CC SR 20201104 01 - Appeal to Removal of City-Owned Tree
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: November 4, 2020
Subject:
Consideration and possible action to consider an appeal to remove a City -owned pine tree within the
public right-of-way of Crest Road, adjacent to and behind 3234 Parkhurst Drive (Case No. CTRP2020-
0022).
Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution No. 2020- ___, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES UPHOLDING THE RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE ONE CITY-OWNED PINE TREE,
WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF CREST ROAD, ADJACENT TO AND BEHIND 3234 PARKHURST
DRIVE, IN ORDER TO RESTORE THE VIEW THAT IS SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIRED BY THE PINE TREE FROM
THE VIEWING AREA LOCATED AT 3255 PARKHURST DRIVE (CASE NO. CTRP2020-0022)
1. Report of Notice Given: Deputy City Clerk
2. Declare Public Hearing Open: Mayor Cruikshank
3. Request for Staff Report: Mayor Cruikshank
4. Staff Report & Recommendation: John Alvarez, Senior Planner
5. Council Questions of Staff (factual and without bias):
6. Testimony from members of the public:
The normal time limit for each speaker is three (3) minutes. The Presiding Officer may grant additional time to a representative speaking
for an entire group. The Mayor also may adjust the time limit for individual speakers depending upon the number of speakers who
intend to speak.
7. Declare Hearing Closed/or Continue the Public Hearing to a later date: Mayor Cruikshank
8. Council Deliberation:
The Council may ask staff to address questions raised by the testimony, or to clarify matters. Staff and/or Council may also answer
questions posed by speakers during their testimony. The Council will then debate and/or make motions on the matter.
9. Council Action:
The Council may: vote on the item; offer amendments or substitute motions to decide the matter; reopen the hearing for additional
testimony; continue the matter to a later date for a decision.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 11/04/2020
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to consider an appeal to remove a City-owned pine
tree within the public right-of-way of Crest Road, adjacent to and behind 3234 Parkhurst
Drive (Case No. CTRP2020-0022).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 2020- ___, upholding the recommendation to remove 1
City-owned Pine tree, within the public right-of-way of Crest Road, adjacent to
and behind 3234 Parkhurst Drive, in order to restore the view that is significantly
impaired by the Pine tree from the viewing area located at 3255 Parkhurst Drive.
FISCAL IMPACT: $1,762
Amount Budgeted: $42,000
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): 202-400-3180-5201
City Tree Removal
ORIGINATED BY: John Alvarez, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY: Ken Rukavina, P.E., Community Development Director
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Appeal letter and attached photos (page A-1)
B. Draft Resolution No. 2020- ___ (page B-1)
C. View from the Viewing Area (page C-1)
D. View Analysis recommending tree removal (page D-1)
E. Public Correspondence (page E-1)
F. Section 12.08.110 of the Municipal Code (page F-1)
G. Excerpted View Restoration Guidelines (page G-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On August 25, 2020, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review view-
impairing foliage located on a private property located at 3242 Parkhurst Drive (Case
No. PLVR2020-0007), which is adjacent to the subject City-owned pine tree subject of
this appeal hearing. During that review, the Planning Commission delayed its decision
1
to take action against privately-owned foliage, specifically a privately-owned Liquid
Amber tree located on the property at 3242 Parkhurst Drive, as they noted that the
subject City Pine tree and the Liquid Amber tree visually overlap each other against the
ocean and Catalina Island view. This delay was in order to allow time for Community
Development (View Division) Staff to make a view assessment specific to the Pine tree.
Based on view assessments taken from 3255 Parkhurst Drive, Community
Development Staff determined that the City-owned Pine tree significantly impairs the
view from the viewing area. In order to eliminate the significant view impairment, the
tree would need to be crown reduced by 75% or more; however, this would leave the
tree disfigured and would kill the tree. As such, trimming the tree is not an option to
eliminate the significant view impairment it is causing.
