Loading...
CC RES 2024-054 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-54 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, DENYING AN APPEAL, THEREBY UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION BY CONDITIONALLY APPROVING, WITH AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, A VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT REQUIRING THE APPELLANT AT 29624 S. TROTWOOD DRIVE TO CROWN REDUCE A TOTAL OF 11 TREES TO THE HEIGHT LEVEL DEPICTED IN ATTACHMENT NO. 3D, WITH THE OPTION TO REMOVE AND REPLACE SPECIFIC TREES, AS DESCRIBED IN CONDITION OF APPROVAL NOS. 3 TO 5, AND THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF ONE PINE TREE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2133 W. GENERAL STREET, AND THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF ONE PALM TREE LOCATED AT 29623 S. TROTWOOD DRIVE IN ORDER TO RESTORE THE APPLICANTS' VIEWS FROM 29642 N. ENROSE AVE., 29648 N. ENROSE AVE., AND 29636 N. ENROSE AVE. (CASE NO. PLVR 2022-0010). 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, 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 Resolution No. 2024-54 Page 1 of 11 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' 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 unanimously passed a motion to continue the public hearing to June 11, 2024 to address tree trimming options for the Ficus tree, and unanimously passed a motion to adopt a P.C. Resolution No. 2024-14 requiring tree111 removal and replacement at 29623 S. Trotwood Drive and at 2133 W. General Street, and to require tree trimming at 29624 S. Trotwood Drive; and WHEREAS, on May 30, 2024, Mrs. Dalyce Wells (herein the "Appellant"), the foliage owner at 29624 S. Trotwood Dr., submitted a timely written appeal with fee for the City Council raising her objections to the Planning Commission's decision requiring tree trimming on her property.; and WHEREAS, on July 18, 2024, a notice of the appeal was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News and mailed to the Appellant, Applicants, and interested parties; and WHEREAS, on August 20, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal, at which time, all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL 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. 111 Resolution No 2024-54 Page 2 of 11 111 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. 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 §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. § 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. I Resolution No. 2024-54 Page 3of11 Section 4: Viewing Areas § 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. § 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 City Council 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 (b) Viewing area from 29636 N. Enrose Avenue: The City Council 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: Appeal Points and City Council Determination 1. "According to your arborist, the trimming required is likely to result in the death of the three biggest trees and the destruction of the aesthetic value of most of the others." The City Council determines: The City Arborist provided expert testimony that the Appellant's trees would not die because of trimming, but most trees would lose their aesthetic value. Trimming that results in the death of a tree or results in a loss of its aesthetic value did not preclude the Planning Commission's ability to require a tree to be trimmed to restore a view. Pursuant to RPVMC § 17.02.040.C.2.f and § VI.A.4.0 of the City's Guidelines, the approved view restoration permit allows the Appellant the option to remove and replace trees due to the foreseen loss of their aesthetics value. As such, this appeal point does not have merit because the trees will not die, because the Appellant has the option to remove and replace trees at the expense of the Applicants, and more importantly, because the appeal argument is without nexus to the view restoration permit approval findings. III Resolution No 2024-54 Page 4 of 11 2. "...our property, as well as the property of the other foliage owners listed on Case No PLVR 2022-0010, will be worth much less when our trees are mutilated or removed." The City Council determines: The View Restoration Ordinance and the View Restoration Guidelines does not instruct neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council to contemplate possible impacts on property values when hearing View Restoration Permit requests. Thus, the appeal point is without nexus to the view restoration permit approval findings. 3. "Another triviality to consider is that we are the only house on our street without an air conditioning system. The protection of the trees has kept us from needing one. But we have an 88 year old and a 66 year old living at the property. Will we need to install an air conditioning system? Will we be able to keep up with the additional energy costs? We are too old to wait for new trees to grow." The City Council determines: The View Restoration Permit does not require the Appellant to remove her trees, but to trim them. Trimming the trees to a view restorative height level will result in foliage remaining on the tree crowns, thus, continuing to provide sunshade, albeit less shade than that given to the property today. Due to the foreseen adverse impact to shade and to mitigate shade loss, the approved View Restoration Permit provides the Appellant the option to remove and replace trees pursuant to RPVMC § 17.02.040.C.2.f and § VI.A.4.0 of the View Restoration Guidelines. The View Restoration Ordinance does not consider in its permit findings the possible increase in home energy costs due to view restorative tree trimming. As such, this appeal point does not have merit because some of the trees will continue to provide sunshade, other trees could be removed and replaced with more suitable trees, and because the appeal argument is without nexus to the view restoration permit approval findings. 4. "The applicants have already made changes in our neighborhood. Trees have come down or been mutilated. Eight properties have been affected so far, plus the city trees on General Street and Trotwood Ave. We are no longer leafy and green." The City Council determines: The View Restoration Ordinance and the View Restoration Guidelines do not restrict the number of applicants nor foliage owners involved in a View Restoration Permit request. The City Council determines that this appeal point does not have merit because the Appellant's argument is without nexus to the view restoration permit findings. 