CC SR 20210803 01 - 4353 PVDS City Tree AppealCONT. PUBLIC HEARING
Date: August 3, 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 (the matter was continued from 7/20/21)
3.Request for Staff Report: Mayor Alegria
4.Staff Report & Recommendation: John Alvarez, Senior 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.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 08/03/2021
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
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: John Alvarez, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY: Ken Rukavina, P.E., Community Development Director
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A.Draft Resolution No. 2021- ___ (page A-1)
B.Consulting arborist’s correspondence dated July 22, 2021 (page B-1)
C.July 20, 2021 City Council staff report (page C-1)
D.Public correspondence (page D-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On July 20, 2021, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider an appeal
of a recommendation to remove a City pine tree for the purposes of view restoration. For
background on the appeal, see the staff report attached to this report as Attachment C.
After hearing public testimony on the matter, the City Council continued the matter to this
evening to allow time for the City’s arborist to consider the feasibility of raising and/or
reducing the crown of the pine tree.
1
Crown raising a tree is a trimming practice that removes the lower limbs and foliage to
see the view below a tree’s canopy; crown reduction is the practice of removing the top
of the tree. Crown raising and crown reduction was an option initially considered by Staff,
but was dismissed by the City’s Arborist because in order to restore the shoreline views
from the individual co-applicants’ properties, the necessary amount of crown raising and
crown reduction would exceed 30% foliage removal jeopardizing the tree’s health.
Furthermore, to both crown raise and crown reduce the tree, Staff believed it would leave
the tree unsightly. As a final thought, Staff also dismissed these options because crown
raising would continue to result in an ocean (Inspiration Point cove) view impairment from
the applicants’ properties.
City Arborist’s Opinion
The City’s view restoration arborist, Greg Applegate, a registered consulting arborist,
provided an assessment about specific crown raising and crown reduction levels
(Attachment B). Based on Mr. Applegate’s assessment, crown raising and crown reducing
the tree (see illustrated photos in Attachment B) to restore the shoreline views would
seriously stress the tree. Mr. Applegate cautions that raising the crown would cause “lion-
tailing”, which weakens the main limbs where they may fail or fall during a storm. He noted
that the main structure of the tree is weak. With respect to the survivability after tree
trimming, especially crown reduction that removes the top of the canopy to restore the
shoreline view from 4324 Admirable Drive, Mr. Applegate opined that the tree’s health
would decline, and it would likely die because of trimming. Mr. Applegate also opines that
both crown raising and crown reduction to restore the shoreline views would compromise
the tree’s aesthetics. Thus, all things considered, the City’s arborists has stated that the
best option to restore the impaired views is to remove the tree.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Public Correspondence
On July 26, 2021, Staff responded to an inquiry concerning an existing pine tree on the
seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive South located at 3 Yacht Harbor Drive (Attachment
D). Staff provided an email to nearby residents, including the Appellants, that the tree
located at 3 Yacht Harbor Drive, which is not connected to this City tree appeal review,
was subject to a past development permit (Grading Permit No. 2260/2281) review in
2001, but the Planning Commission, in approving the permit application, did not require
the tree to be trimmed. However, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No.
2001-46, with Conditions of Approval that allows foliage to be trimmed to protect views
following a City code enforcement investigation . There is no nexus between the private
tree at 3 Yacht Harbor Drive and the City tree appeal.
On July 25, 2021, public correspondence was received (Attachment D); however, the
issues raised objecting to the removal of the pine tree do not change Staff’s
recommendation.
2
On July 20, 2021, the City Council, as a reminder, received late correspondence from the
public regarding the appeal (Attachment D). Based on Staff’s review of the late
correspondence, the issues that have been raised objecting to the removal of the pine
tree do not change Staff’s recommendation. It should be noted that the City Council
received late correspondence from Mr. Mike Phipps, the City’s geologist, opining that pine
tree removal will not be detrimental to the stability of the Klondike Canyon Landslide nor
the adjacent slope next to the Berg property at 4353 Palos Verdes Drive South.
Replacement Foliage
The Appellant has requested that if the subject tree is removed, then a replacement tree
be installed. As previously mentioned in the July 20 staff report, Staff does not
recommend replacement trees be installed as any tree planted within the vicinity will likely
grow into the protected shoreline view. Staff estimates that a new tree at a height between
14 feet and 17 feet would re-impair the shoreline view should it be planted within the cul-
de-sac public right-of-way.
CONCLUSION:
Following review of the issues and concerns raised by the Appellant and upon receiving
the assessment from the City’s arborist concerning the health and public safety risks
associated with crown raising and reduction, 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 recommends the City Council find that
the tree significantly impairs the view for 4332 and 4324 Admirable Drive and that removal
of the tree is the only method that would eliminate the significant view impairment; and
adopt the attached draft resolution (Attachment A) to remove one City-owned pine tree
on City property adjacent to 4353 Palos Verdes Drive South.
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. Alternately, determine that the City pine tree does significantly impair the view
from 4332 and 4324 Admirable Drive, but require tree trimming to a specified
height level or by a specific method, such as crown raising.
3
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 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 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 replacemen t
tree be planted by the City; and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 2021, a 15-day public notice of the public hearing was
published in the Peninsula News; and
A-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, at which time the City Council voted unanimously to continue the public hearing
to August 3, 2021, to allow time for Staff and the City’s Arborist to consider the feasibility
of trimming the tree by means of crown raising and/or reduction; and
WHEREAS, on August 3, 2021, the City Council held a 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 Cit y’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 (shor eline),
A-2
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 3 of 4
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. Furthermore, trimming the tree to restore the shoreline views, by crown reduction
and crown raising is not feasible. The City’s View Restoration Arborist opined that
crown raising and crown reduction to restore the shoreline views would seriously
stress the tree and weaken limbs that would create a future public safety hazard.
He also opined that the combination of crown raising and crown reduction,
whereby the top of the canopy is removed, would cause a decline in the health of
the tree and likely kill it. Given that trimming the tree to restore the shoreline views
would create a public hazard and that the tree would li kely die as a result of
trimming, the City Council finds that the tree needs to 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 orders the following at the
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.
A-3
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 4 of 4
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 3rd day of August 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 August 3, 2021.
________________________________
CITY CLERK
A-4
From:John Alvarez
To:Greg Applegate; Robert Nemeth
Subject:RE: Onsite meeting at applicant"s property at 10 a.m
Date:Tuesday, July 27, 2021 11:03:25 AM
Thank you for the clarification Greg!
John Alvarez
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Bl.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5288
johna@rpvca.gov
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. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. 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. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of
department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Greg Applegate <greg@arborgate.occoxmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 10:09 AM
To: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca.gov>; John Alvarez <JohnA@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Onsite meeting at applicant's property at 10 a.m.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
John & Robert,
Thank you for the photographs and illustrations, and for meeting me on site this morning. The
subject Aleppo pine is a little over 30 feet high and about 40 feet wide. It has four main
trunks. It was thin pruned earlier this year which helped expose the main branching and aids
my evaluation of the two options, or whether it needs to be removed.
Thinning has not really helped improved the view and within a year of the last pruning it will
be full again. The option of raising the crown can help the owner of 4332 and if the pruning is
done in the right time of year, with good supervision, and with proper pruning cuts, it should
be survivable.
However, from the neighbor's home, that pruning would not be sufficient. Some crown
reduction pruning and crown raising would be necessary there, but that amount would be
excessive and probably lead to decline and death. It would also not leave an attractive tree.
B-1
Crown reduction would be limited because of a thin canopy layer. Crown raising is limited
because it is a form of lion-tailing, which concentrates the wind load higher on the stem and
because the lower limbs are removed and not feeding the main stem it does not develop a good
amount of taper, making it more likely to fail in later wind storms.
Unfortunately, the best option is to remove the tree.
