City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council should review the record of the meeting of the Parks and
Recreation Commission (the “Commission”) held on October 10, 2006, and the
Commission’s decision to deny Leo and Estelita Bodner’s (“Appellants”) application
for a permit to remove public right-of-way trees adjacent to their property, located at
10890 Arizona Avenue, and determine whether there is a sufficient basis to grant the
appeal and modify or overturn the Commission’s exercise of discretion.
PROCEDURE:
1. Mayor calls for motion to receive and file all reports and notices.
2. Mayor calls for a brief staff report.
3. Mayor invites the Appellant to address the City Council.
4. Mayor invites the Respondent (City Staff) to address the City Council.
5. Mayor invites public comment.
6. City Council discusses the matter and arrives at its decision.
BACKGROUND:
On October 10, 2006, the Commission considered Appellants’ application requesting
a permit to remove five public right-of-way trees adjacent to their property, located at
10890 Arizona Avenue. The trees are located on the eastern side of Elenda
Avenue, just south of Arizona Avenue, in the City-owned 10-ft. wide landscape
Meeting Date: 11/27/06 Item Number: A-1
AGENDA ITEM: Appeal of Parks and Recreation Commission’s Decision of
October 10, 2006 to Deny a Permit to Remove Public Right-of-Way Trees Adjacent
to 10890 Arizona Avenue.
Contact Person/Dept.:
John Rivera/PW; Bill La Pointe, PRCS
Phone Number:
(310) 253-5616; (310) 253-6682
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification:
Studio Estates Residents via postcard (11/16/06); Leo and Estelita Bodner via
telephone (11/16/06); Bruce Forman, Studio Estates Neighborhood Watch Commander
via telephone (11/16/06); Master Notification List (11/22/06).
Department Approval:
Charles D. Herbertson, Public Works Dir.
(by J. Rivera) 11/17/06
City Manager Approval:
Jerry B. Fulwood (11/21/2006)
City Controller Approval:
Marlee Chang (11/21/2006)City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
border along the Studio Estates residential development (Attachment A). Appellants
requested the removal of the trees due to their expressed concerns about the
damage caused by the trees to their wall and swimming pool. At the conclusion of
its discussion of this matter, the Commission denied the Appellants’ request for a
permit based on the Commission’s determination that the Appellants did not prove
sufficient reasons for removal of these trees, as set forth in Culver City Municipal
Code (“CCMC”) §9.10.040(C). The complete Commission decision letter, minutes of
the October 10, 2006 meeting, and complete staff report packet are included with
this staff report as Attachment B.
On October 17, 2006 the Bodners filed an appeal of the Commission decision with
the City Clerks office (Attachment C).
DISCUSSION:
The policies and procedures for street tree removal are set forth in CCMC §§
9.10.030 through 9.10.040. Acting in accordance with the CCMC, Appellants
submitted a written request, including supporting documentation, for a permit to
remove the trees through the Commission. Appellants’ request for such permit was
heard by the Commission on October 10, 2006.
After the Commission’s consideration of City staff’s report and Appellants’
application materials, as well as testimony and arguments provided by Appellant, the
Commission denied Appellant’s permit on the basis that Appellants did not prove
sufficient reasons for removal of these trees. The Commission’s decision was in
accordance with CCMC §9.10.040, which authorizes the Commission to grant a
permit for the removal of street or parkway trees. In making its determination to
deny Appellants’ request, the Commission made the following findings:
There are reasonable alternatives to removal of the trees (i.e. installation of a
pool cover);
The trees do not appear to pose a safety concern;
The trees are not unhealthy nor in a weakened state; and
Appellants’ were not able to demonstrate that the alleged damage to their
property met the minimum $5,000 threshold.
The following information was also provided to the Commission and should be
considered by the City Council:
Appellants’ request is different from the typical tree removal request the City
receives. Usually these requests are for removal of a single street tree from a City City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
parkway in front of a residence. Any approved removal of a tree typically includes
replacement by an approved tree specie from the City’s Master Street Tree Plan.
Appellants’ case is unique for at least two reasons. First, they are requesting the
removal of five trees that are located in the City-owned 10-ft. wide landscape border
next to Appellants’ property line. Second, these trees were planted by the Studio
Estates developer to meet one of the conditions of the development’s approval when
the City approved the project. These trees, as well as all landscaping surrounding
Studio Estates, are maintained by the City through an assessment district (i.e.,
Landscaping District Number 1, Zone 1) which charges each Studio Estates
homeowner an annual fee to help cover the cost of that maintenance.
The purpose of this original condition of approval was to help make Studio Estates
compatible with the surrounding developed residential neighborhoods, as well as to
reduce any impact to the community from the more dense housing project. Plans for
the initial improvements for Zone 1 were approved in January 1979 (landscape
irrigation system plans) and January 1980 (landscaping plans). Removal of these
trees would, in essence, amend the conditions of approval for Studio Estates. As
such, even if the City Council were to grant Appellants’ appeal and overturn the
Commission’s decision to deny the permit, the request would still need to be
reviewed by the Planning Commission, Redevelopment Agency and once again by
the City Council to determine if the request is in compliance with the original
conditions of approval or if the conditions should be amended to allow the
removal/replacement of these trees. All three bodies were involved with the
approval of the Studio Estates project originally and, therefore, revision of any of the
conditions of approval for that project should be reviewed and approved by those
bodies after application to the Planning Division and payment of any applicable fees.
The trees in question are three Pinus canariensis (Canary Island Pine) and two
Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda). Please note that the species of the pines were
mistakenly identified in the Commission staff report. Also, the trees in question are
not located in a street parkway or median so they are not subject to the City’s Street
Tree Master Plan. Therefore, if the City Council decides the trees should be
removed, we recommend that the City Council also direct that the species, size and
number of replacement trees be specified by the Planning Commission,
Redevelopment Agency and City Council, based on a recommendation of the Public
Works Director. In choosing which species to recommend, the Public Works
Director should consider the original intent of the condition of approval.
In reviewing the appeal request, staff has noted the following observations that the
City Council may also want to consider during its discussion:City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
1. There are three rows of trees planted along this segment of the border, Ficus
microcarpa ‘Nitida (Ficus)’ in the parkway and Jacaranda and Canary Island
Pine in the border.
2. There are a larger number of trees and the spacing of the trees is closer
along this segment of the landscape buffer than exists along the rest of
Elenda Avenue.
3. The removal of the Canary Island Pines, which are the trees planted closest
to the perimeter wall, would have a significant impact on the skyline, but the
remaining Jacaranda and Ficus trees would still provide a dense visual
screen of the residences to and from the west side of Elenda Avenue.
4. The Jacaranda trees, which are a flowering tree, are being crowded out by
the larger Canary Island Pines and Ficus.