On September 17, 2020, pursuant to Section 12.08.110 of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code (RPVMC) (Attachment F), the City’s Community Development
Department transmitted a memorandum to the City’s Public Works Department
recommending the removal of a City-owned Pine tree within the public right-of-way of
Crest Road, adjacent to and behind 3234 Parkhurst Drive (Attachment D). At the same
time, City Staff notified the adjacent residents to the subject tree and the applicants of
the tree removal recommendation.
On September 25, 2020, a timely appeal of the Community Development Department’s
recommendation to remove the City Pine tree was filed by Mrs. Lili Gu, the property
owner at 3234 Parkhurst Drive (“Appellant”), requesting that the City Council overturn
and deny the tree removal recommendation (Attachment A).
Summary of the Appeal and Staff’s Responses
The appellant, Mrs. Lili Gu, raises a number of issues and concerns with the Pine tree
removal recommendation (Attachment A). In summary, her appeal raises four specific
concerns with the removal of the Pine tree: 1) The Pine tree is a Feng Shui feature of
the property, 2) The Pine tree is mature and well- maintained, 3) The Pine tree offers
shade value; and 4) The Pine tree is not a significant view impairment. The issues are
addressed below:
1. The Pine tree location has Feng Shui value
Staff Response:
The appellant cites that the subject Pine tree on the property adds Feng Shui or
metaphysical value. Removal of the tree, as the appellant states, will have a
detrimental impact, presumably an expected negative financial impact, to her
family. The RPVMC does not take into account Feng Shui nor any religious,
spiritual, and symbolic belief system into account when trimming or removing
City-owned trees. Pursuant to Section 12.08.110 of the RPVMC, the sole criteria
Staff considers when recommending removal of the tree is whether the tree
significantly impairs the view and whether trimming the tree is feasible. Staff’s
2
position is that the City tree significantly impairs the view (See Attachment C) and
trimming the tree to a height level that eliminates the significant view impairment
would kill the tree. Therefore, removal of the subject tree is the only option to
eliminate the significant view impairment the tree is causing from the viewing
area located at 3255 Parkhurst Drive.
2. The Pine tree is valued for its maturity and is well-maintained
Staff Response:
While it common for established communities to have tree management policies
in place that protect “mature” trees, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has no such
provision. The RPVMC does not exempt view-impairing City trees from trimming
or removal due to their maturity or age. The appellant also asserts that because
she has taken care of the tree over the years, unbeknownst to her that it was a
City-owned tree, the tree should remain on the property and she would continue
to maintain the tree. While it is appreciated that the appellant maintained the tree,
City Staff has determined that the trimming the tree in the fashion that has been
trimmed in the past would not eliminate the significant view impairment the tree is
causing. Reducing the height of the tree 3 feet, as proposed by the appellant,
would not improve the view. However, reducing the tree height by 75% would
vastly improve the view, but such severe trimming would kill the tree.
3. The Pine tree offers shade value
Staff Response:
The appellant asserts that the Pine tree offers shade protection to the rear yard
where her and other children recreate and where she holds social gatherings.
The appellant has supplied photos of the rear yard to support her point that the
Pine tree provides sun protection to these outdoor activities (Attachment A).
Although Staff does not disagree that the Pine tree provides shade to the
appellant’s rear yard, Staff’s consideration to remove the Pine tree is solely
based upon the opinion of the City’s arborist that the tree’s health will not
withstand the severe crown reduction needed to eliminate the significant view
impairment the tree is causing.
4. The Pine tree does not significantly impair the view from 3255 Parkhurst Drive
Staff Response:
The appellant disagrees with Staff’s determination that the City Pine tree causes
a significant view impairment. Citing Staff’s photo of the view and view
impairment (Attachment C), the appellant argues that the City Pine tree is
impairing a small percentage of the ocean view. Staff disagrees with the
appellant’s assessment. Staff’s determination that the City Pine tree causes a
significant view impairment is based on the criteria found in the City’s Guidelines
3
and Procedures for Restoration of Views. Specifically Section V, subsection
(B)(6)(a) of said Guidelines, states “ Foliage that is located in the center of a view
frame is more likely to be found to create significant view impairment than foliage
located on the outer edge of a view frame” (Attachment G). Although the subject
tree does not entirely obscure the ocean view or Catalina Island, it is evident that
the tree, due to its sizable width and dense interior branch network, egregiously
impairs the view. Moreover, because the City Pine tree is within the center of the
view, Staff concluded that the tree does cause a significant view impairment from
the viewing area at 3255 Parkhurst Drive.
