PC RES 2024-014 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2024-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES,
CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A VIEW RESTORATION
PERMIT (CASE NO. PLVR 2022-0010), 1) REQUIRING
THE FOLIAGE OWNERS AT 29623 S. TROTWOOD DR.
AND AT 2133 W. GENERAL ST. TO REMOVE ONE PALM
TREE AND ONE PINE TREE, RESPECTIVELY, WITH
REPLACEMENT, BASED ON THE OWNERS' CONSENT;
2) AND THE FOLIAGE OWNERS AT 29624 S.
TROTWOOD DR. TO CROWN REDUCE A TOTAL OF 11
TREES TO THE HEIGHT LEVEL DEPICTED WITH THE
UPDATED ATTACHMENT NO. 3D, WITH THE OPTION TO
REMOVE AND REPLACE SPECIFIC TREES, AS
DESCRIBED IN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NO. 3-5, IN
ORDER TO RESTORE THE APPLICANTS' VIEWS FROM
29642 N. ENROSE AVE., 29648 N. ENROSE AVE., AND
29636 N. ENROSE AVE.
WHEREAS, on November 22, 2023, Frank and Carolina Albert at 29642 N.
Enrose Avenue, Matthew and Jennifer Misetich at 29648 N. Enrose Avenue, and
Manuel Cortes at 29636 N. Enrose Avenue ("Applicants"), filed an application
requesting a View Restoration Permit ("Permit") to restore views significantly impaired
by trees owned by Dalyce Wells at 29624 S. Trotwood Drive, Alicia Macgowan at 2138
Fairhill Drive, Lyle and Gail Insley at 29623 S. Trotwood Drive, and Barbara Farren at
2133 W. General Street ("Foliage Owners"); and
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2023, the City Arborist visited the Applicants'
properties, and 2138 Fairhill Drive because of the owner's consent, and provided an
Arborist Report dated January 2, 2024; and
WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission hearing was published in the
Palos Verdes Peninsula News on January 11, 2024, and the public notice was mailed to
the Applicants and to the Foliage Owners on January 11, 2024; and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the request to restore the views, at which time, all interested
parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, and after
deliberating on the application the Planning Commission continued the hearing on the
application to May 14, 2024, to give time for the City Arborist to re-visit the subject
properties and to allow the parties the opportunity for additional mediation; and
WHEREAS, on February 29, 2024, City Staff and the City Arborist visited the
Applicants' properties at 29642 and 29636 N. Enrose Avenue and the Foliage Owners'
P C Resolution No 2024-14
Page 1 of 13
properties at 29624 S. Trotwood Drive, 2138 Fairhill Drive, and 2133 W. General Street.
The resulting City Arborist Report, dated March 14, 2024, opined that view restorative
crown reduction of 12 trees are survivable within two years; and
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2024, a mediation session was held and attended to by
City Staff, the City Mediator, Mr. and Mrs. Albert, representing the Applicants, and the
subject Foliage Owners. The Foliage Owners made a tree height proposal to the
Applicants that was subsequently considered by the Applicants. The Applicants later
offered a counter proposal to the Foliage Owners that the Foliage Owners rejected.
With exception to Tree No. 6, the parties could not find agreement concerning the tree
trimming height levels. During this mediation period, the Foliage Owner at 2133 W.
General Street opted, in writing, to have the Pine (Tree No. 9) tree removed and
replaced; and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the request and the tree trimming remedies to restore the
views, at which time, all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and
present evidence. With respect to the Ficus tree (Tree No. 8) located at 2138 Fairhill
Drive, the Planning Commission passed a motion to continue the public hearing to June
11, 2024 to address tree trimming options for the Ficus tree, but passed a motion to
adopt a resolution requiring tree removal and replacement at 29623 S. Trotwood Drive
and at 2133 W. General Street and to require tree trimming at 29624 S. Trotwood Drive.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The recitals above are true and correct, and incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2: Property Ownership
(a) Applicants, Frank & Carolina Albert, own and reside at 29642 N. Enrose Ave.
(b) Applicants, Matthew & Jennifer Misetich, own and reside at 29648 N. Enrose
Ave.
(c) Applicant, Manuel Cortes, owns and resides at 29636 N. Enrose Ave.