Council should consider the record of the Commission meeting, particularly the basis
for the Commission’s decision, and determine whether there is sufficient basis to
grant the appeal and modify or overturn the exercise of discretion by the
Commission.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
There is no fiscal impact to the City if removal is granted since cost for removal and
replacement of the trees will be at the homeowner’s expense.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Map identifying location of landscaped border and the Bodner Residence
and photos of subject site and trees.
B. October 11, 2006 Parks and Recreation Commission decision letter,
October 10, 2006 Commission meeting minutes and staff report with
attachments.
C. October 17, 2006 request for appeal
MOTION:
That the City Council:City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
1. Find that the Commission did not abuse its discretion in reaching its decision,
and uphold the October 10, 2006 decision of the Commission to deny Appellants’
application for a permit to remove five trees adjacent to their property at 10890
Arizona Avenue;
OR
2. Find that the Commission abused its discretion in reaching its decision, and
reverse the Commission’s October 10, 2006 decision and remand the matter to the
Commission for further consideration (with appropriate instructions). (The reasons
for this action should be stated on the record);
OR
3. Find that the Commission abused its discretion in reaching its decision, reverse
the Commission’s October 10, 2006 decision and order that the permit be issued
(under whatever conditions the Council may deem appropriate, including the
condition that such permit is subject to all necessary approvals of the Planning
Commission, Redevelopment Agency and City Council, and that the species, size
and number of replacement trees be specified by the Planning Commission,
Redevelopment Agency and City Council, based on a recommendation by the Public
Works Director in consideration of the original intent of the conditions of approval of
the Studio Estates development.
OR
4. Provide further direction to staff.
MEETING DATE: 1 1/27/06
AGENDA ITEM:
Appeal of Parks and Recreation Commission's Denial of
a Permit to Remove Public Right-of-Way Trees Adjacent
to 10890 Arizona Avenue
ATTACHMENTS
Pages |109| Attachment A 1-13|109| Attachment B 14-66|109| Attachment C 67ATTACHMENT A
[:3
Studio Estates ParcelsAppeal of Parks and Recreation Commission's Denial of a Permit to Remove Public Right-of-
Way Trees Adjacent to 10890 Arizona Avenue.
View of subject landscape border and trees looking south from the
intersection of Elenda Street and Arizona AvenueAppeal of Parks and Recreation Commission's Denial of a Permit to Remove Public Right-of-
Way Trees Adjacent to 10890 Arizona Avenue.
View of subject landscape border and trees looking southeast from the
intersection of Elenda Street and Arizona Avenue45r|10 10|U
.o
a)Appeal of Parks and Recreation Commission's Denial of a Permit to Remove Public Right-of-
Way Trees Adjacent to 10890 Arizona Avenue.
View of subject landscape border and trees looking southAppeal of Parks and Recreation Commission's Denial of a Permit to Remove Public Right-of-
Way Trees Adjacent to 10890 Arizona Avenue.
Close-up view of Pine Tree adjacent to perimeter wall at northern end of
10890 Arizona Ave. Property — north side of treeAppeal of Parks and Recreation Commission's Denial of a Permit to Remove Public Right-of-
Way Trees Adjacent to 10890 Arizona Avenue.
Close-up view of Pine Tree adjacent to perimeter wall at northern end of
10890 Arizona Ave. Property — south side of treeAppeal of Parks and Recreation Commission's Denial of a Permit to Remove Public Right-of-
Way Trees Adjacent to 10890 Arizona Avenue.
Close-up view of middle Pine Tree adjacent to perimeter wall at looking towards
The northern end of 10890 Arizona Ave. Property
1Appeal of Parks and Recreation Commission's Denial of a Permit to Remove Public Right-of-
Way Trees Adjacent to 10890 Arizona Avenue.
Close-up view of Pine Tree adjacent to perimeter wall at
southern end of 10890 Arizona Ave. PropertyAppeal of Parks and Recreation Commission's Denial of a Permit to Remove Public Right-of-
Way Trees Adjacent to 10890 Arizona Avenue.
View of subject landscape border and trees looking north
10Appeal of Parks and Recreation Commission's Denial of a Permit to Remove Public Right-of-
Way Trees Adjacent to 10890 Arizona Avenue.
View of subject landscape border and trees looking north from the
intersection of Elenda Street and Marietta Avenue
iiAppeal of Parks and Recreation Commission's Denial of a Permit to Remove Public Right-of-
Way Trees Adjacent to 10890 Arizona Avenue.
View of subject landscape border and trees looking northeast from the intersection of
Elenda Street and Marietta Avenue
ILAppeal of Parks and Recreation Commission's Denial of a Permit to Remove Public Right-of-
Way Trees Adjacent to 10890 Arizona Avenue.
View of subject landscape border and trees from the west side of Elenda StreetWilliam L. La Pointe
Director of Parks, Recreation
& Community Services
etditelt CI TY
PARKS, RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES
4117 OVERLAND AVENUE, CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA 9023D
ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
(310) 253-6655
FAX (310) 253-6666
vvww.cuivercity.org
October 11, 2006
Leo and Estelita Bodner
10890 Arizona Avenue
Culver City, CA 90232
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bodnar:
On Tuesday evening, October 10, 2006, the Culver City Parks and Recreation
Commission considered your request for a permit to remove five (5) trees adjacent to
your property at 10890 Arizona Avenue. Your request was denied because the
Commission did not find support of the required criteria for tree removal set forth in the
Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC) § 9.10.030 or § 9.10.040 by the evidence you
provided.
Pursuant to CCMC § 9.10.040 D., the Commission's decision will become final the
evening of October 17, 2006 "unless an appeal has been filed by the applicant or a City
official-with-the:eity-elerk for a hearing befui e tlitrCity Council.
made in writing, shall state the reasons for the appeal and shall be accompanied by a
fee, as established by City Council resolution: The fee, in this case, is $250.00 or
$50.00 per tree, depending upon the number of trees you are petitioning for removal.
Attached for your reference is a copy of the aforementioned sections of the Culver City
Municipal Code and Resolution.
Please contact me should you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
William L. La Pointe
Director
Attachments: CCMC § 9.10.030 and § 9.10.040
Resolution No. 86-R 151
Copy:
Parks and Recreation Commission
Christopher Armenta, City Clerk
Heather Iker, Deputy City Attorney|1010|Culver City Employees take pride in effectively providing the highest levels of service to enrich the quality of life for the community by building on our
tradition of more than seventy-five years of public service, by our present commitment, and by our dedication to meet the challenges of the future.
_ •
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPEROthers Present: Leo and Estelita Bodner,-ailver , City
Ron Kochevar, Culver City
Item A-1.
These minutes are not official until approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
October 10, 2006
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
7:00 p.m.
CITY OF CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA
CHAIR VICKI DALY REDHOLTZ
Call to Order
The meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission was called to order by Chair Daly
Redholtz at 7:03 p.m. in the Dan Patacchia Conference Room, City Hall.
Roll Call
Members Present:
Staff Present:
•—• .