City Tree Code
Section 12.08.110 of the RPVMC governs the handling of view-impairing City trees
(Attachment F). The recommendation-making criterion to approve or deny a City Tree
Review request is based on the specific finding contained in said code section.
Specifically, the City is required to make a single finding; that the subject foliage
significantly impairs a view from a viewing area of the applicant’s property. Pursuant to
Section II, subsection A of the City’s View Restoration Guidelines, a viewing area is
defined by the as that area of a structure (excluding bathrooms, hallways, garages, or
closets) or that area of a lot (excluding the setback areas) where the owner and City
determine the best and most important view exists (Attachment G). The dining room
offers the best and most important viewing area because the dining room window(s)
captures the most expansive and panoramic view of the Pacific Ocean with Catalina
Island. Since the dining room is the best and most important view, for consistent
analysis of the subject tree’s impairment, the finding relates to this viewing area. The
City’s code strives to trim and maintain healthy City trees, but the code is clear that in
cases where tree removal is the only option to eliminate the significant view impairment,
the tree should be removed with replacement.
Appellate Authority
Pursuant to Section 17.80.030 of the RPVMC, view assessments or City tree
trimming/removal determinations made by the Community Development Department in
association with the processing of City tree reviews are not appealable to the City’s
Planning Commission. Rather, Section 12.08.110(B)(5) states that appeals of a City
tree reviews shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration as a duly noticed
public hearing.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
City Arborist’s Opinion
On September 29, 2020, Staff and Jerry Rowland, Arborist from West Coast Arborist,
Inc., visited the site and met with the appellant. During that site visit it was noted by
Mr. Rowland that most of the Pine vegetation exists on the outer branches and limbs of
the Pine tree crown. Thus, thinning the tree would not be feasible because the interior of
the tree is mostly bare of vegetation. Furthermore, reducing the height of the tree by
4
more than 3 to 4 feet would remove the top vegetation layer of Pine tree, putting the
tree’s health in serious jeopardy. Mr. Rowland opined that trimming the tree down by
75% of its height, which is a height that would eliminate the significant view impairment,
would cause certain death to the tree.
Public Notification and Comments
On October 19, 2020, a notice was published in the Daily Breeze. Staff mailed a copy of
the notice to the appellant, the applicants, and to the abutting property owners. Staff
received public comments (Attachment E) from Mr. and Mrs. Goodman, the applicants,
at 3255 Parkhurst Drive and from Mr. Chase, a nearby resident at 3265 Parkhurst Drive
expressing their support of Staff’s recommendation to remove the City Pine tree.
Appeal Fees
Pursuant to Section 12.08.110 of the RPVMC, there are no fees associated with
appeals of Community Development Staff-based recommendations nor Public Works
Department-based decisions to trim or remove City-owned trees. Since no appeal fee
has been established for City tree reviews, there is no appeal refund to be transmitted
to the appellant should the City Council approve the appeal request.
CONCLUSION:
In review of the issues and concerns raised by the appellant, Staff’s recommendation to
remove the tree for the purposes of view restoration has not changed based on the
significant view impairment the tree is causing. Therefore, Staff is recommending that
the City Council adopt the attached draft resolution (Attachment B) upholding the
recommendation to remove one City-owned Pine tree, within the public right-of-way of
Crest Road, adjacent to and behind 3234 Parkhurst Drive, in order to restore the view
from the viewing area located at 3255 Parkhurst Drive, upon finding that the City Pine
tree significantly impairs the view and that removal of the tree is the only method that
would eliminate the significant view impairment.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Determine that the City Pine tree does not significantly impair the view from
3255 Parkhurst Drive and therefore, no trimming or removal action shall occur
and direct Staff to bring back a resolution memorializing this determination at
the November 17 meeting as a consent calendar item ; or
2. Determine that the City Pine tree does significantly impair the view from 3255
Parkhurst Drive, but require tree trimming to a specified height level.