(d) Foliage owner, Dalyce Wells, owns and resides at 29624 S. Trotwood Dr.
(e) Foliage owners, Lyle & Gail Insley, own and reside at 29623 S. Trotwood Dr.
(f) Foliage owner, Barbara Farren, owns and resides at 2133 W. General St.
P.0 Resolution No 2024-14
Page 2 of 13
Section 3: Trees
The following view impairing trees are located at 29624 S. Trotwood Drive: one Holly
Oak Tree, three Fern Pine Trees, two Indian Laurel Trees, three Chinese Elm Trees,
one Carob Tree, one Brazilian Pepper Tree. The following view impairing tree is located
at 29623 S. Trotwood Drive: one Palm Tree. The following view impairing tree is located
at 2133 W. General Street: one Pine Tree. These 13 view impairing trees are referred
to as the subject trees.
Section 4: Views
Section 17.02.040(A)(14) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code ("RPVMC")
defines a "far" view 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 offshore islands. Section V-B.6 of the City's Guidelines and Procedures for Views
Where Foliage is Involved otherwise known as the View Restoration and Preservation
Permit Guidelines and Procedures ("View Restoration Guidelines" or "Guidelines")
further defines protected views that include prominent view landmarks that includes city
skylines.
As defined by the RPVMC and the Guidelines, the Applicants' views are of the harbor
(Los Angeles and Long Beach Ports), city lights at night, Vincent Thomas Bridge, the
Long Beach city skyline, Los Angeles basin, and the ocean (San Pedro Bay). From the
Applicants' viewing areas, the harbor is central to the view with the ocean framed by
residential structures to the south and a sweeping Los Angeles basin vista that is
relatively unhindered by structures and topography towards the north.
Section 4: Viewing Areas
Section 17.02.040(A)(15) of the RPVMC defines viewing areas as that area of a
structure (excluding bathrooms, hallways, garages, or closets) or that area of a lot
(excluding the setback areas) where the owner and City determine the best and most
important view exists. Section 17.02.040(B)(5) of the RPVMC states that the City
determines a viewing area based on 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.
(a) Viewing area from 29642 N. Enrose Avenue and 29648 N. Enrose Avenue:
The Planning Commission determines that the living rooms are the best and
most important viewing areas on the properties because the living rooms are
the primary living area of the residence, they are a natural gathering area,
and from these locations the vista of the ocean, Los Angeles basin, and
harbor, including views of the Vincent Thomas Bridge and the Long Beach
city skylines, could be observed; and
P.C. Resolution No 2024-14
Page 3 of 13
(b) Viewing area from 29636 N. Enrose Avenue: The Planning Commission
determines that the dining room is the best and most important viewing area
on the property because the dining room is part of the primary living area of
the residence, it is a natural gathering area, and from this location the vista of
the ocean, Los Angeles basin, and harbor, including views of the Vincent
Thomas Bridge and the Long Beach city skylines, could be observed.
Section 5: View Restoration Mandatory Findings
The Planning Commission makes the following findings, in accordance with Section
17.02.040(C)(2)(c) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code:
(1) The Applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process
and has shown proof of cooperation on his/her part to resolve conflicts.
The case record shows that the Applicants complied with the early neighbor
consultation requirements and have shown proof of cooperation based on the
following facts:
a) On July 29, 2022, the Applicants, Frank Albert, Jennifer Misetich, Manuel
Cortes, mailed a certified letter to the Foliage Owners, Wells, Insley, Farren,
requesting tree trimming to restore their view. Ultimately, the Applicants and
the Foliage Owners could not resolve the matter privately.
b) On November 8, 2022, in accordance with the City's View Restoration
procedures, the Applicant Frank Albert at 29642 N. Enrose Avenue submitted
a Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Permit (Case No. PLVR2022-
0010) requesting that the City mediate the issue with the Foliage Owner
Dalyce Wells.
c) On November 18, 2022, in response to the request, the Staff mailed a pre-
application mediation meeting invitation to the Foliage Owners, Wells and
she subsequently accepted Staffs invitation.
d) On January 12, 2023, Staff and the City's View Restoration Mediator met
with the Applicant, Albert, and the Foliage Owner Wells at 29624 S. Trotwood
Drive at their respective properties to discuss the matter. The Foliage Owner
opted not to voluntarily trim foliage as requested by the Applicant.
