CC SR 20210720 02 - 4353 PVDS City Tree Appeal
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: July 20, 2021
Subject:
Consideration and possible action to consider an appeal of a Community Development Department
recommendation to remove one City-owned pine tree on City property (APN 7564-005-900) adjacent
to 4353 Palos Verdes Drive South (Case No. CTRP2021 -0012).
Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution No. 2021- ___, denying the appeal and thereby approving the removal of one City-
owned pine tree on City property (APN 7564-005-900), adjacent to 4353 Palos Verdes Drive South, to
restore the views that are significantly impaired by the pine tree from the viewing areas located at
4332 and 4324 Admirable Drive (Case No. CTRP2021-0012).
1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk
2. Declare Public Hearing Open: Mayor Alegria
3. Request for Staff Report: Mayor Alegria
4. Staff Report & Recommendation: Robert Nemeth, Associate Planner
5. Council Questions of Staff (factual and without bias):
6. Public Testimony:
Principal Parties 10 Minutes Each. The appellant or their representative speaks first and will generally be allowed ten minutes. If the
applicant is different from the appellant, the applicant or their representative will speak following the appellant and will also be
allowed ten minutes to make a presentation.
A. Appellants: Thomas and Deborah Berg
Mayor Alegria invites the Appellant to speak. (10 mins.)
B. Co-Applicants: Robo Vulin and Bob Locke
Mayor Alegria invites the Applicant to speak. (10 mins.)
C. 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. Rebuttal: Mayor Alegria invites brief rebuttals by Appellant and Applicant. (3 mins)
Normally, the applicants and appellants will be limited to a three (3) minute rebuttal, if requested after all other interested persons have
spoken.
8. Council Questions of Appellant (factual and without bias):
9. Council Questions of Applicant (factual and without bias):
10. Declare Hearing Closed/or Continue the Public Hearing to a later date: Mayor Alegria
11. 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.
12. 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.
01203.0005/727024.1
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 07/20/2021
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to consider an appeal of a Community Development
Department recommendation to remove one City-owned pine tree on City property (APN
7564-005-900) adjacent to 4353 Palos Verdes Drive South (Case No. CTRP2021 -0012).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 2021- ___, denying the appeal and thereby approving the
removal of one City-owned pine tree on City property (APN 7564-005-900),
adjacent to 4353 Palos Verdes Drive South, to restore the views that are
significantly impaired by the pine tree from the viewing areas located at 4332 and
4324 Admirable Drive (Case No. CTRP2021-0012).
FISCAL IMPACT: The recommended action will result in a total authorized expenditure
of up to $1,500 (tree removal with stump grinding/flush cutting).
Amount Budgeted: $380,000
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): 101-400-3150-5201 (General Fund – Trails & Open Space Maintenance)
ORIGINATED BY: Robert Nemeth, Associate Planner
REVIEWED BY: Ken Rukavina, P.E., Community Development Director
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Appeal request dated May 14, 2021 (page A-1)
B. Draft C.C. Resolution No. 2021- ___ (page B-1)
C. View from Viewing Areas (page C-1)
D. Staff 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 April 15, 2021, based on a request from 4332 and 4324 Admirable Drive, Community
Development Department Staff conducted a view analysis from these properties. Based
1
01203.0005/727024.1
on view assessments taken from the viewing areas, Staff determined that one pine tree
located on City-owned property (APN 7564-005-900), adjacent to 4353 Palos Verdes
Drive South, significantly impaired the view of the shoreline from the viewing areas at
4332 and 4324 Admirable Drive. Staff determined that the tree is causing a significant
view impairment based on the City’s Guidelines and Procedures for Restoration of Views
Where Foliage is Involved, whereby a significant view impairment exists when foliage is
located within the center of a view frame and/or when foliage impairs a prominent feature,
such as a shoreline. To eliminate the significant view impairment the tree is causing, Staff
determined that reducing the crown of the tree would eliminate the significant view
impairment, but this would require ¾ or more of the crown to be removed, thereby likely
killing the tree and/or leaving the tree disfigured. As such, trimming the tree was not an
option to eliminate the view impairment.
On April 29, 2021, pursuant to Section 12.08.110(B) of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code (RPVMC) (Attachment F), the Community Development Department
transmitted a memorandum to the City’s Public Works Department recommending that
the pine tree be removed by the City’s contract tree service, West Coast Arborists, Inc.
(Attachment D). At the same time, Staff notified by mail the residents adjacent to the tree,
including the applicants of the tree removal recommendation . On May 14, 2021, an
appeal was submitted by Deborah and Tom Berg, owners at 4353 Palos Verdes Drive
South (“Appellant”), requesting that the City Council overturn and deny the tree removal
recommendation (Attachment A).
Summary of the Appeal and Staff’s Response
The Appellant’s appeal raises the following concerns: 1) The tree was present when the
appellant purchased their property twenty years ago and they have maintained it and paid
to have it trimmed and laced annually; 2) The tree has become a community landma rk;
3) Many neighbors have commented on the beauty of the healthy tree and enjoy standing
beneath to gaze at the ocean; 4) The neighbor immediately behind the appellant has an
unblocked full view of the cove and a sweeping ocean view and what he will see i f the
tree comes down will be house rooftops and not the coastline; 5) The appellants
voluntarily keep the tree in good condition and have responded to any request by the
same neighbor to trim it even though they do not own it, 6) The appellants offer to t rim
two feet as a compromise; and, 7) Should the Council remove it, the appellant requests
an acceptable replacement tree be planted by the City.
