CC MINS 20040504MINUTES
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 412004
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. by Mayor Peter Gardiner at Fred Hesse
Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, and was immediately recessed to the
closed session. The meeting reconvened at 7:02 P.M. and Mayor Gardiner stated that
the closed session meeting took longer than anticipated and requested that the budget
workshop be continued to another meeting. Councilman Long moved, seconded by
Councilman Wolowicz,. to continue the budget workshop to a future date and time and
that the regular meeting be called to order. There being no objection, Mayor Gardiner
so ordered.
Roll call was answered as follows:
PRESENT: Clark, Long, Stern, Wolowicz and Mayor Gardiner
ABSENT: None
Also present were City Manager Les Evans; Assistant City Manager Petru; Assistant
City Attorney Carol Lynch; Director of Finance Dennis McLean; Director of Planning,
Building, and Code Enforcement Joel Rojas; Director of Public Works Dean Allison;
Senior View Restoration Coordinator Nelson; City Clerk/Administrative Services Director
Jo Purcell; and Recording Secretary Denise Bothe.
FLAG SALUTE:
Councilman Wolowicz led the flag salute.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Gardiner requested that the Mayor's announcements be moved in front of the
City Manager's Report. There being no objection, Mayor Gardiner so ordered.
RECYCLE DRAWING:
Mayor Gardiner announced the recycle winners for the month of April, Bob Gifford and
Fred Koehler, who will receive checks for $250, which represents a year of free refuse
service. He encouraged everyone to recycle.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Councilman Stern moved that Item 22, Council Direction to the Traffic Committee, be
moved up to coincide with the City Manager's Reports.
City Council Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 1 of 20
There being no objection, Mayor Gardiner so ordered the approval of the Agenda as
modified.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Kathy Snell stated that last Monday, the fissure broke loose under Palos Verdes Drive
South (PVDS), noting that one side sunk and that the other side moved in the opposite
direction; expressed her belief that all of PVDS needs to be resurfaced as opposed to
patching; noted her concern for the safety of those traveling on this roadway; addressed
her opposition to the pipes remaining along the side of the road; and stated that the ski
jump should be corrected and leveled with the rest of the roadway.
Ms. Snell commented on the forthcoming fire season; stated that for the last 4 years,
City staff has told the L.A. County Fire Marshal not to disk across the street from where
she lives; and highlighted her concerns for the safety of the residents in this area of the
hill -- reminding the City that the 1973 fire consumed several homes.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Gardiner commented on the series of mix -ups that lead to a problem with one of
the Traffic Committee meetings; explained for the public that individual members of the
City Council cannot make decisions on behalf of the entire body; advised that policy
direction in the City comes from the City Council when it sits in its duly noticed session;
that the day -to -day operations of the City is managed by the City Manager; and that City
Council provides policy decisions that provide guidance under which the City Manager
conducts City business.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS:
City Manager Evans explained that last weekend, he became aware that there was a
perceived problem with the noticing of the Traffic Committee meeting, which was
scheduled for Monday, April 26, 2004; advised that he checked with the Public Works
Director and verified that there were some problems with noticing activities; stated that
the original signs that were erected noticing the meeting for the Eastview Traffic
Calming Program had the incorrect date; that when the correct date was put on the
sign, the next thing that happened was that staff had neglected to put the meeting
venue on the sign. He advised that this situation was corrected, but that over the
weekend, because of the weather, some of the signs were destroyed. City Manager
Evans stated that he made the decision to advise the Traffic Committee chair that it
would be best to take public testimony at the meeting on April 26th; and then to delay
any decision on the matter until staff was sure that the noticing was correct and that
everyone had an opportunity to speak. He noted that he had contacted City Council
members who had contacted him because of this problem; that he had advised the
Council members of what he had done to correct the situation and to delay any decision
on the part of the Traffic Committee, but explained that somehow the message was
misinterpreted that the Mayor and City Manager had decided to remove the item from
City Council Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 2of20
the agenda and that public testimony would not be taken at the meeting. Taking full
responsibility for the misunderstanding between himself and the Traffic Committee
chair, he pointed out that this was not the message he intended to convey.
As a result of these series of errors, City Manager Evans explained that this addendum
item has been placed on the Council's agenda for this meeting, generated by the
Mayor and Councilman Stern who felt there needed to be some specific direction given
to the Traffic Committee on what the City Council would like them to do in its role as
advisors on traffic matters. He advised that he invited Traffic Committee Chair Ava
Shepherd to be present at this meeting to hear firsthand Council's direction and to
participate in this discussion. He added that there are other members of the Traffic
Committee present also.