On 3/23/2021 7:35 AM, Robert Nemeth wrote:
B-2
From: Greg Applegate <greg@arborgate.occoxmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2021 5:29 PM
To: John Alvarez <JohnA@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Questions concerning tree trimming
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
John,
1. The raising of the canopy and reduction at the same time would be a serious stress on the
tree. Assuming it was done in the proper season, late this fall or early winter, it may
survive. There are some details of how much would be removed on top that I'm not clear on. If
there is only a thin layer of foliage, you couldn't cut below it. The more clear problem with
crown raising is that it would end up "lion-tailing" the main limbs to the degree that they would
be likely to fail in the the next big storm. The main structure looks a little weak to begin with.
2. The devil is in the details, and in personal opinions when it comes to aesthetics. It looks like
the amount of foliage removal would still be excessive, but it could survive. It could also be a
slow lingering decline and death. Its borderline enough that it might die in a year or
two. Assuming it survives the next big storm, some people like the look of lion-tailed trees. It
may appeal to some people, but if it breaks up in a storm, few people would think it attractive
any more.
3. Yes the combination of crown raising, crown reduction, lacing (aka thinning) the rest of the
canopy kill, disfigure, and destroy the aesthetic value of the tree. Pines cannot tolerate such
severe pruning. The speed of death is debatable. Some times its slow. Some times the foliage
loss leads to root dieback, which leads to borer infestation, and then a year to two later its dead
and brown.
4. The growth potential is hard to estimate. I can't see the root zone. I can't see if it already has
borers. The scale is a little fuzzy. I notice the ocean side seems a little sparse and
unhealthy. There appears to be several competing trunks which usually results in less height
potential and the ocean exposure will also reduce the height potential. One factor that could
limit its growth potential is whether there are already enough defects in its structure that one or
more failures will occur. I can't tell much from the picture.
5. No, I don't think it could withstand annual crown reduction, at least enough to restore much
view. It looks like the canopy is too thin for that
B-3
On 7/22/2021 12:23 PM, John Alvarez wrote:
Hi Greg,
As Robert mentioned to you, the City Council is considering an appeal to remove a city pine tree
(See attached Report). Staff is recommending removal of the Pine tree because the tree is
impairing a special view of the shoreline from 2 properties that you will be visiting next
Tuesday. We considered crown reducing the tree to restore the shoreline views, but it is obvious
that trimming to such a severe height level would kill and disfigure the tree. At the last Council
meeting, the Council asked about the feasibility of crown raising the tree in order to restore the
view of the shorelines. I have attached 3 photos for you to offer a preliminary assessment.
The photo titled “ Locke shoreline view” was taken from 4332 Admirable Drive. I illustrated on
the photo of the tree the shoreline view impairment within the yellow area. The photo titled
“Vullin shoreline view” was taken from 4324 Admirable Drive. I again illustrated on the photo
the shoreline view impairment within the yellow area. These photos do not show the height and
the size of the tree so I included a photo taken from Palos Verdes Drive South that clearly shows
the full height and width of the tree, as well as the dense branch network. The photo titled “
trimming areas_LI” shows crown raising area of the tree (rectangle) needed to restore the Locke
shoreline view and the crown reduction area, shown within the red area, needed to restore the
shoreline view.
I am preparing another report for the Council to review at their August 3rd meeting, so if you
could please answer the following questions by Friday morning, I would appreciate it:
1. Based on the“ trimming areas_LI” photo, would crown raising and crown reduction kill or
disfigure/destroy the aesthetic value of the Pine tree?
2. Based on the“ trimming areas_LI” photo, would crown raising, with no crown reduction, kill or
disfigure/destroy the aesthetic value of the Pine tree?
3. Based on the“ trimming areas_LI” photo, would crown raising, crown reduction, and lacing or
thinning the rest of the canopy kill or disfigure/destroy the aesthetic value of the Pine tree?
4. How much growth potential does the tree have? Is it already at its maximum height?
5. In the long term, could the tree withstand annual crown reduction to protect the shoreline view,
as seen from the Vullin property?
Next week after visiting the proprieties and the tree, you may have more insight to offer us, but
at this time, I do need your preliminary feedback.
Thank you so much,
John Alvarez
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Bl.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5288
johna@rpvca.gov
B-4
LI Trimming Areas.
Yellow rectangle is the Co -applicant Locke shoreline view from 4332
Admirable Drive.
Red polygon is the Co-applicant Vullin shoreline view from 4324
Admirable Drive.
B-5
Locke Shoreline View Outlined in Yellow.
Photograph taken from 4332 Admirable Drive.
B-6
Vullin Shoreline View Outlined in Yellow.
Photograph taken from 4324 Admirable Drive.
B-7
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. C-1
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.
C-2
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
C-3
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
C-4
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.
C-5
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:
C-6
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
C-7
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.
C-8
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.
C-9
ATTACHMENT A. APPEAL
C-10
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:
C-11
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>
C-12
ATTACHMENT B. RESOLUTION
C-13
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
C-14
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
C-15
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.
C-16
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
C-17
ATTACHMENT C. VIEW FROM VIEWING AREA
C-18
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-19
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-20
ATTACHMENT D. VIEW ANALYSIS
C-21
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
C-22
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
C-23
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
City
property
lines
City property
Subject tree
C-24
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-25
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-26
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
C-27
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 3C-28
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 4C-29
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 5C-30
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 6C-31
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)
C-32
ATTACHMENT E. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
C-33
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
C-34
\/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
C-35
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 C-36
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
C-37
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 C-38
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
C-39
C-40
ATTACHMENT F. RPVMC 12.08.110 - VIEW IMPAIRING CITY TREES
C-41
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)
C-42
ATTACHMENT G. VIEW RESTORATION GUIDELINES
C-43
C-44
C-45
From:John Alvarez
To:leneebilski@hotmail.com
Cc:Tom Berg; Deborah Berg; Gerry Taccini; Robert Nemeth; CC; Ara Mihranian
Subject:Re: Appeal of a City Tree Review - case #2021-0012
Date:Monday, July 26, 2021 11:47:20 AM
Good morning Lenee,
As you recall, in 2001 Eric Johnson submitted a Coastal Permit and Grading Permit to
construct a large house on at 3 Yacht Harbor Drive. The pine tree at 3 Yacht Harbor Drive
existed on the property at the time the project was reviewed by the City, but it was not
required to be trimmed by the Planning Commission. The record is unclear as to the reason
the pine tree was not asked to be trimmed. I was not part of the project's review at the time,
but I speculate that the tree did not exceed 16 feet at the time of the review and/or did not
cause a significant view impairment from surrounding properties.
Ultimately, the Planning Commission approved the development request as PC Resolution No.
2001-46, and added a condition of approval requiring a landscape plan to be reviewed by the
Planning Department. The condition of approval also stated that “All new trees and shrubs
shall be maintained so as not to significantly impair views from surrounding properties”.
Therefore, if any resident believes that his/her view is significantly impaired by the Pine tree
at 3 Yacht Harbor Drive, then he or she ought to contact the City's Code Enforcement Division
so that they could enforce the existing condition of approval requiring the tree owner to trim
the tree to eliminate the significant view impairment.
I've copied the City Council so that they are aware Staff has provided a response to your
inquiry about the Pine tree located at 3 Yacht Harbor Drive.
Regards,
John Alvarez
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Bl.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5288
johna@rpvca.gov
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. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. 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
D-1
person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of
department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 10:52 AM
To: John Alvarez <JohnA@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Appeal of a City Tree Review - case #2021-0012
From: Lenée Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 10:51 AM
To: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Tom Berg <tom@bergcm.com>; Deborah Berg <deborah@bergcm.com>; John Alvarez
<JohnA@rpvca.gov>; Gerry Taccini <gtaccini@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Appeal of a City Tree Review - case #2021-0012
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Do you have the information/explanation I requested on July 8th ?
Lenée Bilski
From: Lenée Bilski
Sent: Thursday, July 8, 2021 10:30 PM
To: RNEMETH@RPVCA.GOV <RNEMETH@RPVCA.GOV>
Cc: Tom Berg <tom@bergcm.com>; Deborah Berg <deborah@bergcm.com>; John Alvarez
<JohnA@rpvca.gov>; Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; rawwad@rpvca.gov
<rawwad@rpvca.gov>; cc@rpvca.gov <cc@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Appeal of a City Tree Review - case #2021-0012
To Robert Nemeth, RPV Mayor Alegria, City Council and staff:
I am writing in support of the Berg's Appeal to allow the pine tree to remain. It is an asset to
the City.