5
To: City council of Ranch Palos Verdes
From: Lili Gu @ 3234 Parkhurst Dr.
Re: Appeal of recommendation of removing pine tree closely located to 3234 parkhurst Dr.
Related to: CASE CTRP2020-0022: VIEW ANALYSIS FROM THE PROPERTY AT 3255 PARKHURST DRIVE
Date: 9/25/2020
Dear City council of Rancho Palos Verdes,
I am writing to you to appeal the recommendation of removing the pine tree (city tree) located in my back yard corner closely
to my property line. I want to lay out the background of this view case and my reason of why should keep the tree instead of
removing it, and hope to get city council's consideration to make the decision of keeping the tree instead of removing it.
When I purchased the property 3234 Parkhurst Dr. in 2015, the backyard of the house were full of big trees, dead or alive
stacking and overlapping each other and we could not even see the next door house .
During remodeling of the house, we cleaned up all the trees and removed some trees, and replanted all the landscaping and
turned into a backyard with beautiful trees and flowers and playground for the kids.
Since we finished the remodeling and moved in the house in Feb 2016, I have done the tree trimming every year and couple
times a year for the first two years on my expense, including the pine tree, palm tree on crest against my back yard, and the
liquid ambers in front of my house, these trees have been determined city trees after the Oct 2018 survey .
I have been accommodating the neighbor on 3255 Parkhurst"s request to trim our trees since we moved in the house, and even
removed few trees on the hill side of the house just to give them more view they need, and agreed to keep trimming the pine
tree and thin it out as low as possible, as long as the tree will not die, and even offered to take out two of my palm trees in the
front of my house (2 out of 6) to give them more view through those palms in exchange of not pushing on the pine tree issue,
But they still didn't agree . And after the Oct 2018 survey, it turned out the pine tree is actually the city tree.
Regarding the city planner office's recommendation of removing this beautiful old tree, here is my point of reason of why
should not do:
1. When I purchased this property, I have hired Feng Shui specialist to check the property before the purchase , the big
trees on the corner of the property line to secure and weight in the house is a very important good feature of this
property, and it will protect the fortune and prosperity of the family. The pine tree's removal will definitely have big
impact on Feng Shui for my family because we will lose one corner closure of this property. And I really hope that will
not happen.
2. The pine tree is a very old tree, and it has been there more than 30+ years. It is healthy and very beautiful sitting on
the corner of my property. Even though later in 2018 turned out it's a city tree, but it has been part of our house since
we moved here in 2016. We trimmed it few times to keep it clean and nice, also thinned it out, in early 2018 even
trimmed it to the bottom of its allowed limit just to satisfy the neighbor.
A-1
3. The pine tree also gives us the afternoon shade on our playground , so the kids can play there without worry about
getting too much sun. (see pictures attached) we are having POD class in our backyard during the pandemic . We have
6 kindergarten kid s here 2-3 times a week in the afternoon on Tue/Thu/Sat 3-5:30pm to have their group class and
get together play time in my backyard . The pine tree is giving the nice shade on the playground for the kids . They
have been staying home for few months without social with other kids, and finally we set up this POD class and
gathering for our kids, so at least they can social with small grou p of friends instead of only facing parents and see
other kids on zoom class every day . This has been a very important supplement for the kids schooling . I mentioned
about this removal of pi ne tree city recommendation to other parents during our class, and everyone was asking WHY?
Such an old beautiful tree to be cut down for someone's v iew request? Seems nobody understand that . What about
ou r need of this tree? Should the city give consideration to that too?