e) On February 7, 2023, the Applicant, Frank Albert, revised his pre-application
to include additional applicants, including his neighbors Jennifer Misetich at
29648 N. Enrose Avenue and Manuel Cortes at 29636 N. Enrose Avenue.
The revised pre-application also included the naming of additional foliage
owned by Gail Insley at 29623 S. Trotwood Drive and foliage owned by
Barbara Farren at 2133 W. General Street. Again, Staff notified the original
and the newly named foliage owners of the modified pre-application and
invited them to mediation. The foliage owners at 29624 Trotwood Avenue
(Insley) accepted the mediation request, but the foliage owner Barbara
Farren at 2133 W. General Street did not.
P C Resolution No. 2024-14
Page 4 of 13
f) On March 23, 2023, Staff and the City's View Restoration Mediator met with
the Applicants and the Foliage Owners Wells and Insley at the property
owned by Wells to discuss the matter. Foliage Owner Wells again opted not
to voluntarily trim foliage as requested by the Applicants. Foliage Owner
Insley opted not to voluntarily trim foliage as requested by the Applicant.
g) Because it was made clear that Foliage Owners Wells and Insley did not
intend to trim any foliage, the Applicants elected to submit a formal View
Restoration Permit application. The Applicants also decided to include
Foliage Owner Farren at 2133 W. General Street as an additional named
party because she remained unresponsive to the early neighbor consultation
process.
h) On November 22, 2023, the Applicants filed a formal View Restoration Permit
application.
Therefore, the finding can be made that the Applicants have complied with the
early neighbor consultation process and has shown proof of cooperation on his/
her part to resolve conflicts.
(2) Foliage exceeding sixteen (16) feet or the ridgeline of the primary
structure, whichever is lower, significantly impairs a view from the applicant's
viewing area, whether such foliage is located totally on one property, or when
combined with foliage located on more than one property.
The 13 subject trees consisting of one Queen Palm Tree at 29623 Trotwood
Drive; one Oak Tree, three Fern Pine Trees, two Indian Laurel Trees, three Elm
Trees, one Carob Tree, and one Pepper Tree at 29624 Trotwood Drive; one Pine
Tree at 2133 General Street, exceed the ridgeline of the primary structures at
29623 Trotwood Drive, 29624 Trotwood Drive, 2133 General Street. It is
determined that the subject trees, based on the trees' central location within the
view frame from the viewing area at 29642 and 29648 N. Enrose Ave., and
because the trees impair prominent features (harbor, Vincent Thomas Bridge,
skylines), have been found to significantly impair the view from the living room
viewing areas at 29642 Enrose Avenue and 29648 Enrose Avenue and from the
dining room viewing area at 29636 Enrose Avenue. This determination has been
made in accordance with Section V-B.6 of the View Restoration Guidelines.
Therefore, the finding can be made that foliage exceeding the ridgeline of the
primary structures significantly impairs a view from the Applicants' viewing area,
whether such foliage is located totally on one property, or when combined with
foliage located on more than one property.
(3) The foliage to be removed is located on property, any part of which is less
than one thousand (1,000) feet from the applicant's property.
P C Resolution No 2024-14
Page 5 of 13
The foliage that is to be voluntarily removed or ordered to be crown reduced is
located less than 1,000 feet from the Applicants' properties. The subject foliage,
which is located on the properties at 29624 S. Trotwood Drive, 29623 S.
Trotwood Drive, and at 2133 W. General Street is located no further than 250
feet from the Applicants' properties at 29642 N. Enrose Avenue, 29648 N.
Enrose Avenue, and 29636 N. Enrose Avenue.
Therefore, the finding can be made as the subject foliage is located on a
property(s) that is less than 1,000 feet from the Applicants' properties.
(4) The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist, as view impairing
vegetation, when the lot from which the view is taken was created.
The Applicants' lots (Lot Nos. 268, 269, 270) and the Foliage Owners' lots (Lot
Nos. 259, 258, 275) are located within a residential housing tract (Tract No.
16726), which became legal lots when recorded in February 1952 (Attachment
No. 5b). Prior to 1952 the land conditions, that would become Tract No. 16726 is
characterized by grass covered slopes with small watercourses descending into
San Pedro (Attachment No. 5a). No mature trees were evident prior to 1952.