Please explain to the City Council and the public how the large pine on the property at #3
Yacht Harbor Drive which obstructed the ocean and sunset views for numerous residents in
the SeaView community when the building project was proposed was allowed to remain
when the project came before the Planning Commission. It still obstructs the ocean, horizon
D-2
and sunset views for many of us. If that tree was allowed to remain, then this one should also
be allowed to remain. Trim, Yes; remove, No.
Sincerely,
Lenée Bilski
SeaView resident
D-3
From:Marianne Shriver
To:Robert Nemeth; CC; CityClerk
Subject:Pine Tree
Date:Sunday, July 25, 2021 5:49:12 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Mr. Nemeth, Mayor Alegria and City Council,
Please withdraw your recommendation that Juan Hernandez, Maintenance
Superintendent of RPV Public Works Department, remove one Pine tree located on
City property (APN 7564-005-900, "Gateway Park") pending outreach to the rest of
the City's public amenities user groups and the City's Decision Makers.
Sincerely,
Marianne Shriver
RPV resident
D-4
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late correspondence
Robert Nemeth
Tuesday, July 20, 2021 4:19 PM
CityClerk
FW : FW: Appeal of a City Tree Review -case #2021 -0012 -Impact to Landslide area
From: Mike Phipps <mphipps@cottonshires.com>
Sent: Monday, July 19, 202112:13 PM
To: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca .gov>
Cc: Christopher Dean <cdean@cottonshires .com>; John Alvarez <JohnA@rpvca.gov>; Robert Nemeth
<rnemeth@rpvca.gov>; Matt Janousek <mjanousek@cottonshires .com>
Subject: Re: FW: Appeal of a City Tree Review -case #2021-0012 -Impact to Landslide area
CAUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palo s Verdes.
Ken and Robert,
The area of the tree is located within the Klondike Canyon Landslide, and near the head of the Beach Club
Landslide, both of which are in Landslide Moratorium Zone 4 . As we have discussed on similar matters, the tree canopy
represents several tons of weight. Removal of that weight is beneficial because it reduces the driving force of the
landslide mass. The tree is within a pretty large landslide (Klondike Cyn Landslide) that is interpreted to be over 200 feet
deep, and the mass of this tree relative to the mass of the landslide is therefore extremely small. So in reality we are
talking about something that is a quite small, if not infinitesimal, benefit to the overall stability of the landslide. IF the
tree is removed, it should be cut flush with the ground and the root system left intact. That is the best course of
action. If for some reason the tree root ball and root system needs to be removed, the ground disturbance created by
such activity could result in the adjacent slope needing to be regraded. Root removal activity increases the risk of
creating a surficial stability/erosion problem for the local slope next to the tree. Other than that, I do not see anything
that would suggest the tree removal could be detrimental to the stability of the landslide or the slope adjacent to the
property (Berg) at the end of the cul-de-sac .
I want to mention, with regard to the actual property line location in the vicinity of the tree, the images from GIS appear
to be off (i.e ., the garage at 4353 PVDS, as well as the rooflines of adjacent houses, are nearly sitting on or extending
beyond the property lines). Other improvements on that lot closest to the tree extend beyond the property line shown,
especially in the back yard of 4353 PVDS. Furthermore it appears that this property owner has landscaped the area
where the tree is (lawn) and appears to be irrigating it. That said, I've looked at the recorded tract map and perhaps the
relatively level building pad at 4353 PVDS extends beyond the P/L and the tree is located in that extended pad area. I'm
not sure if it is worthwhile, but has anyone taken an additional step to physically survey in the P/L and confirm that this
tree is actually on City property?
That is my input, please let me know if you have any questions.
Regards,
Mike
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 9:08 AM Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov> wrote:
1 D-5
Hi Mike or Chris,
Please see below. Can you please opine on the impacts of removing the subject pine tree (see attached staff report)
would have or not have on the slide? I know what your answer will be but we'll need some talking points if asked at
the City Council hearing next week.
Thanks, Ken
Ken Rukavina, PE
Director of Community Development
t:i'city of Rancho Palos Verdes
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 . Some employees are working on rotation
and may be working remotely. 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.
Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed . For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website.
. . .
DOWNLOAD 'tit.:,--.:, ~ j
Avoilobl• in th• App Stor• ond Googl• Ploy
G[T IT UN
t' • Google Play
2 D-6
From: Tom Berg <tom@bergcm.com >
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 202110:01 PM
To: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca.gov>
Cc: John Alvarez <JohnA@rpvca.gov >; Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca .gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca .gov>; CC
<CC@rpvca.gov >; Deborah Berg <deborah@bergcm.com >
Subject: Appeal of a City Tree Review -case #2021-0012 -Impact to Landslide area
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
To Robert Nemeth, RPV Mayor Alegria, City Council and staff:
The Pine Tree in question is located in Zone 4, of the City's Geologist map, the same zone in
which I reside, namely at 4353 PVD South, adjacent the tree. Many houses in the Seaview
neighborhood are potentially impacted by the slide. I personally have noted a large,
subsurface crack which traverses from the top of the slope at Admirable Drive, directly to the
Pine Tree from the North, along the hinge point of the slope, passes underneath the pine tree
then continues into the street then into larger PVD South. In the middle of the PVD South cu I-
de-sac is a survey point which is routinely monitored by the City's Geotechnical
consultants. In my assessment as a Registered Civil Engineer, it is important to consider that
the removal of this tree could have impact on the slide zone, but more specifically, the slope
adjacent our property. The question remains, what consideration has been given to the
preservation of the slope occupied by this pine tree and the issues related to Zone 4?
Sincerely,
Thomas Berg, P.E., QSD
3 D-7
Michael B. Phipps, PG, CEG
Principal Engineering Geologist
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
699 Hampshire Road, Suite 101
Thousand Oaks, California 91361
805.370.8710, ext. 12 (office)
805.807.9001 (cell)
Web: www.cottonshires.com
4 D-8
Subject: FW : Council Meeting, 07 /20/21 -Item# 1 -Tree
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca .gov>
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 4:49 PM
To: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com >; CC <CC@rpvca.gov >
Cc: Amanda Wong <kiwi esg@hotmail.com >; Bill Schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo.com >; Diane Mills
<dianebmills@gmail.com >; Don Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com >; Ed Hummel <ecarloshum@gmail.com >; Elliot Levy
<elliotlevy@gmail.com >; Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net>; Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net >; Herb Stark
<stearman@juno.com >; Jack Fleming <jjfleming2000@yahoo .com >; Jessica Vlaco <v1aco5@cox.net >; Judy Hildebrand
<judbabe@aol.com >; Marty Foster <martycrna@gmail.com>; Scott Mills <smills300@gmail.com >; Yossef Aelony
<Y.aelony@cox.net>; SUNSHINE <SunshineRPV@aol.com >; Sharon Yarber <momofyago@gmail.com >
Subject: RE: Council Meeting, 07/20/21-Item# 1-Tree
Hi Mickey,
The City Tree case on the City Council's agenda tonight was initiated by residents on Admirable who
are seeking to restore their view .
Staff's assessment and determination is based on the View Ordinance voted by the residents as part
of Prop M in 1989.
As for Ladera Linda, according to the landscape plan as shown below, the following vegetation
including trees will remain:
1 D-9
The City trees located along Forrestal Drive are proposed to be trimmed in response to requests from
residents wanting to restore their views.
