficient to eliminate the
significant view impairment that exists for 7318 Berry Hill Drive.Completing enough
crown reduction to Tree No.7 (6)to trim it completely out of the view would result in an
unsightly tree with almost no foliage and contribute to the likelihood of its demise.Staff
believes that select branch removal is sufficient to eliminate the significant view
impairment without completing additional extensive trimming.
•Tree No 8 (No 7 in CTRP2008-00031)Additional lacing of the tree would be helpful
This is what the Director has required as a result of the Interpretation Review.
Attachment 3-16
Appeal of Case ZON2011-00053:Director's Interpretation Review of the Conditions of Approval of CTRP No.178
April 12,2011
•Tree No 5 (No.9 in CTRP2008-00031)Trimming the tree to the horizon line will
open up the Catalina view as well as eliminate the unsightliness of the tree.
This is what the Director has required as a result of the Interpretation Review.
•Tree No 4 (No 10 in CTRP2008-00031)Trimming the tree to the horizon line will
open up the Catalina view
This is what the Director has required as a result of the Interpretation Review.
•Catalina is visible over the elms but only a scant bit of ocean,Please consider the
following:
The City's contract tree trimming crew recently completed maintenance trimming of the
three elm trees that are sUbject to CTRP No,178.Staff instructed the crew to trim to the
existing cut marks,which is a typical way to ensure that the trimming only goes as far as
the previous maintenance.If the applicant wishes the elm trees to be trimmed further,
this is something that can be addressed during the next non-active bird nesting period,
or in November 2011.
•The trees should be trimmed to restore the views of the ocean as well as Catalina
Island.
It is true that the ocean is a protected view per the View Restoration/Preservation
Guidelines.However,the City's Municipal Code Section 17,76.100,F.1.c.i states simply
that,"...the pruning of the subject tree and/or foliage will eliminate the significant
impairment ofthe applicant's view ..."This section does not require that the City-owned
tree is trimmed completely out of an applicant's view,only that this trimming eliminates
the significant view impairment.Thus,because the trees in this case have been
trimmed down out of a majority of the ocean view,and because the Interpretation
recommends that several portions of several trees that are left in the view undergo some
additional trimming,Staff believes that if the Interpretation is upheld,and the modified
trimming is allowed to occur,the significant view impairment will be eliminated.Staff
simply is using the horizon line as a guideline for trimming down the subject trees out of
the prominent landmark that is Catalina Island,and then the heavy lacing the rest of the
trees is a measurable method to eliminate the significant view impairment.In regards to
CTRP2008-00031,the Planning Commission agreed with Staff to this method of at least
attempting to eliminate the significant view impairment via this type of trimming.The
Planning Commission will determine on April 12'h whether this method has indeed
eliminated the applicants'significant view impairment caused by seven of the same City-
owned Canary Island Pine trees.
CONCLUSION
After a comprehensive review of all the comments provided,and based on the above
discussion,Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission
Resolution No.2011-_,thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Director's decision on
Case ZON2011-00053:Director's Interpretation Review of the Conditions of Approval of CTRP
No.178.
Appeal of Case ZON2011·00053:Director's Interpretation Review of the Conditions of Approval of CTRP No.178
April 12,2011
•Tree No 5 (No.9 in CTRP2008-00031)Trimming the tree to the horizon line will
open up the Catalina view as well as eliminate the unsightliness of the tree.
This is what the Director has required as a result of the Interpretation Review.
•Tree No 4 (No 10 in CTRP2008-00031)Trimming the tree to the horizon line will
open up the Catalina view
This is what the Director has required as a result of the Interpretation Review.
•Catalina is visible over the elms but only a scant bit of ocean,Please consider the
following:
The City's contract tree trimming crew recently completed maintenance trimming of the
three elm trees that are SUbject to CTRP No.178.Staff instructed the crew to trim to the
existing cut marks,which is a typical way to ensure that the trimming only goes as far as
the previous maintenance.If the applicant wishes the elm trees to be trimmed further,
this is something that can be addressed during the next non-active bird nesting period,
or in November 2011,
•The trees should be trimmed to restore the views of the ocean as well as Catalina
Island.
It is true that the ocean is a protected view per the View Restoration/Preservation
Guidelines.However,the City's Municipal Code Section 17,76.100,F.1.c.i states simply
that,"...the pruning of the subject tree and/or foliage will eliminate the significant
impairment ofthe applicant's view ..."This section does not require that the City-owned
tree is trimmed completely out of an applicant's view,only that this trimming eliminates
the significant view impairment.Thus,because the trees in this case have been
trimmed down out of a majority of the ocean view,and because the Interpretation
recommends that several portions of several trees that are left in the view undergo some
additional trimming,Staff believes that if the Interpretation is upheld,and the modified
trimming is allowed to occur,the significant view impairment will be eliminated.Staff
simply is using the horizon line as a guideline for trimming down the subject trees out of
the prominent landmark that is Catalina Island,and then the heavy lacing the rest of the
trees is a measurable method to eliminate the significant view impairment.In regards to
CTRP2008-00031,the Planning Commission agreed with Staff to this method of at least
attempting to eliminate the significant view impairment via this type of trimming.The
Planning Commission will determine on April 12'h whether this method has indeed
eliminated the applicants'significant view impairment caused by seven of the same City-
owned Canary Island Pine trees.
CONCLUSION
After a comprehensive review of all the comments provided,and based on the above
discussion,Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission
Resolution No.2011-_,thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Director's decision on
Case ZON2011-00053:Director's Interpretation Review of the Conditions of Approval of CTRP
No.178.
Appeal of Case ZON2011·00053:Director's Interpretation Review of the Conditions of Approval of CTRP No.178
April 12,2011
•Tree No 5 (No.9 in CTRP2008-00031)Trimming the tree to the horizon line will
open up the Catalina view as well as eliminate the unsightliness of the tree.
This is what the Director has required as a result of the Interpretation Review.
•Tree No 4 (No 10 in CTRP2008-00031)Trimming the tree to the horizon line will
open up the Catalina view
This is what the Director has required as a result of the Interpretation Review.
•Catalina is visible over the elms but only a scant bit of ocean.Please consider the
following:
The City's contract tree trimming crew recently completed maintenance trimming of the
three elm trees that are SUbject to CTRP No.178.Staff instructed the crew to trim to the
existing cut marks,which is a typical way to ensure that the trimming only goes as far as
the previous maintenance.If the applicant wishes the elm trees to be trimmed further,
this is something that can be addressed during the next non-active bird nesting period,
or in November 2011,
•The trees should be trimmed to restore the views of the ocean as well as Catalina
Island.
It is true that the ocean is a protected view per the View Restoration/Preservation
Guidelines.However,the City's Municipal Code Section 17,76.100,F.1.c.i states simply
that,"...the pruning of the SUbject tree and/or foliage will eliminate the significant
impairment of/he applicant's view ..."This section does not require that the City-owned
tree is trimmed completely out of an applicant's view,only that this trimming eliminates
the significant view impairment.Thus,because the trees in this case have been
trimmed down out of a majority of the ocean view,and because the Interpretation
recommends that several portions of several trees that are left in the view undergo some
additional trimming,Staff believes that if the Interpretation is upheld,and the modified
trimming is allowed to occur,the significant view impairment will be eliminated.Staff
simply is using the horizon line as a guideline for trimming down the subject trees out of
the prominent landmark that is Catalina Island,and then the heavy lacing the rest of the
trees is a measurable method to eliminate the significant view impairment.In regards to
CTRP2008-00031,the Planning Commission agreed with Staff to this method of at least
attempting to eliminate the significant view impairment via this type of trimming.The
Planning Commission will determine on April 12'h whether this method has indeed
eliminated the applicants'significant view impairment caused by seven of the same City-
owned Canary Island Pine trees.
CONCLUSION
After a comprehensive review of all the comments provided,and based on the above
discussion,Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission
Resolution No.2011-_,thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Director's decision on
Case ZON2011-00053:Director's Interpretation Review of the Conditions of Approval of CTRP
No.178.
Attachment 3-17
Appeal of Case ZON2011-00053:Director's Interpretation Review of the Conditions of Approval of CTRP No.178
Aprii 12,2011
ALTERNATIVES
The alternative available for consideration by the Planning Commission includes:
1.Uphold the appeal,thereby overturning the Director's decision,and directing Staff to return
to the Planning Commission with the appropriate resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A -Draft Planning Commission Resolution No.2011-_
Exhibit B -Interpretation Staff Report and Notice of Decision
Exhibit C -Correspondence
Appeal of Case ZON2011-00053:Director's Interpretation Review of the Conditions of Approval of CTRP No.178
Aprii 12,2011
ALTERNATIVES
The alternative available for consideration by the Planning Commission includes:
1.Uphold the appeal,thereby overturning the Director's decision,and directing Staff to return
to the Planning Commission with the appropriate resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A -Draft Planning Commission Resolution No.2011-_
Exhibit B -Interpretation Staff Report and Notice of Decision
Exhibit C -Correspondence
Appeal of Case ZON2011-00053:Director's Interpretation Review of the Conditions of Approval of CTRP No.178
Aprii 12,2011
ALTERNATIVES
The alternative available for consideration by the Planning Commission includes:
1.Uphold the appeal,thereby overturning the Director's decision,and directing Staff to return
to the Planning Commission with the appropriate resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A -Draft Planning Commission Resolution No.2011-_
Exhibit B -Interpretation Staff Report and Notice of Decision
Exhibit C -Correspondence
Attachment 3-18
Exhibit A -Draft Planning Commission Resolution No.2011-_Exhibit A -Draft Planning Commission Resolution No.2011-_Exhibit A -Draft Planning Commission Resolution No.2011-_
Attachment 3-19
PoCo RESOLUTION NOo 2011-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL OF CASE
ZON2011-00053 AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S
INTERPRETATION REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF
CTRP NOo17B
WHEREAS,in July 2003,City Tree Review Permit (CTRP)No.178 was approved by the
Director to address the significant impairment to the view at 7318 Berry Hill Drive caused by ten
trees located in the City-owned public right-of-way;and,
WHEREAS,these trees consisted of seven (7)Canary Island Pine trees located
adjacent to 30317,30405,and 30327 Via Cambron and 7313 Via Collado,and three (3)Elm
trees located adjacent to 7310 Via Collado;and,
WHEREAS,the Staff Report for this permit recommended that the crowns of the three
Elm trees be trimmed down approximately six feet and shaped,and that the crowns of the Pine
trees be raised by trimming the lower branches up to the trimming level illustrated in the photo
attachment for CTRP No.178;and,
WHEREAS,at the time this CTRP was processed,Development Code Section
17.76.100 required the City to pay for the costs of trimming trees that are part of the City-
identified Uniform Street Program.These trees were identified to be part of the City-identified
Uniform Street program,and as indicated by the City's records and the applicant,the initial
trimming per CTRP No.178 was completed;and,
WHEREAS,In January 2011,the Planning Commission upheld the appeal of
CTRP2008-00031.This decision required that the seven (7)Canary Island Pine trees adjacent
to 30317, 30405,and 30327 Via Cambron and 7313 Via Collado,as well as three (3)Canary
Island Pine trees adjacent to 30303 Via Cambron be trimmed per Planning Commission
Resolution 2011-01.This decision also required that Staff schedule a duly noticed public
hearing before the Planning Commission for the sole purpose of determining if this required tree
trimming eliminates the significant view impairment for the four applicants located at 7284,
7306,7315 and 7333 Berry Hill Drive;and,
WHEREAS,after the initial trimming of the trees related to CTRP2008-00031 was
completed,Staff assessed the view impairment from the property of Mr.&Mrs.Liberman (7318
Berry Hill Drive),the sole applicant related to CTRP No.178.The amount of trimming that had
occurred significantly changed the trees that are also subject to CTRP No.178.As a result,the
Director determined that circumstances warranted an Interpretation Review of the conditions of
approval related to CTRP No.178;and,
WHEREAS,the Director's Notice of Decision was mailed out on March,4,2011 and the
accompanying Staff Report was mailed out on March 10,2011;and,
WHEREAS,on March 21,2011,Mrs.Nancy Parsons,Ms.Marjorie C.Carter,Mr.
Michael O'Sullivan,Mrs.Cindy Hoskins,Mr.Rob Hoskins and Mr.Stu Thomson submitted an
appeal to overturn the Director's decision;and,
WHEREAS,after notice issued on March 24,2011 pursuant to the requirements of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
Planning Commission Resolution 2011-_
Page 1 of 10
PoCo RESOLUTION NOo 2011-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL OF CASE
ZON2011-00053 AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S
INTERPRETATION REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF
CTRP NOo17B
WHEREAS,in July 2003,City Tree Review Permit (CTRP)No.178 was approved by the
Director to address the significant impairment to the view at 7318 Berry Hill Drive caused by ten
trees located in the City-owned public right-of-way;and,
WHEREAS,these trees consisted of seven (7)Canary Island Pine trees located
adjacent to 30317,30405,and 30327 Via Cambron and 7313 Via Collado,and three (3)Elm
trees located adjacent to 7310 Via Collado;and,
WHEREAS,the Staff Report for this permit recommended that the crowns of the three
Elm trees be trimmed down approximately six feet and shaped,and that the crowns of the Pine
trees be raised by trimming the lower branches up to the trimming level illustrated in the photo
attachment for CTRP No.178;and,
WHEREAS,at the time this CTRP was processed,Development Code Section
17.76.100 required the City to pay for the costs of trimming trees that are part of the City-
identified Uniform Street Program.These trees were identified to be part of the City-identified
Uniform Street program,and as indicated by the City's records and the applicant,the initial
trimming per CTRP No.178 was completed;and,
WHEREAS,In January 2011,the Planning Commission upheld the appeal of
CTRP2008-00031.This decision required that the seven (7)Canary Island Pine trees adjacent
to 30317, 30405,and 30327 Via Cambron and 7313 Via Collado,as well as three (3)Canary
Island Pine trees adjacent to 30303 Via Cambron be trimmed per Planning Commission
Resolution 2011-01.This decision also required that Staff schedule a duly noticed public
hearing before the Planning Commission for the sole purpose of determining if this required tree
trimming eliminates the significant view impairment for the four applicants located at 7284,
7306,7315 and 7333 Berry Hill Drive;and,
WHEREAS,after the initial trimming of the trees related to CTRP2008-00031 was
completed,Staff assessed the view impairment from the property of Mr.&Mrs.Liberman (7318
Berry Hill Drive),the sole applicant related to CTRP No.178.The amount of trimming that had
occurred significantly changed the trees that are also subject to CTRP No.178.As a result,the
Director determined that circumstances warranted an Interpretation Review of the conditions of
approval related to CTRP No.178;and,
WHEREAS,the Director's Notice of Decision was mailed out on March,4,2011 and the
accompanying Staff Report was mailed out on March 10,2011;and,
WHEREAS,on March 21,2011,Mrs.Nancy Parsons,Ms.Marjorie C.Carter,Mr.
Michael O'Sullivan,Mrs.Cindy Hoskins,Mr.Rob Hoskins and Mr.Stu Thomson submitted an
appeal to overturn the Director's decision;and,
WHEREAS,after notice issued on March 24,2011 pursuant to the requirements of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
Planning Commission Resolution 2011-_
Page 1 of 10
PoCo RESOLUTION NOo 2011-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL OF CASE
ZON2011-00053 AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S
INTERPRETATION REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF
CTRP NOo17B
WHEREAS,in July 2003,City Tree Review Permit (CTRP)No.178 was approved by the
Director to address the significant impairment to the view at 7318 Berry Hill Drive caused by ten
trees located in the City-owned public right-of-way;and,
WHEREAS,these trees consisted of seven (7)Canary Island Pine trees located
adjacent to 30317,30405,and 30327 Via Cambron and 7313 Via Collado,and three (3)Elm
trees located adjacent to 7310 Via Collado;and,
WHEREAS,the Staff Report for this permit recommended that the crowns of the three
Elm trees be trimmed down approximately six feet and shaped,and that the crowns of the Pine
trees be raised by trimming the lower branches up to the trimming level illustrated in the photo
attachment for CTRP No.178;and,
WHEREAS,at the time this CTRP was processed,Development Code Section
17.76.100 required the City to pay for the costs of trimming trees that are part of the City-
identified Uniform Street Program.These trees were identified to be part of the City-identified
Uniform Street program,and as indicated by the City's records and the applicant,the initial
trimming per CTRP No.178 was completed;and,
WHEREAS,In January 2011,the Planning Commission upheld the appeal of
CTRP2008-00031.This decision required that the seven (7)Canary Island Pine trees adjacent
to 30317, 30405,and 30327 Via Cambron and 7313 Via Collado,as well as three (3)Canary
Island Pine trees adjacent to 30303 Via Cambron be trimmed per Planning Commission
Resolution 2011-01.This decision also required that Staff schedule a duly noticed public
hearing before the Planning Commission for the sole purpose of determining if this required tree
trimming eliminates the significant view impairment for the four applicants located at 7284,
7306,7315 and 7333 Berry Hill Drive;and,
WHEREAS,after the initial trimming of the trees related to CTRP2008-00031 was
completed,Staff assessed the view impairment from the property of Mr.&Mrs.Liberman (7318
Berry Hill Drive),the sole applicant related to CTRP No.178.The amount of trimming that had
occurred significantly changed the trees that are also subject to CTRP No.178.As a result,the
Director determined that circumstances warranted an Interpretation Review of the conditions of
approval related to CTRP No.178;and,
WHEREAS,the Director's Notice of Decision was mailed out on March,4,2011 and the
accompanying Staff Report was mailed out on March 10,2011;and,
WHEREAS,on March 21,2011,Mrs.Nancy Parsons,Ms.Marjorie C.Carter,Mr.
Michael O'Sullivan,Mrs.Cindy Hoskins,Mr.Rob Hoskins and Mr.Stu Thomson submitted an
appeal to overturn the Director's decision;and,
WHEREAS,after notice issued on March 24,2011 pursuant to the requirements of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
Planning Commission Resolution 2011-_
Page 1 of 10
Attachment 3-20
hearing on April 12,2011,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:As defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code,the
Applicant at 7328 Berry Hill Drive has a view of the ocean and Catalina Island.
Section 2:The Applicant's viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive,as defined by Section
17.02.040 of the City's Development Code,and CTRP No.178 is from living room and rear yard
patio.
Section 3:The Applicant at 7318 Berry Hill Drive,has a view that is significantly
impaired by seven (7)Trees located on Via Cambron,and Via Collado.
Section 4:The seven Pine trees addressed in CTRP No.178 must be trimmed to
eliminate the significant view impairment from the Applicant'view.
Section 5:As a result of the extensive trimming that has recently been done to the
same seven (7)trees in association with CTRP2008-00031,the Conditions of Approval for
CTRP No.178 shall be modified to alter the trimming required to eliminate the significant view
impairment for the applicant at 7318 Berry Hill Drive,
Section 6:Pursuant to Section 15304 of the California Environmental Quality Act,the
proposed project is categorically exempt under Class 4 of that section because the work
required to restore the Applicants'view does not include the removal of scenic and mature
Trees as identified by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan (Visual Aspects;Figure
41).This finding,demonstrates that the decision complies with the provisions of CEQA because
the decision does not cause any significant adverse environmental impacts.Since the subject
Trees are not considered to be scenic or mature Trees as identified in the City's General Plan,
the environmental impacts due to trimming and/or removal are insignificant.
Section 7:Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this
decision may appeal to the City Council.Pursuant to Section 17.202.040 (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 8:For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the staff report,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
hereby denies the appeal of Case ZON2011-00053 and upholds the Director's Interpretation
Review of the Conditions of Approval of CTRP No.178,subject to the Conditions of Approval
contained in the attached Exhibits "A"-"E".
Planning Commission Resolution 2011,_
Page 2 of 10
hearing on April 12,2011,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:As defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code,the
Applicant at 7328 Berry Hill Drive has a view of the ocean and Catalina Island.
Section 2:The Applicant's viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive,as defined by Section
17.02.040 of the City's Development Code,and CTRP No.178 is from living room and rear yard
patio.
Section 3:The Applicant at 7318 Berry Hill Drive,has a view that is significantly
impaired by seven (7)Trees located on Via Cambron,and Via Collado.
Section 4:The seven Pine trees addressed in CTRP No.178 must be trimmed to
eliminate the significant view impairment from the Applicant'view.
Section 5:As a result of the extensive trimming that has recently been done to the
same seven (7)trees in association with CTRP2008-00031,the Conditions of Approval for
CTRP No.178 shall be modified to alter the trimming required to eliminate the significant view
impairment for the applicant at 7318 Berry Hill Drive,
Section 6:Pursuant to Section 15304 of the California Environmental Quality Act,the
proposed project is categorically exempt under Class 4 of that section because the work
required to restore the Applicants'view does not include the removal of scenic and mature
Trees as identified by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan (Visual Aspects;Figure
41).This finding,demonstrates that the decision complies with the provisions of CEQA because
the decision does not cause any significant adverse environmental impacts.Since the subject
Trees are not considered to be scenic or mature Trees as identified in the City's General Plan,
the environmental impacts due to trimming and/or removal are insignificant.
Section 7:Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this
decision may appeal to the City Council.Pursuant to Section 17.202.040 (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 8:For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the staff report,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
hereby denies the appeal of Case ZON2011-00053 and upholds the Director's Interpretation
Review of the Conditions of Approval of CTRP No.178,subject to the Conditions of Approval
contained in the attached Exhibits "A"-"E".
Planning Commission Resolution 2011-_
Page 2 of 10
hearing on April 12,2011,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:As defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code,the
Applicant at 7328 Berry Hill Drive has a view of the ocean and Catalina Island.
Section 2:The Applicant's viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive,as defined by Section
17.02.040 of the City's Development Code,and CTRP No.178 is from living room and rear yard
patio.
Section 3:The Applicant at 7318 Berry Hill Drive,has a view that is significantly
impaired by seven (7)Trees located on Via Cambron,and Via Collado.
Section 4:The seven Pine trees addressed in CTRP No.178 must be trimmed to
eliminate the significant view impairment from the Applicant'view.
Section 5:As a result of the extensive trimming that has recently been done to the
same seven (7)trees in association with CTRP2008-00031,the Conditions of Approval for
CTRP No.178 shall be modified to alter the trimming required to eliminate the significant view
impairment for the applicant at 7318 Berry Hill Drive,
Section 6:Pursuant to Section 15304 of the California Environmental Quality Act,the
proposed project is categorically exempt under Class 4 of that section because the work
required to restore the Applicants'view does not include the removal of scenic and mature
Trees as identified by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan (Visual Aspects;Figure
41).This finding,demonstrates that the decision complies with the provisions of CEQA because
the decision does not cause any significant adverse environmental impacts.Since the subject
Trees are not considered to be scenic or mature Trees as identified in the City's General Plan,
the environmental impacts due to trimming and/or removal are insignificant.
Section 7:Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this
decision may appeal to the City Council.Pursuant to Section 17.202.040 (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 8:For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the staff report,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
hereby denies the appeal of Case ZON2011-00053 and upholds the Director's Interpretation
Review of the Conditions of Approval of CTRP No.178,subject to the Conditions of Approval
contained in the attached Exhibits "A"-"E".
Planning Commission Resolution 2011-_
Page 2 of 10
Attachment 3-21
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12 th day of April 2011,by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
RECUSALS:
ABSENT:
David L.Tomblin,
Chairman
Joel Rojas,AICP
Community Development Director;and,
Secretary of the Planning Commission
Planning Commission Resolution 2011-_
Page 3 of 10
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12'h day of April 2011,by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
RECUSALS:
ABSENT:
David L.Tomblin,
Chairman
Joel Rojas,AICP
Community Development Director;and,
Secretary of the Planning Commission
Planning Commission Resolution 2011-_
Page 3 of 10
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12'h day of April 2011,by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
RECUSALS:
ABSENT:
David L.Tomblin,
Chairman
Joel Rojas,AICP
Community Development Director;and,
Secretary of the Planning Commission
Planning Commission Resolution 2011-_
Page 3 of 10
Attachment 3-22
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DENIAL OF THE APPEAL OF CASE ZON2011-00053 AND
UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION
REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF
DIRECTOR'S DECISION ON CTRP NO.178
1.Remove several large branches on Tree No.1 0 (No.4 in CTRP2008-00031).(If tree is
not removed per CTRP2008-00031.)
2.Selective branch removal on the east side of Tree NO.7 (No.6 in CTRP2008-00031).
3.Additional lacing ofTree No.8 (No.7 in CTRP2008-00031).
4.Trim Tree NO.5 (No.g in CTRP2008-00031)down to the horizon line as viewed from the
viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive as well as some selective branch removal on the
west side of the tree.
5.Trim Tree NO.4 (No.1 0 in CTRP2008-00031)down to the horizon line as viewed from
the viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive as well as some selective branch removal on
the west side of the tree.
6.Tree Nos.6 (No.8 in CTRP2008-00031)and g (No.5 in CTRP2008-00031)are to be
maintained at the horizon line as viewed from the viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive
and heavily laced.
7.The trimming of the Trees shall only occur during the cooler months of the year,and
during the non-active bird nesting season,which is the period from November 1st
through February 1Sl.
8.The trimming required per CTRP No.178 for the three Elm trees located adjacent to
7310 Via Collado is not proposed to be changed from the original decision,which is as
follows:Trim crown of tree approximately 6 feet and shape (see original photo
attachment from CTRP No.178 attached as Exhibit E).This condition,originally
approved by the Director in 2003 shall remain effective.
Planning Commission Resolution 2011-_
Page 4 of 10
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DENIAL OF THE APPEAL OF CASE ZON2011-00053 AND
UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION
REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF
DIRECTOR'S DECISION ON CTRP NO.178
1.Remove several large branches on Tree NO.1 0 (No.4 in CTRP2008-00031).(If tree is
not removed per CTRP2008-00031.)
2.Selective branch removal on the east side of Tree NO.7 (No.6 in CTRP2008-00031).
3.Additional lacing ofTree No.8 (No.7 in CTRP2008-00031).
4.Trim Tree NO.5 (No.g in CTRP2008-00031)down to the horizon line as viewed from the
viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive as well as some selective branch removal on the
west side of the tree.
5.Trim Tree NO.4 (No.1 0 in CTRP2008-00031)down to the horizon line as viewed from
the viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive as well as some selective branch removal on
the west side of the tree.
6.Tree Nos.6 (No.8 in CTRP2008-00031)and g (No.5 in CTRP2008-00031)are to be
maintained at the horizon line as viewed from the viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive
and heavily laced.
7.The trimming of the Trees shall only occur during the cooler months of the year,and
during the non-active bird nesting season,which is the period from November 1st
through February 1s'.
8.The trimming required per CTRP No.178 for the three Elm trees located adjacent to
7310 Via Collado is not proposed to be changed from the original decision,which is as
follows:Trim crown of tree approximately 6 feet and shape (see original photo
attachment from CTRP No.178 attached as Exhibit E).This condition,originally
approved by the Director In 2003 shall remain effective.
Planning Commission Resolution 2011-_
Page 4 of 10
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DENIAL OF THE APPEAL OF CASE ZON2011-00053 AND
UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION
REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF
DIRECTOR'S DECISION ON CTRP NO.178
1.Remove several large branches on Tree NO.1 0 (No.4 in CTRP2008-00031).(If tree is
not removed per CTRP2008-00031.)
2.Selective branch removal on the east side of Tree NO.7 (No.6 in CTRP2008-00031).
3.Additional lacing ofTree No.8 (No.7 in CTRP2008-00031).
4.Trim Tree NO.5 (No.9 in CTRP2008-00031)down to the horizon line as viewed from the
viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive as well as some selective branch removal on the
west side of the tree.
5.Trim Tree NO.4 (No.1 0 in CTRP2008-00031)down to the horizon line as viewed from
the viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive as well as some selective branch removal on
the west side of the tree.
6.Tree Nos.6 (No.8 in CTRP2008-00031)and 9 (No.5 in CTRP2008-00031)are to be
maintained at the horizon line as viewed from the viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive
and heavily laced.
7.The trimming of the Trees shall only occur during the cooler months of the year,and
during the non-active bird nesting season,which is the period from November 1st
through February 1st
8.The trimming required per CTRP No.178 for the three Elm trees located adjacent to
7310 Via Collado is not proposed to be changed from the original decision,which is as
follows:Trim crown of tree approximately 6 feet and shape (see original photo
attachment from CTRP No.178 attached as Exhibit E).This condition,originally
approved by the Director in 2003 shall remain effective.
Planning Commission Resolution 2011-_
Page 4 of 10
Attachment 3-23
nozc
=ioz
Ul
o
"Tl
~
"'0;;ao<>r
::u
(I)
U>oc-u""
'"0CO=>
(I)N
",0
O~~I~
m
X::r:
OJ
=i
OJ
nozc
=i
5z
(Jl
o
'TI
>"";;ao<>r
(")ozc
=l
5z
Ul
o
."
>""AIo
~r
Attachment 3-24
f
T
r
e
e
N
O
.
9
(
N
o
.
5
)
-
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
a
t
7
3
1
8
B
e
r
r
y
H
i
l
l
h
o
r
i
z
o
n
l
i
n
e
a
n
d
h
e
a
v
i
l
y
l
a
c
e
}
T
r
e
e
N
O
.
8
(
N
o
.
7
)
-
H
e
a
v
i
l
y
L
a
c
e
TreeNo.1-3-NotrimmingchangetoElms CONDITIONSOFAPPROVALEXHIBITC -MODIDIFIEDTRI
M
M
I
N
G
D
I
A
G
R
A
M
-
P
h
o
t
o
t
a
k
e
n
b
y
S
t
a
f
f
i
n
:
F
:
e
:
b
:
r
:
u
a
:
r
y
~
2
:
0
~
1
1
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
~
i-
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
@
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
.
J
-
-
»
-
_
~
,
~
,
~
~
,
~
-
b
e
,
.
TreeNO.4(No.
1
0
)
-
T
r
e
e
N
O
.
5
(
N
o
.
9
)
_
I
Trimdownto7
3
1
8
B
e
r
r
y
T
r
i
m
d
o
w
n
t
o
7
3
1
8
w
Hillhorizonline
&
-
-
-
_
B
e
r
r
y
H
i
l
l
h
o
r
i
z
o
n
l
i
n
e
selectivebranc
h
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
&
s
e
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
b
r
a
n
c
h
inthered-circle
d
a
r
e
a
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
i
n
t
h
e
r
e
d
-
c
i
r
c
l
e
d
a
r
e
a
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
1
-
_
P
a
g
e
6
o
f
1
0
T
r
e
e
N
O
.
9
(
N
o
.
5
)
-
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
a
t
7
3
1
8
B
e
r
r
y
H
i
l
l
h
o
r
i
z
o
n
l
i
n
e
a
n
d
h
e
a
v
i
l
y
l
a
c
e
T
r
e
e
N
O
.
8
(
N
o
.
7
)
-
H
e
a
v
i
l
y
L
a
c
e
B
e
r
r
y
H
i
l
l
h
o
r
i
z
o
n
l
i
n
e
&
s
e
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
b
r
a
n
c
h
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
i
n
t
h
e
r
e
d
-
c
i
r
c
l
e
d
a
r
e
a
T
r
e
e
N
O
.
5
(
N
o
.
9
)
-
T
r
i
m
d
o
w
n
t
o
7
3
1
8
CONDITIONSOFAPPROVALEXHIBITC -MODIDIFIEDTRI
M
M
I
N
G
D
I
A
G
R
A
M
-
P
h
o
t
o
t
a
k
e
n
b
y
S
t
a
f
f
i
n
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
1
~
~
~
-
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
TreeNo.1-3-NotrimmingchangetoElms ••I!I••l!!!'-~TreeNO.4(No
.
1
0
)
-
Trimdownto7
3
1
8
B
e
r
r
y
Hillhorizonline
&
selectivebranc
h
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
inthered-circle
d
a
r
e
a
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
1
-
_
P
a
g
e
6
o
f
1
0
T
r
e
e
N
O
.
9
(
N
o
.
5
)
-
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
a
t
7
3
1
8
B
e
r
r
y
H
i
l
l
h
o
r
i
z
o
n
l
i
n
e
a
n
d
h
e
a
v
i
l
y
l
a
c
e
T
r
e
e
N
O
.
8
(
N
o
.
7
)
-
H
e
a
v
i
l
y
L
a
c
e
B
e
r
r
y
H
i
l
l
h
o
r
i
z
o
n
l
i
n
e
&
s
e
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
b
r
a
n
c
h
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
i
n
t
h
e
r
e
d
-
c
i
r
c
l
e
d
a
r
e
a
T
r
e
e
N
O
.
5
(
N
o
.
9
)
-
T
r
i
m
d
o
w
n
t
o
7
3
1
8
TreeNo.1-3-NotrimmingchangetoElms CONDITIONSOFAPPROVALEXHIBITC -MODIDIFIEDTRI
M
M
I
N
G
D
I
A
G
R
A
M
-
P
h
o
t
o
t
a
k
e
n
b
y
S
t
a
f
f
i
n
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
1
-
~
~
~
+
.
t
f
t
i
-
'
.
p
q
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
I
.
L
z
F .rTreeNO.4(No.
1
0
)
-
Trimdownto7
3
1
8
B
e
r
r
y
Hillhorizonline
&
selectivebranc
h
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
inthered-circle
d
a
r
e
a
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
1
-
_
P
a
g
e
6
o
f
1
0
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
2
5
CONDITIONSOFAPPROVALEXHIBITD -ENLARGEDPH
O
T
O
S
O
F
T
R
E
E
S
I
N
V
I
E
W
S
H
O
W
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
S
O
F
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
R
A
N
C
H
R
E
M
O
V
A
L
-
P
H
O
T
O
S
T
A
K
E
N
B
Y
STAFFINMARCH2011
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
1
-
_
P
a
g
e
7
o
f
1
0
CONDITIONSOFAPPROVALEXHIBITD -ENLARGEDPH
O
T
O
S
O
F
T
R
E
E
S
I
N
V
I
E
W
S
H
O
W
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
S
O
F
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
R
A
N
C
H
R
E
M
O
V
A
L
-
P
H
O
T
O
S
T
A
K
E
N
B
Y
STAFFINMARCH2011
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
1
-
_
P
a
g
e
7
o
f
1
0
CONDITIONSOFAPPROVALEXHIBITD -ENLARGEDPH
O
T
O
S
O
F
T
R
E
E
S
I
N
V
I
E
W
S
H
O
W
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
S
O
F
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
R
A
N
C
H
R
E
M
O
V
A
L
-
P
H
O
T
O
S
T
A
K
E
N
B
Y
STAFFINMARCH2011
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
1
-
_
P
a
g
e
7
o
f
1
0
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
2
6
CONDITIONSOFAPPROVALEXHIBITD -ENLARGEDPH
O
T
O
S
O
F
T
R
E
E
S
I
N
V
I
E
W
S
H
O
W
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
S
O
F
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
R
A
N
C
H
R
E
M
O
V
A
L
-
P
H
O
T
O
S
T
A
K
E
N
B
Y
STAFFINMARCH2011
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
1
-
_
P
a
g
e
8
o
f
1
0
CONDITIONSOFAPPROVALEXHIBITD -ENLARGEDPH
O
T
O
S
O
F
T
R
E
E
S
I
N
V
I
E
W
S
H
O
W
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
S
O
F
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
R
A
N
C
H
R
E
M
O
V
A
L
-
P
H
O
T
O
S
T
A
K
E
N
B
Y
STAFFINMARCH2011
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
1
-
_
P
a
g
e
8
o
f
1
0
CONDITIONSOFAPPROVALEXHIBITD -ENLARGEDPH
O
T
O
S
O
F
T
R
E
E
S
I
N
V
I
E
W
S
H
O
W
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
S
O
F
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
R
A
N
C
H
R
E
M
O
V
A
L
-
P
H
O
T
O
S
T
A
K
E
N
B
Y
STAFFINMARCH2011
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
1
-
_
P
a
g
e
8
o
f
1
0
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
2
7
CONDITIONSOFAPPROVALEXHIBITD -ENLARGEDPH
O
T
O
S
O
F
T
R
E
E
S
I
N
V
I
E
W
S
H
O
W
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
S
O
F
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
R
A
N
C
H
R
E
M
O
V
A
L
-
P
H
O
T
O
S
T
A
K
E
N
B
Y
STAFFINMARCH2011
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
1
-
_
P
a
g
e
9
o
f
1
0
CONDITIONSOFAPPROVALEXHIBITD -ENLARGEDPH
O
T
O
S
O
F
T
R
E
E
S
I
N
V
I
E
W
S
H
O
W
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
S
O
F
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
R
A
N
C
H
R
E
M
O
V
A
L
-
P
H
O
T
O
S
T
A
K
E
N
B
Y
STAFFINMARCH2011
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
1
-
_
P
a
g
e
9
o
f
1
0
CONDITIONSOFAPPROVALEXHIBITD -ENLARGEDPH
O
T
O
S
O
F
T
R
E
E
S
I
N
V
I
E
W
S
H
O
W
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
S
O
F
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
R
A
N
C
H
R
E
M
O
V
A
L
-
P
H
O
T
O
S
T
A
K
E
N
B
Y
STAFFINMARCH2011
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
1
-
_
P
a
g
e
9
o
f
1
0
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
2
8
CONDITIONSOFAPPROVALEXHIBITE -ORIGINALPHOT
O
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
F
R
O
M
C
T
R
P
N
O
.
1
7
8
PhotoAttachment....""-":-'.l:'-'.,
A
/
"
Phototakenfromtheapplicant'sviewing
a
r
e
a
.
R
a
i
s
e
c
r
o
w
n
~
f
P
i
n
e
t
r
e
e
s
b
y
t
r
i
m
'
A
)
i
n
g
l
o
w
e
r
b
r
a
n
c
h
e
s
u
p
t
o
t
h
e
t
r
i
m
m
i
n
g
l
e
v
e
l
(
s
o
l
i
d
li~
\
"
,
Photodate:July8,2003
\
"
,
PhototakenbyViewRestorationStaff
.
.
.
"
,
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
1
-
_
P
a
g
e
1
0
o
f
1
0
CONDITIONSOFAPPROVALEXHIBITE -ORIGINALPHOT
O
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
F
R
O
M
C
T
R
P
N
O
.
1
7
8
PhotoAttachment:')'~Phototakenfromtheapplicant'sviewing
a
r
e
a
.
R
a
i
s
e
c
r
o
w
n
'
o
f
P
i
n
e
t
r
e
e
s
b
y
t
r
i
m
~
i
n
g
l
o
w
e
r
b
r
a
n
c
h
e
s
u
p
t
o
t
h
e
t
r
i
m
m
i
n
g
l
e
v
e
l
(
s
o
l
i
d
line).
\
,
-
-
_
Photodate:July8,2003
\
,
-
-
_
PhototakenbyViewRestorationStaff
.
.
-
-
_
_
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
1
-
_
P
a
g
e
1
0
o
f
1
0
CONDITIONSOFAPPROVALEXHIBITE -ORIGINALPHOT
O
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
F
R
O
M
C
T
R
P
N
O
.
1
7
8
PhotoAttachmentPhototakenfromtheapplicant'sviewing
a
r
e
a
.
R
a
i
s
e
c
r
o
w
n
\
~
f
P
i
n
e
t
r
e
e
s
b
y
t
r
i
m
~
i
n
g
l
o
w
e
r
b
r
a
n
c
h
e
s
u
p
t
o
t
h
e
t
r
i
m
m
i
n
g
l
e
v
e
l
(
s
o
l
i
d
line).
"
"
,
Photodate:July8,2003
\
"
,
PhototakenbyViewRestorationStaff
'
.
"
"
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
1
-
_
P
a
g
e
1
0
o
f
1
0
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
-
2
9
Exhibit B -Interpretation Staff Report and Notice of DecisionExhibitB -Interpretation Staff Report and Notice of DecisionExhibitB-Interpretation Staff Report and Notice of Decision
Attachment 3-30
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY:
JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
AMY TRESTER,ASSOCIATE PLANNER ~
MARCH 4,2011
CASE ZON2011-00053:INTERPRETATION REVIEW OF THE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION ON
CTRP NO.17S
(Applicant/Property Owner -CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES)
Pursuant to the Interpretation Review process allowed by the City's Development Code,
the Director is modifying the Conditions of Approval for CTRP No.178 to alter the
trimming required to eliminate the significant view impairment for the applicant at 7318
Berry Hill Drive,as a result of the extensive trimming that has recently been done to the
same trees in association with CTRP2008-00031.
BACKGROUND
In july 2003,City Tree Review Permit (CTRP)No.178 was approved by the Director to
address the significant impairment to the view at 7318 Berry Hill Drive caused by ten
trees located in the City-owned public right-of-way.These trees consisted of seven (7)
Canary Island Pine trees located adjacent to 30317, 30405,and 30327 Via Cambron
and 7313 Via Collado,and three (3)Elm trees located adjacent to 7310 Via Collado.
The Staff Report for this permit recommended that the crowns of the three Elm trees be
trimmed down approximately six feet and shaped,and that the crowns of the Pine trees
be raised by trimming the lower branches up to the trimming level illustrated in the photo
attachment for CTRP No.178.At the time this CTRP was processed,Development
Code Section 17.76.100 required the City to pay for the costs of trimming trees that are
part of the City-identified Uniform Street Program.These trees were identified to be
part of the City-identified Uniform Street program,and as indicated by the City's records
and the applicant,the initial trimming per CTRP No.178 was completed.
In January 2011,the Planning Commission upheld the appeal of CTRP2008-00031.
This decision required that the seven (7)Canary Island Pine trees adjacent to 30317,
30405,and 30327 Via Cambron and 7313 Via Collado,as well as three (3)Canary
Island Pine trees adjacent to 30303 Via Cambron be trimmed per Planning Commission
Resolution 2011-01 (attached).This decision also required that Staff schedule a duly
30940 HAWTHOROE BLVD I RANcHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275-5391
PI A'iNING &CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310)544-5228/BUILDING &SAFETY DIVISION (310)265-7800 I DEPl FAX (310)544-5293
E·MAIL l'LANNlt-:G@RPVCOMJ VVVv'WPALOSVERDfSCOMJRPV
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY:
JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
AMY TRESTER,ASSOCIATE PLANNER ~
MARCH 4,2011
CASE ZON2011-00053:INTERPRETATION REVIEW OF THE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION ON
CTRP NO.178
(Applicant/Property Owner -CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES)
Pursuant to the Interpretation Review process allowed by the City's Development Code,
the Director is modifying the Conditions of Approval for CTRP No.178 to alter the
trimming reqUired to eliminate the significant view impairment for the applicant at 7318
Berry Hill Drive,as a result of the extensive trimming that has recently been done to the
same trees in association with CTRP2008-00031.
BACKGROUND
In JUly 2003,City Tree Review Permit (CTRP)No.178 was approved by the Director to
address the significant impairment to the view at 7318 Berry Hill Drive caused by ten
trees located in the City-owned public right-of-way.These trees consisted of seven (7)
Canary Island Pine trees located adjacent to 30317, 30405,and 30327 Via Cambron
and 7313 Via Collado,and three (3)Elm trees located adjacent to 7310 Via Collado.
The Staff Report for this permit recommended that the crowns of the three Elm trees be
trimmed down approximately six feet and shaped,and that the crowns of the Pine trees
be raised by trimming the lower branches up to the trimming level illustrated in the photo
attachment for CTRP No.178.At the time this CTRP was processed,Development
Code Section 17.76.100 required the City to pay for the costs of trimming trees that are
part of the City-identified Uniform Street Program.These trees were identified to be
part of the City-identified Uniform Street program,and as indicated by the City's records
and the applicant,the initial trimming per CTRP No.178 was completed.
In January 2011,the Planning Commission upheld the appeal of CTRP2008-00031.
This decision required that the seven (7)Canary Island Pine trees adjacent to 30317,
30405,and 30327 Via Cambron and 7313 Via Collado,as well as three (3)Canary
Island Pine trees adjacent to 30303 Via Cambron be trimmed per Planning Commission
Resolution 2011-01 (attached).This decision also required that Staff schedule a duly
30940 HAWTHDROE BLVD I RANcHO PAws VERDES,CA 90275-5391
PI A'iNING &CODE ENFORCEMENT DIViSION (310)544-5228/BUILDING &SAFETY DIVISION (310)265-7800 I DEPl FAX (310)544-5293
E·MAIL l'lANNIf'iG@RPVCOMJ VVWWPALOSVERDfSCOM/RPV
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY:
JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
AMY TRESTER,ASSOCIATE PLANNER ~
MARCH 4,2011
CASE ZON2011-00053:INTERPRETATION REVIEW OF THE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION ON
CTRP NO.17S
(Applicant/Property Owner -CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES)
Pursuant to the Interpretation Review process allowed by the City's Development Code,
the Director is modifying the Conditions of Approval for CTRP No.178 to alter the
trimming reqUired to eliminate the significant view impairment for the applicant at 7318
Berry Hill Drive,as a result of the extensive trimming that has recently been done to the
same trees in association with CTRP2008-00031.
BACKGROUND
In July 2003,City Tree Review Permit (CTRP)No.178 was approved by the Director to
address the significant impairment to the view at 7318 Berry Hill Drive caused by ten
trees located in the City-owned public right-of-way.These trees consisted of seven (7)
Canary Island Pine trees located adjacent to 30317, 30405,and 30327 Via Cambron
and 7313 Via Collado,and three (3)Elm trees located adjacent to 7310 Via Collado.
The Staff Report for this permit recommended that the crowns of the three Elm trees be
trimmed down approximately six feet and shaped,and that the crowns of the Pine trees
be raised by trimming the lower branches up to the trimming level illustrated in the photo
attachment for CTRP No.178.At the time this CTRP was processed,Development
Code Section 17.76.100 required the City to pay for the costs of trimming trees that are
part of the City-identified Uniform Street Program.These trees were identified to be
part of the City-identified Uniform Street program,and as indicated by the City's records
and the applicant,the initial trimming per CTRP No.178 was completed.
In January 2011,the Planning Commission upheld the appeal of CTRP2008-00031.
This decision required that the seven (7)Canary Island Pine trees adjacent to 30317,
30405,and 30327 Via Cambron and 7313 Via Collado,as well as three (3)Canary
Island Pine trees adjacent to 30303 Via Cambron be trimmed per Planning Commission
Resolution 2011-01 (attached).This decision also required that Staff schedule a duly
30940 HAWTHDROE BLVD I RANCHO PAws VERDES.CA 90275-5391
PI A'iN1NG &CODE ENFORCEMENT DlV1SKJN (310)544"5228 f BUILDING &SAFETY DIVISION (310)265-7800 I DEPl FAX (310)544-5293
F·MAIl I>LANNIt-:G@RPVCOM/WVVWPALOSVERDfSCOM/RPVAttachment 3-31
STAFF REPORT -CTRP No.178:Interpretation Review (ZON2011-00053)
March 4,2011
Page 2 of 5
noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission for the sole purpose of
determining if this required tree trimming eliminates the significant view impairment for
the four applicants located at 7284, 7306,7315 and 7333 Berry Hill Drive.This hearing
is currently scheduled for April 12,2011.If the Planning Commission determines at this
meeting that the adopted and trimmed Trees still significantly impair the applicants'
views,the Commission may require that one or more of the adopted and trimmed Trees
be removed to eliminate the significant view impairment.As such,the Commission will
have the ability to modify,delete or add conditions of approval at the subsequent review
hearing.Furthermore,the decision made by the Planning Commission at the future
review hearing will be appealable to the City Council.
After the initial trimming of the trees related to CTRP2008-00031 was completed,Staff
assessed the view impairment from the property of Mr.&Mrs.Liberman (7318 Berry Hill
Drive),the sole applicant related to CTRP No.178.The amount of trimming that had
occurred significantly changed the trees that are also subject to CTRP No.178.As a
result,the Director determined that circumstances warranted an Interpretation Review
of the conditions of approval related to CTRP No.178.
DISCUSSION
The Interpretation Review procedure set forth in RPV Municipal code Section 17.78.050
allows the Community Development Director (the review body who took the final action
on the original application,CTRP No.178)to further define or enumerate the conditions
of approval of an approved application as a result of and in conjunction with City
decisions on subsequent discretionary applications.Therefore,given the specific
trimming that has recently occurred to the same seven (7)Canary Island Pine trees as a
result of the Planning Commission's decision on CTRP2008-00031,(P.C.Resolution
2011-01),the Director finds that the criteria for an Interpretation Review of the
conditions of approval related to CTRP No.178 has been triggered.As such,the
Director proposes clarified conditions of approval for CTRP No.178,as discussed
below.
Interpretation Review
Once the trimming was completed per P.C.Resolution 2011-01,(February 24,2011),
Staff visited the property at 7318 Berry Hill Drive to determine if this trimming eliminated
the significant view impairment from this property.Staff examined the trees from the
viewing area located at 7318 Berry Hill Drive,and observed that the view is still
significantly impaired.Specifically,Staff observed that Tree Nos.4 and 5 extend into
the view of Catalina Island,and also that several trees were layered in the view,
significantly impairing the ocean view.The tree groupings that appear to be layered in
the view are:1)Tree Nos.4,5,and 6;2)Tree Nos.7 and 8;and 3)Tree Nos.9 and 10.