After the Foliage Owners' lots became legal lots in 1952, the engineer for the
tract subdivision, Donald R. Warren Co., produced a soil compaction report
associated with grading activities that occurred after tract recordation. The
engineer's report on compaction dated October 27, 1954 states that prior to the
placement of fill, the natural grounds within the tract, which includes the
Applicants' and the Foliage Owners' properties, were "stripped of vegetation,
watered, and compacted". As a result, all vegetation, which likely consisted of
short grasses and shrubbery within watercourses, within the tract and associated
lots had been removed (Attachment No. 5d). Indeed, after rough grading
operations were completed, an aerial photograph was taken of the site showing
that no trees or vegetation existed on the Foliage Owners' lots in 1953,
corroborating the engineer's report that all vegetation had been removed
(Attachment No. 5d).
Based on the engineer's report that described the removal of vegetation at or
around the time of tract recordation, including the aerial photos taken before and
after recordation in 1952, the subject foliage could not have existed as view
impairing foliage when the Applicants' lots were created in 1952. Therefore, the
finding can be made.
(5) Removal or trimming of the foliage will not cause an unreasonable
infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the property upon which the
foliage is located.
The rear yard where the Insley Palm tree is located and the rear windows at
29623 S. Trotwood Avenue are exposed to observation from the nearby
P C Resolution No 2024-14
Page 6 of 13
residences above, including observation from the Applicants' properties at
29636, 29642, and 29648 N. Enrose Avenue. Trimming or removal of the Palm
tree will have no effect on privacy as the view impairing tree does not offer
privacy. Crown reduction of the Farren Pine tree and the ten trees located on the
Wells property will not result in the loss of privacy because trimming the trees to
view restorative height level results in trees with intact, non-view impairing
canopies that could continue to shield observation onto their properties.
Therefore, removal or trimming of the foliage will not cause an unreasonable
infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the property upon which the
foliage is located.
(6) For property located within the boundaries of the Miraleste Recreation &
Park district, the Committee shall also find that removal or trimming of the foliage
strikes a reasonable balance between meeting the purposes of section 17.02.040
set forth in Section 1 of the Ordinance approved by the voters on November 7,
1989, and preserving the historical development of the Miraleste Recreation &
Park District area with large numbers of trees.
The subject properties are not located within the Miraleste Recreation and Park
District. Therefore, the finding is inapplicable.
Section 6: Removal and Replacement of Foliage Findings
The Planning Commission makes the following tree removal and foliage replacement
findings, in accordance with Section VI-E of the City View Restoration Guidelines:
(1) The Planning Commission finds, pursuant to Section VI-C, that removal of
six of 13 of the subject trees is warranted because the City's Arborist has
determined that the view restorative crown reduction to these trees will
destroy the aesthetic value. Specifically, the following view impairing trees
are located at 29624 S. Trotwood Drive: two Chinese Elm Trees, one
Carob Tree, one Brazilian Pepper Tree. The following view impairing tree
is located at 29623 S. Trotwood Drive: one Palm Tree. The following view
impairing tree is located at 2133 W. General Street: one Pine Tree.
(2) The Planning Commission further finds pursuant to Section VI-E.1(f) that
removal of the trees described under Section 6.1 at 29623 S. Trotwood
Drive, 29624 S. Trotwood Dr., and at 2133 W. General Street, without
replacement, will cause significant adverse impact to the integrity of the
landscaping of the properties on which the foliage is located. These
mature trees are prominent trees within the properties' landscape and the
loss of the trees will result in the landscape focal points. Therefore, the
Planning Commission makes the finding that each tree removed must be
P.0 Resolution No. 2024-14
Page 7 of 13
replaced with one 24-inch box size tree needed to mitigate the loss of the
integrity of the landscaping and landscaping focal point; and
(3) The Planning Commission further finds pursuant to Section VI-E.1(c) that
removal of Tree Nos. 4 (Elm), 5 (Elm), 6 (Carob) and 7 (Pepper) located at
29624 S. Trotwood Drive, without replacement, will cause significant
adverse impacts on shade currently provided to the residence and the
usable yard area. These trees are located on the easterly and southerly
areas of the property, shielding the sun throughout the daytime and to
varying degrees of effectiveness depending on the season of the year.