Staff has provided the following responses to the summarized issues that are raised in
the appeal:
1. “The tree was present when we purchased our property twenty years ago. We
have maintained it and paid to have it trimmed and laced annually.”
Staff Response:
City Staff can confirm from historic aerial photographs that the tree was at this
location 20 years ago. Although the tree has existed for 20 years, the City’s
2
01203.0005/727024.1
municipal code does not “grandfather” or exempt City trees from removal because
of their age or maturity. The Appellants also state that they have annually trimmed
the City tree. However, such trimming was not authorized by the City. Pursuant to
Section 12.08.030 of the RPVMC, the Public Works Department maintains and
removes trees on city property.
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 position is that the City
tree significantly impairs the view from the viewing areas of 4332 and 4324
Admirable Drive (See Attachment C), and trimming the tree below the crown, which
is the height level that eliminates the significant view impairment, would kill the
tree. Removal of the tree is the only option to eliminate the significant view
impairment. Again, the RPVMC does not exempt a view-impairing City tree from
trimming, or removal due to its maturity or age nor is there an exemption due to
the City tree being maintained by a private property owner. This appeal point does
not address whether the subject tree causes a significant view impairment,
therefore Staff is of the opinion that this appeal point does not have merit as it
relates to the determination made pursuant to the RPVMC.
2. “The tree has become a community landmark, offering shade to hikers and
bikers who enjoy the RPV conservatory land trails adjacent to our property.”
Staff Response:
It is unknown to Staff whether the tree has become an object of any community
interest or recognition. Regardless, the location of the tree, at the end of a street
cul-de-sac, does not lend itself easily to the occasional passerby that could enjoy
the shade the tree offers. There are no official trails or paths nearby for hikers or
bicycle riders to access the tree’s shade. The City property adjacent to Appellants’
property, which contains the pine tree, is an open space parcel outside of the City’s
Nature Preserve. This appeal point does not address whether the subject tree
causes a significant view impairment, therefore Staff is of the opinion that this
appeal point does not have merit as it relates to the determination made pursuant
to the RPVMC..
3. “Many neighbors have commented on the beauty of the healthy tree and enjoy
standing beneath to gaze at the ocean .”
Staff Response:
The RPVMC does not exempt a view-impairing City tree from trimming or removal
due to its perceived beauty or good health. This appeal point does not address
whether the subject tree causes a significant view impairment, therefore Staff is of
the opinion that this appeal point does not have merit.
3
01203.0005/727024.1
4. “The neighbor immediately behind us has an unblocked full view of the cove (as
shown in your photos) and a sweeping Ocean view. What he will see if the tree
comes down will be house rooftops and not the coastline.”
Staff Response:
The Appellants argue, first, that the view of the ocean is sweeping, and the cove
is unimpaired from 4332 Admirable Drive. While the tree does not impair view of
the cove from 4332 Admirable Drive, it does impair the view of both the ocean and
shoreline. In addition, the tree impairs view of both the ocean and of the cove from
the co-applicant at 4324 Admirable Drive. Though it is arguable that the tree may
not significantly impair the ocean view because the applicants have an expansive
ocean view, the tree does significantly impair the shoreline view from both 4332
and 4324 Admirable Drive. Staff’s determination that the tree significantly impairs
the view is based on the City’s Guidelines and Procedures for Restoration of Views
Where Foliage is Involved. The guidelines state greater weight should be given to
prominent landmarks, such as the shoreline, when considering the severity of the
view impact. Furthermore, greater weight should be given to view impacts that are
considered “multi-component” meaning that the foliage that impairs one
component of a multi-view element is considered a significant view impairment. In
this case, the applicants’ multi-component view is comprised of the ocean, Catalina
Island, and the shoreline, where the subject foliage impairs the shoreline
component of the view to a significant degree, but to a lesser, insignificant extent,
the ocean view. As a result of this view analysis, Staff determined the foliage, which
impairs a prominent view feature (shoreline), impairs a large component of a multi-
component view, and creates a significant view impairment from the applicants’
properties.
The Appellants also argue that if the subject tree “comes down,” then only rooftops
will be exposed and not the coastline. This is not accurate. Staff has provided
photos to illustrate the foliage blocks the view of the shoreline and not of the
rooftops. As articulated above, greater weight is given to prominent landmarks and
to multi-component views.
Based on the above, Staff is of the opinion that this appeal point does not have
merit.
5. “We voluntarily have keep the tree in good condition and have and have responded
to any request by the same neighbor to trim it even though we don’t own it. We
have also over the years voluntarily removed, a large tall ficus and a large thick
palm tree which improved our neighbors’ view significantly. In addition, we have
paid, without contribution from him, for the removal and trimming acacia trees and
brush clearing in shared utility easement on the slope between our houses.”