Council Direction to the Traffic Committee. (1204 x 1502)
City Manager Evans presented staff report and the recommendation to direct the Traffic
Committee to receive a complete presentation of the proposed South Eastview (Mira
Vista) Traffic Calming Plan at their meeting of May 24, 2004, hear testimony from the
public on the Plan and determine whether or not the Plan should be modified based on:
The information, public testimony and other input obtained either prior to or at any of the
public meetings where the Plan has been addressed;
1. Discussion at the Joint meeting with the City Council on March 30, 2004;
2. The proposal of the Sheriffs Department to implement an enhanced
traffic education and enforcement program;
3. The request from the President of the Terraces HOA that Summerland Avenue
be included in the Plan;
4. The recent request of the Mira Vista HOA that more speed humps be included
in the Plan;
5. Or, for any other proper reason.
The Traffic Committee should not limit its review, testimony, input or discussion
to any specific or narrow issue of the Plan, but should address any and all issues
that were appropriate and consistent with evaluating all the public input, and
reaching a recommendation based upon such input and discussion.
Further, direct the Traffic Committee to forward their recommendation for the
Eastview Traffic Calming Plan to the City Council at such time as they feel all
stakeholders have had adequate input into the Plan and that the Plan offers the
best solution for the City.
City Council Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 3 of 20
City Manager Evans expressed his belief that the joint meeting conducted last month
had resulted in good discussion but that it was now understood Council's direction
needed to be more refined.
Councilman Long noted that the addendum summarized the staff report; and pointed
out that this discussion should not be to address the substance of the traffic problems
but to address the recommendation.
Mayor pro tem Clark voiced his concern with the improper notification and stated that
the staff report had not offered a remedy, questioning whether the Traffic Committee
had been given guidance as to what it should do.
Director Allison expressed staff's belief that the information on the posted signs was
flawed; noted that staff relied on using recycled signs; and advised that new signs have
been ordered and that the practice of using the recycled signs will no longer be
attempted. While staff has made every attempt to overcome the noticing problem,
Director Allison explained that staff cannot guarantee that the wind will not negatively
impact future signs, but pointed out that the City does not strictly rely on signs as a
single means for notification. He added that staff is planning to mail out numerous
postcards to the residents living in a certain distance from Eastview.
Mayor pro tern Clark expressed his belief that there were many residents interested in
this matter who do not live in that stated distance who would like to be informed of the
meetings; and questioned whether the postcard activity would be adequate.
Director Allison stated that the postcards will be mailed to those residents living from the
north end of Palos Verdes Drive East (PVDE) to the switchbacks and all the
neighborhoods along Palos Verdes Drive East, the Eastview area, estimating that 4,000
postcards will be sent out in regard to this matter.
City Manager Evans noted that staff would be doing some other things with these
postcards, such as advising the residents on how to access the City's website to obtain
copies of the Traffic Committee agendas, staff reports, get on the listserve and the
offering of more pertinent information on the City's website. He commented on the
plans to have a representative from the City Attorney's Office present at the meeting to
discuss and answer questions regarding the Brown Act; and noted that this would give
the City an opportunity for the City Attorney's Office to train staff and
commission /committee members on unusual meeting occurrences.
Mayor pro tem Clark suggested that the City institute a practice at the beginning of each
commission /committee term for new chairs /vice- chairs a leadership session focused on
issues concerning Brown Act requirements, meeting protocol, issues to avoid, etc.
Traffic Committee Chair Ava Shepherd noted her support for a leadership workshop for
the committee chairs /vice- chairs and for the implementation of a Traffic Committee web
page on the City's website; and stated that these unfortunate series of events have
City Council Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 4 of 20
brought about some improvements that will be helpful to the residents.
Carol McKinniss, 3274 Crownview Drive, noted her gratitude for those who volunteer
their time on various City committees; and expressed her belief that the Traffic
Committee had not conducted a fair and independent process and that some of its
members have a personal interest in traffic matters. She noted her confusion and
distrust with whether a no left -turn at First Street will be included in the 4 -Step Plan; and
expressed her belief that because of some of the communications between the City and
the City of Los Angeles on this matter, staff has already decided how this issue would
be resolved. She expressed her belief that it is only the school traffic that makes this a
heavily traveled road.
In response to Councilman Stern's inquiry regarding closed sessions, City Attorney
Lynch stated that the Traffic Committee only meets in open public session, that it has no
closed session meetings.
Director Allison explained that First Street is still located in the City of Los Angeles and
that City staff is making every attempt to keep the City apprised of the issue within this
City; and he stated that City staff has acted appropriately in its communications with the
City.
Mayor pro tem Clark highlighted the speaker's reference to a perception that the Traffic
Committee has been compromised by its membership and questioned if the City has
any restrictions in place whereby residents may not serve on a particular body. In
response, City Attorney Lynch explained that Council has not established any
restrictions as far as zones within the City where a resident may not serve on any
committee.
Mayor pro tern Clark commented on the rule for recusal should a committee member
live within a certain distance of a project or have a potential financial conflict of interest.