Commissioners Daly Redholtz, Cooper, Deen, Shapiro.,James
William La Pointe, Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director
Heather Iker, Deputy City Attorney
David Talavera Pest Control Technician
Consideration of a Permit: Application to Remove Public Right-of-Way Trees
Adjacent to 10890 AriZona Avenue.
. .
In response to Commissioner Cooper's inquiry, Heather Iker, Deputy City Attorney,
advised that hp may provide . comment as a member of the public but that he would have
to recuse himself during discussion due to a conflict of interest.
At this time, the Chair called for a staff report.
Bill La Pointe, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, gave the staff
report, noting that the Bodner's situation is unique for at least two reasons. First, the
five trees they are requesting to remove are located on the extreme edge of City property
lying adjacent to the Bodner's property line. Second, these trees were planted by the
Studio Estates developer to meet one of the conditions for the development's approval
when the City approved the special zoning for this project. He added that the assessment
district is maintained by the City with annual assessments approved by the City Council.
In the past, the City has contracted with an outside landscape maintenance company to
maintain these areas_ The Public Works Department maintains the trees and the Parks,Parks and Recreation Commission October 10, 2006
Recreation and Community Services Department maintains the landscaping (ground
cover).
Mr. La Pointe concluded by stating that even if the Commission were to decide the
removal of the trees is appropriate based on the criteria for tree removal set forth in the
Culver City Municipal Code, the removal would be subject to review by the Planning
Commission and the City Council since both bodies were involved with the original
condition of approval for Studio Estates.
At this time, the following members in the audience were recognized to address the
Commission:
Leo Bodner, Studio Estates homeowner, called the Commission's attention to two
additional documents he had submitted i) that his swimming pool is being properly
maintained on a regular basis, and 2) the damage caused by the pine tree which is
leaning against the concrete wall and causing the wall to crack. He said the trees on
Culver Boulevard do not appear to be a problem to anyone because of their distance from
the wall. He stated that he has not been able to use the pool for sometime due to the
pine needles and debris that fall from the trees; and that the appearance of the pool and
the inability to use it is decreasing the value of his propeM , T. Mr. Bodner concluded by
saying that the only solution is to have the trees removed.
Estelita Bodner, Studio Estates homeowner, expressed concern that the wall is cracked
and will fall down and cause further damage.
Ron Kochevar, Studio Estates homeowner Who resides south of the Bodner's, said the
concrete block wall is expensive to replace. .He likes the trees but concurs wa the
Bodner's. He said that a third tree that is adjacent to his property extends into his yard
and is covered with Dine cones; and should the Bodner's request be approved, he will
then request that his trees be pruned. He noted that the pine trees along Culver
Boulevard do not Seem to pose the same problem because they are planted between the
sidewalk and the curb, further from the wall.
Commissioner Cooper, speaking as a Studio Estates homeowner who resides south of the
Bodner's, attested to the maintenance problems associated with the pine and jacaranda
trees, citing the daily care he provides in addition to the weekly professional care in order
to maintain his pool and keep it operational. He emphasized that if the trees, as well as
all the trees surrounding Studio Estates, were properly maintained by the City through
the Assessment District, it would alleviate many of the problems in Studio Estates and
along Elenda Avenue and Culver Boulevard as well
At this time, Commissioner Cooper recused himself and Commissioner James initiated
discussion.
Commissioner James asked Mr. Bodner if he had ever considered installing a pool cover.
Mr. Bodner responded in the negative, stating that it would cost about $io,000 for an
electronic and automatic cover. He indicated that even with a cover, the problem would
not be alleviated because debris from the trees will still fall and settle on the cover.
Commissioner James asked when the trees were last trimmed and by whom.
1A--B
2Parks and Recreation Commission October 10, 2006
Mr. Bodner recalled the trees were trimmed every four to five years since he had
purchased his property in 1983. He went on to state that the ficus trees were trimmed in
January 2005 by the City. He reported that when he contacted City staff as to why the
pine trees near his wall were not being trimmed, he was initially informed that the trees
did not belong to the City and therefore were not included in the City's inventory of trees.
However, after City staff took measurements, it was disclosed that the trees were in fact
located on the extreme edge of City property.
Commissioner James asked for clarification as to who is responsible for maintaining the
trees.
Mr. La Pointe said he believes it is the City's responsibility to trim.the trees.
David Talavera, Pest Control Technician, confirmed Mr. La Pointe's statement, adding
that the issue had just recently been clarified.
Mr. La Pointe added that the trees are on a five-year rotation schedule for trimming and
that it had not been on the City's inventory because this is an assessment district and was
maintained on an on-call basis. Prior to January 2005 and four years before, that was
the last time the pine trees were pruned by the City.
Commissioner James asked how old the trees
Staff replied they were planted in 1979.
Commissioner James asked if there was a report issued by the Los Angeles County
Vector Control Office regai ding the condition of the svi rimming pool water.
Mr. Bodner responded that the Countv's inspection revealed there was no evidence of
mosquitoes in the pool waer.
There was brief discussion regarding the damage to the Bodner's wall from the tree
leaning against the wall.
Commissioner James asked Mr. Bodner if his main issue was the concern about cost to
repair the wall if it should break or whether he felt anyone would be in danger if the wall
fell or cracked.
Mr. Bodner responded that the main issue is the lack of the use of the swimming pool
from debris falling from the pine trees; and that trimming the trees would not alleviate
the problem, only its complete removal. He said he could not speculate as to what would
occur if the wall fell.
Responding to Commissioner James' further inquiry, Mr. Bodner stated that he had had
his property appraised about three years ago and that the pool was not an issue at that
time.
Commissioner James thanked Mr. Bodner for answering her questions. She said she felt
she could not support taking out so many trees based on the information provided.
At this time, Commissioner Deen posed questions regarding the funding process for
maintenance districts.
3 --cParks and Recreation Commission October 10, 2006
Mr. La Pointe responded the funds are used to hire a landscape contractor that
maintains the landscaping throughout the City in public right-of-ways. He said the
funds going into the maintenance district have not been increased for many years. When
the estimated surplus/deficit reaches the $1,600 threshold, then we are able to go back
to the City Council for adjustments to the assessment fee.
Mr. La Pointe said that based on the location of one tree against the wall, trimming it
would probably not change the condition of the tree.
Commissioner Deen said he had inspected the trees and believed them to be healthy. He
said that he could not support the removal of all five trees.
Commissioner Shapiro stated that every time a tree is removed, it reduces the ozone.
She expressed concern that if the Commission starts to allow homeowners to remove
trees, it would set a precedent for removing trees and soon we will not have any trees.
She said she would vote against it.
Mr. Talavera said that he was unsure about whose responsibility it is to trim the trees.
Chair Daly Redholtz recommended that whocrier is responsible for trinuning the trees
should be doing it on an appropriate schedule.
