CC SR 20240820 01 - Appeal of View Restoration Permit
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: August 20, 2024
Subject:
Consideration and possible action to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to
approve a View Restoration Permit at 29624 S. Trotwood Drive (Case No. PLVR2022-0010).
Recommendation:
1) Adopt Resolution No. 2024-__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).
1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk
2. Declare Public Hearing Open: Mayor Cruikshank
3. Request for Staff Report: Mayor Cruikshank
4. Staff Report & Recommendation: Brandy Forbes, Director of Community Development
Robert Nemeth, Associate Planner
5. Council Questions of Staff (factual and without bias):
6. Public Testimony:
Principal Parties 5 Minutes Each. The appellant or their representative speaks first and will generally be allowed five minutes. If the
applicant is different from the appellant, the applicant or their representative will speak following the appellant and will also be
allowed five minutes to make a presentation.
Appellant: Dalyce Wells (29624 S. Trotwood Drive)
Mayor Cruikshank invites the Appellant to speak. (5 mins.)
Applicants: Frank & Caroline Albert (29642 N. Enrose Avenue)
Jennifer Misetich (29648 N. Enrose Avenue)
Manuel Cortes (29636 N. Enrose Avenue)
Mayor Cruikshank invites the Applicants to speak. (5 mins.)
Testimony from members of the public:
The normal time limit for each speaker is two (2) 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 Cruikshank invites brief rebuttals by Appellant and Applicant s. (5 mins)
Normally, the applicants and appellants will be limited to a five (5) minute rebuttal, if requested after all other interested persons have
spoken.
8. Council Questions of Appellant and Applicants (factual and without bias):
9. Declare Hearing Closed/or Continue the Public Hearing to a later date: Mayor Cruikshank
10. 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.
11. Council Action:
The Council may: vote on the item; offer amendments or substitute motions to decide the matter; reopen the hearing for additi onal
testimony; continue the matter to a later date for a decision.
01203.0005/1005996.1
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 08/20/2024
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s
decision to approve a View Restoration Permit at 29624 S. Trotwood Drive (Case No.
PLVR2022-0010).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 2024-__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).
FISCAL IMPACT: The Appellant (Daylce Wells) paid the $3,100 appeal fee. If the City
Council grants the appeal, the entire $3,100 appeal fee will be refunded to Appellant. If
an appeal results in a modification, other than changes specifically requested in the
appeal, half of the appeal fee shall be refunded to Appellant. If the City Council denies
the appeal, the Appellant will not be refunded any of the appeal fee. VR
Amount Budgeted: $3,100
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): 101-300-0000-3217
(Revenues – View Restoration Permits) VR
ORIGINATED BY: Robert Nemeth, AICP, Associate Planner
REVIEWED BY: Brandy Forbes, AICP, Director of Community Development
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Resolution No. 2024-__with Attachment No. 2a. Map and Attachment No. 3d.
Trim Instructions
B. Appellant’s Appeal Letter
1
C. P.C. Resolution No. 2024-14
D. P.C. Resolution No. 2024-18
E. Notice of Decision from May 14, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting
F. May 14, 2024 Planning Commission Memorandum
G. February 13, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Memorandum & Report
BACKGROUND:
On July 29, 2022, Frank & Caroline Albert at 29642 N. Enrose Ave., Jennifer Misetich at
29648 N. Enrose Ave., and Manuel Cortes at 29636 N. Enrose Ave. (herein referred to
as the “Applicants”) mailed a certified letter to the Foliage Owner, Dalyce Wells (herein
referred to as the “Appellant”) at 29624 S. Trotwood Drive, requesting tree trimming to
restore their views. The Applicants and the Appellant could not resolve the matter
privately because they were at an impasse as to the degree of tree trimming or removal.
The Applicants sought to crown reduce Mrs. Well’s trees by trimming them down so that
they can see the harbor, bridges, city skyline and ocean. In contrast, Mrs. Wells did not
want her trees trimmed down to the height level so the view elements can be seen. At
that time, Mrs. Wells may or may not have feared that trimming to such a height level
would kill her trees. As a result, the Applicants submitted a View Restoration Pre-
application with the City on February 7, 2023 requesting view mediation services. The
Applicants and Appellant agreed to mediate the matter without meeting together. Note,
the Applicants did not submit a View Preservation Pre-application with unobstructed
photographs because the Appellant’s trees have always impaired the Applicants’ views.