City Attorney Lynch noted that the recusal rule applies to the Traffic Committee;
explained that the rule established by State law is that a person is presumed to have a
conflict of interest if their property is within 500 feet of a proposed project; and noted
that because of the parameters of this traffic flow, this case presents a more difficult
gauge with which to find a conflict of interest; but noted that it is clear that if a Traffic
Committee member lives in this neighborhood, they should recuse themselves from
consideration. She highlighted the Equestrian Committee's recusal rule for conflict of
interest matters.
Traffic Committee Chair Ava Shepherd stated that the question of recusal was put forth
to the City at the last meeting, but that the City Attorney's Office at that time was not
able to find any particular law that would require a Traffic Committee member to recuse
themselves, but noted her concern with the perception of conflict of interest.
Councilman Long pointed out that there are many people outside of the neighborhood
City Council Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 5 of 20
that routinely travel this roadway.
City Attorney Lynch stated that she would research the recusal structure further and get
that information back to Council, staff and the Committee.
Joan Russell, 28978 Palos Verdes Drive East, noted her support for conducting the
meeting at Miraleste Middle School; expressed her belief that a lot of the traffic is
generated from the school activities; and stated that the website would be very helpful in
curbing the residents' frustration.
Sherri Poma, 28978 Palos Verdes Drive East, commented on the unfortunate events
that occurred to make the residents angry and mistrustful of the Traffic Committee and
the City; and suggested that the entire process start all over from the beginning. She
stated that it still is not clear whether First Street will be included in the Plan.
Ms. Poma clarified for Mayor pro tem Clark that she was told by Mr. Jones at the door
Monday evening that the matter had been taken off the agenda; stated that the
residents should be given a copy of the plans; and expressed her belief that the studies
were not fair or honest. She stated that with the implementation of the Plan, Western
Avenue would be negatively impacted.
James Jones, 2747 Vista Mesa Drive, Traffic Committee member, stated that the Traffic
Committee needed Council direction to be clarified; commented on the poor
communications that resulted in these unfortunate events; and explained that 10
minutes before the Monday evening meeting was to begin, he stood outside the
meeting room as a courtesy to those attendees coming to the meeting to let them know
that that matter, according to his understanding, was not going to be discussed. He
advised that he went back into the meeting room once the meeting started and that it
was evident people outside were getting the message that the matter was not going to
be discussed and that the residents were not happy with the cancellation. He
expressed his understanding that there was no intent to close off First Street, only that it
was discussed and ruled out. He expressed his belief that broad notification is
necessary, and pointed out that anyone wishing to know what is on the Traffic
Committee agenda can freely obtain a copy of the agenda from the City — pointing out
that there had been no attempt to hide the Committee's agenda. He stated that there
have been no closed session meetings by the Traffic Committee. He advised that
"traffic calming" is a term that is used worldwide; and noted that the 4 -step Plan which
was published took into consideration all those who may be impacted by the changes.
He stated that the Traffic Committee has worked very hard on this issue and that it has
attempted to include all the best evidence in making its decision. He noted that if the
Council wants the Traffic Committee to hold more public hearings on this issue, the
Committee would be willing, but pointed out that the Committee may just come up with
the same decision.
Councilman Stern asked City Attorney Lynch to provide input on the act of pulling an
item off an agenda. In response, City Attorney Lynch explained that a body can take an
City Council Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 6 of 20
item off the agenda as an official act of a body in public session, but added that the
public does have an opportunity to address that item. She noted that such as in this
case, there are times when it has been determined that a notification error has been
made and that a certain matter must be pulled from an agenda until the proper
posting /notification procedure has been met.
Councilman Wolowicz noted his support for the improvements to the City's website and
suggested that a permanent statement be included on the website agendas about the
general rules /procedures for pulling items off an agenda.
Barry Hildebrand, 3560 Vigillance Drive, thanked Councilman Wolowicz for attending
the Ladera Linda Homeowners Association Annual meeting and for providing a nice
presentation. He expressed his belief that the only people that should be officially
notified of the next Traffic Committee meeting should be those who live in Mira Vista,
the condominiums on Western Avenue at Summerland Avenue, the property owners
across the Summerland Avenue alley from the condos, and all those residents who live
on the streets that empty out onto Miraleste Drive, below Via Colinita —that anything
more than that would be overkill and a waste of taxpayer funds. Mr. Hildebrand stated
for Mayor pro tem Clark that these residents are the only stakeholders in this matter.
Mayor pro tem Clark noted his opposition to that opinion.
Libby Aubrey, 29433 Indian Valley Drive, noted her support of the Traffic Committee's
efforts thus far; stated that there is need for Brown Act education for the various
commissions /committees; and suggested that the Traffic Committee meetings be
posted on the community bulletin board on Channel 3, believing that this will reach a
greater mass than that of the postcards. She noted her preference to conduct the
Traffic Committee meeting at the Hesse Park where there is a better sound system and
stated that the Hesse Park location creates a better controlled environment.
Kristine Denton thanked the Public Works staff and the Traffic Committee for their
efforts thus far; with the use of a map, she highlighted the areas that were notified for
various traffic calming discussions; pointed out that notification activities have exceeded
more than what is legally required; and expressed her support of City staff keeping L.A.