Staff Response:
4
01203.0005/727024.1
This appeal point is similar to Appeal Point No. 1 (above). The RPVMC prohibits
residents from trimming trees located on City property without a City permit, which
was not issued to Mr. and Mrs. Berg. Trimming the City tree over the course of the
Appellants’ residency does not provide any entitlement or control over the City tree.
The Appellants also state that they trimmed foliage on their private property for the
benefit of the owner at 4332 Admirable Drive; however, the appeal matter is
focused on a City-owned tree, so there is no nexus between the voluntary trimming
of trees owned by the Appellants and the City tree removal appeal. This appeal
point does not address whether the subject tree causes a significant view
impairment. Therefore Staff is of the opinion that this appeal point does not have
merit.
6. “…, we could offer to try to top it 2 ft as a compromise, though not recommended
by arborists this time of the year, and understanding this may cost the tree’s life
anyway.”
Staff Response:
The Appellants’ trimming proposal will not eliminate the view impairment of the
shoreline. The Community Development Department recommends removal of the
tree because crown reduction to a height level necessary to eliminate impairment
of the shoreline views will both kill the tree and destroy the aesthetics of the tree,
according to the City’s contract arborist. The Appellants’ trimming height proposal,
a mere two feet of crown reduction, will not eliminate the shoreline view
impairment. Therefore, the trimming proposal should be rejected.
7. “Should the committee recommend for removal, we would request an acceptable
replacement tree be planted by the City.”
Staff Response:
Section 12.08.110 of the RPVMC states that in cases where tree removal may be
the only option to eliminate the significant view impairment, the Public Works
Department may replace the tree with a new tree. The City’s arborist recommends
that no trees be replanted because a new replacement tree will regrow into the
view.
Municipal 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 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
5
01203.0005/727024.1
the best and most important view exists (Attachment G). The viewing area can also be
taken from the patio generally 10 feet from the viewing area. Therefore, the patio offers
the best and most important viewing area because the location captures the most
expansive and panoramic view of the Pacific Ocean with coves. Since the patio offers 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:
Public Correspondence
On June 7, 2021, Bob Locke, the co-applicant at 4332 Admirable Drive submitted a letter
stating the following: 1) He supports the City view analysis memorandum to remove the
tree, 2) he and the co-applicant at 4324 Admirable Drive have endured view obstruction
for 30 years and he included a photograph of the view before the subject pine tree
obstructed the ocean and shoreline.
City Arborist’s Opinion
On June 1, 2021, the City’s Public Works arborist contracted from West Coast Arborists,
Inc., confirmed that crown reduction to the proposed trim levels (75% and 50% crown
reduction) will cause certain death of the tree and destroy its aesthetics.
Replacement Foliage
The Appellants have requested that if the subject tree is removed, then a replacement
tree be installed. However, neither Staff nor the City’s Public Works arborist recommend
replacement trees be installed, as any 24-inch box size tree planted within the vicinity will
likely grow into the protected shoreline view.
Public Notification
On June 10, 2021, a notice was published in the Peninsula News. Staff mailed and
emailed a copy of the notice to the appellants and the applicants. Staff mailed a copy of
the notice to the abutting property owners. One public correspondence was received by
noon on July 8, 2021.
6
01203.0005/727024.1
Appeal Fee
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
appellants should the City Council approve the appeal request.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the above, Staff recommends removing the pine tree for the purposes of
restoring a view significantly impaired by the tree as viewed from 4332 and 4324
Admirable Drive.
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 views from
4332 and 4324 Admirable Drive and therefore, no trimming or removal action
shall occur, and direct Staff to bring back a resolution memorializing this
determination at a future meeting as a consent calendar item.
2. Determine that the City pine tree does significantly impair the view from 4332
and 4324 Admirable Drive, but requires tree trimming to a specified height level.
7
ATTACHMENT A. APPEAL
From:Deborah Berg
To:Robert Nemeth
Cc:Tom Berg; Deborah Berg
Subject:Re: CTRP2021-0012 - View analysis from the property at 4332 and 4324 Admirable Drive
Date:Friday, May 14, 2021 4:24:44 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Mr. Nemeth,
We are in receipt of the view assessment related to the application to remove the pine at the
end of the cul de sac adjacent our property at 4353 Palos Verdes Drive South. We would like
to appeal this recommendation and would ask that the tree not be removed for the following
reasons:
1. The tree was present when we purchased our property twenty years ago. We have
maintained it and paid to have it trimmed and laced annually.
2. The tree has becone a community landmark, offering shade to hikers and bikers who
enjoy the rpv conservatory land trails adjacent our property.
3. Many neighbors have commented on the beauty of the healthy tree and enjoy standing
beneath to gaze at the ocean.
4. The neighbor immediately behind us has an unblocked full view of the cove (as shown
in your photos) and a sweeping Ocean view. What he will see if the tree comes down
will be house rooftops and not the coastline.
5. We voluntarily have keep the tree in good condition and have and have responded to
any request by the same neighbor to trim it even though we don’t own it. We have also
over the years voluntarily removed, a large tall ficus and a large thick palm tree which
improved our neighbors’ view significantly. In addition, we have paid, without
contribution from him, for the removal and trimming acacia trees and brush clearing in
shared utility easement on the slope between our houses.