Therefore, the Planning Commission makes the finding that one 24-inch
box size tree is needed to replace each tree that is removed to mitigate
the loss of shade.
Section 7: Pursuant to Section 15304 of the California Environmental Quality
Act, the proposed project is categorically exempt under Class IV of that section because
the work required to restore the Applicants' view do not include the removal of scenic
and mature trees as those mature tree groupings defined and identified by the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan (Visual Aspects).
Section 8: Any interested person aggrieved of this decision or by any portion of
this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 17.02.040 (2)(g) of the
RPVMC, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing and with the appropriate
$3,100 appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following the date of the Planning
Commission's final action.
Section 9: Based on all documentary and oral evidence presented, including the
Staff and arborist reports and its attachments, comments from the public, and testimony
provided at the public hearings, and making the findings that removal without
replacement trees or shrubs will cause significant adverse impacts on the integrity of the
landscaping or shade, the Planning Commission hereby continues the public hearing to
June 11, 2024 to address tree trimming options for the Ficus tree at 2138 Fairhill Drive,
and approves a View Restoration Permit (Case No. PLVR 2022-0010), requiring the
Foliage Owners at 29623 S. Trotwood Drive and at 2133 W. General Street to remove
one Palm Tree and one, Pine tree, respectively, based on the owners' consent and the
Foliage Owners at 29624 S. Trotwood Drive to crown reduce a total of 11 trees to the
height level depicted with the updated Attachment No. 3d, with the option to remove and
replace specific trees, as described in Conditions of Approval No. 3-5, in order to
restore the Applicants' views from 29642 N. Enrose Avenue, 29648 N. Enrose Avenue,
and 29636 N. Enrose Avenue, as provided in, and subject to, the conditions outlined in
the attached Exhibit "A".
P C Resolution No 2024-14
Page 8 of 13
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 14th day of May 2024 by the following
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS BRACH, NELSON, NULMAN, PERESTAM,
SAADATNEJADI, VICE CHAIR SANTAROSA & CHAIR CHURA
NOES: NONE
ABSTENTIONS: NONE
RECUSALS: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
410.1*id Chu
Chair
//
ildri/ F.17, _I C P
Direc .r of Community Development
Secretary of the Planning Commission
P C Resolution No 2024-14
Page 9 of 13
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT CASE NO. PLVR2022-0010
1. The Applicants shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have
read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this
Resolution. Failure to provide the written statement within ninety (90) days
following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
2. The Applicants shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City,
and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of
mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside,
void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for
or concerning the project.
3. This approval shall require the Foliage Owner at 29624 S. Trotwood Drive to
perform only ONE of the following:
a. Crown reduce 10 Trees (1 Oak, 2 Indian Laurel, 3 Fern Pine, 3
Chinese Elms, 1 Carob, 1 Pepper) identified on the Updated Tree
Location Map Attachment No. 2a, by trimming down to the height
identified on the updated Attachment No. 3d. The Applicants are
responsible for the initial trimming costs.
OR
b. Voluntarily remove one Pepper tree (Tree No. 7), two Elm trees
(Tree Nos. 4 & 5) and one Carob tree (Tree No. 6) identified on the
updated Attachment No. 2a.
If technically feasible, as determined by a professional tree contractor,
tree removal includes stump grinding to existing grade or below grade.
If stump grinding cannot be performed, the tree trunks shall be cut
flush to or close, to the grade adjacent to the tree trunks. In no case
shall the tree's root system be removed. Stump grinding and/or flush
cutting shall be performed at the Applicants' expense. The Applicants
shall bear the expense of replacing the removed trees with the
P C Resolution No 2024-14
Page 10 of 13
installation one 24-inch box sized tree for each tree removed. The
costs of performing tree removal and the installation of new trees shall
be borne by the Applicants.
4. This approval shall require the Foliage Owner at 29623 S. Trotwood Drive to
perform the following:
Remove and replace the Palm Tree known as Tree No. 1.
If technically feasible, as determined by a professional tree contractor,
tree removal includes stump grinding to existing grade or below grade.