STAFF REPORT -CTRP No.178:Interpretation Review (ZON2011-00053)
March 4,2011
Page 2 of 5
noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission for the sole purpose of
determining if this required tree trimming eliminates the significant view impairment for
the four applicants located at 7284,7306,7315 and 7333 Berry Hill Drive.This hearing
is currently scheduled for April 12,2011.If the Planning Commission determines at this
meeting that the adopted and trimmed Trees still significantly impair the applicants'
views,the Commission may require that one or more of the adopted and trimmed Trees
be removed to eliminate the significant view impairment.As such,the Commission will
have the ability to modify,delete or add conditions of approval at the subsequent review
hearing.Furthermore,the decision made by the Planning Commission at the future
review hearing will be appealable to the City Council.
After the initial trimming of the trees related to CTRP2008-00031 was completed,Staff
assessed the view impairment from the property of Mr.&Mrs.Liberman (7318 Berry Hill
Drive),the sole applicant related to CTRP No.178.The amount of trimming that had
occurred significantly changed the trees that are also subject to CTRP No.178.As a
result,the Director determined that circumstances warranted an Interpretation Review
of the conditions of approval related to CTRP No.178.
DISCUSSION
The Interpretation Review procedure set forth in RPV Municipal code Section 17.78.050
allows the Community Development Director (the review body who took the final action
on the original application,CTRP No.178)to further define or enumerate the conditions
of approval of an approved application as a result of and in conjunction with City
decisions on subsequent discretionary applications.Therefore,given the specific
trimming that has recently occurred to the same seven (7)Canary Island Pine trees as a
result of the Planning Commission's decision on CTRP2008-00031,(P.C.Resolution
2011-01),the Director finds that the criteria for an Interpretation Review of the
conditions of approval related to CTRP No.178 has been triggered.As such,the
Director proposes clarified conditions of approval for CTRP No.178,as discussed
below.
Interpretation Review
Once the trimming was completed per P.C.Resolution 2011-01,(February 24,2011),
Staff visited the property at 7318 Berry Hill Drive to determine if this trimming eliminated
the significant view impairment from this property.Staff examined the trees from the
viewing area located at 7318 Berry Hill Drive,and observed that the view is still
significantly impaired.Specifically,Staff observed that Tree Nos.4 and 5 extend into
the view of Catalina Island,and also that several trees were layered in the view,
significantly impairing the ocean view.The tree groupings that appear to be layered in
the view are:1)Tree Nos.4,5,and 6;2)Tree Nos.7 and 8;and 3)Tree Nos.9 and 10.
STAFF REPORT -CTRP No.178:Interpretation Review (ZON2011-00053)
March 4,2011
Page 2 of 5
noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission for the sole purpose of
determining if this required tree trimming eliminates the significant view impairment for
the four applicants located at 7284,7306,7315 and 7333 Berry Hill Drive.This hearing
is currently scheduled for April 12,2011.If the Planning Commission determines at this
meeting that the adopted and trimmed Trees still significantly impair the applicants'
views,the Commission may require that one or more of the adopted and trimmed Trees
be removed to eliminate the significant view impairment.As such,the Commission will
have the ability to modify,delete or add conditions of approval at the subsequent review
hearing.Furthermore,the decision made by the Planning Commission at the future
review hearing will be appealable to the City Council.
After the initial trimming of the trees related to CTRP2008-00031 was completed,Staff
assessed the view impairment from the property of Mr.&Mrs.Liberman (7318 Berry Hill
Drive),the sole applicant related to CTRP No.178.The amount of trimming that had
occurred significantly changed the trees that are also subject to CTRP No.178.As a
result,the Director determined that circumstances warranted an Interpretation Review
of the conditions of approval related to CTRP No.178.
DISCUSSION
The Interpretation Review procedure set forth in RPV Municipal code Section 17.78.050
allows the Community Development Director (the review body who took the final action
on the original application,CTRP No.178)to further define or enumerate the conditions
of approval of an approved application as a result of and in conjunction with City
decisions on subsequent discretionary applications.Therefore,given the specific
trimming that has recently occurred to the same seven (7)Canary Island Pine trees as a
result of the Planning Commission's decision on CTRP2008-00031,(P.C.Resolution
2011-01),the Director finds that the criteria for an Interpretation Review of the
conditions of approval related to CTRP No.178 has been triggered.As such,the
Director proposes clarified conditions of approval for CTRP No.178,as discussed
below.
Interpretation Review
Once the trimming was completed per P.C.Resolution 2011-01,(February 24,2011),
Staff visited the property at 7318 Berry Hill Drive to determine if this trimming eliminated
the significant view impairment from this property.Staff examined the trees from the
viewing area located at 7318 Berry Hill Drive,and observed that the view is still
significantly impaired.Specifically,Staff observed that Tree Nos.4 and 5 extend into
the view of Catalina Island,and also that several trees were layered in the view,
significantly impairing the ocean view.The tree groupings that appear to be layered in
the view are:1)Tree Nos.4,5,and 6;2)Tree Nos.7 and 8;and 3)Tree Nos.9 and 10.
Attachment 3-32
STAFF REPORT -CTRP No.178:Interpretation Review (ZON2011-00053j
[,""tch 4,2011
Page 3 of 5
It should also be noted that the Tree Numbers used for CTRP No.178 are different than
the tree numbers used for CTRP2008-00031. Please see Figure 2 for a table indicating
the old and new tree numbering system and note that the numbering system for CTRP
No.178 is used in this Staff Report.
To eliminate this significant view impairment,Staff believes that the seven Pine trees
addressed in CTRP No.178 must be trimmed.However,as a result of the recent
trimming work completed per P.C.Resolution 2011-01,the Director believes that the
trimming required by the original CTRP No.178 decision is no longer applicable.
Therefore,in order to clarify what trimming must be done to restore the applicant's view
at 7318 Berry Hill Drive,the Director proposes the following modified conditions of
approval for CTRP No.178 in lieu of the original conditions:
1)Remove several large branches on Tree No.10 (No.4 in CTRP2008-00031)
The portion of Tree No.1 0 that is impairing the view from 7318 Berry Hill Drive consists
of several large branches,and is layered with Tree NO.9.Thus,removing several large
branches from Tree No.10 will allow the ocean to be visible through the layered trees.
2)Selective branch removal on the east side of Tree No.7 (No.6 in CTRP2008-
00031);
Tree NO.7 is layered in the view with Tree NO.8.Specifically,the east (southeast)side
of the tree is layered,so removal of a few select branches will open up that portion of
the ocean view.
3)Additional lacing ofTree No.8 (No.7 in CTRP2008-00031);
Tree NO.8 is layered in the view with Tree No.7,so some additional lacing of this tree
will open up the view.
4)Trim Tree No.5 (No.9 in CTRP2008-00031)down to the horizon line as viewed
from the viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive as well as some selective branch
removal on the west side of the tree;
Tree No.5 extends up into the Catalina Island view,and is also layered in the view with
Tree Nos.4 and 6.Specifically,west (northwest)side is layered with Tree No.6,so
removal of a few select branches will open up that portion of the ocean view.
(Note:The Notice of Decision mailed out on March 4,2011 incorrectly identified the
trimming for Tree No.5 as occurring on the east side of the tree;it should be the west
side as indicated above.)
5)Trim Tree No.4 (No.10 in CTRP2008-00031)down to the horizon line as viewed
from the viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive as well as some selective branch
removal on the west side of the tree;
STAFF REPORT -CTRP No.178:Interpretation Review (ZON2011-00053)
rJi~rGh 4,2011
Page 3 of 5
It should also be noted that the Tree Numbers used for CTRP No.178 are different than
the tree numbers used for CTRP2008-00031. Please see Figure 2 for a table indicating
the old and new tree numbering system and note that the numbering system for CTRP
No.178 is used in this Staff Report.
To eliminate this significant view impairment,Staff believes that the seven Pine trees
addressed in CTRP No.178 must be trimmed.However,as a result of the recent
trimming work completed per P.C.Resolution 2011-01,the Director believes that the
trimming required by the original CTRP No.178 decision is no longer applicable.
Therefore,in order to clarify what trimming must be done to restore the applicant's view
at 7318 Berry Hill Drive,the Director proposes the following modified conditions of
approval for CTRP No.178 in lieu of the original conditions:
1)Remove several large branches on Tree No.10 (No,4 in CTRP2008-00031)
The portion of Tree No.10 that is impairing the view from 7318 Berry Hill Drive consists
of several large branches,and is layered with Tree NO.9.Thus,removing several large
branches from Tree No.10 will allow the ocean to be visible through the layered trees.
2)Selective branch removal on the east side of Tree No.7 (No.6 in CTRP2008-
00031);
Tree NO.7 is layered in the view with Tree NO.8.Specifically,the east (southeast)side
of the tree is layered,so removal of a few select branches will open up that portion of
the ocean view.
3)Additional lacing ofTree No.8 (No.7 in CTRP2008-00031);
Tree NO.8 is layered in the view with Tree No.7,so some additional lacing of this tree
will open up the view.
4)Trim Tree No.5 (No.9 in CTRP2008-00031)down to the horizon line as viewed
from the viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive as well as some selective branch
removal on the west side of the tree;
Tree No.5 extends up into the Catalina Island view,and is also layered in the view with
Tree Nos.4 and 6.Specifically,west (northwest)side is layered with Tree No.6,so
removal of a few select branches will open up that portion of the ocean view.
(Note:The Notice of Decision mailed out on March 4,2011 incorrectly identified the
trimming for Tree No.5 as occurring on the east side of the tree;it should be the west
side as indicated above.)
5)Trim Tree No.4 (No.10 in CTRP2008-00031)down to the horizon line as viewed
from the viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive as well as some selective branch
removal on the west side of the tree;
STI\FF REPORT -CTRP No.178:Interpretation Review (ZON2011-00053j
r\I,~rGh 4,2011
Page 3 of 5
It should also be noted that the Tree Numbers used for CTRP No.178 are different than
the tree numbers used for CTRP2008-00031. Please see Figure 2 for a table indicating
the old and new tree numbering system and note that the numbering system for CTRP
No.178 is used in this Staff Report.
To eliminate this significant view impairment,Staff believes that the seven Pine trees
addressed in CTRP No.178 must be trimmed.However,as a result of the recent
trimming work completed per P.C.Resolution 2011-01,the Director believes that the
trimming required by the original CTRP No.178 decision is no longer applicable.
Therefore,in order to clarify what trimming must be done to restore the applicant's view
at 7318 Berry Hill Drive,the Director proposes the following modified conditions of
approval for CTRP No.178 in lieu of the original conditions:
1)Remove several large branches on Tree No.10 (No.4 in CTRP2008-00031)
The portion of Tree No.10 that is impairing the view from 7318 Berry Hill Drive consists
of several large branches,and is layered with Tree No.9.Thus,removing several large
branches from Tree No.10 will allow the ocean to be visible through the layered trees.
2)Selective branch removal on the east side of Tree No.7 (No.6 in CTRP2008-
00031);
Tree No.7 is layered in the view with Tree No.8.Specifically,the east (southeast)side
of the tree is layered,so removal of a few select branches will open up that portion of
the ocean view.
3)Additional lacing ofTree No.8 (No.7 in CTRP2008-00031);
Tree No.8 is layered in the view with Tree No.7,so some additional lacing of this tree
will open up the view.
4)Trim Tree No.5 (No.9 in CTRP2008-00031)down to the horizon line as viewed
from the viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive as well as some selective branch
removal on the west side of the tree;
Tree No.5 extends up into the Catalina Island view,and is also layered in the view with
Tree Nos.4 and 6.Specifically,west (northwest)side is layered with Tree No.6,so
removal of a few select branches will open up that portion of the ocean view.
(Note:The Notice of Decision mailed out on March 4,2011 incorrectly identified the
trimming for Tree No.5 as occurring on the east side of the tree;it should be the west
side as indicated above.)
5)Trim Tree No.4 (No.10 in CTRP2008-00031)down to the horizon line as viewed
from the viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive as well as some selective branch
removal on the west side of the tree;
Attachment 3-33
STAFF REPORT -CTRP No.178:Interpretation Review (ZON2011-00053)
March 4,2011
Page 4 of 5
Tree No.4 extends up into the Catalina Island view,and is also layered in the view with
Tree NO.5.Specifically,west (northwest) side is layered with Tree No.5,so removal of
a few select branches will open up that portion of the ocean view.
6)Tree Nos.6 (No.8 in CTRP2008-00031)and 9 (No.5 in CTRP2008-00031)are to
be maintained at the horizon line as viewed from the viewing area at 7318 Berry
Hill Drive and heavily laced.
The Director believes that the modified trimming is necessary to eliminate the significant
view impairment for the applicant located at 7318 Berry Hill Drive.Also,the modified
trimming and any subsequent maintenance shall be done during the cooler months of
the year,or November through March.
ADDITIONAL INFORMAliON
As stated in the Director's Notice of Decision,this Interpretation may be appealed to the
Planning Commission.If an appeal is submitted (in writing),no fee will be required,as
the appeal will be discussed at a Planning Commission meeting already scheduled to
be held on April 12,2011 for CTRP2008-00031.(Follow-up trimming meeting.)
Also,the Arborist at West Coast Arborist,(the City's tree trimming company)has stated
that when large branches are removed from a Canary Island Pine tree,they may sprout
small suckers,but the branch will not grow back to its previous size.Thus,it should
only be necessary to complete the selective branch removal once.
NOTIFICATION LIST
Notification of the Director's Interpretation Review Decision and this Staff Report shall
be mailed to all interested parties indicated on the attached mailing list.
CONCLUSION
ommunity Development Director,AICP
Jo I
Based on the above discussion,the Director is modifying the Conditions of Approval for
CTRP No.178 for the seven Canary Island Pine trees located adjacent to 30317,
30405,and 30327 Via Cambron and 7313 Via Collado,given the amount of trimming
that has occu red to th a trees in association with CTRP2008-00031.
Dated:#-Accepted:
STAFF REPORT -CTRP No.178:Interpretation Review (ZON2011-00053)
f'Ffarch 4,2011
Page 4 of 5
Tree No.4 extends up into the Catalina Island view,and is also layered in the view with
Tree NO.5.Specifically,west (northwest)side is layered with Tree No.5,so removal of
a few select branches will open up that portion of the ocean view.
6)Tree Nos.6 (No.8 in CTRP2008-o0031)and 9 (No.5 in CTRP2008-o0031)are to
be maintained at the horizon line as viewed from the viewing area at 7318 Berry
Hill Drive and heavily laced.
The Director believes that the modified trimming is necessary to eliminate the significant
view impairment for the applicant located at 7318 Berry Hill Drive.Also,the modified
trimming and any subsequent maintenance shall be done during the cooler months of
the year,or November through March.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
As stated in the Director's Notice of Decision,this Interpretation may be appealed to the
Planning Commission.If an appeal is submitted (in writing),no fee will be required,as
the appeal will be discussed at a Planning Commission meeting already scheduled to
be held on April 12,2011 for CTRP2008-00031.(Follow-up trimming meeting.)
Also,the Arborist at West Coast Arborist,(the City's tree trimming company)has stated
that when large branches are removed from a Canary Island Pine tree,they may sprout
small suckers,but the branch will not grow back to its previous size.Thus,it should
only be necessary to complete the selective branch removal once.
NOTIFICATION LIST
Notification of the Director's Interpretation Review Decision and this Staff Report shall
be mailed to all interested parties indicated on the attached mailing list.
CONCLUSION
Jo 1.Refa:s=.~
ommunity Development Director,AICP
Accepted:
Based on the above discussion,the Director is modifying the Conditions of Approval for
CTRP No.178 for the seven Canary Island Pine trees located adjacent to 30317,
30405,and 30327 Via Cambron and 7313 Via Collado,given the amount of trimming
that has occu red to th a trees in association with CTRP2008-00031.
Dated:~
S1 AFF REPORT -CTRP No.178:Interpretation Review (ZON2011-00053)
March 4,2011
Page 4 of 5
Tree No.4 extends up into the Catalina Island view,and is also layered in the view with
Tree NO.5.Specifically.west (northwest)side is layered with Tree No.5,so removal of
a few select branches will open up that portion of the ocean view.
6)Tree Nos.6 (No.8 in CTRP2008-00031)and 9 (No.5 in CTRP2008-00031)are to
be maintained at the horizon line as viewed from the viewing area at 7318 Berry
Hill Drive and heavily laced.
The Director believes that the modified trimming is necessary to eliminate the significant
view impairment for the applicant located at 7318 Berry Hill Drive.Also.the modified
trimming and any subsequent maintenance shall be done during the cooler months of
the year.or November through March.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
As stated in the Director's Notice of Decision,this Interpretation may be appealed to the
Planning Commission.If an appeal is submitted (in writing),no fee will be required,as
the appeal will be discussed at a Planning Commission meeting already scheduled to
be held on April 12,2011 for CTRP2008-00031.(Follow-up trimming meeting.)
Also.the Arborist at West Coast Arborist,(the City's tree trimming company)has stated
that when large branches are removed from a Canary Island Pine tree,they may sprout
small suckers.but the branch will not grow back to its previous size.Thus,it should
only be necessary to complete the selective branch removal once.
NOTIFICATION LIST
Notification of the Director's Interpretation Review Decision and this Staff Report shall
be mailed to all interested parties indicated on the attached mailing list.
CONCLUSION
Jo 1.Ref8S:..k
ommunity Development Director,AICP
Based on the above discussion,the Director is modifying the Conditions of Approval for
CTRP No.178 for the seven Canary Island Pine trees located adjacent to 30317,
30405,and 30327 Via Cambron and 7313 Via Collado,given the amount of trimming
that has occu red to th a trees in association with CTRP2008-00031.
Dated:~Accepted:
Attachment 3-34
;TAFF REPORT -CTRP No.178:Interpretation Review (ZON2011-00053j
'''arch 4,2011
Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENTS
•Notice of Decision Dated March 4,2011
•RPV Development Code Section 17.78.050 (Interpretation Procedure)
•Original Staff Report and Notice of Decision for CTRP No.178
•Figure 1 -Modified Trimming
•Figure 2 -Tree Numbers per CTRP No.178 and CTRP2008-00031
•Figure 3 -Site Map
•Planning Commission Resolution 2011-01
•RPV Development Code Section 17.76.100 (current)
•Mailing List
;T/'.FF REPORT -CTRP No.178:Interpretation Review (ZON2011·00053j
lViarch 4,2011
Page 5 of 5
AITACHMENTS
•Notice of Decision Dated March 4,2011
•RPV Development Code Section 17.78.050 (Interpretation Procedure)
•Original Staff Report and Notice of Decision for CTRP No.178
•Figure 1 -Modified Trimming
•Figure 2 -Tree Numbers per CTRP No.178 and CTRP2008-00031
•Figure 3 -Site Map
•Planning Commission Resolution 2011-01
•RPV Development Code Section 17.76.100 (current)
•Mailing List
~T!>FF REPORT -CTRP No.178:Interpretation Review (ZON2011·00053j
,.ialch 4,2011
Page 5 of 5
A ITACHMENTS
•Notice of Decision Dated March 4,2011
•RPV Development Code Section 17.78.050 (Interpretation Procedure)
•Original Staff Report and Notice of Decision for CTRP No.178
•Figure 1 -Modified Trimming
•Figure 2 -Tree Numbers per CTRP No.178 and CTRP2008·00031
•Figure 3 -Site Map
•Planning Commission Resolution 2011-01
•RPV Development Code Section 17.76.100 (current)
•Mailing List
Attachment 3-35
March 4,2011
CITVOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
COI'1MlJNTTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
NOTICE OF DECISION FOR INTERPRETATION RELATED TO CTRP NO.178 IZON2011-
00053)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.78.050,the
Community Development Director of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has made an
interpretation related to the Conditions of Approval of City Tree Review Permit No.17B.Said
permit requires the trimming of seven (7)Canary Island Pine trees located adjacent to 30317,
30405,and 30327 Via Cambron and 7313 Via Collado that significantly impair the view of the
applicant at 731B Berry Hill Drive.
The interpretation procedure allows the Director (the body who approved the original
application)to further define or enumerate the conditions of approval of an approved application
as a result of and in conjunction with City decisions on subsequent discretionary applications.
Therefore,given the specific trimming that has recently occurred to the same seven (7)Canary
Island Pine trees as a result of the Planning Commission's decision on CTRP200B-00031,(P.C.
Resolution 2011-01),the Director proposes the following modified conditions of approval for
CTRP No.17B in lieu of the original conditions:
1)Remove several large branches on Tree No.10 (No.4 in CTRP200B-00031);
2)Selective branch removal on the east side ofTree NO.7 (No.6 in CTRP200B-00031):
3)Additional lacing ofTree No.B (No.7 in CTRP200B-00031):.
4)Trim Tree NO.5 (No.9 in CTRP200B-00031)down to the horizon line as viewed from the
viewing area at 731 B Berry Hill Drive as well as some selective branch removal on the east side
of the tree;
5)Trim Tree NO.4 (No.10 in CTRP200B-00031)down to the horizon line as viewed from the
viewing area at 731 B Berry Hill Drive as well as some selective branch removal on the west side
of the tree;
6)Tree Nos.6 (No.B in CTRP200B-00031)and 9 (No.5 in CTRP200B-00031)are to be
maintained at the horizon line as viewed from the viewing area at 731 B Berry Hill Drive and
heavily laced.
The trimming required per CTRP No.17B for the three Elm trees located adjacent to 7310 Via
Collado is not proposed to be changed from the original decision.
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
In the public right-Of-way on Via Cambron,adjacent to 30405,30327
and 30317 Via Cambron and 7313 Via Collado,in the public right·of·
way on Via Collado,adjacent to 7313 Via Collado.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Any interested person receiving notice of the Director's decision may appeal the decision to the
Planning Commission,in writing,within 15 days of the date of this decision.The appeal shall
set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant.If an
appeal is submitted,no fee will be required.as the appeal will be discussed at a Planning
Commission meeting already scheduled to be held on April 12,2011 for an appeal of a related
permit,CTRP200B-00031.Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15)calendar days of
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.!RANCHO flo.,os VERDES.CA 90275'5391
PlArf'iING &-COD=ENFORCEr-1ENT DIVISION (310)544-5228/BLnlDt1G &SAfETY DIVISION (310)265-7800 I DEPT FAX (310)544-5293
E-MAIl:PLANNING@RrVCOM/VV\N\NPALOSVERDESr.OM/RPV
March 4,2011
CITVOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
COI'1MUNTTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
NOTICE OF DECISION FOR INTERPRETATION RELATED TO CTRP NO.178 /ZON2011-
00053)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.78.050,the
Community Development Director of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has made an
interpretation related to the Conditions of Approval of City Tree Review Permit No.178.Said
permit requires the trimming of seven (7)Canary Island Pine trees located adjacent to 30317,
30405,and 30327 Via Cambron and 7313 Via Collado that significantly impair the view of the
applicant at 7318 Berry Hill Drive.
The interpretation procedure allows the Director (the body who approved the original
application)to further define or enumerate the conditions of approval of an approved application
as a result of and in conjunction with City decisions on SUbsequent discretionary applications.
Therefore,given the specific trimming that has recently occurred to the same seven (7)Canary
Island Pine trees as a result of the Planning Commission's decision on CTRP2008-00031,(P.C.
Resolution 2011-01),the Director proposes the following modified conditions of approval for
CTRP No.178 in lieu of the original conditions:
1)Remove several large branches on Tree No.10 (No.4 in CTRP2008-00031);
2)Selective branch removal on the east side ofTree NO.7 (No.6 in CTRP2008-00031):
3)Additional lacing ofTree NO.8 (No.7 in CTRP2008-00031):.
4)Trim Tree NO.5 (No.9 in CTRP2008-00031)down to the horizon line as viewed from the
viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive as well as some selective branch removal on the east side
of the tree;
5)Trim Tree NO.4 (No.10 in CTRP2008-00031)down to the horizon line as viewed from the
viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive as well as some selective branch removal on the west side
of the tree;
6)Tree Nos.6 (No.8 in CTRP2008-00031)and 9 (No.5 in CTRP2008-00031)are to be
maintained at the horizon line as viewed from the viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive and
heavily laced.
The trimming required per CTRP No.178 for the three Elm trees located adjacent to 7310 Via
Collado is not proposed to be changed from the original decision.
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
In the public right-of-way on Via Cambron,adjacent to 30405,30327
and 30317 Via Cambron and 7313 Via Collado,in the public right-of-
way on Via Collado,adjacent to 7313 Via Collado.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Any interested person receiving notice of the Director's decision may appeal the decision to the
Planning Commission,in writing,within 15 days of the date of this decision.The appeal shall
set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant.If an
appeal is submitted,no fee will be required,as the appeal will be discussed at a Planning
Commission meeting already scheduled to be held on April 12,2011 for an appeal of a related
permit,CTRP2008-00031.Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15)calendar days of
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.!RANCHO ""LOS VERDES,CA 90275'5391
PlArt'ilNG &-COD=ENFORCEr-1ENT DIVISION (310)544-5228 I BLnlDU'1G &SAfETY DIVISION (310)265-7800 I DEPl FAX (310)544-5293
E-MAIl:PlANNNG@RPVCOM/\o\.y,A,vPALOSVERDESCOM/RPV
March 4,2011
CITVOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
NOTICE OF DECISION FOR INTERPRETATION RELATED TO CTRP NO.178 /ZON2011-
00053)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.78.050,the
Community Development Director of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has made an
interpretation related to the Conditions of Approval of City Tree Review Permit No.178.Said
permit requires the trimming of seven (7)Canary Island Pine trees located adjacent to 30317,
30405,and 30327 Via Cambron and 7313 Via Collado that significantly impair the view of the
applicant at 7318 Berry Hill Drive.
The interpretation procedure allows the Director (the body who approved the original
application)to further define or enumerate the conditions of approval of an approved application
as a result of and in conjunction with City decisions on subsequent discretionary applications.
Therefore,given the specific trimming that has recently occurred to the same seven (7)Canary
Island Pine trees as a result of the Planning Commission's decision on CTRP2008-00031,(P.C.
Resolution 2011-01),the Director proposes the following modified conditions of approval for
CTRP No.178 in lieu of the original conditions:
1)Remove several large branches on Tree No.10 (No.4 in CTRP2008-00031);
2)Selective branch removal on the east side ofTree NO.7 (No.6 in CTRP2008-00031):
3)Additional lacing ofTree NO.8 (No.7 in CTRP2008-00031):.
4)Trim Tree NO.5 (No.9 in CTRP2008-00031)down to the horizon line as viewed from the
viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive as well as some selective branch removal on the east side
of the tree;
5)Trim Tree NO.4 (No.10 in CTRP2008-00031)down to the horizon line as viewed from the
viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive as well as some selective branch removal on the west side
of the tree;
6)Tree Nos.6 (No.8 in CTRP2008-00031)and 9 (No.5 in CTRP2008-00031)are to be
maintained at the horizon line as viewed from the viewing area at 7318 Berry Hill Drive and
heavily laced.
The trimming required per CTRP No.178 for the three Elm trees located adjacent to 7310 Via
Collado is not proposed to be changed from the original decision.
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
In the public right-of-way on Via Cambron,adjacent to 30405,30327
and 30317 Via Cambron and 7313 Via Collado,in the public right-of-
way on Via Collado,adjacent to 7313 Via Cotlado.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Any interested person receiving notice of the Director's decision may appeal the decision to the
Planning Commission,in writing,within 15 days of the date of this decision.The appeal shall
set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant.If an
appeal is submitted,no fee will be required,as the appeal will be discussed at a Planning
Commission meeting already scheduled to be held on April 12,2011 for an appeal of a related
permit,CTRP2008-00031.Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15)calendar days of
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.!RANCHO "'-LOS VERDES.CA 90275'5391
PlArt'liNG &-(;00=ENFORCEr-1ENT DIVISION l310)544-522B /BLnLDtNG &SAfETY DIVISION (310)265-7800 I DEPT FAX (310)544-5293
E-MAIL:PLANNU'lG@RPVCOM/VVVoJ\·\lPALOSVERDES.c.oM/RPv
Attachment 3-36
Notice of Decision-CTRP No.178:Interpretation
March 4,2011
Page20f2
the date of the effective date of this decision,or by 4:00PM on Monday,March 21,2011.If no
appeal is filed in a timely manner,the Director's decision will be final at 4:00PM on Monday,
March 21 2011.
If you have any questions regarding this permit,please contact Amy Trester,Associate Planner,
at (310)544-5228 or via e-mail atamvt@rpv.com.
Encl:nicipal Code Section 17.78.050
Original Staff Report and Notice of Decision for CTRP No.178
Page2of2
Notice of Decision-CTRP No.178:Interpretation
March 4,2011
Page 2 of 2
the date of the effective date of this decision.or by 4:00PM on Monday,March 21,2011.If no
appeal is filed in a timely manner,the Director's decision will be final at 4:00PM on Monday,
March 21 2011.
If you have any questions regarding this permit,please contact Amy Trester,Associate Planner,
at (310)544-5228 or via e-mail atamyt@rpv.com.
Encl:nicipal Code Section 17.78.050
Original Staff Report and Notice of Decision for CTRP No.178
Page 2 of2
Notice of Decision-CTRP No.178:Interpretation
March 4,2011
Page 2 of 2
the date of the effective date of this decision,or by 4:00PM on Monday,March 21,2011.If no
appeal is filed in a timely manner,the Director's decision will be final at 4:00PM on Monday,
March 21 2011.
If you have any questions regarding this permit,please contact Amy Trester,Associate Planner,
at (310) 544-5228 or via e-mail atamyt@rpv.com.
Enel:nicipal Code Section 17.78.050
Original Staff Report and Notice of Decision for CTRP No.178
Page 2 of2
Attachment 3-37
17.78.050-Interpretation procedure for approved applications.
A.In cases of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of any decision granted in accordance with this
title,or to further define or enumerate the conditions of approval of an approved application.an interpretation
procedure shall be followed whereby the body which took the final action in granting the original application
shall conduct an interpretation review of the decision in question.Said interpretation review may be initiated by
the director,planning commission,city oouncil or upon the written request of the property owner or any
interested person.said interpretation review shall utilize the same notice.hearing process and review criteria
required by this lille lor consideration of the original application.The inlerpretation review procedure shall be
applied,bUl not be Iimnad to the following situations:
1.Discrepancies between approved plans and subsequently revisad plans;
2.Interpretations of conditions of approval;
3.New issues stemming from construction of the approved project which were nol addressed or
considered as part of the original project approval;
4.New minor project modifications that are similar in scope to the project considered under the original
applicaffon;and
5.Minor modffications to the approved project as a result of and in conjunction with cTty dedsions on
subsequent discretionary applications.
B.In cases involving the interpretation of a decision of the planning commission andlor city council,the director
shall prepare a written interpretation and transmit it to the appropriate review body.The director's written
interpretation shall lndude a determination on whether said interpretation decision constill.rtes a minor,
nonsubstantial revision to the approved application.Upon review of the director's interpretation,the
appropriate body shall either:
1.Concur with the director's interpretation.and if the Interpretation results in a minor revision to the
approved application,approve the revision by minute order;or
2.Make a delermination that the subject Interpretation may result in a substantive revision to the originally
approvad application and thus require a formal review hearing;utilizing tha same hearing,noticing
requirements,review criteria and appeal procedures,required by this title,for consideration of the
original application.
C.In cases Where the interpretation review is initiated by the director,planning commission or city council,no fee
shall be reqUired.In cases where the inlerpretation review is initiated by an applicant/property owner or
interested party,a fee,as established by resolution of the city coundl,shall be required.Cases in which an
interpretation review shall be considered as inniated by an appllcanVproperty owner or interested party Include
but are not limited lo:
1.Situations in which there is B difference of opinion between the director and an applicant or interested
person as to whether a SUbsequently revised plan is oonsistent of the originally approved plan;and the
appr,cant or interested person seeks the opinion of the review body which took the final action on the
approved application;and
2.Situations in whldl there is a difference of opinion between the director and an applicant or interested
person on the interpretation of a condition of approval,and the applicant or interested person seeks the
opinion of the review body which took the final action on the approved application.
rOrd 320 §7 (part),1997)
17.78.050-lnterpretalion procedure for approved applications.
A.In cases of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of any decision granted in accordance with this
tiUe,or to further define or enumerate the concitions of approvaJ of an approved application,an interpretation
procedure shall be followed whereby the body which took the final action in granting the original appUcaUon
shall conduct an interpretation review of \he decision in question.Said interpretalion review may be initiated by
the director,planning commission.cily council or upon the written request of the property owner or any
interested person.Said intarprelation review shan utilize the same notice.hearing process and review criteria
reqUired by this lilIe for consideration of the original application.The interpretation review procedure shaD be
applied.but not be lim~ed to tha following s~uations:
1.Discrepancies between approved plans and subsequently revised plans;
2.Interpretalions of conditions of approval;
3.New issues stemming from construction of the approved project which were not addressed or
considered as part of \he original project approval;
4.New minor project modifications that are sinUlsr in scope to the project considered under the original
application;and
5.Minor modifications to the approved project as a resu~of and in conjunction with c~decisions on
subsequent discretionary applications.
B.In cases Involving the interpretation of a decision afthe planning commission and/or city council.the diredor
shall prepare a written interpretation and transmit rt to the appropriate review body.The director's written
interpretation shall indude a determination on whether said interpretation decision constitutes a minor,
nonsubstantial revision to the approved appHcatlon.Upon review of the direclMs interpretation,the
appropriate body shall ai\her.
1.Concur with the director's interpretation,and if the InterprelaUon results in a minor revision to the
approved application,approve the revision by minute order;or
2.Make a determination that the sUbjacllnlerpretation may result in a substantive ravislon to tha ortginally
approved application and thus require a formal review heartng;utilizing the same haartng,noticing
requirements,review criteria and appeal procedures,required by this title,for consideration of the
original application.
C.In cases Where the interpretation review is initiated by the diredor.planning commission or city oouncil,no fee
shall be required.In cases where the inlerpretation review is initiated by an applicant/property owner or
interested party,a fee,as established by resolution of the city coundl,shall be required.Cases in which an
interpretation review shall be considerad as in~i.ted by an applicanVproperty owner or interested party include
but are not limited to:
1.Situations in which there is a difference of opinion between the director and an applicant or interested
person as to whether a subsequently revised plan is consistent of the originally approved plan;and the
applicant or interested person seeks the opinion of the review body which took the final action on the
approved application;and
2.Situations in which there is a difference of opinion between the director and an applicant or interested
person on the interpretation of a condition of approval,and the applicant or interested person seeks !he
opinion of the review body which took tha final ection on the approved application.
(Old 320 §7 (parl).1997)
17.78.050-lnterpretaliDn prDcedure fDr apprDved applicatiDns.
A.In cases of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of any decision granted in accordance with this
tille,or to further define or enumerate the condilions of approval of an approved application.an interpretation
procedure shall be followed Whereby the body which look the final action in granting !he originalapp&cation
shall conduct an inlerpretalion review of !he decision in question.Said interpretation review may be initialed by
the <fJreClor,planning commission,cily council or upon !he wriIIen request of the property owner or any
interested person.Said interpretation review shall utiliza the same notice,hearing process and review criteria
reqUired by this li1Ie for consideration of !he original application.The interpretation review procedure shaD be
applied,but not be Jim~ed 10 the following s~uations:
1.Discrepancies between approved plans and subsequenlly revised plans;
2.Interpretations of cond~ions of approval;
3.New issues stemming from construction of the approved project which were not addressed or
considered as pari of !he original project approval;
4.New minor project modifications that are similar in scope to the projed considered under the original
application;and
5.Minor modifications to the epproved project as a resull of and in conjunction with city decisions on
subsequent discrationary applications.
B.In cases Involving the interpretation of a decision of the planning commission and/or city council,the diredor
shall prepare 8 writlen interpretation and transmit it to the appropriale review body.The director's written
interpretation shall indude a determination on whether said interpretation decision constitutes a minor,
nonsubstantial revision to the approved appHcation.Upon review of the director's interpretation,the
appropriate body shall ai!her.
1.Concur ~h the directo(s intarpretalion,and ff tha Interpretation results in a minor revision to tha
approved application,approve the revision by minute order;or
2.Make a determination that the subjact interpretation may rasull in a substantive revision to Iha originally
approved application and thus require 8 formal review heartng;utilizing the same hearing,noticing
requirements.review criteria and appeal procedures,required by this title,for consideration of the
original application.
C.In cases Where the interpretation review is initiated by the diredor.planning commission or city mundi,no fee
shall be reqUired.In cases where the inlerpretation review is initiated by an applicanVproperty owner or
interested party,a fee,as established by resolution of the city coundl,shall be reqUired.Cases In which an
interpretation review shali be considered as inffiated by an appticanUproperly owner or inleresled party include
but are notlimiled to:
1.Situations in which there is a dlnerence of opinion between the director and an applicant or interested
person as to whether a subsequently revised plan is consistent of the originally approved plan;and the
appficanl or interested person seeks the opinion of the review body which took the final action on the
approved application;and
2.Situations in which there is a difference of opinion between the director and an applicant or interested
person on the inlerpretalion of a condiUon of approval,and the applicant or interested person seeks the
opinion of the review body which look the final action on !he approved application,
(Ord 320 §7 (partJ.1997)
Attachment 3-38
CITVOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING,BUILDING,&CODE ENFORCEMENT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
CITY TREE REVIEW PERMIT NO.178
STAFF REPORT
Joel Rojas,Di~Crof Planning,
Building &Co • n orcement
John Alvarez,. w Restoration Coordinator
July 31,2003
City Tree Review Permit No.178
Mr.Robert Liberman,7318 Berry Hill Drive,Rancho Palos Verdes,
CA90275
REQUESTED ACTION:
TREE LOCATION:
UNIFORM STREET TREE
PROGRAM STATUS;
RECOMMENDATION:
ANALYSIS
Applicant's View:
To restore the view from 7318 Berry Hill Drive.
The subject trees are in the public right-of-way
adjacent to 30317,30405,&30327 Via Cambron and
7310 &7313 Via Collado.
The Pine and Elm trees are part of the City-Identified
Uniform Street Tree program
Trim seven (7)Pine trees and three (3)Elm trees.
From the viewing area of the residence,the applicant has a view of the Ocean.
Applicant's Viewing Area:
The applicant's primary viewing area is from the living room and rear yard patio.
Type and Height of SUbject Foliage:
309«10 HAWl HORNE BLVD I RANCHO f1l..LOS Vt:RDES.CA 90275-5391
PLANNN\\I""";ODE ENFOI~Clt-1ENT t310l54~·522A /BU!LDI"Il,(310)5·~11·770?f DEPT FA>;(310)b44-S293/E+iA.1l PlIINr'WiG@RPVCOM
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING,BUILDING,&CODE ENFORCEMENT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
CITY TREE REVIEW PERMIT NO.178
STAFF REPORT
Joel Rojas,DirfCrof Planning,
Building &Co , n orcement
John Alvarez,. w Restoration Coordinator
July 31,2003
City Tree Review Permit No.178
Mr.Robert Liberman,7318 Berry Hill Drive,Rancho Palos Verdes,
CA 90275
REQUESTED ACTION:
TREE LOCATION:
UNIFORM STREET TREE
PROGRAM STATUS:
RECOMMENDATION:
ANALYSIS
Applicant's View:
To restore the view trom 7318 Berry Hill Drive.
The subject trees are in the pUblic right-ot-way
adjacent to 30317,30405,&30327 Via Cambron and
7310 &7313 Via Collado.
The Pine and Elm trees are part of the City-Identified
Uniform Street Tree program
Trim seven (7)Pine trees and three (3)Elm trees.
From the viewing area of the residence,the applicant has a view of the Ocean.
Applicant's Viewing Area:
The applicant's primary viewing area is from the living room and rear yard patio.
Type and Height of SUbject Foliage:
309~0 HAW 1HORNE BLVD I RANCHO PALOS VERDE.S.CA 90275 -53!)I
I'LANNlI~n.'CODE ENFORC;l~1t:NT {310l 54H,22A I BUllDI"Il~(310)541-770;>/DEPT FA>:(:110)544-5293/E-NAIL PUINI'i!"1G@RI'VCOM
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNlNG,BUILDING,&CODE ENFORCEMENT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
CITY TREE REVIEW PERMIT NO.178
STAFF REPORT
Joel Rojas,DiCfcrof Planning,
Building &Co , n orcement
John Alvarez,. w Restoration Coordinator
July 31,2003
City Tree Review Permit No.178
Mr.Robert Liberman,7318 Berry Hill Drive,Rancho Palos Verdes,
CA 90275
REQUESTED ACTION:
TREE LOCATION:
UNIFORM STREET TREE
PROGRAM STATUS:
RECOMMENDATION:
ANALYSIS
Applicant's View:
To restore the view trom 7318 Berry Hill Drive.
The subject trees are in the pUblic right-ot-way
adjacent to 30317,30405,&30327 Via Cambron and
7310 &7313 Via Collado.
The Pine and Elm trees are part of the City-Identified
Uniform Street Tree program
Trim seven (7)Pine trees and three (3)Elm trees.
From the viewing area of the residence,the applicant has a view of the Ocean.
Applicant's Viewing Area:
The applicant's primary viewing area is from the living room and rear yard patio.
Type and Height of SUbject Foliage:
309~O HAW 1HORNE BLVD /RANCHO PALOS VE:RDE.S.CA 90275-5391
I'LANNlI~(\'CODE ENFORC;l~1ENT {310154~'522A I BUILDI"IG (310)5~1'770?/DEPT FA>;(:\10)544'5293/E'i"\AIL PLIINI'W'iG@J~"VCOM
Attachment 3-39
Based on Staffs analysis of the applicant's request,the following foliage significantly
impairs the view from the applicant's viewing area:
Site Approx.Plan Foliage Type Location Action Recommended
Key Height
In the public right-of-way Trim crown of tree
1 40'Elm adjacent to the property approximately 6 feet and
located at 7310 Via shape (see photo
Collado attachmentl:
In the pUblic right-of-way Trim crown of tree
2 40'Elm adjacentlo the property approximately 6 feel and
located at 7310 Via shape (se~)Photo
Collado attachment.
In the public right-of-way Trim crown of tree
3 40'Elm adjacent to the property approximately 6 feet and
located at 7310 Via shape (see photo
Collado attachmentl'.
In the pUblic right-of-way Raise crown of tree by
adjacent to the property trimming lower branches
4 50'Pine located at 7313 Via up to the trimming level
Collado illustrated in attached
DhotoDraDh
In the public right-of-way Raise crown of tree by
adjacent to the property trimming lower branches
5 75'Pine located at 7313 Via up to the trimming level
Collado illustrated in attached
ohotooraoh
In the public righl-of-way Raise crown of tree by
adjacent to the property trimming lower branches
6 60'Pine located at 7313 Via up to the trimming level
Collado.On Via Cambron.illustrated in attached
Dhotooraoh
In the pUblic right-ol-way Raise crown 01 tree by
adjacent to the property trimming lower branches
7 50'Pine located at7313 Via up to the trimming level
Collado.On Via Cambron.illustrated in attached
ohotooraoh
In the public right-of-way Raise crown of tree by i
adjacent to the property trimming lower branches
8 65'Pine located at 30405 Via up to the trimming level
Cambron illustrated in attached
ohotooraoh _
In the public right-aI-way Raise crown of Iree by
adjacent to the property trimming lower branches
9 55'Pine located at 30327 Via up to the trimming level
Cambron illustrated in attached
ohotooraoh
In the public right-of-way Raise crown of tree by
.
10 75'Pine adiacent to the orooertv trimmino lower branches
Based on Staffs analysis of the applicant's request,the following foliage significantly
impairs the view from the applicant's viewing area:
Site Approx.Plan Foliage Type Location Action Recommended
Kev Height
In the public right-or-way Trim crown 01 tree
1 40'Elm adjacent to the property approximately 6 leet and
located at 7310 Via shape (see photo
Collado attachment".
In the pUblic right-ol-way Trim crown 01 tree
2 40'Elm adjacent to the property approximately 6 leel and
located at 7310 Via shape (see photo
Collado attachmenO',
In the public right-ol-way Trim crown 01 tree
3 40'Elm adjacent to the property approximately 6 leet and
located at 7310 Via shape (see photo
Collado allachmenO·.
In the pUblic right-ol-way Raise crown of tree by
adjacent to the property trimming lower branches
4 50'Pine located al 7313 Via up to the trimming level
Collado illustrated in attached
ohotooraoh
In the public right-ol-way
Raise crown 01 tree by
adjacent to the property trimming lower branches
5 75'Pine located at 7313 Via up to the trimming level
Collado illustrated in attached
ohotooraoh
In the public right-ol-way
Raise crown 01 tree by
adjacent to the property trimming lower branches
6 60'Pine located at 7313 Via up to the trimming level
Collado.On Via Cambron.illustraled in allached
ohotoaraoh
In the pUblic right-ol-way Raise crown 01 tree by
adjacent to the property trimming lower branches
7 50'Pine located at7313 Via up 10 the trimming level
Collado,On Via Cambron.illustraled in allached
nhotooranh
In the public right-ol-way
Raise crown 01 tree by i
adjacent to the property trimming lower branches
8 65'Pine located at 30405 Via up to the trimming level
Cambron illustrated in attached
nhotoaraoh ._
In the public right-aI-way Raise crown 01 Iree by
adjacent to the property trimming lower branches
9 55'Pine located at 30327 Via up to the trimming level
Cambron illustrated in allached
nhotoaraph
In the public right-ol-way Raise crown 01 Iree by
-
10 75'Pine adiacentto the propertv trimmina lower branches
Based on Staffs analysis of the applicant's request,the following foliage significantly
impairs the view from the applicant's viewing area:
Site Approx.Plan Foliage Type Location Action Recommended
Key Height
In the public right-of-way Trim crown of tree
1 40'Elm adjacent to the property approximately 6 feet and
located at 7310 Via shape (see photo
Collado altachmenll·.
In the pUblic right-of-way Trim crown of tree
2 40'Elm adjacent to the property approximately 6 feel and
located at 7310 Via shape (see photo
Collado altachmenll:
In the public right-of-way Trim crown of tree
3 40'Elm adjacent to the property approximately 6 feet and
located at 7310 Via shape (see photo
Collado attachmenll·.
In the pUblic right-of-way Raise crown of tree by
adjacent to the property trimming lower branches
4 50'Pine located at 7313 Via up to the trimming level
illustrated in attachedColladoohotooraoh
In the public right-of-way Raise crown of tree by
adjacent to the property trimming lower branches
5 75'Pine located at 7313 Via up to the trimming level
Collado illustrated in attached
nhotoaranh
In the public right-of-way Raise crown of tree by
adjacent to the property trimming lower branches
6 60'Pine located at 7313 Via up to the trimming level
Collado.On Via Cambron.illustrated in attached
ohotooraoh
In the pUblic right-of-way Raise crown of tree by
adjacent to the property trimming lower branches
7 50'Pine located at 7313 Via up to the trimming level
Collado.On Via Cambron.illustrated in attached
ohotooraoh
In the public right-of-way Raise crown of tree by i
adjacent to the property trimming lower branches
8 65'Pine located at 30405 Via up to the trimming level
Cambron illustrated in attached
ohotooraoh ._
In the public right-of·way Raise crown of tree by
adjacent to the property trimming lower branches
9 55'Pine located at 30327 Via up to the trimming level
Cambron illustrated in attached
ohotoaraoh
In the public right-of-way Raise crown of tree by
-
10 75'Pine adiacent to the orooertv lrimmino lower branches
Attachment 3-40
located al30317 Via up to the lrimming level
Cambron illustrated in attached
nhotoaraoh
Pursuant to Section 17.76.100(F)(3)(B)of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal code,
since the above referenced trees are a part of a City-identified Uniform Street program,
the City shall pay all tree trimming costs.
Notification List (abutting,adjoining and adjacent properties):
30317,30405,&30327,30413,30311 Via Cambron and 7310,7307,7306 &7313 Via
Collado
FINDINGS:
Based on the evidence provided herein,the sUbject application is approved in that the
evidence supports the following findings:
1.After conducting an investigation of the applicant's property,it is determined that
the tree located on City property,a City easement,or in the public right-of-way is
significantly impairing a view from a viewing area of the appiicant's lot,as defined
in Chapter 17.02.040 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning Code.The Pine and
Elm trees located on Via Cambron and Via Collado and described above,
significantly impairs the applicant's view of the Ocean.
2.The tree andlor foliage,which is significantly impairing a view from a vieWing
area of the applicant's lot,is located less than one thousand (1,000)feet from the
applicant's lot.The Pine and Elm trees are within 400 feet of the applicant's
property.
3.The tree andlor foliage,which significantly impairs the view from a viewing area
of the applicant's lot,did not exist as view impairing vegetation when the
applicant's lot was created.The applicant's property,Lot 31 of Tract No.26012
was created in 1961.The subject trees are non-indigenous omamental street
trees planted in the parkway after the street and sidewalk were built.
Infrastructure,including streets and sidewalks,are installed after lots are iegally
created.
located at 30317 Via up to the trimming level
Cambron illustrated in attached
photograph
Pursuant to Section 17.76.100(F)(3)(B)of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal code,
since the above referenced trees are a part of a City-identified Uniform Street program,
the City shall pay all tree trimming costs.