We would prefer the tree remain for all to enjoy, but if he is insistent, we could offer to try to
top it 2 ft as a compromise, thougb not recommended by arborists this time of the year, and
understanding this may cost the tree’s life anyway.
Should the committee recommend for removal, we would request an acceptable replacement
tree be planted by the City.
We thank you for your consideration of our appeal and look forward to discussing with you
further.
Sincerely,
Thomas and Deborah Berg
Sent from my iPhone
On May 12, 2021, at 8:23 PM, Tom Berg <tom@bergcm.com> wrote:
A-1
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca.gov>
Date: May 12, 2021 at 8:46:07 AM PDT
To: Tom Berg <tom@bergcm.com>
Subject: CTRP2021-0012 - View analysis from the property at 4332 and 4324
Admirable Drive
Good morning Mr. Berg,
This email is being sent to you as the owner adjacent to the subject Pine Tree in
the attached memorandum.
A hardcopy of the memorandum was previously mailed to you.
Regards,
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the
spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to
physical distancing guidelines. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an
appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all
posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time.
[cid:image001.png@01D74705.CD73B5C0]
Robert Nemeth
Community Development Department
RNEMETH@RPVCA.GOV<mailto:RNEMETH@RPVCA.GOV>
Phone - (310) 544-5285
[cid:image002.jpg@01D74705.CD73B5C0]
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov<http://www.rpvca.gov/>
[cid:image003.png@01D74705.CD73B5C0]
<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/myrpv/id1540763039>
[cid:image004.png@01D74705.CD73B5C0]
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?
id=com.govoutreach.ranchopalosverdesca>
[X][X][X][X]
<CTRP2021-0012 - View analysis from the property at 4332 and 4324 Admirable
Drive.pdf>
A-2
ATTACHMENT B. RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL AND
THEREBY APPROVING THE REMOVAL OF ONE CITY-
OWNED PINE TREE ON CITY PROPERTY (APN 7564-005-
900), ADJACENT TO 4353 PALOS VERDES DRIVE
SOUTH, TO RESTORE THE VIEWS THAT ARE
SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIRED BY THE PINE TREE FROM
THE VIEWING AREAS LOCATED AT 4332 AND 4324
ADMIRABLE DRIVE (CASE NO. CTRP2021-0012)
WHEREAS, on April 29, 2021, the City’s Community Development Department
transmitted a memorandum to the City’s Public Works Department recommending the
removal of one City-owned pine tree on city property (APN 7564-005-900), adjacent to
4353 Palos Verdes Drive South (Case No. CTRP2021-0012), as the tree was found to be
creating a significant view impairment from 4332 and 4324 Admirable Drive (Case No.
CTRP2021-0012); and
WHEREAS, on April 29, 2021, the City Staff notified the adjacent residents to the
subject tree and the applicants of the tree removal recommendation; and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2021, an appeal of the Community Development
Department’s recommendation to remove the City pine tree was submitted by Mr. and
Mrs. Tom and Deborah Berg, the property owner at 4353 Palos Verdes Drive South
(“Appellant”), requesting that the City Council overturn and deny the tree removal
recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the Appellant’s appeal raised the following issues with the Community
Development Department’s recommendation: 1) The tree was present when the appellant
purchased their property twenty years ago and they have maintained it and paid to have
it trimmed and laced annually; 2) The tree has become a community landmark; 3) Many
neighbors have commented on the beauty of the healthy tree and enj oy standing beneath
to gaze at the ocean; 4) The neighbor immediately behind the appellant has an unblocked
full view of the cove and a sweeping ocean view and what he will see if the tree comes
down will be house rooftops and not the coastline; 5) The appellants voluntarily keep the
tree in good condition and have responded to any request by the same neighbor to trim
it even though they do not own it, 6) The appellants offer to trim two feet as a compromise;
and, 7) Should the Council remove it, the appellant requests an acceptable replacement
tree be planted by the City.
WHEREAS, on June 10, 2021, a 15-day public notice of the public hearing was
published in the Peninsula News; and
B-1
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, on July 20, 2021, 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:
Section 1: The above recitals are hereby incorporated into this Resolution as
set forth herein.
Section 2: Based on the evidence and testimony included in the Staff Report
and provided at the public hearing, minutes, and other records of proceedings, the City
Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Section 12.08.110 of the RPVMC, the sole criteria the City considers
when recommending removal of the tree is whether the tree significantly impairs
the view. The Appellants did not provide sufficient evidence that the tree does not
significantly impair the view of the ocean and shoreline from 4332 and 4324
Admirable Drive nor do the Appellants provide any compelling arguments, within
the criteria of Section 12.08.110 of the RPVMC or the View Restoration Guidelines
Section V, subsection (B)(6)(a), that Staff’s recommendation to remove the tree is
in error or that removal of the tree is not warranted.
B. The pine tree impairs the ocean and shoreline view from both 4332 and 4324
Admirable Drive. Significant impairment of the view is based on the City’s
Guidelines and Procedures for Restoration of Views Where Foliage is Involved.
