Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
RPVCCA_CC_SR_2011_07_19_04_Revision_TT_Trump
Date: Subject: PUBLIC HEARING July 19,2011 REVISION "TT"TO THE TRUMP NATIONAL GOLF COURSE PROJECT -PROPOSED FICUS HEDGE Subject Property:1 Ocean Trails Drive 1.Declare the Hearing Open:Mayor Long 2.Report of Notice Given:City Clerk Morreale 3.Staff Report &Recommendation:Deputy Community Development Director Pfost 4.Public Testimony: Applicants:V.H.Property Corp. 5.Council Questions: 6.Rebuttal: 7.Declare Hearing Closed:Mayor Long 8.Council Deliberation: 9.Council Action: 4-1 CITY OF MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: REVIEWED: HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS JOEL ROJAS,CO U DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR JULY 19,2011 REVISION "TI"TO THE TRUMP NATIONAL GOLF COURSE PROJECT -PROPOSED FICUS HEDGE CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER G9--- Project Manager:Gregory Pfost,AICP,Deputy Community Development Direct~ RECOMMENDATION Deny the Applicant's request for the proposed southerly ficus hedge,but approve the Applicant's request for the proposed northerly ficus hedge,and direct Staff to bring back the appropriate resolutions memorializing this decision to the next City Council meeting. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2007,upon hearing a report by Staff and public testimony,the City Council denied a request by the Trump Organization for a proposed 12'high ficus hedge at the westerly end of the Driving Range. In 2009 the Applicant submitted a subsequent application requesting a smaller height ficus hedge in the same general location.Over the past two years,Staff encouraged the Applicant to lower the height of the proposed ficus hedge as much as possible in order to open up the view.Subsequently,the Applicant has settled on two separate proposed hedges,referred to as the southerly hedge and northerly hedge within this report.The Applicant has expressed to Staff that the proposed height of the two ficus hedges was the lowest height that would still meet their needs of blocking the view of the residential homes from patrons of their Driving Range. 4-2 Staff reviewed the application and feels that the southerly hedge significantly impairs the view of Catalina Island from at least one resident's home (Zeit's),who resides in the Portuguese Bend Club.Because Staff feels that there are significant impacts related to the southerly hedge,Staff believes that the findings to amend the project's Conditional Use Permit to accommodate this particular hedge cannot be made. However,Staff believes that although the proposed northerly hedge does affect some views from residences,the public right of way and from a public trail,the affects are relatively minor given the significant breadth of view experienced over the site from these locations.As discussed in the report,Staff feels that the findings could be made for the northerly hedge and thus it may be approved.Within the report,Staff has identified various amendments to the existing conditions of approval and mitigation measures for the site to accommodate the northerly hedge. While Staff's proposed recommendation will not entirely meet the desires of the Trump Organization as the view of all homes located to the west of the Driving Range will not be blocked from all tees of the Driving Range,the recommendation will partially meet their desire by blocking the view of the homes from some of the tees of the Driving Range, while removing the significant view impacts to the Zeit's home that would be caused by the southerly hedge. BACKGROUND In June 1992,the City Council approved the Ocean Trails project (now known as Trump National),which,at that time,included an 18-hole golf course,clubhouse, public open space and 83 single-family residential lots.Since June 1992,the project has been revised several times.Today,the approved project includes an 18-hole golf course,Clubhouse, Driving Range,public open space and 59 single-family residential lots.The 59 single- family residential lots are within two different tracts;23 lots within Tract No.50666 and 36 lots within Tract No.50667.Tract No.50666 is still a Vesting Tentative Tract Map,while Tract No.50667 has been finaled and recorded. In February and April of 2007,the Applicant planted ficus hedges on the subject property to screen existing homes within the adjacent Portuguese Bend Club from the view of driving range patrons.Specifically,the Applicant installed a 5'-6'high ficus hedge row along the western property line shared by property owners within the Portuguese Bend Club,and a 12'high ficus hedge row at the western edge of the Driving Range.The hedges affected ocean views from the public right-of-way and from some surrounding homes.The project is subject to a condition of approval (No.K-2)that prohibits landscaping from "affecting"a view.Accordingly,to allow the hedges to remain required a revision to that cond ition.The Applicant su bsequently withd rew the request for the 5'-6' high hedge along the property line and requested approval of only the 12'high hedge on the Driving Range.At that time,Staff did not believe that the proposed 12'high hedge could be approved because the proposed hedge "significantly"impaired views from adjacent residences in the Portuguese Bend Club and from the public right of way of Palos Verdes Drive South.However,Staff did believe that an alternative project that 4-3 included a lower height hedge could possibly be approved.On December 18,2007,the City Council denied the Applicant's request for the proposed 12'high ficus hedge. On June 10,2009,the Applicant submitted another application for proposed ficus hedges at the western edge of the Driving Range.Staff and the Applicant subsequently met many times to try and determine a proposed height officus hedge that Staff could support while still meeting the Applicant's needs.Over the past two years,Staff took many pictures from neighboring property owner's homes to assess the potential view impacts- working back and forth between the Applicant and the neighboring property owners in an attempt to reach resolution.While Staff and the Applicant could not reach full agreement on the proposed height of the hedges,the Applicant has decided to move forward to the City Council with the proposal described within this report. Similar to the proposal of 2007,due to the nature of the request,the proposed hedges require review and/or modifications to certain conditions and mitigation measures for the project;thus necessitating City Council approval.Specifically,the project as currently entitled includes specific conditions and mitigation measures that address the type,height and view impairment aspects of proposed landscaping for this project.The conditions and mitigation measures that specifically apply to this (Revision "TT")request are as follows: Environmental Impact Report No.36 -Mitigation Measure 73.The project proponent shall not use view-obstructing plant species. Environmental Impact Report No.36 -Mitigation Measure 106.Native vegetation and drought tolerant species shall be used by the project proponent,to the extent possible in common open space and golf course. Mitigated negative Declaration for the Driving Range -Mitigation Measure 10.Aesthetics A-1:Subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement,prior to issuance of any grading permits,the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan that identifies the type of vegetation proposed for the driving range and surrounding areas,specifically including the southerly berm.The type of vegetation utilized shall be consistent with the allowable vegetation permitted on the subject site,as defined in the project's HCP,and shall not be of a type that would grow higher than the ridge elevation of the southerly berm.Further,said vegetation shall be maintained to a height that will not grow higher than the ridge elevation of the southerly berm. Conditional Use Permit No.163 -Condition of Approval K-2.Prior to installation of the permanent landscaping for the golf course and associated structures, including the driving range,the developer shall submit a final landscape and irrigation plan to the Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement for review and approval of the clubhouse, golf course and appurtenant structures,driving range,parking lots,and all open space areas within the boundaries of the parcel maps and/or tract maps,roadway medians and public trails. The final landscape and irrigation plans shall conform to California State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (per State Assembly Bill 325)and shall include the following: 4-4 a.A minimum of eighty percent (80%)drought tolerant plant materials for all landscaped areas. b.Landscaping within the project area shall be planted in such a manner so that views from adjacent properties and any public right-of-way are not affected. c.All trees selected shall be of a species which reasonably could be maintained at 16 feet. Said trees shall be maintained not to exceed 16 feet in height. d.The landscaped entries and buffer zones shall meet the standards for Intersection Visibility (Section 17.48.070 (formally 17.42.060)),as identified in the Development Code. e.Irrigation systems shall utilize drip and bubbler systems wherever possible.Controlled spray systems may be used where drip or bubbler systems are not appropriate.All sprinkler heads shall be adjusted to avoid over-spray. f.All high water use areas shall be irrigated separately from drought tolerant areas. g.Irrigation systems shall be on automatic timers and shall be adjusted for seasonal water needs. h.Where practical,transitional landscaping on graded slopes shall screen the project's night lighting as seen from surrounding areas. DISCUSSION As shown in the attached plan,the Applicant's request is to permit two rows officus ("Ficus Nitida")trees/hedges along the western edge of the Driving Range.The first row,which is the more northerly row,is proposed to be 9.8'high at its northern end and gradually decreasing in height to 6.0'high at its southerly end.The second row,which is directly south and west of the row described above,is 7.7'high at its northern end and gradually increasing in height to 11.0'high at its southerly end.While the proposed top of the hedge would appearto be relatively horizontal,the change in height described above is a result of the undulating ground level at the hedge base.A temporary frame silhouette with flags has been erected at the site that depicts the proposed height of the two hedge rows.The silhouette height has been certified by a licensed land surveyor. As proposed,the request requires City Council review and approval of proposed modifications to the existing mitigation measures and conditions of approval as identified in the "Background"section above.Below,Staff has provided an analysis of this request. Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No.163: As noted above,Condition K-2.b of CUP No.163 currently states: K-2.b.Landscaping within the project area shall be planted in such a manner so that views from adjacent properties and any public right-of-way are not affected. To implement this condition it is important to first interpret what is meant by the terms "views"and "affected".In implementing the City's View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance,the term "view"is defined as follows: 4-5 Section 17.02.040(A)(14):On the Palos Verdes Peninsula,it is quite common to have a near view and a far view because of the nature ofmany of the hills on the peninsula.Therefore,a 'view',which is protected b this section is as follows: a.A 'near view'which is defined as a scene located on the peninsula including,but not limited to,a valley,ravine,equestrian trail,pastoral environment or any natural setting; and/or b.A 'far view'which is defined as a scene located off the peninsula including,but not limited to,the ocean,Los Angeles basin,city lights at night,harbor,Vincent Thomas Bridge, shoreline or off shore islands. A 'view'which is protected by this Section shall not include vacant land that is developable under the city code,distant mountain areas not normally visible nor the sky,either above distant mountain areas or above the height of offshore islands.A 'View'may extend in any horizontal direction (360 degrees of horizontal arc)and shall be considered as a single view even if broken into segments by foliage, structures or other interference." Thus,in using this definition of "view",as it relates to the two proposed hedges within this application,the "view"in this case would include the scene of the ocean and Catalina Island. Within the City's Ordinance,the word "significantly"is used to qualify the level of view impairment-i.e.,the view is either significantly impaired or not significantly impaired.The difficulty with interpreting condition K-2b is that the condition does not utilize the word "significantly".Thus,one needs to interpret the term "affected"in its relationship to the term "view".The view in this case is a "scene"that includes the ocean and Catalina Island and it is not uncommon within this scene to have landscaping and/or structures within the scene.Staff is not of the belief that the intent of Condition K-2b was to actually ensure that all landscaping on the entire project site would not "affect"a view or this scene in any way. Such a feat would be virtually impossible to accomplish,given that the site is a golf course with a landscape palette that allows a vertical component (i.e.trees and shrubs)up to 16' feet high,which would naturally rise up into existing views of the ocean in some locations. In the past,while reviewing landscape plans,Staff has attempted to analyze them to ensure as least an impact to views as possible.Currently there are many areas of the golf course,as viewed from surrounding homes,from those traveling along Palos Verdes Drive South and those traversing the trails through and around the project site,where landscaping slightly impairs the ocean view,but given that the scene is so vast,the impairment is very slight and thus is consistent with what Staff believes is the intent of this condition. While it is obvious that the proposed southerly and northerly hedge rows have an affect on views because they are in the view frame as seen from multiple surrounding vantage points,similar to other existing landscaping that is currently in the view frame,Staff does not believe that the overall panoramic view is actually being "affected"by the northerly hedge row,but has concerns regarding the southerly hedge row.Specifically,below,Staff has provided a narrative of the view impacts caused by the two proposed hedge rows, considering full build out of the Trump project.Additionally,Staff has provided the attached photographs depicting the potential affects upon views,which Staff will update over the next few days to provide a more clear understanding of the view impacts when Staff presents this item to the Council at the meeting. 