In response to Chair Daly Redholtz' question, Mr. La Pointe stated the County has been
paying the City the assessment fee.
Chair Daly Redholtz said she concurred with her fellow Commissioners' concerns that
the evidence does not support removal of the trees.
Commissioner Deen referred to the Culver City Municipal Code and the ten-point
criteria outlined for removal of street trees. He did not feel the Bodner's trees met those
criteria, specifically seven of the ten points. He said he would vote to deny the request.
At this time the following action was taken:
mow) 13Y COMMISSIONER JAMES, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEEN, THAT
THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION DENY A PERMIT TO LEO AND
ESTELITA BODNER FOR REMOVAL OF FIVE TREES ADJACENT TO THEIR
PROPERIY AT 10890 ARIZONA AVENUE.
AYES: Commissioners Deen, James, Shapiro and Daly Redholtz
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Cooper
ABSENT: None
Ms. Iker advised the Commission's decision will become final after five working days
unless an appeal is filed with the City Clerk's Office by October 19, 2006.
Mr. La Pointe said he would notify the Bodner's in writing of the Commission's decision
and the appeal process.
000
\4--D
4CAO Approval N/A
(9/27/06); PRCS Notification ist (10/05/06).
Department Approval:
William La Pointe (10/04/06)
City Controller Approval; N/A
Staff recommends that the Parks and Recrea
appropriate action.
tion Commission discuss the issue and take
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
City of Culver City, California
Parks and Recreation Commission Report
Meeting Date: 10/10/06 Item Number: A-1
AGENDA 1TEM:
Consideration of a Permit Application to Remove Public Right-of-Way Trees
Adjacent to 10890 Arizona Avenue
Contact Person/Dept.: William La Pointe Phone Number: (310) 253-6682
Fiscal Impact. Yes fl No [X] General Fund: Yes l] No [X]
Hearing: E:1 Action Item: IN Attachments: [X] _Public
Public Notification:
Studio Estates Residents via postcard (9/26/06); Leo and Estelita Bodner via telephone
(9/27/06); Bruce Forman, Studio Estates Neighborhood Watch Commander via telephone
RECOMMENDATION:
The Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department enlisted the assistance of the
City's Information Technology Department to ensure that all residents of Studio Estates
were given adequate notification of this Parks and Recreation Commission agenda item. A
map identifying Studio Estates parcels was created (Attachment A), and based on this
information, a mailing list was developed. Public Notification postcards were mailed to 208
Studio Estates residents on September 26, 2006. --Excluding Administrative staff time, the
public notification expense was $22.66.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Leo and Estate Bodner, homeowners at 108
a request for a permit to remove five trees a
on the eastern side of Elenda Avenue, just s
City property and adjacent to their fence.
about the damage caused by the trees to thei
Culver City Municipal Code ("CCMC") Sections 9.10.030 through 9.10.040 address street
tree removal policies and procedures (Attachment B). Acting in accordance with the CCMC,
the Bodners are requesting a permit to remove the trees through the Parks and Recreation
Commission. The Bodners have submitted their request in writing and accompanied by the
required application fee (Attachments C, D, E). In addition, they have submitted
photographs of their property damage from the trees (Attachment F). Based on the criteria
outlined in the CCMC, it is the Commission's responsibility to consider and act on the
Bodners request.
90 Arizona Avenue, Culver City, are submitting
djacent to their property. The trees are located
uth of Arizona Avenue, on the extreme edge of
The Bodners have expressed their concerns
r fence and swimming pool.
5City of Culver City, California
Parks and Recreation Commission Report
In the past, the Commission has reviewed several requests for tree removal. In each case,
the request was for a single street tree in front of a residence and maintained by the City.
Removal of a tree included replacement by an approved tree specie from the City's Master
Street Tree Plan.
The Bodner's case is unique for at least two reasons. First, they are requesting the removal
of five trees that are located on the extreme edge of the City property line next to the
Bodner's property line. Second, these trees were planted by the Studio Estates developer
to meet one of the conditions of the development's approval when the City approved the
special zoning for this project. These trees, as well as all landscaping surrounding Studio
Estates, are maintained by the City through an assessment district (i.e., Landscaping District
Number 1, Zone 1) which charges each Studio Estates homeowner an annual fee to help
cover the cost of that maintenance. The assessment district is maintained by the City with
annual assessments approved by the City Council. The assessments are paid to the
County of Los Angeles at the same time as property taxes. The County then transmits
those payments to the City. In the past, the City has contracted with an outside landscape
maintenance company to maintain these areas. The Public Works Department maintains
the trees and the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department maintains the
landscaping.
The purpose of this original condition of approval from the City to the developer was to help
make Studio Estates compatible with the surrounding developed residential neighborhoods,
as well as to reduce any impact to the community of the specially zoned, more dense
housing project. Plans for the initial improvements for Zone 1 were approved in January
1979 (landscape irrigation system plans) and January 1980 (landscaping plans). Removal
of these trees would, in essence, amend the conditions of approval for Studio Estates. As
such, even if the Commission were to decide the removal of the trees is appropriate based
on the criteria for tree removal set forth in the CCMC, the removal should be reviewed by the
Planning Commission and City Council. Both bodies were involved with the approval of the
Studio Estates project originally and, therefore, revision of a condition of approval for that
project should be reviewed and approved by those bodies after application to the Planning
Division, payment of any applicable fees and Planning Division review has been made.
The trees in question are three Podocarpus macrophyllus (Yew Pine) and two Jacaranda
mimosifolia (Jacaranda). The approved street tree species for Arizona Avenue is the
Tabebula avellanedae (Lavender Trumpet Tree). If the Commission decides the trees
should be removed, it should also direct that the type, size and number of replacement trees
be specified by the City's Street and Tree Maintenance Supervisor in the Public Works
Department.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
There is no fiscal impact to the City if removal is granted since cost for removal and
replacement of the trees will be at the homeowner's expense. A cost estimate for the tree
removal and replacement is included in your packet (Attachment G).City of Culver City, California
Parks and Recreation Commission Report
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Map of Studio Estates
B. Culver City Municipal Code, Sections 9.10.030 through 9.10.040
C. Bodner's original letter of request dated September 5, 2005
D. Amended letters dated June 8, 2006 and August 21, 2006
E. Copy of payment for application fees
F. Photographs of damage to property caused by trees
G. Cost estimate for tree removal
MOTION:
That the Parks and Recreation Commission:
Approve a permit to Leo and Estelita Bodner for removal of five trees adjacent to their
property at 10890 Arizona Avenue, including directing them that the type, number and size
of replacement trees will be specified by the City's Street and Tree Maintenance Supervisor
in the Public Works Department; with such approval being conditioned upon any and all
necessary approvals of the Planning Commission and City Council;
or
Approve a permit to Leo and Estelite Bodner for removal of the three Pock:carpus
macrophyllus (Yew Pine), as these are in the position of being the most destructive and as
they are adjacent to their property at 10890 Arizona Avenue, including recommending to the
City's Street and Tree Maintenance Supervisor in the Public Works Department that they not
be replaced; with such approval being conditioned upon any and all necessary approvals of
the Planning Commission and City Council
or
Deny the permit;
or
Provide further direction to staff. co
r,. ATTACHMENT B
108 Culver City - General Regulations
transferred, except by authority of a resolution of the
City Council adopted at the conclusion of a public
hearing on the proposed sale, lease, or transfer. An
environmental impact report shall be considered and
approved by the City Council before any such
resolution is adopted.