Section V, subsection (B)(6)(a) of the guidelines state greater weight should be
given to prominent landmarks, such as the shoreline, when considering the
severity of the view impact. Furthermore, greater weight should be given to view
impacts that are considered “multi-component” meaning that the foliage that
impairs one component of a multi-view element, is considered a significant view
impairment. In this case, the applicants’ multi-component view is comprised of the
ocean, Catalina Island and the shoreline . The subject pine tree due to its sizable
width and dense interior branch network, impairs the ocean view and significantly
impairs the shoreline view (Portuguese Bend and Inspiration Point shoreline) from
the viewing area at 4332 and 4324 Admirable Drive. Moreover, because the
subject tree impairs one component (shoreline) of a multi-component view from
4332 and 4324 Admirable Drive, and impairs a prominent landmark (shoreline),
the tree has been determined to significantly impairs the view, pursuant to the
criterion found in Section V, subsection (B)(6)(a) of the City’s Guidelines and
Procedures for Restoration of Views.
C. The Appellants’ proposal to trim the tree is not feasible. Trimming the crown of the
B-2
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 3 of 4
tree down 75% of its height, which is a height that would eliminate the significant
view impairment, would kill the tree, in accordance with the City arborist’s opinion.
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.
D. A replacement tree will regrow rapidly into the protected views and is therefore not
recommended.
Section 3: For the foregoing reasons and based on the evidence and testimony
included in the Staff Report and provided at the public hearing, minutes, and other records
of proceedings, the City Council hereby denies the appeal and approves the following at
City’s expense:
A. The removal of one City-owned pine tree on City property (APN 7564-005-
900), adjacent to 4353 Palos Verdes Drive South.
B. If technically feasible, stump grinding of the removed tree. If stump grinding
cannot be performed, the tree stump shall be flush cut to the ground.
Section 4: 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 5: 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 6: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this
Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure.
B-3
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 4 of 4
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 20th day of July 2021.
_________________________________
Eric Alegria, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify t hat
the above Resolution No. 2021-__, was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the
said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on July 20, 2021.
________________________________
CITY CLERK
B-4
ATTACHMENT C. VIEW FROM VIEWING AREA
Figure 2. Staff photograph taken on April 15, 2021 from the viewing area at 4332 Admirable Drive.
City Pine tree impairing view of the
Portuguese Bend shoreline and ocean. Palm Tree and Cypress Trees located on private property.
View frame View frame
C-1
Figure 3. Staff photograph taken on April 15, 2021 from the viewing area at 4324 Admirable Drive.
City Pine tree impairing
view of Inspiration Point
shoreline and ocean.
View frame View frame
C-2
ATTACHMENT D. VIEW ANALYSIS
MEMORANDUM
TO: JUAN HERNANDEZ, MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS DEPT.
CC: RAMZI AWWAD, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
KEN RUKAVINA, PE, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FROM: ROBERT NEMETH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: APRIL 29, 2021
SUBJECT: CTRP2021-0012 - VIEW ANALYSIS FROM THE PROPERTY AT 4332
AND 4324 ADMIRABLE DRIVE
RECOMMENDATION
Based on a view analysis conducted on April 15, 2021, Community Development Staff
recommends that the Public Works Department remove one Pine tree located on City
property (APN 7564-005-900), adjacent to 4353 Palos Verdes Drive South, as the City tree is
creating a significant view impairment from 4332 and 4324 Admirable Drive (see Fig. 1
Vicinity Map).
DISCUSSION
On April 15, 2021, Staff conducted a view analysis from the properties located at 4332 and
4324 Admirable Drive. Based on view assessments taken from the viewing areas, Staff
determined that one Pine tree located on City-owned property (APN 7564-005-900), adjacent
to 4353 Palos Verdes Drive South, as shown in Figure Nos. 2 and 3 significantly impairs the
view of the shoreline from the viewing areas at 4332 and 4324 Admirable Drive. Staff
determined that the tree is causing a significant view impairment based on the City’s
“Guidelines and Procedures for Restoration of Views Where Foliage is Involved” (attached
pages 3-6) whereby a significant view impairment exists when foliage is located within the
center of a view frame and/or when foliage impairs a prominent feature, such as a shoreline.
Based on a visit to the properties located at 4332 and 4324 Admirable Drive, the subject tree
was found to impair the ocean and shoreline view (Portuguese Bend & Inspiration Point
shoreline) and the foliage is located within the center of the view frame of 4332 Admirable
Drive.
In order to eliminate the significant view impairment the tree is causing, the tree could be
crown reduced, but this height reduction would require ¾ or more of the crown to be
removed, thus killing the tree and leaving the tree disfigured. As such, trimming the tree is
not an option to eliminate the significant view impairment it is causing. Therefore, pursuant to
D-1
the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (Section 12.08.110-B), 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 and a low-growing replacement tree be planted
adjacent to 4353 Admirable Drive, should the property owner of 4353 Admirable Drive
request a replacement tree.
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 memorandum 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, a resident may submit their appeal within two
weeks of notification to the City Council in accordance with municipal code Section
12.08.100.