In both cases, the City is responding to resident requests to restore views pursuant to the City's View
Ordinance.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
2 D-10
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 90275
310-544-5202 (telephone)
310 -544 -5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
~ Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
0 --· ,. ---• -. -
~ ··----
: ---A<v a iloblr I n the-A p p Sto re and G ooolC!' Ploy
GET IT ON
~-• Google Play
From: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com >
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 4:22 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca .gov>
Cc: Amanda Wong <kiwi esq@hotmail.com >; Bill Schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo .com >; Diane Mills
<dianebmills@gmail.com >; Don Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com >; Ed Hummel <ecarloshum@gmail.com >; Elliot Levy
<elliotlevy@gmail.com >; Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net >; Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox .net>; Herb Stark
<stearman@juno.com >; Jack Fleming <jjfleming2000@yahoo.com >; Jessica Vlaco <vlaco5@cox.net>; Judy Hildebrand
<judbabe@aol.com >; Marty Foster <martycrna@gmail.com >; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com >; Scott Mills
<smills300@gmail.com >; Yossef Aelony <Y.aelony@cox .net>; SUNSHINE <SunshineRPV@aol.com >; Sharon Yarber
<momofyago@gmail.com >
Subject: Council Meeting, 07 /20/21 -Item# 1 -Tree
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes .
It seems to me that our City is waging a war on trees . The tree in question at the end of Seaview, that the
city wishes to remove, is only the beginning of their campaign.
For the new Lad era Linda park, our Ladera Linda HOA wished to leave the existing trees along Fo r restal Drive
as a noise buffer to our neighbors along Forrestal Drive . However, the City plans to de-nude the full 11 acres of
trees, ground cover and shrubs and replace them with all new shrubbery.
3 D-11
I don't think our City listens to its residents anymore. They have a different agenda. Why hasn't the Land
Conservancy spoken on this issue? Or the Sierra Club?
4 D-12
From :
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Deborah Berg <deborah@bergcm.com >
Tuesday , July 20, 2021 4 :16 PM
Enyssa Momoli; Ken Rukavina; Ram zi Awwad ; Cory Linder
CC; CityClerk; Robert Nemeth
Appeal of a City Tree (CTRP Case No . 2021-0012)
Spare Gateway Path Pine.pdf
CAUTION : This email originated from outsid e of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Power point not going through .
Please see pdf attached.
From: Deborah Berg
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 20214:11 PM
To: EnyssaM@rpvca.gov
Subject : Appeal of a City Tree (CTRP Case No . 2021 -0012)
Please see attached for Appellant Berg for tonight's Council meeting.
Having trouble getting the file to you.
Deborah Berg
310 739-5710 direct
D-13
The Gateway Path Pine
Appeal of a City Tree Review (CTRP Case No. 2021-0012)
D-14
Deborah and Tom Berg
Appellants
D-15
Why Appeal?
• To resolve view issues amicably as good
neighbors
• Seeking balance as described in the
purpose of the ordinance
• 50% of our neighbors don't have view
lots; they have right to vistas too.
• The pine is a visual landmark of the
Seaview Community.
• It is the central element of a pocket park
Gateway to the City's public trails.
• What would become of the pathway
and the pocket park if the tree were
removed?
D-16
Background
• 20 years ago, we moved into the house adjacent the pine tree in question
• The Cul-de-sac was a mess of weeds, rocks, bare dirt, and the pine.
• Dust, fire and safety were real concerns.
• Long before your time on the City Council,
• No work was ever done in the cul-de-sac by the City.
• It was unclear who was responsible for the pine.
• My husband began cleaning up the space, having the pine laced and
trimmed annually, not just for us, but for the entire neighborhood
D-17
Background
• March 2021, we received the annual letter from our neighbor at 4332
Admirable Drive, asking us to trim the pine.
• We had already ordered the work -informed the Applicant this would be
done end of March.
• This pattern has occurred for 20 years.
• In addition to the pine , we annually trim the acacias at the back of the
property and outside the fence line in the utility easement and clean out
the underbrush to the Fire Department's satisfaction, even though most of
the acacias are outside our property.
• We had no idea a view assessment was requested until notified by Mr.
Nemeth's letter. As we were out of town when the letter came, we were
grateful Mr. Nemeth reached by ema il.
D-18
The Process
For view assessment of foliage on private
property, the applicant must show:
Evidence of adequate early neighbor
consultation shall consist of each applicant
filing a "Notice of Intent to File a View
Restoration Permit Application" with the
City prior to the submittal of a formal View
Restoration Permit Application.
• For 20 years, none of us knew the tree
was City property.
• We understand the tree was previously
owned by an absentee owner.
• The City acquired the tree more
recently.
• We appreciate this opportunity to come
before to discuss the future of the tree.
D-19
We are Asking
• How can we spare the beautiful landmark tree, the
Gateway Path Pine
• Please take the time to:
• consider the impacts of removal
• explore the alternatives
•develop a comprehensive plan and,
•engage the community in neighborhood
decisions
D-20
Response to Staff Report
• Staff cites 12.08.030
• that the Public Works
department will maintain and
remove trees .... except for
watering and fertilizing.
• And what if the tree is not
maintained by the City as this
pine was not?
• Section 12.08.040 and 12.08.050
only prohibit planting or removal,
cutting down, or in any way
impairing the natural growth of any
tree ... on city property.
• There is no apparent prohibition of
taking care of a tree.
D-21
Response to Staff Report
• The report states there a re no
official trails or paths nearby
for hikers or bicycle riders to
access the tree's shade.
• There is, in fact, a significant
social trail that safely leads
pedestrians and bikers to the
public ROW.
• The City's map shows that
area is considered part of the
Green Gateway.
• The pine is shown in the coast
vision plan as Gateway Park.
D-22
Response to Staff Report
• Significant view impairment
seems to be highly subjective
• Photo from Redfin showing view
from 4324 Admirable used for
recent sale and purchase.
• The Pine tree does not seem to
be impairing the view
• Inspiration Point, probably the
most prominent feature of the
view, is fully visible.
D-23
Response to Staff Report
The City and Contractor Arborist
• States that trimming the tree
would kill it.
• Does not recommend replacement
• Why?
From the report itself, "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 r emoved
with reQlacement.
The internet is replete with examples of
trees that have survived trimming
• V-shape, topping
• Raising the Canopy
Please further investigate these options.
If the tree must be removed possible
replacements should be considered
• Crape myrtle?
• There are many slow growing, dwarf
varieties that would complement
the slope
D-24
Balance
• The view restoration guidelines, the City ordinances, and the City website
address the balance necessary to make sure all the residents of the community
are considered. We applaud this vision.
• City's Municipal Code as Section 17,02040, View Preservation and Restoration
Ordinance
"The hillsides of the City constitute a limited natural resource in their scenic value
to all residents of and visitors to the City. The hillsides provide potential vista points
and view lots. The City's General Plan recognizes these natural resources and calls
for their Qrotection .
The purpose of this Ordinance is to promote the health, safety and general welfare
of the public ..... by balancing the rights of the residential property owner[s] ... "
D-25
Balance
The shade of the tree attracts artists and horse riders.
D-26
Q) u
C
0
0
Ci)
V)
(1)
-+-
~
0)
C
>-
LL D-27
Vest -Pocket Park and Pathway
• The Gateway Path Pine central
element to the Vest-Pocket Park
at the end of the cul-de-sac.
• 50% of Residences on North side of
the streets in Seaview do not have
ocean views
• These neighbors walk to the
pocket park for their view
• Drop off / pick up for joggers and
bikers eliminates parking issues
• My husband is a Registered Civil
-
-
-
-
Engineer, and I am a planner.
We have managed the
construction of numerous pocket
parks in LA County.
Tom oversaw the construction the
55-acre Wilmington Gateway Park
at the Port of Los Angeles.
With increased traffic on PV Dr. S,
pedestrians and bikers are at
increased risk, especially where the
median terminates, the road
narrows and the slide area begins
directly in front of our house.
The path guides pedestrian and
bikes safely from little PV Dr. S to the
unimproved social roadside path.
D-28
Social Usage
Neighbors walk to the
Gateway Path Pine
for the view Pathway to get to and from the Roadside
D-29
Social Usage
• Trail jogger hydrating
under the tree while
waiting for his wife to
pick up him.