B. Notice of the hearing shall be published
twice in the newspaper designated by the City Council
pursuant to City Charter § 517, the first publication to
be at least ten days before the hearing. At least five
copies of the published notice shall be conspicuously
posted On the subject park property. The heading of
the notices shall be "Notice of Proposed Sale/Transfer
of This Park" in letters not less than one inch in
height.
§ 9.10.025 TREE PLANTING.
The Municipal Services Director shall be in
charge of and have control of the planting of trees in
parkways and public places in said City, and shall
follow and be governed by the procedure set forth in
Cal. Sts. & High. Code §§ 22000 et seq., as amended,
provided, however, that the authority to do the things
authorized under Cal. Sts. & High_ Code § 22033
shall be vested in the City Council, instead of in the
Park Commissioners.
('65 Code, § 25-5) (Ord. No CS-290 Art Ill § I; Ord.
No. CS-973 § 1)
C. Any resolution adopted by the City Council
authorizing any such sale, lease, or transfer shall by
its terms state that it shall not be effective until after
thirty days from the date of its adoption. The adoption
of any such resolution shall be deemed to be a
legislative act subject to referendum in the same
manner as an ordinance.
- ('65 Code, § 25-2) (Ord. No. CS-290 Art 11 § 2; Ord.
No. CS-971 § 1)
§ 9.10.015 POLICY ON CLOSING.
Any section or part of any park may be declared
closed to the public by the linman Services Director
at any time and for any interval of time, either
temporarily or at regular and stated intervals and
either entirely or merely to certain uses, as the Human
Services Director shall find reasonably necessary.
('65 Code, § 25-3) (Ord. No. CS-973 § I)
§ 9.10.020 LOST ARTICLES.
The finding of lost articles by park attendants
shall be reported to the Human Services Director who
shall make every reasonable effort to locate the
owners. The Human Services Director shall make
every reasonable effort to find articles reported as
lost.
('65 Code, § 25-4) (Ord. No. CS-290 Art. If § 8;
Ord. No. CS-973 § 1)
§ 9.10.030 MUNICIPAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT; DUTIES.
The following shall be the duties of the Municipal
Services Department:
A. To supervise the planting, removal,
trimming, pruning, cutting and maintenance of trees,
plants and shrubs in the streets of the City, and to
issue all permits required for the replacement,
removal, planting, cutting, pruning or trimming of
trees, shrubs, and plants in the City of Culver City.
Such permit shall state the variety of trees, and shrubs
and plants to be planted, the location and size thereof.
B. To inspect an trees, shrubs and plants in all
streets of the City which are open for travel, and,
upon discovering scale, plant or animal life, or growth
or any insect detrimental to the growth, health or life
of such trees, shrubs or plants to such a degree that the
condition cannot be removed, eradicated or destroyed
by the usual means and efforts employed, to remove
and destroy any such trees, shrubs or plants, if, in the
judgment of the Municipal Services Director, it shall
seem to be necessary for the public interest so to do;
• C. To inspect any and all trees, shrubs and
plants which are in any street in said City, or which,
standing on any private estate, overhang or project
into any such street, to determine whether any of the
same or any part thereof appears to be dead, liable to
fall, dangerous or an obstruction to public travel on
any such street;Parks, Public Buildings and Property
D. Cause to be removed any portion of a tree,
shrub or plant which overhangs any street as to
obstruct traffic thereon or which appears to be in a
dangerous condition; provided, that except in case of
manifest public danger and immediate necessity, no
such tree or shrub shall be wholly cut down or
removed unless ten days' notice in writing of his
intention to cause the same to be done shall be given
by the Municipal Services Director to the owner,
occupant or agent of the property nearest such tree or
shrub, which abuts on that part of such street in which
such tree or shrub is situated, or to an owner,
occupant or agent of such private property, if such
tree or shrub stands thereon; and if any owner,
occupant or agent of such property shall, within seven
(7) days after the giving of such notice, file with the
City Council his objection in writing to such removal,
such tree or shrub shall not be cut down or removed
unless the Council shall give such owner or other
proper person who has given such notice, a reasonable
opportunity to be heard in support of such objection
and shall thereafter approve, in writing, the removal
of the same, if such objection is not sustained.
('65 Code, § 25-6) (Ord. No. CS-290 Art. fir § 2;
Ord. No. CS-973 § 1)
A. A person may remove a tree within a pub.
right-of-way if a permit is first obtained from t]
Human Services and Park Commission.
B. A request for a permit from the Runi2
Services and Park Commission shall be submitted
the Municipal Services Director, in writing. Ti
request shall state the name and address of ti
applicant, the location of the tree, and reasons for th
request and shall be accompanied by a fee, a
established by City Council resolution.
C. The Human Services and Park Commission
at its next available meeting, after the complete(
request is filed, shall conduct a hearing to detennin4
whether to issue the permit for removal of street o]
parkway trees. In determining whether a tree may bc
removed/replaced, the Commission shall consider,
amongst other things, the following:
1. The applicant bears the burden of prod
to prove the reasons for removal of a tree bv---1
preponderance of evidence;
2. Whether the tree or trees pose a
potential for safety problems despite a sound
maintenance program;
§ 9.10.035 PLANTING, CUTTING, REMOVAL
OF TREES OR PLANTS IN STREETS; PERMIT
REQUIRED.
No person shall plant, remove, destroy, cut,
prime, or deface, or in any manner injure any tree or
shrub in any street or parkway in the City, or shall
plant any flowers, grass, vines, vegetables, grains, or
other vegetation without first obtaining a permit to do
so from the City. Such permit shall state the variety of
trees, shrubs and plants to be planted, the location and
size thereof.