NOTIFICATION
The following closest, abutting properties shall be notified via regular mail of this
recommendation: 4353 Palos Verdes Drive South and 4324, 4332, 4342, 4348, 4364, 4370
Admirable Drive. Pursuant to Section 12.08.110 of the City’s municipal code, a resident may
submit a written appeal to the City Council of this recommendation within two weeks of
notification on or by May 13, 2021. The written appeal may be emailed to Robert Nemeth at
RNEMETH@RPVCA.GOV or through regular mail postmarked by the appeal deadline to the
following address: City of Rancho Palos Verdes c/o Robert Nemeth, 30940 Hawthorne Blvd,
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Figure 1. Vicinity Map
2. Figure 2. Staff photograph taken on April 15, 2021 from the viewing area at 4332
Admirable Drive.
3. Figure 3. Staff photograph taken on April 15, 2021 from the viewing area at 4324
Admirable Drive.
4. Figure 4. Zoomed photograph taken on April 15, 2021 from 4332 Admirable Drive.
5. City’s “Guidelines and Procedures for Restoration of Views Where Foliage is Involved”
(attached pages 3-6)
6. Section 12.08.110 of the City’s municipal code
D-2
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
City
property
lines
City property
Subject tree
D-3
Figure 2. Staff photograph taken on April 15, 2021 from the viewing area at 4332 Admirable Drive.
City Pine tree impairing view of the
Portuguese Bend shoreline and ocean. Palm Tree and Cypress Trees located on private property.
View frame View frame
D-4
Figure 3. Staff photograph taken on April 15, 2021 from the viewing area at 4324 Admirable Drive.
City Pine tree impairing
view of Inspiration Point
shoreline and ocean.
View frame View frame
D-5
Figure 4. Zoomed photo taken on April 15, 2021 from 4332 Admirable Drive.
The Pine tree located on city property (APN 7564-005-900) creates a significant view impairment
of the shoreline from the viewing areas at 4332 and 4324 Admirable Drive. In order to eliminate
the significant view impairment, the tree must be reduced to the illustrated yellow dashed height
level; however, trimming to such a level will severely injure the tree and result in an unsightly
appearance visible from the public right of way and adjoining properties as all of the tree’s foliage
and supporting branches will need to be removed. Therefore, the subject tree is recommended to
be removed.
Visible areas
of the
Portuguese
Bend
shoreline
Visible areas
of the
Portuguese
Bend
shoreline
D-6
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
Thus,the general purpose of the Ordinance is to promote the health,safety and
general welfare of the residents of the City,by balancing the rights of the residential
property owner with foliage against the rights of the residential property owner to have a
view from a viewing area restored so that it can be enjoyed,when that view has been
significantly impaired by foliage.
C.The Planning Commission accomplishes its purpose through a process of
View Restoration Permit application,site inspection,public hearings and a decision on
the application.The Commission's jurisdiction is limited to issues regarding view
impairment caused by foliage,through the issuance of View Restoration Permits,and
appeals of City Tree Review Permits and view preservation determinations.
D.View restoration requests involving trees located on City-owned property,
such as public parks,parkways and medians along public streets,are administered by
City Staff through the issuance of a City Tree Review Permit issued pursuant to Section
17.76.100 of the Municipal Code.Staff decisions on City Tree Review Permits,and
view preservation determinations are appealable to the Planning Commission.When
reviewing Staff decisions regarding City Street Tree Review Permits,the Commission
shall utilize the same process as is followed when the Commission reviews a View
Restoration Permit application,excluding the early neighbor consultation process.
Decisions of the Planning Commission on all view related permits are appealable to the
City Council.
II.DEFINITIONS
A.Viewing Area
Section 17.02.040 (A)(15)of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code defines
"viewing area"as follows:
"Viewing area"means 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.In
structures,the finished floor elevation of any viewing area must be at or above
the existing grade adjacent to the exterior wall of the part of the building nearest
to said viewing area."
B.View
Section 17.02.040 (A)(14)of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code defines
"view"as follows:
"On the Palos Verdes Peninsula,it is quite common to have a near view
and a far view because of the nature of many of the hills on the peninsula.
Therefore,a 'view',which is protected by this section,is as follows:
Page 3D-7
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
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 off
shore 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."
III.ESTABLISHING THE VIEWING AREA
A.Section 17.02.040 (8)(5)establishes the procedure for determining the
"vieWing area"as follows:
"The determination of a viewing area shall be made by balancing the nature
of the view to be protected and the importance of the area of the structure or lot
from where the view is taken.Once finally determined for a particular application,
the viewing area may not be changed for any subsequent application.In the
event the city and owner cannot agree on the viewing area,the decision of the
city shall control.A property owner may appeal the determination of viewing
area.In such event,the decision on the viewing area will be made by the body
making the final decision on the application.A property owner may preserve his
or her right to dispute the decision on viewing area for a subsequent application
without disputing the decision on a pending application by filing a statement to
that effect and indicating the viewing area the property owner believes to be more
appropriate.The statement shall be filed with the city prior to consideration of
the pending application by the City."
8.The "viewing area"of the applicant's property is where the best and most
important view is taken.The determination of the "viewing area"is made "by balancing
the nature of the view to be protected and the importance of the area of the structure or
lot from where the view is taken".After adoption of a Resolution or after a decision is
rendered on a View Restoration Permit,View Preservation Application,or City Tree
Review Permit,the applicant(s),foliage owner(s)or any interested person may file a
timely appeal (accompanied with the appeal fee established by the City Council)of the
City's determination of the viewing area.