If stump grinding cannot be performed, the tree trunk shall be cut flush
to or close to the grade adjacent to the tree trunk. In no case shall the
tree's root system be removed. Stump grinding and/or flush cutting
shall be performed at the Applicants' expense. The Applicants shall
bear the expense of replacing the removed tree with the installation of
one 24-inch box size Alphonse Karr clumping bamboo. The costs of
performing tree removal and the installation of the new tree shall be
borne by the Applicants.
5. This approval shall require the Foliage Owner at 2133 W. General Street to
perform the following:
Remove and replace the Pine Tree known as Tree No. 9.
If technically feasible, as determined by a professional tree contractor,
tree removal includes stump grinding to existing grade or below grade.
If stump grinding cannot be performed, the tree trunk shall be cut flush
to or close to the grade adjacent to the tree trunk. In no case shall the
tree's root system be removed. Stump grinding and/or flush cutting
shall be performed at the Applicants' expense. The Applicants shall
bear the expense of replacing the removed tree with the installation
one 24-inch box sized tree. The costs of performing tree removal and
the installation of the new tree shall be borne by the Applicants.
6. Upon completion of either crown reduction or removal described in Condition of
Approval Nos. 3-5, but no more than one week after completion, if additional
foliage on the subject property is found by Staff to be impairing the view
protected by this permit, then the additional foliage shall be crown reduced to a
height that eliminates the significant view impairment, and the Applicants shall be
responsible for the cost of the additional trimming.
P C Resolution No. 2024-14
Page 11 of 13
7. Within 45 days following this decision, the Applicants shall present to the City, at
least one itemized estimate to carry out the tree trimming work and the optional
removal and replacement work. Such estimate shall be supplied by a licensed,
bonded, and insured tree service contractor or landscape contractor, acceptable
to the City, and shall include all costs of cleanup and removal of debris, and the
cost to have an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified tree trimmer
or accredited arborist on site to perform or supervise the work being done.
8. If the tree work estimate is found to be acceptable, as determined by City staff,
then the Applicants shall pay to the City, within 180 calendar days of this permit
approval, an amount equal to the City-accepted estimate and such funds shall be
maintained in a City trust account until completion of work as verified by Staff.
The time period to fund the trimming, removal and replacement work can be
extended by the Director an additional 180 calendar days. With exception to any
tree that dies within a 2-year period whereby tree removal and replacement costs
are to be provided by the Applicants, pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal
Code Section 17.86.070, failure to provide funding to a city trust deposit account
to cover the tree trimming or removal and replacement work within 180 calendar
days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
9. The Foliage Owners shall select a City-approved tree service contractor from the
estimate(s) provided by the Applicants and then schedule a tree trimming or
removal date. If a Foliage Owner chooses to use a different tree service
contractor, then the Foliage Owner may do so, but the Foliage Owner shall only
be reimbursed for the amount of the lowest bid submitted by the Applicants.
10.The Foliage Owners shall, within a 90-day period stipulated by staff, complete
either the removal or the crown reduction work to the extent required by this
Permit. Said 90-day deadline may be extended by the Community Development
Director should the City-approved tree service or landscape contractor contact
the City indicating that they cannot accommodate the removal or tree trimming
work within the 90-day deadline. However, if the Foliage Owners do not complete
the required work within the 90-day time period stipulated by staff or a Director-
approved extension period, if one is necessary, then the City may seek a court
order that authorizes a licensed, bonded and insured tree service contractor or
landscape contractor to perform the work at the subject property and at the
Foliage Owners' expense. In the event that the City is required to perform the
work at the Foliage Owners' expense, the City shall reimburse the Applicants
their trust deposit for tree trimming and/or tree removal with replacement work
from the City trust account.
11.Federal and State statutes (Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish & Game
Code) protect active bird nests. Following approval of this permit, and provided
that no prior bird nest survey has been conducted during the review of this
permit, if a Foliage Owner subject to this approval suspects an active bird nest
P.0 Resolution No. 2024-14
Page 12 of 13
occupies any tree on his or her property, then the Foliage Owner must inform
Staff before scheduling trimming so that the tree(s) could be inspected by a
qualified biologist or ornithologist. Any allegations of an active bird nesting will
require the Foliage Owner to hire a biologist or ornithologist to conduct a nest
survey and require the Foliage Owner to submit the survey report to City Staff
identifying a time period that the foliage could be trimmed. Staff shall then
provide a new 90 day trimming or removal deadline to the Foliage Owner based
on the biologists' or ornithologist's advice.