Notification List (abutting,adjoining and adjacent properties):
30317,30405,&30327, 30413,30311 Via Cambron and 7310,7307,7306 &7313 Via
Collado
FINDINGS:
Based on the evidence provided herein,the subject application is approved in that the
evidence supports the following findings:
1.After conducting an investigation of the applicant's property,it is determined that
the tree located on City property,a City easement,or in the public right-of-way is
significantly impairing a view from a viewing area of the applicant's lot,as defined
in Chapter 17.02.040 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning Code.The Pine and
Elm trees located on Via Cambron and Via Collado and described above,
significantly impairs the applicant's view of the Ocean.
2.The tree and/or foliage,which is significantly impairing a view from a viewing
area of the applicant's lot,is located less than one thousand (1,000)feet from the
applicant's lot.The Pine and Elm trees are within 400 feet of the applicant's
property..
3.The tree and/or foliage,which significantly impairs the view from a viewing area
of the applicant's lot,did not exist as view impairing vegetation when the
applicant's lot was created.The applicant's property,Lot 31 of Tract No.26012
was created in 1961.The SUbject trees are non-indigenous ornamental street
trees planted in the parkway after the street and sidewalk were built.
Infrastructure,including streets and sidewalks,are installed after lots are legally
created.
located at 30317 Via up to the trimming level
Cambron illustrated in attached
photograoh
Pursuant to Section 17.76.1 00(F)(3)(B)of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal code,
since the above referenced trees are a part of a City-identified Uniform Street program,
the City shall pay all tree trimming costs.
Notification List (abutting,adjoining and adjacent properties):
30317,30405,&30327,30413,30311 Via Cambron and 7310,7307,7306 &7313 Via
Collado
FINDINGS:
Based on the evidence provided herein,the subject application is approved in that the
evidence supports the following findings:
1.After conducting an investigation of the applicant's property,it is determined that
the tree located on City property,a City easement,or in the public right-of-way is
significantly impairing a view from a viewing area of the applicant's lot,as defined
in Chapter 17.02.040 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning Code.The Pine and
Elm trees located on Via Cambron and Via Collado and described above,
significantly impairs the applicant's view of the Ocean.
2.The tree and/or foliage,which is significantly impairing a view from a viewing
area of the applicant's lot,is located less than one thousand (1,000)feet from the
applicant's lot.The Pine and Elm trees are within 400 feet of the applicant's
property..
3.The tree and/or foliage,which significantly impairs the view from a viewing area
of the applicant's lot,did not exist as view impairing vegetation when the
applicant's lot was created.The applicant's property,Lot 31 of Tract No.26012
was created in 1961.The SUbject trees are non-indigenous ornamental street
trees planted in the parkway after the street and sidewalk were built.
Infrastnucture,including streets and sidewalks,are installed after lots are legally
created.
Attachment 3-41
July 31,2003
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
APPLICATION
NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF APPLICATION,
STAFF RECOMMENDATION,
AND DECISION
ON CITY TREE REVIEW PERMIT NO.178
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has received a request to restore a view that the
applicants believe to be significantly impaired by foliage located in the public right-of-
way.
Tree Location:
Applicant
In the public right-of-way adjacent to 30317,30405,&30327 Via
Cambron and 7310 &7313 Via Collado.
Mr.Robert Liberman,7318 Berry Hill Drive,Rancho Palos Verdes,
CA 90275
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
A Staff recommendation with regard to the applicant's request has been made as
follows:
Trim seven (7)Pine trees and three (3)Elm trees
as rescribed in the attached Staff Re ort
Decisions on City Tree Review Permits are made administratively by the Director of the
Planning,Building and Code Enforcement Department based on Staffs analysis.input
from affected parties,and on the criteria contained in the Municipal Code.City Staff has
visited the site and prepared a Staff Report with a recommendation (attached)for the
Director's consideration.Comments on the request and on the Staff recommendation
will be accepted for the Director's consideration for a period of one week ending on
August 7,2003.
W:\Vlew Restoration\CTRP Cases\171-1 eO\178-Libennan\NOD_178.doc
30940 llAW1HORNE Blvo.!r~CflO l?'l.LOS VERDES.CA 9027~r5391
PI A"t"iINI.V{;Of)!l !"{OW ;rMf.NT (310)544·52261 BULOIr>il,(310)b41 77U2 I DEPT FAX (310)54-'1-~)2931 E-MAil PlAANI"'tG@RPvCO"1
July 31,2003
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
APPLICATION
NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF APPLICATION,
STAFF RECOMMENDATION,
AND DECISION
ON CITY TREE REVIEW PERMIT NO.178
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has received a request to restore a view that the
applicants believe to be significantly impaired by foliage located in the public right-of-
way.
Tree Location:
Applicant:
In the public right-of-way adjacent to 30317,30405,&30327 Via
Cambron and 7310 &7313 Via Collado.
Mr.Robert Liberman.7318 Berry Hill Drive,Rancho Palos Verdes,
CA 90275
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
A Staff recommendation with regard to the applicant's request has been made as
follows:
Trim seven (7)Pine trees and three (3)Elm trees
as rescribed in the attached Staff Re ort
Decisions on City Tree Review Permits are made administratively by the Director of the
Planning,Building and Code Enforcement Department based on Staff's analysis.input
from affected parties,and on the criteria contained in the Municipal Code.City Staff has
visited the site and prepared a Staff Report with a recommendation (attached)for the
Director's consideration.Comments on the request and on the Staff recommendation
will be accepted for the Director's consideration for a period of one week ending on
August 7,2003.
W'\vlew ResloralionlCTRP Cases\171-180\178-Liberman\NOD_178.doc
3(J9~O I lAW THORNE Blvo./RANClio l1\l05 VERDES.CA 90275'5391
PI NINN!;,ICODI l Nrol«JMEN1 (310)54~'5228 /BULDI'il.'(310)541 7702 f o:;r1 FAX (310)544-~J2!l3 /E'MAll PLAI'INI"iG@RPVCO'1
July 31,2003
GITVOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
APPLICATION
NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF APPLICATION,
STAFF RECOMMENDATION,
AND DECISION
ON CITY TREE REVIEW PERMIT NO.178
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has received a request to restore a view that the
applicants believe to be significantly impaired by foliage located in the public right-of-
way.
Tree Location:
Applicant:
In the public right-of-way adjacent to 30317,30405,&30327 Via
Cambron and 7310 &7313 Via Collado.
Mr.Robert Liberman.7318 Berry Hill Drive,Rancho Palos Verdes,
CA 90275
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
A Staff recommendation with regard to the applicant's request has been made as
follows:
Trim seven (7)Pine trees and three (3)Elm trees
as rescribed in the attached Staff Re ort
Decisions on City Tree Review Permits are made administratively by the Director of the
Planning,Building and Code Enforcement Department based on Staff's analysis.input
from affected parties,and on the criteria contained in the Municipal Code.City Staff has
visited the site and prepared a Staff Report with a recommendation (attached)for the
Directors consideration.Comments on the request and on the Staff recommendation
will be accepted for the Director's consideration for a period of one week ending on
August 7,2003.
W'\vIflW Resloration\CTRP Cases\171-180\178-Liberman\NOD_178.doc
30940 IIAWTHORr1E BLvo./RANCIIO l?\lOS VERDES.CA 90275'5391
PI N1NlNt'lCODI l NrOI~(;rMENT (310)544·52281 BULDI1't13 (310)~41 77021 tY.;rT FAX (310)544-~J2!l31 E'MAll PLMNI"lG@RPVCO'1
Attachment 3-42
DECISION
NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN THAT unless comments are received within one week
of the date of this notice,the Director will accept the Staff Recommendation
without change and City Tree Review Permit No.178 will be approved.Therefore,
if you have any comments or questions,please contact a View Restoration Staff
member at the City Planning,Building and Code Enforcement Department,located at
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275,or by telephone at
(310)544-5228.Please reference the application number (CTRP 178)in all
communications.
This Decision shall become effective on August 7,2003 without further notice.unless
the decision is modified.If modified,separate notice will be mailed.Once effective,
decisions of the Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 15 days
of the effective date of this decision.Appeals of this decision may be filed between
August 7,2003 and August 22,2003.
If you are the owner of property adjacent to the public right-of-way where the subject
foliage is located,and wish to appeal this decision,then you must submit a request in
writing,which includes the grounds for appeal,and a $700.00 appeal fee no later than
August 22,2003 pursuant to Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(g)of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code (enclosed).Written statements shouid be directed to the View
Restoration Commission at the City Planning,Building and Code Enforcement
Department,located at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard.
W:\View Restoration\CTRP Cases\171 -1 B0\17B~Liberman\NOD _178.doc
DECISION
NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN THAT unless comments are received within one week
of the date of this notice,the Director will accept the Staff Recommendation
without change and City Tree Review Permit No.178 will be approved.Therefore,
if you have any comments or questions.please contact a View Restoration Staff
member at the City Planning,Building and Code Enforcement Department,located at
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275,or by telephone at
(310)544-5228.Please reference the application number (CTRP 178)in all
communications.
This Decision shall become effective on August 7,2003 without further notice.unless
the decision is modified.If modified,separate notice will be mailed.Once effective,
decisions of the Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 15 days
of the effective date of this decision.Appeals of this decision may be filed between
August 7,2003 and August 22,2003.
If you are the owner of property adjacent to the public right-of-way where the subject
foliage is located,and wish to appeal this decision,then you must submit a request in
writing,which includes the grounds for appeal,and a $700.00 appeal fee no later than
August 22,2003 pursuant to Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(g)of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code (enclosed).Written statements should be directed to the View
Restoration Commission at the City Planning,Building and Code Enforcement
Department,located at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard.
W:\View Restoration\CTRP Cases\171·1B0\17B~Uberman\NOD_178.doc
DECISION
NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN THAT unless comments are received within one week
of the date of this notice,the Director will accept the Staff Recommendation
without change and City Tree Review Permit No.178 will be approved.Therefore,
if you have any comments or questions.please contact a View Restoration Staff
member at the City Planning,Building and Code Enforcement Department,located at
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275,or by telephone at
(310)544-5228.Please reference the application number (CTRP 178)in all
communications.
This Decision shall become effective on August 7,2003 without further notice.unless
the decision is modified.If modified,separate notice will be mailed.Once effective,
decisions of the Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 15 days
of the effective date of this decision.Appeals of this decision may be filed between
August 7,2003 and August 22,2003.
If you are the owner of property adjacent to the public right-of-way where the subject
foliage is located,and wish to appeal this decision,then you must submit a request in
writing,which includes the grounds for appeal,and a $700.00 appeal fee no later than
August 22,2003 pursuant to Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(g)of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code (enclosed).Written statements should be directed to the View
Restoration Commission at the City Planning,Building and Code Enforcement
Department,located at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard.
W:\View Resloration\CTRP Cases\171 -1 B0\17B~Uberman\NOD _178.doc
Attachment 3-43
P
h
o
t
o
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
[J
j
'.
'
-
~
~.
"'
;
;
'
1
_
'
/
"
.
J
~
~
Ph
o
t
o
ta
k
e
n
fr
o
m
th
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
'
s
vi
e
w
i
n
g
ar
e
a
.
Ra
i
s
e
cr
o
w
n
'<
1
f
Pi
n
e
tr
e
e
s
by
tr
i
m
'
R
l
i
n
g
lo
w
e
r
br
a
n
c
h
e
s
up
to
th
e
tr
i
m
m
i
n
g
level (solid
II
~
..
"
.
Ph
o
t
o
da
t
e
:
Ju
l
y
8,
20
0
3
..
.
"
"
Ph
o
t
o
ta
k
e
n
by
Vi
e
w
Re
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
St
a
f
f
..
'
.
-
,
'
<
Ph
o
t
o
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
Ph
o
t
o
ta
k
e
n
fr
o
m
th
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
'
s
vi
e
w
i
n
g
ar
e
a
.
Ra
i
s
e
cr
o
w
n
'<
?
f
Pi
n
e
tr
e
e
s
by
tr
i
m
)
:
Q
i
n
g
lo
w
e
r
br
a
n
c
h
e
s
up
to
th
e
tr
i
m
m
i
n
g
level (solid
li
n
e
)
.
..
"
,
Ph
o
t
o
da
t
e
:
Ju
l
y
8,
20
0
3
..
.
"
,
Ph
o
t
o
ta
k
e
n
by
Vi
e
w
Re
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
St
a
f
f
..
"
,
-
'
Ph
o
t
o
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
.'
~.
'~
;
J
l
!
Ph
o
t
o
ta
k
e
n
fr
o
m
th
e
ap
p
f
i
c
a
n
t
'
s
vi
e
w
i
n
g
ar
e
a
.
Ra
i
s
e
cr
o
w
n
'~f
Pi
n
e
tr
e
e
s
by
tr
i
m
~
l
n
g
lo
w
e
r
br
a
n
c
h
e
s
up
to
th
e
tr
i
m
m
i
n
g
level (solid
li
n
e
)
.
\
"
..
Ph
o
t
o
da
t
e
:
Ju
l
y
8
,
2
0
0
3
\
"
,
Ph
o
t
o
ta
k
e
n
by
Vi
e
w
Re
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
St
a
f
f
"
"
..
-
'
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3-44
ST
tJ
,
:
:
-
:
:
R'
:
P
O
R
T
C"
"
'
R
:
:
"
;'
i
8
.
'1
7
8
:
In
~
3
"
'
)
r
~
{
C
J
t
i
0
r
"
RC\
/
h
~
\
'
'
'
'
~J
i
9
:
c
h
~I,
?O
·
~
'!
Tr
e
e
NO
.
9
(N
o
.
5
)
-
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
at
73
1
8
Be
r
r
y
Hi
l
l
ho
r
i
z
o
n
li
n
e
an
d
he
a
v
i
l
y
la
c
e
,
Tr
e
e
NO
.
8
(N
o
.
7
)
-
He
a
v
i
l
y
La
c
e
Tr
e
e
NO
.
5
(N
o
.
9
)
-
Tr
i
m
do
w
n
to
73
1
8
Be
r
r
y
Hi
l
l
ho
r
i
z
o
n
li
n
e
&
se
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
br
a
n
c
h
re
m
o
v
a
l
in
th
e
re
d
-
ci
r
c
l
e
d
ar
e
a
Tr
e
e
No
.
4
(N
o
.
1
0
)
-
Tr
i
m
do
w
n
to
73
1
8
Be
r
r
y
Hi
l
l
ho
r
i
z
o
n
li
n
e
&
se
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
br
a
n
c
h
re
m
o
v
a
l
in
th
e
re
d
-
c
i
r
c
l
e
d
ar
e
a
Tr
e
e
No
.
1-
3
-
N
o
tr
i
m
m
i
n
g
ch
a
n
g
e
to
El
m
s
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
-
Ph
o
t
o
ta
k
e
n
by
St
a
f
f
in
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
20
1
1
-
Di
a
g
r
a
m
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
mo
d
i
f
i
e
d
tr
i
m
m
i
n
g
pe
r
ZO
N
2
0
1
1
-
0
0
0
5
3
(Tree Numbers
~~
s
~
~
l
~
~
e
2
.
~i
t
h
CT
R
P
2
0
0
8
-
0
0
0
3
1
ar
e
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
in
pa
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
;
.
.
.
.
i
.
;
;
.
s
"
,
l
~~
_
"
"
_
'"
'
s:
:
\
-:
-
:
?~
;
:
l
O
R
T
s
-
q
,
=
,
"
C
;
.
17
8
:
In
_
~
Y
'
)
"
~
Ci
•.
i·
:
)
!
'
Rc
'
t
i
'
-
"
w
i
Ilq
:
~
:
;
:
i
•
.
~O
·
i
..~
Tr
e
e
NO
.
9
(N
o
.
5
)
-
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
at
73
1
8
Be
r
r
y
Hi
l
l
ho
r
i
z
o
n
li
n
e
an
d
he
a
v
i
l
y
la
c
e
Tr
e
e
NO
.
8
(N
o
.
7
)
-
He
a
v
i
l
y
La
c
e
Tr
e
e
N
o
.
5
(N
o
.
9
)
-
Tr
i
m
do
w
n
to
73
1
8
Be
r
r
y
Hi
l
l
ho
r
i
z
o
n
li
n
e
&
se
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
br
a
n
c
h
re
m
o
v
a
l
in
th
e
re
d
-
ci
r
c
l
e
d
ar
e
a
Tr
e
e
NO
.
4
(N
o
.
1
0)
-
Tr
i
m
do
w
n
to
73
1
8
Be
r
r
y
Hi
l
l
ho
r
i
z
o
n
li
n
e
&
se
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
br
a
n
c
h
re
m
o
v
a
l
in
th
e
re
d
-
c
i
r
c
l
e
d
ar
e
a
Tr
e
e
No
.
1-
3
-
N
o
tr
i
m
m
i
n
g
ch
a
n
g
e
to
El
m
s
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
-
Ph
o
t
o
ta
k
e
n
by
St
a
f
f
in
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
20
1
1
-
Di
a
g
r
a
m
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
mo
d
i
f
i
e
d
tr
i
m
m
i
n
g
pe
r
ZO
N
2
0
1
1
-
0
0
0
5
3
(Tree Numbers
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
CT
R
P
2
0
0
8
-
0
0
0
3
1
ar
e
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
in
pa
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
i
s
)
_
.
:
.
.
-
_
~
s..
,
.
.
:
\
:
:
:
-
=
P
~
O
O
R
T
s
-
c
W
:
'
1
8
.
'1
7
8
:
In·
:
:
;
}
r
·
)
'
·
~
t
a
t
j
o
l
'
RC
'
I
I
~
I
.
V
~li-
=
l
:
I
:
;
-
1
:L
~O
·
~
"!
Tr
e
e
NO
.
9
(N
o
.
5
)
-
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
at
73
1
8
Be
r
r
y
Hi
l
l
ho
r
i
z
o
n
li
n
e
an
d
he
a
v
i
l
y
la
c
e
j
Tr
e
e
NO
.
8
(N
o
.
7
)
-
He
a
v
i
l
y
La
c
e
Tr
e
e
NO
.
5
(N
o
.
9
)
-
Tr
i
m
do
w
n
to
73
1
8
Be
r
r
y
Hi
l
l
ho
r
i
z
o
n
li
n
e
&
se
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
br
a
n
c
h
re
m
o
v
a
l
in
th
e
re
d
-
ci
r
c
l
e
d
ar
e
a
Tr
e
e
NO
.
4
(N
o
.
1
0
)
-
Tr
i
m
do
w
n
to
73
1
8
Be
r
r
y
Hi
l
l
ho
r
i
z
o
n
li
n
e
&
se
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
br
a
n
c
h
re
m
o
v
a
l
in
th
e
re
d
-
c
i
r
c
l
e
d
ar
e
a
Tr
e
e
No
.
1-
3
-
N
o
tr
i
m
m
i
n
g
ch
a
n
g
e
to
El
m
s
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
-
Ph
o
t
o
ta
k
e
n
by
St
a
f
f
in
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
20
1
1
-
Di
a
g
r
a
m
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
mo
d
i
f
i
e
d
tr
i
m
m
i
n
g
pe
r
ZO
N
2
0
1
1
-
0
0
0
5
3
(Tree Numbers
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
CT
R
P
2
0
0
8
-
0
0
0
3
1
ar
e
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
in
pa
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
i
s
)
"
-
.
-,"
"
,
.
."
..
--
.
.
.
:
s
=
:
:
:
:
:
:
.
,
.
_
-
_-
l
.
-
_
.....
.
..
,
-
w
.
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3-45
STAFF REPORT
CTRP No.178:Interpretation Review
March 4,2011
Figure 2 -Tree Numbers per CTRP No.178 and CTRP2008-00031
Tree Number per CTRP Tree Number per CTRP2008-00031
No.178
nfa 1
nfa 2
nfa 3
1 nfa
2 nfa
3 nfa
4 10
5 9
6 8
7 6
8 7
9 5
10 4
51 AFF REPORT
C1RP No.178:Interpretation Review
Mal ell 4.2011
Figure 2 -Tree Numbers per CTRP No.178 and CTRP2008-00031
Tree Number per CTRP Tree Number per CTRP2008-00031
No.178
nfa 1
nfa 2
nfa 3
1 nfa
2 nfa
3 nfa
4 10
5 9
6 8
7 6
8 7
9 5
10 4
STAFF REPORT
CTRP No 178:Interpretation Review
Marcil 4,2011
Figure 2 -Tree Numbers per CTRP No.178 and CTRP2008-00031
Tree Number per CTRP Tree Number per CTRP2008-00031
No.178
nfa 1
nfa 2
nfa 3
1 nfa
2 nfa
3 nfa
4 10
5 9
6 8
7 6
8 7
9 5
10 4
Attachment 3-46
".-".-~c
Attachment 3-47
P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2011-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PAlOS VERDES MODIFYING THE APPEAL WHICH IS
REQUESTING THAT All TEN CITY-oWNED CANARY ISLAND PINE
TREES BE ELIGIBLE FOR ADOPTION AND TRIMMING,AND
APPROVING THE DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL OF A CITY TREE
REVIEW PERMIT (CTRP200S-00031)AllOWING FOR THE
POTENTIAL ADOPTION OF TEN (10)CITY-oWNED CANARY ISLAND
PINE TREES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY,WHICH
SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIR THE VIEW FROM THE PROPERTIES
lOCATED AT 7306,7315,7333,and 7284 BERRY Hill DRIVE
WHEREAS,on October 16,200B,Mr.Joseph Yousefpour and Mr.Larry Marinovich,
owners of property located at 7306 and 7315 Berry Hill Drive,respectively,(herein '1he
Applicants"),in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes C'City''),filed an application requesting
approval of a City Tree Review Permit ("Permit'')to restore a view from their properties that is
significantly impaired by ten (10)City-owned Canary Island Pine Trees,located in the public
right-of-way on Via Cambron,adjacent to 30405,30327 and 30317 Via Cambron and 7313 Via
Collado,and in the public right-of-way on Via Collado,adjacent to 7313 Via Collado,in the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes;and,
WHEREAS,On May 2B,2009,pursuant to the Code provisions governing the
processing of City Tree Review Permits,the Director made a preliminary determination,finding
that the ten (10)Canary Island Pine Trees significantly impair the view from the applicants'
viewing areas and approved CTRP200B-00031,requiring the removal of the ten (10)Trees.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes mailed to surrounding residents this preliminary determination
of approval and Notice of Decision approving a request to remove the Trees because they
significantly impair the ocean and Catalina Island view from the viewing areas of the applicants
located at 7306,and 7315 Berry Hill Drive;and,
WHEREAS,during the period from May 2009 through August 2009,several residents of
Via Cambron and Via Collado who received the Director's preliminary determination of approval
and several who did not,submitted correspondence commenting on this preliminary report;and,
WHEREAS,on February 12,2010,the Director determined that the issues raised by
these residents did not constitute grounds under the City's ordinance to warrant an
administrative denial of the City Tree Review Permit application,and issued a Final Notice of
Decision for Tree Nos.4-10,with the modifications of eliminating Tree Nos.1-3 from the
application and allOWing the potential adoption of Tree Nos.5,7 and 10.This Final Notice was
mailed to the original 14 residents who received the preliminary staff report,the applicants,and
all other residents who submitted comments on the preliminary staff report;and,
WHEREAS,on March 2,2010,Mrs.Nancy Parsons,Ms.Marjorie C.Carter,and Mr.
Michael O'Sullivan submitted an appeal to overtum the Director's decision;and,
WHEREAS,after noticed issued on April B,2010 pursuant to the requirements of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on April 27,2010,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be
heard and present evidence;and,
Resolution 2011-01
Page 1 of 12
P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2011-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PAlOS VERDES MODIFYING THE APPEAL WHICH IS
REQUESTING THAT ALL TEN Crrv-DWNED CANARY ISLAND PINE
TREES BE ELIGIBLE FOR ADOPTION AND TRIMMING,AND
APPROVING THE DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL OF A CITY TREE
REVIEW PERMIT (CTRP200S-00031)AllOWING FOR THE
POTENTIAL ADOPTION OF TEN (10)CITY-DWNED CANARY ISLAND
PINE TREES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-DF-WAY,WHICH
SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIR THE VIEW FROM THE PROPERTIES
LOCATED AT 7306,7315,7333,and 7284 BERRY HILL DRIVE
WHEREAS,on October 16,200B,Mr.Joseph Yousefpour and Mr.Larry Marinovich,
owners ot property located at 7306 and 7315 Berry Hill Drive,respectively,(herein '1he
Applicants"),in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes C'Cily''),filed an application requesting
approval of a City Tree Review Permit ("Permit'')to restore a view from their properties that is
significantly impaired by ten (10)City-owned Canary Island Pine Trees,located in the public
right-of-way on Via Cambron,adjacent to 30405,30327 and 30317 Via Cambron and 7313 Via
Collado,and in the pUblic right-ot-way on Via Collado,adjacent to 7313 Via Collado,in the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes;and,
WHEREAS,On May 2B,2009,pursuant to the Code provisions governing the
processing of City Tree Review Permits,the Director made a preliminary determination,finding
that the ten (10)Canary Island Pine Trees significantly impair the view trom the applicants'
viewing areas and approved CTRP200B-00031,requiring the removal of the ten (10)Trees.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes mailed to surrounding residents this preliminary determination
of approval and Notice of Decision approving a request to remove the Trees because they
significantly impair the ocean and Catalina Island view trom the viewing areas ot the applicants
located at 7306,and 7315 Berry Hill Drive;and,
WHEREAS,during the period from May 2009 through August 2009,several residents of
Via Cambron and Via Collado who received the Director's preliminary determination of approval
and several who did not,submitted correspondence commenting on this preliminary report;and,
WHEREAS,on February 12,2010,the Director determined that the issues raised by
these residents did not constitute grounds under the City's ordinance to warrant an
administrative denial ot the City Tree Review Permit application,and issued a Final Notice of
Decision for Tree Nos.4-10,with the modifications ot eliminating Tree Nos.1-3 trom the
application and allOWing the potential adoption of Tree Nos.5,7 and 10.This Final Notice was
mailed to the original 14 residents who received the preliminary staff report,the applicants,and
all other residents who submitted comments on the preliminary staff report;and,
WHEREAS,on March 2,2010,Mrs.Nancy Parsons,Ms.Marjorie C.Carter,and Mr.
Michael O'Sullivan submitted an appeal to overtum the Director's decision;and,
WHEREAS,after noticed issued on April B,2010 pursuant to the requirements of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on April 27,2010,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be
heard and present evidence;and,
Resolution 2011·01
Page 1 of 12
P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2011-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES MODIFYING THE APPEAL WHICH IS
REQUESTING THAT All TEN CITY-oWNED CANARY ISLAND PINE
TREES BE ELIGIBLE FOR ADOPTION AND TRIMMING,AND
APPROVING THE DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL OF A CITY TREE
REVIEW PERMIT (CTRP200a-00031)AllOWING FOR THE
POTENTIAL ADOPTION OF TEN (10)CITY-oWNED CANARY ISLAND
PINE TREES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY,WHICH
SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIR THE VIEW FROM THE PROPERTIES
LOCATED AT 7306,7315,7333,and 7284 BERRY Hill DRIVE
WHEREAS,on October 16,2008,Mr.Joseph Yousefpour and Mr.Larry Marinovich,
owners of property located at 7306 and 7315 Berry Hill Drive,respectively,(herein '1he
Applicants"),in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes C'Cily''),filed an application requesting
approval of a City Tree Review Permit ("Permit'')to restore a view from their properties that is
significantly impaired by ten (10)City-owned Canary Island Pine Trees,located in the public
right-of-way on Via Cambron,adjacent to 30405,30327 and 30317 Via Cambron and 7313 Via
Collado,and in the pUblic right-of-way on Via Collado,adjacent to 7313 Via Collado,in the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes;and,
WHEREAS,On May 28,2009,pursuant to the Code provisions governing the
processing of City Tree ReView Permits,the Director made a preliminary determination,finding
that the ten (10)Canary Island Pine Trees significantly impair the view from the applicants'
vieWing areas and approved CTRP2008-00031,requiring the removal of the ten (10)Trees.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes mailed to surrounding residents this preliminary determination
of approval and Notice of Decision approving a request to remove the Trees because they
significantly impair the ocean and Catalina Island view from the viewing areas of the applicants
located at 7306,and 7315 Berry Hill Drive;and,
WHEREAS,during the period from May 2009 through August 2009,several residents of
Via Cambron and Via Collado who received the Director's preliminary determination of approval
and several who did not,submitted correspondence commenting on this preliminary report;and,
WHEREAS,on February 12,2010,the Director determined that the issues raised by
these residents did not constitute grounds under the City's ordinance to warrant an
administrative denial of the City Tree Review Permit application,and issued a Final Notice of
Decision for Tree Nos.4-10,with the modifications of eliminating Tree Nos.1-3 from the
application and allOWing the potential adoption of Tree Nos.5,7 and 10.This Final Notice was
mailed to the original 14 residents who received the preliminary staff report,the applicants,and
all other residents who submitted comments on the preliminary staff report;and,
WHEREAS,on March 2,2010,Mrs.Nancy Parsons,Ms.Marjorie C.Carter,and Mr.
Michael O'Sullivan submitted an appeal to overtum the Director's decision;and,
WHEREAS,after noticed issued on April 8,2010 pursuant to the requirements of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on April 27,2010,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be
heard and present evidence;and,
Resolution 2011-01
Page 1 of 12
Attachment 3-48
WHEREAS,at the Planning Commission hearing on April 27"',2010,the Planning
Commission modified Staff's recommendation,recommending that all seven Trees be trimmed
down out of the Catalina Island view (horizon level)as viewed from the Marinovich viewing area
at 7315 Berry Hill Drive,wnh the exception of Tree No.4,(if the residents directly adjacent to
Tree NO.4 continued to object to its adoption).The Planning Commission stated that adoption
agreements must be prepared prior to the Trees being trimmed,and that after the Tnees are
trimmed,Staff should schedule the nem to return to the Planning Commission.At this follow-up
meeting,the Planning Commission would determine if the trimming eliminated the significant
view impairment from the applicant's viewing areas,and if not,could require one or more of the
trimmed Tnees to be removed.The Planning Commission also stated that if there were
additional applicants who withdrew from the innial application process,they should be allowed
to have their views assessed after the trimming is completed as well.Staff was to make the
revisions to the Resolution and bring it back to the next Planning Commission meeting for
formal approval;and,
WHEREAS,as a result of the Planning Commission recommendation at the April 27'"
meeting,Staff realized that there were two issues with the Planning Commission direction that
would require additional work by Staff to resolve.Staff drafted a memo to the Planning
Commission,requesting that Staff be allowed to delay bringing back the Planning Commission's
revised resolution for formal approval.These two issues were 1)how to address views from
other potential applicants'properties under this same application,(Le.,review the views prior to
after the initial trimming),and 2)that Municipal Code Section 17.76.1 OO.F.1.c.iv requires that the
abutting neighbor must agree in writing when the tree directly abutting their property is proposed
to be adopted,and Staff only had the written disagreement of one abutting resident.The
Planning Commission received and filed this report on May 11,2010;and,
WHEREAS,after noticed issued on November 25,2010 pursuant to the requirements of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing on December 14,2010,at which time all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard at the December 14,2010 meeting and present evidence;and,
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission discussed the matter,heard public testimony and
gave Staff direction regarding Staff's recommendations and requested that the resolution
containing the amended recommendation be brought back to the Commission for review and
approval at the next Planning Commission meeting;and,
WHEREAS,the revised resolution was presented to the Planning Commission for
approval and signature at the Planning Commission meeting of January 11,2011.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:As defined by Seclion 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code,the
Applicants at 7306 Berry Hill Drive,7315 Berry Hill Drive,7284 Berry Hill Drive and 7333 Berry
Hill Drive have a view of the Ocean and Catalina Island..
Section 2:The Applicant's viewing area at 7306 Berry Hill Drive,as defined by Section
17.02.040 of the City's Development Code,is from the living room/dining room.The Applicant's
viewing area at 7315 Berry Hill Drive,as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's
Development Code,is from the liVing room.The Applicant's viewing area at 7284 Berry Hill
Drive,as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code,is from the dining area
Resolution 2011-01
Page 2 of 12
WHEREAS,at the Planning Commission hearing on April 2711>,2010,the Planning
Commission modified Staff's recommendation,recommending that all seven Trees be trimmed
down out of the Catalina Island view (horizon level)as viewed from the Marinovich viewing area
at 7315 Berry Hill Drive,with the exception of Tree No.4,(if the residents directly adjacent to
Tree NO.4 continued to object to its adoption).The Planning Commission stated that adoption
agreements must be prepared prior to the Trees being trimmed,and that after the Trees are
trimmed,Staff should schedule the item to return to the Planning Commission.At this follow-up
meeting,the Planning Commission would determine if the trimming eliminated the significant
view impairment from the applicant's viewing areas,and if not,could require one or more of the
trimmed Trees to be removed.The Planning Commission also stated that if there were
additional applicants who withdrew from the initial application process,they should be allowed
to have their views assessed after the trimming is completed as well.Staff was to make the
revisions to the Resolution and bring it back to the next Planning Commission meeting for
formal approval:and,
WHEREAS,as a result of the Planning Commission recommendation at the April 2711>
meeting,Staff realized that there were two issues with the Planning Commission direction that
would require additional work by Staff to resolve.Staff drafted a memo to the Planning
Commission,requesting that Staff be allowed to delay bringing back the Planning Commission's
revised resolution for formal approval.These two issues were 1)how to address views from
other potential applicants'properties under this same application,(Le.,review the views prior to
after the initial trimming),and 2)that Municipal Code Section 17.76.1 00.F.1.c.iv requires that the
abutting neighbor must agree in writing when the tree directly abutting their property is proposed
to be adopted,and Staff only had the written disagreement of one abutting resident.The
Planning Commission received and filed this report on May 11,2010;and,
WHEREAS,after noticed issued on November 25,2010 pursuant to the requirements of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing on December 14,2010,at which time all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard at the December 14,2010 meeting and present evidence;and,
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission discussed the matter,heard public testimony and
gave Staff direction regarding Staff's recommendations and requested that the resolution
containing the amended recommendation be brought back to the Commission for review and
approval at the next Planning Commission meeting;and,
WHEREAS,the revised resolution was presented to the Planning Commission for
approval and signature at the Planning Commission meeting of January 11,2011.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:As defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code,the
Applicants at 7306 Berry Hill Drive,7315 Berry Hill Drive,7284 Berry Hill Drive and 7333 Berry
Hill Drive have a view of the Ocean and Catalina Island..
Section 2:The Applicant's viewing area at 7306 Berry Hill Drive,as defined by Section
17.02.040 of the City's Development Code,is from the living room/dining room.The Applicant's
viewing area at 7315 Berry Hill Drive,as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's
Development Code,is from the liVing room.The Applicant's viewing area at 7284 Berry Hill
Drive,as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code,is from the dining area
Resolution 2011-01
Page 2 of 12
WHEREAS,at the Planning Commission hearing on April 27'",2010,the Planning
Commission modified Staff's recommendation,recommending that all seven Trees be trimmed
down out of the Catalina Island view (horizon level)as viewed from the Marinovich viewing area
at 7315 Berry Hill Drive,with the exception of Tree No.4,(if the residents directly adjacent to
Tree NO.4 continued to object to its adoption).The Planning Commission stated that adoption
agreements must be prepared prior to the Trees being trimmed,and that after the Trees are
trimmed,Staff should schedule the item to return to the Planning Commission.At this follow-up
meeting,the Planning Commission would determine if the trimming eliminated the significant
view impairment from the applicant's viewing areas,and if not,could require one or more of the
trimmed Trees to be removed.The Planning Commission also stated that if there were
additional applicants who withdrew from the initial application process,they should be allowed
to have their views assessed after the trimming is completed as well.Staff was to make the
revisions to the Resolution and bring it back to the next Planning Commission meeting for
formal approval;and,
WHEREAS,as a result of the Planning Commission recommendation at the April 27'"
meeting,Staff realized that there were two issues with the Planning Commission direction that
would reqUire additional work by Staff to resolve.Staff drafted a memo to the Planning
Commission,requesting that Staff be allowed to delay bringing back the Planning Commission's
revised resolution for formal approval.These two issues were 1)how to address views from
other potential applicants'properties under this same application,(Le.,review the views prior to
after the initial trimming),and 2)that Municipal Code Section 17.76.1 OO.F.1.c.iv requires that the
abutting neighbor must agree in writing when the tree directly abutting their property is proposed
to be adopted,and Staff only had the written disagreement of one abutting resident.The
Planning Commission received and filed this report on May 11,2010;and,
WHEREAS,after noticed issued on November 25,2010 pursuant to the requirements of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing on December 14,2010,at which time all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard at the December 14,2010 meeting and present evidence;and,
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission discussed the malter,heard public testimony and
gave Staff direction regarding Staff's recommendations and requested that the resolution
containing the amended recommendation be brought back to the Commission for review and
approval at the next Planning Commission meeting;and,
WHEREAS,the revised resolution was presented to the Planning Commission for
approval and signature at the Planning Commission meeting of January 11,2011.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:As defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code,the
Applicants at 7306 Berry Hill Drive,7315 Berry Hill Drive,7284 Berry Hill Drive and 7333 Berry
Hill Drive have a view of the Ocean and Catalina Island..
Section 2:The Applicant's viewing area at 7306 Berry Hill Drive,as defined by Section
17.02.040 of the City's Development Code,is from the living room/dining room.The Applicant's
Viewing area at 7315 Berry Hill Drive,as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's
Development Code,is from the liVing room.The Applicant's viewing area at 7284 Berry Hill
Drive,as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code,is from the dining area
Resolution 2011-01
Page 2 of 12
Attachment 3-49
next to the kitchen.The Applicant's viewing area at 7333 Berry Hill Drive,as defined by Section
17.02.040 of the City's Development Code,is from the living room.
Section 3:The Applicants at 7306 Berry Hill Drive,and 7315 Berry Hill Drive each have
a view that is significantly impaired by seven (7)Trees located on Via Cambron,and Via
Collado.The applicant at 7333 Berry Hill Drive has a view that is significantly impaired by six
(6)Trees located on Via Cambron and Via Collado.The applicant at 7284 Berry Hill Drive has a
view that is significantly impaired by seven (7)Trees located on Via Cambron,and Via Collado
and three (3)Trees located on Berry Hill Drive.These Trees impair the original and additional
applicants'views in the following manner:
Original Applicants
7306 Berry Hill Drive (Yousefpour)-The subject Trees are located in the center of the view
frame and significantly impair the view of the ocean.
7315 Berry Hill Drive (Marinovich)-The subject Trees are located towards the center of the
view frame and significantly impair the view of the ocean and Catalina Island.
Additional Applicants
7284 Berry Hill Drive (Morrison)-The subject Trees are located towards the center of the view
frame and significantly impair the view of the ocean.
7333 Berry Hill Drive (Galvin)-The subject Trees are located towards the center of the view
frame and significantly impair the view of the ocean and Catalina Island.
Section 4:Trimming and/or removal of the subject Trees as identified in the attached
Conditions of Approval (Exhibit "K),is necessary in order to restore the Applicants'view.
Section 5:Pursuant to Section 17.80.120 of the Municipal Code,the appellants shall
have the full cost of the appeal ($2,255.00)refunded to them within 30 days of the date of the
January 11,2010 meeting.
Section 6:Pursuant to Section 15304 of the California Environmental Quality Act,the
proposed project is ca1egorically exempt under Class 4 of that section because the work
required to restore the Applicants'view does not include the removal of scenic and mature
Trees as identified by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan (Visual Aspects;Figure
41).This finding,demonstrates that the decision complies with the provisions of CEQA because
the decision does not cause any significant adverse environmental impacts.Since the subject
Trees are not considered to be scenic or mature Trees as identified in the City's General Plan,
the environmental impacts due to trimming and/or removal are insignificant.
Section 7:Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this
decision may appeal to the City Council.Pursuant to Section 17.202.040 (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 8:For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the staff report,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Resolution 2011-01
Page 3 of 12
next to the kitchen.The Applicant's viewing area at 7333 Berry Hill Drive,as defined by Section
17.02.040 of the City's Development Code,is from the living room.
Section 3:The Applicants at 7306 Berry Hill Drive,and 7315 Berry Hill Drive each have
a view that is significanlly impaired by seven (7)Trees located on Via Cambron,and Via
Collado.The applicant at 7333 Berry Hill Drive has a view that is significanlly impaired by six
(6)Trees located on Via Cambron and Via Collado.The applicant at 7284 Berry Hill Drive has a
view that is significanlly impaired by seven (7)Trees located on Via Cambron,and Via Collado
and three (3)Trees located on Berry Hill Drive.These Trees impair the original and additional
applicants'views in the following manner.
Original Applicants
7306 Berry Hill Drive (Yousefpour)-The subject Trees are located in the center of the view
frame and significantly impair the view of the ocean.
7315 Berry Hill Drive (Marinovich)-The SUbject Trees are located towards the center of the
view frame and significantly impair the view of the ocean and Catalina Island.
Additional Applicants
7284 Berry Hill Drive (Morrison)-The subject Trees are located towards the center of the view
frame and significanlly impair the view of the ocean.
7333 Berry Hill Drive (Galvin)-The subject Trees are located towards the center of the view
frame and significanlly impair the view of the ocean and Catalina Island.
Section 4:Trimming and/or removal of the subject Trees as identified in the attached
Conditions of Approval (Exhibit "N),is necessary in order to restore the Applicants'view.
Section 5:Pursuant to Section 17.80.120 of the Municipal Code,the appellants shall
have the full cost of the appeal ($2,255.00)refunded to them within 30 days of the date of the
January 11,2010 meeting.
Section 6:Pursuant to Section 15304 of the California Environmental Quality Act,the
proposed project is categorically exempt under Class 4 of that section because the work
required to restore the Applicants'view does not include the removal of scenic and mature
Trees as identified by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan (Visual Aspects;Figure
41).This finding,demonstrates that the decision complies wi1h the provisions of CEQA because
the decision does not cause any significant adverse environmental impacts.Since the subject
Trees are not considered to be scenic or mature Trees as identified in the City's General Plan,
the environmental impacts due to trimming and/or removal are insignificant.
Section 7:Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this
decision may appeal to the City Council.Pursuant to Section 17.202.040 (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 8:For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the staff report,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Resolution 2011-01
Page 3 of 12
next to the kitchen.The Applicant's viewing area at 7333 Berry Hill Drive,as defined by Section
17.02.040 of the City's Development Code.is from the living room.
Section 3:The Applicants at 7306 Berry Hill Drive,and 7315 Berry Hill Drive each have
a view that is significantly impaired by seven (7)Trees located on Via Cambron,and Via
Collado.The applicant at 7333 Berry Hill Drive has a view that is significantly impaired by six
(6)Trees located on Via Cambron and Via Collado.The applicant at 7284 Berry Hill Drive has a
view that is significantly impaired by seven (7)Trees located on Via Cambron.and Via Collado
and three (3)Trees located on Berry Hill Drive.These Trees impair the original and additional
applicants'views in the following manner.
Original Applicants
7306 Berry Hill Drive (Yousefpour)-The subject Trees are located in the center of the view
frame and significantly impair the view of the ocean.
7315 Berry Hill Drive (Marinovich)-The subject Trees are located towards the center of the
view frame and significantly impair the view of the ocean and Catalina Island.
Additional Applicants
7284 Berry Hill Drive (Morrison)-The subject Trees are located towards the center of the view
frame and significantly impair the view of the ocean.
7333 Berry Hill Drive (Galvin)-The subject Trees are located towards the center of the view
frame and significantly impair the view of the ocean and Catalina Island.
Section 4:Trimming and/or removal of the subject Trees as identified in the attached
Conditions of Approval (Exhibit "A"),is necessary in order to restore the Applicants'view.
Section 5:Pursuant to Section 17.80.120 of the Municipal Code,the appellants shall
have the full cost of the appeal ($2,255.00)refunded to them within 30 days of the date of the
January 11,2010 meeting.
Section 6:Pursuant to Section 15304 of the California Environmental Quality Act.the
proposed project is categorically exempt under Class 4 of that section because the work
required to restore the Applicants'view does not include the removal of scenic and mature
Trees as identified by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan (Visual Aspects;Figure
41).This finding.demonstrates lhatthe decision complies with the prOVisions of CECA because
the decision does not cause any significant adverse environmental impacts.Since the subject
Trees are not considered to be scenic or mature Trees as identified in the City's General Plan,
the environmental impacts due to trimming and/or removal are insignificant.
Section 7:Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this
decision may appeal to the City Council.Pursuant to Section 17.202.040 (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 8:For the foregoing reasons and based on the infonmation and findings
included in the staff report,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Resolution 2011-01
Page 3 of 12
Attachment 3-50
hereby amends the Director's current recommendation for CTRP200B-00031,subject to the
Conditions of Approval contained in the attached Exhibit "N.
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11 th day of January 2011,by the following vote:
AYES:Commissioners Emenhiser,Knight,Leon,Vice Chairman Tomblin and
Chairman Gerstner
NOES:None
ABSTENTIONS:None
RECUSALS:None
ABSENT:Commissioners Lewis and
Resolution 2011-Q.l
Page4 of 11
hereby amends the Director's current recommendation for CTRP200B-00031,subject to the
Conditions of Approval contained in the attached Exhibit "N.
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11 th day of January 2011,by the following vote:
AYES:Commissioners Emenhiser,Knight,Leon,Vice Chairman Tomblin and
Chairman Gerstner
NOES:None
ABSTENTIONS:None
RECUSALS:None
ABSENT:Commissioners Lewis and
Resolution 2011-9.1
Page4 of 11
hereby amends the Director's current recommendation for CTRP2008-00031,subject to the
Conditions of Approval contained in the attached Exhibit "Au.
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11 lh day of January 2011,by the follOWing vote:
AYES:Commissioners Emenhiser.Knight.Leon.Vice Chairman Tomblin and
Chairman Gerstner
NOES:None
ABSTENTIONS:None
RECUSALS:None
ABSENT:Commissioners Lewis and TetreaultK:-u,/,./"
d::::--
Resolution 2011-01
Page 4 of 11
Attachment 3-51
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CITY TREE REVIEW PERMIT NO.2008-00031
1.Trees 1-3 shall be heavily laced (thinned).(See Exhibit B for tree locations.)
2.Tree Nos.4-9 shall be trimmed down to the horizon level (out of the Catalina Island
view)as viewed from the viewing area at 7333 Berry Hill Drive,w~h the remainder to be
shaped and heavily laced.(See Exhibit C for trimming level photos.)
3.Tree No.10 shall be trimmed down to the horizon level (out of the Catalina Island View)
as viewed from the viewing area at 7315 Beny Hill Drive,with the remainder to be
shaped and heavily laced.(See Exhibit C for trimming level photos.)
4.Tree NO.4 shall be removed and replaced with a 24-inch box size tree (see Condition
#10)unless the tree-abutting resident submits written consent by 12:00pm on February
1,2011 that allows adoption of the tree.If the abutting resident does consent to allow
adoption of Tree No.4 by said deadline,the tree shall be trimmed down to the horizon
level (out of the Catalina Island view)as viewed from the viewing area at 7333 Beny Hill
Drive,with the remainder to be shaped and heavily laced.(See Exhibit C for trimming
level photos.)
5.The trimming of the Trees shall only occur durin9 the cooler months of the year,which
are November 1"through March 31".
6.The trimming as described in Conditions 1-5 above shall only occur if Staff receives
written consent from all the property owners abutting said trees by 12:00pm on February
1,2011 that they will allow adoption of the Tree abutting their property;and Staff
receives the signed adoption covenants for all the trees by 12:00pm on February 15,
2011.If any of the Trees are not adopted by 12:00pm on Tuesday,February 15,2011,
the tree(s)shall be removed and replaced by the City on a 1:1 basis with a 24-inch box
size tree of a variety listed in Condition No.1 0 herein.This date may only be delayed
pursuant to Condition 9 below.
7.The initial trimming of any adopted trees as described above shall be completed by the
City no later than March 15,2011.This date may only be delayed pursuant to Condition
No.9 below.All subsequent maintenance trimming of any adopted trees is to be
compieted annually within 90 days of March 15'h by the adopting party as described in
the signed adoption covenant.
8.Once the Trees are initially trimmed,Staff shall schedule a duly noticed public hearing
before the Planning Commission for the sole purpose of determining if \he tree trimming
as described above has eliminated the significant view impairment for the four
applicants.This hearing for the follow-up view assessment shall occur no later than
April 12,2011.This date may only be delayed pursuant to Condition 9 below.If the
Planning Commission detenmines at this meeting that the adopted and trimmed Trees
still significantly impair the applicants'views, the Commission may require that one or
more of the adopted and trimmed Trees be removed to eliminate the significant view
impairment.As such,the Commission will have the ability to modify,delete or add
conditions of approval at the subsequent review hearing.Furthenmore,the decision
Resolution 2011-01
Page 5 of 12
EXHIBIT"A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CITY TREE REVIEW PERMIT NO.2008-00031
1.Trees 1-3 shall be heavily laced (thinned).(See Exhibit B for tree locations.)
2.Tree Nos.4-9 shall be trimmed down to the horizon level (out of the Catalina Island
view)as viewed from the viewing area at 7333 Berry Hill Drive,w~h the remainder to be
shaped and heavily laced.(See Exhibit C for trimming level photos.)