D-30
Social Usage
• Neighborhood usage
Mother -Daughter
Morning Coffee Walk
D-31
Spare the Pine Tree
• Consider all of your constituents
• Consider the impacts
• Consider Alternatives
• Once it is gone, it's gone!
• Take a holistic view
• Develop a comprehensive plan
Uphold the Appeal
or Postpone decision
Thank you!
Thank you for your service to our Community!
D-32
1
Subject:FW: JUL 20 MTG LATE CORRESPONDENCES
Attachments:city mtg jul 20 old view photo.jpg; CITY MTG jul 20.pdf; cty mtg jul 20.pdf
From: Bob Locke <boblocke2@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 5:30 PM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: JUL 20 MTG LATE CORRESPONDENCES
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Enclosed are 3 letters sent to the Bergs re the view
The photo is another FYI – I don’t know the date, it you look carefully in the lower left hand corner you can see the top
of Berg’s garage
Thank you, Bob
Bob Locke, CDPE WEST SHORES REALTY Palos Verdes
“Serving LA & Orange Counties”
DRE LIC# 01231182
310 544 4667 - Direct Office
310 795 2311 - cell
310 544 5029 - fax
boblocke2@cox.net - email
http://www.BobLockePV.com
2D-33
D-34
10 i.l01 !0flJ 1ts: rri 989-r_4_2_5LB-{ -_Ft E 5f l!r.r
FLT&UT(
BOBII)CKE
.{ilT2 AI,MINADI.,E D*.
BAIVGO PIL(N VEnDr,g CA 902?5
EOIIE - 3lDs4r-t495 rax-rro544sD9
FANE E:I i::
FAig 91i 01"
Thc ttE c on thc rortbw€nt comor 0f yout property (bdrlnd thc garage) Are bcgtoning 0o
Hodr our vic*.
D..{IE: Oclober%t0gl
TO : 4tit PY lMral{or{t-(I1c Berlo?Q
E.
Wr fivo drcc{y eDorro ytur horuc (6r ffc fet t7 16 ftarr}
I'n rcrycsdry peroimiffi to dtt€r trim or lcvrl, your choh0) thBo tr$& ltqturrlly va
*ill p"y to berrc ttcwork &oa
Plcrro 3ive oo e cell 64 y6".
Yurnribbor.
loblrch3-310.541-1{95
Pori.il'Fax Nole 767i r't" ta . ro.ca l&8L> I
Il sqo upcKe-r'o' .1q,.. 651qq
Oo.loept.Co.
pt'.""*.3ro- 54i - i{95 Pxqi.* flo. 9/\b"g?.rz
'a'r 544- 5oz9 15lq:548"9195
t:Dr+< Me., \oqe-
t'l,*ur. \|orl FoR -t\tE r$crricE, E i-twe €ITTACTFD oLrR*
LFuPSIAPEA { *o, (xU,r. LrArrosc*ee, d*eo* Crrr)^
U[o ARE &'eiuq gC.Hg5.$\-ED "r() PFF,tuRr '-5'lrS urOnt'y'
*Nt) oTF(eF, (+eruERJ^,.\ \R\Mf\^llJq d\THtiJ 'T6'\E- fvl6t.JT{'
[Je CAu Nrr 4RAr'i'r '{orJ TER*-uiStsn'J 'TC E4 5r-<t1
tdoRK B.UT uulE (*ERTAIN L'l lrl{)Lru) L\\nE* ^loLrt-
tN?uT A6our*r tdNNT TD TFt,t"4iEc\'. ftre r-c"r rca
ili-r],' -oo* iS o$B' F.E5P0N{'tts'lLi\l NcT \ece1 ' -
P.e*tE. Fee\- FFeE- -To cSt'i'TA(-I N'\E-- tF-r\ot FIAUE
X"f o'Tl,ieF- 9uElTr o''l\ v\ (tutuENT9. I\:t".-\,s-{-"^'bt*f
UD-35
18110/ !683 1L 4: 4,1lq;Iry.<lJgJ 1li 4.:|
t. ?/:B/?fl!3 il I 36
-.,1,'.'.:
!agl;.4?rit €14
J r ul.1t5i9t
3.:.e3cr:521
ij,itrE 1l / $lP.l€ a1,r6i
PAE Ai
R"i: 6E Flrlr,j
BEF6CM
tsoB L0cl<l
uoturcre
,.slt*Drd[na3[.B'DB
&aNeBo PAX.O$ VruDES, CA gm?!
&0$1tr - 31116{!-14*5 trAX - 31e.3{{.s{I}9
BA'Ifit O**rrfS$lS
tO ; Tm Iq -.ltC3IY Dric l&6$
lBrr l{r.Serg
Itr* yor fir 5mry b&l,to uc ao qdddy,
Ililrrftsl lhro t0 crf, a* r,rd an&r rffrlgrrm.tBto cooc rp *nd ldn r lools rt ow
*[rdo& If]tr prrfor, I cau trril p&otoo of tt*e rroru olusou to 1tu,
?fir rlqcr&q rad fmrrds L tr€.dy rgercd$ad. E$ncltr' ! anr Bore tst
trmrt( fo ldp dat a lod. ofitr+ G0.t, Wordd yu rcorpl r dmalhc to &p t3el.. of my
iiln00t?
?td..r3 h,
IS [r*c-rt0s4r.l{r*-!{rilI - Eotr4,o{}q!4$0S&eT
Posl-rtt Fax f..!ote tti i ;.?rs to.. ro l;.;l.r ,'" flos LEr(c.rrn. '6^. ftt(
Co. t.p1
F x' dEslJt-r'.",,r i3 lo. 5.$, irt ?J.
'i1.t,co.lK,s AqAr{ . Er'' Nr,-r "lEcE!g.\RY Al A-L.
A*t 5:10 , cri. t4, Atu'- M{1ET i'rl' !a' Cqt- i-A\r{){(&fl'L-
'fo s(e,u tt !^) 'e. t-^I'J'*r- i*l ' "Jorae-' ts-r-rt'* -r4rt'
0""";;'.'-- rfo!') IIi*""ei.c!+t'tE- -rlr 65itu ''r) '
rE *r.,., ;dlrq $- 5il*"--Jo'+ Vtt',TAtrL/Trt'a
t>orrJr\. 'T"t*t*,x,1 ,, '[ +"*. Btrtz
{Ca*ttN .,
A
EE*o. 6.\6. \-oct'.
D-36
BOB AND BARBARA LOCKE
4332 ADMIRABLE DR- PALOS yERDES, CA 90275
310 541 149s - 310 s44 s029 FAX - BOBLOCKE2@COX.NET
May22,2005
Thomas and Deborah Berg
4353 Palos Verdes Drive South
Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca90275
Dear Tom,
Pursuant to our conversatiou in eady December 2004 atmy listing on 13tr
street in San Pedro, it is now time to tim the trees in your yard which are
encroaching on our view.
I have enclosed digital photos showing the primary areas of concern:
SECTION A. - Photos I & 2 show the bundle of approximately 60 linear
feet of(eucalyptus??) trees on the NW corner ofyour lot (extending from
the west end of your house to the far NW corner of the lot) which are now
blocking our view ofthe cove. Just to clear the view will require that a
minimum of 4 feet be cut offtle top of these trees.
SECTION B. - Photo 3 is the large "round" tree in your front yard which
needs to be cut down by approximately 8 feet to clear our view.
SECTION C. - Photo 4 is a grouping of approximately 3 eucalyptus trees in
the NE corner ofyour back yard which need to be cut down by
approximately 10 feet to clear our view.
Our primary concern is the area defined as SECTION A" the other 2 areas, at
least for the moment, are not as much of a concern to us. Therefore if you
would please hasten your efforts to clear this area first we will be most
appreciative.
Please let me know if there is a problem taking care of this issue prior to the
15ft ofJune.
Thanking you in advance.