(`65 Code, § 25-7) (Ord. No. CS-290 Art. HI § 2;
Ord. No. CS-884 § 3)
3. Whether the roots from adjacent
park-way trees are interfering with sewers or utility
lines servicing the abutting property to the extent that
the property owner requires frequent repairs of sewers
or utility lines (Damage to sewers alone, however,
does not constitute major damage);
4. Whether the tree is dead, dying or
incurably diseased;
5. Whether the tree is diseased and
weakened by age, storia, fire or other injuries so as to
pose a danger to persons, properties, improvements
and other trees;
§ 9.10.040 REMOVAL OF STREET OR
6. Whether the tree(s) is of an undesirable
PARKWAY TREES; PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. Species;
Notwithstanding §§ 9.10.030 and 9.10.035
above:
7. Whether the tree poses a hardship to toe"
adjacent property owner such as, but not limited to,
damage to the foundation of house or garage, or in the110
Culver City - General Regulations
case of a handicapped person, special circumstances
which cause the location of the tree, or evenness of
pavement to become a hindrance for vehicle or
handicapped access;
8. Whether removal is necessary for
construction of a street improvement project or other
public improvement/repair work;
9. The applicant must show by
demonstrable evidence that the alleged damage to
private property is at least Five Thousand Dollars
($5,000.00) and is caused by the tree for which
removal is sought (examples would be but not limited
to engineering or architectural reports, photographs,
estimates of repair); and
10. The Commission must, in its decision,
declare whether costs of alternatives to removal of the
tree are reasonable and the basis for their evAlnation
of alternatives.
I). The Commission's decision shall become
final within five (5) working days unless an appeal has
been filed by the applicant or a City official with the
City Clerk for a hearing before the City Council. Such
appeal shall be submitted in writing, shall state the
reasons for the appeal and shall be accompanied by a
fee, as established by City Council resolution.
4. Such other conditions as the
Commission or Council deems appropriate.
('65 Code, § 25-8) (Ord. No. 86-022 § 1; Ord. No.
92-016 § 1)
§
9.10.045 CELEBRATIONS IN PARKS;
PERMITS.
Except as hereinafter provided, no company,
society or organization shan hold or conduct any
picnics, celebrations, parade, service or exercises in
any public park, without first obtaining permission
from the person or persons duly authorized by the
Human Services Director and agreeing to conform to
the rules contained in the application. No person shall
take part in any picnic-celebration, parade, service or
exercise held or conducted contrary to the provisions
hereof, except that nothing in this Section shall be
construed as preventing individual families from using
parks and facilities for picnics, and the like, when no
reservations have been made and no permit has been
issued therefor covering the date requested.
('65 Code, § 25-9) (Ord. No. CS-290 Art. II § 4; Ord.
No. CS-973 § 1)
§ 9.10.050 OBSTRUCTING PATHWAYS
PROHlatit,D.
E. The City Council shall affirm the Human
Services and Park Commission's decision unless the
appellant shows the Commission's decision is not
supported by substantial evidence.
F. Any permit granted, whether by the Human
Services and Park Commission or the City Council,
shall include any or all of the following conditions:
1. The cost of removal shall be paid by the
applicant;
2. The cost of replacement shall be paid by
the applicant;
3. A determination as to the size and
location of the replacement tree;
No person shall assemble, collect or gather
together in any walk, driveway, passageway or
pathway in any park or in other places set apart for the
travel of persons or vehicles in or through any park,
or occupy the same so that the free passage or use
thereof by persons or vehicles passing along the same
shall be obstructed in any manner.
('65 Code, § 25-10) (Ord. No. CS-290 Art. II § 6)
§ 9.10.055 PROHIBITIONS.
Within the limits of any public park it shall be
unlawful for any person:
A. Having charge, care, custody or control of
any dog, or other animal, fowl, or reptile to cause,
permit, of allow the same to be within the limits of
any public park within the City unless such person
') I5|101010|From:CULVER CITY ACCOUNTING DEPT 310 253 5880 05/01/2008 16:48 4055 P.001/002
RESOLUTION NO. 86-R 151
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE FEE
FOR APPLICATIONS/APPEALS FOR PERMITS FOR REMOVAL
OF STREET TREES.
The City Council of the City of Culver City, California,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE as follows:
Pursuant to Culver City Municipal Code Section 25-8:
1. A fee of $50.00 per tree is hereby established for
9 the processing of an application fdr a permit for the removal of
10 a street trees.
2. A fee of $50-.00 i hereby lied..f f r the
12 processing of an appeal to the City Council of a Human Services
13 and Park Commission's decision regardingthe street tree.
14
3. These fees are non-refundable; provided that, if
15
J
the permit is issued to the applicant/appellant all the fees paid
16 hereunder shall be credited toward the payment of the cost
17 required pursuant to the City Code.
18
4. If an appellant is a City Official acting within
19 the course and scope of the official's duties, no fee is
20 required-
21 ///
221 ///
23 ///
24 li/l/
25 j/1/
26
2/ /11
28il
5. This Resolution becomes effective as of the
effective date of Ordinance No. 86-022.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this 27th day of October
1986.
P 717 A. NETZE , Na
City of Culver City, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:|1010101010101010 10
10|11_
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LAJP,
LINE C. DOLCE, City Clerk 4
RES/TREES/FEES
ATTEST:
i'rom:CULVER CITY ACCOUNTING DEPT 310 253 5830 05/01/2006 16:49 #055 P.002/002, ATTACHMENT C.,
PARKS, RECREATION AND
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT
Monday, Sept. 5, 2005
SEP 07 2005
TO: Human Service & Parks Commission
ADMINISTRATIVE DiVISIC:':
Culver City, CA
SIR:
Our names are Leo and Estelita Bodner. We request a peunit from the Human Services
and Park Commission to remove three palm trees and the two jocoronda trees. They are
located on the eastern side of Elenda Ave. just south of Arizona AveThe trees are
located at the extreme edge of city property, right next to our fence. Some of the
branches are hanging over the fence. We have a large swimming pool, and we are not
able to use the swimming pool because of the debris from the trees.
The city also owns and maintains fiats trees on Arizona Ave. It is very rare in Culver
City for the city to have a double set of trees on the same street. In fact the branches of
the palm trees are mingling with the branches of the Rens trees. It is my understanding
that the palm trees and jocoronda trees were not planted by the city, but were planted by
the developer of the Studio Estates project in 1979.
One of the palm treees is leaning on the fence of our property. It is posssible that this tree
will eventuallly destroy the fence. Another palm tree is about 1 inch from the fence, and
is also a danger to the fence.
I moved into the property in August 1983. I noticed that prior to this year the trees in
question were being trimmed about once every 4 years. We are being charged a
landscape fee, the most recent fee being $109.70 a year. In January 2005, the fieus trees
were trimmed but the other five trees were not trimmed. I telephoned Mr. Steven Cooper
of the Department of Parks. He stated that these trees will not be trimmed because they
are not in the city's inventory of trees. Thank you.
Sincerely,
SM-t_
Leo and Estelita Bodner
/0 0 aivt
C1
90
L
(2/ o) a,2,0
cia (5/) 3 -7|1010|/ - 367B|1010|I L '
to,
tL-
t
tu
--7-14_71---e •
C
ATTACHMENT D
( 6 6'
-
-P|1010|'50 dpos-E't
o ctiitAtt ciat : 910,5
1.5Estelita Bodn
Respectfully yours,
Aeziyue.--\._
and Leo Bodnar
PARKS, RECREATION AND
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT.