3.Tree No.1 0 shall be trimmed down to the horizon level (out of the Catalina Island View)
as viewed from the viewing area at 7315 Berry Hill Drive,with the remainder to be
shaped and heavily laced.(See Exhibit C for trimming level photos.)
4.Tree NO.4 shall be removed and replaced w~h a 24-inch box size tree (see Condition
#10)unless the tree-abutting resident submits written consent by 12:00pm on February
1,2011 that allows adoption of the tree.If the abutting resident does consent to allow
adoption of Tree No.4 by said deadline,the tree shall be trimmed down to the horizon
level (out of the Catalina Island view)as viewed from the viewing area at 7333 Berry Hill
Drive,with the remainder to be shaped and heavily laced.(See Exhibit C for trimming
level photos.)
5.The trimming of the Trees shall only occur during the cooler months of the year,which
are November 1"through March 31't.
6.The trimming as described in Conditions 1-5 above shall only occur if Staff receives
written consent from all the property owners abutting said trees by 12:00pm on February
1,2011 that they will allow adoption of the Tree abutting their property;and Staff
receives the signed adoption covenants for all the trees by 12:00pm on February 15,
2011.If any of the Trees are not adopted by 12:00pm on Tuesday,February 15,2011,
the tree(s)shall be removed and replaced by the City on a 1:1 basis with a 24-inch box
size tree of a variety listed in Condition No.1 0 herein.This date may only be delayed
pursuant to Condition 9 below.
7.The initial trimming of any adopted trees as described above shall be completed by the
City no later than March 15,2011.This date may only be delayed pursuant to Condition
No.9 below.All subsequent maintenance trimming of any adopted trees is to be
compieted annually within 90 days of March 15'h by the adopting party as described in
the signed adoption covenant.
8.Once the Trees are initially trimmed,Staff shall schedule a duly noticed public hearing
before the Planning Commission for the sole purpose of determining if the tree trimming
as described above has eliminated the significant view impairment for the four
applicants.This hearing for the follow-up view assessment shall occur no later than
April 12,2011.This date may only be delayed pursuant to Condition 9 below.If the
Planning Commission determines at this meeting that the adopted and trimmed Trees
still significantly impair the applicants'views,the Commission may require that one or
more of the adopted and trimmed Trees be removed to eliminate the significant view
impairment.As such,the Commission will have the ability to modify,delete or add
conditions of approval at the subsequent review hearing.Furthermore,the decision
Resolution 2011-01
Page 5 of 12
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CITY TREE REVIEW PERMIT NO.2008-00031
1.Trees 1-3 shall be heavily laced (thinned).(See Exhibit B for tree locations.)
2.Tree Nos.4-9 shall be trimmed down to the horizon level (out of the Catalina Island
view)as viewed from the viewing area at 7333 Berry Hill Drive,w~h the remainder to be
shaped and heavily laced.(See Exhibit C for trimming level photos.)
3.Tree No.10 shall be trimmed down to the horizon level (out of the Catalina Island View)
as viewed from the viewing area at 7315 Berry Hill Drive,with the remainder to be
shaped and heavily laced.(See Exhibit C for trimming level photos.)
4.Tree NO.4 shall be removed and replaced with a 24-inch box size tree (see Condition
#10)unless the tree-abutting resident submits written consent by 12:00pm on February
1,2011 that allows adoption of the tree.If the abutting resident does consent to allow
adoption of Tree No.4 by said deadline,the tree shall be trimmed down to the horizon
level (out of the Catalina Island view)as viewed from the viewing area at 7333 Berry Hill
Drive,with the remainder to be shaped and heavily laced.(See Exhibit C for trimming
level photos.)
5.The trimming of the Trees shall only occur during the cooler months of the year,which
are November 1"through March 31".
6.The trimming as described in Conditions 1-5 above shall only occur if Staff receives
written consent from all the property owners abutting said trees by 12:00pm on February
1,2011 that they will allow adoption of the Tree abutting their property;and Staff
receives the signed adoption covenants for all the trees by 12:00pm on February 15,
2011.If any of the Trees are not adopted by 12:00pm on Tuesday,February 15,2011,
the tree(s)shall be removed and replaced by the City on a 1:1 basis with a 24-inch box
size tree of a variety listed in Condition No.1 0 herein.This date may only be delayed
pursuant to Condition 9 below.
7.The initial trimming of any adopted trees as described above shall be completed by the
City no later than March 15,2011.This date may only be delayed pursuant to Condition
No.9 below.All subsequent maintenance trimming of any adopted trees is to be
completed annually within 90 days of March 15"by the adopting party as described in
the signed adoption covenant.
8.Once the Trees are initially trimmed,Staff shall schedule a duly noticed public hearing
before the Planning Commission for the sole purpose of determining if the tree trimming
as described above has eliminated the significant view impairment for the four
applicants.This hearing for the follow-up view assessment shall occur no later than
April 12,2011.This date may only be delayed pursuant to Condition 9 below.If the
Planning Commission determines at this meeting that the adopted and trimmed Trees
still significantly impair the applicants'views,the Commission may require that one or
more of the adopted and trimmed Trees be removed to eliminate the significant view
impairment.As such,the Commission will have the ability to modify,delete or add
conditions of approval at the subsequent review hearing.Furthermore,the decision
Resolution 2011-01
Page 5 of 12
Attachment 3-52
made by the Planning Commission at the future review hearing will be appealable to the
C~y Council.
9.Prior to the initial trimming or removal,the City will have a biologist inspect the Trees to
determine whether there is an active nest(s)in any of the Trees.If the biologist identifies
any active nests in a particular subject tree,the initial trimming or removal of that tree will
be postponed to a date specified by the biologist.If any active nests are found and the
trimming is required to be delayed past March 15,2011,the review hearing described in
Cond~ion NO.8 will still occur no later than April 12,2011.At the review hearing,the
Planning Commission will have the discretion to determine if further review hearings are
warranted to assess the trimming of trees delayed due to actively nesting birds.
10.If at any time any of the adopted trees die or become diseased as defined by the City
Arborist or present a safety hazard or damage public improvements or util~ies as defined
by the Director of Public Works consistent with City Council Resolution 97-18,the tree
shall be removed and replaced by the City on a 1:1 basis with a 24-inch box size tree,
the variety of which shall be one of the following Trees which has been approved by the
Public Works Department:1)Ornamental Pear tree,2)New Zealand Christmas tree,3)
Brisbane Box tree,or 4)Chinese Elm tree.
11.If a resident tree adopter contracts with the C~y's contracted tree trimming company,
West Coast Arborists,Inc.(WCA)to trim the adopted tree(s),the contract is exclusively
between the resident and WCA,with no City involvement.
12.Per Municipal Code Sections 17.76.100.F.1.c.iv and 17.76.100.G.1,ONLY the residents
at the following addresses are eligible to adopt one or more of the City-owned trees
designated in this Resolution as Tree Nos.1-10:
•3333 Palos Verdes Drive West (obtains access from Berry Hill)
•7284,7306,7315,7333,7369,7361,7355,7347,7341,7327,7346 and 7336 Berry
Hill Drive
•7313,7307,7301,7300,7302,7306,and 7310 Via Collado
•30303,30311,30317,30327,30405,30413,30423,30429,30435,30441,30445,
30451,30457,30461,30463,30466,30462,30456,30438,and 30418 Via Cambron
Resolution 2011-01
Page 6 of 11
made by the Planning Commission at the future review hearing will be appealable to the
C~y Council.
9.Prior to the initial trimming or removal,the City will have a biologist inspect the Trees to
determine whether there is an active nest(s)in any of the Trees.If the biologist identifies
any active nests in a particular subject tree,the initial trimming or removal of that tree will
be postponed to a date specified by the biologist.If any active nests are found and the
trimming is required to be delayed past March 15,2011,the review hearing described in
Cond~ion NO.8 will still occur no later than April 12,2011.At the review hearing,the
Planning Commission will have the discretion to determine if further review hearings are
warranted to assess the trimming of trees delayed due to actively nesting birds.
10.If at any time any of the adopted trees die or become diseased as defined by the City
Arborist or present a safety hazard or damage pUblic improvements or util~ies as defined
by the Director of Public Works consistent with City Council Resolution 97-18,the tree
shall be removed and replaced by the City on a 1:1 basis with a 24-inch box size tree,
the variety of which shall be one of the following Trees which has been approved by the
Public Works Department 1)Ornamental Pear tree,2)New Zealand Christmas tree,3)
Brisbane Box tree,or 4)Chinese Elm tree.
11.If a resident tree adopter contracts with the C~y's contracted tree trimming company,
West Coast Arborists,Inc.(WCA)to trim the adopted tree(s),the contract is exclusively
between the resident and WCA,with no City involvement.
12.Per Municipal Code Sections 17.76.100.F.1.c.iv and 17.76.100.G.1,ONI.Y the residents
at the following addresses are eligible to adopt one or more of the City-owned trees
designated in this Resolution as Tree Nos.1-10:
•3333 Palos Verdes Drive West (obtains access from Berry Hill)
•7284,7306,7315,7333,7369,7361,7355,7347,7341,7327,7346 and 7336 Berry
Hill Drive
•7313,7307,7301,7300,7302,7306,and 7310 Via Collado
•30303,30311,30317,30327,30405,30413,30423,30429,30435,30441,30445,
30451,30457,30461,30463,30466,30462,30456,30438,and 30418 Via Cambron
Resolution 2011·01
Page 6 of 11
made by the Planning Commission at the future review hearing will be appealable to the
C~y Council.
9.Prior to the initial trimming or removal,the City will have a biologist inspect the Trees to
determine whether there is an active nest(s)in any of the Trees.If the biologist identifies
any active nests in a particular subject tree,the in~ial trimming or removal of that tree will
be postponed to a date specified by the biologist.If any active nests are found and the
trimming is required to be delayed past March 15,2011,the review hearing described in
Cond~ion NO.8 will still occur no later than April 12,2011.At the review hearing,the
Planning Commission will have the discretion to determine if further reView hearings are
warranted to assess the trimming of trees delayed due to actively nesting birds.
10.If at any time any of the adopted trees die or become diseased as defined by the City
Ariborist or present a safety hazard or damage pUblic improvements or util~ies as defined
by the Director of Public Works consistent with City Council Resolution 97-18,the tree
shall be removed and replaced by the City on a 1:1 basis with a 24-inch box size tree,
the variety of which shall be one of the following Trees which has been approved by the
Public Works Department 1)Ornamental Pear tree,2)New Zealand Christmas tree,3)
Brisbane Box tree,or 4)Chinese Elm tree.
11.If a resident tree adopter contracts with the C~y's contracted tree trimming company,
West Coast Arborists,Inc.0NCA)to trim the adopted tree(s),the contract is exclusively
between the resident and WCA,with no City involvement.
12.Per Municipal Code Sections 17.76.100.F.1.c.iv and 17.76.100.G.1,ONI.Y the residents
at the following addresses are eligible to adopt one or more of the City-owned trees
designated in this Resolution as Tree Nos.1-10:
•3333 Palos Verdes Drive West (obtains access from Berry Hill)
•7284,7306,7315,7333,7369,7361,7355,7347,7341,7327,7346 and 7336 Berry
Hill Drive
•7313,7307,7301,7300,7302,7306,and 7310 Via Collado
•30303,30311,30317,30327,30405,30413,30423,30429,30435,30441,30445,
30451,30457,30461,30463,30466,30462,30456,30438,and 30418 Via Cambron
Resolution 2011·01
Page 6 of 11
Attachment 3-53
o
Z
I-
=e
0:w
l1.
~
~
0:
ww
0:
I-
~
l3
..J
~o
0:::
l1.
~
u..o
UJ
Zo
I-
o
Zo
U ..........:::.....
I;::'-;::00....N",COloCO3Q.g~
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
OF
AP
P
R
O
V
A
L
·
CI
T
Y
TR
E
E
RE
V
I
E
W
PE
R
M
I
T
NO
.
20
0
8
-
0
0
0
3
1
-
EX
H
I
B
I
T
B
-
SI
T
E
MA
P
t
,
.
•
d
Resolution 2011-_Page7of11
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
OF
A
P
P
R
O
V
A
L
·
CI
T
Y
TR
E
E
RE
V
I
E
W
PE
R
M
I
T
NO
.
20
0
8
-
0
0
0
3
1
•
EX
H
I
B
I
T
B
•
SI
T
E
MA
P
p
c
c
a
Resolution 2011-_Page 7 of 11
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3-54
'~~>-~.,
..
-;
.
.
.
-:
.
:
-
,
-.:
.
,
-
:
,
,
-
",:~
!
:
:::-:-
.
-
:
.-
:
.:-
.
.
.
.
.
~
...--::"",.
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
OF
AP
P
R
O
V
A
L
C
I
T
Y
TR
E
E
RE
V
I
E
W
PE
R
M
I
T
-
NO
.
20
0
8
-
0
0
0
3
1
-
EX
H
I
B
I
T
C
-
AP
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
VI
E
W
PHOTOS
Ph
o
t
o
ta
k
e
n
by
St
a
f
f
fr
o
m
72
8
4
Be
r
r
y
Hi
l
i
Dr
i
v
e
in
Ju
l
y
20
1
0
(p
a
n
o
r
a
m
i
c
ph
o
t
o
)
1
•
..
.
-
-
-
..
.
.
_
.
.
~
{
..
.
.
.
.
-
-
~
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~..
.
.
.
.
.
_
..
.
.
.
,
:~~~·
~
~
;
1
t
.
~
/
Resolution 2011-_Page 8 of 11
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
OF
AP
P
R
O
V
A
L
C
I
T
Y
TR
E
E
RE
V
I
E
W
PE
R
M
I
T
·
NO
.
20
0
8
·
0
0
0
3
1
-
EX
H
I
B
I
T
C
•
AP
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
VI
E
W
PHOTOS
Ph
o
t
o
ta
k
e
n
by
St
a
f
f
fr
o
m
72
8
4
Be
r
r
y
Hi
l
l
Dr
i
v
e
in
Ju
l
y
20
1
0
(p
a
n
o
r
a
m
i
c
ph
o
t
o
)
,
-
,
,
-
...
'-
:
'
..
.
-
'-
7
.
:
...:
.
--
'
..
'-~
-
"
'
;
:
.-......
.
--
_.....--......
..
.
.
.
~
.
.
_.-~.
--
:
:
:
-
.-
:
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.'--::--...::.Resolution 2011-_Page 8 of 11
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
OF
AP
P
R
O
V
A
L
C
I
T
Y
TR
E
E
RE
V
I
E
W
PE
R
M
I
T
·
NO
.
20
0
8
·
0
0
0
3
1
-
EX
H
I
B
I
T
C
·
AP
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
VI
E
W
PHOTOS
Ph
o
t
o
ta
k
e
n
by
St
a
f
f
fr
o
m
72
8
4
Be
r
r
y
Hi
l
l
Dr
i
v
e
in
Ju
l
y
20
1
0
(p
a
n
o
r
a
m
i
c
ph
o
t
o
)
i
-
_
..
.
'.
.
-
.
,
-
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
,
,
-
,
"
,
.
.
-
,
,
,
-
-..
.
.
.
.
.,Resolution 2011-_Page 8 of 11
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3-55
"'.
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
OF
AP
P
R
O
V
A
L
C
I
T
Y
TR
E
E
RE
V
I
E
W
PE
R
M
I
T
-
NO
.
20
0
8
-
0
0
0
3
1
-
EX
H
I
B
I
T
C
-
AP
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
VI
E
W
PHOTOS
Ph
o
t
o
ta
k
e
n
by
St
a
f
f
fr
o
m
73
3
3
Be
r
r
y
Hi
l
l
Dr
i
v
e
in
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
20
1
0
•
~
¥
."
.
'
.
>..
•
....
,
~\',Resolution 2011-_Page 9 of 11\.\-~-----,....
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
OF
AP
P
R
O
V
A
L
C
I
T
Y
TR
E
E
RE
V
I
E
W
PE
R
M
I
T
·
NO
.
20
0
8
-
0
0
0
3
1
•
EX
H
I
B
I
T
C
•
AP
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
VI
E
W
PHOTOS
Ph
o
t
o
ta
k
e
n
by
St
a
f
f
fr
o
m
73
3
3
Be
r
r
y
Hi
l
l
Dr
i
v
e
in
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
20
1
0
Resolution 2011-_Page 9 of 11-~
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
OF
AP
P
R
O
V
A
L
C
I
T
Y
TR
E
E
RE
V
I
E
W
PE
R
M
I
T
-
NO
.
20
0
8
-
0
0
0
3
1
-
EX
H
I
B
I
T
C
-
AP
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
VI
E
W
PHOTOS
Ph
o
t
o
ta
k
e
n
by
St
a
f
f
fr
o
m
73
3
3
Be
r
r
y
Hi
l
l
Dr
i
v
e
in
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
20
1
0
~
~'-
'-
-
\Resolution 2011-_Page 9 of 11
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3-56
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
OF
AP
P
R
O
V
A
L
C
I
T
Y
TR
E
E
RE
V
I
E
W
PE
R
M
I
T
-
NO
.
20
0
8
-
0
0
0
3
1
-
EX
H
I
B
I
T
C
-
AP
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
VI
E
W
PHOTOS
Ph
o
t
o
ta
k
e
n
bv
S
t
a
f
f
on
Fr
i
d
a
v
,
Ap
r
i
l
23
,
20
1
0
fr
o
m
vi
e
w
i
n
g
ar
e
a
a
t
73
1
5
Be
r
r
y
Hi
l
l
Dr
i
v
e
-
M
a
r
i
n
o
v
i
c
h
..
Tr
e
e
No
.
6
la
y
e
r
e
d
wi
t
h
No
.
7
Resolution 2011-_Page 10 of 11
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
OF
AP
P
R
O
V
A
L
C
I
T
Y
TR
E
E
RE
V
I
E
W
PE
R
M
I
T
-
NO
.
20
0
8
-
0
0
0
3
1
-
EX
H
I
B
I
T
C
-
AP
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
VI
E
W
PHOTOS
Ph
o
t
o
ta
k
e
n
b
S
t
a
f
f
on
Fr
i
d
a
I
A
ri
l
23
,
20
1
0
fr
o
m
vi
e
w
i
n
g
ar
e
a
a
t
73
1
5
Be
r
r
y
Hi
l
l
Dr
i
v
e
-
M
a
r
i
n
o
v
i
c
h
Tr
e
e
No
.
6
la
y
e
r
e
d
wi
t
h
No
.
7
Resolution 2011-_Page 10 of 11
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
OF
AP
P
R
O
V
A
L
C
I
T
Y
TR
E
E
RE
V
I
E
W
PE
R
M
I
T
-
NO
.
20
0
8
-
0
0
0
3
1
-
EX
H
I
B
I
T
C
-
AP
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
VI
E
W
PHOTOS
Ph
o
t
o
ta
k
e
n
bv
St
a
f
f
on
Fr
i
d
a
v
.
Ap
r
i
l
23
,
20
1
0
fr
o
m
vi
e
w
i
n
g
ar
e
a
at
73
1
5
Be
r
r
y
Hi
l
l
Dr
i
v
e
-
M
a
r
i
n
o
v
i
c
h
~
...
...
.
Resolution 2011-_Page 10 of 11
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3-57
Tr
e
e
NO
.
4
la
y
e
r
e
d
wi
t
h
Tr
e
e
NO
.
5
Tr
e
e
No
.
6
I
Tr
e
e
No
s
.
B.
9
&
10
-
la
y
e
r
e
d
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
OF
AP
P
R
O
V
A
L
C
I
T
Y
TR
E
E
RE
V
I
E
W
PE
R
M
I
T
-
NO
.
20
0
8
-
0
0
0
3
1
-
EX
H
I
B
I
T
C
-
AP
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
VI
E
W
PHOTOS
Ph
o
t
o
ta
k
e
n
by
St
a
f
f
on
Mo
n
~
a
y
,
Ap
r
i
l
26
,
20
1
0
fr
o
m
vi
e
w
i
n
g
ar
e
~
7
3
0
6
Be
r
r
y
H!
"
Dri
V
'
;
j
'
?
U
:
,
r
:
.
;
:
.
.
e
f
:
.
.
o
:
:
p
:
.
.
;
:
0
:
.
.
;
:
u
.
:
.
.
r
-::l70 __--,\Resolution 2011-_Page 11 of11
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
OF
AP
P
R
O
V
A
L
C
I
T
Y
TR
E
E
RE
V
I
E
W
PE
R
M
I
T
-
NO
.
20
0
8
-
0
0
0
3
1
-
EX
H
I
B
I
T
C
-
AP
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
VI
E
W
PHOTOS
Ph
o
t
o
ta
k
e
n
by
St
a
f
f
on
Mo
n
d
a
y
,
Ap
r
i
l
26
,
20
1
0
fr
o
m
vi
e
w
i
n
g
ar
e
a
a
t
73
0
6
Be
r
r
y
Hi
l
i
Dr
i
v
e
-
Y
o
u
..
.
.s_e
f
~
p
__o_
u
__r
..,....__---,Resolution 2011-_Page 11 of 11
Tr
e
e
NO
.
4
la
y
e
r
e
d
wi
t
h
Tr
e
e
NO
.
5
Tr
e
e
No
s
.
B.
9
&
10
-
la
y
e
r
e
d
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
OF
AP
P
R
O
V
A
L
C
I
T
Y
TR
E
E
RE
V
I
E
W
PE
R
M
I
T
-
NO
.
20
0
8
-
0
0
0
3
1
-
EX
H
I
B
I
T
C
·
AP
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
VI
E
W
PHOTOS
Ph
o
t
o
ta
k
e
n
by
St
a
f
f
on
Mo
n
d
a
y
,
Ap
r
i
l
26
,
20
1
0
fr
o
m
vi
e
w
i
n
g
ar
e
a
at
73
0
6
Be
r
r
y
Hi
l
i
Dr
i
v
e
-
Y
o
u
s
e
f
p
o
u
r
\
Eii!
i
i
i
i
i
I
I
C
:
:
,
.
.
E
2
A
-
.
.
:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
.
Resolution 2011-_Page 11 of 11
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3-58
..
i.su<:h IS cigarettes IIIlI soft cIriJiks,may 0II1y be displayed
in veodIag rnw:Irinesln opecia11y cieIiIned'"opproved
by the pImDing c:cwmnja m SIde or dilplay of_o-
IlIlIlivc ilIllDs,albor lbIIl ilems in vdiDa IIl8ChInos IIIlI
lcmp01w"pr<JIIlOlioDal gifts,is pnlIdbI1Ild lIIIIcss a caadI-
tiIlIIaI DOC permit 0<alWiaion to ae IIXiIIlDB C"d!t!o OIa!
....permit,to aIlew a COIlVCIIionce Illft,Is CIblaiDed pur-
IUlCl to SCCIiorl 17.76.010 (0:JImIlI1IIIllO _)oflhls
tillc.
2 Ouldoorcpcnli_abaI1 be IlmIted to:
L The I1IIlIIllIe ofpetlaleam procIucU;
b.ThcllllPPJyof.md~'.
c.AIlIo WIIlIbII!a by baed,where ae W'Cl of
DOt _dim fM haDdred ...-eli:«ill uaed;
d.WuIos lIId polllbiDg..m-.bllos;
e.·TIre dwnging;
t:~l«ViciDg,cbaBinll ted c!vmgIng;
g.......Uad...of mIDor acccsaorlea,e.g.,
w!Ddabia1d bladea 1IIlIarma,lamp globes
aad pcrfot!lllCOC <Jl:miDor ........
3,Otber ......aIIoDa reI8lIld to the IIIlrYicing of
molor vcbidee may be cemduclod wldJIn the bulklbls A
IDtlllbalcaI _w.b maybe ....mIIlccIby omdlt!qM11IlO
pcmUt «alWiaion to lC exiIIloIB omdIlioaa1use pctmit;
provided,hi It.fa dearly auxl1IIII)'to the ocrvIcc IIaIioD
-.lIId III •rootec'I -.....1oaocI ...at ...hW
sides.Tbcrc abaII be DO body ted flIlodor WIlIk,paIIldna,
...,mlllll rebuiI<IIDs ofeloclro-cbcwicaI batlerics«oCher
wod<ofa almiIIr_
4.The raiIaI ofOWl or tnllcn may be pcnnIllcd
uae "'!/uDcl-to the serYioo 1IaIi...buaiDcsa,proWlodhi:
L A oond!tlmoJ ..permit or a reviIloII to
ae axiIIlDll oondlIlonaI ute penuit,pIIIIUlDt to CIapler
17.60 (CoadIlIonaI U..PermIll)oflhls title,Is obIJritwt;
b.Site W'Cl IUlIiciem IiJr Ibc poddDg of
m>la1 vcblclcalDll8t be proyldad in oddiIIon CO the mini-
DlIIIIl ..rcquI!ecI for the sIIIIlOll,IIId DO IIIIlI'C dim leo
pcrooal oftbc toCa1lol W'Cl may be oa>uplod by.-I v&-
bIcIes;
c:.RmIBl vcblclca may DOt be pIIIbd in t&-
qulred pwIl:iDa SI*Cl>nDr III the ..belMcnthe bulJdiDg
•MlCback IIIla lIId _rlpt-of-wwy Iinca;
d.The tmIBI of tIucb,lnIclors,lnIiIers or
similar Iwge vcblcIcs or impJcmcots ill prohibited.
Eo AblIId_
1.A cooditlooal lISe permil for a DeW service
slBti ...at my locatloo within Ibc CXIIpOI8lc Ilmits of the
city sball DOt be IIpJl1'OYCCIlIId grlCIed 10 aey """'I*dy or
10 ae affiIiatc of a compaoy hi 0WIlI,J-.J'llIIlll «in
my mamter COIIlroIs,property wl1blD the city thaI Is occu-
361
17.76.090
pied by ae abaDdODCd or _servlcc sIlItion.MAben-
doDod.«V8l:Wll,'as uacd in Ibis oectioo,shaD _that
tbc oorvlco atatioD._aot beco ill opcnIioa IiJr a period of
aIxly days or man prior to tbo dale tbo plamilla ClllIIIIlia-
sian adopIs Its ftIlObdIoo.ofdeclslan em tbo ~emfor
a DOW service 8lIIlIoa.1bla prvvIalcm shaD DOt sppIy to a
.:vi..slII!m!tIJal !s IllIt ill opcr8IIIoIIllecaIBc It is fa the
po.-ofbcliDs .COCIbllmclDd«........1od;haYia&l1s
1IIldalPlMId IIlonrp lsIIb np\Iood;or as •nlIUil of lC
iIivoI.-y ...voksay ac;t takaI apiast tbc IIaildIDas
lIldI«JlIId,1>tllch Is aot!be Iimll oftbo JIAIIlC<lY"-or
1_
2 It IIIIaJl become tbo fOlIIOi'dbIlily oftbc pIOJl-
llIty_co_my.....aIl_lIllIo,.!
boIh abvvo lIllI below 1bc ..,.....ft-.Ibe lot If!be ...-
vieD 1t8tiaD ...berG ......I'WHj ••t-e de6Ded,fix _
buadrcd eiabtY days.0D00 lhls time_a1apIad,tbo pIOJl-
arty _wlI1 .....1liIlely days 10 complote Ibe-.I
of all sliwAw68111l1 0CJIIIpa.-1IIlI tbo .-..I...ofthe
aile.(Ord.320 f 7 (port),1997:Ord.21716,1987;0nL
90 f 3 (port),1m;0nL 78 (part),1975)
17.76.100 0l1-l'ftiew pendt.
A.PurJI-.1blachaplillrpmvldoa.prooodureforthe
Jll'UQina lIllIIor IlllDCM1 of_aadlor fuIlaac wblch arc
1...-1 on cityJIl'OIIlIIlY,•city •or 'IiidIIIllhcpub-
lic JlBht-of.way ill orcIor to prolIlCt the public hca1lb,..rcty
.....weIliIR by pn-oCldlloa the ........iDlpahii6ll of
views fiam villa pCJiaIa md view Iots.,
B.Approva1 RequiIed.A city Itee review permit Is
required prIar 10 1110 pnmIng m<IIor removal of lOY tree
lIldIor li>IIIp,1...........cilyJlAlllC<lY,acily II e_or
within lbc public dsJrt-of__y,for the '}IOIpoIICIl ofvlcw
r68lGrlll....
C.BxamplIoa.Tract aodI«1ilIiop 1oc:aled 'IiidIIIl the
booIIdarica of the MlraIallc .aaeadon lIllI pad<diIIriol
abaI1l1Ol be 1IIIbjec:t 10 tbc prvvlolaaa ollhla aecti....
D.atyTrccRmcwPcnliltA"",'os'km Aa,y ........
oWDiJ>g llIId in 1110 clty may file "lJlP1IcalIoo for •city
Itee JeVicw permit.AD lJlP1IcaIlcm IiJr •cIly Itee rcviow
permit shall bc1MdelO!be ~...1iJrma pniVldcdby
tbc city,lIId sbaIllndude the followIoa ~
1.A COIliP1eIed lJlP'i .....1iJrm sipad by tbc
property ofthepropcrtywbono !bevlcwls impaIJod;
2.Aplanorlllllp,diawDlolho ...."..cl...ofthe
diJcctor,wblch clcaI1y ........the IOOIIlan of each Itee
acdIorfoliallc 1........lID cilyJllOjlilly,.clIy casancot,or
within the pabIIc rlgbI...r.wwy tIJalilllmp8lJingthe view of
tbc 1IJlP1IcIIIiI;
3.A c:umal pbotogJllph of!be alleged view im-
paimJcnt takco from th.appllcant's viewing area;IIIlI
",.su<:h ..ciprelIes IIId soft cIriJiks,DllIY ouIy be displayed
in YeodiDg rnw:Jri_1n opecia11y cieIipod ...opproved
by the pllmDing """';akwL Slde ...dilplay of_o-
IlIDlive ilIIms,albor lhoIlllems in V1IIlIIiDs IIl8ChInes IIId
lemp01ay promolioaal gifts,is pnlIdbl1Ild lIIIIess allCllldl-
tImW ..,pormIl or a revlaiaIllo m oxiJIbI&""'wIltlo ...1
....pmmIt,to a1lew a conveaI...,..1lare,is abbdted pur-
__to 8ecllIoIl 17.76.010 (0lnwIl11111ll1l _)of this
tille.
2 Outdoor opcntiOlJl abaI1 be limited 10:
L The nIlIl aa1e ofpelloleam products;
b.The ""I'PI>'of*lIId ~'.
o.AIJID 1WIIIID&by bIIld,wlun m ......of
DOt more 1lIae fM ImDdnld .......Ii:«;"uaed;
d.WalDa lIId pollabing am-.bIIea;
e.·Tire dwnging
f:~ten'iciDg,charBiDl!ted cIvnglng;
g.JmlaIIad...of minor aooc:saorlea,e.g.,
w!Ddable1d bladea IIId arma,au caps.Jampa.1amp globea
and perfol!llaMO of minor ........
3.Other .....aIIuDs reI8lIld to the aervloing of
molor vebicIee DllIY be coaclucled wllhIn the hulld!qr A
IIltlOIJalcaloar'Mlb DllIYbe patdltecl by omdlt!ona!1IlO
peIIIIit or a revlaiaIl to ..exiatloIi 00Dl!Ili0aal ......pemdt;
provldod,dlat Il.lt deorIy auxl1IIay to lbo oervIce IIaIioD
-.lIId In •rooteiI -.._bod ...al ..."'"
.ldol.There ahaI1 be DO body and fiader \YIlIk,palndng
Rpalr lIllI rebuilding ofeleob<rd>ewlcal batleries or oCher
work ofa simIIar_
4.The raiIaI ofOWl or trallen may be pennIlled
uma<ijuDctlolbo..moe lbdl...b,.1 ,provldoddlat:
L A oondjtlmoJ _permit or a reviaIoIl to
m axiatlDs """"1Ilona!use pamit,pIIIIUlIIllo Cbapler
17.60 (~U..PenaIta)oflb1s title,is "'"".><1;
b.Site .....lUlIiolG fiJr !be paddDg of
rula1 vddd""IIIlI8t be provided ill addiIIon 10 dle mini-
DIIIDl ..requl!ecl1iIr the lIbdlOll,IIId DO IIIIlI'O tbae tm
pen:aIl oflbo toCa1lot .....DllIY be oa>aplod by.-I vo-
bIcIes;
o.Rmbll vebiolea IDlY DOl be poabd in to-
quirecl paIl:iDa ~JIDr ill dle aea botMendle balJdiIlg
.secback 1lDa lIId _rlpt...cowwy lines;
d.The.-I of1lul:b,-en,lnIiIen or
similar large veblcIes or implemeals is prohibited.
E.AIwncI_
1.A omditioaal use permillilr a DOW ..moe
.taIi...II my location wilhln lbo CXHjMlle Hmits of lbo
oity sbaIl DOl be IIpJlIOYCCIlIId graDIed 10 my OUiiIplIIy or
to m affiliate of a oompauy dlat 0WIlI,~nmbl or in
my II1lD!lOl'00IIlr0Is,...-rY wilbiD the city that is oocu-
361
17.76.090
pied by m abIIIIll~or _scnloe sIllioa.MAben-
doDlld or "-11,'as uoed in this oeotioa,sbaD _1baI
dle oervIce 1IaIioD ....aot bem In .....1Iiou fiJr a period of
alxly days or more prior 10 lbo cIlle!be plaaalag 00IIIIDI0-
slolUdoplslls ftISOIuIioo ofdeoisloll 00 lbo apVli .I""for
a aew 8CIIVIce IIIdoo.1bIa pvv\akla sbaD IlIlt IppIy 10 a
..moe slII!m!tIJII !s IlIlt in oponIIoII bacaase Ills fa lbo
~ofbcliDll ,...............or 1od;Iiavia&Its
UbdoilPlMId alonIp lIIIb repIaoed;rCIlIlIIt of eo
ilivoI.-y or ......."ac;t .....apiast lbo baiIdIJlp
lIIdIorJllld,1>tllch is 1lIlt!be limit oflbo pruperty..-or
loasee.
2.It sbaD bocome !be rmponol!dJlty oflbo JII'IlP'
ll!tyo_lo_myadall_lIllIo,ol!I
boIh abvve lIllI below !be IP'JUII'1 froIIllbo lot Ifthe sa-
vi""lIbdloo ..~.....awl,......dofiDed,fiJr Oile
buIldted tipIy.0Dc0 tIda Iimo_e1apIad,lbo JII'IlP'
arty _wW 1IIMI1liIlety days 10 00IIIp1ole lbo-.I
/if all ad eq"-ad !be __em of the
aile.(Ord.320 f 7 (part),1997:Ord.21716,1917;Ord.
90 13 (pst),1977;Ord.78 (port),1975)
17.76.100 Citr _.-....peowIt.
A.PuItJ-.1blI chIiplior JlioY1doa a prooedumf...the
pnmIng lIllIIor IlIIDCI..t of_aodJor fuIlIae wblch an:
I~OIl cityJll'ClPllll1',.city "...1iIlIIInthepub-
110 rlgbt-of-WI\Y iIlonlor toproblc:t the public hoa1Ib,.,.
lIId weUiR by .....0IdIua !be oeod1oa impairii6lt of
viewa fiom viaIIo palaIs lIId vi_Iots.,
B.Approval RequirecI.A city tree review permit Is
required prl...10 lbo pruaIng lIIdI«removal of lIllY tree
lIIdIor li>IIIp,I-..IOIl cilypruperty,acily "'''''''or
within !be pub1Io rlght-<lf__y,for lbo -pWpoaea ofvlew
.-.doo.
C.l!xcmptIooJ.T""",aodIor fuIiI!p Ioc:aled 1iIlIIIn !he
booIIdarieo of the Miralelle .....eadon lIllI pari<dIsIriot
aboI1l1Ol be lIIbject to !be proYiIlooa of1lJla ~oo.
D.a1yTreeReviewPemlltAI'P'........AilYpcnoo
owoIng IlIId in the oily DllIY file "lJlP1IcaIIon for •city
tree revi_pcI'DIlt.All lJlP1IcaIIon fiJr a city tree reviow
permit sbaII be made 10 die ~00 fanIla provided by
the city,lIId sbaII iJlcIude lbo foIlowIoa t-=.
1.A 0GIIip1eled lJlP1l.....form sipad by lbe
...-rY-oflbopropertywbono lbo-wwls impaIn>d;
2 A pIan oriii8p,dmwD 10 tbo pII .....CI ...oflbo
diJeotor,wblch oIear1y abows !be 10caIlan of each tree
aedlorfoli8tle I-..I00 ciIy JIl'CIPlIIl1',aclty __eat,or
witbln the pab1Ic rIg\II...r-wwy 1baIis Impairingtbo yjow of
lbe applbDl;
3.A c:umat pbotogroph of!be alleged view im-
pairment takeo from th.applloaot'.viewing area;IIId
..,.su<:h IS ciprelIes IIId soft cIriJiks,~0II!y be displayed
in voodiDg maclribes In opecia1Iy cieIiIned'"~
by the ploDDiDs c:cwmnja.sae CO'dilplay of_...
motive ilIlms,albor IboIlllems in ..-liDs ...-chinos aDd
leiJ4Hh-y promolioaaI gifts,is pnlIIIbl1Ild lIIIIess I caadI-
tImW ....pmnIt or I rwiIioD 10 an lIXiJIlDB ""'d1tloOll!
....permit,to aIIew I COIMIIIioace Ilore,Is abbduod pur-
_10 8eaIIorl17.76.0I0 (0lImlnI1IIIllO _)of this
Iille.
2.Outdoor cpcnlimI aI..n be limited 10:
..no raIlIl aa1e ofpetraleam prodDc:ts;
b.no ""I'Pl)'ofalrllld ~'.
o.AIlIo wwblLa by bad,where an ......of
DOt more 1IIlm 1M baDdnd .......Ii:«is uoed;
do WuIos aDd polllbing-'rilea;
e.·Tire dwnging
f:llc.y.-vioiDg,obIrBiDs and cIvnglng;
g.JmbI1od...of minor ...........e.g.,
windJbield bladea 1IId au 1aaps,lamp a10bea
IIId pedOrmanoe ofminor ........
3.0Ibe<.....1IIous nIalIld to Ihe oervioiDa of
molo<vebicIeII ~be ....cIucIod wllhIn tbo Iwd~A
mecbmdoal_-.b ~bepadlteclby .....ltiaMl ...
pemUt or a teYiaioo to an exiIIlIIB OOIIl!llioaIluse permit;
provldod,lbot It.fa deorly auxl1Iary to Ihe oervIee IIaIloo
-.aDd In I rooIDiI -..._bod on at ........
sidos.There abaI1 be DO body and fImder wort,Jl""'lng
RplIr ....rebuikIIng ofeleobo-cbewioal balleries or oilier
work ofa sImIIar-.
4.no raiIaI of....CO'traIlen IDly be pennIlled
&SID 0<ijuDc:t1o tbo.-vice llIIIion ~proWled lbot:
L A nnndjtlma!....permit ..a reviJIon to
ID oxiIIlDa onod!ljonol U80 pamit,JlUIIUIDlIo Cbopler
17.60 (~UaePermlta)oflbiltitle,II".".01;
b.Silo.....lIldIioifllll fiJr tbo paddDg of
mIl&1 vddd.._be provided In addiIIon to dle mlol-
DIIIDl ......requI!ed IiIr lbe 1lIIIi0ll,&lid DO more tIuIIl teo
pen:eat oftbe tola1lot .....~be oa>aplod by.-t vo-
bIoIes;
..Reolal vebiolO8 may DOl be pcbd in re-
quired padl:iDa ~JIlIr In dle ......bet-.lbe baI1dina
.secbaok lines ad _ripI.<Jf-wwy linea;
cl.no.-I of-'lnIOlcn,lnIi1en or
similar \age YebioI..or implemeots is prnbibIteci.
E.AIwnd_
I.A oooditiooal use penIliIliIr a DeW aerYice
station at any Iocatioo within die ",")Mate Hmils of die
oity sbaII DOl be ~ad graaled 10 lDy WiiljMDY or
to an IIfIiIiaIe of.00IIIJl&IIY lbot OWIII,~mD or in
my m&IIIIer 00IIIr0Is,property within the city that is oocu-
361
17.76.090
piod by an obIIIIlIonod or _sarvlc:e sIaIioa.MAbon-
dmlod or \W:IIIl,•as uaed in this oeotioo,sbaII ..-dial
dle oervIee IIaIlooIla aot bom In opclllliw 1iJr.period of
I!xIy doylI or more prior 10 tbo date the planalDa COlIIIIlIo-
siw adopts Its ftlIIObdioll ofdeoIsiw em the lI'PJicwlonfor
a DOW serYice IIIdoa.lbIa pvvIaIon sballlIllt IppIy to •
.-viOl sIII!m!dial !s DOt in apcnIIoa baclmoe it is ill \be
~of1lelDa ._ucIDd or tIIIIIIllIotod;1lIIvin&I1s
undoill'lMld IIonp lIIIb repIaDod;or as a I'IlIIlIIt of an
~or .....y 81;1 .....opiast tbo haiIcIIDp
Ddlorlarld,1>tllch is 1Illt1be IimIl oftbo JII'IpilIty..-or
1-
2.lIaba11llooarDe the ""I""'II!!d!lly oftbo prop-
ertyow-to_anyadoll_os ....'t!I
boIh llbove boIow 1be __froIIllbo lot 1f1be ...-
vioe 1tIdian beea......M,•t.e de6Ded,fiJr Ii»
Iamdred ei&btY.0D0e tIdI time_eIIpoed,tbo pr0p-
erty _wlII boYlIlIineIy cIlIys 10 """,,1oIe the-.J
Of 011 __os ad eq"-ad the.-.alon oftbo
oIIe.(Ord.320 f 7 (port),1997:Ord.217 ,6,19&7;Ord.
90 , 3 (part),1977;Ord.78 (port),1975)
17.76.100 011-reoIow pendt.
A.PuIpooe.Thla chIiplior Jlioridoa.prooodurefortbo
pn1IJIba lIIdIor IIIIDIM1 of_lIIdJor Il>IJoae wblch are
I........on city propaIy,a city I ••or'Withinlbepm.
110 rlgbt-of.way illorder III ~1be pobllo t.1Ib,..eety
ad weIfin by JIl""CldIIua !be ...u..s lmpairii6lt of
vlewa fiom viato polDts IIId view Juts.,
B.Approvol Required.A city tree review penoillB
required prior 10 lbo pnmIna Ddlor removo1 of any tree
lIIdJorlDUsp,l-.loncilypropaly,lcily "ItIl11lor
within 1be pubIIo rIghklf__y,for lho-pmpoaea ofviGw
.-.otlon.
C.llxmnpdcn Treoe lIIldIor fuIiI!p Ioooted within tbo
booIIdorieo of the MlnI_ieoaeatlon ....pari<dIsIriot
aI..n IIOl be subjeol to \be p10YIIlaaa ofdilo ~oo.
D.atTTreeRmewPerm1tApp'!c:oIIon Ailipenon
oWDiDg 1aDd in lbe olty ~file anllJlPlIoatioo for a city
tree review permit.An IIJlPIIoatioo fiJr •ciIy tree review
permit sboII be made to die ~on fDrma provldod by
the city,aDd sboII iJloIude tbo foIlowIIla 1-=,
J.A """,,1eted lIJlP'i .....form Biped by \be
propeJty _oflbo propertywbore tbovlewls ImpaIiod,
2.A p....or msp,drowD III lho sat,,'-cion oftbo
direoIor,-Milch oIeorIy abDws tbo 1oc:.dan of eoch tree
andIorfoliose 1-.1on cilypropaly,.olIy eo __or
within 1be pubIIo rigbI...r-wwy dial is 1mp8iring1be view of
lbe opp1loJall;
3.A oumal pbolopph of1be oIIegod view im-
psimJeot takeo from the oppliOllOl's Yiewin&on:&;and
Attachment 3-59
17.76.100
4.An opp!lgotlm Ceo.IS S1b1iobod by city
00UIl0iI11IlIOIuIica.
E.bvlewCrileda.'l1Io dinlcla<arlbo:.deo-
is-aiIoII ollhor pU,ar ggndItj_,1y ana lbo:cIIy_
IeYiow panaIt I(idler e!WI ~II cia&_iIII 'il '.oflbo:
appIIcmr.pIlIpldy,ltll drt=hwIlb1t_mdlar filii-
...1o<:oW cmcllypnlllClly._CIIY _=ntarilllbo:J!.!II>-
lie riaJd-<JC-~"'."160 IIllylwpaidac _viewfnllll_
viewlac ....oflbo:1pIIiIoIIIt'.1Dl,•dofIaed iIl8ocdoD
17.02.040 (SiqIo-PawI1y 11......."DiIlricla)of ibis
litIo.
F.CcmdIIIoas of PamIt '--In JI"!IIlac my
JIIlII!OYIlllllllorll*IOdIaa,lbe ~->'imIM*auch
..""'"101II .....->,be~,)1Dlft"
_dIIIpr 1D public ar priVIIIl pnIplIIIy;to ~lbo:
1nio I'IlIIlDYI1 ar JIIIIIIbla fnlIIl boIaa <wi'toe!iIl __
lbIt Is IlkeIy 10 __!llllamco;ar to,.....,lbe iDIaIt
of arry aoaJ ar policy oflbe a-at p....No pcIIIGlI aboll
vi.....arry ...wI"Lo ....impc'Io'by lbo dIrecIar.Such
c:ar>diIIoaa iDly iDcIude,bat aiIoII JIllt be IiwlIed 10;lbe
followlac:
1.Par _city _adlar folilp !bit II 10caIed
wIdliJl IiIo paotwIIy IDII ruodway wediaD,ar MIbiJI my
oIbor city pruperty ar cIIy _ (......cIIy pas):
L A view bupahlua_mdlar......aiIoII
be ftlIIIlJVed IIIId repIaoeol wIIb _aIwilIr ~-tiJaMDch
box aIzo .....by IiIo city.11lo city aboI1 pl\)'far 111_of
.....lIIIdIar~__IIIId"""k m ..n-adlar
foll,..lbIt"'"ftlIIIlJVed aiIoII JIllt be repIaoeollf'"fol-
IowiDg _.,Mjti"I.'alit:
i.n.repllerr"'"tree cw filliaBe wm
iwmodlaloly ...._alp!fk#llmpab_ofdJo view
from dJo "I'PIIcIIII'.viowIDll_
il.'l1Io cIinKmr ofpublic WIIlb dolm-
wiDoI.!1ljI1_._woaId ..............to dJo 1m-.....e_in public rJaIlI-of -.y (-.corb,slde-
walk,....)or JnIIIc vIaIbIIIIy or ..-_1m-
podiweoIlD pedealriaD ......wIdliJl dJo ,wile J:iabt-of-
way;
b.11lo city aIoaII wake ...1IDal....III!M-
tiOII IS to tbe type IDllIIUIIIber ofrep~_lIIIdIor
foIIa8e,If11I)'.
e.If.penon...no baa JOCOivecI nodfIcatiOll
ofdJo dIreclor'.declaIcm fIIea •wriIIea ~10 JIllt Ie-
move dJo _ar follaF (wi1bID __days oftile IIDliIiat-
tiOII),.....dJo_talIor ilIIIap.Day be JIIIIIllld lDAoad of
JelIIOVed,provided'"fo1lowlDa .,....tltl<n CIII be met:
L 11lo.ur-...I .!bItlbo:........
ing of lbo:subject .....lIINar foH,..wID oHmJnaIe dJo
significanilmpaiJ_oflhe appllCIIII'.view;
Ii.11loem-d "'wbltiIe........
iIIg of dJo IlUbject _lIIIdIor fiJtiaae wID JIllt mad!in 10
lIDIfabIIy _1IIId lor IIbIy kill or woabD dJo _
iii.11lo dIrecIar ofpabIIc worb .....
am-!bat lbo:_IDII/or ilIIIap baa JIllt,IIIId wID DOl,
.....dIIIJIIO 10 lwpo.&IIIlbo public rlaJt-of-way
(-.cud>,IIIl1..",.lllll.);
Iv.UpaIln>clOliplof...wrilIID.__
ofdJo ..-<.)oflbo pnIllCIIy dinclIy abaJlIag ar1lllder-
lyiua lbo public JIaht-of-way or pUway "'-1110 _
lIIIdIar foIlarae II Iocafed,lbe cIIy IIIId my of lbo partiea
who __JIlltIlied ..._to ani I"(0)(1)oflbls
llIlCliaIl_iIlto_..-lbItll.-dedcmlbolide
of dJo .......party'.pnIllCIIy,bIIadIDa !bit property
oWJlllralld my 1iIIJn 0-.uf.-a pruperty Jo'h '.'"
lbo _lIIIdIor foIIap to pmeal1bIure ....lfIcant
view bupah_by _aIIdIar "1Iase.11lo ........
_~lbo city IIIId lboproperty ..-abaIlllpOClify
the"I itime~.""'-"tobeappOjR}.
..by'"cIinKmr.wiIbIII wIddllbe pruperty ......obaIl
UDdorlab aIId pl\)'for aucb mi.• ;
v.lIIlIlIIdlboproperty_,wbo_
-..d boto ......1IIIIiwaJl wiIb ..cIIy 1D ...._city
_or foIIap,wiIIdD.lIIIrty •of JeOIivIDI •JIlltloe
fiam.die city letp*".I..ref 8Iil to Idhere &0 daD
'D.ja....Ie prcrvfaioaI of tbo .....,...tIae oily
abollkimlwlelbeaei_lDIIabol1rcmove"'lUbject-<.)/lbIIaIe at lbe cIty'..........