5. Applicants' responses were unsatisfactory The City Council determines: The View Restoration Permit case record demonstrates that the applicants have complied with the early neighbor Resolution No. 2024-54 Page 5 of 11 consultation process (Finding No. 1), which included mediation. During mediation, the Appellant's proposal to trim trees to height levels that would 111 continue to significantly impair the applicants' views was rejected by the applicants. Although the Appellant was not satisfied with the mediation outcome, the City Council affirms that early neighbor consultation (mediation) had occurred, and that Finding No. 1 has been met. Section 6: View Restoration Mandatory Findings The City Council makes the following findings, in accordance with § 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 Staff's 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. Resolution No 2024-54 Page 6 of 11 111 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 § 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. Resolution No. 2024-54 Page 7 of 11 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 29.624 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 Resolution No. 2024-54 Page 8 of 11 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§ 17.02.040 set forth in § 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 7: Removal and Replacement of Foliage Findings The City Council makes the following tree removal and foliage replacement findings, in accordance with § VI-E of the City View Restoration Guidelines: (1) The City Council finds, pursuant to § 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 City Council further finds pursuant to § VI-E.1(f) that removal of the trees 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 City Council makes the finding that each tree removed must be replaced with one 24-inch box size tree needed to Resolution No. 2024-54 Page 9 of 11 mitigate the loss of the integrity of the landscaping and landscaping focal point; and (3) The City Council further finds pursuant to § 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 Cit Council 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 8: The City Council determines this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, § 15304 "Minor Alterations to Land" as this involves relatively minor modifications to existing landscaping and potentially the removal and replacement of a tree. The project to restore the Applicants' view also does 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). In addition, none of the exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2 applies to this project including that the project does not present any unusual circumstances. 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 City Council adopts Resolution No. 2024-54 denying an appeal, thus upholding the Planning Commission's decision conditionally approving a view restoration permit (case no. PLVR 2022-0010), requiring the Appellant at 29624 S. Trotwood Dr. to crown reduce a total of 11 trees, to the height level depicted with the 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, as provided in, and subject to, the conditions outlined in the attached Exhibit "A". Section 10: Any challenge to this Resolution and the findings set forth therein, must be filed within the 90-day statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6 and § 17.86.100(B) of the RPVMC. I Resolution No 2024-54 Page 10 of 11 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of August 2024. AlA John 1 shank, Mayor Attest: cpieRsai _____,, eres T kaoka, 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 that the above Resolution No. 2024-54, was duly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on August 20, 2024. I : ,( erecXoka, Cityc5le? d Resolution No. 2024-54 Page 11 of 11 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-54 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 11 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 Resolution No. 2024-54 Page 1 of 5 expense of replacing the removed trees with the 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. Resolution No 2024-54 Page 2 of 5 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 § 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. After the 90-day period, City staff shall determine whether the crown reduction or removal work for each subject tree has been met per the requirement of the Permit. Pursuant to View Restoration Guidelines § 17.02.040.C.2.h, a Foliage Owner failing to remove a tree or to crown reduce a tree to the height level specified by the Permit within a 90-day period, shall forfeit their right to have any trimming or removal expenses paid by the Applicants' trust deposit. The City shall reimburse from the City's trust account the entire amount of the trust deposit for tree trimming and/or tree removal with replacement work for the Foliage Owner's property whose work has been wholly completed. If a Foliage Owner does not complete all of the required work, as determined by staff, within the 90-day time period stipulated by staff or a Director-approved extension period, if one is necessary, then pursuant to RPVMC § 17.02.040.C.2.h View Restoration and § 8.24.070.B Public Nuisance, the City Attorney's Office 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. Pursuant to RPVMC § 17.02.040.C.2.h, in the event that the City is required to perform the work, the Foliage Owner whose work has been deemed incomplete by City staff Resolution No. 2024-54 Page 3 of 5 will be billed for all City expenses incurred in enforcing the view restoration permit (including reasonable attorneys' fees and staff fees at the full burdened rate per RPVMC § 8.24.110). If the property owner does not pay the City for the amount set forth on the invoice, the City shall record a lien or assessment against the Foliage Owner's property pursuant to RPVMC Chapter 8.24 Property Maintenance and/or pursue any all available civil remedies for recovery of said City expenses in accordance with subsection (C)(2)(i) of RPVMC § 17.02.040 or RPVMC Chapter 1.08 (General Penalty). In the event that the City is required to perform the work at the Foliage Owners' expense, the City shall reimburse the Applicants for the trust deposit for tree trimming and/or tree removal with replacement work from the City trust account associated with the non-compliant property. 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 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 or removal conditions of approval, namely Condition No. 3-5, may cause the City to issue administrative citations as described in § 1.16 of the City's Municipal Code. Pursuant to RPVMC § 1.08.010.0 (Infractions) any person violating any provision or failing to comply with any mandatory requirement of this Code expressly stated by this Code to be Resolution No 2024-54 Page 4 of 5 an infraction is guilty of an infraction. Infraction fines are described as the following: $100 for a first violation, $200 for a second violation, $500 for a third violation, $1,000 for a fourth violation. 14.Foliage maintenance shall be subject to the trimming maintenance provisions of the City's Guidelines, §VI I I-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 § 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. I I Resolution No. 2024-54 Page 5 of 5