4-6 Views from PVDS When driving from the east to west along PVDS,expansive panoramic views can be enjoyed ranging from the south to the west over the project site,which include a significant amount of ocean and Catalina Island.When the Trump homes located between the driving range and PVDS are constructed,it is estimated that a very small lower portion of this ocean view will be impaired by the new homes.However,a large portion of the ocean view and Catalina Island will still be visible.Because there will be open space between the furthest west Trump home and the existing homes within the Portuguese Bend Club, travelers on PVDS would be able to see both proposed hedges during this open section of road.More specifically,most of the southerly hedge will partially impair a relatively small portion of the view of the ocean,while the southern portion of the northerly hedge will partially impair the same portion of the view of the ocean.Views of Catalina Island,the horizon and a significant amount of ocean would not be impaired. When driving from the west to the east along PVDS,there are similar views to the south and west over the project site,which include similar expansive panoramic views of the ocean and Catalina Island.Similarly,the same portions of the two hedges will impair a relatively small portion of the ocean view as seen by a traveler on PVDS headed in this direction up until the new Trump homes come into view.However,the impairment is not as great as when heading the opposite direction due to the viewer having to turn their head to see the hedges. Views from the Public Trail There exists an un-improved public trail on the Trump property between the driving range and the western property line shared with the Portuguese Bend Club.When this portion of the project site is completed by the Trump Organization,this trail will be improved and run from the western end of the street that provides access to the future 12 Trump home sites, towards the south,connecting with a trail to the bluff's edge and to a trail that parallels the southern edge of the driving range.As trail users walk along the trail,both proposed hedges will affect the view of Catalina Island and the ocean to varying degrees for a limited amount of time that the trail users traverse the relatively short length of the trail. Views from Portuguese Bend Club Homes Views from the homes within the Portuguese Bend Club vary,but are generally directed to the south and west,and typically include a significant amount of the ocean and depending upon location,usually Catalina Island.For some homes,the eastern portion of this view also includes the Trump project and the proposed hedges.There are three homes in particular that Staff focused its view analysis on as they are the closest and would be most affected as a result of the proposed hedges.The views from these three homes are located at three distinct elevations as a result of the subdivision and structure designs within the subdivision.Other homes within the Portuguese Bend Club are farther to the west and as a result,any impairment,if at all,would be less than what would be experienced from the three homes discussed below. The first home,located at 4048 Palos Verdes Drive South is owned by Ms.Leeds,and is located at the highest elevation,adjacent to the Trump property.There are expansive 4-7 panoramic views from the primary viewing area (living room and master bedroom,which share the same view),in Ms.Leeds'home that range from the south to the west,which include a very large amount of ocean and Catalina Island.Most of the proposed southerly hedge encroaches into a small portion of her ocean view,while the southerly end of the northern hedge encroaches into a very small portion of her ocean view.The proposed hedges would not encroach into the view of Catalina Island. The second home,located at 41 05 Sea Horse Lane,is a two-story structure owned by Mr. Thatcher,and is located a step lower in elevation than Ms.Leeds home.The City does not consider views from the second floor of a two story home unless it is the primary living area.Thus,the view from the first floor living room is the primary viewing area of the property for which a view of the ocean and Catalina Island to the south and west exists. The proposed hedges would not be visible from this primary viewing area. Notwithstanding,as most residents that Staff has spoken to are concerned with "any"view being "affected" from their home,Staff felt it important to inform the Council of other views in Mr.Thatcher's home that he may address at the meeting.The view from the second floor,which is not the primary viewing area,is similar to Ms.Leeds views,which includes a significant amount of ocean and Catalina Island,however more limited given its lower elevation and impairment by other existing residential structures within the Portuguese Bend Club.There are two separate views from the second floor.The first is the more predominate and is a panoramic view ranging from the south to the west that is viewed from the southerly window of an upstairs room.The less predominate view is one towards the southeast out of the room's easterly window and includes a smaller portion of the ocean.The proposed hedges would encroach into the view of the ocean,albeit a relatively small portion of the larger predominate view and a portion of the smaller view.More specifically,the proposed hedges would encroach into the view of some ocean but maintain a portion of the ocean view below horizon level.The existing view of Catalina Island would not be affected by the proposed hedges. The third home,located at 4100 Sea Horse Lane is owned by Mr.and Mrs.Zeit,and is located at approximately the same elevation as Mr.Thatcher's home.The Zelts'home is located adjacent to the Trump property.The Zelts'primary viewing area is from their living room which contains a panoramic view that ranges from south to west and includes the ocean and Catalina Island.The southerly hedge significantly impairs the Zelts'view of Catalina Island,while the northerly hedge has a small affect upon his ocean view. Notwithstanding,similar to Mr.Thatcher's home,there are also other views within the Zeit's home that are not the primary view.Specifically,from the dining room/kitchen area that faces east and which is not the primary viewing area,and immediately outside on their pool patio,the Zelts have a view towards the east of a very slight portion of the ocean near the Clubhouse.This view,although clearly not as predominate as their primary view from the living room described above,would see an encroachment of the hedge.Mr.Zeit also claims that the northerly hedge would affect his view of the sunrise,which although Staff has not seen this view at sunrise,agrees that it would encroach into that view to some degree. 4-8 Views from Seaview Homes Views toward the south from homes within the Seaview Tract at the lowest elevation (Le. along the PVDS frontage road)include large panoramic views that range from the south to the west of the ocean and Catalina Island.Due to the landscape within the median strip that separates the PVDS frontage road that services these homes and PVDS,in some cases the view of the driving range and some ocean is already impaired.Given the building pad elevation changes of these homes,some homes have more view than others. Similar to the views experienced while traveling along PVDS,the proposed hedges would encroach into a very small portion of the ocean view and none of the Catalina Island view from some of these homes,while others cannot see the hedges due to the existing landscaped median. Staff believes that the northerly hedge row could be approved as proposed because although it does encroach into the view,in Staff's opinion,the overall panoramic view is not affected given the very small encroachments and the overall breadth of view that one experiences from each of the viewing areas discussed above.However,Staff is not supportive of the proposed southerly hedge given its very impactful affect upon the Zelts' view of Catalina Island. If the Council were to agree with Staff's determination that the proposed northerly hedge does not "affect"a view but the proposed southerly hedge does,then Staff feels that an amendment to Condition K-2b is warranted to include text to address the proposed location and height of the northerly hedge as well as its maintenance requirements.Thus,if approved,Condition K-2b would be revised as shown under finding #6 below. In approving a modification to the conditions of approval of CUP No.163,the Council must find that the modification would still result in a project that is consistent with the findings necessary for approval of a Conditional Use Permit.Those findings (shown in bold text) and Staff's analysis (shown in normal text)are provided below. 1.That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and for all of the yards,setbacks,walls,fences,landscaping and other features required by this title or by conditions imposed under this section to integrate said use with those on adjacent land and within the neighborhood; When the development of the Trump National Golf Course project (formally known as Ocean Trails)was initially considered by the City Council in 1992,there was much effort to ensure that the development of the project would be integrated with uses upon adjacent land and within the surrounding neighborhoods to ensure that the project would not result in adverse impacts to views.In making their decision,the Council reviewed the project in accordance with existing goals,policies and guidelines within the "General Plan","Coastal Specific Plan"and the "Coastal Development and Design Guidelines for Subregions 1 and 7".The Council approved the project with many conditions and mitigation measures that restrict building (residential and non-residential)heights as well as landscaping to ensure that views are maintained over the project site. 4-9 As part of their initial approval in 1992,the Council approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.50666 (VTTM 50666)for the westerly portion of the project,which included the development of 39 single-family residential lots.It is important to note that the proposed northerly hedge is located on what was to be one of these residential lots (Lot #40)as originally approved under VTTM 50666.Per the Municipal Code,if Lot #40 were to be developed with a residential home,the homeowner would have been permitted to grow landscaping to a height of 16'or the ridgeline of the residence whichever is lower.Based upon this information,the proposed northerly hedge is no more of an impact upon views than what was expected of the development of Lot #40 when this project was initially approved.The southerly hedge is in a location where a former Open Space lot would be adjacent to Lot #40,which could have permitted landscaping up to 16'in height.The proposed southerly hedge would also be lower than what would have been permitted; however,its landscape plan would have been reviewed with more scrutiny due to it being located on an open space lot and not on residential property. While the proposed hedges would not have caused any more of a view impact than could have been expected when the project was initially approved in 1992,it is important to note that the entitlements that created Lot #40 and the Open Space lot are no longer valid. Instead,a revised VTTM 50666 that includes the development of a driving range instead of Lot #40,with improved views,is now the valid development entitlement.It is Staff's belief that it is this entitlement that should be used in evaluating potential view impacts resulting from proposed structures and/or landscaping. Over the years,project revisions that affected grading and/or the re-Iocation of structures were scrutinized heavily to ensure that changes would not affect views and/or would improve views.Most recently,when reviewing the Applicant's request for the driving range, the Council considered this same finding and again found that,as approved,the proposed project would be integrated with uses on adjacent land and within the neighborhood.In fact,the Council and neighboring residents found that the proposed driving range would be a better project than the previously approved design because the driving range would cause the removal of 16 residential lots from VTTM 50666,thereby improving views. According to the Applicant,the hedges are proposed in their respective locations to block the view of existing homes within the Portuguese Bend Club so as to improve the aesthetics for patrons teeing off at the driving range.Additionally,the Applicant has claimed that the proposed hedges offer an additional security measU're for stray golf balls that may be hit longer than the driving range permits;thereby improving the safety of pedestrians utilizing the public trail located between the driving range and the Portuguese Bend Club,and the residents of the Portuguese Bend Club. When the driving range was approved by the City Council various conditions were added to provide for safety.Additionally,the proposed driving range was reviewed and approved by a golf course safety expert ensuring that the proposed project would be safe forthe public who utilize the trails adjacent to the driving range,and to residents within the Portuguese Bend Club.While Staff agrees that the proposed hedges do accomplish the Applicant's 4-10 desire to shield the adjacent homes from the driving range patrons,and also provide for an extra safety measure to protect the public,Staff does not believe that the proposed southerly hedge is well integrated into the site because of the degree it affects views from residential properties (mainly the Zelts')located in the Portuguese Bend Club. On the other hand,given the limited affect upon views resulting from the northerly hedge and a reasonable expectation that the property owner would desire to plant landscaping in this area,Staff does feel that this finding can be made for the northerly hedge. 2.That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use; The proposed hedges will not cause any increase in use of the subject golf course site and therefore will not generate any increase in the use of streets,highways or necessitate additional parking spaces at the site.As such,this finding does not apply. 3.That,in approving the subject use at the specific location,there will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof; In considering the expansive views from existing residences and the public right of way of Palos Verdes Drive South,although the proposed hedges will encroach into views,Staff believes that the proposed northerly hedge does not "affect"the overall panoramic view nor create "significant"view impairment as defined through the City's Municipal Code and View Guidelines and thus will not have a significant adverse effect per the finding stated above. However,it is Staff's opinion that given the significant impact to the Zelts'view resulting from the proposed southerly hedge,there would be a significant adverse effect as a result of the southerly hedge.Thus,this finding could not be made for the southerly hedge. Additionally,it is Staffs opinion that the southerly hedge appears to be inconsistent with a design guideline within the "Coastal Development and Design Guidelines for Subregions 1 and 7".Specifically,as shown in the attached depiction and text found on page 23 of the Guidelines,"Horizontal views should be protected and maintained from existing public areas and established residential areas.No structures should obstruct these views.Plant materials should be selected and located so as not to disrupt these views".Staff opines that the vertical element of the proposed southerly hedge as viewed from the Zelts'home would be contrary to this guideline. As such,for the reasons noted above,Staff feels that this finding cannot be made for the southerly hedge,but could be supported for the northerly hedge. 4.That the proposed use is not contrary to the general plan; The General Plan (Page 189 -Figure 41)has identified views and vistas that overlook the project site from Palos Verdes Drive South.Additionally,a Goal of the General Plan (Page 176)states, 4-11 "Palos Verdes Peninsula is graced with views and vistas of the surrounding Los Angeles basin and coastal region.Because of its unique geographic form and coastal resources,these views and vistas are a significant resource to residents and to many visitors,as they provide a rare means of experiencing the beauty of the peninsula and the Los Angeles region.It is the responsibility of the City to preserve these views and vistas for the public benefit and,where appropriate,the City should strive to enhance and restore these resources,the visual character of the City,and provide and maintain access for the benefit and enjoyment of the public. It is Staff's opinion that the proposed southerly hedge is inconsistent with this Goal, especially when taken in the context of the hedges'inconsistency with the "Coastal Development and Design Guidelines for Subregion 7"as discussed in finding #3 above. Furthermore,when the Council approved a revision to accommodate the driving range, which removed 16 residential home sites and enhanced the views over the site,this decision was consistent with the portion of the Goal that states,"....It is the responsibility of the City to preserve these views and vistas for the public benefit and,where appropriate, the City should strive to enhance and restore these resources ..."Staff feels that while the northerly hedge's encroachment upon views is minimal,the proposed southerly hedge would cause too much of an impairment and thus is contrary to this Goal. Therefore,for the reasons noted above,Staff feels that the proposed southerly hedge is contrary to the General Plan. 5.That,if the site of the proposed use is within any of the overlay control districts established by Chapter 17.40 (Overlay Control Districts)of this title,the proposed use complies with all applicable requirements of that chapter;and The subject site is located in the "Natural","Socio/cultural"and "Urban Appearance" Overlay Control Districts.According to Section 17.40.010 of the Municipal Code,the purpose of the overlay control districts is to ''provide criteria which further reduce potential impacts which could be directly created or indirectly induced by proposed and existing developments in sensitive areas of the City.These areas have been defined by the General Plan and other studies to be sensitive areas due to unique characteristics contributing significantly to the City's form,appearance,natural setting,and historical and cultural heritage." Staff is concerned regarding the proposed southerly hedge's compliance with the performance criteria of the "Urban Appearance"overlay control district.According to Section 17.40.060,the "Urban Appearance"overlay control district was established to: "...2.Preserve,protect and maintain significant views and vistas from major public view corridors and pUblic lands and waters within the city which characterize the city's appearance as defined in the visual aspects portion of the general plan and the corridors element of the coastal specific plan; 3.Ensure that site planning,grading and landscape techniques,as well as improvement planning, design and construction will preserve,protect and enhance the visual character of the city's predominant land forms,urban form,vegetation and other distinctive features,as identified in the general plan and the coastal specific plan;and ..." Additionally,Chapter 17.40.060.C indicates that the following performance criteria shall be 4-12 used in assessing any and all uses and developments: "1.Result in the change in elevation of the land or construction of any improvement which would block,alter or impair major views,vistas or viewsheds in existence from designated view corridors, view sites or view points at the dates of adoption of the general plan and the coastal specific plan in such a way as to materially and irrevocably alter the quality of the view as to arc (horizontal and vertical),primary orientation or other characteristics;... 