2.Far _lIIIdIor fioIIap Iocalecl wiIbID _city
L Iflbe city cIMoawbwa bl'"_adlor
foIIap IIIlIlda 10 be -.dill ....to _appll-
.......view,lbe city aIIal1 de'I ...Mrtber _
aIIdIar folilp abaII be "'P1acecI,IIIId abaIl JIlIke fiDa1
lI;!natIm •1D ...tn'e ad JmIIIbo<of'nplacement
_1DdIar filILlIBe.
b.Iflbo cIIy "'"hwlblt lbo _lIIIdIor
foIlap em be pIIIIIIICi 10_'"app!L:wrt'.view wid>-
....kg .bW orlr:llllD&Ibo _ar 1bIlap,tbe cIIy allaJl
maintain lbo ....adlm follaae ..U 10 ..-fidare
view bupah_by lbe .....aIIdIor foIIIp.
0.11lo city aboI1 pay fiJr all ......of ....
and/or rou,..pruIIlac,IOIIllJva1 adlor np1aoomoDl.'l1Io
city aIIal1 make lbe IIDal c1""'","'.....IS to Ibo type andDUIIlberofrep!__ralIar fDIIap.W'-"-
...n Is 1D be pcdinmod,II obaIl be pod,""",by'"city.
G.NotificatioIl.WheIllbe.ur-JIlIIrioId 1 miua-
tiOII ......diIIg _city _tevIew pemtIt,.m-DO!Ice of
lbe cIeoialoa aboll be Pveo.foIIowa:
I.Wbat lbo foIiI&e Is Iocalecl 00 _city IIteot or
.-..1IOllce oflbo dekmtiDadon to 8i'JlIIllbo appU-
362
•
17.76.100
4.An opp!1gotlm fee,IS Slbliobod by city
00UIlCiI nooIuIica.
B.1teYlewCdlorla.'l1Io dinIclD<_lbo '--'Idea-
is-aboIloldaorpU,-ggndItj-,lysnmlbo cIIy1leo
review}Mllllllll(iller coo mtina •iaI '1,4'"oflbo
appIIcarl pnIIlCIIIy.ltll dr1=hwf 1bIt_adI_1ilII-
asolOClled em cIIypnlllCllly.Icily .Im.....iIl Ibo P.
IIcripHJC-~",""ilL "tylwpalzbenlewlialU
v1ewiDB _oflbo iIjijIiIc>U'11ol,•deIiDod iIlllocdon
17.02.040 (SIqIo-FamI1y JI..LIcwtlol DiIIricla)of lbIa
tItIo.
F.CoIIdiIIoas of PamI1 '--In JI"IIIbc my
!IIJII!OYIIlIIIdorll*IOClliaa,Ibo ~IDI)'Impooo such
..·wlltf'1Ila '--.IDI)'be.-.bty ill>1R"
_.........10 public •priV4Il praperty;10 ,.-Ibo
1nio I1lIIIlIYI1_JIIIIIIbla lianboial'vi.tad Inl_
IbItfa 1lkeIy1o_lam-CO;_10 ~lboiDlall
of my ar policy oflbo s-.J p ....No JlCIII'III aball
vi my ...wI"".....lq 'lOw!by Ibo dIrecJor.Such
C<IOIIiIJIm.iDly bdude,bat aboIl !IlIt be IimlIaIIo;lbo
followlas:
1.Far I cIIy 1Ieo adlar follllp JIIot fa 10caIed
wItbiD lbo pIIkway ad IC.""Y media,ar MIbiD my
oJbor city pruperty ar cIIy ..(....oily pas):
L A Yiew-bupahlua1leoadlar ....aboIl
be I1IIDlJVlld IIIld 1'lIf"oed wIIb I aImilIr ~.1iIaMIrdl
bm<liDo .....by lbo cIIy.11ro oily aIrol1 Pl\Y far III _of
.....lDdIarfoliolo __IIIld..,·••n-lDdIar
fi>Ilase !bit lie I1IIDlJVlld oWl _be npIoced If...fol-
JowiDg '.w!i1io,..alit:
L 11ro'"c .........ar liJIIaBo wI1I
immodlaloly ..-I olp!fk:mt 1wpaIz_af Ibo view
liom lbo JIIlIlIlcoDl'.viowbII_
if.'l1Io dIrocIor ofpublic worts delar-
mlDoa I "'1"_._woaJd ............10 Ibo 1m-...,.0_ill lbo publlc rf&IlI-of -.y (-.""""lido-
walk,....)ar obo<orre 1nIIIc vIaIbIIIIy ar ..-•1m-
podimooIlD podo4riID .....wItbiD lire pWlic J:i&bt-of-
way;
b.11ro city .un mako ...fbral dr1IomIJra-
lion ulo lbo two adllUlllbo<of..,~_IDdI...
foIIa8e.1f 111)'.
.c.Ifa pcnoo1>110 bas JOClOivocI noIlfIcotion
oftbe cIincIor'l doclaIon lIIeo a wriIIal ~10 !IlIt Ie-
move Ibe _ar follap (wI1biD _...days aftile DDliIicJ>.
lion),lboa Ibo_WIlIlI.fiIIIap uiay be pnIIIlllIlD4iDad af
-od,provided lire fo1lowlDa e>mc!lIfano ....be mot:
l 11ro dIrocIor om I.JIIotlbopm>-
ing of Ibe subject .....lIIdIar foJiaso will "'imfn""Ibe
significan'lmpaiJ_oftbe oppIic:aol'.view;
Ii.1110 diJectur d nhw tb4 dropnm-
be oflbo IJUbjoc:t _WIlIlI.fotioao wID!IlIt nmII in 11\
IIDIIiPIIY _1IIld I.IIbIy kill ..........Ibo lroe;
iii.11ro dIrecJor ofpabIIc 1IIIIb dlila-
miDos lbIt Ibe 1Ieo ad!«fiIIIap bas -.IIIld wID DOl,
.......10 lqm &III lire public JIPl-of-way
(-.ClIIb,...........lllIl.);
Iv.l/paIlroooiptof..........._
oflbe ..-{I)oflbe pnIIlCIIIy dinclIy aballiDB ar1llldeo-
1>'iIlI Ibo public riPl-of-W8Y •}IIIkwoIy .....1110 _
lDdIar IirIlIp Ia Iocotod,1110 cIIy IIIld my af Ibo J*tloo
v.bo _JIlItifiod ....-lD pi ......(0)(1)of lbIa
ooc:tIan_iDIo..'!bItfarocxrnlod em Ibo lido
of Ibo ......pllty'l pnIIlCIIIy.bIIrdiD&!bit pnIIlCIIIy
_lIIldmyfolln_af.-aprupertylo'",.1"
Ibo _1DdI...foIiJl&o ...10 pnveat lbIunl rdp'''''"'''
view h.I _by Ilroh _fIIJIJlIat i>lIoso.11ro qroo-
_~lire city IIIld llrepnlllCllly _1IIaI11pOllify
the"I time~."I dtobe4JiWopi--
..by'"dIrocIor.wItbiD wIrIch Ibo pruperty_1baIl
1!Ddodab IIIld Pl\Y far aacb mi.;
v.lbJIId lire pnIIlCIIIy -.v.bo ..
.-od bdo .,...ooriwJl wIIb ...cIIy lD N.!I city
_ar faIiIp,wIlIdD.lIIIrty -.of iooolviDI a !IlItIco
&am.die city lerp*".I..ee,8Iil to.u.e ...diem.j.....provIaIoaa of tbo .....,..".,lbaa Ibo city
aballkimlirolu tbo ._ad aball narovo llrelUlljoc:t
lroe(')/foIIIIo ItIbo dty'l .........
2.F__WIlIlIar IiJIiIp IOCIIed wIIbIn I city
L Iflbe city ciol&mIiwa !bit..._crdf...
foIiop ....10 be -.Iill anIoo-lo _Ibo Ippll-
.....view.Ibo city oWl ....I +Mr1Irer tbo _
adlar follllp IbaII be I'lIfIaood,IIIld aIrIIl iIIIb Ibo fiDa1
d'lnotfon •10 lire tnro IiId ~ofl'llflacemoirt
_1IIdIar lOII.op.
b.Iflbo cIIy "'"hw 1bIt!be _1DdI...
foIiIp em be}lllll*l10_lire Wk:wrt'1 ~wid>-
oat hy ,.be err tIIlIzc lbo 1Ieo ar foIIap,lire cIIy aball
mel.....lire _crdI...fo1ll&o ..u 10 ..-liIIure
Yiov;Imo I ..by Ibo _crdfar foIIa8o.
0.11ro c:iIy aIrol1 Pl\Y for all .....of_
aadlor foJiaso IJftJIIiu&,i1lI!l<IVaIWIlIlIor ropt.omont.'l1Io
city oWl make Ibe fiDaI cIr1amlraalluo as lD lbo two crd
IIUIIIbo<of "'1"__adlar fDIiIp.Wblmover
...-k 10 lD be p",fonDOd,II aIrIIl be I_&m ~by !be city.
G.NOlifIcatioIl.Wlrmlbo~"""'"l'......
lion t .....dfu&I city _roview pemtIt,~DOlIce of
Ibo cIooidoa IbaIl be Pva>.foIIoIw:
1.WIrlIl lire foIiIIo hi IOCIIed 00 a c:iIy _or
e8IOiIICiII,a II<lt!<:e oflbo cIoIatmiIlaIIot to &rIlIl lire JIIlIlU-
362
•
17.76.100
4.An "I'P'!ooI!m Ceo,IS flIIIlbliobod by clty
00UIlCiI1'IllIOIuIica.
B.1teYlewCritorla.'l1Io dlnlc:tm ..lbo 1_
;g-aIIo/I oIlborpa,..ggndItj_Dypalbo d1y1leo
review pormIt I(iller c ..,tI....iIn 'ill "_of lbo
app&al'1}lICII*ty,1t1r d:1='-'lbat_adl..1ilI>-
...1OCIIed ...dIy}llCll*ty,a dIy ,,"m ._lalbo J!!lI>-
Ii<;ripHJC-~...lia IlL '1)'IwpioIzIui niewli"",.
viewilltl-oflbo ijiidIoaut'I1ol,•doIiDed lallocdon
17.02.040 (8lDIJo-Family JI ........01 DiaIricla)of lbIa
tltIo.
F.COIIdIIloas of PormIt Inwnc:c In P&IIIIui my
IIIJPIOY&lllllllorlll/a IOClliaa,lbo ~m&)'m.pe.auch
"'·..!IbIa m&)'be~)'lD}D-
_lD publlo ..prIVIIe P .....ty;to ,.-lbo
1nio .-al..JIIlIIIbla fiamboial'I tad lIla_
Ibat Is likely lD..-alllllraco;..lD ~lbo iDIaIl
of my policy oflbo B--'p....No pcnaIl aball
vi.....my ML ...10 lq .....by lbo dIrecIor.Such
condiIlcow iDay iDcIDde,bat aIIo/I 11III be IImlIed 10;lbo
foUowial!:
1.F..a cIIy 1Ieo adI..folilp l1Iot Is IOCIIed
wIIbID !be paotwoy ad .uodHIi)'medIaD,..'II4IbiD my
........clty}llCll*ty ..dIy ..(dIy pas):
L AYiew bupahbig_IIIdI aIIo/I
be i1IiDOVlld IIIld npIaoed wIIb a oImIlIr ~·foaMDdl
box liDo .....by !be cIIy.'l1lo cIIy obol1,.far.u _of
1Ieo1llldl..foIiIp __IIIld .....•••n-1IIldI..
foIlap Ibat lie i1IiDOVlld abalI DOt be nopIoood Iflbo foJ-
IowiDg ••wti1 h,..alit:
L 'l1lo ....M =..........foIIaBo wI1I
immodlatoly _ •olpIfIcant 1wpioIz_of lbo view
from lbo appllcoDl'l viowlDll_
it.'l1Io cIIie<mr of public WIIIb dolm-
~."'1"_._woaJd ...damop 10 lbo 1m-
....._iIIlbo publlo riJhIof OR)'(-.CIIlb,lido-
walk,....)..obMlaic 1nIIic viIIbIJIIy ....-•1m-
podimoot lD podoolriaD __wIIbib !be pWJic rlabt-of-
way;
b.'l1lo cIIy oIoaIJ mako lbo fIDal drteimlDa-
11oo IS lD lbo.".ad IIUIIIber ofrop~_1IIldI...
foI!aIle,Ifmy.
c.If.penon \Wo baa 1OCOIvocIIlOIlfIcatioo
oflbo .m-'I docloI...lIIeo •wriII<a ~to 11III Ie-
movolbo1leo ..follaF(wIlbiD_...dayooflbellOlilil»-
11oo),lbon lbo1leo...u..foIiap uiay be jW1iIlOlIlIIIliDad of
<emOVod,provided lbo fo1lowlDa .,....HIInno ....be mot:
L 'l1lo~...,l1Iotlbopnll>-
ing of lbo subject .....OlIN..foJi,..wI1I """"""'"lbo
<ignificonl bupahmoot oflbo oppliClllll'1 view;
Ii.1110 dinlclur....,.'w tbollbopnm-
big oflbo ....ject1leo ...u..foIioae wiD 11III nmII ill an
UDlIiabIIY _1IIld ,..1lbIy klll ...........lbo 1Ieo;
iii.'l1lo dIrecIor ofpabIIo WIIIb doIJor.
miIIos IbIt lbo 1Ieo adIot foIiap baa DOl,IIIld wiD DOl,
_~lDlqou,&lIllbopubHcrlPt-of-way
(-.""""oidG>o .....lllIl.);
Iv.UpoDroooIptoflbowdlloo._
oflbo ..-.cl)oflbo popody cIi1Oc:t!y aballiDg ...........
Iym,lbo public ~...pRMy wbIn tbo_
1IIldI...foIIrp 10 \ocotod,lbo dIy IIIld lIllY of lbo p.nioI
v.bo uoIIfiod "-10 auI ,....(0)(1)oflbla___iIIlD..'tballs1'OCilidod ...lbo lido
of lbo ......paity'l }lICII*ty,bIIIdIDa tbal prDlleity
_1IIld my foI<n..-.of....}lICII*ty to'L.'u
lbo _1IIldI...foIIap 10 _10 provoat foIunl oIplflcant
view Ii.!••by ....._&DdIur illIagn.'l1lo .......
_~lboclty IIIldlbopopody_lIIaIIopocIfy
the"I time~."i dtDbe4JiWopi--
..by lbo cIIie<mr,wiIIdD wIdd>lbo}llCll*ty .....obaIl
UIldorlab aud ,.for IUCIi T !,;
v.lIIIuI1d lbo prDlleity _,v.bo ..
-.t bdo ......*"wIIb lbo dIy 10 ••!a cIIy
_or foIIap,w!lIdIi lIIIity dayo of 1OOOI..ma •aadoo
thxa die city lerp*".,,*"•ee,fWl to..u.e ...die
...j."I provioIoao oflbo ..............lbou lbo city
abalI bnm-lbo._ad 111a111'CIIlOV1!lbolU1ljoct
1Ieo(1~at lbo cIty'l -
2.For _...u foIIrp Iocatod wIIbiIl.cIIy
L Iflbo dIy cIolcamliw'l tballbo _audf...
foIiap.-ls to be -.01 iii ....lD _lbo appll-
"'I vIow,lbo city abalI cIH I +Mrtbor lbo 1Ieo
1IIldI..folilp Ib8II be JqI1auod,IIIld IIIIaII mab lbo 6DaI
d'lmdIon •10 lbo tn'D IiId JmIiIbar of·.....m nt
_audIar lilIIIp.
b.Iflbo city "o'hwlbat lbo _1IIldI...
fo1lIp ..be JIIUI*IlD_lbo app!kwrt'l view wid>-
...lop ,Me or tlUlilI!be 1Ieo ..foIIrp,11+city abalI
mel....lbo _audf foUaao 10 IS 10 pnwoIt f1IIare
view Iq'..by lbo audf..foIIap.
0.'l1lo city obaIl ,.far aU colli of lice
aodIor fou,..JI'UIIIui,i1lIIlOVaI audfor ....\aomoot,'l1Io
cIIy oha1I make lbo 6DaI drtamiDaliuu IS 10 11+.".mel
I1IiiIlb«of rop'aoomonI ......adI...fD1lIp.Wbooevor
....n:is 10 be pcofuimod,illIIIaII be.+6 ~by lbo city.
G.NolifICIIIIoil.W1Imlbo~"""."miD-
11oo ......cIhc •city 1IeorDYiew pomdt,.m-DUlIce of
lbo cIocioIoa obaIl be JivlOI.foI1oM:
1.W1Im lbo foIloao bi IOCIIed 011.city _or
ouemeot,.1IOllce oflbo cIotanuiDaIioIl to J1&Dllbo appJi-
362
•
Attachment 3-60
caliOll .ball be &eDt to !be appllconl(s),the 8pllI'OIlriatt
~wnen asociaIIon,IlIId the ton olosest adj80Clllt
properties including the oWOlll{s)ofthe property dlrec:dy
abuttlog or undor\yiJlg the pnblio rigbt....f-woy ,wae the
IUbjoot 1nle(1)lIIdIor fDa.ore located.Adjacmlproper-
lies Iba11 lnoIude the toll c1000sl \ots,-Ml1dl 8l'O OIl the
......-.dlrec:dy abuIdna IlIId adjaceat to the property
wbere the !lee lIIdIor fD1Iagc ore located.Notice ofiIeDlal
.ball be sivan only to tbe app\lcont.
2.Whan the fDlhp is bsed in a oily pad<,n0-
tice of the cI1rootor'.docIalon Iba11 be gIven'onIy to the
app\lconL '.
R.Appeals.ADy lnIeresmd penon nooIvlng notice of
the cI1rootor'a decision may appea1 tbe cIeoision to the
planing _I.....in wrtIiDB.wltbin fifteon ca1eDdar
daya of the dirootor'.cIeoiaion.Punaanl to Sootion
17.02.040(CX2)(g)ofthe Mnnk:IpaI C<lcIo,the deoiIICIII of
tbe p1anDlJ>l!""",miMi""on _BIl appea1 may be ap-
poaled to the oIty coanciL ADy appea1_be """hI I B-
aled by payDIIlIII oftbe lIppIOIlriaIo appeal tee,..ealab-
\labod by oIty OOlDIOi1reaolutlon.No oItytroe rcviewpor-
mit Bba11 be efIilc:Ine untI1 a1I appHcabIe appoa\periods
have "-"""a"ated (Ord.41'14,200':Ord.320 0 7
(part),1997)
17.76.110 Exodc ullaal pera\t.
A.Pwpoac.1110 oxotic anbna1 permlliBaatab\labod to
permit tbe koopiDgofwl1d BDimaIs,..defined in SectIon
6.04.230 (ADimala)of1bls MunloIpa1 Code,or odla-d0-
mestic aaImala not &pecifioa1ly auIhorizod elsewhtn.
B.Proc:odure.
I.Wrlttm applicalionB Bha1I be Wed wIIh the
director;oxcept,1IIat no app11catIoD Iba11 be.eJ te.l If
liDaI action bas bea1labn OIl BIl applioatioo requeatingthe
......or .._aul lolly the lI8IDe permll wl1hIn the previous
_Ive moaIba,.uo1...the previous opplication is cIeoIod
wIIbout ~by tbe dirootor,or OIl appeai by tbe plaD-
nbli oommiBaiOll or oIty c:ounclL An app\IcaIiOll for BIl
exodc anbna1 permlt Bha1I contain the foll0wiD8 informa-
DOll:
..The IlIlIIle IIIld addreas ofthe appliolmllllll1
of all penons owaIng any or a1I of the properly proposed
to beUBod.1fapp1ioallt doesnol own the subject property,
wrlt1en permlaslOll ftom the 0WDer or OWll«!i to makeaucb
oppHcatlon must be included with the appllC!llion:
b.The addreas IIlIl1lop1 doscription of the
subject )lI'Op<rty;
c.The_for the \'OqUOBl;
d.A Btoldt or plan indicaliDg the .....IIIld
dimellsions ofthe bui1c1iJ1g or enclosure in v.1Uch the ani-
mal or anlmals are to b.kept IIlIl1 th.locaIion md the cII-
363
17.76.100
_.-~
meosiOlls ofall otber _.,(the subjomllllda4aoont
properties;bo\Wver,no obtcIi or plat Bha1I be required if
the subject of tbe applieatiOll involves oaIy the belght of
tenees;
e.Tho names and addresBcs of a1I poraoos
\W.o are Bbown on the latest avallabIe...."".,t ",n of
the COlIIlty as oWlling property wltbIn five Jwndrod teo!
from the oxtmor boUIIdariea ofthe subject lot or pIIlCOI;
t:A fee,as eatabHabeci by rosoIuliOll ofthe
oIty COUlUliI;IlIId
S.Other appropriate lnfurmatlon as the eli-
.-may ""Iuinl•
2.Tbc dinclor Bba1IlmI1Ia notice to a1I property
owners obown OIl tbe appJIeatioD.1110 notice !!ba\I_the
location ofthe IIlIbjoct property,tbe iDtaIl ofthe appHca-
tion IlIId the reclpIOIIl'a risbt to "I'PlJIIO tbe permlL All op-
poattlon to the pamIt muat be BUbmlttod in 1Vritins to tbe
director within lila Wo.tins daya after the mailID&ofauch
nodce.
3.1110 m.-aba1l approve BIl appllcation for
an oxotic IIIIimaI permit \We'"the information Jli "lied
by the appllc;eat "'a,ol _the fo11o...ms fIncIlnp'
L That the pcamIt,Iflauod,wBI not be cIot-
rimeDtII\totbc publlc beaIlh,aalety or.....,m....a&re;md
b.That the Jliopoaod oIte la acloqualio ill liz.
lIIld Bbape to""""""""the popoood...wltbcat_
rial ddrimontto the _"'lloymall or valuation oCJli'ClIICI'"
ties in the vicinity ofthe alto,IlIId that the nquoatod_1s
BIl appropriate ...of the BIte.
4.1110 dinclor may impose such COlldIlionB OIl
ponnits as ...."-nod -.ry to iDlJuIe that aoimaIa wiD
be main'ai".'"in acconIance wIIh the proviBions of this
ohapter.
5.The dinclor Bba1I deuy tbe appllcatlon,w...,
the irdbiiiiBtioa p_by the app1lcallt lld1a to aubIlan-
liaIe the required findlnsa to the llIIIjsfactior.oCthe cIlrec-
tor.
6.1110 notice of cIocialOll of BIl oxotie an/maI
permit aba1l be a1VC1ll by the cI1rootor to the appllcont and
any lnteralted peraon,p.......mt to SootIoo 17.10.040
(Hearing Notice md Appea1 ProcecImos)oftbia title.Any
lnteralted party may appea1 the dinclor'.dooiaion to the
pllUll1ins commi.sion purauant 10 Seotlon 17.10.050 (He!u'-
Ins Notice BIld Appea1 Procedures)ofthis litle.1110 cIeci-
siOll ofthe plannJns COIIlDliaslon may be appea1ed to the
oItyC01lllDll purauantto 8ectIon 17.10.070 (HearIDsNotice
BIld Appea1 Prooodures)oftbia titIo.
7.Eacb permit abaJl be permitted to cOatinne
untU the lot(s)orpan:el(B)isI_BOld or Ir1IlIabmI,uoIoss
a diff_time period is specified by the oIty.For pur-
poses of this subaoction,c:haDse of ownership aba1l not
caliOll sball be sent 10 !be oppUCIIIll(Sj.the 1IjlIlI'OIlrial
bomeo"""'"asociItIon,BDd the ten olosest adjllCOlll
properties iDcIudiDg!be oWDlll(s)of the property dlrec:tIy
abulllog or undor\yiJlg Ibe public rigbt-<Jf-wsy \W....!be
IUbjoot Inle(s)lIIIdIor foJi.ose ....Iocated.Adjacmtpropor-
ties sba1I iDol..tbe leII c1000sl 1ols,which 8l1l 011 the
"""'"-.dlrec:tIy abuItIna BDd adjaceat to Ibe property
where tbe!lee lIldIor follage ....Iocated.Notice ofiIeDlal
sball be sivan 0D\y to tbe app\lamt.
2.Whan Ibe fou.e is kMsecI in a city pod<,DO-
lice of Ibe d\rootor's docIalon sba1I be sIven.OD\y to tbe
appllcllllt.'.
R.Appea1s.ADy iDleresllld penon ~IIOlico of
tbe dIrootor's decision may appea1 tbe cIeciBioD.to the
p1auiD&_I"""",In wrlIlDB.w1tbin 1ifteon ca1eDdar
dayB of Ibe dIrootor's cIeciaioo.PmaaaDl to Seolion
17.02.040(CX2)(g)oflbeMJmlclpaI C<lcIo,the deciIloIl or
tbe p1anlllJ>l!oommiuiOll on BUCh an appoeI may be ap-
pealed to Ibe city coaociL AIry appea1_be ""'••1 B-
aled by paymIlDl oflbe ......OjlIilIle appoeI tee,..alab-
IiIbod by city 00lID0il reaolutlOll.No city troc review per-
mit abal\be effecIIve IIDlil al1 applk:able oppoa\periods
have bem1 .,ma,med (Ord.41~14,2005:Ord.320 17
(part),1997)
17.76.110 EmlIculaaJ peralt-
A.Pwp....Tbe exotic aninIaI pcmltlseBlablilbod to
pannli Ibe koclpiDsofwl1d IIIIimaIs,..dofIned In SectIon
6.04.230 (AnIma1B)oflbls Mualolpa1 Code,or odIcr d0-
mestic aalmala not speoifical1y auIhorizod eIsewh.....
B.Proc:odo=
I.WriItm appileatiOl1l Bha1l be med with Ibe
cIIrecIor;oxcept,1IIal DO opp1leatioD aba11 be...tecI If
liDaI action bas beallakaa.Oll an applicaliOll requeaCins tbe
......or ."'",,!lally the llIIIDe pcmlt wi1hID tbo prcvions
_Ive montba,.unI_tbo previous application is cIeoIed
wIIbout ~by tbo dlrootor,or 011 appeai by tbo plan-
ninB c:ommiasiOll or city counclL An appiIcatiOll for an
exotic aninIaI permit JbalI coatain the followinB infonna-
tlOll:
..The IlIIDIe IIlld addrals oftbo appliconllllld
of all per8OI1S owalng any or al1 oftbeproperly proposed
10 be lIBod.1f applioalll does not own tbo BUbJecl property,
wrillIIn permlsBIOII fi'om Ibe owner or OWD<ll1l to makeaucb
appHcation mUBl be included with the appUClIlioo;
b.The address IIlld lesaI description oftbe
subject property;
c.The _for tbo roquosl;
d.A Bl<old1 or plan indicating tho .....IIlld
dlmensiooa ofthe buildiDs or OIIOlosuro In wblch the ani-
mal or animals are to b.kopllllld th.loca1ion IIlld the cII-
363
17.76.100
_.-~
mensions ofal1 otbor _,.(tbo subJootllllda4jaocat
properties;boMver,DO l!btoIi or plm abaII be nqulrod if
tho snbjoot of tbe appilcatiOll lnvolYeo ODly lhe belBbt of
fancos;
e.The names and addresBcs of al1 peraons
wI>o 8l1l aIIown on tbo latest available m 'MI ",11 of
tho COlDlty as ownlns property within five hundrod filet
from the ext<rior bouIIdarlos oftbo subjocllot or pIIlCOI;
t:A fee,..eslIIbliBbecl by reaoiuliOll ofthe
city COUDIlil;BDd
S.Other appropriate iDfnrmali9n ..the cIi-
nctor may requinl.
2.The cIiIeclor JbalI nml1allOlico to al1 propa:ty
o",*,obowD em tbe appJicatiOll.Tbe DOtioe abaII_tbe
locali9n oflbe aabjoct proporty,the iDteul ofthe appllca-
tiOllIllld the leOipIoot'a rigbt to "I'POIIO tbe permlL All cp-
pooilioD to tbe pamIt muat be BUbmlttecI in 1VIltIDB to tbo
cIIreetorwilbin lIaI Wottias dayB after Ibe mailIn&orsnch
nodce.
3.The cIi.-JbalI appnrve an "",Ilcatioo for
an exotic lIIIimaI permit \We'"the 1nf0lDlllli0D P "lied
by !be appu-t lIlIbMa'dl_the fo11oVoina f1nc11np.'
L That the pcamIt,Iflaued,will DOl be cIet-
rimeolII\to!be public heaJth,amtyor lI""'I"1....atiore;aod
b.That tbo pupoood lite lB acloqualio ill lize
IIDl!IIbape to 8CC<8DIIIOdaIe Ibe popoaod ...wItboot_
rial cletriment to tbe ......"'l!0)'DI<lDl or va1ualion ofpl'CljlC8"
ties In Ibe vlcinIly orlbe aile,BDd that tbo JeqDeIled DIe Is
an apptupdate 1IIC oftbclito.
4.Tbe dlrector may impose BUCb condItioaB OIl
permits ......doanod -..y to insuIe that aoimaIB will
be ...,jn'ajned in acconIance with tbe proviBiOllI of Ibis
ohapIcr.
5.Tbe cIiIeclor .la11 deuy tbe application v.iure
the info"nati...p_bytbo opp11collllldls to anbabm-
liale the nqulrod findinss to the BBtiafoelioD oftbe cIlrec-
lor.
6.The IIOlice of cIocislOll of an CIXOlic animal
pClI1IIit JbalI be s1-by the dIrootor to the applicant and
any intereaIlod pemon,pmauailt to SectIoo 17.10.040
(Hearing Noli..IIlld Appeal1'roceclnl1ls)oflbls title.Any
Intereatecl party may appea1 the cIiIeclor's dooiBiOD to tho
plllllDins commission purauantto SeotloD l7.IO.lI'O (Ilea!'-
ins Nolice and Appeal Procodures)oflbis lille.Tbe c1eci-
810ll oflbe plalmlng commlaslOD may be appea1ed to the
cltyCOllllllll purauantto 8ectkm 17.10.070 (HearlngNotice
and Appea1 ProoecIures)oflbls litle.
7.Eadl pennit abaII be permitled to contiDne
UDli1 the 101(5)orparcel(s)1sI_BOld or IranBmrmI,unless
a differant time period is speoi1iod by the city.For po!"
......of this subBectioo,chanse of ownership JbalI not
caliOll sball be sent 10 the oppHcaI(s),the lIpllI'OIll'ial
homeowners lI8SOCiltlon,IlIld the Is oIose&!adjllCOlll
properti..iDcludiDg the oWDlll(s)of the pnlIlCIrty diIec:tIy
abuttlog or lIDdorlyiJlg the public rigbt-of-wsy .w._the
IUbjoct troe(s)lIIIdIor foliose ....Iocated.Adjacmtpropor-
ties 5balI iDIlIude tile leIl cI..-Iol5,which ....an the
.......-.diIec:tIy abuttIDa IlIld adjllCCllll to the propeI1y
~tbe!lee mdlor foliage ....locaIM.NotIce ofiIonlol
sball be sivan only to the "IlPIlamt.
2.Whan the foJiaBe is 100Ided in •city pod<,DO-
llc:e of the cllrectm's docialon 5balI be BIven.onIy 10 the
appllcU..,
H.Appeals.AIJy lnIeresllod penonnoclviD&DOli..of
the din>clor'.deci&lon may appeal the decisioIl to the
pIaaaIDa _lssioo,in wrItiDB.wllbin 1ifteon caIoDdar
days of tho em-r's cIooiaion.PunaaDl to SoctioD
17.02.040(CX2)(g)oftbc MJmlcIpal CocIe,the doclsIan of
the plallDiDl!IXW!1miMi""on sucIl an appeal 1M)'be ap-
pealed to tho city COlIIlCil.AIry appeaI_be .......l<-
Dled by psymeaI oftho ......opdalIo appeal tee,as eslah-
Uabod by city 00lID0il resolutl....No city troe review per-
mit sbaJ1 be cffecdve IIDliI all applk:able sppoa1 periods
bave bem1 """.,.....(Ord.41'14,2005:Ord.320 0 7
(pert),1997)
17.76.110 EullcuIDaI peralt-
A.Purp ....Tho oxotlc 8DbIIIIl pormltiseslabUabod to
pennlt tbe koopins ofwl1d am-Ja,as defiIled in SectIon
6.04.230 (Animals)oflbls Munlolpal Code,or odIer d0-
mestic anima1s not speoifically suIhorizod eIsewh.....
B.Procodnre.
I.Writlal applicatiOllS sha1I be Bled with the
director;oxtepl,1IIal DO opp1lcatlon sIlaIl be.OJ tool If
IiDal acIioa bas been labn OIl an applicatioo requeslins the
same or aobs!",d I.lly the IAIDIIl pormlt wi1hID tho previous
_Iva lDOIIlba,.unl ...tho previOWI application is cIeoIod
wIIbout ~by the dlrector,or an appeai by the plan-
nhti ,"""mI-i""or city counclL An app1IcstiOll for an
oxotic animal permit sha1I coatain the fonl>'Win8 iDflxma-
tian:
..The IIIIDle IIDd addrals oftile applicaDllIDd
of 011 penolIS owaIng any or all of the property propesed
to be used.If"",1icaDt does not own the subject property,
writ1IlD permlssIOD fiom tho owner or owners to make such
appHcation must bc included with the appHcalioo;
b.The address IIDd lopl description oftho
subject property;
c.The reason for the \'OqUOSl;
d.A _etch or pi..,lndicatins the area IIDd
dimensions oftbc building or ...,Iosure in wblch tile anI-
mol or anlmols are to be kept IIDd thelocalion and the cII-
363
17.76.100
-..~meosioDsofall __oortlle subjoctllDd..p:an
properties;hoMver,DO sbtoIi or plm sbaII be nqulrod if
the snbjoct of tile applieatiOll involves ooIy tbe belBbt of
foocos;
e.The DaDlO&and addresses of all persoos
lW.o are sbown on the latest avaI1abIe m IMt roll of
the OOUDty as ownlns property within five Jwndred feel
from the oxI!rior bouDdarloa ofthe subject lot or parool;
r.A fee,as estIIbHsbed by RSOIuliOD oftho
city COUDIlil;IlIld
S.Other appropriate inform.tion as the di-
rector may ""Iuinl.
2.The director sha1I nmlI.DOIk:e to all JlIOI*IY
o",*"abown ""tile appIieatlOll.The notico sbaII_tho
location oftbe sabje<:t property,1be inteal of1be appHal·
tiOllIlDd 1be reolpIent's rigid to oppoae 1be pamlL All op-
posiliOllto lhe permit muat be submitlod in 1VIltIDa to 1be
cIbeclor wiIbln tIu Wonins days after Ibe maiIJna ofsueh
DOlke.
3.Tho m-sha1I approve an "",,1btioD for
an oxotic lIIIimaJ permit lW.eftlthe lnformatioD P "lied
by the appu-t .....,.I...1be foIIowina flnctiDp·
L l1IaI the permit,Iflauod,will not be clot-
rimaItaI totbc public beaJth,safety or llflDIlI1!I ~aod
b.l1IaI tho poposod site is.deqwdIl ill size
IlIld IIbape to accommodaIe the popooed...wilbout_
rial detrimm to the -."'l!oymeat or valuation mJri'OPtS"
Ii..in the vicinity ofthe slle,llIld that the nquooted use Is
8D apptupdatc ...oftbo lite.
4.Tho director may impose S1ICb COIldIlions OIl
permits ..ate doanod necooscy to insula that animals win
be main,.ined in acconIance with the povlaioos of Ihls
ohapter.
5.The director s!all deuy 1be appllcatlon wbeno
the irdbimatiOD p&Sllod bytbe appu.-dllolls to sniJsIIa>.
liato the requInod findiDp 10 tho satisfaotim oftbe dlrec-
tor.
6.The DOli..of decislOD of an CIlUJlio anImsI
permit shall be pven by the din>clor to the "",Ilcsnt BOd
any lnlerosIed poraoo,pursuairt to SectIoo 17.10.040
(Hearing Noli..and AppesIl'rocodares)oftbis lillo.Any
in1lol'tlsllMl party may appeal the director's dociaion to tbe
pllllJDinacommissinnpnauan1IoSeodoD p.IO.0~(Heor
iDs Nolice and AppesI Procedures)oflhls title.Tho deci-
stOll ofthe plannlng commlaslOIl may be appealed to the
city COlDllliI pnauan1 to SectIoo 17.10.070 (HearIng Noli ..
and Appeal Prooodures)oftbis title.
7.Each permit shall be pamltted to CODIiDuo
unliI tho Iot(s)orJllU""l(s)isI_sold ortransmmd,unless
•difI'eraot time period is speoified by the city.For pm-
poses of this snbsoclion,chsnse of ownership shall DOl
Attachment 3-61
Virginia Leon
30413 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Current Resident
7369 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Nancy Parsons
7361 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Jerene Tussey
30303 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Current Resident
30311 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Mr.&Mrs.Perez
30317 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Current Resident
30327 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Tim Rosseno
30405 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Mr.&Mrs.Ganeko
7313 Via Collado
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Larry Marinovich
7315 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Joseph Yousefpour
7306 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Marjorie C.Carter
7307 Via Collado
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Steve Allen
7301 Via Collado
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
J.P.Agronick
7300 Via Collado
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Patrick C.O'Brien
7310 Via Collado
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Mr.&Mrs.Levander
30429 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Mr.&Mrs.O'Sullivan
30466 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Norma Crook
30451 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Jean O'Brien
30438 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Frederic Whitson
30441 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
D.Slutsky
30445 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
R.C.Hoskins
30435 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Janice Spivey
30456 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Kay B.Schoof
30423 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Mr.&Mrs.Fooks
30457 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Phillip Alley
7336 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Donna Butler
30462 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Virginia Leon
30413 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Current Resident
7369 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Nancy Parsons
7361 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Jerene Tussey
30303 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Current Resident
30311 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Mr.&Mrs.Perez
30317 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Current Resident
30327 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Tim Rosseno
30405 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Mr.&Mrs.Ganeko
7313 Via Collado
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Larry Marinovich
7315 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Joseph Yousefpour
7306 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Marjorie C.Carter
7307 Via Collado
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Steve Allen
7301 Via Collado
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
J.P.Agronick
7300 Via Collado
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Patrick C.O'Brien
7310 Via Collado
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Mr.&Mrs.Levander
30429 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Mr.&Mrs.O'Sullivan
30466 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Norma Crook
30451 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Jean O'Brien
30438 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Frederic Whitson
30441 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
D.Slutsky
30445 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
R.C.Hoskins
30435 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Janice Spivey
30456 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Kay B.Schoof
30423 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Mr.&Mrs.Fooks
30457 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Phillip Alley
7336 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Donna Butler
30462 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Virginia Leon
30413 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Current Resident
7369 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Nancy Parsons
7361 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Jerene Tussey
30303 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Current Resident
30311 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Mr.&Mrs.Perez
30317 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Current Resident
30327 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Tim Rosseno
30405 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Mr.&Mrs.Ganeko
7313 Via Collado
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Larry Marinovich
7315 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Joseph Yousefpour
7306 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Marjorie C.Carter
7307 Via Collado
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Steve Allen
7301 Via Collado
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
J.P.Agronick
7300 Via Collado
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Patrick C.O'Brien
7310 Via Collado
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Mr.&Mrs.Levander
30429 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Mr.&Mrs.O'Sullivan
30466 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Norma Crook
30451 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Jean O'Brien
30438 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Frederic Whitson
30441 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
D.Slutsky
30445 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
R.C.Hoskins
30435 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Janice Spivey
30456 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Kay B.Schoof
30423 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Mr.&Mrs.Fooks
30457 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Phillip Alley
7336 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Donna Butler
30462 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Attachment 3-62
Stu Thomson
30463 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Mr.&Mrs.Galvin
7333 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Roola Zulli
7346 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
EwanWhite
7303 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Mr.&Mrs.Liberman
7318 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Mr.&Mrs.Wiggins
7321 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Jim Morrison
7284 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Stu Thomson
30463 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Mr.&Mrs.Galvin
7333 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Roola Zulli
7346 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
EwanWhite
7303 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Mr.&Mrs.Liberman
7318 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Mr.&Mrs.Wiggins
7321 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Jim Morrison
7284 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Stu Thomson
30463 Via Cambron
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Mr.&Mrs.Galvin
7333 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Roola Zulli
7346 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
EwanWhite
7303 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Mr.&Mrs.Liberman
7318 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Mr.&Mrs.Wiggins
7321 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Jim Morrison
7284 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Attachment 3-63
Exhibit C -CorrespondenceExhibitC -CorrespondenceExhibitC -Correspondence
Attachment 3-64
Page 1 of2
Amy Trester
From:Kathy Liberman
Sent:Saturday,March 05,201111:47 AM
To:Amy Trester
Subject:Re:CTRP No.178
Hi Amy,
Thank-you so much for following up with Mr.Rojas and including these additional trimming
suggestions on the notice.I am thrilled.I have to imagine it will be met with appeals and hard feelings
again from my down hill neighbors,sadly.We will see.These suggestions will further inhanse the
views of the other applicants and create views for the neighbors that are of the same level on the street as
my property.If passed they will be very happy as well.The beat goes on.....lf the Planning
Commission were to vote to allow these trimming suggestions (or some of them)at the next meeting in
April would we still be able to have the work completed in this trimming cycle?That would be so
wonderful if that were possible.
Well,I will plan for another lively (tense)meeting in April and hope for the best.Thanks again Amy
for all you efforts for our neighborhood.Hopefully this will be over very soon.Please pass my thanks
on to Mr.Rojas as well.
Most sincerely,
Kathy Liberman
On Sat,Mar 5,2011 at 10:40 AM,Amy Trester <amyl@rpv.com>wrote:
Hi Kathy-
I was calling because I finally got a chance to speak with Joel on Friday about what we could do to
get some additional trimming done on the pine trees.Joel determined that we could issue an
Interpretation of CTRP No.178,where the conditions of approval could be modified to allow
additional trimming to eliminate the significant view impairment from your property.The trimming that
we are recommending is not as extreme as the original trimming recommended in CTRP No.178,
but we believe that this revised trimming would still give you a better view than what you have now,
and eliminate your significant view impairment.We had to mail out the notice on Friday so that the
15-day appeal period can be completed before the public notice is mailed out for the April 12 th
meeting.Thus,if either you or the appellants disagree with and wish to appeal the City's
Interpretation related to the conditions of approval for CTRP No.178,you would just advise me of
that in writing.As stated in the report,no fee would be required,as the appeal can be discussed at
the April 12 th PC meeting that is already scheduled.
You should get a notice in the mail either today or tomorrow with what we are proposing and I have
attached the PDF here for your convenience as well.Thank you.
3/31/2011
Page I of2
Amy Trester
From:Kathy Liberman
Sent:Saturday,March 05,2011 1147 AM
To:Amy Trester
Subject:Re:CTRP No.178
Hi Amy,
Thank-you so much for following up with Mr.Rojas and including these additional trimming
suggestions on the notice.I am thrilled.I have to imagine it will be met with appeals and hard feelings
again from my down hill neighbors,sadly.We will see.These suggestions will further inhanse the
views of the other applicants and create views for the neighbors that are of the same level on the street as
my property.If passed they will be very happy as well.The beat goes on.....!f the Planning
Commission were to vote to allow these trimming suggestions (or some of them)at the next meeting in
April would we still be able to have the work completed in this trimming cycle?That would be so
wonderful if that were possible.
Well,I will plan for another lively (tense)meeting in April and hope for the best.Thanks again Amy
for all you efforts for our neighborhood.Hopefully this will be over very soon.Please pass my thanks
on to Mr.Rojas as well.
Most sincerely,
Kathy Liberman
On Sat,Mar 5,2011 at 10:40 AM,Amy Trester <amy.1@rpv.com>wrote:
Hi Kathy-
I was calling because I finally got a chance to speak with Joel on Friday about what we could do to
get some additional trimming done on the pine trees.Joel determined that we could issue an
Interpretation of CTRP No.178,where the conditions of approval could be modified to allow
additional trimming to eliminate the significant view impairment from your property.The trimming that
we are recommending is not as extreme as the original trimming recommended in CTRP No.178,
but we believe that this revised trimming would still give you a better view than what you have now,
and eliminate your significant view impairment.We had to mail out the notice on Friday so that the
15-day appeal period can be completed before the public notice is mailed out for the April 12 th
meeting.Thus,if either you or the appellants disagree with and wish to appeal the City's
Interpretation related to the conditions of approval for CTRP No.178,you would just advise me of
that in writing.As stated in the report,no fee would be required,as the appeal can be discussed at
the April 12 th PC meeting that is already scheduled.
You should get a notice in the mail either today or tomorrow with what we are proposing and I have
attached the PDF here for your convenience as well.Thank you.
3/31/2011
Page I of2
Amy Trester
From:Kathy Liberman
Sent:Saturday,March 05,201111:47 AM
To:Amy Trester
Subject:Re:CTRP No.178
Hi Amy,
Thank-you so much for following up with Mr.Rojas and including these additional trimming
suggestions on the notice.I am thrilled.I have to imagine it will be met with appeals and hard feelings
again from my down hill neighbors,sadly.We will see.These suggestions will further inhanse the
views of the other applicants and create views for the neighbors that are of the same level on the street as
my property.If passed they will be very happy as well.The beat goes on.....!f the Planning
Commission were to vote to allow these trimming suggestions (or some of them)at the next meeting in
April would we still be able to have the work completed in this trimming cycle?That would be so
wonderful if that were possible.
Well,I will plan for another lively (tense)meeting in April and hope for the best.Thanks again Amy
for all you efforts for our neighborhood.Hopefully this will be over very soon.Please pass my thanks
on to Mr.Rojas as well.
Most sincerely,
Kathy Liberman
On Sat,Mar 5,2011 at 10:40 AM,Amy Trester <amy.1@rpv.com>wrote:
Hi Kathy-
I was calling because I finally got a chance to speak with Joel on Friday about what we could do to
get some additional trimming done on the pine trees.Joel determined that we could issue an
Interpretation of CTRP No.178,where the conditions of approval could be modified to allow
additional trimming to eliminate the significant view impairment from your property.The trimming that
we are recommending is not as extreme as the original trimming recommended in CTRP No.178,
but we believe that this revised trimming would still give you a better view than what you have now,
and eliminate your significant view impairment.We had to mail out the notice on Friday so that the
15-day appeal period can be completed before the public notice is mailed out for the April 12 th
meeting.Thus,if either you or the appellants disagree with and wish to appeal the City's
Interpretation related to the conditions of approval for CTRP No.178,you would just advise me of
that in writing.As stated in the report,no fee would be required,as the appeal can be discussed at
the April 12 th PC meeting that is already scheduled.
You should get a notice in the mail either today or tomorrow with what we are proposing and I have
attached the PDF here for your convenience as well.Thank you.
3/31/2011 Attachment 3-65
Sincerely,
Amy Trester,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
amY.1@[Qv.c_om -(310)544-5228
3/31/2011
Page 2 of2
Sincerely,
Amy Trester,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
amYl@fQv.com -(310)544-5228
3/31/2011
Page 2 of2
Sincerely,
Amy Trester,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
amYl@mv.com -(310)544-5228
3/31/20 II
Page 2 of2
Attachment 3-66
Page 1 of2
Amy Trester
From:
Sent:Monday.March 21.20119:43 AM
To:amyt@rpv.com:
Cc:
Subject:APPEAL
HI AMY:
WE ARE WRITING TO APPEAL THE "INTERPRETATION REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION ON CTRP NO.178."
ALL OF THE 10 CANARY ISLAND PINE TREES,WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF CTRP NO.
2008-0031,HAVE BEEN SEVERELY TRIMMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF JANUARY 11,2011.YOUR PHOTOS FROM THE
VIEWING AREAS OF THE APPLICANTS OF THIS CTRP,INDICATE THAT THEIR VIEWS
HAVE BEEN ADEQUATELY RESTORED.ALL TEN TREES HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY
NEIGHBORS,AND APPEAR TO HAVE ADEQUATE REMAINING FOLIAGE TO ENSURE A
REASONABLE CHANCE OF RECOVERY,AND WILL BE ABLE TO BE SHAPED INTO
ATTRACTIVE,BUT MUCH SMALLER,TREES AND STILL REMAIN A MAJOR ASSET TO
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.IT MIGHT TAKE A YEAR.OR TWO,BEFORE SURVIVAL OF
THESE TREES WILL BE ASSURED.HOWEVER,ADDITIONAL TRIMMING,WITHIN THAT
PERIOD,IS LIKELY TO WEAKEN THE TREES FURTHER,AND DIMINISH THEIR
CHANCES OF SURVIVAL.