4 . I understand people all want more views from their house, but I think everyone should be reasonable as well. From
the picture taken from 3255 parkhurst, I don't think the pine tree can say its "creat ing significant view impairment
from 3255 Parkhurst". They still have most of their ocean view, only the pine tree showing blocking a small
percentage of their ocean view. If trim the p i ne tree down 3-4 feet as what I have been doing previously, then it
should be very minimal of impact on their overall v iew. We all have other trees in front of our ocean view unless we
are in oceanfront o r the p roperty close to the ocean . I don't think removing this old beautiful pine tree, i mpacting our
family's nice living life just to give other person little mo re view is a fair thing for the city to do. I really hope the city
council of rancho palos verdes can add in some ruling to protect and exempt the old healthy beautiful tree to be cut
down because of such personal view interest. There are city trees on the side of the roads which have died or partially
died, and become dangerous for public. I think those would need mo re attention from the city instead of our old
healthy enjoyable pine tree .
5. If the city council would also put our family living life quality as consideration, I would like to offer to trim the city pine
tree and the two liquid amber trees yearly w ith my othe r trees together on my expense and make sure to keep them
in clean and good cond ition , and maintain as low as the tree allowed minimum height so we can have the nice tree to
enjoy and give others as much as possible view they can get .
Above points are the reason and my point of view why the city should keep the pine t r ee instead of removing it. Please give
your fair consideration to our family's living life and needs and make the final decision to keep the pine tree instead of
removing it.
3234 Parkhurst Dr .
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Tel : 310 -948-4626
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES UPHOLDING THE
RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE ONE CITY-OWNED
PINE TREE, WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF
CREST ROAD, ADJACENT TO AND BEHIND 3234
PARKHURST DRIVE, IN ORDER TO RESTORE THE VIEW
THAT IS SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIRED BY THE PINE TREE
FROM THE VIEWING AREA LOCATED AT 3255
PARKHURST DRIVE (CASE NO. CTRP2020-0022).
WHEREAS, on September 17, 2020, the City’s Community Development
Department transmitted a memorandum to the City’s Public Works Department
recommending the removal of a City-owned Pine tree within the public right-of-way of
Crest Road, adjacent to and behind 3234 Parkhurst Drive, as the tree is creating a
significant view impairment from 3255 Parkhurst Drive (Case No. CTRP2020-0022); and
WHEREAS, on September 17, 2020, the City Staff notified the adjacent residents
to the subject tree and the applicants of the tree removal recommendation; and
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2020, a timely appeal of the Community
Development Department’s recommendation to remove the City Pine tree was filed by
Mrs. Lili Gu, the property owner at 3234 Parkhurst Drive (“Appellant”), requesting that the
City Council deny the tree removal recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the Appellant’s appeal raised the following issues with Community
Development Department’s recommendation: 1) The Pine tree is a Feng Shui feature of
the property, 2) The Pine tree is mature and well- maintained, 3) The Pine tree offers
shade value and 4) The Pine tree is not a significant view impairment; and
WHEREAS, on October 19, 2020, a 15-day public notice of the public hearing was
published in the Daily Breeze; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., and the City's Local
CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under
the Class 4 categorical exemption (Section 15304); and
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2020, the City Council held a duly-noticed public
hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and
present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
B-1
Resolution No. 2020-__
Page 2 of 5
Section 1: The above recitals are hereby incorporated into this Resolution as
set forth herein.
Section 2: The City Council upholds the Community Development
Department’s recommendation remove one City-owned Pine tree, within the public right-
of-way of Crest Road, adjacent to and behind 3234 Parkhurst Drive, with Conditions of
Approval and in connection therewith makes the following findings based on the all
evidence and testimony provide in the Staff report and at the public hearing.
Section 3: Merits of the Appellant’s appeal are not warranted as described
below.
A. Appeal Reason No. 1: The Pine tree location has Feng Shui value.
The Appellant cites that the subject Pine tree on the property adds Feng Shui or
metaphysical value. Removal of the tree, as the Appellant states, will have a
detrimental impact, presumably an expected negative financial impact, to her
family. The City’s municipal code does not take into account Feng Shui nor any
religious, spiritual, and symbolic belief system into account when trimming or
removing City-owned trees. Pursuant to Section 12.08.110 of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC), the sole criteria considered when
recommending removal of the tree is whether the tree significantly impairs the view
and whether trimming the tree is feasible. City Council’s position is that the City
tree significantly impairs the view and trimming the tree to a height level that
eliminates the significant view impairment would kill the tree. Therefore, removal
of the subject tree is the only option to eliminate the significant view impairment
the tree is causing from the viewing area located at 3255 Parkhurst Drive
B. Appeal Reason No. 2: The Pine tree is valued for its maturity and is well-
maintained.