8.Result in changes in topography or the construction of improvements which would block,alter or otherwise materially change significant views,vistas and viewshed areas available from major private residential areas of the community which characterize the visual appearance,urban form and economic value of these areas." For the reasons stated in the findings above,Staff believes that the proposed northerly hedge is consistent yet the proposed southerly hedge would be inconsistent with the purpose and performance criteria of the "Urban Appearance"overlay control district. 6.That conditions regarding any of the requirements listed in this paragraph, which the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health,safety and general welfare,have been imposed:a.Setbacks and buffers;b.Fences or walls;c.Lighting;d.Vehicular ingress and egress;e.Noise,vibration,odors and similar emissions;f.Landscaping;g.Maintenance of structures,grounds or signs; h.Service roads or alleys;and i.Such other conditions as will make possible development of the City in an orderly and efficient manner and in conformity with the intent and purposes set forth in this title. As discussed in the findings above,it is Staff's opinion that the southerly hedge at its proposed location and height cannot be approved and as such this finding does not apply to that hedge.However,Staff believes that the northerly hedge could be approved and that a condition should be added to ensure that the proposed hedge is planted and maintained at the exact approved height.If the Council agrees with Staff,then Staff recommends the following modification to Condition K-2b:(bold underline for text added): K-2.b.Landscaping within the project area shall be planted in such a manner so that views from adjacent properties and any public right-of-way are not affected The Applicant may install and maintain a ficus hedge at a location and height (9.8'high at its northern end and gradually decreasing in height to 6.0'high at its southerly end)that will not exceed that shown on the approved Site Plan that was approved and determined not to affect a view by the City Council on July 19,2011,through Resolution No.2011-.As part of said installation,the Applicant shall also install and maintain stakes within the ficus hedge that will represent the approved height.Said stakes shall be installed at intervals no greater than 5' apart and shall be surveyed to thier height with certification stamped by a licensed surveyor. Further,after said ficus hedge has been installed,the hedge shall be trimmed/maintained no later than the first day of each month to ensure that the height of the hedge does not exceed the approved height represented by the top of the stake.If at any time,upon investigation by City Staff.it appears that the stakes have been altered so that it affects their height and sUbsequently affects the hedge height as approved by the City Council,then at the request of the City.and SUbject to the review and approval by the Community Development Director,the Applicant shall re-certify the height of the stakes and make any necessary adjustments to ensure that they represent the maximum permitted height of the hedge. 4-13 Changes/Clarification to Existing Mitigation Measures As discussed in the "Background"section above,in order to permit the proposed northerly hedge,various changes and/or clarifications are necessary to certain mitigation measures adopted for Environmental Impact Report No.36 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the driving range.Below is an analysis of these necessary changes/clarifications. Environmental Impact Report No.36 -Mitigation Measure #74 74.The project proponent shall not use view-obstructing plant species. In reference to the proposed northern hedge,Staff is of the opinion that it may be found consistent with this mitigation measure given its'relatively little impairment to a view and thus it not being "view-obstructing".Additionally,the maintenance condition noted above would ensure that the hedge would be maintained to a level that would not be view- obstructing. Environmental Impact Report No.36 -Mitigation Measure #107 107.Native vegetation and drought tolerant species shall be used by the project proponent,to the extent possible in common open space and golf course. This species of ficus is not native or drought tolerant.However,the mitigation measure includes the phrase "to the extent possible"to allow some flexibility as to the location of native vegetation and drought tolerant plant species throughout the project site.While there are significant amounts of native vegetation and drought tolerant species planted on the subject site,the driving range is composed of non-native non-drought tolerant species. Since the proposed ficus hedge would be part of the already non-native non-drought tolerant driving range vegetation,Staff feels that the proposed ficus hedge is consistent with this mitigation measure. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Driving Range -Mitigation Measure #10 10.Aesthetics A-1:Subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement,prior to issuance of any grading permits,the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan that identifies the type of vegetation proposed for the driving range and surrounding areas,specifically including the southerly berm.The type of vegetation utilized shall be consistent with the allowable vegetation permitted on the subject site,as defined in the project's HCP,and shall not be of a type that would grow higher than the ridge elevation of the southerly berm.Further,said vegetation shall be maintained to a height that will not grow higher than the ridge elevation of the southerly berm. The "southerly berm"referred to in this condition runs east to west (parallel to the shoreline)and is located on the southerly side of the driVing range.When the driving range was approved,the ridge elevation of the southerly berm was established so as not to exceed the ridgeline elevation of the residential homes that could have been constructed through the original approval of VTTM 50666.The southerly berm was subsequently constructed meeting this intent -in some cases 3'to 9'lower in height than what would 4-14 have occurred if the homes would have been developed.The obvious intent of this mitigation measure was to ensure that future landscaping would not grow higher than the berm elevation so as to preserve the same view that would have been expected should the prior homes been constructed.As seen from Palos Verdes Drive South and from some of the homes within the Portuguese Bend Club,the top of the proposed hedges,if approved, will be higher than the existing ridge elevation of the southerly berm.However,as discussed earlier,the proposed height of the northerly hedge is lower than the home that would have been in place at the same location and thus,Staff feels that the proposed northerly hedge is consistent with the intent of this mitigation measure.However,Staff feels that the mitigation measure should be revised to reflect the proposed northerly hedge. Such a change would be similar to that noted above to conditions K-2b,wherein the mitigation measure would exempt the ficus hedge as approved by the City Council. Coastal Commission Review of the Ficus Hedge The California Coastal Commission Staff has informed City Staff that the proposed project would also require review and approval by the Coastal Commission as this is a proposed change to the landscape palette that was approved by the Coastal Commission.As such, if approved,Staff would recommend the following additional condition of approval: •Prior to the installation of any ficus hedge at the western edge of the driving range per the City Council's approval on July 19,2011,the Applicant shall obtain approval from the California Coastal Commission for said ficus hedge. CONCLUSION As discussed throughout this report,Staff feels that the proposed southerly row of hedges causes a significant adverse effect due to its view impacts and therefore cannot meet the findings for the Conditional Use Permit and should be denied.On the other hand,while the northerly row does cause a minor view impairment,given the expansive views over the site, that the height is consistent with the intent of restricting landscape height in this area,and that it can be conditionally approved to ensure continued maintenance of the approved height,Staff feels that the proposed northerly row of hedges does meet the findings and may be approved.Given the amount of public comments received on this revision,Staff elected not to prepare Resolutions until the Council hears public testimony and provides direction on Staff's recommendation.Thus,if the Council supports Staff's recommendation,then Staff recommends that the Council close the public hearing,make a decision,and direct Staff to bring back the appropriate resolution for adoption at the August 2,2011. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Environmental Assessment Staff and the City Attorney have reviewed the proposed application for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).Upon completion of this review,it has been determined that the proposed modifications to the conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures would not cause a significant adverse impact nor result in new significant effects 4-15 not previously analyzed.As such,an Addendum to EIR No.36 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Driving Range may be approved. Public Notice A Notice of Public Hearing for this request was published in the Peninsula News on Thursday,June 30,2011,mailed to all property owners within a 500'radius of the subject site and to the Trump National interested parties list,and published on the City's list serve system. At the time this report was prepared,Staff had received many public comments on the matter,all against the proposed request -see attached.In general,those commenting were mainly concerned regarding the potential view impacts,and did not feel that impacting existing residents'and the public's views for a hedge that serves only the patrons of the driving range was consistent with the intent of preserving views within the community.Other comments focused upon the belief that the Trump Organization would not effectively maintain the ficus species and as a result the hedges would be an enforcement issue,and that the type of species used is not consistent with the native species/drought tolerant requirements. As discussed in this report,Staff feels that denying the southerly hedge will address many of the view issues,and while the northerly hedge will have some minor affects upon views, it could be found to be consistent with the findings for the CUP amendment.Staff also feels that after consulting with the City Arborist,who indicated that this species of ficus is a good use for a hedge and can be maintained to a specific height,as conditioned,the issue of maintenance has been addressed.Finally,as noted in the report,since the ficus hedges are planted on existing non-native/non-drought tolerant landscaping (the grass of the driving range),the species could be used on the site. Status of Flag Pole The City Council approved the Flag Pole in March 2007.The Trump Organization has submitted an application requesting Coastal Commission approval ofthe Flag Pole.Their request has been tied to their current application before the Coastal Commission for the Driving Range.Since the geology for the Driving Range has been approved,the Driving Range/Flag Pole application could now be reviewed by the Coastal Commission.In the past,Staff contacted Coastal Staff and although they had originally planned to process the combined Driving Range/Flag Pole application during last summer,for various reasons they were not able to do that.They did indicate that they would be discussing the matter internally and once a decision has been made,they would inform the City of their plans to process the application.Staff will relay any updates to the Council as Staff receives them from Coastal Staff. Status of Geology Review Pertaining to Landslide A As the Council is aware,over the past years,Trump National's project Geologist and the City's Geologist have been in dispute over geologic issues related to the Clubhouse Expansion and the development of the residential lots located just north of the Clubhouse. This dispute was settled by a third party three member Peer Review Panel.In the end the 4-16 Peer Panel primarily agreed with the City's Geologist.The final decision resulted in an approved geologic model for the Landslide A area. Subsequently,while the City's Geologist approved the geology for the Driving Range, residential homes between the Driving Range and Palos Verdes Drive South,and the Clubhouse Expansion,they required the developer's Geologist to prepare a geotechnical study to show the foundation setback line for the 11 residential building pads located north ofthe Clubhouse based upon the agreed upon geologic model.The developer's Geologist did not submit such a study and subsequently,in December 2008,the Trump Organization filed their suit against the City and other parties. Since the suit was filed in December 2008,the City had not received any report to address the location of the foundation setback line until June 3,2011.On said date the City received a report by GeoKinetics.The report appears to show that the 11 residential lots located north of the Clubhouse as well as the Clubhouse Expansion are within an area that will have a factor of safety greater than 1.5,which is the factor of safety required for such structures.The report,however,goes a bit further than simply addressing the Clubhouse Expansion and the 11 residential lots located north of the Clubhouse.On their map showing the location of the 1.5 factor of safety foundation setback line,they included the design of the original subdivision that the Trump Organization had entitlements to prior to revising their Tentative Map to accommodate the Driving Range. Thus,it appears that the Trump Organization is going to seek approval of a geologic report that would allow the potential for future development of the Driving Range by converting it back to residential lots.It is important to note that in order to have the Foundation Setback Line be seaward of the potential future residential lots,the report shows that a series of sheer pins would need to be installed to structurally create the 1.5 factor of safety.It should also be noted that the Trump Organization is very aware of the fact that if they do decide to request residential lots over the Driving Range,that they will need to submit an application to amend Tentative Tract Map No.50666 that would need to be reviewed and approved by the City Council through a public hearing.No such application has been submitted thus far. Staff believes that the review of such a geology report can move forward as it follows the typical geologic review process for any project.In other words,there is nothing to prohibit a property owner from obtaining approval of a geological report prior to the submittal of entitlement applications.If such a geology report is approved,any future project would still need to be reviewed to make sure that it complies with the approved geologic report,if and when a new subdivision were ever to be proposed over the Driving Range area,to ensure that any proposed residential building pad grades would conform to the approved report. Staff has accepted the report and has forwarded it to the City's Geologist Kling Consulting Group for review. 