Bob and Barbara Locke
.r*)u^rur -tJ Xu-tX" - ,'*' c^^d 'f;'n','-
*A dry ,0*.!",*"9- ( *,1 ,r)D-37
From:
Sent:
To:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, July 20, 2021 9:29 AM
CityClerk
Subject: FW : Council Meeting, 07 /20/21 -Item # 1 -Tree
LC
From: martha foster <martycrna@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 9:28 AM
To: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Amanda Wong <kiwi_esq@hotmail.com>; Bill Schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo .com>; Diane Mills
<dianebmills@gmail.com>; Don Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>; Ed Hummel <ecarloshum@gmail.com>; Elliot Levy
<elliotlevy@gmail.com>; Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net>; Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net>; Herb Stark
<stearman@juno.com>; Jack Fleming <jjfleming2000@yahoo.com>; Jessica Vlaco <v1aco5@cox.net>; Judy Hildebrand
<judbabe@aol.com>; Scott Mills <smills300@gmail.com>; Yossef Aelony <Y.aelony@cox.net>; SUNSHINE
<sunshinerpv@aol.com>; Sharon Yarber <momofyago@gmail.com>
Subject: Re : Council Meeting, 07 /20/21 -Item # 1 -Tree
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Thanks for sending this Mickey.
It has been our constant refrain that all greenery must be retained . When we petitioned the city to take over LL as a
park, we expressed great desire to keep the park as green space .
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 19, 2021, at 4 :22 PM, Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com > wrote:
It seems to me that our City is waging a war on trees. The tree in question at the end of
Seaview, that the city wishes to remove, is only the beginning of their campaign.
For the new Ladera Linda park, our Ladera Linda HOA wished to leave the existing trees along
Forrestal Drive as a noise buffer to our neighbors along Forrestal Drive. However, the City plans
to de -nude the full 11 acres of trees, ground cover and shrubs and replace them with all new
shrubbery.
I don't think our City listens to its residents anymore. They have a different agenda. Why
hasn't the Land Conservancy spoken on this issue? Or the Sierra Club?
1 D-38
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Importance:
Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>
Tuesday, July 20, 2021 10:33 AM
CC; CityClerk
Ken Rukavina; Ramzi Awwad; Cory Linder
Appeal July 20, 2021 City Council Public Hearing Item No . 2
High
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear RPV Mayor Alegria and Council members,
I am in support of the Appeal to save the tree.
Please continue this item to allow for further investigation and discussion before taking
action.
Please do not vote to cut down the tree.
This pine tree is on property that the City acquired (2004) with the Hon Purchase for "open space".
The City's code strives to trim and maintain healthy City trees. But not this tree .
Because of complaints from the neighbors of view impairment, the Bergs have been good neighbors
trimming the tree on an annual basis at their own expense, and planting and maintaining the area
which was previously bare dirt in that area, not knowing it was city property. As you can see it is now
is a lovely pocket park shaded by this well-maintained tree and is visible from P V Dr. South. A
community asset.
Some versions of the City's General Plan, Parks Master Plan, Trails Network Plan, Coast Vision Plan,
and Landslide Moratorium were in place when the city bought the land on which this tree lives.
The Community Development Department recommends removal of this 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.
see Figure 4 photo
I was hoping for a more specific Arborist report in the Staff Report to clarify the consequences of
various options. However, according to the Staff, there is only one option possible to restore the
shoreline view for the Applicants -remove the tree. I diagree.
The residents deserve to have their shoreline view. How about another solution?
The community & the general public benefits from this tree if it remains.
Staff has provided photos to illustrate where foliage blocks the view of the shoreline and not of the
rooftops. So the rooftops will still be in the center o'.the viewing area. c9
D-39
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.
The subject foliage impairs to a lesser, insignificant extent, the ocean view. No mention of Inspiration
Point promontory in this application.
The City's arborist recommends that no trees be replanted because a new replacement tree will
regrow up into the view. The existing tree has grown .!:!Q into the insignificant ocean view. Shoreline is
below.
If you look at the photos, Figure 4 shows that the crown of the tree blocks the ocean view, not the
shoreline. It's the lower portion of the tree that blocks the shoreline view. Therefore,
It appears that if the tree were "trimmed up" from the bottom to something like 10 feet, removing the
horizontal branches to a certain height, the shoreline would be visible. Instead of crown reduction
please consider "raising the canopy" to restore the shoreline view and to save the tree. How far is
the question that needs an answer.
How high would the existing tree have to be trimmed up in order to expose the shoreline view? This is
a question that needs to be investigated as the dotted lines on the photos do not indicate where the
shoreline meets the water. Since this info is unknown at this time, do not cut down the
tree. Instead, please continue the hearing to allow for investigation.
Figure 3 photo shows a palm tree located between the viewing area and the pine tree which would
be obstructing the shoreline even if the pine tree were gone.
Do not cut down the pine tree.
I would suggest more Alternatives to the City Council:
Alternative #3 trimming the pine tree from the bottom up to a level that will restore the protected
shoreline view for the Applicants
Alternative #4 continue this item while the Rec.& Parks Department weighs in on their interest in this
existing amenity on the City's "open space" public parkland (Gateway Parkland)
Alternative #5 continuing this item while the "trimming up" (raising the canopy) potential solution is
investigated, and while the potential impacts of removal of the tree on the landslide are investigated.
Thank you for your service to our city.
Sincerely,
2 D-40
Lenee Bilski
resident since 1962
3 D-41
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late correspondence
Robert Nemeth
Thursday, July 15, 2021 2:01 PM
CityClerk
FW: Coastal Permit. Case No. PLCP2021-0001 and View CTRP2021-0012
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 20211 :55 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca .gov>; Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>;
Charles Eder <CharlesE@rpvca.gov>; Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca .gov>; Katie
Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Coastal Permit. Case No. PLCP2021 -0001 and View CTRP2021 -0012
CAUTION: This email ori ginated from outside of th e Cit 'l of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hi Amy,
Thank you for the heads up. There is a lot of additional information which I may be able to provide .
Two sides . It is not fair to Council to present them with a recommendation which is not a holistic
solution to the over-all balance of public access and adjacent residential communities. It is also not
fair to the Applicant to schedule a Hearing before Staff has reached out to the local resources to get a
thorough understanding of all of the goals, potential impacts and potential solutions.
Like the tree blocking the view from 4332 Admirable (also on the July 20 Agenda), there is a
residential parking permit program in play in relation to public access to this recently acquired public
amenity. Robert Nemeth , Associate Planner, issued his View Restoration Decision without any public
review or even Rec.& Parks Department review of the alternative solutions to the request. Given
what Rec.& Parks and Public Works is going through in relation to parking near Del Cerro Park, one
would have thought that Community Development would have become more sensitive to all the
"planning" which has not happened in response to the creation of the PV Preserve.
What is now called Community Development was called Environmental Services when the RPV Trails
Network Plan was Adopted (1984). There is so much that the citizenry could help with but, Planners
no longer reach out to their resources. I am still looking for a way to increase the quality of your work
without increasing your workload.
1 I. 1) D-42
There is a Circulation Element and a Public Safety issue in nearly every Application which arrives at
your counter. Before the Application is declared "complete" is when I and, those with special
interests, can be of the most help . Too many Public Works and Rec.& Parks projects never go
through that thorough of a documentation of the Scope of Work. Private Projects get to the Planning
Commission prematurely, too.
I am really looking forward to participating in how the real problems at Oceanfront Estates get
resolved. This could lead to a really wonderful portion of the California Coastal Trail. All it takes is
someone in charge of pulling it together, disbursing the Work Orders and sharing the lessons learned
so that they are applied to the rest of RPV's Coastal Zone and Nature Preserve.
Best regards ... Sunshine 310-377-8761
In a message dated 7 /14/202111:33 :27 AM Pacific Standard Time, AmyS@rpvca.gov writes :
Hello-
Please see the link below to the City Council agenda for the July 20 th City Council Meeting . However,
please note that Staff is recommending to the City Council that the permit parking request be
continued to the August 17th City Council meeting, in order to gather some additional information . This
means there will be little to no discussion of the item at next week's meeting , and the staff report for
the August 17 th City Council meeting will contain the analysis of the request. I will keep everyone
apprised if there are any additional changes and will send the August 17 th City Council agenda out
when it is completed, which will be one week prior to the meeting . Please let me know if you have any
questions at this time, thank you .