While it common for established communities to have tree management policies
in place that protect “mature” trees, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has no such
provision. The RPVMC does not exempt view-impairing City trees from trimming
or removal due to their maturity or age. The Appellant also asserts that because
she has taken care of the tree over the years, unbeknownst to her that it was a
City-owned tree, the tree should remain on the property and she would continue
to maintain the tree. The City Council finds that the trimming the tree in the fashion
that has been trimmed in the past would not eliminate the significant view
impairment the tree is causing. Reducing the height of the tree 3 feet, as proposed
by the Appellant, would not improve the view. However, reducing the tree height
by 75% would vastly improve the view, but such severe trimming would kill the
tree.
B-2
Resolution No. 2020-__
Page 3 of 5
C. Appeal Reason No. 3: The Pine tree offers shade value
The Appellant asserts that the Pine tree offers shade protection to the rear yard
where her and other children recreate and where she holds social gatherings. The
Appellant has supplied photos of the rear yard to support her point that the Pine
tree provides sun protection to these outdoor activities (Attachment A). Although
the Pine tree provides shade to the Appellant’s rear yard, consideration to remove
the Pine tree is solely based upon the opinion of the City’s arborist that the tree’s
health will not withstand the severe crown reduction needed to eliminate the
significant view impairment the tree is causing.
D. Appeal Reason No. 4: The Pine tree does not significantly impair the view from
3255 Parkhurst Drive
The Appellant disagrees with the determination that the City Pine tree causes a
significant view impairment. Citing Staff’s photo of the view and view impairment
(Attachment C), the Appellant argues that the City Pine tree is impairing a small
percentage of the ocean view. The City Council’s determination that the Pine tree
causes a significant view impairment is based on the criteria found in the City’s
Guidelines and Procedures for Restoration of Views. Specifically Section V,
subsection (B)(6)(a) of said Guidelines, states “ Foliage that is located in the center
of a view frame is more likely to be found to create significant view impairment than
foliage located on the outer edge of a view frame”. Although the subject tree does
not entirely obscure the ocean view, it is evident that the tree, due to its sizable
width and dense interior branch network, egregiously impairs the view. Moreover,
because the City Pine tree is within the center of the view, the City Council
concludes that the City tree does cause a significant view impairment from the
viewing area at 3255 Parkhurst Drive.
Section 4: The Community Development Department’s removal recommendation of
the subject City Pine tree is warranted, based on the following findings:
A. The subject Pine tree due to its sizable width and dense interior branch network,
egregiously impairs the view from the viewing area at 3255 Parkhurst Drive.
Moreover, because the City Pine tree is within the center of the view , the tree
significantly impairs the ocean view, pursuant to the criterion found in Section V,
subsection (B)(6)(a) of the City’s Guidelines and Procedures for Restoration of
Views.
B. The City Arborist opined that trimming the tree down 75% of its height, which is a
height that would eliminate the significant view impairment, would cause certain
death to the tree. Pursuant to Section 12.08.110 of the RPVMC, in cases where
tree removal is the only option to eliminate the significant view impairment, the tree
should be removed.
B-3
Resolution No. 2020-__
Page 4 of 5
Section 5: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., and the City's
Local CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt
under Class 4 (Section 15304).
Section 6: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other record of proceedings, the City Council of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby upholds the Community Development
Department’s recommendation to remove one City-owned Pine tree, within the public
right-of-way of Crest Road, adjacent to and behind 3234 Parkhurst Drive, with Conditions
of Approval and as identified in the attached Exhibit “A”.
Section 7: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption
of this Resolution, and shall cause this Resolution and her certification to be entered in
the Book of Resolutions of the City Council.
Section 8: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this
Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure and/or Section 21167 of the California Public Resources Code
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 4th day of November 2020.
_________________________________
John Cruikshank, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that
the above Resolution No. 2020-__, was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the
said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on November 4, 2020.