City staff informed on what is going on with this issue. She stated that when the Traffic
Committee passed the Plan, there was no one on the Committee who lived in the
subject neighborhood. Ms. Denton explained that the request from Mira Vista
Homeowners Association is not only for more speed humps, but also for center island
entrance treatments coming into the community. She asked that both these issues be
addressed; and noted her support for conducting the meeting at Hesse Park.
Ms. Denton noted for Councilman Long that she was speaking on behalf of the Mira
Vista HOA and also as a resident and clarified that the handout she distributed to
Council was a memo that had been circulated in the community — noting that it
contained false statements. She stated that she does not know who wrote the
inaccurate memo. Ms. Denton noted that the Mira Vista HOA contacted numerous
HOA's in the City to answer any questions and to provide them with a copy of the Plan.
City Council Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 7 of 20
Mayor Gardiner noted that those interested in this matter could look at the Plan on the
City's website; and that they could attend the meetings and provide input.
Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor pro tem Clark, to adopt staff
recommendation and that the meeting be conducted at Hesse Park so that it can be
taped.
Councilman Long noted his support for the motion. He stated that, in essence, Council
is implicitly saying that they disagree with a portion of the Traffic Calming Manual that
would define notice only to those people in the precise neighborhood being affected and
the areas where the traffic is increased -- pointing out that the Traffic Committee
appropriately followed the existing City Council policy. He stated that he had been
persuaded that there had been a problem in not giving notice to those residents who are
affected by their travels in the City, but agreed that the result could be the same or very
similar even after considering the additional evidence. He expressed his belief that
those living in the affected neighborhoods should be given heavier consideration than
those who only travel through the area.
Councilman Stern stated that it is up to the Traffic Committee to re- evaluate parts of this
issue and noted that Council is not dictating an outcome.
Mayor Gardiner agreed that this is more of a procedural matter.
Mayor pro tem Clark stated that the City Council will make the final decision.
There being no objection to the motion, Mayor Gardiner so ordered.
Councilman Wolowicz stated that a lot of hard work had gone into this process; that this
should not cast any negative shadow on that hard work performed by the consultant
and by the Traffic Committee and noted that he is appreciative of the efforts that have
gone into this project thus far.
RECESS AND RECONVENE
The meeting was recessed at 8:40 P.M. and reconvened at 8:50 P.M.
Item No. 15 was considered out of Agenda order.
Resol. No. 2003 -32: Appeal of View Restoration Permit No. 138. (1806 x 1203)
City Clerk Purcell highlighted the late correspondence from Karen and Ray Perrault and
a late email correspondence that had been provided to the Council.
Mayor Gardiner opened the public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision regarding View Restoration Permit No. 138.
City Council Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 8 of 20
Senior View Restoration Coordinator Nelson presented staff report and the
recommendation to ADOPT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL,
THEREBY AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
APPROVING VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 138 UPON FINDING THAT ALL
APPLICABLE FINDINGS HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY MADE AND ALL PROVISIONS
OF SECTION 17.02.040 HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH.
Senior View Restoration Coordinator Nelson explained that in making the determination,
she stood at the viewing area level, at the elevated outdoor patio above the pool; that
another City staff member was in the boom; that they utilized a two -way radio to
communicate; that the boom was lifted to the approximate level of the viewing area; and
that that staff member took pictures to show what was actually visible on the other side
of the trees. She stated that staff essentially tried to put the boom at the same elevation
as the viewing area.
Councilman Wolowicz questioned the location of the boom bucket over the backyard.
Ms. Nelson noted for Councilman Wolowicz that the truck was parked on the street at
the corner, just outside where the trees are located; stated pictures had been taken
from that area; and advised that staff had determined that yes, one could see the ocean
and the coastline from the other side of those trees.
Ms. Nelson noted for Mayor Gardiner that the large tree in the background of the
photograph was laced at the time the pictures were taken; that the tree is laced
annually; and that the tree is subject to the City's view ordinance.
She noted for Councilman Stern that she had not seen the letter written by the
Perraults.
Councilman Stern noted that the Perrault letter indicates "...we would like to go on
record to say that we do not now have, or ever did have, any agreement, written, verbal
or implied, between the Perrault family and the Quall family concerning the trimming of
our trees. Accordingly, we hereby state that we, or any person in control of said trees in
the future, do not agree to trim, feather, lace or remove said trees unless we do so for
our own personal reasons."
In response, Ms. Nelson stated that that was not what the Perraults had verbally
indicated to staff in the first pre - application meeting and not what was verbally indicated
to staff at the first public hearing before the Planning Commission.
Ms. Nelson noted that when the pictures were taken, one could see the ocean through
the trees on that day, but that since then, the row of trees, along with the trees on the
Perrault property, have grown in heavily and that one could barely see the ocean at this
time. She noted that the Planning Commission agreed with staff and that the
Commission had issued a decision that the trees be laced, trimmed or removed.