4-17 lawsuit filed by the Trump Organization VH Property Corp.,which is the owner of the subject project,and VHPS LLC,entities owned or controlled by Mr.Donald Trump,filed a 13-count lawsuit against the City in the Los Angeles Superior Court.On January 13,2009,the City was also served.The lawsuit alleges inverse condemnation and related claims based on alleged abuses and delays of development of the golf course and residential project,which supposedly have frustrated or interfered with the owner's development plans. On January 11,2011,the Superior Court denied plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate,and plaintiff filed a writ to the Court of Appeal to challenge that decision.Since other causes of action against the City have not yet been adjudicated by the Superior Court,and other claims still are pending in the United States District Court,the lawsuit continues. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation,the Council could consider the following alternatives: 1.Approve the Applicant's request for both the southerly and northerly hedges and continue the item to the next Council meeting so that Staff can prepare Resolutions for the Council's consideration. 2.Deny the Applicant's request for both the southerly and northerly hedges and continue the item to the next Council meeting so that Staff can prepare Resolutions for the Council's consideration. 3.Identify concerns to the Applicant regarding the northerly hedge and continue the public hearing to a date certain to allow the Applicant additional time to address the Council's concerns. FISCAL IMPACT There are no Fiscal Impacts to the City as a result of this decision. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Plan Correspondence Photographs 4-18 ~~ (~) \0 ( \~\ \J DECK DRIVING RANGE PROPOSED FICUS HEDGES 4-19 Greg Pfost From: Sent: To: Subject: Douglas Good [Gooddc@ktb.net] Tuesday,February 22,2011 8:48 AM Greg Pfost Trump Tree Proposal 2/11 Greg Pfost Deputy Community Development Director Rancho Palos Verdes Dear Sir, I am the owner of the home located at 4104 Palos Verdes Drive South.My property is the second lot nearest the Trump driving range.I am concerned about the Trump tree planting proposal at the west end of the driving range. This project would have a sever impact on the view from my property.I am opposed to any planting that would alter the currant terrain of the Trump Property. Sincerely, Douglas Good (714)847-6667 gooddc@ ktb.net 1 4-20 Gres Pfost From: Sent: To: Subject: dave unvert [drunvert@gmail.com] Tuesday,April 26,2011 11 :01 AM gregp@rpv.com re trump Make sure the tree issue has NO BLOCKAGE of view.Not some wishy washy "s ignifigant"term. And let the guy build the homes! Dave Unvert Seaview resident 1 4-21 Greg Pfost From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: jacqueline Mathis [kf6jaoinca@gmail.com] Tuesday,April 26,2011 11 :20 AM Erika Barber gregp@rpv.com Re:Trump foliage Erika, The email to send conditions of Approval is not a working web site,I do not want the Ficus trees I they GROW REAL BIG I have them in my back yard and have to trim all the time.I would lose my view and I paid a lot to get it. On 4/26/11,Erika Barber <nbarber31 O@cox.net>wrote: > >Seaview residents: > >Trump is going to try again to get a change in the Conditions of >Approval so that Ficus Trees can be planted on the Driving Range. >These could impact ocean views for many residents. >Meeting could be as early as tonight. >Send comments to gregp@rpv.com and CC@rpv.com requesting that the >Conditions in Revision "W"(Driving Range >approval)be upheld and that no changes be made to any WORDING,such >as inserting "significant"into the view impairment sentence. > > > > > > *J* 1 4-22 Gres Pfost From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hi Greg, Peter Von Hagen [peter.vonhagen@daumcommercial.com] Tuesday,April 26,2011 11 :51 AM gregp@rpv.com CC@rpv.com Re:Trump National GC As owners of the SFR at 32426 Conqueror Drive,RPV,both Jacqueline Mathis and I are opposed to any changes in wording to the Conditions in Revision W,and ask that the Conditions remain as previously approved,without change. Thank you. sis Jacqueline Mathis sis Peter Von Hagen 11 :50 AM Peter K.Von Hagen P:310.538.6704 F:310.538.6754 M.310.989.8572 DAUM Commercial Real Estate Services 1025 West 190th Street I Suite 420 Gardena,CA I 90248 www.daumcommercial.com <http://www.daumcommercial.com> ONCOR INTERNATIONAL www.oncorintl.com <http://www.oncorintl.com> CA Real Estate License #00550704 1 4-23 Gras Pfost From: Sent: To: Subject: Ralph Gilbert [pvgdlife@yahoo.com] Tuesday,April 26,2011 12:46 PM gregp@rpv.com trump foliage I request that the Conditions in Revision "W"(Driving Range approval)be upheld and that no changes be made to any WORDING,such as inserting "significant"into the view impairment sentence. Ralph Gilbert an RPV resident for 39 years,and a retired person who frequently drives along PV Drive South just to enjoy the view 1 4-24 Greg Pfost From: Sent: To: Subject: EZStevens [ezstevens@cox.net] Tuesday,April 26,2011 2:56 PM EZStevens Trump foliage Subject:Re:Trump foliage Dear Greg, I see that Trump is going to try again to get a change in the Conditions of Approval so that Ficus Trees can be planted on the Driving Range.These could impact ocean views for many residents &visitors to our Magnificent Coast. I request that the Conditions in Revision "W"(Driving Range approval)be upheld and that no changes be made to any WORDING,such as inserting "significant"into the view impairment sentence. Please help preserve what little is left of our open coastal view corridor for future generations to enjoy. Edward Stevens RPV resident for 43years, 1 4-25 Greg Pfost From: Sent: To: Subject: septover@cox.net Tuesday,April 26,2011 3:14 PM gregp@rpv.com Trump ficus trees I request that the Conditions in Revision "W"(Driving Range approval)be upheld and that no changes be made to any WORDING,such as inserting "significant"into the view impairment sentence.Thank You.Sea View resident Chon ita Holmes 1 4-26 Greg Pfost From: Sent: To: Subject: ssolari@aol.com Tuesday,April 26,2011 4:16 PM gregp@rpv.com Re:Trump foliage As a long time resident of Seaview and Rancho Palos Verdes I am requesting that the Conditions in Revision "W"(Driving Range approval)be upheld and that no changes be made to any WORDING,such as inserting "significant"into the view impairment sentence. The conditions need to kept the same without changes.Once "our"views a gone it's forever. Thank you for reading my request, Yours truly, Sharon Solari 4145 Palos Verdes Dr.South Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca 90275 1 4-27 Greg Pfost From: Sent: To: Subject: herb heitmeyer [daddyherb3@aol.com] Tuesday,April 26,2011 5:40 PM gregp@rpv.com trump why is this a new issue.No is no,even my children understand that principle.We as residents that have already had some of our ocean view taken away,do not want any further loss of the ocean.No tress on the range.Thank you Herb Heitmeyer,4256 Admirable Drive,RPV. 1 4-28 Gres Pfost From: Sent: To: Subject: Gary &Shirley Kinnett [gandskinnett@cox.net] Thursday,April 28,2011 12:55 PM gregp@rpv.com Trump's Request To Plant Ficus Trees On Their Driving Range My wife and I are 44 year residents of RPV.We live in Seaview which,as you know,is on the north side of PV Dr.West,directly across from the Trump driving range.As you know,Trump was previously forced to remove ficus trees from the west end of their driving range.Now they apparently are trying again to get City approval to re-plant those trees. Please do not permit Trump to change the Conditions of Revision W so as to give them permission to replant the trees which would impair ocean views from our neighborhood as well as the views enjoyed by motorists on PV Drive West.Please do not change the wording of Condition W by putting "significant"or any similar wording into the view impairment conditions. The Trump people apparently hope that that our city (you)will grow tired of being bothered by them and will give them what they want.You have addressed this issue previously and made the correct decision.Please now stand firm once again and let them know that this city is not going to cave in to their incessant requests and demands. Thank you for taking the time to review these comments. Gary &Shirley Kinnett 1 4-29 Greg Pfost From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Greg, direne1 @aol.com Tuesday,May 10,2011 4:50 PM gregp@rpv.com rvoll@cox.net;dgakenheimer@gmail.com;patazelt@cox.net;MOLLACORP@aol.com; wwsimmo@yahoo.com Trump Trees -Driving Range I am sure you are aware that the original "Condition W"on the driving range disallowed any vegetation higher than the berm.Trump's request for the tree height,as demonstrated by the flagging,would certainly violate the spirit and content of the original agreement. I was involved in the negotiations with Mr.Zuckerman and his staff members when the landscaping issues were planned.Our primary concerns has always been view enhancement,certainly not obstruction,for Community Association for Tract 16540,promotion of natural habitat and use of fire retardant vegetation. I have lived on Maritime Road (Tract 16540)for 39 years,and I hope to continue to enjoy the ocean views and natural landscaping as promised by the original developers and the city of Rancho Palos Verdes approval process. Yours truly, Steve Stephen R.Stewart 4164 Maritime Road Rancho Palos Verdes 1 4-30 Greg Pfost From: Sent: To: Subject: a.gottlieb [goalgo@aol.com] Thursday,May 05,2011 7:00 PM gregp@rpv.com trump foliage The trump foliage issue shows again that his organization seems to always 'push the envelope', Isn't this the guy who sued our school district.??? why do we put up with his shenanigans? Limit him to the exact requirements that we require of ALL residents RE:view protection and enhancement. 1 4-31 ". Greg Pfost From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Mickey Rodich [mickeyrodich@gmail.com] Wednesday,June 15,2011 5:32 PM Tom.Long@rpv.com;Anthony.Misetich@rpv.com; Brian.Campbell@rpv.com;Douglas Stern; SteveW@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com;gregp@rpv.com slapine@aol.com;jessboop@cox.net;info@pvpwatch.com;bjhilde@aol.com More Trees At Trump Dear City Council: I am writing this letter in disgust.I am a resident of Ladera Linda and was the president of our Homeowners Association when we had the first go around with Trump about the ficus trees he lined up against the homes on the western boundary of his property.After all of our efforts and many City Council meetings we thought that fiasco was resolved and Trump had to remove all the ficus trees.I was led to believe that the City and Trump had a written agreement on the outcome of that problem.Another part of the approval process for the driving range was that Trump was to have a pre approved vegetation plan that was to contain 90 %native habitat.As we all found out in past City Council meetings with regard to the Trump ficus trees,grass is not considered native habitat and neither are ficus trees. Low and Behold I now see that there are silhouette flags being moved to various locations around the driving range signalling another attempt by Trump to plant more trees.If I remember correctly,the last time this happened,the neighbors got up in arms over the ficus tree issue and our City Council listened to its citizens recommendation.DO NOT BLOCK PEOPLE"S VIEWS OF THE OCEAN.I understood that the City had a written agreement with Trump and they were forced to remove the ficus trees.I remember going to many City Council meetings where this issue was discussed and resolved.With regard to future trees,I believe that in the approval process for the driving range in 2005 it was clearly stated that "No vegetation higher than the southern berm (the berm parralel to the ocean)and NO view impairment.",Reference was made to the earthen berm along the southern boundary of the driving range as being the highest elevation for any future obstructions to views from PVDrive South and adjacent homes. While we are on the issue of Trump,there was another problem that came up during that time period. There is a question of a sliver of land that totals approx..7 acres along Trump's western boundary with the Portuguese Bend Beach Club that touches 6 or 7 homes.When all the homes in Upper Portuguese Bend Club were relocated there from the Portuguese Bend landslide area,50 years ago,they were placed on the ground without a Civil Engineers site approval.Consequently,many of the homes were located on the edges or over property lines,without paying attention to boundaries.The City'S agreement with the Zuckerman's was that they were to either donate that land to the adjacent homeowner or the land would revert to being open space or park land.The Zuckerman's agreed to donate it to the homeowners,but they went bankrupt before it could happen.Trump should be bound to those same conditions.There was a straight line fence that has been in place all those years along the boundary,and about a year ago,Trump came along and without warning, moved the fence from where it was,to right next to the home of Jessica Leeds,a total of about 20 feet.She is the house closest to PVDrive South at that boundary line.They left the rest of the original fence in place,only her home was affected.I think that that is a blatant action for them to take and no one in City Hall or the City Council ever said or did anything about it.I think that was retribution by Trump for Jessica opposing the ficus tree installation.Is it not the duty of the City Council to protect the interests of their citizens?They are spending too much time on Proposition "C"and the "Annen berg Dog And Cat Hostel" Similar things like this has happened in the past.For example,if you would take a ride in your car,either way along PVDrive South along Terranea,you will see that the vegetation alongside the road has grown to the point that it blocks some of the ocean views.I believed the City has an agreement with Terrenea that the plantings along PVDrive South cannot exceed 2 feet in height.A drive by will show you what is happening. There may be agreements in place,but the City does not enforce these agreements and now the brush is 4 feet tall and growing.Nothing is being done to protect ocean views.Does the City Council really care?I don't think so.They seem to have their own agenda. But the City Council did care about Proposition "C"and the Annenberg "Dog And Cat Hostel"and have and are spending thousands of our tax dollars on things the citizens DO NOT WANT.The City Council is trying to force these things on us.Where else along the coast line of Los Angeles and Orange Counties would any city, but RPV,give away for free,priceless spectacular ocean view property to the Annenberg Foundation so they can build 10 executive suites on the second floor of the "Dog And Cat Hostel"for their Board Members. 