FURTHERMORE,DATA FROM WEST COAST ARBORISTS,AND THE CITY'S TRIMMING
SCHEDULE.INDICATE THAT SOME OF THE SEVEN TREES THAT WERE THE SUBJECT
OF THE 2003 CTRP NO.178,HAVE NOT BEEN TRIMMED FOR YEARS,PURSUANT TO
THAT CTRP.THERE IS A PRINCIPLE OF LAW.I.E."LACHES",WHICH APPLIES TO THIS
CASE."LACHES"PROVIDES RELIEF IN CASES,SUCH AS THIS ONE,WHERE A DELAY
IN ACTING ON A RIGHT NEGATES THAT RIGHT WHEN IT PREDJUDICES THE RIGHTS
OF OTHER PARTIES-IN THIS CASE-THE RIGHTS OF RESIDENTS WHO HAVE MADE A
CONCERTED EFFORT TO SAVE THE TREES IN QUESTION.SINCE THEIR SURVIVAL IS
AT RISK.
ALSO.THE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS,IN THE DIRECTOR'S REINTERPRETATION,
DO NOT SEEM REASONABLE.CTRP NO.178 SPECIFIED ONLY THAT THE CROWN OF
THESE SEVEN TREES BE RAISED BY TRIMMING LOWER BRANCHES.ON TREE NO.
FOUR,FOR EXAMPLE,IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT ADDITIONAL LOWER BRANCHES
BE TRIMMED,AFTER NOT HAVING BEEN TRIMMED FOR EIGHT YEARS.
ALSO,THE PHOTO YOU HAVE PROVIDED FROM THE LIEBERMAN'S HOME DOES NOT
PROVIDE ENOUGH DETAIL TO ADEQUATELY ASSESS THE RECOMMENDED
TRIMMING.IN THE CASE OF TREE NUMBER 4,ONE CANNOT DISCERN THE LOWER
BRANCHES THAT IT IS RECOMMENDED BE REMOVED.IT IS APPARENT,HOWEVER,
THAT ANY TRIMMING ON TREE NUMBER 4 WILL ONLY SERVE TO REVEAL MORE OF A
VERY LARGE TREE THAT IS FURTHER IN THE DISTANCE.
Page 1 of2
Amy Trester
From:
Sent:Monday,March 21.20119:43 AM
To:amyt@rpv.com:
Cc:
Subject:APPEAL
HI AMY:
WE ARE WRITING TO APPEAL THE "INTERPRETATION REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION ON CTRP NO.178,"
ALL OF THE 10 CANARY ISLAND PINE TREES,WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF CTRP NO.
2008-0031,HAVE BEEN SEVERELY TRIMMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF JANUARY 11,2011.YOUR PHOTOS FROM THE
VIEWING AREAS OF THE APPLICANTS OF THIS CTRP,INDICATE THAT THEIR VIEWS
HAVE BEEN ADEQUATELY RESTORED.ALL TEN TREES HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY
NEIGHBORS,AND APPEAR TO HAVE ADEQUATE REMAINING FOLIAGE TO ENSURE A
REASONABLE CHANCE OF RECOVERY,AND WILL BE ABLE TO BE SHAPED INTO
ATTRACTIVE,BUT MUCH SMALLER,TREES AND STILL REMAIN A MAJOR ASSET TO
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.IT MIGHT TAKE A YEAR,OR TWO,BEFORE SURVIVAL OF
THESE TREES WILL BE ASSURED.HOWEVER,ADDITIONAL TRIMMING,WITHIN THAT
PERIOD,IS LIKELY TO WEAKEN THE TREES FURTHER,AND DIMINISH THEIR
CHANCES OF SURVIVAL.
FURTHERMORE,DATA FROM WEST COAST ARBORISTS,AND THE CITY'S TRIMMING
SCHEDULE.INDICATE THAT SOME OF THE SEVEN TREES THAT WERE THE SUBJECT
OF THE 2003 CTRP NO.178,HAVE NOT BEEN TRIMMED FOR YEARS,PURSUANT TO
THAT CTRP.THERE IS A PRINCIPLE OF LAW.I.E."LACHES",WHICH APPLIES TO THIS
CASE."LACHES"PROVIDES RELIEF IN CASES.SUCH AS THIS ONE,WHERE A DELAY
IN ACTING ON A RIGHT NEGATES THAT RIGHT WHEN IT PREDJUDICES THE RIGHTS
OF OTHER PARTIES-IN THIS CASE-THE RIGHTS OF RESIDENTS WHO HAVE MADE A
CONCERTED EFFORT TO SAVE THE TREES IN QUESTION,SINCE THEIR SURVIVAL IS
AT RISK.
ALSO,THE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS.IN THE DIRECTOR'S REINTERPRETATION,
DO NOT SEEM REASONABLE.CTRP NO.178 SPECIFIED ONLY THAT THE CROWN OF
THESE SEVEN TREES BE RAISED BY TRIMMING LOWER BRANCHES.ON TREE NO.
FOUR,FOR EXAMPLE,IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT ADDITIONAL LOWER BRANCHES
BE TRIMMED,AFTER NOT HAVING BEEN TRIMMED FOR EIGHT YEARS.
ALSO.THE PHOTO YOU HAVE PROVIDED FROM THE LIEBERMAN'S HOME DOES NOT
PROVIDE ENOUGH DETAIL TO ADEQUATELY ASSESS THE RECOMMENDED
TRIMMING.IN THE CASE OF TREE NUMBER 4,ONE CANNOT DISCERN THE LOWER
BRANCHES THAT IT IS RECOMMENDED BE REMOVED.IT IS APPARENT,HOWEVER,
THAT ANY TRIMMING ON TREE NUMBER 4 WILL ONLY SERVE TO REVEAL MORE OF A
VERY LARGE TREE THAT IS FURTHER IN THE DISTANCE.
Page 1 of2
Amy Trester
From:
Sent:Monday,March 21,20119:43 AM
To:amyt@rpv.com:
Cc:
Subject:APPEAL
HI AMY:
WE ARE WRITING TO APPEAL THE "INTERPRETATION REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION ON CTRP NO.178."
ALL OF THE 10 CANARY ISLAND PINE TREES,WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF CTRP NO.
2008-0031,HAVE BEEN SEVERELY TRIMMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF JANUARY 11,2011.YOUR PHOTOS FROM THE
VIEWING AREAS OF THE APPLICANTS OF THIS CTRP,INDICATE THAT THEIR VIEWS
HAVE BEEN ADEQUATELY RESTORED.ALL TEN TREES HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY
NEIGHBORS,AND APPEAR TO HAVE ADEQUATE REMAINING FOLIAGE TO ENSURE A
REASONABLE CHANCE OF RECOVERY,AND WILL BE ABLE TO BE SHAPED INTO
ATTRACTIVE,BUT MUCH SMALLER,TREES AND STILL REMAIN A MAJOR ASSET TO
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.IT MIGHT TAKE A YEAR,OR TWO,BEFORE SURVIVAL OF
THESE TREES WILL BE ASSURED.HOWEVER,ADDITIONAL TRIMMING,WITHIN THAT
PERIOD,IS LIKELY TO WEAKEN THE TREES FURTHER,AND DIMINISH THEIR
CHANCES OF SURVIVAL.
FURTHERMORE,DATA FROM WEST COAST ARBORISTS,AND THE CITY'S TRIMMING
SCHEDULE,INDICATE THAT SOME OF THE SEVEN TREES THAT WERE THE SUBJECT
OF THE 2003 CTRP NO.178,HAVE NOT BEEN TRIMMED FOR YEARS,PURSUANT TO
THAT CTRP.THERE IS A PRINCIPLE OF LAW,I.E."LACHES",WHICH APPLIES TO THIS
CASE."LACHES"PROVIDES RELIEF IN CASES,SUCH AS THIS ONE,WHERE A DELAY
IN ACTING ON A RIGHT NEGATES THAT RIGHT WHEN IT PREDJUDICES THE RIGHTS
OF OTHER PARTIES-IN THIS CASE-THE RIGHTS OF RESIDENTS WHO HAVE MADE A
CONCERTED EFFORT TO SAVE THE TREES IN QUESTION,SINCE THEIR SURVIVAL IS
AT RISK.
ALSO,THE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS,IN THE DIRECTOR'S REINTERPRETATION,
DO NOT SEEM REASONABLE.CTRP NO.178 SPECIFIED ONLY THAT THE CROWN OF
THESE SEVEN TREES BE RAISED BY TRIMMING LOWER BRANCHES.ON TREE NO.
FOUR.FOR EXAMPLE,IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT ADDITIONAL LOWER BRANCHES
BE TRIMMED,AFTER NOT HAVING BEEN TRIMMED FOR EIGHT YEARS.
ALSO,THE PHOTO YOU HAVE PROVIDED FROM THE LIEBERMAN'S HOME DOES NOT
PROVIDE ENOUGH DETAIL TO ADEQUATELY ASSESS THE RECOMMENDED
TRIMMING.IN THE CASE OF TREE NUMBER 4,ONE CANNOT DISCERN THE LOWER
BRANCHES THAT IT IS RECOMMENDED BE REMOVED.IT IS APPARENT,HOWEVER,
THAT ANY TRIMMING ON TREE NUMBER 4 WILL ONLY SERVE TO REVEAL MORE OF A
VERY LARGE TREE THAT IS FURTHER IN THE DISTANCE.
Attachment 3-67
Page 2 of2
IN SUMMARY,WE ARE APPEALING THAT THE COMMISSION REJECT THE DIRECTOR'S
REINTERPRETATION OF CTRP #178.
RESPECTFULLY,
MIKE O'SULLIVAN
MARGE CARTER
NANCY PARSONS
CINDY HOSKINS
ROB HOSKINS
STU THOMSON
Page 2 of2
IN SUMMARY,WE ARE APPEALING THAT THE COMMISSION REJECT THE DIRECTOR'S
REINTERPRETATION OF CTRP #178.
RESPECTFULLY,
MIKE O'SULLIVAN
MARGE CARTER
NANCY PARSONS
CINDY HOSKINS
ROB HOSKINS
STU THOMSON
Page 2 of2
IN SUMMARY,WE ARE APPEALING THAT THE COMMISSION REJECT THE DIRECTOR'S
REINTERPRETATION OF CTRP #178.
RESPECTFULLY,
MIKE O'SULLIVAN
MARGE CARTER
NANCY PARSONS
CINDY HOSKINS
ROB HOSKINS
STU THOMSON
Attachment 3-68
Amy Trester
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Amy,
Cindy Hall
Monday,March 21,2011 11:38 AM
Amy Trester
Covenants
1-Could you please let me know if the covenants have been completely processed and recorded by the city.
2-Also,did you take a second photograph from the Lieberman view after the trimming that occurred at
Marge's just after the recent trimming undertaken by the city,as you had said you would?We would like to
see that in an email,and as you had said,we are expecting to have it available for view at the meeting in April,
for all to consider.
3-Also,if there is an interruption in the ability of Rob and I to get to the April meeting in time to speak,can we
assign our time back to others attending who can speak in our place,or read a prepared comment from us?
4-Do you have an idea of where within that schedule of the April meeting the topic of the trees will be
scheduled?
Thank you for your time, and dedication to this process.I look forward to your reply.
Best Regards,
Cindy
1
Amy Trester
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Amy,
Cindy Hall
Monday,March 21,2011 11 :38 AM
Amy Trester
Covenants
1-Could you please let me know if the covenants have been completely processed and recorded by the city.
2-Also,did you take a second photograph from the Lieberman view after the trimming that occurred at
Marge's just after the recent trimming undertaken by the city,as you had said you would?We would like to
see that in an email,and as you had said,we are expecting to have it available for view at the meeting in April,
for all to consider.
3-Also,if there is an interruption in the ability of Rob and I to get to the April meeting in time to speak,can we
assign our time back to others attending who can speak in our place,or read a prepared comment from us?
4-Do you have an idea of where within that schedule of the April meeting the topic of the trees will be
scheduled?
Thank you for your time, and dedication to this process.I look forward to your reply.
Best Regards,
Cindy
1
Amy Trester
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Amy,
Cindy Hall
Monday,March 21,2011 11 :38 AM
Amy Trester
Covenants
1-Could you please let me know if the covenants have been completely processed and recorded by the city.
2-Also,did you take a second photograph from the Lieberman view after the trimming that occurred at
Marge's just after the recent trimming undertaken by the city,as you had said you would?We would like to
see that in an email,and as you had said,we are expecting to have it available for view at the meeting in April,
for all to consider.
3-Also,if there is an interruption in the ability of Rob and I to get to the April meeting in time to speak,can we
assign our time back to others attending who can speak in our place,or read a prepared comment from us?
4-Do you have an idea of where within that schedule of the April meeting the topic of the trees will be
scheduled?
Thank you for your time, and dedication to this process.I look forward to your reply.
Best Regards,
Cindy
1 Attachment 3-69
Amy Trester
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello Amy,
Cindy Hall
Wednesday,March 23.2011 11 :23 AM
Amy Trester;
April 12th Meeting Schedule
Thank you for your reply to my previous note.
Can you find out if it is possible to move the timing of when our topic discussion occurs to later within the
schedule of the evening on April 12th.That would give Rob and I the chance to attend in person.Appellants
have let me know that they are open to that idea,that our topic can occur later within that evening schedule.I
look forward to your reply.Thank you Amy.
Best Regards,
Cindy
1
Amy Trester
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello Amy,
Cindy Hall
Wednesday,March 23.2011 11 :23 AM
Amy Trester;
April 12th Meeting Schedule
Thank you for your reply to my previous note.
Can you find out if it is possible to move the timing of when our topic discussion occurs to later within the
schedule of the evening on April 12th.That would give Rob and I the chance to attend in person.Appellants
have let me know that they are open to that idea,that our topic can occur later within that evening schedule.I
look forward to your reply.Thank you Amy.
Best Regards,
Cindy
1
Amy Trester
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello Amy,
Cindy Hall
Wednesday,March 23.2011 11 :23 AM
Amy Trester;
April 12th Meeting Schedule
Thank you for your reply to my previous note.
Can you find out if it is possible to move the timing of when our topic discussion occurs to later within the
schedule of the evening on April 12th.That would give Rob and I the chance to attend in person.Appellants
have let me know that they are open to that idea,that our topic can occur later within that evening schedule.I
look forward to your reply.Thank you Amy.
Best Regards,
Cindy
1 Attachment 3-70
Page 1 of2
Amy Trester
From:Cindy Hall
Sent:Friday,March 25,2011 1028 AM
To:Amy Trester
Cc:Cindy Hall;Marge;Nancy
Subject:Re:April 12th Meeting Schedule
Hello Amy,
Thank you very much for the assistance in moving the tree topic within the schedule,and for the
pertinent information.We will schedule our efforts to best potential.We appreciate your time.
Best Regards,
Cind.:J
On ThuMar 24,201113,at 5:02 PM,Amy Trester wrote:
Hello Cindy-
Please note that I have been informed that the City Tree issue can be moved to be the last
item on the agenda.However,I've been informed that the current item number 4 on the
pre-agenda should not take long,so even though we are moving it to before the City Tree
item,it may not make the City Tree item much later.Also,I've been informed that item #5
on the pre-agenda will not be heard that night.So,you may wish to still have someone
prepared to ask the Planning Commission about reading your statement,as the timing of
the meeting may not be changing much.And/or you may wish to submit your letter by the
date stated in the public notice.Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Trester,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
amyt@rRv.com -(310)544-5228
-----Original Message-----
4/6/2011
Page 1 of2
Amy Trester
From:Cindy Hall
Sent:Friday,March 25,2011 1028 AM
To:Amy Trester
Cc:Cindy Hall;Marge;Nancy
Subject:Re:April 12th Meeting Schedule
Hello Amy,
Thank you very much for the assistance in moving the tree topic within the schedule,and for the
pertinent information.We will schedule our efforts to best potential.We appreciate your time.
Best Regards,
Cind.:J
On ThuMar 24,201113,at 5:02 PM,Amy Trester wrote:
Hello Cindy-
Please note that I have been informed that the City Tree issue can be moved to be the last
item on the agenda.However,I've been informed that the current item number 4 on the
pre-agenda should not take long,so even though we are moving it to before the City Tree
item,it may not make the City Tree item much later.Also,I've been informed that item #5
on the pre-agenda will not be heard that night.So,you may wish to still have someone
prepared to ask the Planning Commission about reading your statement,as the timing of
the meeting may not be changing much.And/or you may wish to submit your letter by the
date stated in the public notice.Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Trester,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
amyt@rpv.com -(310)544-5228
-----OriginaI Message-----
4/6/2011
Page 1 of2
Amy Trester
From:Cindy Hall
Sent:Friday,March 25,2011 10:28 AM
To:Amy Trester
Cc:Cindy Hall;Marge;Nancy
Subject:Re:April 12th Meeting Schedule
Hello Amy,
Thank you very much for the assistance in moving the tree topic within the schedule,and for the
pertinent information.We will schedule our efforts to best potential.We appreciate your time.
Best Regards,
Cind.:J
On ThuMar 24,201113,at 5:02 PM,Amy Trester wrote:
Hello Cindy-
Please note that I have been informed that the City Tree issue can be moved to be the last
item on the agenda.However,I've been informed that the current item number 4 on the
pre-agenda should not take long,so even though we are moving it to before the City Tree
item,it may not make the City Tree item much later.Also,I've been informed that item #5
on the pre-agenda will not be heard that night.So,you may wish to still have someone
prepared to ask the Planning Commission about reading your statement,as the timing of
the meeting may not be changing much.And/or you may wish to submit your letter by the
date stated in the public notice.Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Trester,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
amyt@rpv.com -(310)544-5228
-----OriginaI Message-----
4/6/2011 Attachment 3-71
Page 1 of 1
Amy Trester
From:
Sent:Monday,March 28,2011 4:03 PM
To:amyt@rpv.com
Subject:CTRP
H[AMY:
[S THERE ANY LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF TIMES A PROPERTY OWNER CAN APPLY FOR A CTRP?
THANKS,
M[KEO'S.
4/6/2011
Page 1 of 1
Amy Trester
From:
Sent:Monday,March 28,2011 4:03 PM
To:amyt@rpv.com
Subject:CTRP
H[AMY:
[S THERE ANY LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF TIMES A PROPERTY OWNER CAN APPLY FOR A CTRP?
THANKS,
M[KEO'S.
4/6/2011
Page 1 of 1
Amy Trester
From:
Sent:Monday,March 28,2011 4:03 PM
To:amyt@rpv.com
Subject:CTRP
H[AMY:
[S THERE ANY LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF TIMES A PROPERTY OWNER CAN APPLY FOR A CTRP?
THANKS,
M[KEO'S.
4/6/2011 Attachment 3-72
Amy Trester
From:Kathy Liberman
Sent:Monday,April 04,2011 1:02 PM
To:Amy Trester
SUbject:Interpretation Related to CTRP NO.178 (ZON2011-00053)
Attachments:view restoration.doc
Hello Amy,
Please read my attached letter below in response to notice of decision;dated March 4,2011.
Again,thank you to Mr.Rojas and you both on behalf of our neighborhood.
Most sincerely,
Kathy Liberman
4/4/2011
Page 1 of 1
Amy Trester
From:Kathy Liberman
Sent:Monday,April 04,2011 1:02 PM
To:Amy Trester
SUbject:Interpretation Related to CTRP NO.178 (ZON2011-00053)
Attachments:view restoration.doc
Hello Amy,
Please read my attached letter below in response to notice of decision;dated March 4,2011.
Again,thank you to Mr.Rojas and you both on behalf of our neighborhood.
Most sincerely,
Kathy Liberman
4/4/2011
Page 1 of 1
Amy Trester
From:Kathy Liberman
Sent:Monday,April 04.2011 1:02 PM
To:Amy Trester
SUbject:Interpretation Related to CTRP NO.178 (ZON2011-00053)
Attachments:view restoration.doc
Hello Amy,
Please read my attached letter below in response to notice of decision;dated March 4,2011.
Again,thank you to Mr.Rojas and you both on behalf of our neighborhood.
Most sincerely,
Kathy Liberman
4/4/2011
Page 1 of 1
Attachment 3-73
Hello Amy,
Subject:Interpretation Related to CTRP NO.178 (ZON2011-000S3
I thank-you for all your hard work on behalf of our neighborhood in regard to our view restoration
concerns.I see definite improvement after the trimming but have the following concerns:
Tree No.10 (No.4 in CTRP200S-00031)
The Perez family,(the property owners living adjacent to the tree)made their position very clear
during the meetings and in their correspondence with the city that they did not want the tree
adopted.Given the very substantial damage the tree has done (and will continue to do)the tree
should have been removed during the trimming as stated in the Resolution.Additionally,this
tree,with its great width blocks a iarge portion of my ocean view.
Tree No 7 (No 6 inCTRP200S-00031)
Additional branch removal is recommended to create more transparency through the tree.
Although I appreciate the approach,from my point -of-view iooking at a tree that ends up
like tree No 5 (N09 in CTRP 2008)which I refer to as a "spooky Halloween tree"may not
be a great improvement.If the tree were trimmed lower,and I could see more ocean that
would be an improvement.
Tree No S (No 7 in CTRP2008-00031)
Additional lacing of the tree would be helpful and would make the tree more consistent with
the other trees.
Tree No 5 (No.9 in CTRP2008-00031)
Trimming the tree to the horizon line will open up the Catalina view as well as improve the
spooky,unsightly look of the tree at this time.The look of the tree in its present condition
is truly a liability as well as a eyesore.
Tree No 4 (No 10 in CTRP200S-00031)
This tree clearly blocks all of my ocean and Catalina view.The recommendation to trim the tree
To the horizon is obvious.This tree impairs the views of several neighbors as well.
Tree Nos.6 and 9 (No.8 and 5 in CTR2008-00031)
This seems fine given the other suggestions by the Director in the Interpretation all the trees
would at least have a similar look and similar height.
Elm Trees
Catalina is visible over the elms but only a scant bit of ocean.Please consider the following:
Hello Amy,
Subject:Interpretation Related to CTRP NO.178 (ZON2011-000S3
I thank-you for all your hard work on behalf of our neighborhood in regard to our view restoration
concerns.I see definite improvement after the trimming but have the following concerns:
Tree No.10 (No.4 in CTRP2008-00031)
The Perez family,(the property owners living adjacent to the tree)made their position very clear
during the meetings and in their correspondence with the city that they did not want the tree
adopted.Given the very substantial damage the tree has done (and will continue to do)the tree
should have been removed during the trimming as stated in the Resolution.Additionally,this
tree,with its great width blocks a iarge portion of my ocean view.
Tree No 7 (No 6 inCTRP2008-00031)
Additional branch removal is recommended to create more transparency through the tree.
Although I appreciate the approach,from my point -of-view looking at a tree that ends up
like tree No S (N09 in CTRP 2008)which I refer to as a "spooky Halloween tree"may not
be a great improvement.If the tree were trimmed lower,and I could see more ocean that
would be an improvement.
Tree No 8 (No 7 in CTRP200S-Q0031)
Additional lacing of the tree would be helpfui and would make the tree more consistent with
the other trees.
Tree No 5 (No.9 in CTRP200S-00031)
Trimming the tree to the horizon line will open up the Catalina view as well as improve the
spooky,unsightly look of the tree at this time.The look of the tree in its present condition
is truly a liability as well as a eyesore.
Tree No 4 (No 10 in CTRP2008-00031)
This tree clearly blocks all of my ocean and Catalina view.The recommendation to trim the tree
To the horizon is obvious.This tree impairs the views of several neighbors as well.
Tree Nos.6 and 9 (No.8 and 5 in CTR200S-00031)
This seems fine given the other suggestions by the Director in the Interpretation all the trees
would at least have a similar look and similar height.
Elm Trees
Catalina is visible over the elms but only a scant bit of ocean.Please consider the following:
Hello Amy,
Subject:Interpretation Related to CTRP NO.178 (ZON2011-000S3
I thank-you for all your hard work on behalf of our neighborhood in regard to our view restoration
concerns.I see definite improvement after the trimming but have the following concerns:
Tree No.10 (No.4 in CTRP2008-00031)
The Perez family,(the property owners living adjacent to the tree)made their position very clear
during the meetings and in their correspondence with the city that they did not want the tree
adopted.Given the very substantial damage the tree has done (and will continue to do)the tree
should have been removed during the trimming as stated in the Resolution.Additionally,this
tree,with its great width blocks a iarge portion of my ocean view.
Tree No 7 (No 6 inCTRP2008-00031)
Additional branch removal is recommended to create more transparency through the tree.
Although I appreciate the approach,from my point -of-view looking at a tree that ends up
like tree No S (N09 in CTRP 2008)which I refer to as a "spooky Halloween tree"may not
be a great improvement.If the tree were trimmed lower,and I could see more ocean that
would be an improvement.
Tree No 8 (No 7 in CTRP2008-00031)
Additional lacing of the tree would be helpful and would make the tree more consistent with
the other trees.
Tree No 5 (No.9 in CTRP2008-00031)
Trimming the tree to the horizon line will open up the Catalina view as well as improve the
spooky,unsightly look of the tree at this time.The look of the tree in its present condition
is truly a liability as well as a eyesore.
Tree No 4 (No 10 in CTRP2008-00031)
This tree clearly blocks all of my ocean and Catalina view.The recommendation to trim the tree
To the horizon is obvious.This tree impairs the views of several neighbors as well.
Tree Nos.6 and 9 (No.8 and 5 in CTR2008-00031)
This seems fine given the other suggestions by the Director in the Interpretation all the trees
would at least have a similar look and similar height.
Elm Trees
Catalina is visible over the elms but only a scant bit of ocean.Please consider the following:
Attachment 3-74
View Restoration (ocean view vs.horizon)
As I have stated,the trimming done to date has improved my view,and the trimming suggested
will further help that matter and I am grateful to Amy and Mr.Rojas for all work in this regard.
But,I would like to state that I feel the idea of trimming to the horizon is not the intent of the
View Restoration Ordinance or the Ballot measure that was voted in by RPV voters.We moved
to this property because it had an ocean view.Not a view of the sky (horizon).It has a Catalina
view as well.This is also of great value.My property has both and what I paid reflected this.
The RPV Municipal Code defines the views as ocean,Los Angeles basin,city lights at night,
harbor,Vincent Thomas Bridge,shoreline or off shore islands.Nowhere does it list trees or
horizon.Looking through chopped up trees part of the time and thicker full trees part of the
time to see a bit of ocean does not seem to meet this criteria to protect,enhance and
perpetuate views.Seeing an inch of ocean over the top of a couple of trees is very
compromising.This is an esthetic and financial issue both.To that end,it is probably likely that
my ex husband and I have paid the most property taxes to live in this neighborhood (given that
we moved in later that other applicants and the appellants)and have
done so with very little resolution to our view issue up to this point,for over 10 years.If the
city does not strongly defend the intent of its Municipal Code to protect its most valued view
assets then I fear for all of our property values.Compromise and politics aside,how about doing
what's right?Mr.Rojas's preliminary determination to remove and replace the trees is the
right thing to do.
Thank-you for your consideration,
Most Sincerely,
Kathy Liberman
View Restoration (ocean view vs.horizon)
As I have stated,the trimming done to date has improved my view,and the trimming suggested
will further help that matter and I am grateful to Amy and Mr.Rojas for all work in this regard.
But,I would like to state that I feel the idea of trimming to the horizon is not the intent of the
View Restoration Ordinance or the Ballot measure that was voted in by RPV voters.We moved
to this property because it had an ocean view.Not a view of the sky (horizon).It has a Catalina
view as well.This is also of great value.My property has both and what I paid reflected this.
The RPV Municipal Code defines the views as ocean,Los Angeles basin,city lights at night,
harbor,Vincent Thomas Bridge,shoreline or off shore islands.Nowhere <!oes it list trees or
horizon.Looking through chopped up trees part of the time and thicker full trees part of the
time to see a bit of ocean does not seem to meet this criteria to protect,enhance and
perpetuate views.Seeing an inch of ocean over the top of a couple of trees is very
compromising.This is an esthetic and financial issue both.To that end,it is probably likely that
my ex husband and I have paid the most property taxes to live in this neighborhood (given that
we moved in later that other applicants and the appellants)and have
done so with very little resolution to our view issue up to this point,for over 10 years.If the
city does not strongly defend the intent of its Municipal Code to protect its most valued view
assets then I fear for ail of our property values.Compromise and politics aside,how about doing
what's right?Mr.Rojas's preliminary determination to remove and replace the trees is the
right thing to do.
Thank-you for your consideration,
Most Sincerely,
Kathy Liberman
View Restoration (ocean view vs.horizon)
As I have stated,the trimming done to date has improved my view,and the trimming suggested
will further help that matter and I am grateful to Amy and Mr.Rojas for all work in this regard.
But,I would like to state that I feel the idea of trimming to the horizon is not the intent of the
View Restoration Ordinance or the Ballot measure that was voted in by RPV voters.We moved
to this property because it had an ocean view.Not a view of the sky (horizon).It has a Catalina
view as well.This is also of great value.My property has both and what I paid reflected this.
The RPV Municipal Code defines the views as ocean,Los Angeies basin,city lights at night,
harbor,Vincent Thomas Bridge,shoreline or off shore islands.Nowhere <!oes it list trees or
horizon.Looking through chopped up trees part of the time and thicker full trees part of the
time to see a bit of ocean does not seem to meet this criteria to protect,enhance and
perpetuate views.Seeing an inch of ocean over the top of a couple of trees is very
compromising.This is an esthetic and financial issue both.To that end,i~is probably likely that
my ex husband and I have paid the most property taxes to live in this neighborhood (given that
we moved in later that other applicants and the appellants)and have
done so with very little resolution to our view issue up to this point,for over 10 years.If the
city does not strongly defend the intent of its Municipal Code to protect its most valued view
assets then I fear for all of our property values.Compromise and politics aside,how about doing
what's right?Mr.Rojas's preliminary determination to remove and replace the trees is the
right thing to do.
Thank-you for your consideration,
Most Sincerely,
Kathy Liberman
Attachment 3-75
Amy Trester
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Monday,April 04,2011 5:19 PM
Amy Trester
RE:
Thank you for your reply.I will wait for Emelio to respond.
Nancy and I would like to know if Tuesday morning,April 14,would be too late to submit some photos for our
Hearing on Tuesday evening.And,if this is too late,what would the deadline be?Nancy would also like to
receive any e-mails and/or correspondence between the City and the Applicants since the previous set of e-
mail and correspondence which you provided.
----Amy Trester <amyt@rpv.com>wrote:
=============
Hello Marge-
I have referred your question to Emilio in Public Works and he should get back to you within a day or so,as he
is handling this issue.Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Trester,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
amyt@rpv.com -(310)544-5228
-----Original Messaae-----
From:
Sent:Friday,April 01,2011 11 :07 AM
To:Amy Trester
Cc:
SUbject:
Has it been determined yet who is responsible for the illegal trimming of the New Zealand Christmas tree
located on Berry Hill Drive?Emilio said he would send a letter to the resident adjacent to the tree.We would
like to know the outcome.
Marge Carter
1
Amy Trester
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Monday,April 04,2011 5:19 PM
Amy Trester
RE:
Thank you for your reply.I will wait for Emelio to respond.
Nancy and I would like to know if Tuesday morning,April 14,would be too late to submit some photos for our
Hearing on Tuesday evening.And,if this is too late,what would the deadline be?Nancy would also like to
receive any e-mails and/or correspondence between the City and the Applicants since the previous set of e-
mail and correspondence which you proVided.
----Amy Trester <amyt@rpv.com>wrote:
=============
Hello Marge-
I have referred your question to Emilio in Public Works and he should get back to you within a day or so,as he
is handling this issue.Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Trester,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
amyt@rpv.com -(310)544-5228
-----Original Messaae-----
From:
Sent:Friday,April 01,2011 11 :07 AM
To:Amy Trester
Cc:
SUbject:
Has it been determined yet who is responsible for the illegal trimming of the New Zealand Christmas tree
located on Berry Hill Drive?Emilio said he would send a letter to the resident adjacent to the tree.We would
like to know the outcome.
Marge Carter
1
Amy Trester
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Monday,April 04,2011 5:19 PM
Amy Trester
RE:
Thank you for your reply.I will wait for Emelio to respond.
Nancy and I would like to know if Tuesday morning,April 14,would be too late to submit some photos for our
Hearing on Tuesday evening.And,if this is too late,what would the deadline be?Nancy would also like to
receive any e-maiis and/or correspondence between the City and the Applicants since the previous set of e-
maii and correspondence which you provided.
----Amy Trester <amyt@rpv.com>wrote:
=============
Hello Marge-
I have referred your question to Emilio in Public Works and he should get back to you within a day or so,as he
is handling this issue.Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Trester,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
amyt@rpv.com -(310)544-5228
-----Original Messaae-----
From:
Sent:Friday,April 01,2011 11 :07 AM
To:Amy Trester
Cc:
SUbject:
Has it been determined yet who is responsible for the illegal trimming of the New Zealand Christmas tree
located on Berry Hill Drive?Emilio said he would send a letter to the resident adjacent to the tree.We would
like to know the outcome.
Marge Carter
1 Attachment 3-76
Amy Trester
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Wednesday,March 30,2011 2:48 PM
Amy Trester
'Joel Rojas';'Greg Pfost';'Nancy Parsons';'Emilio Blanco';
RE:Tree trimming schedule
'Cindy Hall'
Thank you for your clarification and verification of the trimming schedules for the Canary Island Pines located
on Via Collado and Via Cambron 2003 thru 2011
----Amy Trester <amyt@rpv.com>wrote:
=============
Hello Marge-
Please see your questions listed below with my answers.
Please confirm that all of the above information is accurate,or,if it is not accurate,please provide the correct
analysis for tree trimming maintenance done on Via Collado and Via Cambron to satisfy the View Ordinance
during the time period 2003 -2011
>From the records I was able to find regarding the work history for the
>view
restoration trimming for the Pine trees on Via Collado and Via Cambron,I believe this information is accurate.
Please also confirm that the above-listed Canary Island Pines do not appear on West Coast Arborists'
schedule which would indicate that View Restoration work was actually completed on the dates shown on the
City's maintenance schedule for these same trees.
You are correct that the above-listed Canary Island Pines do not appear on West Coast Arborists'(WCA)
schedule,however,I believe that the work was indeed completed,as I have a bill for the work.A portion of
this bill
(attached)was copied and pasted into the document,"Work History-1-1-03 thru 3-8-11-View &PW"that I had
attached to my 3/24 email.As I stated in my email sent 3/24,the street names of Via Cambron and Via
Collado appeared to have been switched on the bill and the supervisor at WCA believes this error is why the
trimming in 2003 was not entered into WCA's database of trimming history.
Thank you.
1
Amy Trester
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Wednesday,March 30,2011 2:48 PM
Amy Trester
'Joel Rojas';'Greg Pfost';'Nancy Parsons';'Emilio Blanco';
RE:Tree trimming schedule
'Cindy Hall'
Thank you for your clarification and verification of the trimming schedules for the Canary Island Pines located
on Via Collado and Via Cambron 2003 thru 2011
----Amy Trester <amyt@rpv.com>wrote:
:=:==:==:::===:===::::
Hello Marge-
Please see your questions listed below with my answers.
Please confirm that all of the above information is accurate,or,if it is not accurate,please provide the correct
analysis for tree trimming maintenance done on Via Collado and Via Cambron to satisfy the View Ordinance
during the time period 2003 -2011
>From the records I was able to find regarding the work history for the
>view
restoration trimming for the Pine trees on Via Collado and Via Cambron,I believe this information is accurate.
Please also confirm that the above-listed Canary Island Pines do not appear on West Coast Arborists'
schedule which would indicate that View Restoration work was actually completed on the dates shown on the
City's maintenance schedule for these same trees.
You are correct that the above-listed Canary Island Pines do not appear on West Coast Arborists'(WCA)
schedule,however,I believe that the work was indeed completed,as I have a bill for the work.A portion of
this bill
(attached)was copied and pasted into the document,"Work History-1-1-03 thru 3-8-11-View &PW"that I had
attached to my 3/24 email.Aslstated in my email sent 3/24,the street names of Via Cambron and Via
Collado appeared to have been switched on the bill and the supervisor at WCA believes this error is why the
trimming in 2003 was not entered into WCA's database of trimming history.
Thank you.
1
Amy Trester
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Wednesday,March 30,2011 2:48 PM
Amy Trester
'Joel Rojas';'Greg Pfost';'Nancy Parsons';'Emilio Blanco';
RE:Tree trimming schedule
'Cindy Hall'
Thank you for your clarification and verification of the trimming schedules for the Canary Island Pines located
on Via Collado and Via Cambron 2003 thru 2011
----Amy Trester <amyt@rpv.com>wrote:
=====::::=======
Hello Marge-
Please see your questions listed below with my answers.
Please confirm that all of the above information is accurate,or,if it is not accurate,please provide the correct
analysis for tree trimming maintenance done on Via Collado and Via Cambron to satisfy the View Ordinance
during the time period 2003 -2011
>From the records I was able to find regarding the work history for the
>view
restoration trimming for the Pine trees on Via Collado and Via Cambron,I believe this information is accurate.
Please also confirm that the above-listed Canary Island Pines do not appear on West Coast Arborists'
schedule which would indicate that View Restoration work was actually completed on the dates shown on the
City's maintenance schedule for these same trees.
You are correct that the above-listed Canary Island Pines do not appear on West Coast Arborists'(WCA)
schedule,however,I believe that the work was indeed completed,as I have a bill for the work.A portion of
this bill
(attached)was copied and pasted into the document,"Work History-1-1-03 thru 3-8-11-View &PW"that I had
attached to my 3/24 email.As I stated in my email sent 3/24,the street names of Via Cambron and Via
Collado appeared to have been switched on the bill and the supervisor at WCA believes this error is why the
trimming in 2003 was not entered into WCA's database of trimming history.
Thank you.
1 Attachment 3-77
Sincerely,
Amy Trester,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
amyt@rpv.com -(310)544-5228
-----Original Message-----
From:_
Sent:Friday,March 25,2011 8:54 AM
To:Amy Trester
Cc:'Greg Pfost';'Joel Rojas';'Nancy Parsons';'Emilio Blanco';.
Subject:RE:Tree trimming schedule
'Cindy Hall'
Amy -thank you for sending the maintenance schedules relative to View Restoration pruning on certain
Canary Island Pines located in the public-right-of-way on Via Cambron and Via Collado.
We have spent a considerable amount of time analyizing the various work schedules from Planning
Commission,Public Works and West Coast Arborists.
The latest schedules seem to indicate the pruning maintenance completed in order to satisfy the View
Ordinance for the Canary Island Pines located on
Via Collado and Via Cambron is as follows:
2 Berry Hill pines -work done 5/3/06
7313 Via Collado -work done 10/9/03
30327 Via Cambron -work done 10/14/03
30405 Via Cambron -work done 10/14/03
30317 Via Cambron -work done 10/15/03
5411 Via Collado (?)work done 10/15/03
We are not certain which tree the "5411 Via Collado"
2
Sincerely,
Amy Trester,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
amyt@rpv.com -(310)544-5228
-----Original Message-----
From:_
Sent:Friday,March 25,2011 8:54 AM
To:Amy Trester
Cc:'Greg Pfost';'Joel Rojas';'Nancy Parsons';'Emilio Blanco';.
Subject:RE:Tree trimming schedule
'Cindy Hall'
Amy -thank you for sending the maintenance schedules relative to View Restoration pruning on certain
Canary Island Pines located in the public-right-of-way on Via Cambron and Via Collado.
We have spent a considerable amount of time analyizing the various work schedules from Planning
Commission,Public Works and West Coast Arborists.
The latest schedules seem to indicate the pruning maintenance completed in order to satisfy the View
Ordinance for the Canary Island Pines located on
Via Collado and Via Cambron is as follows:
2 Berry Hill pines -work done 5/3/06
7313 Via Collado -work done 10/9/03
30327 Via Cambron -work done 10/14/03
30405 Via Cambron -work done 10/14/03
30317 Via Cambron -work done 10/15/03
5411 Via Collado (?)work done 10/15/03
We are not certain which tree the "5411 Via Collado"
2
Sincerely,
Amy Trester,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
amyt@rpv.com -(310)544-5228
-----Original Message-----
From:_
Sent:Friday,March 25,2011 8:54 AM
To:Amy Trester
Cc:'Greg Pfost';'Joel Rojas';'Nancy Parsons';'Emilio Blanco';.
Subject:RE:Tree trimming schedule
'Cindy Hall'
Amy -thank you for sending the maintenance schedules relative to View Restoration pruning on certain
Canary Island Pines located in the public-right-of-way on Via Cambron and Via Collado.
We have spent a considerable amount of time analyizing the various work schedules from Planning
Commission,Public Works and West Coast Arborists.
The latest schedules seem to indicate the pruning maintenance completed in order to satisfy the View
Ordinance for the Canary Island Pines located on
Via Collado and Via Cambron is as follows:
2 Berry Hill pines -work done 5/3/06
7313 Via Collado -work done 10/9/03
30327 Via Cambron -work done 10/14/03
30405 Via Cambron -work done 10/14/03
30317 Via Cambron -work done 10/15/03
5411 Via Collado (?)work done 10/15/03
We are not certain which tree the "5411 Via Collado"
2 Attachment 3-78
entry pertains to,as there is not a 5411 address
on Via Collado
Also,on the above schedule,we have changed three of the addresses to read "Via Cambron"
as the addresses
do not relate to Via Collado
Please confirm that all of the above information is accurate,or,if it is not accurate,please provide the correct
analysis for tree trimming maintenance done on Via Collado and Via Cambron to satisfy the View
Ordinance during the time period 2003 -2011 Please also confirm that the
above-listed Canary Island Pines do not appear on West Coast Arborists'
schedule which would indicate that View Restoration work was actually completed on the dates shown on the
City's maintenance schedule for these same trees.
Thank you.
----Amy Trester <amyt@rpv.com>wrote:
=============
Hi Marge-
I have reviewed View Restorations records in regards to City tree trimming,
and have found some information per your request.
The trimming of two of the Berry Hill trees was requested by View
Restoration on April 25,2006,and the work was completed on May 3,2006.
have shown screen shots of the two documents with this information and
highlighted these trees on the attached document,"Berry Hill Pines
3
entry pertains to,as there is not a 5411 address
on Via Collado
Also,on the above schedule,we have changed three of the addresses to read "Via Cambron"
as the addresses
do not relate to Via Collado
Please confirm that all of the above information is accurate,or,if it is not accurate,please provide the correct
analysis for tree trimming maintenance done on Via Collado and Via Cambron to satisfy the View
Ordinance during the time period 2003 -2011 Please also confirm that the
above-listed Canary Island Pines do not appear on West Coast Arborists'
schedule which would indicate that View Restoration work was actually completed on the dates shown on the
City's maintenance schedule for these same trees.
Thank you.
----Amy Trester <amyt@rpv.com>wrote:
=============
Hi Marge-
I have reviewed View Restorations records in regards to City tree trimming,
and have found some information per your request.
The trimming of two of the Berry Hill trees was requested by View
Restoration on April 25,2006,and the work was completed on May 3,2006.
have shown screen shots of the two documents with this information and
highlighted these trees on the attached document,"Berry Hill Pines
3
entry pertains to,as there is not a 5411 address
on Via Collado
Also,on the above schedule,we have changed three of the addresses to read "Via Cambron"
as the addresses
do not relate to Via Collado
Please confirm that all of the above information is accurate,or,if it is not accurate,please provide the correct
analysis for tree trimming maintenance done on Via Collado and Via Cambron to satisfy the View
Ordinance during the time period 2003 -2011 Please also confirm that the
above-listed Canary Island Pines do not appear on West Coast Arborists'
schedule which would indicate that View Restoration work was actually completed on the dates shown on the
City's maintenance schedule for these same trees.
Thank you.
----Amy Trester <amyt@rpv.com>wrote:
=============
Hi Marge-
I have reviewed View Restorations records in regards to City tree trimming,
and have found some information per your request.
The trimming of two of the Berry Hill trees was requested by View
Restoration on April 25,2006,and the work was completed on May 3,2006.
have shown screen shots of the two documents with this information and
highlighted these trees on the attached document,"Berry Hill Pines
3 Attachment 3-79
History".
I have also attached a document titled "Work History-1-1-03 thru 3-8-11-View
and PW"that shows that work was completed on the Via Cambron Trees and the
Via Collado trees in 2003 for CTRP No.178.(upper portion of page)This
same document also shows the work history for these trees.in the West Coast
Arborist database (lower portion of page).As you can see,the work
completed in 2003,as shown on the bill located on the upper portion of the
page,is not shown in the work histories on the lower portion of the page.
As you may also notice,the street names of Via Cambron and Via Collado on
the upper portion of the page appear to have been switched,and this error
appears to be why this trimming was not listed in WCA's database of trimming
history.For example,one address is listed as 7313 Via Cambron,which
should be listed as 7313 Via Collado.
Sincerely,
4
History".
I have also attached a document titled "Work History-1-1-03 thru 3-8-11-View
and PW"that shows that work was completed on the Via Cambron Trees and the
Via Collado trees in 2003 for CTRP No.178.(upper portion of page)This
same document also shows the work history for these trees.in the West Coast
Arborist database (lower portion of page).As you can see,the work
completed in 2003,as shown on the bill located on the upper portion of the
page,is not shown in the work histories on the lower portion of the page.
As you may also notice,the street names of Via Cambron and Via Collado on
the upper portion of the page appear to have been switched,and this error
appears to be why this trimming was not listed in WCA's database of trimming
history.For example,one address is listed as 7313 Via Cambron,which
should be listed as 7313 Via Collado.
Sincerely,
4
History".
I have also attached a document titled "Work History-1-1-03 thru 3-8-11-View
and PW"that shows that work was completed on the Via Cambron Trees and the
Via Collado trees in 2003 for CTRP No.178.(upper portion of page)This
same document also shows the work history for these trees.in the West Coast
Arborist database (lower portion of page).As you can see,the work
completed in 2003,as shown on the bill located on the upper portion of the
page,is not shown in the work histories on the lower portion of the page.
As you may also notice,the street names of Via Cambron and Via Collado on
the upper portion of the page appear to have been switched,and this error
appears to be why this trimming was not listed in WCA's database of trimming
history.For example,one address is listed as 7313 Via Cambron,which
should be listed as 7313 Via Collado.
Sincerely,
4 Attachment 3-80
Amy Trester,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
amyt@rpv.com -(310)544-5228
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent:Friday,March 18,2011 5:40 PM
To:Amy Trester
Cc:'Joel Rojas';'Greg Pfost';'Nancy Parsons';'Emilio Blanco';
Subject:RE:Tree trimming schedule
5
Amy Trester,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
amyt@rpv.com -(310)544-5228
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent:Friday,March 18,2011 5:40 PM
To:Amy Trester
Cc:'Joel Rojas';'Greg Pfost';'Nancy Parsons';'Emilio Blanco';
Subject:RE:Tree trimming schedule
5
Amy Trester,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
amyt@rpv.com -(310)544-5228
----Original Message-----
From:
Sent:Friday,March 18,2011 5:40 PM
To:Amy Trester
Cc:'Joel Rojas';'Greg Pfost';'Nancy Parsons';'Emilio Blanco';
Subject:RE:Tree trimming schedule
5 Attachment 3-81
Thank you for your help in providing us with the tree trimming schedule.
This schedule does not seem to correspond with the schedule we received from
West Coast Arborists.There are listings on the City's schedule which do
not appear on WCA schedule.Basically,we are trying to determine if any of
the Canary Island Pines on Via Collado,Via Cambron and Berry Hill have been
trimmed since 2003.We would appreciate it very much if you would verify
this.Thank you.
----Amy Trester <amyt@rpv.com>wrote:
=============
Hi Marge-
Thank you for your email.Please note that there is no set schedule for
6
Thank you for your help in providing us with the tree trimming schedule.
This schedule does not seem to correspond with the schedule we received from
West Coast Arborists.There are listings on the City's schedule which do
not appear on WCA schedule.Basically,we are trying to determine if any of
the Canary Island Pines on Via Collado,Via Cambron and Berry Hill have been
trimmed since 2003.We would appreciate it very much if you would verify
this.Thank you.
----Amy Trester <amyt@rpv.com>wrote:
=============
Hi Marge-
Thank you for your email.Please note that there is no set schedule for
6
Thank you for your help in providing us with the tree trimming schedule.
This schedule does not seem to correspond with the schedule we received from
West Coast Arborists.There are listings on the City's schedule which do
not appear on WCA schedule.Basically,we are trying to determine if any of
the Canary Island Pines on Via Collado,Via Cambron and Berry Hill have been
trimmed since 2003.We would appreciate it very much if you would verify
this.Thank you.
----Amy Trester <amyt@rpv.com>wrote:
=============
Hi Marge-
Thank you for your email.Please note that there is no set schedule for
6 Attachment 3-82
view restoration trimming of City Trees,as there is in Public Works.The
process that occurs with City trees that were subject to the City Tree
Review Permit (CTRP)process when the City did the trimming is the
following:An applicant of a previous CTRP notices that the trees subject
to an old CTRP have grown back into the view.This applicant contacts the
City,and View Restoration staff place the trees on a trimming request list,
which is then forwarded to West Coast Arborist (WCA).Because trees grow at
different rates,the City waits to hear from an applicant requesting the
trimming for the tree SUbjected to these old permits.This maintenance
trimming of "grandfathered"CTRPs typically occurs once every month or two,
when View staff has enough requests to forward to WCA.