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
amys@rpvca.gov
A..-01Jc,b4• lt'I th. App $tote ond Gooole Plo:r
Phone -{310) 544-5231
2 D-43
City of Rancho Palos Verdes , :, 1,n l 11 t d un °•,r-1,( • 1• •,
• App Store ~ • Google Play
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes . which may be privileged. confidential and /or protected from
disclosure . The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination , distribution , or copying is strictly
prohibited. If you received this email in error , or are not an intended recipient , please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and
cooperation .
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COV/0 -19, visitors are
required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on
rotation and may be working remotely. 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. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department
phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website .
From: City of Rancho Palos Verdes <listserv@civicplus.com >
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2021 6:46 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov >
Subject: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Agenda for the Tuesday, July 20, 2021 (Hybrid In-Person/Virtual)
Meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes .
View this in your browser
The next City Council regular meeting will be held on Tuesday , July 20 , 2021 at 7 :00 p.m. for the Regular
Meeting . The meeting will be conducted through a *hybrid combination of in-person and/or all virtual
attendance of the five members of the City Council and invited staff at Hesse Park , Mc Taggart Hall at Fred
Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Blvd. Public participation is highly encouraged using
the virtual platform as there will be very limited seating (with a combined total of 25 people
between two rooms) at Hesse Park.
Note -Please note the start time of 7:00 p.m .
Click the following link to access the live meetings, agendas , and staff reports on the city website
at http://www .rpvca .gov/agendas .
To participate and provide public comment, complete a form at http ://www .rpvca.gov/participate/council to
receive an email with further instructions. If you require a disability -related modification or accommodation
to participate in a meeting, please contact the City at least 48 hours prior to the meeting via email
at adarequests@rpvca .gov .
3 D-44
If you have any questions , please contact the City Clerk's office at 310 -544 -5217 or
at CityC lerk@rpvca .gov .
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This message is been sent by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as part of a "Notify Me" Listserv category
you are signed up for. Please do not press "reply" when responding to this message , it is an unmon itored
email address . You can make changes to your subscription by visiting http://www .rpvca .gov/list.aspx.
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to City Council, Successor Agency and Improvement
Authority Agendas on www.rpvca .gov. To unsubscribe, click the following link:
Unsubscribe
4 D-45
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Deborah Berg <deborah@bergcm.com>
Monday, June 14, 2021 8:50 AM
Robert Nemeth
Tom Berg
Subject: RE: Appeal of CTRP2021-0012_Public Notice_Peninsula News
Thank you, Mr. Nemeth,
We appreciate you emailing us this notice as our mail service has been quite unreliable lately.
We look forward the hearing on July 20 th and will prepare comments to send to you prior to July 8th.
Sincerely,
Thomas and Deborah Berg
From: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 8:41 AM
To: Deborah Berg <deborah@bergcm.com>; Tom Berg <tom@bergcm.com>
Subject: Appeal of CTRP2021-0012_Public Notice_Peninsula News
Good morning Mrs. and Mr. Berg,
Attached is the public notice, which was mailed to you on Thursday, June 10.
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.
Robert Nemeth
Community Development
Department
RNEMETH@RPVCA.GOV
Phone -(310) 544-5288
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
► Gfi'T ff~ le Play
1 D-46
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Tom Berg <tom@bergcm.com>
Sunday, July 11, 2021 10:01 PM
Robert Nemeth
John Alvarez; Ken Rukavina; Ramzi Awwad; CC; Deborah Berg
Appeal of a City Tree Review -case #2021-0012 -Impact to Landslide area
To Robert Nemeth, RPV Mayor Alegria, City Council and staff:
The Pine Tree in question is located in Zone 4, of the City's Geologist map, the same zone in
which I reside, namely at 4353 PVD South, adjacent the tree. Many houses in the Seaview
neighborhood are potentially impacted by the slide. I personally have noted a large,
subsurface crack which traverses from the top of the slope at Admirable Drive, directly to the
Pine Tree from the North, along the hinge point of the slope, passes underneath the pine tree
then continues into the street then into larger PVD South. In the middle of the PVD South cu I-
de-sac is a survey point which is routinely monitored by the City's Geotechnical
consultants. In my assessment as a Registered Civil Engineer, it is important to consider that
the removal of this tree could have impact on the slide zone, but more specifically, the slope
adjacent our property. The question remains, what consideration has been given to the
preservation of the slope occupied by this pine tree and the issues related to Zone 4?
Sincerely,
Thomas Berg, P.E., QSD
1 D-47
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Deborah Berg <deborah@bergcm.com>
Monday, July 12, 2021 12:41 AM
Robert Nemeth
John Alvarez; Ken Rukavina; Ramzi Awwad; CC
Appeal of a City Tree Review (CTRP CASE NO. 2021-0012)
To Robert Nemeth, RPV Mayor Alegria, City Council and staff:
I would like to thank the Mayor and City Council for being willing to grant a hearing to allow additional
consideration of this important item.
In caring for the needs of RPV constituents and the environment, the Council has done an amazing job of
protecting parks and trails, respecting greenspaces and parklands, while developing and preserving land that is
anything but cooperative, with its unique geological movements and sensitivities.
When the initial recommendation to remove the tree was prepared, the Staff could not have known that the
tree represents an iconic green rest spot as a part of a gateway park to the Conservancy Trails and is
essentially a stand-alone vest-pocket park, a parkland that the entire community has enjoyed for nearly
twenty years. As such, it is important to make note of the enormous benefits the tree provides to so many
people, specifically residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. The pine is the central feature of this pocket park.
Without the tree, there would be no fragrant shade for joggers, hikers and bikers regrouping after conquering
the trails, for the morning walkers' water break and turn around point, baby strollers, or a pause for quiet
reflection. Horses and their riders have taken respite in its shade. The tree has prompted marriage proposals
with photo opps taken next to its heart-shaped trunk. Neighborhood kids used to refer to it as the "The tree
where the sidewalk ends ... "
Question: Is the removal of this tree in conformance with City Planning for Gateway Parks and public
greenspace?
My husband and I have maintained the existing tree at our own expense, lacing and trimming it annually, as
well as the remaining park area, benches, and trail. Our desire would be to preserve the tree. Its removal
would leave no shade and would render the pocket park ugly and useless. Trimming may not kill it. (One of our
neighbors had a tall Norfolk pine severely cut back and it did not die). However, a severe trim may look
awkward. A stump left would be a terrible eyesore, and a source of termites and other insect pests. If a
replacement tree were planted, would it provide shade? Would the City monitor its establishment and bear
the cost to maintain it?
As members of this community, we are indebted to you for your service and the time you devote to making
our City such an incredibly wonderful place to live, work and recreate. Please do not make a hasty decision
about the removal of this landmark tree.
Sincerely,
1 D-48
Deborah Berg
Appelant
2 D-49
Subject: Appeal of a City Tree Review -case #2021 -0012
From: Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com >
Sent: Thursday, July 8, 202110:31 PM
To: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca .gov>
Cc: Tom Berg <tom@bergcm.com >; Deborah Berg <deborah@bergcm .com >; John Alvarez <JohnA@rpvca .gov>; Ken
Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov >; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca .gov>; CC <CC@rpvca .gov>
Subject: Appeal of a City Tree Review -case #2021-0012
Importance: High
AUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
To Robert Nemeth, RPV Mayor Alegria, City Council and staff:
I am writing in support of the Berg's Appeal to allow the pine tree to remain. It is an asset to the City.
Please explain to the City Council and the public how the large pine on the property at #3 Yacht Harbor Drive
which obstructed the ocean and sunset views for numerous residents in the SeaView community when the
building project was proposed was allowed to remain when the project came before the Planning
Commission. It still obstructs the ocean, horizon and sunset views for many of us. If that tree was allowed to
remain, then this one should also be allowed to remain. Trim, Yes; remove, No.