1 4-32 Something is wrong here. My plea is to please listen to your citizens.They know what they want much better than some people on the City Council think we want.I am not in favor of making any concessions to Trump with regard to vegetation or trees being added to the driving range whose issues were already resolved in the past. Mickey Rodich 2 4-33 Chip and Pat Zeit 4100 Sea Horse Lane Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 June 30,2011 Attn:Gregory Pfost Deputy Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Dear Greg: I just received your notice of Revision "IT"to the Trump National Golf Course Project:A request to permit two rows ofFicus trees/Hedges along the western edge or the Driving Range,etc. We are not in favor of this proposed view-blocking wall of ficus trees. Please find below several pictures from my home at the above address,and also from the public trail that runs parallel to my property (Appendix A).As you will see in these photos,the proposed trees block ocean and Catalina vistas as well as sunrise views,both from my home and the public trail. Please note that the vegetation on the southerly berm of the Trump Driving Range is currently in violation of the original conditions of approval. Specifically,Resolution No.2005-62:MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR REVISION "W"-DRIVING RANGE on Page 12 of 13,under Mitigation Measures #10: "10.Aesthetics A-1:Subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement,prior to issuance of any grading permits,the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan that identifies the type of vegetation proposed for the driving range and surrounding areas,specifically including the southerly berm.The type of vegetation utilized shall be consistent with the allowable vegetation permitted on the subject site,as defined in the project's HOP,and shall not be of a type that would grow higher than the.ridge elevation of the southerly berm.Further,said vegetation shall be maintained to a height that will not grow higher than the ridge elevation of the southerly berm." The same pictures from the public trail and my home also show violations of the original conditions of approval for the Driving Range,per Resolution No.2005- 64 Page 9 of 15 section K #2-b: "2.Prior to installation of the permanent landscaping for the golf course and associated structures,including the driving range,the developer shall Page 1 of8 4-34 Chip and Pat Zeit 4100 Sea Horse Lane Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 submit a final landscape and irrigation plan to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement for review and approval of the clubhouse, golf course and appurtenant structures,driving range,parking lots,and all open space areas within the boundaries of the parcel maps and/or tract maps,roadway medians and public trails.The final landscape and irrigation plans shall conform to California State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (per State Assembly Bill 325)and shall include the following: a.A minimum of eighty percent (80%)drought tolerant plant materials for all landscaped areas. b.LandScaping within the project area shall be planted in such a manner so that views from adjacent properties and any public right- of-way are not affected. Apparently the Trump organization does not care about the usage conditions that our City placed on the driving range.Certainly Trump makes it difficult for neighbors and the public by not complying with these conditions. How and when will the City enforce the current height limits of the southerly berm,which have been exceeded by Trump?This flaunting of the usage conditions,and disregard of the rights of area residents,should not be allowed to continue. I am aware that the Trump organization can ask the City Council for a revision to the original conditions.But the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council imposed these conditions when it approved the Trump Driving range in order to protect the public and surrounding neighbors from further loss of their views. The height of the southerly berm was specified in the agreement accepted by the Trump organization that allowed them to build the Driving range. This will be the third time the public and surrounding neighborhoods will have to defend against a loss of their views. The first was revision "W"in 2005 from which the above sections were pulled. The second was revision "GG"in 2007.We would remind the Mayor and City Council that this occurred as a result of a temporary permit issued to the Trump organization for a Michael Douglas golf tournament that allowed the trees for a three day period.But the Trump organization decided to leave the trees up until the City made them pull them out.As a result,the trees remained illegally, blocking views,for a six month period.(When Trump's westerly hedge of trees were standing,my home received a large increase in the number of Driving Range golf balls;apparently the hedge gave the golfers a target,which they often Page 2 of8 4-35 Chip and Pat Zeit 4100 Sea Horse Lane Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 surpassed.After the hedges were removed,only two golf balls have landed on my property.) I have pulled three pages (7,9 and 10)from the City Council's most recent decision on these trees.Please find below: Trump National Golf Course -Revision "GG" October 2,2007 Page 7 Compliance with Revised Condition K·2b: While Staff believes that a change to Condition K-2b is warranted,Staff does not believe that the proposed request for the hedges is consistent with the revised condition because given the extent of view over the subject site and the degree in which view was scrutinized when evaluating the original project,Staff believes that the hedges "significantly"impair views from existing homes within the Portuguese Bend Club and the right of way of Palos Verdes Drive South. Specifically,when the development of the Trump National Golf Course project (formally known as Ocean Trails)was initially considered by the City Council in 1992 there was much effort to ensure that the development of the project would.Be integrated with uses upon adjacent land and within the surrounding neighborhoods to ensure that the project would not result in adverse impacts to views.In making their decision,the Council reviewed the project in accordance with existing goals, policies and guidelines within the "General Plan","Coastal Specific Plan",Municipal Code's "Overlay Control Districts",and the "Coastal Development and Design Guidelines for Subregions 1 and 7".Some of these Goals,Policies and Guidelines are as follows: •Goal of the General Plan (Page 176); "Palos Verdes Peninsula is graced with views and vistas ofthe surrounding Los Angeles basin and I coastal region.Because of its unique geographic form and coastal resources,these views and vistas are a significant resource to residents and to many visitors,as they provide a rare means of experiencing the beauty of the peninsula and the Los Angeles region.It is the responsibility of the City to preserve these views and vistas for the public benefit and,where appropriate,the City should strive to enhance and restore these resources,the visual character of the City,and provide and maintain access for the benefit and enjoyment of the public. •General Plan (Page 189 -Figure 41)identifies views and vistas that overlook the project site from Palos Verdes Drive South. •"Urban Appearance"overlay control district was established to: "...2.Preserve,protect and maintain significant views and vistas from major public view corridors and public lands and waters within the city which characterize the city's appearance as defined in the visual aspects portion of the general plan and the corridors element of the coastal specific plan; 3.Ensure that site planning,grading and landscape techniques,as well as improvement planning, design and construction will preserve,protect and enhance the visual character of the city's predominant land forms,urban form,vegetation and other distinctive features,as identified in the general plan and the coastal specific plan;and..." Additionally,Chapter 17.40.060.C indicates that the following performance criteria Page 3 of8 4-36 Chip and Pat Zeit 4100 Sea Horse Lane Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 shall be used in assessing any and all uses and developments: "1.Result in the change in elevation of the land or construction of any improvement which would block, alter or impair major views,vistas or viewsheds in existence from designated view cOffidors,view sites or view points at the dates of adoption of the general plan and the coastal specific plan in such a way as to materially and iffevocably alter the quality of the view as to arc (horizontal and vertical),primary orientation or other characteristics;... 8.Result in changes in topography or the construction of improvements which would block,alter or otherwise materially change significant views,vistas and viewshed areas available from major private residential areas of the community which characterize the visual appearance,urban form and economic value of these areas." •Coastal Development and Design Guidelines for Subregions 1 and 7 (page 23) provides a depiction and text that indicates,"Horizontal views should be protected and maintained from existing public areas and established residential areas.No structures should obstruct these views.Plant materials should be selected and located so as not to disrupt these views". 76 Trump National Golf Course -Revision "GG" October 2,2007 Page 9 •Coastal Specific Plan provides for specific view corridors over the subject site. Based upon the review of these Goals,Policies and Guidelines,the Council approved the Trump National project with many conditions and mitigation measures that restrict building (residential and non-residential)heights as well as landscaping to ensure that views are maintained over the project site from residences and the public right of way.Furthermore,over the years,project revisions that affected grading and/or the re-Iocation of structures were scrutinized heavily to ensure that changes would not affect views and/or would improve views.Most recently,when reviewing the Applicant's request for the driving range,the Council and neighboring residents .found that the proposed driving range would be a better project than the previously approved deSign because the driving range would cause the removal of 16 residential lots from VTTM 50666,thereby improving views.When discussing this proposal with the Applicant,the Applicant brought up two points to substantiate this request for the proposed ficus hedges.Below,Staff has provided some additional information pertaining to the Applicant's points: •The Applicant has indicated that the height of the proposed hedges within the driving range create less view impairment than what could have been developed in the same location.As part of their initial approval in 1992,the Council approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.50666 (VTTM 50666)for the westerly portion of the project,which included the development of 39 single-family residential lots.The proposed ficus hedges located at the western edge of the driving range are located on what was to be one of these residential lots (Lot #40)as originally approved under VTTM 50666.Per the Municipal Code,if Lot #40 were to be developed with a residential home,the homeowner would have been permitted to grow landscaping to a height of 16'or the ridgeline of the residence whichever is lower.Based upon this Page 4 of8 4-37 Chip and Pat Zeit 4100 Sea Horse Lane Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 information,the ficus hedges are no more of an impact to views than what was expected of the development of Lot #40 when this project was initially approved. However,while these hedges would not have caused ,any more of a view impact than could have been expected when the project was inifially approved in 1992,it is important to note that the entitlements the created Lot #40 are no longer valid. Instead,a revised VTTM 50666 that includes the development of a driving range instead of Lot #40,with improved views,is now the valid development entitlement.It is Staff's belief that it is this current entitlemen that should be used in evaluating potential view impacts resulting from proposed structures and/or landscaping, particularly since the entitlements were approved partly under the premise that views would be improved over the driving range." •The Applicant believes that there,is a need for the proposed hedges.According to the Applicant,the ficus hedges are proposed in their respective locations (end of 12-77 Trump National Golf Course -Revision "GG" October 2,2007 Page 10 driving range and adjacent to the most northerly residence in the Portuguese Bend Club)to block the entire view of existing homes within the Portuguese Bend Club so as to improve the aesthetics for patrons teeing off at the driving range.Additionally, the Applicant has claimed that the proposed hedges offer an additional security measure for stray golf balls that may be hit longer than the driving range can accommodate;thereby improving the safety of pedestrians utilizing the public trail located between the western edge of the driving range and the Portuguese Bend Club,and the residents of the Portuguese Bend Club. When the driving range was approved by the City Council various conditions were added to provide for safety.Additionally,the proposed driving range was reviewed and approved by a golf course safety expert ensuring that the proposed project would be safe for the public who utilize the trails adjacent to the driving range,and to residents within the Portuguese Bend Club.While Staff agrees that the proposed hedges do accomplish the Applicant's desire to shield the homes from the driving range patrons,and could also provide for an extra safety measure to protect the public from stray golf balls,Staff does not believe that the proposed hedges are well integrated into the site because,given the context upon which this project was approved,they significantly affect views from residential properties located in the Portuguese Bend Club,and the pUblic as viewed from Palos Verdes Drive South.An analogy can be drawn with respect to the Council's prior review of the driving range in which the Council did not feel that netting around the driving range could be approved on a permanent basis as it would not be well integrated into the site and surrounding neighborhood due to significant view impacts,but instead included a condition that would allow for temporary netting through approval of a Special Use Permit during tournaments.This is similar to Staffs previous direction to the Applicant that the hedges could be located at the end of the driving range on a temporary basis for the Michael Douglas and Friends Golf Tournament,but not on a Page 5 of8 4-38 Chip and Pat Zeit 4100 Sea Horse Lane Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 permanent basis.With exception to the proposed 5'-6'high hedge along the entire western boundary,which Staff supports because there will be no impact to views since the 5'-6'high hedge is located on the eastern side of a future 5'-6'high wall that the Applicant is required to build,Staff does not support the other hedges as currently proposed. The proposed revision "TT"is the third time we have had to oppose these view- impairing plans by Trump. On a positive note,at least the Trump Organization is filing properly with the City this time. In summary please do not pass revision "TT".Keep our views intact.Do not allow Trump to plant trees that affect not only our views but the view of the entire public community. Sincerely, Chip &Pat ZeIt Cc: Thomas D.Long -Mayor. Anthony M.Misetich,Mayor Pro Tern Douglas W.Stern -Councilmember Brian Campbell -Councilmember Stefan Wolowicz -Councilmember Page 6 of8 4-39 Chip and Pat ZeIt 4100 Sea Horse Lane Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Appendix A Pictures from inside my home: Southern view Page 7 ofS 4-40 Chip and Pat ZeIt 4100 Sea Horse Lane Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Pictures from the public trail that runs parallel to my property line: (This sequence shows views starting from the top of the trail,then walking north to south towards the ocean.) Page 8 of8 4-41 Greg Pfost From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Mike and Louise [MandLinRPV@msn.com] Wednesday,July 06,2011 6:59 PM planning@rpv.com RPV City Council;BJ Patterson;Bob Patterson;Bucy,Erwin;Chonita Holmes;Jabe and Mona;lebucy;Mary and Richard Casaburi;RPV Planning Commission;Uday Patil;Elizabeth Sax Ficus trees clip_image002.jpg clip_image002.jpg (32 KB) To Gregory Pfost RPV Deputy Community Development Director Planning @ RPV.com Cc:to the RPV City Council, Re:Revision TT (the Ficus Nitida trees/hedges)on the western edge of the Trump driving range. Thank you for giving us an opportunity to express our two concerns. *The first concern is the 11 ft high "second row"of flagging which takes an important chunk out of the ocean view (see attached photo).We imagine it's even more significant for those on PV Drive South. Greg,as we're sure you'll remember,the coastline sharply curves inland in that area,thus any foliage growing closer to the ocean has a MUCH more dramatic effect on ocean views for all of us in the SeaView community, as well as for the traveling public along PV Dr.South. Please consider lowering that second row to a maximum height of 7'and then slope it down to 5'or so. *Our second concern is a scheduled trimming that must be part of the proposal!!As you undoubtedly know Ficus trees grow very rapidly and within a month or two their height will exceed the City's approved limitations.We are all hopeful that there will be a definite course of action that the city can take to insure that those Ficus trees are trimmed regularly to maintain the correct height at the level approved by the city. 1 4-42 To that effect monthly trimming should be a condition of approval with definite removal of the 'replanted'trees if there is non-compliance with the City's mandate. Thank you so much for your consideration in this very important matter. Michael and Louise Shipman 3948 Admirable Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 MandLinRPV@msn.com <mailto:MandLinRPV@msn.com> 2 4-43 Gigi Gonzalez 108 PALOS VERDES BLVD.