Therefore, the View Restoration process was requested.
On March 23, 2023, Staff and the City’s View Restoration Mediator met with the
Applicants and the Appellant separately at their properties to discuss the matter. The
Appellant opted not to voluntarily trim foliage as requested by the Applicants.
On November 22, 2023, the Applicants filed a formal application requesting a View
Restoration Permit (“Permit”) to restore views significantly impaired by trees owned by
the Appellant (Mrs. Wells), Alicia MacGowan at 2138 Fairhill Drive, Lyle and Gail Insley
at 29623 S. Trotwood Drive, and Barbara Farren at 2133 W. General Street .
On February 13, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the
matter, heard testimony from the Applicants and the Appellant, and continued the matter
to the May 14, 2024 Planning Commission meeting to allow time for the City Arborist to
visit the Appellant’s property and to allow time for the Applicants and the Appellant and
the other foliage owners to re-attempt mediation. Before the public hearing, the foliage
owner at 29623 S. Trotwood Drive voluntarily agreed to remove one Palm tree, with
replacement, at the Applicants’ expense. On February 29, 2024, the City Arborist visited
the Appellant’s property, and provided a report to the City opining that the Appellant’s
trees would not die should the trees be trimmed to the harbor view restoration height level
recommended by Staff.
2
On April 1, 2024, another mediation session was held and attended by Staff, the City
Mediator, Mr. and Mrs. Albert (representing the Applicants), the Appellant, and the
remaining two other foliage owners. Staff distributed the City Arborist Report and
summarized it. Staff explained to the Appellant that the City Arborist opined that trimming
down her trees to the harbor view restorative height level w ould not kill the trees. The
Appellant offered different tree height proposals that were subsequently considered by
the Applicants. The Applicants later offered a counter proposal to the Appellant that was
rejected. With the exception to one Brazilian Pepper Tree on the Appellant’s Property,
the parties could not find agreement concerning the tree trimming he ight level. During
the mediation period, the foliage owner at 2133 W. General Street opted, in writing, to
have the Pine tree removed and replaced at the Applicants’ expense.
On May 14, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a continued public hearing on the
matter, and heard testimony from the Applicants and the foliage owners. After considering
all the information presented in the public record, the Planning Commission unanimously
adopted Resolution No. 2024-14 (Attachment C), thereby approving, with conditions of
approval, View Restoration Permit Case No. PLVR2022-0010. The approval required the
Appellant, the foliage owner at 29623 S. Trotwood Drive and the foliage owner at 2133
W. General Street to trim or voluntarily remove trees on their respective properties to
restore the views from the viewing areas located at 29642 N. Enrose Ave., 29648 N.
Enrose Ave., and 29636 N. Enrose Ave. With respect to the Ficus tree (Tree No. 8
depicted on the map below) located at 2138 Fairhill Drive (MacGowan), 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 .
Within the stipulated appeal period, on May 11, 2024, one of the three foliage owners,
Mrs. Dalyce Wells (herein the “Appellant”) residing at 29624 S. Trotwood Dr., submitted
a timely appeal (Attachment B) and associated fee for the City Council’s consideration,
raising her objections to the Planning Commission’s decision requiring tree trimming on
her property. Although not explicitly stated, the appeal implies that the Appellant is
requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s approval of the View
Restoration Permit requiring tree trimming on her property. In contrast, the foliage owners
at 29623 S. Trotwood Drive, and at 2133 W. General Street did not file a timely appeal.
On June 11, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a continued public hearing on
the Ficus tree at 2138 Fairhill Drive and heard testimony from the Applicants and foliage
owner (MacGowan). After considering all the information presented in the public record,
the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No. 2024-18 (Attachment D),
thereby approving, with conditions of approval, View Restoration Permit Case No.
PLVR2022-0010, which required crown reduction of the Ficus tree. The foliage owner at
2138 Fairhill Drive did not file a timely appeal.
The matter before you this evening is an appeal request to overturn the Planning
Commission’s decision approving a View Restoration permit thereby requiring tree
trimming at 29624 S. Trotwood Drive owned by Dalyce Wells (Appellant).
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.
3
An appeal consideration is, in effect, a de novo hearing and the City Council can hear
new evidence on the appeal issues concerning only the Appellant’s property at 29624 S.
Trotwood Drive. Staff recommends the City Council visiting the Applicants’ and
Appellant’s properties in order to become more familiar with the site situation.