________________________________
CITY CLERK
B-4
Resolution No. 2020-__
Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
CASE NO. CTRP2020-0022
(CITY TREE REVIEW)
Project Specific Conditions
1. This approval allows for the following:
A. At the City’s expense, the removal of one City Pine tree within the public
right-of-way of Crest Road, adjacent to and behind 3234 Parkhurst Drive;
B. If technically feasible, the stump grinding of the removed tree at the City’s
expense. If stump grinding cannot be performed, the tree stump shall be
flush cut to the ground;
C. At the City’s expense, and if requested by the Appellant, the installation of
a 24 inch box size tree is to be planted within the Crest Road right-of-way,
adjacent to 3234 Parkhurst Drive. The species of the replacement tree shall
be at the discretion of the Public Works Department.
B-5
Staff photo taken from 3255 Parkhurst Drive
Subject Pine tree
C-1
MEMORANDUM
TO: RON DRAGOO, PRINCIPAL ENGINEER
CC: JUAN HERNANDEZ, MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT OF P.W.
KEN RUKAVINA, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FROM: JOHN ALVAREZ, SENIOR PLANNER
DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 2020
SUBJECT: CASE CTRP2020-0022: VIEW ANALYSIS FROM THE PROPERTY AT 3255
PARKHURST DRIVE
RECOMMENDATION
Based on a view analysis, Community Development Staff recommends that the Public
Works Department remove 1 City-owned Pine tree within the public right-of-way of Crest
Road, adjacent to 3234 Parkhurst Drive, as the tree is creating a significant view impairment
from 3255 Parkhurst Drive (see attached photo).
BACKGROUND
In October 2018, Community Development Staff conducted a view analysis from the property
at 3255 Parkhurst Drive. Based on a view assessment taken from the dining room, Staff
determined that certain City trees, including the subject Pine tree, significantly impaired the
view of the ocean. During the site visit, the ownership of some of the trees were questioned
because it appeared that several tree trunks, including the subject Pine tree, were close to
the property line at 3234 Parkhurst Drive. Thus, Community Development Staff requested
that the Public Works Department conduct a land survey to determine which trees are within
the public right-of-way. In 2019, a land survey was performed and it discovered that the
subject Pine tree was located within the Crest Road public right-of-way (see attachment).
In a somewhat related matter, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 25,
2020 to review view impairing foliage located at 3242 Parkhurst Drive, adjacent to the
subject Pine tree. During that review, the Planning Commission delayed a decision against a
Liquid Amber tree located on the property at 3242 Parkhurst Drive, which is in close
proximity to the subject tree, in order to allow time for the City to make a decision for the
subject Pine tree, as these two trees visually overlap each other against the Ocean and
Catalina Island view. In rendering a decision for the other view impairing trees located at
3242 Parkhurst Drive, the Commission specified in PC Resolution No. 2020-12 their request
for the Public Works Department consider trimming or removal of the City Pine tree in all due
haste.
D-1
MUNICIPAL CODE
Section 12.08.110 of the City’s municipal code governs the handling of view impairing City
trees. Since the management of City trees is within the purview of the Public Works
Department, Community Development Staff, by code procedure, conducts the view analysis
and provides a memo with their findings and a tree removal or trimming recommendation to
the Public Works Department. In the event that a resident disagrees with the
recommendation of the view analysis or subsequent action, a resident may submit their
appeal within two weeks of notification to the city council in accordance with municipal
code Section 12.08.100 (Interference).
DISCUSSION
Based on view assessments taken from 3255 Parkhurst Drive, Community Development
Staff determined that the City-owned Pine tree significantly impairs the view. In order to
eliminate the significant view impairment the tree is causing, the tree could be crown
reduced, but this reduction would require ¾ or more of the crown to be removed leaving the
tree disfigured and would kill the tree. As such, trimming the tree is not an option to eliminate
the significant view impairment it is causing. Therefore, pursuant to the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code (Section 12.08.110), Community Development Staff recommends to
the Public Works Department that the subject Pine tree be removed by the City’s contract
tree service, WCA, Inc.