#3 REDONDO BEACH CALIFORNIA 90277 Email:gigigonzalez310@yahoo.com Phone 310-378-7350 Cell:310-540-2190 Fax 310-375-3040 RECEIVED I JUL 11 2011 July 7,2011 Dear Mayor and City Council Members Subject:NO FICUS TREES ALONG OUR COASTLINE (Revision IT) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT As a longtime resident of the South Bay I am always deeply concerned about any developer wanting to change our very public coastline.At one time I was a frequent volunteer at PVPLC as well as a donor.Growing up in Torrance I walked,hiked,biked and riden horses in and around the community. Most recently my attention has been drawn to the flags on the Trump Ocean Trails.I am learning the developer has once again pressed on to get approval of planting rows of ficus trees.These will most certainly block or even worse damage stunning views of the Pacific Ocean and curving coastline. Recently there was an article to the Los Angeles Times about Trump.The article is attached for your review. The intention of this letter is to urge you to restore I protect and save our landscape for today and future generations. Sincerely, ,.~~onzalezr~ Attachment:May 11,2011 LA Times article Cc: Mary Scott,Editor-in-Chief/PV News Toni Sciacqua,Editor-in-Chief/Daily Breez 4-44 latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-trump-20110511 ,0,757;6789.stor,Y latimes.com Trump has thrived with government's generosit.Y The potential presidential candidate and opponent of biggovernment has relied on tax breaks and federal funding to build his real estate empire. 5,Y Geraldine 5aum,Tom Hamburger and Michael J.Mishak,Los Angeles Times Ma,Y 11,2011 advertisementDonaldTrump,the developer and would-be presidential candidate,portra,Ys himself as a swashbuckling entrepreneur,shrewder and tougher than an,Y politician,who would use his billionaire's skills to restore discipline to the federal government. From his first high-profile project in New York Gt,Y in . the 1970s to his recent campaigns to reduce taxes on propert,Y he owns around the countr,Y, Trump has displa'yed a consistent pattern.He courted public officials,sought their backing for government tax breaks under extraordinaril'y beneficial terms and fought an,Y resistance to deals he negotiated. In his disdain of biggovemment,however,Trump glances over an expensive iron,Y:He built his empire in part through govemment largesse and connections. photos·Trump properties in the news He has boasted of manipulating government agencies,misleading officials in one case into believing he had an exclusive agreement to develop a propert,Y and then retroactivel'y changing the development's accounting practices to shrink his tax bill.In New York,Trump was the first developer to receive a public subsid'y for commercial pr~ects under programs initiall'y reserved for improving slum neighborhoods.Such incentives have now become the norm in the powerful New York real estate communiJ:!. Karen 5urstein,a former auditor general of New York Gt,Y,reviewed a m~orTrump pr~ect in the 1980s and cOncluded he had "cheated"the cit,Y out of nearl,Y $2.9 million.Decades later,5urstein said she was still appalled at the wa,Y Trump operated. "It's extraordinar'y to me that we elevated someone to this position of public importance who has openl'y admitted that he has used government's incompetence as a wedge to increase his private fortune,"she said in a recent interview. Rep.Jerrold Nadler CD-N.Y.)fought Trump over hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding that the developer wanted for a luxur.Y apartment complex in Nadler'S district. "He sought to abuse the taxpa,Yer and stretch the law,"Nadler said."He said he ought to get a massive govemment subsid,Y.I said,'Listen,Mr.Trump,if ,You think this is a good project,,You 4-45 •spend the mone'y:" In a phone interview last week,Trump was unapologetic about pressing for govemment tax breaks,noting that he had used them not onl'y for his own profit but 1:0 spur development in foundering parts of the cit,y. Referring 1:0 how he managed 1:0 win a +O-'year tax abatement for rebuilding a crumbling hotel at Grand Cenl:ralStation -a deal that in the first decade cost taxpa'yers $60 million -Trump said, "Someone said,'How come 'you got +0 'years:I said,'5ecause I didn't ask for 50:" He said his success at manipulating cit,y and state governments was itself an argument for his presidential candidac'y. "when I work for m'yself,11:r'y to make the maximum profit,"he said."If I run [for president]and if I win,I will no longer care about m'yself.I'll be doing the same kind of things for this counl:r'y:' It is di·fficult to assess how much of Trump's complex empire has been built with the help of government munificence,since man'y of his projects remain shielded from view.5ut even a limited view demonstrates that government programs have bolstered Trump. He has also curried favor with elected officials through campaign contributions and lucrativejob offers.In the lastelection c'yde,Trump contributed to individual campaigns and wrote large checks to political groups,including $170,000 to the Republican Governors Assn.,$50,000 to the GOP-supporting American Crossroads PAC and $116,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee,according to the Center for Responsive Politics,a nonpartisan research organization. His giving has long been carefull'y targeted.A 1980s stud'y b'y Newsda,y found that Trump had donated more than an'yone else to members of the New York Gt.Y 50ard of Estimate,which at the time approved all land-use development.A recent stud'y b'y New York's Public Interest Research Group showed that since 1999,Trump has donated $595,638 to the state's lawmakers. Trump,6+,was launched into the world of million-dollar deals b'y his father,Fred C.Trump,who left a $250-million estate based partl'y on buildinggovemment-backed housing for middle-income tenants in 5rookl'yn and Queens.earl'y in his career,Donald Trump abandoned his father's formula and instead made a name for himself developing luxur'y hotels and apartments in Manhattan.5ut like his father,he continued to rel'y on government incentives. Trump's first major real estate triumph in Manhattan was 1:0 bu'y and transform the Hotel Commodore,a derelict colossus at Grand Cenl:ralStal:ion.He was 27 when he persuaded the cit,y and a state development corporation to back him in the makeover and enlisted H'yatl:to operate the new hotel,which would be called the Grand H'yatl:. Under pressure from Trump,whose father was a longtime political all'y of then-Ma'yor Abe 5eame,the cit.Y granted the pr~ect the +0 -'year full propert.Y tax abatement. In his 1987 memoir "Trump:The Art of the Deal,"Trump harped on municipal ineptitude,and described tricking the cit.Y into thinking he had an exclusive option on the propert.Y from the owner."A cit.Y official had re9uested that I send along a cop'y of m'y option agreement with Penn Cenl:ral,"he wrote.",did -but it was signed onl'y b'y me,and not the railroad,because I had 'yet to put down m'y $250,000." 4-46 ~That revelation came shortl,y before Trump and his partners shortchanged the public coffers, according to the cit,y audit.Trump asked his accountants in 1987 to retroactivel,y change the Grand H,yatt's accounting polic,y to lower its tax bill,according to an accountant's letter uncovered in the audit. when tax receipts h-om the Grand H,yatt plummeted to $667,000 h-om $3.7 million the ,year before,the cit,y budget director asked Auditor General Burstein to review the hotel's financial records.Burstein said the Grand H,yatt,through "aberrant"accounting practices,had understated its profits boY $5 million and shorted the cit,y boY $2,870,259 in taxes. "The people who didn't get the foregone taxes were the police,the schools and public hospitals of this cit,y,"she said,adding that "Trump leveraged tax forgiveness and clout into a deal where he had essentiall,y no risk at all;there was no downside.Then,having triumphed,he repaid his benefactors boY excoriating them as inept,venal and useless." Although Trump pressured her to kill the audit,Burstein said,she insisted on publishing it. Immediatel,y after it was released,the top cit,y attorne,y began proceedings to recoup the mone,y h-om Trump and his partners. Trump said this week he did not recall f>urstein's investigation.~l remember nothing about her reports or her statements,"he said,insisting that developing the Grand H,yatt was a "great service to the cit,y"because at the time,the area around Grand Central Station was "absolutel,y in shambles." "'reall,y made that area,"he said. Trump offered a similar argument when he sought to build apartments on an abandoned railroad ,yard along the Hudson R.iver.To make the 5,000-plus-unit development attractive,Trump proposed a riverfront park and asked the federal government to pa,y $200 million to sink an elevated section of the West Side Highwa,y underground for several blocks.The cost seemed staggering to Congressman Nadler,in part becausejust three ,years earlier the highwa,y had undergone a $72-million renovation. "It's a sin against taxpa,yers,"Nadler said at the time. But Trump pressed on,urging Congress to appropriate funds for a highwa,y tunnel.when Nadler opposed the re9uest,Trump secured an earmark for the pr~ect through another member of Congress,Sue Kell,y,a R.epublican h-om north of the cit,y who,like Nadler,had received campaign contributions h-om Trump. Nadler took the unusual step of urging fellow legislators to tum down millions of dollars in federal funds for a pr~ect in his own district.Trump also sought access to a federal program that would have guaranteed a $356-million low-interest loan in exchange for designating a percentage of the units for lower-income families. 'Trump stretched the definition [of the federal program]be,yond the breaking point,"Nadler recalled.The use of federal loan guarantees to underwrite what were planned as luxur,y apartments also drew the ire of GOP Sen.John McCain of Arizona. Though Nadler and McCain forced cuts in much of the federal support sought boY Trump,the pr~ect had alread,y been blessed with millions in propert,y tax abatements h-om state officials. 4-47 ~T~~p'S aggressive tactics have pla,yed out in a somewhat different,but no less profitable,wa,y in other parts of the countr,y. Trump has fought for lower tax bills in Florida,where he won a reduction in the 1980s for Mar-A- Lago,his 1I8-room mansion,and in Atlantic Cit,y,N.J.,where he filed 19 separate petitions seeking a lower tax bill for casinos and other properties.He eventuall,y settled for a $)+-million reduction,which local officials said cost millions in improperl,y reduced tax revenue.E>ut a court ruled that the deal could not be withdrawn. In Las Vegas,Trump'S goal was to lower the taxable value of the recentl,y constructed Trump International Hotel and Tower.His team,which included the former chairman of the count,y E>oard of c9ualization -the agenc,y that decides tax matters -won a reduction last ,year in the taxable value from $180 million to $8.6 million. A few other properties owned boY Nevada's best-known developers also received substantial reductions,though Trump's 95%drop appeared to be among the largest. In his appraisal to the board,former Chairman Timoth,y Morse noted the region's sour econom,y, and said Trump's g1ittering6+-stor,y tower,wrapped in 2+-karat-gold infused glass,needed more time "to establish itself within a highl,y competitive market." E>ut Nevada economist E>ill Robinson said the tax breaks proVided to Trump and other developers last ,year seemed out of line,particularl,y compared with the reductions provided to average citizens.The dramatic reductions also compounded revenue problems for cash-strapped clark Count,y. "Homeowners haven't gotten an,ything like that kind of a break,"Robinson said."'t's not in the public interest for the count,y to be giving people larger-than-normal tax breaks." photQS-Tmmp properties in the news RcLATcD:Donald Trump's poll numbers implode geraldine baum@latimes corn michaelmishak@latimes.com J3aum reported from New York,Hamburger From Washington and Mishak from Las Vegas. Cop,yright ©2011,I 05 Angeles Times 4-48 Greg Pfost From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: bj .patterson@cox.net Thursday,July 07,2011 7:12 AM planning@rpv.com Uday Patil;RPV City Council;Bob Patterson;Mary and Richard Casaburi;RPV Planning Commission;Jabe and Mona Ficus trees Re:Revision TT (the Ficus Nitida trees/hedges)on the western edge of the Trump driving range. I see we are back (again)discussing the ficus trees at Trump.Why? My recollection was that the City had turned down this request,for a number of reasons including the fact that ficus are non-native and require an inordinate amount of water.Far down the line was also the reason that we do have height restrictions in this city,and ficus trees would no doubt grow quite rapidly to exceed those height restrictions. I also recall that even though the City rejected Trumps'request to plant these trees,they were planted ANYWAY.Trump had to be told to take the trees out. This request reminds me of the petulant child who just cannot seem to take no for an answer.How many times does the city have to say NO on this issue?Apparently,the Trump Organization believes that,like a child,they can wear down the City if they just keep coming back to the issue,over and over again. I certainly hope the City sees this request for what it is,and says a FINAL no. BJ Patterson 3951 Palos Verdes Drive South RPV 1 4-49 Greg Pfost From: Sent: To: Subject: Douglas Good [Gooddc@ktb.net] Thursday,July 07,2011 2:47 PM Greg Pfost Trump tree proposal 2 Greg Pfost Deputy Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes Dear Sir, I am the owner of the home located at 4104 Palos Verdes Drive South.My property is the second from the Trump Driving Range.This property has been in my family since the 1970's.At that time,we enjoyed a view across natural chaparral to the ocean beyond.After the Trump organization built the driving range and erected an 18 foot tall berm,we lost all view of natural chaparral and part of the ocean.We were guaranteed at that time we would always have the green golf course to look at and nothing would be higher than the berm.Now the Trump Organization has a proposal before the city council to plant a wall of non-native Ficus trees on the berm and along the west side of the driving range.This would destroy an important part of my view.I am opposed to any planting that would alter the terrain of the Trump property. Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your response to my inquiry in the past.Please forward my concerns to the city council. Sincerely, Douglas C.Good (714)847-6667 gooddc@ktb.net 1 4-50 Gras Pfost From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Virginia Gonzalez [gigigonzalez31 O@yahoo.com] Friday,July 08,2011 4:34 PM gregp@rpv.com tom.long@rpv.com;anthony.misetich@rpv.com;douglas.stern@rpv.com; brian.campbell@rpv.com;stevew@rpv.com;gigigonzalez310@yahoo.com Revision TT, Letter and Attachment. TrumpLetterToCity.doc TrumpLetlerToCity. doc (31 KB) Gigi Gonzalez 108 PALOS VERDES BLVD.