DISCUSSION:
In consideration of all the material and public testimony on the matter, the Planning
Commission unanimously approved the View Restoration Permit request upon making
the 6 mandatory permit findings. Pursuant to §17.02.040(C)(2)(c) of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC), the following 6 mandatory permit findings need to
made in order to approve a View Restoration Permit request:
i. The Applicants have complied with the early neighbor consultation process and
has shown proof of cooperation on their part to resolve conflicts;
ii. Foliage exceeding 16 feet or the ridge line of the primary structure, whichever
is lower, 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;
iii. The foliage to be removed is located on property, any part of which is less than
1,000 feet from the applicant's property line;
iv. The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist (as view impairing
vegetation) when the lot from which the view is taken was created;
v. 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;
vi. For property located within the boundaries of the Miraleste Recreation and Park
District, the commission shall also find the removal or trimming of the foliage
strikes a reasonable balance between meeting the purposes of this section, as
set forth in the ordinance approved by the voters on November 7, 1989, and
preserving the historical developments of the Miraleste Recreation and Park
District area with a large number of trees.
Upon making all the required findings, the Planning Commission’s decision requires
trimming 11 trees on the Appellant’s property, 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. A map of the trees’ location is
shown below. Specific to the Appellant’s property, the following trees were ordered to be
crown reduced (with the option to remove and replace certain trees at the determination
of the foliage owner) to a view restorative height level: 1 Oak, 2 Indian Laurels, 3 Fern
Pines, 3 Chinese Elms, 1 Carob, 1 Pepper.
4
Instead of having the Appellant’s trees trimmed to 16 feet or the Appellant’s roofline height
level, which would likely kill most of the trees, the Planning Commission’s decision to have
the Appellant’s trees trimmed to the view restorative height level, which is well above the
Appellant’s roofline, offers a balance between having the trees severely trimmed and the
Applicants’ right to enjoy the protected views. To restore the abovementioned views, the
Planning Commission ordered the Appellant’s trees to be crown reduced to the yellow
line height level that is illustrated in the photo on the next page.
continued on the next page
5
The expected result of trimming to the view restorative height level means that the
Appellant’s trees will survive tree trimming with the understanding that most of the trees
will lose their aesthetic value. For the Applicants, the mandated crown reduction height
level would mean that the views of the Los Angeles & Long Beach Harbors, the bridges
within the harbors, the Long Beach skyline, and ocean will be restored.
continued on the next page
6
Proposed Amendments to the Commission-adopted Conditions of Approval
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning
Commission’s decision. However, in order to ensure timely tree trimming or removal
compliance, Staff recommends amending the Planning Commission approved Condition
of Approval Nos. 10 and 13. The amended conditions include clarifying text that describes
how and when Staff will determine tree trimming or removal compliance with the
Conditions of Approval. The amended conditions also include clarifying text that describes
the City’s enforcement process in the event that a foliage owner fails to comply with the
Conditions of Approval within the 90 day window to trim or remove a tree. The added text
is shown as underlined text as shown below:
Condition No. 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
For the three applicants, the mandated crown reduction height
level would mean that the views of the Los Angeles & Long Beach
Harbors, the bridges within the harbors, the Long Beach city
skyline, and the ocean will be restored.
7
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 Section 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 paid by the Applicants 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 Section
17.02.040.C.2.h View Restoration and Section 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 Section 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 will be billed for all City
expenses incurred in enforcing the Permit (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and staff fees at the
full burdened rate per RPVMC Section 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 Section
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’ ex pense, 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.
Condition No. 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 Section 1.16
of the City’s Municipal Code. Pursuant to RPVMC Section 1.08.010.C (Infractions) any person
violating any provision or failing to comply with any mandatory requirement of this Code expressly
stated by this Code to be an infraction is guilty of an infraction. Infraction fines are descri bed as the
following: $100 for a first violation, $200 for a second violation, $500 for a third violation, $1,000
for a fourth violation.
It should be noted that Condition No. 14 requires the owner at 29624 S. Trotwood Drive
to annually maintain the trees to the height level prescribed on the View Restoration
Permit decision, at the expense of the owner at 29624 S. Trotwood Drive.