City Council Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 9 of 20
Ms. Nelson stated that in the photographs taken on this date, one could see the
difference in growth from 15 months ago when the first photographs were taken. She
noted that the ocean could be seen when standing at a certain location. She explained
that an old photograph was just found looking through the Tentative Tract Map (TTM)
file for this property; advised that the public hearings for the TTM occurred around 1976
to 1978 and that the photographs were used by staff then to show the site had little
foliage.
City Attorney Lynch opined that it is not appropriate for the Council to try to enforce its
ordinances, which the City is charged with enforcing, in deference to a contract clause
provision; and that this issue is now between the applicant and the HOA.
Councilman Stern stated that it is not appropriate for this City to be in the business of
interpreting private contracts or CC &R's; suggested that it might be appropriate to put
some wording in the City's view guidelines to alert residents to the fact if they claim
contractual rights that address view, those will not be adjudicated by the City; and
stated that the City only adjudicates its ordinance. He further suggested that the
resolution should clearly indicate that the City does not make any determination on the
claim that the CC &R's or any other private contract precludes a City ordinance.
Councilman Stern stated that on Saturday, he met with representatives of the HOA, Ms.
Campbell and Dr. Melendez. Councilman Stern questioned if the Perrault vegetation
beyond the HOA trees is subject to the City's view ordinance. Director Rojas stated that
if the applicant applied for a permit, the Perrault vegetation would be subject to being
cut.
City Attorney Lynch mentioned that if the foliage was pre- existing as of the time the
subdivision /lot was created, assuming all this happened before the ordinance was
adopted, then that foliage, if it was already existing and already impaired a view, that
view impairing foliage would be allowed to remain.
Councilman Stern questioned if there is any photo that reflects any vegetation that
impaired the view when the lot was created in 1979.
City Attorney Lynch stated that another provision of the ordinance states that even
assuming if one has foliage that impaired a view as of that time, that foliage was still not
allowed to grow taller and increase the impairment and diminish the view.
Kathy Campbell, Rancho Palos Verdes Estates resident for over 18 years, Chair of the
Architectural Review Committee, stated that her comments would be made on behalf of
herself as a resident and as a member of the HOA. Ms. Campbell stated that the
applicant cannot argue that he has a view that needs to be restored because he
expressly consented to the view impairment when he purchased his property — noting
that there is documentation to support that agreement and waiver. She advised that the
applicant admitted at the Planning Commission meeting that he would have a better
City Council Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 10 of 20
view after the trees were trimmed than what he had when he first purchased the
property. She pointed out that the City's ordinance was designed to protect reasonable
expectations; advised that the HOA has acted in the past to restore views within its
community; that the cases in which the HOA has failed to find view obstructions has
uniformly involved instances where a homeowner has tried to acquire, improve or
enhance their view at the expense of the entire community by destroying community
assets for personal gain. Ms. Campbell stated that it is not reasonable to purchase a
residence without a view and then seek to acquire a view, especially after one has
signed a waiver, CC &R's, and an agreement to maintain the integrity of the entryway
trees. She pointed out that the HOA is not asking to deprive the applicant of his rights;
stated that once these trees are drastically cut, there is no legal remedy that can or will
restore the entryway landscape that is widely viewed on an everyday basis by the
community at large; and noted that once these trees are cut, there is nothing to stop the
applicant from selling the home.
Ms. Campbell stated that if the City were to require the HOA to trim or remove the trees,
the City would be impairing the HOA contract that exists between the HOA and the
applicant and that that would be a misuse of the City's ordinance. She expressed her
belief that staff report fails to make the mandatory findings under Section 17.02.040C2c
of the ordinance because of relying on inaccurate information that dealt with a defunct
plan for a 280 -unit town home development on this site. She stated that the HOA
development is 76 units, a planned unit development for which construction began in
late 1983, early 1984; that to the best of her knowledge, it had to be rezoned to single -
family residential; and that as a condition of approval, a new grading and landscaping
plan had to be submitted than what was required for the defunct 280 -unit project. She
stated that both the landscaping and grading plans required the approval of the City;
and that the approval of the landscaping was a prerequisite to the approval of the entire
development. She stated that the landscaping plan was approved on October 18, 1983;
and that since they were approved, the landscaping lots were created concurrently.
She noted that the declaration was recorded on April 25, 1985.
Ms. Campbell advised that there is also reason to believe that the foliage may have
been present at the time the lots were created for this development; pointed out that the
ordinance requires that the applicant establish that foliage did not exist before the lots
were created — expressing her belief that neither the applicant nor the City can
bootstrap into this finding by using different reports from a different developer for a
different project; and stated that the City should use accurate records related to this
development. Even if the foliage was present when the lots were created -- stating that
the HOA is not conceding this point -- the ordinance provides the view restoration only
when there is significant view impairment from the viewing area. She stated that staff
report concludes without analysis that the view impairment is significant; that the HOA
rejects that conclusion because the trees in question are located at the very edge of the
view frame; and noted that foliage located in the center of the view frame is more likely
to be found to create a significant view impairment than the foliage located on the outer
edge of the view frame.