August 21, 2006
Leo and Estelite Bodner
10890 Arizona Ave.
Culver City, CA 90232
Dear Mr. La Pointe:
We would like to amend our application to seek removal of the two (2) jocoronda trees also, and
to submit an additional check for $100.00 (one hundred dollars).
We are enclosing additional information, including pictures of the wall and pool. We are enclosing
pictures of other houses on Elenda Ave. They do not have a double row of trees on city property.
The trees on the edge of the city property are not necessary.
On August 4, 2006, Mr. Cris Turner, of Los Angeles County, inspected the pool for mosquitos, at
the request of a neighbor. We are enclosing the most recent bill from Pootworks_whickshavvs that the pooTis being properly maintained and chlorinated. We are enclosing a letter from Mr.
Danny Ige of Pootworks, recommending that the pine trees be removed.
We are enclosing a letter from Rani Amitai and Lee Amitai, real estate experts, stating that the
trees are decreasing the value of the property. We are considering the sale of the house, but who
would buy a house that has a swimming pool which is expensive to maintain, and which can never
be used?
We are enclosing the calling card of Mr, Bien Tarroza, Jr. who told us that the trees are
decreasing the value of the property by $100,00000. This is clearly more than the $5,000.00 in
damages required by the regulations,This estimate may still be conservative, since it represents
only 8 percent of the value of the property.
We are enclosing a list of the last 9 sales in Culver City. Three of them are properties similar to
ours in the Studio Estates subdivision. The fast sale, on July 31, 2006, 3927 Lamarr Avenue was
for $1,189,000.00.
Please advise us if you require any additional information.
AUG 9 1 ?DOB
ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION 640). Los ANGELES COUNTY WEST
—=`"!'q4 1„,_,:A•
VECTOR & VECTOR-BORNE
DISEASE CONTROL
CRIS TURNER
VECTOR CONTROL TECHNICIAN II
(310) 915-7370
6750 CENTINEL,., AVENUE
Fax: (310) 915-7375
CULVER Crry, CA 90230
WEesrrz: www.lawestvector.orgTotal $115.00
Poolworks
Invoice
Construction+Repairs+Service
Date
Invoice
4239 Revere Place
Culver City, CA 90232
Contractor's Lic. #C53-597631
8/1/06
17236
(310) 837-9318
Property Address
Leo Bodner
10890 Arizona Avenue
Culver City, Ca 90230
TERMS
Net 30
DATE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
Monthly Service Filter Cleaning
80_
35.00 Date Invoice #
Contractor's Lie. #C53-597631
9/1/06
17436
Property Address
TERMS
Net 30
In VOICE
Poolworks
Construction+Repairs÷Service
4239 Revere Place
Culver City, CA 90232
(310) 837-9318
Leo Bodner
10890 Arizona Avenue
Culver City, Ca 90230
DATE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
M-onthly-Sarvice 80-00
I Total
$80.00
251Poolworks
Invoice
Construction+Repairs+Service
Date Invoice #
4239 Revere Place
Culver City, CA 90232
Contractor's Lic. #C53-597631
10/1/06
17647
(310) 837-9313
Property Address
Leo Bodner
10890 Arizona Avenue
Culver City, Ca 90230
TERMS
Net 30
DATE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
Monthly-S-e-rvrce-
8-0.00pnr
ThWORKs DESIGN, INC.
4239 REVERE PL.
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
(310) 837-9318
November 9, 2005
To Whom It May Concern:
In regards of the swimming pool located at 10890 Arizonia Av. Culver City,
CA 902323. I recommend that the large pine trees overhanging the
property and pool area to be removed for the following reasons:
1. The foliage from the trees constantly drops in the pool and causes
algae growth. The pool water becomes unsafe to swim and is
unsightly.
2. The pine needles falls into the pool and plugs the skimmer and
pump baskets. This reduces the pool filtration and can damage the
pump and circulation pipes.
3T-lie trees have outgrown the intended space for them. I he large
trunk and root system may damage the cinder block wall and
foundation.
4. The trees are shading the pool area. This prevents the pool from
receiving the solar benefits of the sun. The use of the pool is
greatly diminished during the summer months because of the cold
water.
5. During the fall season and after windy days the pool collects all the
leave droppings. Extra filter cleanings and chemicals are needed
to clean the pool. The extra charges are billed to the owner.COLDWeLl.
BANKER
RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE
Roth Amitai & Lee P.anitai
The Amitai Team
11900W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 100
Los Angeles, Ca 90064
(310) 837-1701 (310) 713-5409
August 16, 2006
Lita and Leo Bodner
10890 Arizona Ave.
Culver City, Ca 90232
11900 W OLYMPIC BLVD, SUITE 100
LOS ANGELES, CA 90064
BUS. (310) 447-5500
FAX (310) 447-8527
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bodner:
We were invited to evaluate the value of the property located at 10890 Arizona Avenue
in Culver City. In doing so, we found that the condition and aesthetic of the pool is
decreasing the value of the property.
Three pine trees are located on the westside of the stone wall that surrounds the pool.
The pine needles fall into the pool causing the water to turn green and creating residue.
Danny Ige of Pool Works, who is responsible for maintni-ning the pool, recommends
removing the pine trees in order to correct this problem. One of the trees is also causing
the wall, which surrounds the pool, to crack because the tree is leaning on the wall.
The appearance of the pool as well as the inability to use it is decreasing the value of the
property located at 10890 Arizona Avenue in Culver City. The correction of this
problem would definitely aid in the sale of this property.
Roni Amitni & Lee Amitni
The Amitai Team
32.
Owned And Opeded By ICI Incorporated.Summary of Comparable Properties
Street Address
Beds Baths Sold Date DOM SqFt
listPrice
SoIdPrice
Properties currently for Sale|1010|4121 Minerva Ave
3958 Lamarr Ave
11060 Wagner St|10101010|2.50
2.50
3.00|10 10|37
76
2,647
2,710
2,810
$ 999,000
$ 1,239,000
$ 1,289,000
Sold Properties
Averages 41 2,722 $ 1,175,667
4 4071 Huron Ave 4 3.00 2/10/2006 96 2,562 $ 1,049,000 $ 1,040,000
5 10835 Garland Dr 4 3.00 3/31/2006 20 2,616 $ 1,075,000 $ 1,085,000
6 5908 Stoneview Dr 6 5.00 4/12/2006 218 4,846 $ 1,139,000 $ 1,040,000
7 10856 Garland Dr 4 230 6/13/2006 12 2,508 $ 1,149,000 $ 1,162,000
8 3927 Lamarr—Ave 4 3.00 7/31/2006 10 2,562 $ 1,195,000 $ 1,189,000
9 10738 Molony Rd 4 2.75 5/25/2006 15 2,932 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000
0 5711 Tellefson Rd 4 • 3.00 5/9/2006 25 3,207 $ 1,295,000 $ 1,210,000
4141 Irving P1 6 6.50 7/18/2006 7 4,500 $ 1,449,000 $ 1,418,000
12 10716 Lugo Way 4 2.75 1/6/2006 41 3,237 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,420,100
Averages 49 3,219 $ 1,227,889 $ 1,196,011
33
Irdomation deemed to be reliable although not guaranteed_MLS
W E STLA D REALTY
Bien Tarroza Jr.