#3 REDONDO BEACH CALIFORNIA 90277 Email:gigigonzalez310@yahoo.com Phone 310-378-7350 Cell:310-540-2190 Fax 310-375-3040 July 8,2011 Dear Mayor and City Council Members Subject:NO FICUS TREES ALONG OUR COASTLINE (Revision TT) As a longtime resident of the South Bay I am always deeply concerned about any developer wanting to change our very public coastline.At one time I was a frequent volunteer at PVPLC as well as a donor. GrOWing up in Torrance I walked,hiked,biked and riden horses in and around the community. Most recently my attention has been drawn to the flags on the Trump Ocean Trails.I am learning the developer has once again pressed on to get approval of planting rows of ficus trees.These will most certainly block or even worse damage stunning views of the Pacific Ocean and curving coastline. Recently there was an article in the Los Angeles Times about Trump.The article is attached for your review. The intention of this letter is to urge you to restore,protect and save our landscape for today and future generations. Sincerely, Gigi Gonzalez 1 4-51 Attachment:May 11,2011 LA Times article,page 2 Cc: Mary Scott,Editor-in-Chiefl PV News Toni Sciacqua,Editor-in-Chief/Daily Breez Page 2 of 2 The potential presidential candidate and opponent of big government has relied on tax breaks and federal funding to build his real estate empire. By Geraldine Baum,Tom Hamburger and Michael J.Mishak,Los Angeles Times May 11 2011 Donald Trump,the developer and would-be presidential candidate,portrays himself as a swashbuckling entrepreneur,shrewder and tougher than any politician,who would use his billionaire's skills to restore discipline to the federal government. The complete article can be viewed at: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-trump-2011 0511,0,7536789.story <http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-trump-2011 0511 ,0,7536789.story> 2 4-52 Gigi Gonzalez 108 PALOS VERDES BLVD.#3 REDONDO BEACH CALIFORNIA 90277 Email:gigigonzalez310@yahoo.com Phone 310-378-7350 Cell:310-540-2190 Fax 310·375·3040 July 8,2011 Dear Mayor and City Council Members Subject:NO FICUS TREES ALONG OUR COASTLINE (Revision TT) As a longtime resident of the South Bay I am always deeply concerned about any developer wanting to change our very public coastline.At one time I was a frequent volunteer at PVPLC as well as a donor.Growing up in Torrance I walked,hiked,biked and riden horses in and around the community. Most recently my attention has been drawn to the flags on the Trump Ocean Trails.I am learning the developer has once again pressed on to get approval of planting rows of ficus trees.These will most certainly block or even worse damage stunning views of the Pacific Ocean and curving coastline. Recently there was an article in the Los Angeles Times about Trump.The article is attached for your review. The intention of this letter is to urge you to restore,protect and save our landscape for today and future generations. Sincerely, Gigi Gonzalez Attachment:May 11,2011 LA Times article,page 2 Cc: Mary Scott,Editor-in-Chiefl PV News Toni Sciacqua,Editor-in-Chief/Daily Breez 4-53 Page 2 of2 The potential presidential candidate and opponent of big government has relied on tax breaks and federal funding to build his real estate empire. By Geraldine Baum,Tom Hamburger and Michael J.Mishak,Los Angeles Times May 11 2011 Donald Trump,the developer and would-be presidential candidate,portrays himself as a swashbuckling entrepreneur,shrewder and tougher than any politician,who would use his billionaire's skills to restore discipline to the federal government. The complete article can be viewed at: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-trump- 20110511,0,7536789.story 4-54 Greg Pfost From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Greg, Michael Cohn [michaelhcohn@cox.net] Sunday,July 10,2011 9:28 PM gregp@rpv.com Revision TT to the Trump National Golf Course I am writing to state our opposition to Revision TT to the Trump National Golf Course.The main reason that we are opposed to the Revision is that the proposed trees will block the views of several of the residents in the Portugese Bend Beach Club.In addition,when walking on the western trail,the trees will cut one's view to the ocean and Catalina Island.It just does not seem fair that residents who have had unobstructed ocean views for many years should suddenly have these views partially or totally obscured because Trump does not want golfers to see the houses at the end of his golf course. It seems to us that this is just one more example of the lack of concern on the part of the Trump organization for those long-standing residents who border his organization's golf course. Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards, Michael and Moira Cohn 48 Santa Catalina Drive Rancho Palos Verdes California 90275 1 4-55 Greg Pfost From: Sent: To: Subject: DSchinnerer@aol.com Sunday,July 10,2011 5:47 PM gregp@rpv.com Trump Trees We are against this view obstruction. Debbie and Dave Schinnerer 30936 Cartier Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.90275 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:This e-mail message,including any attachments,is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review,use,disclosure or distribution is prohibited.If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. 1 4-56 Greg Pfost From: Sent: To: Subject: ratine@aol.com Sunday,July 10,201112:49 PM gregp@rpv.com trees As a frequent hiker along the public trails,our family stands against the implimentation of proposed trees around the golf course. Dr.Edward Piken 1 4-57 Greg Pfost From: Sent: To: Subject: Not appropriate! Georgette Kelsey [kelsey5@earthlink.net] Sunday,July 10,2011 3:23 PM gregp@rpv.com Trump Trees 1 4-58 Greg Pfost From: Sent: To: Subject: Ralph Gilbert [pvgdlife@yahoo.com] Monday,July 11,2011 6:41 PM cc@rpv.com;gregp@rpv.com;ezstevens@cox.net Trump foliage variance request To the city council,cc@rpv.com <http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=cc@rpv.com>,and to Greg Pfost,<http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=gregp@rpv.com>gregp@rpv.com: Regarding Revision TT,July 19,2011, I am opposed to any vegetation on the Driving Range,that is view-impairing to neighbors and/or the public, The current variation request was previously denied in December 2007. The permit conditions of the Driving Range from the June 7,2005 W Revision are in place to protect the views of the neighbors and the public.Let's keep it that way! The conditions of the development permit require 80%drought tolerant native plants,butthe current driving range foliage is 100%non-native and requires substantial watering. Please enforce the existing condtions and please make no changes to these conditions. Ralph Gilbert Palos Verdes Peninsula resident and homeowner since 1971 Continuous RPV resident since the city was incorporated Someone who frequently drives along PV Drive South for the purpose of enjoying the view 1 4-59 1Jiane 'ltene Stewart 4164 :Nlaritime 'ltoati 'Rancfio 'Paws ')7eraes ,CaCifornia 90275 (310)541~6311 fax (310)541~3353 July 11,2011 Attn:Greg Pfost Deputy Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 RE:Revision "TT"-Trump National Golf course Project Dear Greg: I am adamantly opposed.to the Trump proposal for two rows of ficus trees to be planted along the driVing range adjacent to our Tract 16540 for the following reasons: *Fi ellS trees are non-na tive ,and it is our unde:r;standing that only native d.rought tolerant plants were to be used.in this part of the project.It certainly does not make sense to plant trees that grow to great heights and will continue to need constant topping,as well as excessive amounts of water. *The row of homes on the eastern most area of our Tract will be tremend.ously impacted and their precious ocean views will be obscured,when that was clearly not the intention of the Ocean Trails project,as defined in the original documents. *Our homeowner's association will continually have to battle the Trump organization,with very deep pockets,to get them to maintain the trees at the height limi as defined by the city. *Havingficus trees,or any trees,obscure the path from plain sight sets up a potentially dangerous situation for people walking on the path. I respectfully request that the City Council deny this request. Diane Rene Stewart .- 4-60 Greg Pfost From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello Mr.Pfost, Carla Zanino [cszanino@cox.net] Monday,July 11,2011 1:56 PM gregp@rpv.com Against Trumps'Revision TT I am writing as a citizen of Rancho Palos Verdes to let you know that I am NOT in favor of the Trump Wall of Trees (revision "TT")My family and I frequently walk around the area and would not like to see the view blocked by a mass of trees. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. Sincerely, Carla S.Zanino 28684 Roan Road RPV,CA 90275 1 4-61 Greg Pfost From: Sent: To: Subject: David Bentley [davidbentleybmg@yahoo.com] Monday,July 11,2011 1:42 PM gregp@rpv.com ficus trees on Trump driving range I am against allowing Trump to block views along the back of his driving range.While the course is an asset to our community,it should not be allowed to detract from the views of the residents.I live in Rolling Hills Estates. David Bentley,PMP,GGM,GGE,LEED AP Professional Project Manager and Construction Consultant President,Bentley Management Group LLC www.bentleymg.com 1 4-62 Gres Pfost From: Sent: To: Subject: Greg, MHShowroom@aol.com Monday,July 11,2011 10:33 AM gregp@rpv.com Trump Revision "TT" I wanted to speak out regarding the revision of the trees along the back of the driving range at Trump.It really does not seem fair that the homeowners should have their views compromised as a result.It doesn't make sense that one of the most beautiful places on earth can't be enjoyed by homeowners who have invested greatly in their properties.I realize that Trump is also a large investment and we are all fortunate to have such a spectacular course however,the residents were here long before Trump! Mary Hardie Showroom 701 127 E.Ninth Street -the new mart Los Angeles,CA 90015 Tel:31 0.995.2968 Fax:31 0.378-1720 email:mhshowroom@aol.com 1 4-63 Greg Pfost From: Sent: To: Subject: Lucianna [Iucianna@cox.net] Monday,July 11,2011 7:57 AM gregp@rpv.com Wall of Trump Trees (revision TT) I am a resident of the Portuguese Bend Club who uses the public trail on the western edge of the Trump driving range.I would like to register my disapproval to revision TT,trump's plan to add a doulble row of ficus trees that would severely block the ocean vista as I walk down the trail toward the ocean.Thank you for your kind attention. Lucianna Molinari 49 Seawall Rd RPV 1 4-64 Greg Pfost From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: image002.png (1 MB) Dear Greg, EZStevens [ezstevens@cox.net] Monday,July 11,2011 10:00 PM Greg Pfost cc@rpv.com;joelr@rpv.com;emiliob@rpv.com;RPV Planning;rebekahm@stanford.edu; Asst.City Manager Carolynn Petru:;Community Development Dept;Office of the City Manager Trump Ficus trees image002.png 07,11,2011 I have written you numerous times over the years about the Trump Ficus trees &as you stated previously that the Trump people have a right to ask you &the City if it is OK to plant a few Ficus Trees. Well I have a right to ask you to deny Trumps request to plant these trees that will eventually become a massive Canopy that will eventually block the Publics enjoyment of what little is left of the Publics Open View Corridor in the 7 mile stretch of our City.You may recall approximately about 4 or 5 years ago when I &my daughter took you for a ride along the 7 mile stretch of PV Dr S to make you aware of how fast the Public's view was being diminished by all the slow growing vegetation that you did not even notice that the Public was losing a great natural awesome view of the Publics Open View Corridor. I am appealing to you,the City Council &the City Staff to Deny Trump the planting of his ficus trees that were supposed to have been removed from his property years ago.This has never happened in fact Trump has planted a whole row of ficus trees between the Club house &the public's parking lot East of the Club House about a 1 Y2 ago. Sincerely Edward Stevens Resident since 1968 PS:Here is a link,example of how the Public had an awesome open view along PV Dr S.before the vegetation in front of Terranea got out of control.We cannot allow this to happen with Trump. Check out this link in your spare time.You can move the photos that were taken along the entire 7 mile stretch of PV Dr S approx.2008 to see how the view was &when you drive along today to view our Peek -Boo - View not a pretty picture. http://www.vpike.com?e=33.742078,-118.399056:100.93 <http://www.vpike.coml?e= 33.742078,-118.399056:100.93> The Ficus microcarpa is a fast growing,broad-headed,evergreen tree that can reach a 1 4-65 mature height of 60 feet or more with an equal spread of its canopy.With age they can develop a massive spreading dense canopy that will cast deep shade.They grow in full sun or partial shade can thrive in various well-drained soils and are moderately salttolerant. Their canopies have glossy,dark green,leathery leaves on large,somewhat weeping branches.They produce new growth all year long that is a light rose to chartreuse color,giving it an attractive two-toned effect.Their trunks are smooth and light grey in color and can grow to three feet in diameter at the trunk flare supported by an extensive surface root system This tree because of their broad canopy,massive trunk flare and wide spreading root system does not belong in the Publics Open View Corridor as you can see from the photo below. As the Trump people change personal over the next years,they will conveniently forget to trim the trees down to the height that they agreed to just like what has happened along PV Dr S.See what is happening in front of the OceanFront Estates today with the hedge along PV Dr S.you cannot even see the 2 foot wrought iron fence anymore soon the hedge will be 10 foot high just like along Crest Road between Hawthorne &Crenshaw 2 4-66 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION FOR TRACT 16540 Portuguese Bend Club East 4100 Palos Verdes Drive South Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275 RECEIVED July 11,2011 Attn:Gregory Pfost Deputy Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Re:Revision ''IT''to the Trump National Golf Course Project Dear Greg: JUL 12 2011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT The Board of Directors of the Community Association for Tract 16540 is firmly opposed to the Trump request for two rows of ficus trees/hedges along the western edge ofthe driving range bordering our tract because: 1.They exceed the height limit for vegetation agreed upon in the original plan for the driving range and they have a negative impact on the ocean and golf course views of some ofthe homes in Tract 16540 (Leeds,ZeIt,and others to varying degrees). 2.The use of Ficus trees violates the original approved plan for the driving range where only native drought tolerant plants were to be used around the driving range.Ficus trees are not native to Southern California. 3.Ficus trees grow rapidly and require frequent cutting to maintain the proposed height limits.The Tract 16540 homeowners whose views are impacted will be constantly fighting with the Trump Organization to get the trees cut. 4.The proposed hedges serve a minimal purpose.The driving range and practice greens behind the driving range have been in operation for a number of years without the hedges.To our knowledge this has not negatively affected the golfers who use these facilities.Instead,the hedges are being proposed by the absentee owner (Donald Trump) whose life is not affected one bit by the view of our homes at the back of the driving range.The cost to our homeowners to satisfy his whim is the loss of ocean view which they have had forever and is supposed to be protected in Rancho Palos Verdes by our View Ordnance. Thus the full Board of Directors of the Community Association for Tract 16540 requests that the City Council deny this request for the hedges from the Tru Organizatio 4-67 Greg Pfost From: Sent: To: Subject: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Tuesday,July 12,2011 7:45 AM 'Greg Pfost' FW:Trump National Revision TT From:Saxhouse [mailto:saxhouse@cox.net] Sent:Monday,JUly 11,2011 10:36 AM To:cc@rpv.com Subject:Trump National Revision TT Re:Revision TT (the Ficus Nitida trees/hedges)on the western edge of the Trump driving range. Dear RPV City Council Please add my comments to the record.Thank you. I am grateful that Trump National is here to enjoy but I am concerned that they are fixated on planting Ficus trees again.I don't quite understand what Trump is trying to achieve and for what reason.If the Club is trying to block the houses behind the driving range,you will see from the photo in the attached website (City of Santa Monica StUdy)that the trees grow so high and with the trunk eventually growing so tall (the study says these trees can grow 30+feet),there won't be much that they will camouflage.In addition,the trees will be planted on an already raised bit of land,making the tree tops even higher.The tops of the trees become high and expansive so ultimately those who reside just above them,that being me,will be most effected.Other Seaview residents and PSC residents stand to have great negative view impact as well.I think if you look at the photo in the article,you will see the trees in relationship to the human beings in the photo and you will see for yourself the size potential and the ongoing problem we will have making sure they are constantly trimmed.I am not even sure what benefit the trees will provide in that particular spot. I recently heard the that the shrubs planted in the median of RPV near Terranea,received city approval and now they can't be cut because if they were trimmed to maintain the view for the residents,the shrubs would die because too much would be taken off the top of the plant and the plant would not thrive.If this is true it is sad that the plants were approved by the City of RPV to begin with,but it only makes the point that we will have the same problem with these Ficus trees if they are to be constantly trimmed.Eventually,the trunk will get so high and in order to maintain the approved city height the top of the tree will have to be cut off,so what is achieved??? 