Appeal & Staff Response:
An appeal consideration is, in effect, a de novo hearing and the City Council can hear
new evidence on the appeal issues at the Appellant’s property at 29624 S. Trotwood
Drive. RPVMC §17.80.070.F states: “De novo review. The city council appeal hearing is
not limited to consideration of the materials presented to the planning commission. Any
matter or evidence relating to the action on the application, regardless of the specific issue
appealed, may be reviewed by the city council at the appeal hearing.” De novo does not
mean that the City Council can broaden the scope of the review (i.e. include foliage
properties whose owners did not file timely appeals), it means that the City Council could
hear it without giving deference to the Planning Commission’s findings and conclusions.
For View Restoration Permit appeals, RPVMC § 17.02.040.C.2.g states: “At the city
council meeting, oral testimony shall be limited to five minutes in length for each of the
8
parties whose properties are affected by the decision and two minutes per person for
other individuals. Oral testimony shall be limited to the issues raised in the written appeal.”
The Appellant’s main appeal centers on her objection that the Planning Commission’s
decision will have negative impacts on her property and to the neighborhood in general.
More specifically, the appeal expresses concerns that view restoration tree trimming is
expected to result in unsightly trees, a decrease in sunshade, a perceived loss of property
value, and neighborhood landscape “changes” due to view restoration foliage removal.
The Appellant’s appeal points (shown in bold text) and Staff’s responses are provided
below:
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.”
Staff Response:
On February 29, 2024, the City Arborist visited the Appellant’s property, and his
professional opinion was that the Appellant’s trees will not die should the trees be trimmed
to the harbor view restoration height level (See Attachment F). However, the City Arborist
opined that most of the trees will lose their aesthetic value due to the harbor view
restorative trimming. Trimming that results in the death of a tree or results in a loss of its
aesthetic value does not preclude the Planning Commission’s ability to require a tree to
be trimmed to restore a view. In this case, the Planning Commission was provided with
expert testimony that the Appellant’s trees would not die because of trimming, but most
trees would lose their aesthetic value. In situations where a tree will die or lose its
aesthetic value as result of view restorative trimming, RPVMC § 17.02.040.C.2.f and
section VI.A.4.C of the City’s Guidelines and Procedures for Restoration of Views Where
Foliage Is Involved (herein the View Restoration Guidelines) allows tree owners the option
to remove a tree subject to trimming and to be provided with a replacement tree , at the
expense of the Applicants. In this case, the Appellant has been given this option should
she decide that it is better to have one or more trees removed and replaced.
Based on Staff’s analysis, this appeal point does not have merit because the trees will
not die, the Appellant has the option to remove and replace trees, and more importantly,
her appeal argument is without nexus to the view restoration permit findings.
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.”
Staff Response:
The Appellant asserts that her property, as well as the other foliage owners’ properties,
will diminish in value if trees are trimmed or removed. The Appellant has not provided any
evidence throughout the course of View Restoration Permit process nor supplemented
her appeal with documents that support her assertion. Therefore, it is unknown whether
the tree trimming requirement would cause the Appellant’s property to devalue.
9
Whether the Appellant’s claim is true or not, it is important to note that the required criteria
or findings to consider a View Restoration Permit does not include property value changes
because the View Restoration Ordinance and the View Restoration Guidelines do not
contemplate possible impacts on property values when approving View Restoration
Permits. Arguably, the approved View Restoration Permit requiring view restorative tree
trimming on the Appellant’s property may cause an increase in property values to the
Applicants’ properties, and other nearby properties that may benefit from expanded
vistas, and these increases may indirectly elevate the value of the Appellant’s property.
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.”
Staff Response:
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. Trimming that results in a loss of shade does not preclude
the City’s ability to require a tree to be trimmed to restore a view. In this case, the Planning
Commission determined that there would be adverse impact to shade and to mitigate
shade loss, so the Planning Commission provided an option to the Appellant to remove
and replace trees pursuant to RPVMC §17.02.040.C.2.f and §VI.A.4.C of the View
Restoration Guidelines.
Like that of sunshade, the View Restoration Ordinance does not consider in its permit
findings the possible increase in home energy costs due to view restorative tree trimming.
Still, it is unknown whether the trees’ crown reduction will result in additional energy costs
because the Appellant has not provided any evidence throughout the course of View
Restoration Permit process nor supplemented her appeal with documents that support
this claim. Even if the Appellant were to provide a professional home energy audit or
assessment that could demonstrate future increases in energy costs d irectly resulting
from view restorative trimming, then such an assessment does not invalidate the City’s
ability to make the 6 mandatory permits 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.”