12.Upon completion of the work, the Foliage Owners shall notify the City and if the
Foliage Owners hired a contractor approved by the city, the Foliage Owners are
to submit a copy of the paid contractor invoice showing that the work was
performed. Upon submittal of the invoice and verification by Staff of compliance,
the City shall transmit the funds from the City trust account to the Foliage Owners
no later than 30 days. If the paid invoices submitted by the Foliage Owners are
for an amount less than the funds in the City's trust account, the Foliage Owners
shall only be transmitted an amount equal to the actual cost of the trimming. In
such situations, the balance of the trust account shall be refunded back to the
Applicants (within 30 days of receipt of the appropriate billing) if that account
contains a surplus balance. If the paid invoice submitted by the Foliage Owners
are for an amount that exceed the funds in the City's trust account, the Foliage
Owners shall only receive the funds from the City trust account and the Foliage
Owners shall be responsible for paying the difference.
13.Failure to comply with and adhere to the tree trimming conditions of approval,
namely Condition No. 3-5, may cause the City to issue administrative citations as
described in Section 1.16 of the City's Municipal Code.
14.Foliage maintenance shall be subject to the trimming maintenance provisions of
the City's Guidelines, Section VIII-A, where subsequent to the completed crown
reduction and/or voluntary removal of the trees as described in the Conditions of
Approval No. 3-5, the restored view from the Applicants' viewing area will be
documented by Staff. The photographic documentation will be used as a
benchmark by City staff for making a staff determination of view preservation
enforcement. Pursuant to Section VIII-A of the Guidelines, the Foliage Owners
shall annually maintain the trees subject to the View Restoration Permit decision,
at his or her own expense. Should the Foliage Owners remove all the trees
subject to the View Restoration Permit approval but allow other trees or foliage to
grow to impair the view, the new growth shall be trimmed at the Foliage Owner's
expense to preserve the view on an annual basis.
P C Resolution No 2024-14
Page 13 of 13
Updated Tree Location Map
q 2VD11 As es u4,u
13 MN -,.,
McGowan—
___ _ M9� 2138 Fairhill
r Dr.
Cortes—29636
Enrose Ave. •
Insley—29623
8
ke Trotwood Dr.
Wells - 29624
\ Trotwood Dr.
Albert—29642 1 gcp�
Enrose Ave.
.. io or %WM
1 5 P / CA(
6
Misetich—29648 1111 • •• • •
1
13
Enrose Ave. "�
14
c.
4 3 c.
ca
C1 w
c,
Farren—2133
Tree ID Number&Tree Species Type: 7 General St.
1. Palm
2. Oak
3. Indian Laurel
4. Chinese Elm
5. Chinese Elm
6. Carob
N
7. Pepper
F
cus
9. Pi
9. Pine
10. Fern Pine
11. Fern Pine .....‘j....)
12. Fern Pine
13. Indian Laurel
14. Chinese Elm
Attachment 3d. Updated Tree Trimming Instruction
--..4,' 14
• ' •ti ti.� N 13 3,4, 10 12 •,4.''
'It-
'':,..'.'Y:;+: .:.\:., 5 2 , I
, 6l
A� , ;
r to witd.. �a . era ,- 1
•
•
z r/ `� -
r� • Apr_; _ :1ti•W�:
? ,p� • � Yy t yY., �, =tea=gin rasa a�a zLIH:-' -_ •'.j *P.'•• ' '`-- ...e ea CZ O= "..�}u_.i
- .,, I +Es i. y it r!.,v Y .r� t
-.s. ) ►_ � r ^a • f 1. '`-►— lye, - '
r 4 w b L • t i, II 0 ti}T
Tree ID
No. 2. Holly Oak
No. 3. Indian Laurel View is the yellow line level
No. 4. Chinese Elm
No. 5. Chinese Elm `' _ _.
No. 6. Carob
No. 7. Pepper
No. 10. Fern Pine
No. 11. Fern Pine
No. 12. Fern Pine
No. 13. Indian Laurel
No. 14. Chinese Elm