As we discussed at our meeting on Wednesday,March 9th,the trimming history
from the West Coast Arborist database (which I believe you have already
7
view restoration trimming of City Trees,as there is in Public Works.The
process that occurs with City trees that were subject to the City Tree
Review Permit (CTRP)process when the City did the trimming is the
following:An applicant of a previous CTRP notices that the trees subject
to an old CTRP have grown back into the view.This applicant contacts the
City,and View Restoration staff place the trees on a trimming request list,
which is then forwarded to West Coast Arborist (WCA).Because trees grow at
different rates,the City waits to hear from an applicant requesting the
trimming for the tree SUbjected to these old permits.This maintenance
trimming of "grandfathered"CTRPs typically occurs once every month or two,
when View staff has enough requests to forward to WCA.
As we discussed at our meeting on Wednesday,March 9th,the trimming history
from the West Coast Arborist database (which I believe you have already
7
view restoration trimming of City Trees,as there is in Public Works.The
process that occurs with City trees that were subject to the City Tree
Review Permit (CTRP)process when the City did the trimming is the
following:An applicant of a previous CTRP notices that the trees subject
to an old CTRP have grown back into the view.This applicant contacts the
City,and View Restoration staff place the trees on a trimming request list,
which is then forwarded to West Coast Arborist (WCA).Because trees grow at
different rates,the City waits to hear from an applicant requesting the
trimming for the tree SUbjected to these old permits.This maintenance
trimming of "grandfathered"CTRPs typically occurs once every month or two,
when View staff has enough requests to forward to WCA
As we discussed at our meeting on Wednesday,March 9th,the trimming history
from the West Coast Arborist database (which I believe you have already
7 Attachment 3-83
obtained from Public Works,and which I provided for you at the March 9th
meeting as well)contains entries from all types of trimming,including
trimming for view requests.Unfortunately,the database entries don't
specify who requested the trimming,e.g."View Restoration trimming
request."
However,to give you all the information possible,I have also searched
through the trimming requests that we have on record,which go back to 2001.
I have attached all the bills and trimming requests that I was able to find
that mention any trees on Via Cambron,Via Collado and Berry Hill,adjacent
to Via Cambron.
Please also note that I asked about your question regarding if there was a
8
obtained from Public Works,and which I provided for you at the March 9th
meeting as well)contains entries from all types of trimming,including
trimming for view requests.Unfortunately,the database entries don't
specify who requested the trimming,e.g."View Restoration trimming
request."
However,to give you all the information possible,I have also searched
through the trimming requests that we have on record,which go back to 2001.
I have attached all the bills and trimming requests that I was able to find
that mention any trees on Via Cambron,Via Collado and Berry Hill,adjacent
to Via Cambron.
Please also note that I asked about your question regarding if there was a
8
obtained from Public Works,and which I provided for you at the March 9th
meeting as well)contains entries from all types of trimming,including
trimming for view requests.Unfortunately,the database entries don't
specify who requested the trimming,e.g."View Restoration trimming
request."
However,to give you all the information possible,I have also searched
through the trimming requests that we have on record,which go back to 2001.
I have attached all the bills and trimming requests that I was able to find
that mention any trees on Via Cambron,Via Collado and Berry Hill,adjacent
to Via Cambron.
Please also note that I asked about your question regarding if there was a
8 Attachment 3-84
statue of limitations for City Tree Review Permits.Because the trimming
the Director has recommended in the Interpretation is essentially just some
revised maintenance for an approved and closed CTRP,a statue of limitations
issue is not applicable.
Sincerely,
Amy Trester,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
9
statue of limitations for City Tree Review Permits.Because the trimming
the Director has recommended in the Interpretation is essentially just some
revised maintenance for an approved and closed CTRP,a statue of limitations
issue is not applicable.
Sincerely,
Amy Trester,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
9
statue of limitations for City Tree Review Permits.Because the trimming
the Director has recommended in the Interpretation is essentially just some
revised maintenance for an approved and closed CTRP,a statue of limitations
issue is not applicable.
Sincerely,
Amy Trester,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
9 Attachment 3-85
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
amyt@rpv.com -(310)544-5228
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent:Thursday,March 17,2011 4:14 PM
To:Amy Trester
Cc:Nancy Parsons
Subject:Tree trimming schedule
10
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
amyt@rpv.com -(310)544-5228
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent:Thursday,March 17,2011 4:14 PM
To:Amy Trester
Cc:Nancy Parsons
Subject:Tree trimming schedule
10
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.comlrpv
amyt@rpv.com -(310)544-5228
--Original Message--
From:
Sent:Thursday,March 17,2011 4:14 PM
To:Amy Trester
Cc:Nancy Parsons
Subject:Tree trimming schedule
10 Attachment 3-86
--Amy -please forward the tree trimming schedule from 2003 until 2011
regarding City street trees located on Via Cambron and Via Collado.We have
the trimming schedule from Public Works but also need the schedule from
Planning .Emilio Blanco has advised me that you would be able to provide
the information we need.Thank you.
Marge Carter
Marge Carter
11
--Amy -please forward the tree trimming schedule from 2003 until 2011
regarding City street trees located on Via Cambron and Via Collado.We have
the trimming schedule from Public Works but also need the schedule from
Planning .Emilio Blanco has advised me that you would be able to provide
the information we need.Thank you.
Marge Carter
Marge Carter
11
--Amy -please forward the tree trimming schedule from 2003 until 2011
regarding City street trees located on Via Cambron and Via Collado.We have
the trimming schedule from Public Works but also need the schedule from
Planning .Emilio Blanco has advised me that you would be able to provide
the information we need.Thank you.
Marge Carter
Marge Carter
11 Attachment 3-87
Page 1 of 1
Amy Trester
From:
Sent:Tuesday,April 12,2011 2:06 PM
To:amyl@rpv.com
Subject:Re:APRIL 12TH HEARING
AMY:
THE PHOTO I AM REFERING TO WAS SENT ON APRIL 10TH.IT WAS SENT FROM A DIFFERENT EMAIL
ADDRESS THAT I USE ONLY FOR PHOTOS.PERHAPS YOU MISLAID FOR THAT REASON.
I SENT IT AGAIN,A FEW MOMENTS AGO.
IT IS A COPY OF A CITY PHOTO THAT IS USED FREQUENTLY IN RPV DOCUMENTS AND
PRESENTATIONS.YOU PROBABLY ALREADY HAVE IT IN YOUR POWER POINT CHARTS.
I WOULD LIKE TO REFER TO IT,IN MY COMMENTS.
THANKS,
MIKE O'S.
6/29/2011 Attachment 3-88
Page 1 of 1
Amy Trester
From:Mike O'Sullivan
Sent:Tuesday,April 12,2011 2:00 PM
To:AMY TRESTER
Subject:PHOTOS FOR APRIL 12TH HEARING
HI AMY:
BELOW IS A COPY OF THE EMAIL I SENT YOU ON APRIL 10TH,ALONG WITH THE PHOTO
THAT I WOULD LIKE TO USE IN TONIGHT'S COMMENTS.THE PHOTO IS A COPY OF A
CITY PHOTO,ONE USED FREQUENTLY IN THE CITY LITERATURE,AND
PRESENTATIONS.
THANKS,
MIKEO'S.
HI AMY (4/10/11):
PLEASE ADD THE PHOTO BELOW TO YOUR PHOTOS FOR THE HEARING NEXT
TUESDAY.1 WOULD LIKE TO REFER TO IT IN MY COMMENTS.
THANKS,
MIKE O'SULLIVAN
6/29/2011 Attachment 3-89
Amy Trester
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
April 12 Sign
in.docx (SO KB)
Cindy Hall.
Tuesday,April 12,2011 6:52 AM
Amy Trester
Cindy Hall;Marge;
Sign in for PC Meeting April 12
April 12 Sign in.docx
Amy,
Please see this enclosed letter pertinent to this evenings proceedings.Thank you for your time.
Cindy
-'
1 Attachment 3-90
April 12,
2011
RE:Sign in for Meeting and Delegations of Speaking Time,if too Late
Dear RPV Staff,
Please accept this written notification as our sign in for the opportunity to speak at
the Planning Commission Meeting April 12,2011.As I have informed you in the
past,we,Cindy and Rob Hoskins may be late in checking into the meeting tonight,
and wish to offer this document as our sign in to speak this evening.We would also
like to offer to surrender our speaking time to any of our other appealing party if we
are not able to arrive at this evenings meeting before the close of our topics of
discussion are closed.
Thank you for your time and dedication.
Cindy Hoskins and Rob Hoskins
Attachment 3-91
Page 1 of 1
Amy Trester
From:
Sent:Monday,April 11,2011 5:39 PM
To:amyt@rpv.com
Cc:
Subject:APRIL 12 Planning Committee input
Attachments:April 12 comments.docx;Tree #6.jpg;Tree #7.jpg;Trees #1 - 3 April 10,2011.jpg;Trees #9
&10.jpg
Please see attached comments and four photos, Jim Morrison
6/29/2011 Attachment 3-92
Subject:RPV Planning Committee Meeting,April 12,2011
City Tree Review Permit No.2008·0031
I believe the current recommendations stop short of permanent corrective action.Your earlier
decision to remove the trees was the correct one.
In addition to my prior comments,I submit the following:
Trees#1-3:The current lacing does not improve the view.Topping or removal will.This would
expose the private property trees that also contribute to view impairment.They can be addressed
separately.To leave the trees as they are can only lead to each of the contributors citing the other's
trees as the offenders.Picture dated April 11 attached.
Tree #6:The enclosed picture shows the proximity to the storm drain and current curb damage.A
different location should be considered when it is replaced.
Tree #7:The enclosed picture shows that the same condition exists as with tree #6.It just isn't as
advanced,yet.
Trees # 9 and 10:The picture indicates that in the near future,if not now,this segment of sidewalk
will need to be replaced as the roots grow.As I understand it,this becomes the financial burden to
the property owner;neither the adoptee nor the city.
I thank the Committee and Staff for their patience and understanding throughout this exercise.
Politics may be the art of compromise,but sometimes it doesn't work and you have to just do the
right thing.
Jim Morrison
7284 Berry Hill Drive
April 12,2011
Attachment 3-93
Attachment 3-94
Attachment 3-95
Attachment 3-96
Attachment 3-97
Amy Trester
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sunday,April 10,2011 10:21 PM
amyt@rpv.com;...
"e:Ht::ARING ON STREET TREES
-.Jc@rpv.com;
Your letter is excellent.If you send this letter in advance,they will come up with an argument to all of your
points.But,there is probably no alternative.One correction -the word"fallacy "-needs to be pluralized ="
fallacies"
,n wrote:
=============
HI AMY:
I HAVE REVIEWED YOUR RECENT STAFF REPORT,AND I AM SYMPATHETIC TO YOUR EFFORTS TO
PRESERVE THE L1EBERMANS'VIEW,WHILE ALSO JUDGING THAT OUR STREET TREES NO LONGER
"SIGNIFICANTLY"IMPAIR THE VIEWS OF THE FOUR CURRENT APPLICANTS.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE TIMING OF ANY FURTHER TRIMMING OF THESE TREES IS CRITICAL TO
THEIR SURVIVAL.
REGARDLESS OF ANY LEGAL ARGUMENT,IT IS ONLY COMMON SENSE THAT ANY FURTHER
TRIMMING BE DELAYED UNTIL THE TREES HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO RECOVER,AND SHOW
PROMISE OF SURVIVAL,OTHERWISE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE EFFORT TO PRESERVE
THEM IS COMPROMISED.THE TREES HAVE NOT BEEN TRIMMINED PURSUANT TO THE
L1EBERMANS'CTRP FOR EIGHT YEARS.WHY NOW,WHEN THE TREES HAVE ALREADY BEEN SO
SEVERELY TRIMMED AND ARE VULNERABLE?
THE DIRECTOR'S REINTERPRETATION OF THE L1EBERMANS'CTRP (#178),CALLS FOR FURTHER
TOPPING,FURTHER LACING,AND LOWER BRANCH REMOVAL OF SOME OF THESE
TREES.BUT THESE TREES HAVE ALREADY BEEN SEVERELY TOPPED AND LACED.YOUR
PHOTOS DEMONSTRATE THIS CLEARLY.
CTRP #178 REQUIRED ONLY THAT ALL SEVEN OF THESE TREES HAVE THEIR CROWNS
RAISED BY TRIMMING THE LOWER BRANCHES.NO TOPPING WAS REQUIRED,NO LACING WAS
REQUIRED.
FURTHERMORE,I DISAGREE WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S CASUAL DISMISSAL OF THE LACHES
ARGUMENT,IE."...THE PRINCIPLE OF "LACHES"DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE TREES WERE
TRIMMED IN 2003,IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE APPROVAL OF CTRP NO.178.
AND BECAUSE THESE ARE CITY OWNED TREES AND THUS THERE IS NO PREDJUDICE
AGAINST THE RIGHTS OF THE APPELANTS ..."(SEE PAGE 3 OF AMY'S APRIL 12TH MEMO
TO THE COMMISSION.)
THERE ARE THREE FALLACY HERE:
1)THE CITY IS THE CITIZENS,WHICH INCLUDES ALL OF THE APPELANTS.
2)THE LOWER BRANCHES THAT THE DIRECTOR NOW WANTS REMOVED ARE MAJOR
BRANCHES WHICH CLEARLY HAVE NOT GROWN SINCE 2003.THEY WERE NOT REMOVED IN
2003,NOR SUBSEQUENTLY THEREFORE,THE CITY AND THE L1EBERMANS HAVE FORFITTED
THEIR RIGHT (LACHES)TO HAVE THEM REMOVED NOW,PURSUANT TO CTRP #178.THE
1 Attachment 3-98
SAME ARGUMENT APPLIES TO TOPPING THESE TREES.
THIS ARGUMENT IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY AMY'S STATEMENT (PAGE 4 OF AMY'S APRIL 12TH MEMO
TO THE COMMISSION)THAT "..IF THE ORIGINAL TRIMMING IS COMPLETED,THE LEVEL THAT THE
TREES ARE TO BE CROWN-RAISED TO (TRIMMED UP TO)IS APPROXIMATELY THE SAME LEVEL
THAT THE TREES HAVE BEEN TRIMMED DOWN TO PER RESOLUTION2011-01 ..."
WHAT BEDER TESTIMONY TO THE FACT THAT THE TREES WERE NEVER TRIMMED ADEQUATELY
TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF CTRP #178.
3)IN JUSTIFYING THE FACT THAT NO TRIMMING OF THESE TREES,PURSUANT TO
CTRP #178,HAS BEEN PERFORMED BY THE CITY SINCE 2003,AMY STATES THAT SUCH
TRIMMING "..IS (ONLY)DONE ON THE BASIS OF REQUESTS FROM THE APPLICANTS ..."
SEE PAGE 3 OF AMY'S APRIL 12TH MEMO TO THE COMMISSION.THUS,NEITHER THE
L1EBERMANS NOR THE CITY HAVE EVER EXERCISED THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE TRIMMING
REQUIRED BY CTRP #178 PERFORMED.
AS I UNDERSTAND IT,THE L1EBERMANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPLY FOR ANOTHER CTRP TO HAVE
THE TREES,IN THEIR CURRENT CONDITION,TRIMMED TO RESTORE THEIR
VIEW.I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS COURSE OF ACTION WOULD BE BENIFICIAL TO THE
L1EBERMANS,NOR TO THE CITY,NOR THE RESIDENTS WHO WISH TO PRESERVE THESE TREES.
THE SENSIBLE COURSE,I BELIEVE,IS TO ALLOW THE TREES TO RECOVER FOR AT LEAST TWO TO
THREE YEARS,OR UNTIL THE CITY ARBOR 1ST BELIEVES THE SURVIVAL IS ASSURED,AND THEN
EVALUATE THE L1EBERMANS'VIEW,AND REQUIRE TRIMMING,IF NECESSARY,SIMILAR TO WHAT
THE DIRECTOR HAS SUGGESTED IN HIS REINTERPRETATION.
I URGE THE COMMISSION TO SO RESOLVE.
RESPECTFULLY,
MIKE O'SULLIVAN
Marge Carter
2 Attachment 3-99
Page 1 of2
Amy Trester
From:
Sent:Sunday,April 10,2011 7:45 PM
To:amyt@rpv.com;pc@rpv.com;
Subject:HEARING ON STREET TREES
HI AMY:
I HAVE REVIEWED YOUR RECENT STAFF REPORT,AND I AM SYMPATHETIC TO YOUR EFFORTS TO
PRESERVE THE LlEBERMANS'VIEW,WHILE ALSO JUDGING THAT OUR STREET TREES NO LONGER
"SIGNIFICANTLY"IMPAIR THE VIEWS OF THE FOUR CURRENT APPLICANTS.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE TIMING OF ANY FURTHER TRIMMING OF THESE TREES IS CRITICAL TO
THEIR SURVIVAL.
REGARDLESS OF ANY LEGAL ARGUMENT,IT IS ONLY COMMON SENSE THAT ANY FURTHER TRIMMING
BE DELAYED UNTIL THE TREES HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO RECOVER,AND SHOW PROMISE OF
SURVIVAL,OTHERWISE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE EFFORT TO PRESERVE THEM IS
COMPROMISED. THE TREES HAVE NOT BEEN TRIMMINED PURSUANT TO THE LlEBERMANS'CTRP
FOR EIGHT YEARS.WHY NOW,WHEN THE TREES HAVE ALREADY BEEN SO SEVERELY TRIMMED AND
ARE VULNERABLE?
THE DIRECTOR'S REINTERPRETATION OF THE LlEBERMANS'CTRP (#178),CALLS FOR FURTHER
TOPPING,FURTHER LACING,AND LOWER BRANCH REMOVAL OF SOME OF THESE TREES.BUT THESE
TREES HAVE ALREADY BEEN SEVERELY TOPPED AND LACED.YOUR PHOTOS DEMONSTRATE THIS
CLEARLY.
CTRP #178 REQUIRED ONLY THAT ALL SEVEN OF THESE TREES HAVE THEIR CROWNS RAISED BY
TRIMMING THE LOWER BRANCHES,NO TOPPING WAS REQUIRED,NO LACING WAS REQUIRED.
FURTHERMORE,I DISAGREE WITH THE CITY AITORNEY'S CASUAL DISMISSAL OF THE LACHES
ARGUMENT,I.E ......THE PRINCIPLE OF "LACHES"DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE TREES WERE
TRIMMED IN 2003,IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE APPROVAL OF CTRP NO.178.AND BECAUSE THESE ARE
CITY OWNED TREES AND THUS THERE IS NO PREDJUDICE AGAINST THE RIGHTS OF THE
APPELANTS .....(SEE PAGE 3 OF AMY'S APRIL 12TH MEMO TO THE COMMISSION.)
THERE ARE THREE FALLACY HERE:
1)THE CITY IS THE CITIZENS,WHICH INCLUDES ALL OF THE APPELANTS.
2)THE LOWER BRANCHES THAT THE DIRECTOR NOW WANTS REMOVED ARE MAJOR BRANCHES
WHICH CLEARLY HAVE NOT GROWN SINCE 2003.THEY WERE NOT REMOVED IN 2003,NOR
SUBSEQUENTLY THEREFORE,THE CITY AND THE LlEBERMANS HAVE FORFIITED THEIR RIGHT
(LACHES)TO HAVE THEM REMOVED NOW,PURSUANT TO CTRP #178.THE SAME ARGUMENT APPLIES
TO TOPPING THESE TREES.
THIS ARGUMENT IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY AMY'S STATEMENT (PAGE 4 OF AMY'S APRIL 12TH MEMO TO
THE COMMISSION)THAT .....IF THE ORIGINAL TRIMMING IS COMPLETED,THE LEVEL THAT THE TREES
ARE TO BE CROWN-RAISED TO (TRIMMED UP TO)IS APPROXIMATELY THE SAME LEVEL THAT THE
TREES HAVE BEEN TRIMMED DOWN TO PER RESOLUTION2011-01.....
WHAT BEITER TESTIMONY TO THE FACT THAT THE TREES WERE NEVER TRIMMED ADEQUATELY TO
SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF CTRP #178.
3)IN JUSTIFYING THE FACT THAT NO TRIMMING OF THESE TREES,PURSUANT TO CTRP #178,HAS
6/29/2011 Attachment 3-100
Page 2 of2
BEEN PERFORMED BY THE CITY SINCE 2003,AMY STATES THAT SUCH TRIMMING "...IS (ONLY)DONE
ON THE BASIS OF REQUESTS FROM THE APPLICANTS ..."SEE PAGE 3 OF AMY'S APRIL 12TH MEMO TO
THE COMMISSION.THUS,NEITHER THE L1EBERMANS NOR THE CITY HAVE EVER EXERCISED THE
RIGHT TO HAVE THE TRIMMING REQUIRED BY CTRP #178 PERFORMED.
AS I UNDERSTAND IT,THE L1EBERMANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPLY FOR ANOTHER CTRP TO HAVE
THE TREES,IN THEIR CURRENT CONDITION,TRIMMED TO RESTORE THEIR VIEW.I DO NOT BELIEVE
THAT THIS COURSE OF ACTION WOULD BE BENIFICIAL TO THE L1EBERMANS,NOR TO THE CITY,NOR
THE RESIDENTS WHO WISH TO PRESERVE THESE TREES.
THE SENSIBLE COURSE,I BELIEVE,IS TO ALLOW THE TREES TO RECOVER FOR AT LEAST TWO TO
THREE YEARS,OR UNTIL THE CITY ARBORIST BELIEVES THE SURVIVAL IS ASSURED,AND THEN
EVALUATE THE L1EBERMANS'VIEW,AND REQUIRE TRIMMING,IF NECESSARY,SIMILAR TO WHAT THE
DIRECTOR HAS SUGGESTED IN HIS REINTERPRETATION.
I URGE THE COMMISSION TO SO RESOLVE.
RESPECTFULLY,
MIKE O'SULLIVAN
6/29/2011 Attachment 3-101
04/12/2011 15:32 FAX
PIO &VELAR!A PE.RE.z
302,1'7 VIA C,lUVlGRON
F"<ANCHO P.6.L05 Vr.-SRDE5,CA E\0275
PrlONE (3iO)541-2072
F(~><;(310)541--2072
I iVj 00·c:,-I'"ANT,!I"~.~~I ,
Il!J 001/002
To:/-\I"1Y TRESTEf~FAX:(310)544-5293
FROM PIO '"VEL.f.\RIA PEREZ DATE:
TRE;E NO.4,
CTRP2008-00031
••••
............~.....................
Attachment 3-102
04/12/2011 15:32 FAX
3031 "t'Via Cambron
HaIlcno Palos Verdes,C1',90276
April 12,20ll
1\48.P..:my 'rrester,AS:3oci2.te Planl1er
Pla,Dxling,Building,and Coele Enfo)~cement
Oity of Ra..ncho Palos Verdes
309·10 Ha:w";;horne Blvd.
Bancho Pa,los Verdes,CA.90275
Dear Ms.'frester:
~0021002
This is to inform you that today,April 12,we have received a lette:i:'written by
Maljorie C3J'te1'and Na...Tlcy Parsons on behalf of the neighbors who signed the
previous 8.ppeal.
IFle understand.our neig"hbors l concerns;hO"WGVGI\otU"deaisio!l.n.ot to have
T1'ee No ..~adopted Tiuwt rem.ain the :,ame.As we explO',ined earlier,01U'
property is sustaining sif\nificant damage due to Tree No.4's root growth,and
we are incurring the cost.
As 'l're will not be attending tonight's hearing,w0uJcl you please r81ay our
response to the PlanniIl..g Corrunission?
~'hm)kyou.
Best Regarcis,
,,',,'.'-." .·_·r
Pia B.Pere.:6 j
Attachment 3-103
Dear Val &Pio:January 16,2011
We,your neighbors,would like to appeal to you to reconsider your opposition to allowing
the pine tree in your parking strip to be adopted.
We feel strongly that our street t~ees a~e a very important asset to our neighborhood,both
aesthetically,and in terms of property values.Removing them,after fifty years of growth,is
such an ~l'reversible act,that we hope you will give adoption an opportunity to succeed.The
tree in your parking strip,i.e.tree #4,is the healthiest and most beautiful of the group,and it
would be tragic to lose it.
It is unfortunate that you have had to incur the cost of repairing the sidewalk damaged by this
tree's roots.It seems that this should be the City's responsibility.
We are concerned,however,that,even if the tree is removed,you will continue to have
problems with root infestation into your sewer line.Roots from other plants in your yard,as
well as from more remote trees,and even lawn roots,can cause this problem.Repair of the
sewer line with modern technology,however,could offer a permanent solution.
Many of us have had this problem,in the past,and have been able to correct it with such
repairs.We are willing to work with you to find a solution.Some ofus have offered to
consider helping with the cost of repair.
One of our Via Cambron neighbor families,Rob and Cindy Hoskins,have had their sewer
repaired and have friends who had theirs repaired very recently.The plumber they chose
seemed both efficient and reasonable.They took photos of the pipe interior both before and
after tbe repair,and guaranteed their work for 25 years.The Hoskins point out that there is
also insurance available,at very reasonable cost,that will cover the cost of repair,if you
conti nue to have a problem.
Sev\ll:a1.neighbors have offered to adopt one or more of these Canary Island Pine Trees.
There is'a Mi15hbor willing 10 adopt #4,if you will permit it.
. .:~;f.?.
As youptol>!tbly understand,if this tree is adopted,the City will require that it be trimmed
each year,at·the adopter's expense.This requirement will go with the adopter's property,so
that,if the home is sold,the new owners would be required to continue to have the trees
trimmed annually.Should they,or any subsequent owner,fail to continue the trimming,the
City will remove the tree.
With annual trimming,the older growth would be largely eliminated each year,which would
minimize 'the amount of droppings from the tree.
If you are willing to discuss this possibility,please contact Barbara or Mike O'Sullivan
),who will be our spokespersons for this issue.
Thank you for your consideration,and for always being good neighbors.
Sincerely,
ADDRESS
301l-~{;f/~~?P<
Attachment 3-104
NAME ADDRESS
._-----_."-~..._--_.----
.'/""~'.'''.:".-.-'";..""
<1)cJ -I H VL;.'{~......,a..-
yoqc£U l~~\'\D~
ld ts/-!/ar&?Jf!roJ/'
loUt 04-CAM ~
-301£7 ':-j{;)~~
~~t.J b~~lu.Cd.k1 t-dY\
\301fo ~Yr:o-Can..bme--.
QD,-\DS VYo....0A rJe-yQ'l~'
31)1-13 t:,,~
'"
aIJf&A JIW {!/Wrl""J
Jo/:1/0A (A.ua/lO{!
36'-fS5 \))A--~.,lt~I'-.1
3 a 'BS"Vs CAM tzfLON
13tJ7 (La ~
~~~
2rj{,.~
~JJd1)/
~-.~~-~~
i .i I.-:
~;;:;:d
Attachment 3-105
ADDRESS
~YD l n!\Col Lfd2:J
:J '"300 VlC,-(~G-&.u
~t-v1 v\tL~~
'::f3G /~r "'tf lid ('J)('-tl/~
7:?)&~/(rj;4~,tj-?!/
1 3 2&I3frYZj /fc!IA I?PIJ
fJt/~/~//?~
Attachment 3-106
Petition ~se~~g Neighb~rnooaK1gn-cs ~ECE'VE
Junsdletion Over City Trees l#-»APR 12 201:
08 Dec 2010 PLANNING,BUILDINGA~!r
We the undersigned RPV residents of the Via Cambron,\RitE ENFORCEMEN,
Collado,and Berry Hill neighborhood believe that the mature
City trees on our streets provide material value to all our
neighborhood properties and enhance the quality of our lives.
As such we believe that we all have a vested interest and a
right to have our opinions count in deciding the fate of these
trees.We believe that giving the abutting resident veto power
over adoption amounts to the City giving away City property to
an individual resident.We believe that the City ofRPV must·
allow adoption of any of these trees by an interested party
willing to enter into an adoption covenant with the City,and
that the abutting resident may not interfere with this covenant.
Address
"1 ~0 V\()...CoH tA do
~N,tf\~oa1'S
Attachment 3-107
Petition Asserting Neighborhood Rights in
Jurisdiction Over City Trees
/\i IJ A ~08 Dec 2010
,
Attachment 3-108
Dear Mr.&Mrs.Perez:
L{~~I EIVED
APR 12 2011
PlANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
As you can see from the attached Petition,your neighbors on Via Cambron and Via Collado are
appealing to you again to allow the adoption of the street tree which is in the public right-of-way
in front of your residence.
Previously,you have declined our request.We are asking you to have a change of heart.
There are several reasons why it is so important to preserve this particular street tree.
I.Our neighborhood is comprised of older homes,most having never been remodeled in
50 years.The street trees provide a "softening"effect to the appearance of the
entire rreighoorhood.Without these street trees,the c!'>.arm of the p.eigh..-hnrt-nod
would be non-existent.
2.It is a fact that our property values are directly affected by the existence of these trees.
The trees are the first impression when entering the neighborhood.The tree in front
of your house is of utmost importance to the ambiance of the entire neighborhood.
3.We,your neighbors,feel so strongly about the importance of these street trees that
several ofus have consented to having a Covenant placed on our property deeds.
This Covenant will require us to maintain the trees we would be responsible for.
We are willing to incur this cost,because we believe that saving the street trees
Is imperative to the intewity of the nei~borhood.
4.All of the neighbors who have street trees adjacent to their property have allowed them to
be adopted.In fact,some have adopted the tree in front oftheir residence.
You are the only hold-outs.
We hope that you will consider the neighborhood street trees to be an asset to your property and
not a liability.We are aware that you have some concerns regarding damage that you perceive is
caused by the tree in front of your house.However,all ofus have some cracks in our cement
garage floors.These cracks are not necessarily caused by tree roots.The ground in Palos Verdes
is continually shifting and it is inevitable that this shifting will manifest itself in some foundation
cracks which are not a serious condition.
Regarding your perceived sewer line problem -contact the Public Works Department and ask
them to analyze the situation.You have many trees on your property,and it would be difficult,if
not impossible,to attribute root problems to anyone tree.
We hope that you will be a good neighbor and reconsider your position on saving the street tree
in front of your home.Remember,that the street trees were originally planted for the benefit and
enjoyment of the entire neighborhood and not just for any particular resident.
To release Tree #4 for adoption-
Marjorie Carter Nancy Parsons Call:City Hall 310-377-0360 (Amy Trester)
Attachment 3-109
April 12,2011
RE:PHOTOS FOR PRESENTATION
Dear RPV Staff,
Please import these photos into the computer for access during the presentation this
evening.Thank you.
Best Regards,
Cindy Hoskins and Rob Hoskins
Attachment 3-110
Ioen
;;1\--:::Jen....
-0
:::::Jo
~oen
I
~
......L.
Attachment 3-111
Ioen
;1\--::Jen
Attachment 3-112
-'
I
)
0en
~--::::sen....
-U
::J'"
0
,.-.+
0en
I
=1:1:
W
Attachment 3-113
Ioen
7'--:::Jen
"'"
Attachment 3-114
I
0
(J)
7'--:::J
(J)....
-u
:::J'"
~"0,.....
0
(J)
it"I
=I:;:
y:~
Attachment 3-115
Ioen
;1';--::Jen....
Attachment 3-116
Ioen
;1\;--:::Jen
Attachment 3-117
",
Ioen
'7\--:::Jen
Attachment 3-118
Ioen
"--~en
-u
::J'"o
r-+oen
I
:t;:
00
Attachment 3-119
Ioen
"--~en
Attachment 3-120
t
Ioen
"--:::Jen....
Attachment 3-121
Ioen
;1J:;--:::Jen
-u
::::To......oen
I
:ij:
......L
......L
Attachment 3-122
Attachment 3-123
Ioen
7'--~en
Attachment 3-124
Io
CJ)
;;1\--.·C-'::J
CJ)....
Attachment 3-125
Page 1 of 1
Amy Trester
From:
Sent:Friday,April 08,2011 4:22 PM
To:amyt@rpv.com
Subject:APRIL 12TH HEARING
AMY:
DO I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY THAT THE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE TRIMMING IN
RESTORING THE CURRENT APPLICANTS'VIEWS,AND OUR APPEAL OF THE RE-INTERPRETATION OF
THE 2003 CTRP WILL BE SEPARATE ITEMS ON TUESDAY'S AGENDA?
THANKS,
MIKEO'S.
4/11/2011 Attachment 3-126
CALL TO ORDER
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 12,2011
Approved
MaY24~
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:10 p.m.at the Fred Hesse
Community Room,29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.
FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Leon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ATTENDANCE
Present:
Absent:
Commissioners Gerstner,Knight,Leon,Vice Chairman Tetreault,and
Chairman Tomblin.
Commissioners Emenhiser and Lewis were excused
Also present were Community Development Director Rojas,Associate Planner Trester
and Associate Planner Mikhail.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Because agenda item Nos.3 and 4 are related items,the Commission agreed to open
the public hearing for both of these items at the same time.With that,the Agenda was
approved without objection.
COMMUNICATIONS
Director Rojas reported that at their last meeting the City Council continued the item
regarding the gossible elimination of the temporary special event banner sign program
to the April 19 h meeting.He also reported that at the April 19lh meeting the City Council
will also consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of an addition at 21
Cayuse Lane.
Director Rojas distributed 12 items of correspondence and 4 photographs for agenda
item NO.3 and 9 items of correspondence and 5 photographs for agenda item NO.5.
Chairman Tomblin reported that he attended the monthly Mayor's Breakfast.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items):
Attachment 3-127
trademark their logos and then request their signage be altered to comply with their
trademark.
Commissioner Knight felt this was a valid point,but noted that the Commission is also
making an exception to allow the three signs,which is also something that the City
would not grant to any other tenant in the center.He felt that the motion should be
clarified that if the Admiral Risty were to vacate the property,that the rights to the three
signs and the blue color would leave with them.
Commissioner Gerstner asked if there was some characteristic of the Admiral Risty that
makes them unique from all of the other typical tenants of the center which would allow
for the proposed exception to the sign program to be made.
Commissioner Knight answered that it would be for the same stated reason for allowing
the Admiral Risty to have three signs,which is that their signs were in place long before
there was a sign program at the center.
Chairman Tomblin stated that the Admiral Risty has been at this site for thirty plus years
and in itself is a trademark of the community.He agreed with the idea that if the
Admiral Risty vacates that it's sign rights go with it.He understood the Vice Chainman's
comments and stated they were well taken.He stated that he can support the
amendment.
The amendment to the motion to allow blue color on the Admiral Risty signs was
approved,(4-1)with Vice Chairman Tetreault dissenting.
Director Rojas stated the motion before the Commission is to adopt staff's
recommendation with the additional conditions to specify how the temporary signs will
be affixed to the building,to review compliance of the sign program at the same time as
the next review of the Golden Cove Center,to clarify that the time for temporary
banners begins on the submittal of the sign application,and that the Admiral Risty signs
are allowed to be blue.
The motion was approved,(5-0),and PC Resolution 2011-016 approving the
revision to the Golden Cove Master Sign Program was approved.
3.Trimming follow-up for City Tree Review Permit (Case No.VRP2008-00031):
Via CambronNia Collado/Berry Hill
4.Appeal of interpretation of City Tree Review Permit No.178
As agreed,item Nos.3 and 4 were presented to the Commission together and would be
discussed and heard at the same time.
Director Rojas began by explaining a Planning Commission decision was preViously
made on the City Tree Review Permit,the trimming was done,and this is the follow-up
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12,2011
Page 5
Attachment 3-128
hearing required by the Planning Commission to assess the trimming at the time of the
Commission's decision on the City Tree Review Permit.Staff noted that there was a
different application decision involving most of the same trees,including a different
applicant,and there were questions on how the views from the different applicant would
be assessed.Staff had taken the position that the trimming would be done for the City
Tree Permit and then staff would assess the view from the other applicant's property to
see if additional trimming would still be required.The trimming was done and it was
discovered that if further trimming was done to satisfy the requirements of the other
application there would be no limbs left on these trees.He explained there is a
provision in the Code which states that the body that makes the final decision can make
an interpretation to clarify certain conditions of approval.Thus,an interpretation of the
conditions of approval was made by staff which requires some additional trimming of
seven of the ten trees included with the City Tree Review Permit,and this interpretation
has been appealed.Therefore,agenda item Nos.3 and 4 are being heard together.
Associate Planner Trester presented the staff report,explaining the first item before the
Commission is the follow-up view assessment for the trimming completed for a City
Tree Review Permit.She showed pictures of the applicants'properties before the tree
trimming and again after the trees were trimmed.She stated that staff believes the
significant view impairment from all four of the applicant's properties has been
eliminated due to the trimming of tree Nos.1 through 10.She noted that staff has
received correspondence from Mr.and Mrs.Perez indicating they still do not consent to
tree NO.4 being adopted.Because they do not consent,staff has scheduled the
removal of tree NO.4 for early May.
In regards to agenda item No.4,Associate Planner Trester explained that the item is an
appeal of the Director's interpretation of the conditions of approval for City Tree Review
Permit No.178.She gave a brief background of CTRP No.178,noting the trees in
question are the same pine trees that were recently trimmed for CTRP 2008-31.She
explained that the amount of trimming that had just occurred as a result of CTRP 2008-
31 had significantly changed the conditions of the trees also subject to CTRP No.178,
and as a result the Director determined that these circumstances warranted an
interpretation review of the conditions of approval.With that,the Director issued an
interpretation review which modified the conditions of approval related to CTRP No.
178.This interpretation was then appealed.Ms.Trester briefly explained the revised
conditions of approval per the interpretation and that staff believes the additional
required trimming will eliminate the significant view impairment for the applicant.She
summarized the appeal letter statements,but noted that staff did not feel that any new
information was received to change staffs recommendation.Therefore,staff was
recommending the Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director's interpretation
of the conditions of approval.
Vice Chairman Tetreault disclosed that one of the applicants,Mrs.Liberman,is a friend
of his however his friendship with her will not alter his interpretation,evaluation,or
decision of these matters.He also stated that he has not discussed any of these issues
with Mrs.Liberman.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12,2011
Page 6
Attachment 3-129
Commissioner Knight also disclosed that he is friends with the Libermans and the
Parsons,however that will not affect his decision.
Commissioner Leon stated his mother lives on Via Cambron,however her home is not
near any of the trees being discussed.
Commissioner Leon asked staff the current height of the trees in question that need
additional trimming.
Associate Planner Trester did not know the exact height the trees were trimmed to,but
had photographs of the trees taken from street level.She noted that City owned trees
are not subject to the same height requirements as privately owned trees.
Chairman Tomblin asked staff if the City Arborist has rendered an opinion on whether or
not there will be permanent damage done to these trees if there is further trimming
done.
Associate Planner Trester answered that she reviewed photographs of the trees with
the arborist from West Coast Arborist to try to determine if additional trimming might
render the trees unable to survive.The arborist stated that Canary Island Pines are
able to survive extensive trimming,however if the trees do die it would be difficult to
determine if it was the extensive initial trimming or if was the minor additional trimming
that caused the trees to die.He felt that the trees would likely survive,but could not say
that with any certainty.
Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing.
Ann Marinovich (7315 Berry Hill Drive)stated she is happy with the results of the
trimming,she still has serious concerns regarding staffs interpretation of the trimming in
terms of topping to the horizon and then trimming the trees.She stated there is nothing
in the Resolution that provides for that,and showed a photograph of tree NO.1 0 that
was topped to the horizon line.She felt tree No.1 0 still causes a significant view
impairment from her home.She also referred to tree Nos.1,2,and 3 which were
originally considered to be a significant view impairment but were later taken off of the
application.She felt these trees cause a significant view impairment not only for her but
for the other applicants as well,and argued that these trees are not on the peripheral of
the viewing area.She asked that the Commission direct staff to top all of the trees
down to the level of the shoreline rather than the horizon line.
Marlene Galvin (7333 Berry Hill Drive)stated the Canary Island Pines have been
crowned,severely laced,and trimmed and her view has been greatly improved.Still,
she wished to express some concerns.She explained that the trimming to the horizon
rather than the ocean view has left thick trunks and branches sticking up through the
ocean view to the horizon and is unsightly.She hoped that in the future the Municipal
Code would be followed so others do not have an unsightly view.Secondly,Canary
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12.2011
Page 7
Attachment 3-130
Island Pines Nos.1,2,and 3 have been severely laced and trimmed but because they
are layered,only small pockets of ocean are visible through the thick multiple trunks,
vertical branches and foliage.Even though these pines may be in the peripheral,they
are still well within the view.Lastly,she expressed her concern with tree No.10.She
explained it was not considered to be in her ocean view and therefore not included as
having a significant view impairment.However,with the topping of tree Nos.9 and 10 a
near view of the hillside to upper Point Vicente was revealed.She stated that staff did
not evaluate the final trimming results of tree NO.1 0 and its effect on her Upper Pointe
Vicente and hillside near view.She stated there are many branches which obscure the
hillside.
Tim Galvin stated he is trying to avoid a future problem rather than address the present
problem,referring to condition NO.6 in the conditions of approval which allows for a
trimming period from November through February.He noted that tree sponsors are
required to trim the trees during a certain time period each year,and asked if city staff
will remind the sponsors to trim the trees.He asked what happens in February if the
trees are not trimmed,do they have to wait until November.
Mike O'Sullivan asked the Commission in evaluating the applicants'restored views to
try to strike a balance between the applicants'rights and those of the neighbors who
value and wish to preserve the trees.He asked that the Commission uphold the staffs
views and recommendations that the applicants'views have been adequately restored.
With respect to reinterpretation,he felt that any further trimming of these trees to
preserve views would be detrimental to their chances of survival.He stated that
common sense dictates that any further trimming be delayed until these severely
trimmed trees have had a chance to recover and show promise of survival.Otherwise,
the whole purpose of the effort to preserve them will have become compromised.He
stated the trees have not been trimmed pursuant to the Liberman's CTRP for eight
years,and questioned why they have to be trimmed now when the trees have been so
severely trimmed and are vulnerable.He felt there was also a legal argument which
applies to this case,referring to latches,and disagreed with the City Attorney's
dismissal of the argument.He did not feel either the City or the Libermans have
exercised their right to trim the trees as required by CTRP 178.He asked that the trees
be allowed to recover for at least two or three years or until the City Arborist feels their
survival is assured and then evaluate the Libermans view and require trimming similar
to what the Director has suggested in his reinterpretation.
Stu Thomson (30463 Via Cambron)stated that much staff and Commission time has
gone into this application to try to resolve the issues in a manner that will attempt to be
fair to all involved.He felt that this was done with the January Resolution by directing
certain tree trimming actions that were carried out in February under very close staff
supervision.He felt the staffs Resolution with its follow-up review is well done and
thorough,and the report's conclusion is reasonable.He felt that it can be decided to
continue to debate whether views have been restored adequately,or move forward
accepting that in disputes such as this it is rare that all parties will be completely
satisfied with the Commission's decisions.He felt everyone should step back and take a
Planning CommIssion Minutes
Aprtl 12.2011
Page 8
Attachment 3-131
breath and agree to let the trees and the habitat recover for a few years before the
chain saws are taken out again and more importantly,let the neighborhood heal over
what has become a very divisive issue.
Nancy Parsons stated that in regards to agenda item No.3,she felt City staff did a good
and diligent job with the trimming and that the trimming done does satisfy the
requirements of the resolution.She discussed tree Nos.1-3 and reminded the
Commission that there is just one property from which these trees were said to have
caused a significant view impairment.These trees were excluded in the original
decision and were considered not considered not significant,and that decision was not
appealed by those home owners.Therefore,comments made about the trees being
view impairment should be considered irrelevant,as the trees cannot be considered.In
reviewing the language for the covenants,she felt that since the adoption scheme was
thought up by the city it should be administered by the city.She proposed that any time
a neighbor is not able to continue the adoption covenant that the tree be re-noticed
among the potential pool of adopters.In regards to tree No.4,she did not believe that
an abutting neighbor should have the power to have a tree removed that has no proven
Public Works Department issues,and is contrary to other parts of the City codes.She
agreed with Mr.O'Sullivan that the latches argument applies in regards to item No.4.
She noted that even though Mrs.L.,iberman spoke at the last public hearing,there was
no mention of a previous CTRP,only that she had asked the City to trim the trees.She
did not feel the trees should be trimmed in further,as further trimming now will most
likely put the trees at risk.
Marjorie Carter explained that she has requested and received trimming schedules from
2003 through 2011 for the trees in question from the View Restoration staff,Public
Works staff,and from West Coast Arborists.She noted that the View Restoration
schedule reflects trimming done in October 2003 to satisfy CTRP 178.However,the
West Coast Arborist schedule does not reflect any trimming done on Via Collado or Via
Cambron in 2003 through 2011.She was told by staff,however,that the City has an
invoice from West Coast Arborist showing trimming done in October 2003.She felt this
substantiates the argument that no interest has been shown or action taken in trimming
these trees to correct any view impairment from Berry Hill Drive since the original CTRP
178 was filed in 2003.Because these trees have not been trimmed since 2003,she did
not think it was appropriate to trim them now,as they need time to recover from their
recent severe trimming.Regarding tree No.4,she explained that the Perez family's
claims that the tree roots has caused damage to their residence is unsubstantiated,as
there are many trees in the Perez yard,and noted that they still have not contacted the
Public Works Department to report a problem.She asked how one resident can have
control over City properly,which belongs to all residents.She requested the City defer
action on tree No.4 and consider one of the following options:the City omit tree NO.4
from the adoption option and accept responsibility and maintain it like any other City
tree or waive the adoption restriction and allow another neighbor to adopt the tree.She
also asked that the City waive the option for adoption of this one tree and maintain the
tree as a city tree.
Planning Commission Minutes
Apri112,2011
Page 9
Attachment 3-132
Director Rojas explained that the rules for adoption are in the Code as a result of a
previous policy decision made by the City Council.The City Code states that a city tree
that significantly impairs a view is to be removed and there is a provision for adoption
which very clearly states that the abutting neighbor must consent to the tree being
adopted.
Kathy Liberman (7318 Berry Hill Drive)stated she is speaking in regards to agenda item
NO.4.She stated that because her neighbors seem to take issue with her not asking
the City to trim the tree since 2003,she would explain her reasons.She explained in
2003 the City raised the crown and laced the tree.She stated she was not completely
happy with what was done,but appreciated the effort.With that,she also noted that her
view was blocked in by hedges from neighbors to the side and rear of her property.
With City help she also sought resolution with the neighbors in regards to the private
hedges.She explained that while that was going on she was also working with her
neighbors discussing the fact that they were going to work together as neighbors and
address the view issues with the City.Because she was going to be working as a
group with her neighbors she was reluctant to contact the City to have the trees trimmed
from her previous permit,as she felt what would be done in working with her neighbors
would be more far reaching and thorough.She explained she bought a house with
ocean and Catalina views and pays taxes based on ocean and Catalina views.She
stated she would like to see a little more of the ocean other than the horizon.She
referred to tree Nos.4 and 5 and felt they are still substantially higher than other trees in
the area and could be further trimmed so they are the same height as the surrounding
trees.She stated she supports staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission
deny the appeal.
Chairman Tomblin asked staff if the city arborist had an opinion on further trimming the
trees.
Associate Planner Trester answered that the arborist had indicated there was potential
for a problem because of the substantial amount of trimming that was already done and
they were not sure if the additional trimming would be substantially more detrimental to
the trees.
Chairman Tomblin asked if the city arborist gave any opinion on additional trimming in a
year's time.
Associate Planner Trester explained that the arborist has said that within typically two
years one should be able to see whether or not the trees are going to survive the
trimming.
Jim Morrison (7284 Berry Hill Drive)felt the current recommendation stops short of
permanent corrective action,and felt the decision to remove the trees is still the correct
one.He showed a picture of tree No.6 and explained it is surrounded by sidewalk,
curb,and is right at the storm drain.He felt that the tree will most likely have to be
removed at some point because of the damage it will cause and suggested it be
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12,2011
Page 10
Attachment 3-133
removed now.He also felt tree No.7 will eventually cause the same problems.He
showed a picture of tree Nos.9 and 10 and noted that it won't be long before the
sidewalk adjacent to these trees will have to be replaced.He was concerned with view
maintenance and how it would be assured that the trees are trimmed to meet the
requirements of the city permit.
Commissioner Knight referred to Mr.Morrison's pictures of the sidewalk and asked staff
if this was considered enough damage to have the tree removed.
Associate Planner Trester explained that she has shown photographs of the right-of-
way to Public Works staff and they indicated that because there is no visible trip hazard
they would not consider that to be damage to the public right-of-way that would
necessitate the tree being removed.
Director Rojas stated that Mr.and Mrs.Hoskins had wanted to speak but are not in
attendance.He understood they had wanted something shown or read into the record.
Associate Planner Trester stated the Hoskins have submitted photographs of birds,
however she does not have a letter that goes with the photographs.She went through
the submitted photographs for the Commission.
Commissioner Knight asked staff if they had a biologist look for active nests in these
trees before they were trimmed.
Associate Planner Trester stated the biologist went out on February 14th and found no
active nests.Because there was a break in the trimming because of the rain,staff sent
the biologist back to the site before trimming recommenced,and again found there were
no active nests in the trees.
Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if they were aware of any resident recently planting
trees on their private property in the same approximate area as the city trees in
question.
Associate Planner Trester answered that she is not aware of any new trees that have
been planted in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Leon asked staff if residents are allowed to plant trees in the public right-
of-way.
Associate Planner Trester responded that there is a process through the Public Works
Department that may allow for residents to request to plant a tree in the public right-of-
way.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12,2011
Page 11
Attachment 3-134
Commissioner Knight asked staff to review what trees were trimmed and staff's
recommendation for any further trimming.
