Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trees And Streetscape topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public Works Commission approves removal of parkway tree at 2122 Monterey Boulevard, requires two on-site replacements
Summary
The Hermosa Beach Public Works Commission voted to allow the removal of a mature parkway pine at 2122 Monterey Boulevard so a residential redevelopment can remove nonconforming encroachments; the applicant must plant two replacement parkway trees on-site.
Get email alerts on the Trees And Streetscape topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Hermosa Beach Public Works Commission on Wednesday approved removal of a parkway tree in front of 2122 Monterey Boulevard and accepted the property owner’s plan to plant two replacement parkway trees on site.
Staff told commissioners the tree exceeds 12 inches in diameter and sits within a public encroachment area that the property owner must clear as part of a redevelopment that includes pulling back retaining walls and rotating a staircase. The staff report cited Hermosa Beach Municipal Code section 12.16.130 as the governing code for removal as part of a substantial redevelopment over 400 square feet. Staff said retaining-wall and grading constraints make it “extremely difficult if not impossible” to retain the tree while bringing the encroachment area into conformance.
The decision matters because the redevelopment will require the owner to remove nonconforming improvements that currently sit in the public right of way. Staff said the owner proposes to replace the removed tree with two trees at a 2-to-1 ratio, sited slightly to the south on the same frontage and chosen from the city’s approved parkway tree list. The applicant’s representative and the homeowners at 2122 Monterey, Romaine and Tom Levy, attended the hearing; Romaine Levy told the commission the owners were “sad to see a beautiful thriving tree be taken out” but supported the replacement plan.
During deliberations commissioners said the record contained no evidence that the tree was dead or an imminent nuisance. One commissioner said the applicable municipal code provides different grounds for removal and that the justification in this case rests on the code requirement to remove nonconforming encroachments to allow redevelopment; keeping the tree, the commissioner said, would prevent the property owner from completing the required work and would therefore interfere with the owner’s use and enjoyment of the property.
The commission’s motion to accept the staff recommendation to remove the parkway tree and require two replacement trees on site passed. The public record shows the motion was seconded and the chair declared the vote closed with the motion passing.
Next steps: staff said the applicant will proceed with an encroachment permit and coordination for replacement tree planting under the city’s parkway tree standards. The replacement species proposed in the staff materials were listed from the city’s approved parkway list (the presentation showed “Karo” as the proposed species), but staff will finalize species selection with the applicant and verify planting locations and permit requirements before issuing the encroachment permit.
Details and context: staff reported the existing parkway measures as roughly a 5.5-foot sidewalk with a 12.5-foot parkway between the sidewalk and the front property line; the tree stands approximately five feet above sidewalk grade and 8–10 feet behind the sidewalk. Staff said they mailed notices within a 350-foot radius and posted a notice on the tree per standard practice for public notice of tree-hearing items.
The commission’s approval was limited to the tree removal and acceptance of the applicant’s offered mitigation (two on-site parkway trees). Any additional work in the public right of way requires separate encroachment permits and city review.