City Council Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 11 of 20
Ms. Campbell pointed out that even if the trees are trimmed, the trees across the street
would continue to impair the ocean view -- pointing out that staff report ignores this
issue even though the background prepared by staff addresses this problem; stated that
the applicant in his request for a permit admits that the trees are over 60 years old. She
expressed her belief that the ocean view is not taken from the viewing area, that the
photos relied upon by staff were not taken from the viewing area. She noted that there
is proof that a potential home purchaser who viewed the home in 1997 had declined to
purchase the house because of the lack of an ocean view; and noted that there is a
letter that indicates that an ocean view was not visible in 2000. She advised that the
burden is on the applicant; and that it is her opinion the applicant has not met this
burden.
Ms. Campbell expressed her belief that the conditions of approval imposed by the
Planning Commission exceed the permissible remedies under the July 2003 guidelines
for the City's View Restoration Ordinance and that it results in unnecessary,
burdensome, additional expense to the HOA, and ultimate death of these trees. She
noted confusion with the applicant seeking to ultimately destroy the entryway
landscaping that is enjoyed by the entire HOA. At a minimum, she stated that the
Council must require that the mandatory findings be made; that the applicant and the
City must produce correct and accurate records relative to the foliage dates; and that
the City should require that the photos which were used to document this view be
accurate by allowing the HOA to provide input into the placement of the camera to
document this view. She stated that the City Council should direct staff to deny all view
restoration applications when there has been an expressed waiver and consent to view
impairment.
Ms. Campbell advised that the HOA has made many attempts to resolve this issue on
numerous occasions by offering to remove Tree No. 1 from the view frame -- an offer
that goes beyond what is required by the ordinance; and noted that this removal would
dramatically improve the applicant's view. She questioned whether photos, which pre-
date an application, should be used to establish a view.
Senior View Restoration Coordinator Nelson explained that the photos were taken in the
pre - application process so staff could see exactly what was being requested; and that
these pictures were not used to establish the viewing area, that they were only used as
an attempt to see what was beyond the trees.
Councilman Stern questioned if the HOA has any particular preference for the trees in
question.
In response to Councilman Stern's inquiry, Ms. Campbell stated that the HOA is willing
to remove Tree No. 1 and willing to trim or feather the remaining trees; and stated that
heavily lacing Tree Nos. 4 and 5 would result in destroying the trees. Ms. Campbell
stated that there is something to be said for holding people to their word and
discouraging disputes which result in litigation; explained that the waiver originated
because it was in response to Proposition M and in response to a previous problem that
City Council Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 12 of 20
the HOA had with someone buying a less expensive interior lot and then trying to
remove all the common area trees to upgrade their view — pointing out the lack of
fairness to the rest of the 75 property owners in the community. She reiterated that with
respect to this particular lot, the buyer was fully informed and was aware that he waived
his rights to an ocean view.
Dale Spiegel, 2 Paseo de Pino, stated that the City's ordinance has a valid purpose, but
that its purpose is ill- served and misapplied in this instance; and noted that Mr. Qualls
walked into this situation on his own merit and knew he gave up any rights to an ocean
view, a voluntary impairment. He stated that there are no pictures of this lot having an
ocean view, that it never had one; noted that the trees were there before the house was
built, before the grading of the lot occurred; and noted that all the HOA is asking is for
the City to recognize this fact.
Councilman Long stated that this is a private contractual rights issue that the City
should not be spending public funds on to enforce, that this issue involves the applicant
and the HOA; and that there is no issue between the City and the HOA.
Councilman Stern stated that the Council is not making any determination as to the
contractual rights within the CC &R's, what they mean, or what rights the HOA has
against the homeowner; and that the City's resolution should make it clear that the City
has not ruled one way or the other on the contract. He questioned if there are any
materials in Council's possession this evening that says when the lot was created.
Senior View Restoration Coordinator Nelson noted for Councilman Stern that Finding 7
notes when the lot was created, Section 7, page 147 and also page 127, noting that it
was created in 1979.
Director Rojas noted that staff has double- checked the accuracy of that date.
Mayor pro tem Clark stated that a fundamental point is that the lot came into existence
when the Tentative Tract Map was recorded and questioned if there is any proof of any
foliage on this property at that time.
Mr. Spiegel noted for Mayor pro tem Clark that there is no proof of any foliage on that
property at that time.