Sincerely,
Lenee Bilski
SeaView resident
1 D-50
From: Robert Nemeth
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Monday, July 19, 2021 10:58 AM
CityClerk
leneebilski@hotmail.com
Subject: FW : Appeal on CC mtg. July 20,2021 -item #2 error
Importance: High
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Late correspondence
From: Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 19, 202110:49 AM
To: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca .gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Appeal on CC mtg. July 20,2021 -item #2 error
Importance: High
CAUTION : This email originated from ou t side of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Error in Staff report on page 23
To RPV Staff -in reading the Staff Report I see this error which I don't want to bring up at the CC mtg.
D-2 the address is incorrect : should be 4353 Palos Verdes Dr. South not Admirable Dr.
"a low-growing replacement tree be planted adjacent to 4353 Admirable"
Lenee Bilski
1 D-51
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Gerard Taccini <gtaccini@cox.net >
Sunday, July 18, 2021 8:17 AM
Robert Nemeth; CC; CityClerk
Ken Rukavina; Ramzi Awwad ; Cory Linder; deborah@bergcm.com
CTRP2021-0012 . July 20 , 2021 Council hearing of an appeal.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Mr. Nemeth, RPV Mayor Alegria and City Council,
Withdraw your recommendation that Juan Hernandez, Maintenance Superintendent of RPV Public
Works Department, remove one Pine tree located on City property (APN 7564-005-900, "Gateway
Park") pending outreach to the rest of the City's public amenities user groups and the City's Decision
Makers.
Sincerely,
Gerard Taccini
4245 PV Dr South
PV Preserve Neighbor, Resident, trail user, voter
D-52
From: Robert Nemeth
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, July 13, 2021 8:47 AM
CityClerk
Subject: FW: Appeal of CTRP2021-0012_Public Notice_Peninsula News
Late correspondence
From: roko vulin <rokovulin@att.net>
Sent: Monday, July 12 , 2021 9:51 AM
To: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca .gov>; boblocke2@cox.net
Subject: Re: Appeal of CTRP2021-0012_Public Notice_Peninsula News
CAUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Good morning Robert and Bob,
Due to emergency, I have to take a trip to Europe.
Unfortunately I won't be able to attend up coming meeting on 07 /20. Therefore I'm giving permission to Bob Locke to
represent my wife and, during our absence.
Thank you,
Sincerely ,
Roko Vulin
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone
1 D-53
From: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2021 8:48 AM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW:
Late correspondence
From: roko vulin <rokovulin@att .net>
Sent: Monday, July 12, 202110:33 AM
To: Bob Locke <boblocke2@cox.net>; Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca.gov >
Subject:
CAUTION : This email originated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
-----Forwarded Message-----
From: roko vulin <rokovulin@att.net>
To: Roko Vulin <rokovulin@att.net>
Sent: Monday , July 12 , 2021, 10:18:47 AM PDT
Subject: View Impairment Photos, 4324 Admirable Dr.
[), D-54
From pictures above which was taking from my dining room , living room and bedroom it clearly shows
that my view of ocean has been blocked by the subject tree . D-55
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Friday, July 16, 2021 1 :35 PM
CC; CityClerk
Ken Rukavina; Ramzi Awwad; Cory Linder
June 20 , 2021 RPV City Council Agenda Item 2. Appeal of tree removal
recommendation
The Ghost of Gateway Park -187 Jpg
AUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council,
Council is now faced with a complicated decision which has been presented in a vacuum. Staff's
position is that this one tree is an isolated issue and since it meets their interpretation of a substantial
blockage of a view of the shoreline, the appeal has no merit. Therefore, the tree should be removed.
The Appeal basically says ... Please don't.
My interest/concern is based on the lack of history , background and status of City Programs which
should have been considered in Staff's decision-making process. Without the Appeal, none of these
issues would have been brought to light. Even now, it is otherwise uninvolved people who are
bringing them up . I urge you to direct the Community Development Department to withdraw their
Memorandum which recommends that Public Works retain a contractor at an expense from the
General Fund, not to exceed $1,500.00 .
Once again, Council has the option of moving Staff's Recommendation and leaving public interest in
generating holistic solutions to the City's bigger imbalances to "someday". By acquiring large tracts of
land, the City has taken on a great number of land use/infrastructure opportunities and
responsibilities.
This single pine tree is one of them. The appellants have been taking care of the roadside pathway,
the fire fuel abatement and the health of this tree since before the City acquired the Hon Property
(2004 -05?). Seems to me , the View Restoration Ordinances was put in place before then. Seems to
me, the penalties for "molesting" City owned trees were put in place more recently . Staff has not
responded to my request for fire fuel abatement on City property which includes trees which have
begun to block my view. I have not had the trees removed due to the threat of penalties.
1 D-56
See the attached location of the tree in question. Is Parkland Foliage Maintenance a different Budget
Account than Trails and Open Space Management? Given that the boundaries of "Gateway Park"
are still a mystery, please save the tree until our public amenities have been sorted out.
SUNSHINE
RPV
310-377-8761
sunshinerpv@aol.com
2 D-57
J I
I
/
I
/
::,_ I -~
A
~
~
~
le
' r
/
/f..
/;)'
0
\· D-58
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Importance:
Hunter Studios <2hunter@cox.net >
Monday, July 12, 2021 3:47 PM
Robert Nemeth; CC; CityClerk
Ken Rukavina; Ramzi Awwad; Cory Linder; deborah@bergcm .com
Gateway Park tree
High
CAUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes .
On July 20, 2021, the RPV City Council will hear an Appeal of the View Restoration Division's
direction to the Public Work's Maintenance Superintendent to cut down a tree which is on City
property (not in a roadway right of way).
The primary request is for Staff to change their position and commit to working with other personnel
and the public to look into all of the pro's and con's of cutting down this tree. Should Staff hold their
current position in their Recommendation to Council, the secondary request is for Council to uphold
the Appeal so that the tree is not cut down until after all of the public interests, environmental
concerns, Code Enforcement, Gifts to Parks and landslide impacts are analyzed, discussed and
Council gets to make a ruling .... S 310-377 -8761
SUBJECT: CTRP2021 -0012. July 20, 2021 Council hearing of an appeal.
TO: rnemeth@rpvca.gov , cc@rpvca .gov, cityclerk@rpvca.gov ,
CC: krukavina@rpvca.gov , rawwad@rpvca.gov , coryl@rpvca.gov , deborah@bergcm.com ,
BCC : sunshinerpv@aol.com
Dear Mr. Nemeth, Mayor Alegria and City Council,
in the overall picture, As residents of this city for almost 25 years , it is with great concern that I write
to ask that, at this time you withdraw your recommendation that Juan Hernandez, Maintenance
Superintendent of RPV Public Works Department, remove one Pine tree located on City property
(APN 7564-005-900, "Gateway Park") pending outreach to the rest of the City's public amenities user
groups and the City's Decision Makers.
It is clearer than ever how much each tree is needed to help clean the air of CO2, provide oxygen and
to shade the ground in our efforts to cool our environment. One tree is a drop in the preverbial
bucket , but we can never fill it by eliminating those drops . The trees here are a great part of the
beauty of our city and none should be taken lightly.
William and Marianne Hunter
1 D-59
Residents, Portuguese Bend
Member of PVPLC, Audubon, environmental advocates, letter writers and VOTERS.
2 D-60
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Robert Nemeth
Monday, July 12, 2021 2:08 PM
Debbie Eastman
Enyssa Momoli; Nathan Zweizig; Teresa Takaoka
FW : Tree
Forwarded to the City Clerk's office as late correspondence.
From: Debbie Eastman <pbde48@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2021 2:04 PM
To: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Tree
CAUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear sirs,
It took this tree 60 years to get to where it is today -removing CO2 from our atmosphere and providing oxygen (02) for
us . Can you really end its life to improve the "view" of our plastic filled ocean? What are our priorities, anyway???
Elizabeth Eastman
pbde48@gmail.com
16 Limetree Lane
RPV Ca 90275
1 D-61