1.On developed lots,the "viewing area"may be located on any level
surface within the house (excluding bathrooms,closets,hallways or garages),which is
Page 4D-8
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
at or above the existing grade adjacent to the exterior wall of the part of the building
nearest to the "viewing area"or within the buildable area of the lot.A viewing area may
be located on a patio,deck,balcony or lawn area which is adjacent to the primary
structure (generally within ten feet)and which is located on the same general grade on
the lot as the primary structure,excluding the required setback areas and used as a
gathering area.In determining the viewing area on a developed lot,greater weight
generally will be given to locations within the primary structure where a view is taken
than to locations outside of the primary structure where a view is taken,unless no view
is taken from within the primary structure.
2.On properties where the applicant claims that he or she has a view
from one or more locations either within or outside of the primary structure,it must be
determined where the best and most important view is taken to determine the "viewing
area"which is to be protected.The "viewing area"may only include multiple rooms or
locations on the applicant's property if those locations share the same view.
3.The "viewing area"may only be located on a second (or higher)story
of a structure if:
a.The construction of that portion of the structure did not require
approval of a height variation permit or variance,pursuant to Chapter 17.02.040 of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code,or would not have required such a permit if that
Section had been in effect at the time that portion of the structure was constructed;or
b.The viewing area is located in a part of the structure that constitutes
the primary living area of the house,which is the living room,dining room,family room
or kitchen.However,the viewing area may be located in the master bedroom,if a view
is not taken from one of the rooms comprising the primary liVing area,and the master
bedroom is located on the same story of the house as the primary living area.
4.In documenting the views,Staff usually will conduct the view analysis
in a natural standing position.In those cases where the view is enjoyed from a seated
position,Staff will verify if that is the case,and if so,will conduct the view analysis from
the seated position in that area at a height of not less than three (3)feet,six (6)inches.
5.Situations involving residential remodels that affect previously existing
viewing areas:
a.If a residence is legally remodeled whereby the viewing area,
which had been established previously through the issuance of an approved View
Restoration,View Preservation or City Tree Review Permit,is eliminated,the approved
View Restoration,View Preservation or City Tree Review Permit shall remain in full
force and effect,unless a new application is filed by the subject property owner,and
the prior determination is amended or repealed by a subsequent decision of the
Planning Commission or City Council or Community Development Director.
Page 5D-9
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20,2010
b.If a residence is legally remodeled whereby the viewing area,
which had been established previously through the issuance of an approved View
Restoration,View Preservation or City Tree Review Permit,is modified so that the
viewing area is in a different location in the residence or is significantly altered by the
remodel,a new viewing area in the remodeled structure may be established by the
Planning Commission or City Councilor Community Development Director pursuant to
a decision on a new View Restoration,View Preservation or City Tree Review Permit
application filed by the subject property owner.In such situations,any previously issued
View Restoration,View Preservation or City Tree Review Permit decision may be
entirely or partially amended or repealed by the subsequent decision of the Planning
Commission or City Council or Community Development Director.
IV.APPLICATION PROCEDURES
A.Once an applicant completes the early neighbor consultation process
described in Section V-A (Mandatory Findings)of these Guidelines and the view
problem is not resolved and the applicant wishes to proceed,the applicant(s)may
complete and submit a View Restoration Permit application form (see attached form)to
the City's Department of Community Development,accompanied by the appropriate
filing fees,in order to initiate a formal request for a View Restoration Permit.
B.It should be noted that the fees required for a View Restoration Permit are
established by the City Council by resolution.
C.The following fee structure pertains to View Restoration Permits only and is
designed so that the applicant pays two separate flat fees as follows:
1.The first fee is a fixed amount that is paid by an applicant to cover the
City's costs associated with processing steps,such as reviewing the application for
completeness,conducting the initial site visit and processing a formal application from
submittal through a Planning Commission decision.Specifically,said fees would cover
the costs of reviewing an application for completeness,conducting site visits,attending
the public hearing(s)and preparing the Staff Report(s)and Resolution(s).
2.The second fee or follow-up fee is a fixed amount established by City
Council resolution that would be paid by an applicant if an application is approved by
the Planning Commission.Specifically,this fee would cover the review of the
trimminglremoval bids,the monitoring of the work,and the documentation of the
restored view.
3.The establishment of a trust deposit account by an applicant to cover
the cost of the actual foliage trimming/removal,as described in Section VI-K
(Commission Action)is separate from the two processing fees described herein.
D.Once a formal View Restoration Permit application has been submitted,the
City will review the application to determine if the information is complete,before
Page 6D-10
12.08.100 - Interference.
No person shall prevent, delay or interfere with the director of public works, or any of his assistants,
in the execution or enforcement of this chapter; provided, however, that nothing in this chapter shall be
construed as an attempt to prohibit a public hearing before the city council if an appeal is filed. Any
person aggrieved by any act of determination of the director of public works, or his assistants, in the
exercise of the authority granted in this chapter, shall have the right of appeal to the city council whose
decisions, after public hearing of said matter, shall be final and conclusive.