Dr. Ron Melendez, representing the HOA, stated that heavily lacing Tree Nos. 2 through
5 would endanger their health and impair their beauty; expressed the HOA's belief that
the photographs presented by staff do not accurately represent the view from the
viewing area; and he distributed some pictures which he believed were straight out from
the viewing area. He stated that he took the pictures from the cherry picker boom,
angling downward, and placed the boom so that the bottom of the boom was about at
the height of the grade level of the lot, not the viewing area. He stated that staff's
pictures and his are in stark contrast to each other and that his pictures illustrate that
there is no quality view. He explained that the reason Tree Nos. 2 and 3 are involved
City Council Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 13 of 20
are for purposes of restoring the city lights view, not the ocean view -- pointing out that
the city lights view is the view to be had at this location. He stated that the HOA is
willing to remove Tree No. 1 to restore that important city light view; expressed his belief
that the removal of Tree Nos. 2 and 3 are in the very periphery of that view and that
they do not add anything significant to the view; and stated that if the bottom parts of
those trees were to be cut, it would give the tree a mushroom like appearance and look
unappealing. He reiterated that the HOA has suggested feathering all the trees, noting
that from the very beginning, the HOA has offered to compromise; and pointed out that
this is unfair to the other residents in the community. Given that the hedge and
eucalyptus trees beyond this community have substantially grown since staff took their
pictures, he believes that the City should support the original compromise of removing
Tree No. 1 and lacing Tree Nos. 2 through 5, or at the very least, to give the HOA the
benefit of the doubt and have the view re- evaluated in a more scientific /professional
fashion before making a decision that will permanently damage or destroy their
landmark entryway.
Director Rojas noted for Councilman Stern that the hedge and eucalyptus would be
subject to view restoration if an application were made.
Mayor Gardiner thanked Ms. Campbell for showing him around the subject site; noted
that his impression was that there is an enormous view of the city and perhaps down
toward Long Beach; and questioned if the Council, under the provisions of the
ordinance, is allowed to find that there is not a significant view.
Director Rojas stated that the Council is permitted to make that finding if it so deems
appropriate.
Councilman Long noted his concern that in that case, Council would be implicitly
concluding that obliteration of an ocean view is not significant and asked if the City has
ever made that conclusion on a view application. Staff was not able to cite a specific
case.
Councilman Stern stated that the main issue is whether there is significant view
impairment, whether it be ocean or city lights.
Reginal Qualls, applicant, stated that the property sales manager told him that there
was a significant view on this site; that the view could be pursued through Proposition M
to be restored; and expressed his belief that both the ocean view and the city lights view
are significant. He stated that before the pictures were taken, there was a tremendous
view and that because of this lengthy process, the foliage now blocks most of the views.
He stated that he has the right to the ocean view as a taxpaying resident; and urged the
Council to support the Planning Commission's finding.
Councilman Stern asked Mr. Qualls if he has any photographs taken from his home that
shows the ocean view from the viewing area.
City Council Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 14 of 20
Mr. Qualls responded that he handed over to the HOA and the Planning Commission
the only pictures he had and that those pictures should be in his file with City staff.
Senior View Restoration Coordinator Nelson stated that most of Mr. Qualls'
photographs were taken from the upstairs master bedroom and one was taken from the
kitchen.
Clara Duran -Reed, 30652 Palos Verdes Drive East, highlighted the importance of the
views to the peninsula residents; and noted her concern with the precedent the Council
will set if it should say that there is no significant view because the trees are on the
edge. She stated that the Planning Commission took the position that there was a
significant ocean view and that the only question should be how best to restore that
view. She urged the Council not to set a precedent to further diminish these valuable
views; and questioned at what point does one say that the ocean, Catalina, or the city
lights is not that important and that the views should not be maintained.
There being no further audience input, Mayor Gardiner closed the public hearing.
Councilman Long moved to adopt staff recommendation and to deny the appeal.
Councilman Stern noted his preference to have the view guidelines before he moved
forward on this issue.
For purposes of discussion, Mayor Gardiner seconded the motion.
Councilman Stern reiterated that the resolution should be modified to clearly state that
the Council has not made any determination with regard to the contractual claims
between the HOA and the applicant.
Councilman Long moved that the amendment to the resolution be included in his
motion.
Councilman Wolowicz noted that he had visited this site; stated that the issue of view is
very important to a homeowner; noted his discomfort that the applicant signed an
agreement to abide by the CC &R's — pointing out that it is his understanding Mr. Qualls
not only signed that agreement once when he bought the home, but that he signed that
agreement again when the wall issue came up. He stated that left to him on that one
issue, he would side with the HOA; but stated that because this is not a City issue at
this point, he would side with the Planning Commission to restore the ocean view. He
stated that the issue regarding the CC &R's could and should be tested in a court of law
and noted that he is troubled that it may end up in litigation.
Mayor Gardiner noted his opposition to the motion; expressed his belief that the issue is
not one of loss of view; stated that he does not believe the applicant has a significant
view given the vast panorama that's currently up there.
City Council Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 15 of 20
Mayor pro tem Clark stated that this case does center on whether the view is significant;
that based upon the testimony and information provided, he stated that he is not
compelled to believe that the peripheral view impacted by Tree Nos. 2 through 5
represent a significant view impairment; but that he does believe Tree No. 1, which the
HOA has offered to remove to improve the homeowner's view, is in his opinion part of a
significant view.