Realtor
225 E Badillo St.
Covina, CA 91723
FAX: (626) 974-8711
Cell Phone : (818) 802-9741
email:blen@sbcglobal.net
Bus. : (626) 858-0047
31.Untitled
Joseph Bodner
10890 Arizona Ave.
Culver City Ca, 90232
(310)838-6209
For about the past year I have not been able to
swim in my pool because it is so dirty. I have wanted
to bring my friends over to my house on numerous
occasions to go swimming but we were unable to do so
because it would be unhealthy. I am also unable to
swim for recreation and excercise because it is so green
and murky.
Page 1F
e.,D 714- ic›
Nie-Ar-
&-VYPaNY-1- O.?, Pra,
S 3G
(itRi' bfCIT1 1 C PC i c't 023Z
-k0)
vJZ m.vr, Yq.),
- .E0d 5
17> C) 0
co
icfne, r:/rt
Ver`t,
r9
ter\ok
ccr"
6),irk-tctte.
Cirr
cfr,
(3‘D)
g -
S
N'"),-N
<3 05,r tk-
f .h/ 0.A4
voe: 1DeN LL-h-Ct3
\D 3 G G
C-j\ rQc Crty,
C.,N ) 6102,32_,
C\3\.o) cA_VVcHl•C S
cc,)kd
r
r
L.1
\. ST6 NIN-tii- e)rk. . CAW\ 51
-4\ree, CYN.
315(Signature)
Department: P 61-15-6 a
)61112,-L., Tide: LEO J. BODNER
ESTELITA A. BODNER
10890 ARIZONA AVE.
CULVER CITY, CA 90232
PAY TO THE
ORDER OF (Op 12-,
Washington Mutual
Washington Mutual Hank, PA
Culver City Nnenaal Center 1431
9801 Washington houleYerd 2-goo-7e-7000
Culver City. CA n0230 24 hour Customer Semice
_MEMO 2477
RECEIPT NO.
65975
MUST BE VAL/DATED. THIS RECEIPT IS VOID IF NOT VALIDATED.
CITY OF CULVER CITY
CALIFORNIA
Tran code Account Number Account Name Amount
10 i &(.1000_
1 /I)D
Date H11-11)(r)
Validated:
RECEIVED FROM: L-CD 6-D
The Sum of:
0
J .,mbp_ri, DoLA,A-p-s,
$ DO
(Written Amount) (Numerical Amount)
For the Purpose of:
Receipt Acknowledged By:
Distribution: White-Payor's Yellow-Dept. FileCopyPink-Treasurer's Copy Goldenrod-Accounting CopyPAY TO THE
ORDER OF AJP, Avt
•
Washington Mutual
Washington Minuet Bank, FA
Culver City Financier Center 1431
9801 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, CA 90330
3.-g00-768-700D
24 hour Cummer Sonice
MEMO
LEO J. BODNER
ESTELITA A. BODNER
10890 ARIZONA AVE.
R CRY, CA 90232
2558
DATE 4'00
/061t,01)
6,7/
illr'IDOLLARS
Ll
3. •V.
I s;616AY. ' ,V
P54‘dfa,,,,;:.
'
••• 4
.‘.
„Ty
•
zri
_ 41'4
2stS
, r.U4849tY1. 37 -•,•,!!.•;•:.!0•1.
• • ,
•"A:'
,
. ,
1,Trn
144 .
44 n6
147
-
5 60
leATTACHMENT G
SEPT. 19, 2005
To Whom It May Concern:
This updates our application for a permit to remove 5 trees on Elenda Ave.
We are enclosing a copy of an estimate for doing the service. There
are several cracks on the concrete wall, and the man who did the estimate states
these were caused by the roots of the palm trees. There is also a crack on the concrete
near the swimming pool.
Thank You,
Estelita and Leo BodnerR .E-11—
C I -TY L. 1/ 1 Af2/2 A
S T.
Z I F)
(- 7-) cor
en.
()Cis AJ ;12&7'7C1' Z
- Z Tav--, I
1/17_:" V
/55 r r6k4
-4-14-rn
) fg f t? 6 y.
TREE TRIMMING AND REMOVAL, BRUSH CLEARING
EONDED.
LIABILITY.
WORKERS COMP.
CON. Lic. #6956a4
5632 VAN NUYS BLVD_#485,
VAN Nu ys, CA 91401
TEL: (818) 788 - 1235, (310) 472 -0297,
TEL: (323) 876-6030
ez1
PROPOSAL SAL S1.1 . 13 .01 TTglp 'T
c 14 11 dc5 ir .17
cJJt.
I 1 7
0/U /1/41 PARKS, RECREATION AND
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPt
OCT 17 L.0
ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
cECEIVED
Z006 OCT il /di 9:
. 05
CITY CEa
CITY Of CIILVERCiT
October 17, 2006
City Clerk
Culver City, California
On October 10, 2006, the Culver City Parks and Recreation Commission denied our
request to remove trees on Elenda Avenue adjacent to our property at 10890 Arizona Avenue.
We are appealing that decision and request a hearing before the City Council. We are
limiting our appeal to the one tree which is leaning against our wall, and are enclosing a check
for $50.00.
The Commission requested comments from residents of Studio Estates and Mr. Bruce
Forman, and we were never given an opportunity to view the evidence. We now request a
copy of this evidence, as well as a copy of all comments given to the City Council. This is
absolutely necessary so that we can have procedural due process.
The wall which surrounds the swimming pool is an expensive wall One of the pine trees
is leaning directly on the wall. The Parks and Recreation Commission staff has issued an
excellent report. Note that on the last page the staff states that the pine trees are in the
position of being destructive.
We have submitted evidence showing that there was a sale in Studio Estate on July
31, 2006, for $1,189,000. There is also a letter from a real estate agent, stating that the pine
trees are depressing the value of the property.
A city attorney was present at the hearing. A commissioner asked the attorney whether
the city would be liable if the wall is damaged. Evidently the answer made a difference to this
commissioner. The attorney replied that the answer is uncertain. In any event the city now has
notice that the wall is in a dangerous condition.
We are now in a real catch 22 situation. If the wall is damaged we have a problem.
But we have a much bigger problem if the present condition persists. This is because
the house is not marketable. No one in his right mind would purchase a house when the
wail is in a dangerous condition. Do we have to wait for the wall to fall down before any
action can be taken?
Respectfully yours,
LEO & ESTELITA BODNER
ez--- • ILI-va o
4,0 4, e,424ti.c./
61