(Ord. 91 § 1 (part), 1977)
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)
D-11
ATTACHMENT E. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
TO: RPV CITY COUNCIL June 7, 2021
Subject address: 4353 PV Dr South
Owners: Tom & Deborah Berg
Escrow Close Date: 4353 PVDS January 2002
Subject: City Report 2021-0012
1.We agree with the city’s findings in regards to their remedy for this ongoing view impingement
problem
2.We (4332 Admirable), the current and the previous 2 neighbors/owners of 4324 Admirable have
been putting up with view obstruction from this property for 30 years
3.4353 PVDS was a rental for approximately 8 years at which time the owners, of 4324 Admirable
(Sherwood 1981-2006) and I, paid to have the trees trimmed, as the owners were nowhere to
be found; although we did try by contacting the tenants.
4.The subsequent owner of 4324 Admirable (McWinnie 2006-2020) approached the Bergs on
multiple occasions to try to get the Bergs to seriously trim/remove the subject tree to no avail
(see my letter to Berg May 9,2010)
5.Unfortunately, we thought the tree was on the 4353 PVS property and it belonged to Berg; that
is the way they presented their resistance to tree removal/trimming
6.We have watched that tree get higher and wider every year despite the claims made by the
Bergs. See photo documentation (Berg Photos), the last 2 photos (Dec 10, 2020) are more
typical of what we (4332 & 4324 Admirable) see on a daily basis
7.Bottom line here is, that tree is owned by the City and it blocking our views; we agree with the
City Staff report and that the tree needs to be removed
Photo documentation (BERG PHOTOS), letter to Berg May 9, 2010, Plot Map are attached
Thank you for your attention to this matter
Bob & Barbara Locke – 4332 Admirable – since March 1, 1976 – 310 541 1495
E-1
\/EAR OF PHOTO UNKNOWN
SUBJECT WAS THE BOAT (FRIEND'S?)
NOTE: NOTHING ON TH HILLSIDE TO THE IEFT
CANNOT IDENTIFY THE TREE IN QUESTION
NOTHIilG ON THE HILLSIDE
of...
IrJ
Monday, June 7, 2021 1:31:43 PM - photos
*r
':: - -
I'qt
IBnn
E-2
YEAR OF PHOTO: OCT 14, 2003
SUBJECT: TREE IN QUESTION, EXCESSIVE TREE GROWTH ON BERG PROPERTY AROUND THE HOUSE
NOTE: BERG'S HAVE CONSISTANTLY ALLOWED FOLIAGE AROUND THEIR HOUSE TO BE OVERGROWN, IMPAIRING OUR
VIEWS AND IS A POTENTIAL FIRE HAZARD
Frle rnfc
+{.1r$
5d0 x -r80
i"''
I:\BERG
Ihis PC
Monday, June 7, 2021 1:06:36 PM - OCT03'1oS.JPG - Photos E-3
YEAR OF PHOTO: DEC 10, 2020
SUBJECT: TREE IN QUESTION, EXCESSIVE TREE GROWTH ON BERG PROPERTY AROUND THE HOUSE
NOTE: BERG'S HAVE CONSISTANTLY ALLOWED FOLIAGE AROUND THEIR HOUSE TO BE OVERGROWN, IMPAIRING oUR
VIEWS AND IS A POTENTIAL FIRE HAZARD
frle rrrlo
Monday, June 7,2021 1:00:30 PM - DEC 2020 (1).JPG - Photos
lli
E-4
YEAR OF PHOTO: DEC 10, 2020
SUBJECT: TREE IN QUESTION, EXCESSIVE TREE GROWTH ON BERG PROPERTY AROUND THE HOUSE
NOTE: BERG'S HAVE CONSISTANTLY ALLOWED FOLIAGE AROUND THEIR HOUSE TO BE OVERGROWN, IMPAIRING OUR
VIEWS AND IS A POTENTIAL FIRE HAZARD
f rl: rr:l:,
Monday, June 7,2021 1:01:06 PM - DEC 2020 (2).Jpc - photos E-5
BOB AND BARBARA LOCKE
4332 ADMIRABLE DR – PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
310 541 1495 – 310 544 5029 FAX – BOBLOCKE2@COX.NET
May 9, 2010
Thomas and Deborah Berg
4353 Palos Verdes Drive South
Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90275
Dear Bergs,
The trees in your yard are blocking our view and that of our neighbor
Lorraine McWhinnie.
The areas which cause the primary concerns are as follows:
1.The trees located in the NW portion of you backyard approximately
60’ long. These trees need to have about 7’ trimmed off the top.
2.The trees in the NE corner of your yard, because of the rate of growth,
need to have about 20’ trimmed off the top.
3.The large wide pine tree on the south portion of your lot needs to have
15’ trimmed off the top.
4.The palm tree behind your house could use some thinning out.
That’s it
Thank you for your attention to this issue
Bob & Barbara Locke and on behalf of Lorraine McWhinnie
E-6
E-7
ATTACHMENT F. RPVMC 12.08.110 - VIEW IMPAIRING CITY TREES
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
ATTACHMENT G. VIEW RESTORATION GUIDELINES
G-1
G-2