1 4-68 Please don't start with something that you know for a fact will get too high.Surely,there must be an alternative.I made a suggestion of vines on partitions.Was that seriously considered? According to arborists,Ficus trees grow very tall and their root system is invasive.Expansive on the top and invasive on the bottom doesn't sound like something that is easy to control especially in the quantity they are talking about planting. http://www01.smgov.net/planning/landm arklagendas/2007/PCR%20Land mark%20Assessment%20Report% 20(4th%20Street%20Ficus%20Trees).pdf Excerpt from the article: The Growth rate of the tree is fast,eventually up to 20-30 feet tall,developing a round,oval canopy,with dense foliage on upright branches.3 Footnote: 3 Hatch,Charles R.,Trees of the California Landscape.University of California Press.2007 I hope the City will encourage an alternative plant and take seriously the responsibility of evaluating the purpose for the row of trees and its potential impact on tax paying citizens. With respect, Elizabeth Sax 2 4-69 Greg Pfost From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Greg, mjcasaburi@aol.com Tuesday,July 12,2011 11 :03 AM gregp@rpv.com;Planning@rpv.com Trump National Revision TT ...Ficus Nitida ...please add comments to the record I have been reading some of the wonderful letters my friends and neighbors have been sending you with respect to the Trump Revision TT,and now feel it is time to add my comments.Let me start off by saying that I oppose allowing the addition of Ficus Nitida (trees/hedges).The previous ficus tree request was duly studied and debated by staff and council;input from countless residents,native plant experts,golfers,etc,was dUly considered and a good decision was made.That should be enough. SCREEN? I must say that I don't understand why this is being discussed again ...even though in a much smaller area.Is the owner's hope to provide a screen behind the raised area on the end of the driving range?Maybe so golfers can see the flight of their balls more clearly as they are driving them?If so,it would appear that Ficus Nitida is not the plant to use.Ficus Nitida is a tree and rarely used successfully as a hedge.I just googled "Ficus Nitida images"and got 19 pictures (one was a Bonsi-Iooking one that was shown twice).Of the 19 images,only one appeared to look like it could be a part of a hedge ...all the others showed great expanses of trunks ...whitish trunks (similar color to golf balls).Continued trimming will produce trees and at the heights described (9.8'to 6.0'&7.7'to 11')...there will be light trunks with little top notches of green. GROWING HABIT 1.This is a non-native plant that requires a lot of water 2.This plant has invasive roots that would most likely disturb the rocks on the back of the area designated &cause problems with the upkeep of a firm grassy green on top (Google:"does Ficus Nitida have invasive roots?").3.This plant does attract wasps ...not an insect that golfers are going to want to be around (Google "does Ficus Nitida attract wasps?"). MAINTAIN STATED HEIGHT Yeah,right!Actions do not bode well for this promise ...I encourage anyone to come over to Seaview and check out all the plants that are showing over the height of the southerly berm of the driving range.Need I remind anyone of Mr.Vinnie Stellio's promise when permission was granted for the construction of the driving range ..."no vegetation will be higher than the southerly berm". IMPROVE VIEWS FROM TRUMP PROPERTY? This was the motivation for the previous ficus request.If this is the case now,then very little of the view from the driving area of the surrounding homes would be affected ...there would be just a few houses hidden by vegetation in the described area. Today,anyone driving PVDS from the west (Terranea,RPV,PVE,etc)to Trump National has to look at a weedy dirt walking area as they gaze toward the ocean and driving range from their vehicle.From the (golf) driving area,when golfers look inland,they see more of the dirt and weeds;and should they look back as they swing (back toward the east)-they see scrub brush. PUBLIC VIEW IMPAIRMENT While,I don't think this ficus request impairs as much view as the previous one,it certainly does impair views from nearby neighborhoods (including residents of the PBC)and for the motoring public in general.This City and the Coastal Commission are both committed to the preservation of such public views. Thank you for your consideration, Mary Casaburi 1 4-70 2 4-71 Greg Pfost From: Sent: To: Subject: jessica Uessboop@cox.net] Tuesday,July 12,2011 11 :25 AM greg pfost;CC@rpv.com;Thomas Long;anthony.misetich@rpv.com;Douglas Stern; Brian.Campbell@rpv.com;Steve Wolowicz Ocean Trails/Trump National Revision TT Dear Greg,Mayor Long,Mayor Pro-Tem Misetich and Esteemed City Council Members I can't believe we are at this juncture again.I am opposed to the proposed ficus trees as they are view impairing for the neighbors,the public,and myself.I am opposed to changing any conditions of the Driving Range,"W"Revision of June 7,2005.They are good conditions,if followed. The community (neighbors,associations,etc.),in 2005,worked very hard with the developer and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to come up with a plan for the Driving Range that would serve us all well,and the approved "W"Revision of June 7,2005 reflects those conditions.It gave the developer what he wanted,a Driving Range instead of home sites.As the developer said to the community,"we need a Driving Range to make the golf course a whole course for golfers".In return for supporting the developer,they would remove 16 home sites and roads.The developer said that the removal of the home sites allows the neighbors a better view across the land;instead of looking at roof tops,you'll have a driving range to look at,and we will be able to lower the land elevation in some areas to give the public and the neighbors a better view across the land to the ocean.As requested by the developer,we supported them at the City Council Meeting;after all,it was a win win situation! In April 2007,the developer planted ficus trees on a temporary basis that lasted about eight (8)months!They never applied for a permit,they just planted them!They did not care about our views,whether we were having company,or trying to sell a home.They did not care about the public's view impairment,or private view impairment. On December 18,2007 (please review the video of that City Council Meeting,you may find it interesting!),the city council told the developer to remove the ficus trees for so many reasons ..they are not drought tolerant (the conditions from the Coastal Commission and the City requires 80%drought tolerant and they already have 100%grass which is not drought tolerant;the ficus trees require a lot of water,they are view impairing to the neighbors and the public,they are not on the City and Coastal Commission approved landscape pallette,and so much more. Here we are again!Why do we have to waste our time on this.Don't we all have better things to do? The General Plan (page 176)says,"Palos Verdes Peninsula is graced with views and vista of the surrounding Los Angeles basin and coastal region.Because of its unique geographic form and coastal resources,these views and vistas are a significant resource to residents and to many visitors,as they provide a rare means of experiencing the beauty of the peninsula and the Los Angeles region.It is the responsibility of the City to preserve thee views and vista for the public benefit and,where appropriate,the City should strive to enhance and restore these resources,the visual character of the City,and provide and maintain access for the benefit and enjoyment of the public. Coastal Development and Design Guidelines for Subregion 1 & 7 (page 23)states,"Horizontal views should be protected and maintained from existing public areas and established residential areas.No structures should obstruct these views.Plant materials should be selected and located so as not to disrupt these views." A very important component of the "W'Revision for the Driving Range (Mitigation Measures adopted June 7, 2005)is the Mitigated Negative Declaration #10.Aesthetics A-1:SUbject to review and approval by the Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement,prior to issuance of any grading permits,the applicant shall submit a landscape plan that identifies the type of vegetation proposed for the driving range and 1 4-72 surrounding areas,specifically including the southern berm.The type of vegetation utlilized shall be consistent with the allowable vegetation permitted on the subject site,as defined in the project HCP,and shall not be a type that would grow higher than the ridge elevation of the southern berm (the berm parallel to the ocean). Further,said vegetation shall be maintained to a height that will not grow higher than the ridge elevation of the southerly berm."Ficus trees are not on the approved City and Coastal Commission HCP list of plants for the golf course and driving range and obviously are higher than the southern berm (all vegetation except grass is higher than the southern berm!). Please deny this request TT.Please protect our rights and views. Thank you for your hard work and energies for the people. Sincerely,Jessica Leeds 2 4-73 Greg Pfost From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Mr.Pfost: jabekahnke@cox.net Tuesday,July 12,2011 4:30 PM gregp@rpv.com cc@rpv.com Application for Revision TT to Trump National Development I write to urge city staff to recommend to the City Council that the application for Revision TT be denied and to urge the Council to deny the application for the following two reasons. First,the Trump organization purchased the Ocean Trails development from Credit Suisse First Boston Bank for a small fraction of the value of the land and improvements that had been made to that date.The purchase included the conditions that were imposed on the development by the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and by the California Coastal Commission.One of those conditions was the use of native plants in the landscaping. Native habitat is an integral part of the development. Ficus trees are non-native and not included in the palette of plants approved for the project.If some sort of screen of vegetation is to be allowed,it should be of native plants. Further,this issue has been resolved by the Council previously.That resolution called for removal of the ficus trees the Trump organization had unilaterally planted.From having walked the public trails at Trump National it appears to me that that the Trump organization boxed those ficus trees and moved them behind the berm on the ocean side of the driving range.It further appears to me that many of those trees have outgrown their boxes and rooted in the ground beneath them.If that is the Trump organization's idea of complying with the Council's previous decision,how can they be trusted to prune and maintain a given height and size of fast growing ficus trees? Sincerely, Jabe Kahnke 4003 Palos Verdes Drive South Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 1 4-74 .2!!S Pfost From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: July 12,2011 L.Bilski [ldb910@intergate.com] Tuesday,July 12,2011 4:57 PM gregp@rpv.com Idb91 O@intergate.com;joelr@rpv.com Trump Driving Range/Ficus Trees Re:trees on Trump National Driving Range Dear Greg, Although it's hard to believe,I see that this subject of Ficus Trees is again coming before the City for consideration.This request should not even be considered much less approved,either for aesthetics or for public safety.The original plan for the D.R.was to have "low-impact"balls to prevent golf balls from creating a safety issue on the trails adjacent to the Driving Range.Are regular balls ending up on the trails and in the bushes?Yes -balls do end up on the trails and in the bushes.This is definitely a safety issue. What about the six-month (or 1 year)review for safety?Has that been done? There are supposed to be signs posted on the Driving Range,A,8,C,which designate where one is to hit from and what clubs to use,and the distances from the various tee sections.Are there signs? Are Trump Nat'l.staff members present to tell golfers which clubs to use and where to hit from so that balls do not wind up in the walking/jogging trails,and the bike trails or hitting someone?There should be,but there probably is not as balls do land on the trails and in the bushes. Haven't some people been hit and haven't there been near misses?This is a serious safety issue for the pUblic using those trails.For that reason alone,the city should require that low-impact balls be used instead of regular golf balls.It only takes one ball to create a tragedy! Planting ficus Trees to try to stop the balls is ridiculous when there is a better way,using low-impact balls.I no longer use those trails as I am fearful of being hit by a golf ball. Planting any foliage which will result in impaired public views is ridiculous.I see the silhouette erected there indicates that both public and private views would be obscured.This is not right. Previously,Trump National was directed to remove the existing Ficus Trees,yet they are still there in the Driving Range area growing higher and higher.The Conditions for the Driving Range state that the height of foliage shall be limited to no higher than the southerly berm,yet there is foliage visible higher than the berm. Why has this not been removed or trimmed down below the berm height?The Driving Range is still under a temporary permit.Does that mean the city has no power to enforce the code and conditions of approval? There was a great deal of study and discussion before the Driving Range was approved.It was not by chance that the wording was written as it was.It was written to memorialize the agreement that the Driving Range not only would not present a safety issue,but also that there would be less view impairment than if the residential development was completed as approved.This was emphasized to the local residents as a positive "selling point"to gain support for the Driving Range project.The residential development plans are now null and void because the Driving Range was approved and built.The owner/applicant signed an agreement to conform to the requirements in the Conditions of Approval. There is no good reason to change those Conditions now.If anything,the city should require a change to low- impact balls for safety reasons right now or at lease when the next "temporary extension of opening"comes up before the Council for approval.And the city should require immediate compliance with the foliage height limits of the Conditions of Approval. Please recommend to the City Council that the request for ficus(or any other variety)trees be denied -as it 1 4-75 was in 2007! Thank you. Lenee Bilski This message was sent using IMP,the Internet Messaging Program. 2 4-76 Greg Pfost From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: ll.gif (6 KB) Dear Mr.Pfost, Iindorfer [lindorfer1 @cox.net] Wednesday,July 13,2011 4:27 PM gregp@rpv.com joelr@rpv.com Trump Ficus Trees 11.gif;33.gif 33.gif (2 KB) Please recommend that Trump not be allowed to move the ficus trees hidden behind the berm to plant them on the west edge of the driving range -the trees will block views from the trail that is just west of the driving range between PVDS and the Bluff Trail,as well as residences in PBC and drivers passing on PVDS.Didn't RPV direct Trump to remove the trees some time ago? Thank You, Joe Lindorfer 1 4-77 0\ ';} ~ ~r ~ \ ~ ~\ \ ~~ ....J ~~ £\\f). ~ .........l 4-78 4-79 \ 4-80 4-81