Staff Response:
Noticeable landscaping changes will sometimes occur when View Restoration applicants
choose to seek view restoration tree trimming or removal on multiple properties, including
10
City owned property. It is common that view-seeking residents arrange private
agreements to trim or removal trees with multiple foliage owners rather than
neighborhood trimming or removal occurring due through the implementation of the View
Restoration Ordinance. Such was the case in the subject neighborhood, where residents
along North Enrose Avenue worked mainly through private channels to obtain the
cooperation of multiple foliage owners to trim or remove trees on various streets. The
City’s involvement only began after view-seeking residents could not reach agreements
with the Appellant and three other foliage owners. Some applicants choose to focus their
view restoration efforts on a singular tree or grouping of trees on one property, while
others seek view restoration at a neighborhood level, involving multiple view restoration
applicants and multiple foliage owners. 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.
5. Applicants’ responses were unsatisfactory
Staff Response:
As mentioned in the Background section of this report, mediation between the Applicants
and the Appellant occurred in 2023. Because the parties, particularly Mr. and Mrs. Albert
and the Appellant, had met in 2011 as part of an earlier view restoration mediation session
on a different view restoration case, the parties agreed to meet separately with City Staff
and the View Restoration Mediator on March 23, 2023. The Appellant opted not to
voluntarily trim foliage as requested by the Applicants, because the Appellant may or may
not have feared that trimming to such a height level would kill her trees . At the direction
of the Planning Commission, on April 1, 2024, another attempt at mediation was held at
City Hall with participation by the foliage owners and Mr. and Mrs. Albert, representing
the view interests of the co-applicants. The Appellant offered a crown reduction height
level that would provide the least risk to the trees. The meeting concluded with the
Applicants’ representatives stating that they would consider and share the proposal with
their Co-Applicants. After the mediation meeting, the Applicants decided that the proposal
to trim the trees to the Appellant’s height level would not improve their view. The parties
ultimately could not reach an agreement concerning the tree trimming height levels.
The Planning Commission has found (Finding No. 1) that the Applicants satisfied the
City’s Early Neighbor Consultation with the Appellant and the other foliage owners
because they have submitted proof of contacting the Appellant and the other foliage
owners and because they have availed themselves to mediation. During mediation in
March 2023, the Appellant refused to perform any tree trimming, but in April 2024, the
Appellant offered to trim trees to height levels that would provide no benefit to the
Applicants’ views. The Applicants submitted a formal View Restoration Permit request at
the conclusion of the mediation that occurred in 2023, and the Applicants rejected the
Appellant’s March 2023 offer that the trees be trimmed, at the Applicants’ expense, to
height levels that would continue to significantly impair their views.
In summary, the Appellant’s primary appeal arguments speak to her concerns about the
effects of trimming and not to the mandatory permit findings that the Planning
11
Commission considered when unanimously approving the View Restoration Permit
request.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Site Visit Option
Staff recommends visiting the Applicants’ and Appellant’s properties in order to become
more familiar with the site situation. Staff will provide the City Council with the Appellant
and Applicants contact information under a separate cover.
Public Correspondence
As of the preparation of this report, Staff has not received public correspondence in
response to the July 18, 2024 public notice that was issued for the appeal. In the event
Staff receives public comments after the issuance of this report, all correspondence will
be forwarded to the City Council as late correspondence.
Environmental Assessment
Pursuant to § 15304 and § 15300.2 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).
CONCLUSION:
Staff has found no basis contained in the appeals that would warrant altering the Planning
Commission's approval decision on this matter. Accordingly, Staff recommends that the
City Council adopt Resolution No. 2024-__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).
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the
City Council’s consideration:
1. Uphold the Planning Commission’s approval, but impose additional or different
conditions as the City Council deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of title
17 of the RPVMC; or
12
2. Overturn the Planning Commission’s approval and deny the project upon
finding that all applicable findings cannot be made or all provisions of title 17 of
the RPVMC have not been complied with; or
3. Refer the matter back to the Planning Commission to conduct further
proceedings. The remanded proceedings may include the presentation of
significant new evidence which was raised in conjunction with the appeal. The
City Council shall state the grounds for the remand and shall give instructions
to the Planning Commission concerning any error found by the City Council in
the Planning Commission's prior determination.
13