NOTIFICATION
The following properties shall be notified via first class mail and by electronic mail of this
recommendation: 3234 Parkhurst Drive, 3242 Parkhurst Drive and 3255 Parkhurst Drive.
Pursuant to Section 12.08.110 of the City’s municipal code, a resident may submit an appeal
to the City Council of this recommendation within two weeks of notification or by or on
October 1, 2020.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Tree location
2. Staff photo taken from 3255 Parkhurst Drive
3. Copy of land survey
4. Section 12.08.110 of the City’s municipal code
D-2
Tree Location
3234 Parkhurst Dr
Crest Rd
Subject City Pine tree
D-3
Staff photo taken from 3255 Parkhurst Drive
Subject Pine tree
D-4
Crest Road Right-Of-WayPine Tree
Parkhurst Dri
v
e
R
i
g
h
t
-
O
f
W
a
y
D-5
From: elaine.goodman@yahoo.com <elaine.goodman@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 11:04 PM
To: John Alvarez
Cc: Dale Goodman
Subject: Re: Public Notice of City Tree appeal - case 2020-0022
John -
We are in receipt of the City's View Analysis and Public Notice for the appeal. We are in agreement with
the City's analysis and recommendations. Our position is on record from our prior hearing, including that
this tree obstructs part of our Catalina view (including the harbor lights of Avalon).
We will plan to attend the upcoming hearing to address any questions. Given the City meeting
procedures, we would like to a request a time to speak, in the event that it is needed.
Thank you to the City for its efforts in this matter.
elaine s. goodman
elaine.goodman@yahoo.com (m) 310-991-3275
E-1
From: Rick Chase <gt40ricky@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2020 9:15 AM
To: John Alvarez
Subject: Comment on CTRP CASE NO. 2020-0023
Subject: Comments to CASE CTRP2020-0022
Date: October 22, 2020
An impaired view of the ocean from the property at 3265 Parkhurst Drive is produced from the
subject Pine tree identified. Removing the tree would restore the ocean view from the living
room that was previously present at the 3265 Parkhurst Drive property.
From,
Long time home owner at 3265 Parkhurst Drive
E-2
12.08.110 - View impairing city trees.
A.Purpose. This chapter provides a procedure for the trimming and/or removal of trees which are
located on city property, a city easement, or within the public right-of -way in order to protect the
public health, safety and welfare by preventing the needless impairment of views from vista points
and view lots.
B. Procedure.
1.A request to trim or remove a view-impairing city tree shall be directed to the public works
department.
2.City staff shall investigate the request to confirm whether the subject view impairing tree(s) is
located within the public right-of -way or on city property. Staff will also investigate whether the
impairing tree is a city tree.
3.If confirmed to be a city tree, the case shall be forwarded to the planners in the community
development department assigned to view restoration to conduct a view analysis of the subject
tree(s). The planners shall assess whether the subject tree(s) significantly impair(s) the view
from the applicant's viewing area and prepares a memo with their findings.
4.The planner who conducts the view analysis shall provide a memo to the public works
department which explains the results of the view analysis and makes tree trimming
recommendations. Tree trimming, and in some cases tree removal, recommendations shall be
made to maintain healthy city trees. However, in cases where tree removal may be the only
option to eliminate the significant view impairment, public works will recommend a replacement
tree. In the event that a resident disagrees with the recommendation of the view analysis or
subsequent action, a resident may submit their appeal within two weeks of notification to the city
council in accordance with municipal code Section 12.08.100 (Interference).
5.Tree trimming and removal practices shall be carried out in accordance with municipal code
Chapter 12.08 (Trees and Shrubs). Pursuant to Section 12.08.100 (Interference), no person
shall prevent, delay or interfere with the director of public works, or any of his or her assistants,
in the execution or enforcement of Chapter 12.08 (Trees and Shrubs). Any resident has the
right to appeal any action by the director of public works pertaining to this interim process. The
right of appeal shall be submitted to the city council whose decision, after public hearing of said
matter, shall be final and conclusive.
(Ord. No. 583, § 3, 7-19-16)
F-1
G-1
G-2