Associate Planner Trester showed pictures of the trees after trimming with an illustration
showing staff's suggested additional trimming so that the view from the applicants'
property a5 7318 Berry Hill Drive is not significantly impaired.
Commissioner Gerstner moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Director's
decision as presented by staff,seconded by Commissioner Knight.
Commissioner Gerstner explained that the City's policy is to remove the trees and feels
he may have made a mistake when this first came before the Commission in that he
was trying to find a way to allow everyone to get what they wanted as much as possible.
He also explained that the discussion and arguments around waiting a certain amount
of time for the trees to recover before additional trimming or removal are not valid
because he felt this process was a more measured way of getting to the right answer
than a process by which the city could then deny ourselves the opportunity to get to that
end.He stated that he fully expected that some of these trees would have to be
removed and if further trimming harms the trees and they have to be removed,that
would be in keeping with City policy of removal.
Commissioner Leon was not sure how removing one branch from tree No.4,two
branches from tree No.5,and two or three branches from tree No.6 is going to
significantly improve the view from 7318 Berry Hill Drive.He believed the trees are
impairments on the view,however it is only 3 to 5 percent of the overall view and most
of the view is obscured by foliage that is on private property.Until that foliage is
addressed,the street trees are not going to make any real difference in the overall view.
He felt a measured and logical approach would be to deal with the trees on private
property and then go through and clean up the street trees.
Vice Chairman Tetreault understood the concerns of the neighbors regarding the loss of
the trees,and felt the community has lost a lot of character as a result of this trimming.
However,there is a City ordinance and his job is to interpret the Ordinance as it is
written and give faith and weight to it.Therefore,despite his emotional feelings
regarding this,he has to look at significant view impairment as directed by the
Ordinance.He felt that a protected view,as defined in the Code,includes the water and
that trimming to the horizon line gives a view of the sky,which is not a protected view.
He explained that the Code does not provide for the problems of additional trimming
and whether the additional trimming will or will not destroy the tree.He stated that he
sees significant view impairment and therefore the motion which calls for the removal of
the view impairment is sound.
Commissioner Knight agreed with the Vice Chairman regarding actively removing trees
from neighborhoods and how it affects the neighborhood's character.He felt that the
character of a neighborhood is having beautiful mature trees.He agreed,however,that
the Commission has a certain set of regulations that they have to follow.Based upon a
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12.2011
Page 12
Attachment 3-135
consistent application of the Commission's deliberation on other cases,this does
represent a significant view impairment.He felt the Director has done his best to come
to some resolution to make the impairment less than significant.He felt part of the
problem was that the wrong kind of trees were planted in the past and that there are
other types of trees that give a beautiful landscape to a street that don't grow as tall as
the pines.
Chairman Tomblin discussed tree NO.4 noting that the Perez family has not agreed to
adoption and therefore the tree must be removed.He felt that the Director and staff
made the right decision since there are still significant view impacts to the applicants.
Therefore,based on the Ordinance,he felt he had to support staffs recommendations.
The motion to adopt PC Resolution 2011-17,thereby denying the appeal and
upholding the Director's approval of the interpretation regarding the conditions of
approval of CTRP No.178,as recommended by staff,was approved,(4-1)with
Commissioner Leon dissenting.
Director Rojas explained that agenda item NO.3 is a follow-up for the Planning
Commission to determine whether or not the newly trimmed trees cause a significant
view impairment from the four applicants'properties.As a side issue,he noted that one
of the applicants raised the issue of unsightly trees and he explained there is a provision
in the code that states if a tree becomes unsightly due to the trimming it cannot be
adopted.
Commissioner Leon believed the whole premise was that these trees would become
more and more sightly over time,and should not necessarily be analyzed on their
unsightliness right after the trimming.With respect to the aesthetics of the trees,
Commissioner Leon felt that if the tree lives after all of the trimming then the assumption
is that it will become an aesthetically pleasing tree.In discussing agenda item NO.3
where the trimming has taken place,he noted that largely one cannot see any of the
trees from the applicants'properties except for tree Nos.1,2,3,and 10 which are to the
side of the view.He questioned if all of the trees need to be flat in the view or whether a
few trees are o.k.in the far view.
Staff showed pictures from each individual applicants'property showing the view after
the trees had been trimmed.Beginning with the view from 7333 Berry Hill Drive,
Chairman Tomblin felt that the trimming,specifically tree No.1 0,has opened up the
view and there is no longer a significant view impact caused by the tree.
Commissioner Leon added that he felt the trimming that has taken place has opened up
a significant amount of view and any remaining view impairment appears to be caused
by trees and foliage on private property.
Commissioner Gerstner felt tree NO.1 0 needed to be trimmed a bit more to be out of
the view.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12,2011
Page 13
Attachment 3-136
Associate Planner Trester showed the view from the four applicants'properties after the
trimming to show the impact of tree No.1 0 to these properties.
Commissioner Leon reminded the Commission that the view in question is of the ocean
and not of the horizon and therefore significant view impairment should be considered in
terms of the impairment of the ocean view and not the horizon.He added that he looks
at significant in terms of the percentage of the overall view that is being blocked and
that its o.k.to have individual trees in a small minority of the view frame,but it is not o.k.
to have a hedge of trees that blocks the entire view.
Chairman Tomblin agreed with Commissioner Leon,adding that he feels tree No.10
meets the criteria.
Commissioner Knight stated he is applying standards that he tries to apply to all view
restoration permits.He therefore felt the trimming of tree No.10 is adequate to reduce
the view impairment to insignificant.He explained that in making this decision he had to
visually block out all of the other foliage around the tree that is not before the Planning
Commission at this time.
Associate Planner Trester showed a picture taken from 7284 Berry Hill Drive,where it
was determined that tree Nos.1,2,and 3 caused a significant view impairment.The
picture was taken after the trimming was completed.She pointed out that there are
privately owned trees in the picture located behind tree Nos.1,2,and 3.
Chainman Tomblin asked if tree Nos.1,2,and 3 could be further laced.
Associate Planner Trester did not believe they could be further heavily laced,but
thought they could have their crown reduced or topped.She also showed pictures
taken from the other applicants'properties,pointing out tree Nos.1,2,and 3 and other
trees that are on private property.
After looking at all of the photographs,Chairman Tomblin felt that the trimming done
has met the objectives of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Leon moved to adopt the Resolution that the required trimming for
tree Nos.1 through 10 has eliminated the significant view impairment from the
applicants'viewing areas,as recommended by staff,seconded by Chairman
Tomblin.
Commissioner Gerstner stated that he still believes tree NO.1 0 should have further
trimming.
Commissioner Knight felt that the trimming,overall,has met the objectives of reducing
the view impact to less than significant.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12. 2011
Page 14
Attachment 3-137
Commissioner Tetreault viewed the photograph taken from 7315 Berry Hill Drive after
the trimming was done.He noted that tree No.1 0 appears to be right below the
Isthmus at Catalina Island,which he felt is a rather significant focal point.
Chairman Tomblin asked if tree No.10 was going to be trimmed as part of the
Liberman's city tree permit.
Associate Planner Trester answered that tree NO.1 0 will be trimmed as part of that
permit,and that staff has recommended it be trimmed down to the horizon line.She
stated that the recommendation in the Resolution is to trim tree Nos.9 and 10 down to
the same level as the other trees.
With that clarification Commissioner Tetreault felt his issues with the property at 7315
Berry Hill Drive were addressed,and Commissioner Gerstner agreed.
Resolution 2011-018,resolving that the trimming required for tree Nos.1 through
10 has eliminated the significant view impairment from the applicants'viewing
areas,as recommended by staff,was adopted (5-0).
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
5.Minutes of March 8,2011
Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the minutes as presented,seconded
by Commissioner Knight.Approved,(3-0-2)with Chairman Tomblin and
Chairman Tetreault abstaining since they were absent from all or part of that
meeting.
ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS
6.Pre-Agenda for the meeting on April 26.2011
The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved without objection.
ADJOURNMENT
.The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 12,2011
Page 15
Attachment 3-138
Exhibit C -Correspondence
Attachment 3-139
Page 10f2
Amy Trester
From:Nancy Parsons
Sent:Thursday,June 16,20117:36 AM
To:Amy Tresler
Subject:Appeal of PC Resolution 2011-17 and PC Resolution 2011-18
Dear Amy,
Regarding the appeal of PC Resolution 201l-l7 and 2011-18,I wish 10 enter the following comments:
RefCTRP #178,
The original decision of the City provided only for "crown raising"of the City-owned canary isl.nd pines (now
numbered 4-10)on Via Cambron/ColI.do.Therefore,implicit in this original decision,all the tree trunks would rem.in
in ocean,Catalina views,etc.Furthermore,no action was requested by the resident since the original decision and
trimming in 2003.There should be no .ddition.1 trimming necess.ry for this permit.
Ref CTRP #2008·00031.
The original decision provided for the remov.l of 4 trees on Vi.Cambron/Collado (trees #4,6,8,9),the adoption of 3
tree-s (trees #5,7,10)and the exclusion of any action on trees #1-3 on Berry Hill Drive as these three were determined
10 be "not significant".I,.Iong with M.rge Carter and Mike O'Sulliv.n,.nd with the support of.pproxim.tely 18
neighbors,appe.led the decision regarding trees #4·]0 on Vi.Cambron/ColI.do,in order to propose the trimm ing
option for .n seven trees rather th.t remov.1 of any.We embarked on this course of action bec.use of the
crucial importance of all these trees to the character and environment of our neighborhood.
Through this long and arduous process,2 additional residents and 3 trees which had been excluded were added in to
our appeal.
I reside at 7315 Berry Hill Drive,and trees #1-3,located directly .cross the street,are of vital importance to my
property.In fact,the mature trees were a great part of my .ttraction to the properry and the neighborhood.My house is
located right in between two large intersections:Berry Hill DrivelPV Drive West and Berry Hill Drive/Via Cambron.
My property is therefore sandwiched in between.lot of p.vement.The Berry Hill trees provide shade year-round for
my properly .nd the surrounding pavemenl.If these trees were to be topped,lhey would not provide Lhis relief.They
also define the entrance to our neighborhood are a significant part afmy view from my front window.
Secondly,these trees were excluded as "not significant"from three of the four properties involved,due to their
periphery in the views of all applicants.This exclusion was not appealed at any point in this process by the .pplicants,
and should not be reversed.In addition,for the property in which they were .dded b.ck in,they .re on exactly the
s.me degree of periphery of the view as the other three properties from which they were excluded.
See VR Guidelines Sec.V(B)(6)(a)"Foli.ge Position Within the View Frame".Although the .ppeallelter requests that
the City Council ignore this gujdeline,tllis factor is clearly important in delennining significant view impairment.
The VR Guideliues do not require that ALL foliage .ppearing in the view be removed,only that the significant view
imp.irment be elimin.ted,which has certainly been accomplished for.ll properties.See VR Guidelines Sec.1(1 )(B)
(4)."Requires the pruning of dense foli.ge ......All the trees have been heavily I.ced .nd cannot be considered to be
dense foliage.
TI,e st.ted go.1 of the PI.nning Commission's decision was to maintain a balance between the rights of view seekers
and of residents who value the many benefits provided by the trees,while eliminating .ny significant view impairment.
The trimming w.s carried out very diligently,overseen by City staff who observed .nd directed the trimmers from the
loc.tion of the lowest property.There .ppears to be no end to this ougoing campaign ag.inst our neighborhood trees,
both City and private,.nd it threatens to le.ve our neighborhood very sl.rk .nd barren,If this is .Uowed to h.ppen it
will reduce.1I of Ollr properly vaiues,and diminish our qu.lity of life.I urge the CiLy Council to uphold the PI.nning
6/1612011
Attachment 3-140
Page 2 of2
Commission's unanimous decision that the complered trimming eliminated the significant view impainnenl.
Regards,
Nancy Parsons
email:
6116/2011
Attachment 3-141
Amy Trester
Page I of I
From:Tim Galvin
Sent:Tuesday,June 28,2011 4:16 PM
To:Amy Trester
Subject:City Council Hearing for City Trees.
Attachments:Marlene's Letter.doc
See attachment in Microsoft Word.
---------------Tim Galvin
6/28/20 It Attachment 3-142
June 28,2011
City of Raneho Palos Verdes
Attn:Amy Trester,Associate Planner
Re:City Tree Review Pennit Case No.20008-00031
(P .CResolution 20 I 1-17 &P.C Resolution 2011-18)
Hello Amy,
We are grateful for the time,effort,and concern that staff and the City Planning
Commissioners put into this problem of view restoration.
The original staff report of May 2009 recommended that all 10 city-owned canary pines
be removed.Instead,the City Planning Commissioners went out oftheir way to
compromise with the end result that no one is satisfied.Via Cambron &Via Collado
residents have unsightly trees with the severe tree crown reductions and the Berry Hill
residents have view impainnents with trunks,branches and foliage in their ocean views.
The compromises have resulted in the loss of neighborly good-will.
What the Planning Commissioners should have done was to follow the city ordinance.
The city has a protected view ordinance of both the ocean and Catalina.The Planning
Commissioners,however,only gave a protected status of the Catalina view.They
believed that lacing provides an adequate view of the ocean.(Or is it just a compromise
ti,r the tree advocates?)
The canary pines,I,2 &3 on Berry Hill continue to impair our ocean view.The three
pines,one behind the other,provide almost no view of the ocean despite severe trimming.
With a multi-component view of hillside and ocean we should have an expanded view
area,and these three trees should not be considered on the periphery.Very little oce-dn is
visible through the stacked thick trunks,widc branches and foliage.
In addition to the Berry Hill trees,Canary pine,#10,on Via Collado,continues to
significantly impair our near-view of the upper PI.Vicente hillside.
The Planning Commissioners should not be making their own changes to the city
ordinancc.The city ordinance protects the ocean view;therefore,the city should follow
its own ordinance
Sincercly,
Tim and Marlene Galvin
7333 Beny Hill Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes
CA 90275
Attachment 3-143
June 28,2011
To:Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Subject:Appeal of PC Resolution 2011-17 and PC Resolution 2011-18
As you will see from the included Timeline,relative to the above-mentioned
CTRP,a considerable amount of time and energy has been expended by the
Planning Commission,City Staff and residents in this case,and it still has not been
fmalized.
We respectively request that you,the City Council,uphold the April 12,2011
decision of the Planning Commission during which the Planning Commission
agreed unanimously that the trimming oftrees on Via Cambron and Via Collado
did,in fact,restore the views in question and therefore complied with CTRP 2008-
00031
The signed Petition,also included in your packet of information,reflects the
opinion of a majority of residents requesting the City Council to uphold the
Planning Commission's decision.A staff member spent a day and a half in our
neighborhood on February 17,2011 and February 24,2011 supervising the
trimming being performed by West Coast Arborists.The staff member was
meticulous in making sure that the trimming was adequate -in fact,spending
several hours at the Applicants'properties and communicating with WCA's
foreman during the trimming process,overseeing every detail.At the end of the
second day of trimming,when asked if the trimming was complete,the answer
from Staff was"Yes".Obviously,every effort was taken to perform the job
adequately.
We were dismayed when advised that the Applicants still were not satisfied.
Subsequent City photos verify that the views have been restored adequately.
We,the residents of Via Collado and Via Cambron have complied with every
request asked ofus during this lengthy process.We have stepped up and have
agreed to adopt all 10 trees.Our Deed information is at City Hall and the
covenants on our properties are ready to be fIled.This,in itself,is a compelling
reason to believe that we value our street trees which are so important to the
integrity of our neighborhood.Not only do the street trees add to the value of our
Attachment 3-144
homes,but,they are our views -we view them day in and day out,when leaving
and returning to our neighborhood.These trees provide shade and cast shadows on
the streets and our yards.They provide valuable habitat for birds and other
wildlife.It would be a shame to remove them when trimming has satisfied the
view requirement.It can also be argued that if the trees had been maintained over
the years,this current situation would not have occurred.The trimming schedules
provided by West Coast Arborists,Public Works and View Restoration verify the
fact that no trimming of the trees in question has taken place since 2003.
We,the residents,have been thrown several curves during this process:namely,
the addition of2 additional applicants and three additional trees to the original
Appeal.We were concerned that this was not a proper maneuver and it put our
case in jeopardy.There was also the inclusion ofCTRP 2003 to our case.These
extra issues have made our case more complicated and have required a
considerable amount of additional time and expertise.There is the possibility that
the legal term "laches"applies to the added CTRP 2003,due to the unreasonable
delay in pursuing the CTRP application since its filing in 2003 -thus,now
incurring an increased hardship on us because the trees are not in the same
condition as they were in 2003.
We have had to overcome many obstacles since our original case was filed March
2,201 O.We have spent many hours in meetings with neighbors and staff and have
attended several Hearings -each time working through the problems in a fair and
rational manner.We are in agreement that it is time to settle this case and we
request that you uphold the April 12,2011 decision of the Planning Commission.
Thank:you.
Sincerely,
\{lj tLv . .(D e~MarjO~arter
7307 VIa Collado,Rancho Palos Verdes
Attachment 3-145
CASE VRP 2008-0031
THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF VIA COLLADO,VL4 CAMBRON &BERRY HIll
SUPPORT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION THAT THE TRIMMING
COMPLETED PER CTRP 2008-0031 WAS ADEQUATE TO ELIMINATE SIGNIFICANT
lMPAIRMEN T FROM THE APPLICANTS PROPERTIES.WE HIGHLY VALUE l1lE
BENEFITS THAT THESE TREES ADD TO THE CHARACTER AND ENVIRONMENT
OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND OPPOSE ANYREMOVAL OR FURTHER ACTION
WHICH WOULD JEOPARDIZE mE SURVWAL OF THESE TREES
nJv ~{jJt1J
9JLkIt .-LJ1 9t&.o>'
.b[UL1~/~
710}U,{(~
13"~VtP,CPU-IJ-..DO
/
!Ii d-<i "Yl :a L~~
f.o-2 ':;)-J(
Attachment 3-146
CASE VRP 2008-0031
THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF VIA COLLADO,JIlA CAMBRON &BERRY HILL
SUPPORT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION THAT THE TRIMMING
COMPLETED PER CTRP 2001J-()(J31 WAS ADEQUATE TO ELIMINATE SIGNIFICANT
IMPAJRMEN T FROM THE APPLICANTS PROPERTIES.WE HIGHLY VALUE THE
BENEFITS THAT THESE TREES ADD TO THE CHARACTER AND ENVIRONMENT
OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND OPPOSE ANYREMOVAL OR FURTHER ACTION
WHICH WOULD JEOPARDIZE mE SURVIVAL OF THESE TREES
/6 Ju-IL;2..,O ,(
b ~/t-/J
ou-1'0 -({
b-/~-((
Attachment 3-147
CASE VRP 2008-0031
THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF VIA COlLADO,VIA CAMBRON &BERRYHILL
SUPPORT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DEUSION THAT THE TRIMMING
COMPLETED PER CTRP 2008-0031 WASADEQUATE TO EUMINATE SIGNIFICANT
IMPAlRMEN T FROM THE APPLICANTS PROPERTIES.WE mGRLY VALUE THE
BENEFITS THAT THESE TREES ADD TO THE CHARACTER AND ENVIRONMENT
OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND OPPOSE ANYREMOVAL OR FURTHER ACTION
WHICH WOUW JEOPARDIZE THE SURVIVAL OF THESE TREES
Pu
{:,0 L VIA CcJW-J\PO',{(JV'
7 sOZ {il'-Gsl \tI\I~)RPV
3lCl-S4-)-~b44
])0-S'vl t-~6 t-Ji
Attachment 3-148
CASE VRP 2008-0031
THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF nA COLLADO,VIA CAMBRON &BERRY HILL
SUPPORT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION THAT mE TRIMMING
COMPLETED PER CTRP 2008-(}(}31 WAS ADEQUATE TO EUMINATE SIGNIFICANT
lMPAlRMEN T FROM THE APPLICANTS PROPERTIES.WE HIGHLY VALUE THE
BENEFITS THAT THESE TREES ADD TO THE CHARACTER AND ENVIRONMENT
OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND OPPOSE ANY REMOVAL OR FURTHER ACTION
WHICH WOULD JEOPARDIZE THE SURVIVAL OF THESE TREES
,?ot/-vr !//:r CtL--p7 /H ~
-t>~V C~
L
/It 'l til
I
_....',.I
_(,1.-\"2.0). )_~..J .@.;. .C1 0 ~I \I ..tA·'"\
/~,~VIP's"e~~o~
'-(fJ!..}()l.i41 vL ~;';:-J'Cr,")n -r{
/',I ~5 0 ,--::0 'J I ({,v.'fi tJ','~i o/v'
I
Attachment 3-149
TIMELINE CTRP 2008-00031
Oct 16,2008 CTRP submitted by Marinovich 7315 Berry Hill
and Yousefpour 7305 Berry Hill
May 28,2009 preliminary determination by City to remove 10
city trees (1-3 on Berry HiII and 4-10 Via Cambron and
Collado)
Feb 12,2010 Final Notice of Decision issued.Trees 1-3 on
Berry Hill deemed not significant due on periphery of view and
excluded from the case.Trees no 5,7,10 would be adoptable
after trimming to eliminate sig.view impairment. Trees 4,6,8,9
to be removed.
Mar 2,2010 appeal filed by Mike O'Sullivan,Marge Carter,and
Nancy Parsons,to modify decision to allow trimming of all
seven trees.
April 27,2010 Planning Commission hearing.Decision was to
trim all 7 trees and review by Planning Commission after 60
days to see if sig.view impairment was eliminated.All trimmed
trees must be "adopted"by notified resident who would take
responsibility for all subsequent trimmings via a covenant
attached to property.Resident abutting trees must give
permission for anyone to adopt.Trees would be trimmed in
Nov.and reviewed in Jan 2011.During this hearing,one of the
commissioners mentioned bringing in other neighbors who
had spoken up at the hearing who claimed their views were
also impaired,but City had discouraged their involvement
citing delays in processing their permits,and their sig view
impairment would also be eliminated by the decision to
remove trees.
Attachment 3-150
May 11,2010 Instead of issuing a resolution to be signed on
consent calendar at next PC hearing,City staff instead issued a
memo stating they had been directed by PC to contact
additional potential applicants,and needed further time to
process applications and sort out issues relating to tree
adoptions.It was not clear to us at this time that basically the
City staff had decided to "continue"the hearing,and no trees
were to be trimmed until after evaluating the additional
properties.(Contrary to the decision of April 27.)
Jan 7,2011 Email sent to Appellants advising that only
residents on original notification list could adopt trees (12
properties.)This affected at least 2 residents planning to adopt.
After correspondence with the City,the City realized it had
erred in the original notification list.
Jan 11,2011 a follow up hearing was held in which 2 additional
applications had been added to our appeal by Galvin (7333
Berry Hill),and Morrison (7284 Berry Hill).The end result was
that now all trees had to be trimmed to the lowest horizon line
at 7333 Berry Hill;and trees 1-3 were now added back in as
significant from the Morrison property at 7284 Berry Hill.
Trees 1-3 were to be heavily laced only and adopted.The
property owner abutting tree #4 (Perez)had written to
request tree #4 be removed as he believed it was causing his
sewer line problems,and he had had to pay for sidewalk
repair.The neighbors were given a deadline to try and change
his mind.The notification list was expanded by the
Commission to include all of Via Cambron/Collado and 3 or
four additional properties on lower Berry Hill.
Feb 2011 Trimming of all 10 trees completed.It was noted at
this time that a prior CTRP had been processed and approved
Attachment 3-151
by Liberman (7318 Berry Hill),which involved crown raising
of trees on Via Cambron/Collado.No tree removal was
recommended.Some lower branches had been removed in
2003 and no further action was taken by City or Libermans.
April 12,2011 hearing held to review whether trimming had
eliminated significant view impairment from all 5 properties.
An interpretation had been issued for Liberman property due
to the fact that trees 4-10 were now topped and could no
longer be crown raised.Additional trimming and some branch
removal were proposed to eliminate sig.view impairment from
this property.Of some concern was the survivability of the
trees if any additional trimming took place.
The PC voted unanimously that the additional trimming
proposed by the City was needed to satisfy the Liberman
permit
The PC voted unanimously that the trimming which had
already taken place satisfied CTRP 2008-00031.
The Perezes had refused permission to allow adoption of tree
#4,so it would have to be removed,all other trees had
adoption covenants submitted.
April 27,2011 appeal of this PC decision filed by Marinovich
(7315 Berry Hill),Yousefpour (7306 Berry Hill),and Morrison
(7284 Berry Hill)stating sig.view impairment not eliminated.
July 5,2011 scheduled appeal hearing before City Council.
Attachment 3-152
Preview p~7--s-:-l /
Attachment 3-153
Attachment 3-154
Attachment 3-155
Attachment 3-156
..
Attachment 3-157
Attachment 3-158
Attachment 3-159
"'"',_,"':=;0:
•
Attachment 3-160
~-",-',
•
Attachment 3-161
RECEIVED
JUN 28 2011
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPAR'nlEHT
Smwlement To
NOTICE OF APPEAL
SCheduled for Hearing on July 5,2011
before the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
TO:JOEL ROJAS,DIRECfOR OF COMMUNTIY DEVELOPMENT
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 _
TO:RANCHO PALOS VERDES CIlY COUNCIL
City Hall
5970 Palos Verdes Dr.So.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
RE:APPEAL TO RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL of the
Decision of the Planning Commission on April 12,2011,Whereby it adopted P.C.
Resolution No.2011-18,thereby denying the appeal of the Director's Interpretation
Review of Follow-Up Trimming Review for CTRP 2008~0031 (P.C.Resolution 2011-
01)/P.C.Resolutions 2011-17 &2011-18
APPLICANTS:
Larry Marinovlch
7315 Berry Hill Drive
RPV,CA
James Morrison
7284 Berry Hill Drive
RPV,CA
Joseph Yousefpour
6306 Berry Hili Drive
RPV,CA
The attached three supplemental Declarations of Applicants,together with their eXhibits,
are respecfuliy submitted and offered to be considered In support of Applicants'Appeal to the
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council,which is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on July 5,
2011.Applicants will be present althe Hearing.
Arrangements have been made with Amy Trester to provide photos that were shown at
prior hearings before the Planning Commission on 2128/011 and 4112111,to be projected as
needed on the board at the time of the Hearing on the Appeal,together with the recent pictures
taken by the Appellants.
Dated:June 27,2011
-1-
Attachment 3-162
cc:City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
cc:Amy Trester,Associate Planner
City of Ranoho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
-2-
Attachment 3-163
June 28,2011
City Council
Rancho Palos Verdes
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Public Hearing
PC Resolution 2011-18
JulV 5,2011
Dear City Council Members,
We filed our view restoration request in July 2008 in an attempt to regain our views of Catalina
Island and the ocean.A May 28,2009,City staff report recommended removal oflO City pine
trees on Berry Hill Drive,Via Cambron and Via Collado because the trees posed a significant
view impairment.
As oftoday,not one tree has been removed,rather they have been trimmed and continue to pose
a significant view impairment to us and other Berry HilI neighbors.Unfortunately,the Planning
Commission deviated from the Ordinance which resulted in the following concerns:
Canary Pines (#1 -3)
We disagree with the Director's determination that these trees do not significantly impair our
view when one of his staff actually visited our property and found that a significant view
impairment exists.His February 12,20 I0 letter indicates that he based his re-evaluation on a
comment made by one resident who claimed that these trees are located on the periphery of our
view and that of our neighbor.This is simply not troe.Our designated viewing area is
approximately 180 degrees.Trees 1 - 3 are at about the 100 degree mark.Staff photos reviewed
at the latest hearing clearly show that lacing these trees did not remove the view impairment.
This is more apparent when viewed from the view site itself rather than relying on photos.The
Director and resident made this determination without visiting our property.
These trees are also causing damage to the sidewalks and curbs,which poses liability to the City.
Canary Pine #10
The Planning Commission determined that Canary Pine #10 no longer poses a significant view
impairment because it has been trimmed and laced.This tree sits just below our coveted view of
the Isthmus.We cannot see the ocean through this tree.The Commission allowed this tree to be
adopted by one of the Via Cambron residents,and trimming of the tree is only required every
three years.The tree will most likely cover the Isthmus in less than a year.
The ordinance calls for the removal of trees that pose a significant view impairment.This tree
continues to pose a significant impairment of the ocean;therefore,we ask that the City Council
direct the removal of this tree as originally recommended in the May 28,2009 staff report and
the Director's Notice of Intent to remove the trees.
Attachment 3-164
City Council
Rancho Palos Verdes
PC Resolution 2011-18
Page 2
Over-dependence on staff photos
The application for restoring a portion of our views by the removal often city Canary Pine trees
is in its third year.The Planning Commission has spent a considerable amount of time and
money on this issue over the past three years.Yet,only one commissioner visited our home to
review the trees in question.We believe the over-dependence on staffphotos rather than
personal observations has been a major contributor to the dragging out of the process that
resulted in continued significant view impairments for a number of Berry Hill residents.
Trim to the horizon
There is nothing in the ordinance that provides for trimming to the horizon level.It seemed to
start as a reference line,but gradually became a practice.See April 12,2011,minutes."Tree No.
10 shall be trimmed to the horizon level (out of the Catalina Island View ...".An ocean view is
not protected by trimming to the horizon.We have yet to see a real estate ad extolling a "sky
view".We purchased our home for the unobstructed panoramic view;however,according to a
recent appraisal,our view is now considered as "partial",reducing our potential property value
by approximately $100,000.We are very concerned about the adoption of practices outside of
the code and the effect on future view considerations.
This was also exemplified by the Planning Commission's decision to allow adoption of some
trees by individuals that did not meet the adjacent property code requirements.Adjacent
property code requirements are defined in Municipal Code Section I 7.76.100(G.2)as "Adjacent
properties shall include the ten closest lots,which are on the same street,directly abutting and
adjacent to the property where the tree/and or foliage are located."
City's Tree Planting and Trimming Strategy is Flawed
Residents are offered "free"trees.They are not "free".The city maintains them by complaint,
but does not maintain to height requirements.As the trees mature,the city does have costs to
maintain sidewa1lcs for safety issues.However,the major costs for damage to sewer lines and
sidewalks are now the property owners'responsibility.
If the City is to remain in the tree business,the Public Works Department needs to revisit
strategies for offering trees to RPV residents.About five years ago the City offered trees to
residents on Berry Hill Drive.All of the homeowners on the south side of the street accepted the
City's offer to plant trees in the public right-away in front oftheir homes.The problem is that
these trees are on the verge of growing into the ocean viewing areas of residents on the north side
of the street.Public Works Department staff said that the trees are trimmed every three years,
which is not frequent enough to maintain the trees at manageable levels.
We were recently informed that,once again,we have to go through the view restoration process
to preserve our view for these recently-planted trees.The view restoration process poses a
Attachment 3-165
City Council
Rancho Palos Verdes
PC Resolution 20))-18
Page 3
financial burden and huge time commitment for us because of poor planning by the City.The
City should take a proactive approach to maintaining the City trees that are growing into the
viewing area of RPV residents.
Recommendation
We urge the City Council to direct the Community Development Director to follow the
ordinance and remove the trees based on the original detennination that they pose a significant
view irnpainnent.
Sincerely,
Larry and Ann Marinov'
7315 Berry Hill Drive
RPV
Attachment 3-166
Trees 1,2 &3
Attachment 3-167
Tree 10
Attachment 3-168
"
!
"
I'•\
,.
"J'",
.:-,''~'
[/
"
.;.
'J:..~~..'
1·,
~...
;',,.
J"'j .'~
.~~
'tiif
.'
,
\"
,
I -I.~
I'I'
j,
I'
,,.
.,'.
~-----
Attachment 3-169
"
.'.
..~.t.
.0 ,•
.---
"
,-
0-
I.\"
I,·-z..-'~
Attachment 3-170
-'"r·.,
-~....
.-
,.
f;
,.
.";
.'....
,"
,....--
.'•
'.
".'
-<,.'.'
~.,
"'.
-..
-.,
,.~
f·-2 -3
Attachment 3-171
:....
,',
""'.)......:..-
i
,,
.:.
I .'
.!
/'
I :oj
",
/"'..',/
"':j<,~"..".~,t.,,'
-.,:~
..:./;...,;rj~'~~~~.
• :-h 'l"
.'
,"'
."
.~.'
,.'~:..-
.-".;
..
Attachment 3-172
JLJn 28 11 11:13a Jim Morrison 310 541·1417
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Public Hearing
July 5,2011
P.e.Resolution 2011-18
p.1
canary Pines (#1-3)
I disagree with the decision that the lacing of the subject Canary Pines has eliminated the view
impairment.I believe staff photos that were reviewed at the latest hearing clearly show that lacing
these trees did not remove the view impairment (See photos dated 2 /28/2011).This is more apparent
when viewed from the view site itself.
Site view observations:There are really four tree trunks involved (tree #1 has two,photo attached).
The sidewalk has been ground in five places,one of which needs to reground.A new six foot section
was apparently done in 1986.There are seven cracks that include curb and the gutter.I have not found
who is responsible for curbs and gutters.It is not on the Department of Public Works list of
responsibilities on the web site.
I believe the original decision by Staff and the Planning Commission to remove these trees was the
correct one.It still is.
Over dependence on staff photos
We built a deck in 1983 as part of a remodeling of our home.I was impressed with the city's response
to our permit application when four of the five commissioners came out the afternoon ofthe hearing
to view what was proposed.This validated,to me,one of the reasons given for forming our own city
which was to provide local control.It was stated that we would no longer have local decisions made
thirty miles away by individuals unfamiliar with the issues.We are losing,or have lost that.
The application for restoring a portion of our views by the removal of ten city canary Pine trees is in its
third year.A considerable amount of time has been spent on this issue by ihe Planning Commission,
city staff,the applicants and those opposing the removal of the trees,then the topping and lacing,and
here we are still seeking a compromise.During this time,to my knowledge,only one commissioner
visited one of the fiVe view sites involved.I see my view impairment each time I look out the window,
or am in the backyard,or on the deck.I have taken numerous photos trying to show this,but have
been unable to capture what I can see.J believe the over dependence on staff photos rather than
personal observations has been a major contributor to the dragging out of the process.
Trim to the horizon
I cannot find this in the code.It seemed to start as a reference line,but gradually became a practice.
See Aprii 12,2011,minutes."Tree No..10 shall be trimmed to the horizon level (out ohhe Catalina
Attachment 3-173
Jim 28 1'1 11 :13a Jim Morrison 310 541-1417 p,2
Island View,.,",An ocean view is not protected by trimming to the horizon.I have yetto see a real
estate ad extolling a usky view".My concern is with the adoption of practices outside of the code and
the effect on future view considerations.
This was also exemplified by the Planning Commission's decision to allow adoption of some trees by
individuals that did not meet the adjacent property code requirements.
Unexplained Topping of Monterey Pine Trees
Four public Monterey Pine trees on the Palos Verdes Drive West median,parallel to via Cambron have
been topped.The neither the Department of Public Works,nor the city arborist,has a record of
perfonming this.It is ironic that apparent view impairments for those residents can be resolved outside
of the system,while they resist efforts of those living behind them to remove their own view
impairments.
Should the city be in the tree business?
Residents are offered "free"trees.They are not "free".The city maintains them by complaint,but does
not maintain to height requirements.As the trees mature,the city does have costs to maintain
sidewalks for safety issues.However,the major costs for damage to sewer lines and sidewalks are the
now the property owners responsibility.I am not sure who does street curbs,as they are not
considered a safety issue.
A better selection of tree options may be an answer.If not,it may be time to go to a "prevention"
approach rather than the current "detection"approach.One possibility would be a fifteen replacement
program.This could provide street trees without the current costs and resultant defacing and
patchwork of cement work we now have.
Go back to square one?
I recommend that we return to the original decision of the staff and Planning Commission and remove
the trees.The need for immediate and future corrective work is demonstrated by photos oftrees
numbered 6,7,9 and 10 submitted during the April 12,2011 hearing.The photo oftree #6 shows
potential for further sidewalk,storm drain,curb and gutter damage;tree #7 is a few years behind.
Trees #9 and 10 have both raised the sidewalk on the tree side by 4 to 5 inches;I believe this exceeds
the two inch buckling requirement,thus requiring sidewalk replacement.Root removal to accomplish
this will further jeopardize their chances of survival.This suggests that tree removal is the better long
term choice for an attractfve street.
~'1W?&'i'1OJ~a------/
Jam?A.Morrison /-7284 Berry Hill Drfve,RPV
(Pour ohotos attached)
June 27,2011'
Attachment 3-174
Attachment 3-175
Attachment 3-176
Attachment 3-177
Ju'n 281 f 11 :04a
JOE YOUSEFPOUR
7306 Berry Hill Dr.
B p.l
canary Pines (;:1-3)
Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca 90275
Ph:310·265·1834,Email:joeypour@gamil.com
Dear city Council Members,
We have filed our view restoration in July 2008 in an attempt to regain our views of Catalina Island and the ocean.In May 28,
2009,City Staff after its comprehensive investigafion had recommended removal of 10 trees due to huge impairment of our views.
lJnfortunately the planning Commission not only has ignored City Staff recommendation and has not removed any of the trees but
has deviated from the city Ordinance which has resulted in the 1ollo"';ng concerns:
f'O~
We disagree with the DireclOls'determination that these trees do,.,pignificantly impair our view,These trees had impaired and sUiI
impairing our views significantly even after bimming.Please see attached picture.
Canary Pine ~10
We disagree with the Directors'determination that this tree does not significanlly impair our view after trimming.This tree had
impaired and still impairing our views signifJCanUy even after trimming.Please see attached pictures which show how this tree has
impaired our view.
Staff photos refiabilities
We disagree with the staff that piclUJes taken beforn and after trimming were the same.We agree that the pictures have been
taken from the same spots and distances,but not with the same depth.Comparing the pictures before trimming and after trimming
disclose that the Pictures before trimming have been laken by using the Tele Lens and the Pictures after trimming have been
taken with Wide Lens and for this reason the trees were nol focused in the pictures to shoVi the facts.
Trim to Horizon.
This is an unprecedented decision and is not acceptable to us.City has no any predetermination for City Trees trimming height in
city ordinance;therefore commissioners'decisions regarding Horizon line have not followed City Ordinance
Our Property Market Value wi!h Impaired View has an approximately S120,OOO.OO 10ss"We are very concerned about the adoption
of practices outside of the code and the effect on !he future view considerations
Appeal Burden.
Commissioners'decisions which were based on their own personal opinion and not the City Code and ordinance,has caused us
to appeal from their decisions and has caused us huge financial burden.I demand the City pay for all the appeal costs and return
our deposits.
Attachment 3-178
Attachment 3-179
Attachment 3-180
Preview
RECEIVED
APR 12 2011
"J'=='--
Amy Trester,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthome Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/mv
amyt@rpv.com -(310)544-5228
----Original Messao -
From:~__._,~'-'VI\.I1Cl.l"..
Sent:Friday,March 25,2011 8:54 AM
To:Amy Trester
Cc:'Greg Pfost';'Joel Rojas';'Nancy Parsons';'Emilio Blanco';.",.,
Subject:RE:Tree trimming schedule
PLANNING,BUILDING AND'41=l{CODE ENFORCEMENT
Cindy Hall'
Amy -thank you for sending the maintenance schedules relative to View Restoration pruning on
certain Canary Island Pines located in the public-right-of-way on Via Cambron and Via Collado.
We have spent a considerable amount of time analyizing the various work schedules from Planning
Commission,Public Works and West Coast Arborists.The latest schedules seem to indicate the
pruning maintenance completed in order to satisfy the View Ordinance for the Canary Island Pines
located on Via Collado and Via Cambron is as follows:
2 Berry Hill pines -work done 5/3/06
7313 Via Collado -work done 10/9/03
30327 Via Cambron -work done 10/14/03
30405 Via Cambron -work done 10/14103
30317 Via Cambron -work done 10/15/03
5411 Via Collado (?)work done 10/15/03
Attachment 3-181
Preview
We are not certain which tree the "5411 Via Collado"entry pertains to,as there is not
a 5411 address
on Via Collado
Also,on the above schedule,we have changed three of the addresses to read "Via
Cambron"as the addresses
do not relate to Via Collado
Please confirm that all of the above information is accurate,or,if it is not accurate,please provide
the correct analysis for tree trimming maintenance done on Via Collado and Via Cambron to satisfy
the View Ordinance during the time period 2003 -2011 Please also confirm that the above-listed
Canary Island Pines do not appear on West Coast Arborists'schedule which would indicate that
View Restoration work was actually completed on the dates shown on the City's maintenance
schedule for these same trees.
Thank you.
----Amy Trester <amyt@rpv.com>wrote:
============
Hi Marge-
I have reviewed View Restorations records in regards to City tree trimming,
arJp have found some information per your request.
Attachment 3-182
Preview
Date:Wednesday,March 30,2011 1 :58 PM
From:Amy Trester <amyt@rpv.com>
To:.'.~..-
Cc:'Greg Pfost'<gregp@rpv.com>,'Joel R"";~""_~__'_r.:-.~.......r"'"1>,'Nancy Parsons'..
'Emilio Blanco'<Emilio8@rpv.com>,I ~__.._..:Indy Hall'
Subject:RE:Tree trimming schedule
Hello Marge-
Please see your questions listed below with my answers.
Please confirm that all ofthe above information is accurate,or,if it is not accurate,please
provide the correct analysis for tree trimming maintenance done on Via Collado and Via
Cambron to satisfy the View Ordinance during the time period 2003 -2011
From the records I was able to find regarding the work history for the view restoration trimming for
the Pine trees on Via Collado and Via Cambron,I believe this information is accurate.
Please also confirm that the above-listed Canary Island Pines do not appear on West Coast
Arborists'schedule which would indicate that View Restoration work was actually completed
on the dates shown on the City's maintenance schedule for these same trees.
You are correct that the above-listed Canary Island Pines do not appear on West Coast
Arborists'(WCA)schedule,however,I believe that the work was indeed completed,as I have a bill
for the work.A portion of this bill (attached)was copied and pasted into the document,"Work
History-1-1-03 thru 3-8-t1-View &PW'that I had attached to my 3/24 email.Aslstated in my email
sent 3/24,the street names of Via Cambron and Via Collado appeared to have been switched on
the bill and the supervisor at WCA believes this error is why the trimming in 2003 was not entered
into WCA's database of trimming history.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Attachment 3-183
C'IT'r or RA.I'-t('HO PALOS vERD£S-TREE "IAI""TENM~CE PRo<;n·\.\,eRE\\'R.r::\TAL FRO:'"IO/lnOIlJ -IUllSl200J J 219110'1-'
1166.67 VROW
416.67 VROW
750m V?OW
833.33 VROW
833.33 VROW
656.67 VROW
750.00 VROW
750.00 VROW
833.33 VROW
33333 VROW
333.33 VROW
333.33 VROW
333.33 VROW
41667 VRQW
16667 VROIN
666.67 VROW
83333 VROW
333.33 VROW
333.33 VROW
8,3.33 VROW
666.67 VROW
Crews Hcurs
1.33 7.0
1.33 2,5
1.33 ,5
,33 ~O
133 5.0
1.33 '.0
,33 45
i.JJ 45
9l\1.33 50
,33 20
,.',33 2.0
,33 2.0
Ib'L--'.33 2.0.(},33 2.5
Ii 133 1O
·1 1.33 40.J
,33 5.0
,33 2.0
\11~,33 2.C
,33 50
,33 40
TOTAL NUMB1':R:21
i ;:t .'~...~~..::r~E TRI~__- .'/';:.:J!:"'r~:t TREE TRIMMING
.,'F'"-'-TREE TRIMMING
Nt-C-J TREE TRTIiIMtNG-C ;_.---
TREE TRIMMING
TREE TRIMMING i'j
-REE TRIMMING
TREE TRIMMING
TREE TRIMMING
TREE TRIMMING
TREE TRIMMING
c .c.:
,i
iJa!e JeD locah:J1l
1C/"2003 6200 VIA SUAIOA iI':~(.TREE TRIMMING
1011/2003 6205 VIA SlIBrDA \..."'..I TREE TRIMMING
101212003 6212 VIA SuBIDA i)~TRE::TRIMMING
1CI2i2C03 62.1l,YJA SUBLOA .:=::".....TREE TRIMMING
hOIJ,200"3 2859 CALLE AVENTURA ·i .).c;.(.·;.1 '".•TREE TRIMMING
101312003 30560 PALOS VERDES DR IE \:,.\'5~TREE TRIMMING
.}OI6/2003 30544 PALOS VERDES OR IE I......-:.~TREE TRIMMING
.rO/512C03 30560 PALDS VERDES DR IE \r ~1J;ll TREE TRIMMING
r'OnJ2003.•30530 PAL..OS-'l.E8~§_Q~~E -V \~!Ir TREE TRIMMING
'0,7,12003 309C5 CASlL1NA DR '/\~.TREE TRIMMING':',_..
:I ,018:2003 2n75 MACARTHUR sri --'.
I ~01812003 2078 MACARTHUR ST I"i>'
-10/812003 2064 MACARTHUR S!..J
10'612003,29612 TROT'NOOD DR ,_-~.:-._..-,
'0/812003 7310 VIA CAMBRON
1019;2003 73'0 VIA CAMBRON L.~/101912003 73'3 VIA CAMBRON
10:1412003 30327 V!A COLLADO
1011412003 30405 VrA COLLADO
10f15f.lOO3 30317 VIA COLLADO
1011512003 54'1 VIA COLLADO
"oS;:;:00202:l>mmZI:J ()m(j);:uz-,.,,,,
Oc ,.....rn"';=~00 -~Z ""~=m(j)-~~00
.;.2000 INe~'r.oilsl f\loon51~In.;.Page 1 cf 1
Attachment 3-184
VEr;.:JOR NA West Coast Arborlsts.Inc -
INVOICE NUMBER:30077
INVOICE AMOUNT:512.58333
INVOiCE DATE:10/1512003
view
Item Permit Permit
Number Date Job Location Work Performed Crews Hours Amounts Comments Type Number Aooroved by:
1 10/1/2003 bLUU via :;ubloa I ree I rimming 1.JJJJJ I.U $1,166.67 VROW CTRP 163 Yes per JA
2 10/1/2003 6205 Via Subida Tree Trimming 1.33333 2.5 $416.67 VROW CTRP 163 Yes per JA
3 1012/2003 6212 Via Subida Tree Trimming 1 33333 45 $750.00 VROW CTRP 163 Ves per JA
4 101212003 6217 Via Subida Tree Trimming 1.33333 5.0 $833.33 VROW CTRP 163 Ve.per JA
5 10/3/2003 2869 Calle Aventura Tree Trimming 1 33333 5.0 5633.33 VROW CTRP 156 Ves per JA
6 10/3/2003 30560 Palos Verdes Dr / E Tree Trimming 1.33333 4.0 $666.67 VROW CTRP 156 Ves per JA
7 10/6/2003 30544 Palos Verdes Dr / E Tree Trimming 1.33333 4.5 $750.00 VROW CTRP 156 Ves per JA
8 10/6/2003 30560 Palos Verdes Dr / E Tree Trimming 1 33333 4.5 5750.00 VROW CTRP 156 Ves per JA
9 10/712003 30530 Palos Verdes Dr / E Tree Trimming 1.33333 5.0 5633.33 VROW CTRP 156 Yes per JA
10 10/7/2003 30806 Casillna Drive Tree TrimmIng 1.33333 2.0 $333.33 VROW CTRP 167 Ves per JA
11 1018/2003 2075 MacArthur Street Tree Trimming 1.33333 20 $333.33 VROW CTRP 89 Ves per JA
12 10/812003 2078 MacArthur Street Tree Trimming 1.33333 2.0 533333 VROW CTRP 69 Ves per JA
13 10/8/2003 2084 MacArthur Street Tree Trimming 1.33333 2.0 5333.33 VROW CTRP 69 Ve.per JA
14 10/8/2003 29612 Trotwood Drive Tree Trimming 1.33333 2.5 $416.67 VROW CTRP 162 Yes per JA
15 10/B/2003 7310 Via Cambron Tree Trimming 1.33333 1 0 5166.67 VROW CTRP 17B Ves per JA
16 10/9/2003 7310 Via Cambron Tree Trimming 1.33333 4.0 5666.67 VROW CTRP 178 Ves per JA
17 10/9/2003 7313 Via Cambron Tree Trimming 1.33333 5.0 5833.33 VROIN CTRP 178 Ves per JA
18 10/14/2003 30327 Via Collado Tree Trimming 1.33333 2.0 $333 33 VROW CTRP 178 Yes per JA
19 10/14/2003 30405 Via Collado Tree Trimming 1.33333 2.0 533333 VROW CTRP 178 Ves per JA
20 10/15/2003 30317 Via Collado Tree Trimming 1.33333 50 $633.33 VROW CTRP 176 Ves per JA
21 10/15/2003 5411 Via Collado Tree Trimming 1.33333 4.0 5666.67 VROW CTRP 178 Ves per JA
Vi~~b(()l\f 73/0 V/"dVl~Collado 5tred UtM brol\-Tree)
elL.~I'IS"~~~~dY'fL)~~-
-\it/5 bill.
1 of 1 WCA Crew Renlal 10·15-03 xis RPV Invoice Back-Up
Attachment 3-185