Councilman Long noted his conclusion that there is a significant view impairment on this
property.
RECESS AND RECONVENE
Mayor Gardiner recessed the meeting at 10:33 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at
10:38 P.M.
Councilman Long noted that he had not participated in this matter while he was a
member of the Planning Commission.
Mayor pro tem Clark explained that the City Council in 1996 added to the ordinance a
qualifier of significance and found that there were cases where applicants were
attempting to exploit the ordinance to fundamentally create a clear -cut view from their
property throughout this City; and that it became clear to the elected leadership of the
City at that time and clear to those executing the provisions of Proposition M that a
qualifier with reasonable judgment was necessary; and stated that for that same reason
in this particular case, he firmly believed that the action as proposed by staff and the
Planning Commission was not the appropriate action. He stated that the significant
view impairment is not on the periphery; and that removing Tree No. 1 clears up any
question of significant view impairment for the applicant, which is the right and fair
decision to make.
Councilman Stern asked staff if they viewed from the viewing area the coastline.
Senior View Restoration Coordinator Nelson stated that she could see the coastline and
the ocean.
Councilman Stern questioned if the City analyzed the view as if one could see all the
way through no matter what vegetation exists, or does the City analyze other view
blockages.
Senior View Restoration Coordinator Nelson stated that when this application was filed,
staff encouraged the applicant to add the Perrault's vegetation; and noted that at that
time, the Perraults were willing to trim their trees.
Councilman Wolowicz asked if the Perrault's trees would need to be trimmed before the
applicant could see the ocean from the view area.
City Council Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 16 of 20
Director Rojas noted that the foliage on the adjoining property is much thicker than it
was when staff did its original assessment; and that staff believed there will be a need
for additional foliage trimming on the neighboring property to get the view staff saw in
the February 2003 photo.
Senior View Restoration Coordinator Nelson stated that all the trees across the street
are over the 16 -foot requirement, estimating they are 20 to 25 feet high.
Councilman Stern briefly highlighted the slope of that lot and the ridgeline.
Councilman Long questioned if staff judged significant impairment of view at the time of
the application or did staff continue to look at the growth during the process.
Senior View Restoration Coordinator Nelson noted that it is based on the time of
application.
The motion to uphold the Planning Commission's decision, to deny the appeal, and to
ADOPT AS AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -32 DENYING THE APPEAL,
THEREBY AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
APPROVING VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 138 UPON FINDING THAT ALL
APPLICABLE FINDINGS HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY MADE AND ALL PROVISIONS
OF SECTION 17.02.040 HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH resolution carried as follows:
AYES:
Long, Stern and Wolowicz
NOES:
Clark and Mayor Gardiner
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
City Attorney Lynch recommended amending Section 7 by adding a reference that staff
on this date located in the City files a photograph of the area that was taken in the late
1970's which demonstrated that the view impairing foliage was not present on the site at
the time the lot was created; that a new Section 10 be added, to be renumbered
accordingly, that City Council determination does not affect or supersede the CC &R's or
any other agreement between the applicant and the HOA or the ability of the parties to
enforce any such contractual provisions or appropriate legal remedies and procedures.
Noting the late hour, Mayor pro tem Clark moved to continue the remaining agenda
items to tomorrow evening.
For purposes of discussion, Mayor Gardiner seconded the motion.
At this point, City Attorney Lynch stated that she needed to add one additional section
that related to the time period for challenging Council's action.
Councilman Long moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, that the additional language
City Council Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 17 of 20
be added to the resolution. There being no objection, Mayor Gardiner so ordered.
Councilman Long moved that the speakers present to address Item No. 18 be heard,
Girls Softball Fields, making everyone mindful that there is a recommendation on the
agenda, that it is the Council's current inclination to adopt that recommendation and ask
that the speakers address that recommendation as opposed to the merits of the fields.
Mayor pro tem Clark asked that Councilman Long's motion be included in his motion as
a friendly amendment.
Councilman Stern noted his opposition to limiting the speakers' input to the
recommendation.
Councilman Long withdrew his motion to limit the scope of the speaker's input.
Agenda Item No. 18 was considered out of Agenda order.
Girls' Softball Fields Feasibility Study. (1201)
With the aid of a power point presentation, Assistant City Manager Petru presented the
staff report and the recommendation to direct staff on how to proceed in developing up
to four girls' softball fields on City property.
The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tern recommend that the City Council set a date and time for
an adjourned meeting to tour each of the proposed sites and receive testimony from the
Girls' Softball leadership and the adjacent neighborhoods regarding the suitability, or
lack thereof, of each site to accommodate softball fields.
Councilman Stern questioned the need for snack shacks at the softball fields.
Assistant City Manager Petru stated that the Peninsula Youth Sports Council
specifically requested that the plans include shack shacks because the proceeds are
used as a fund raising mechanism to maintain the fields.
Todd Anderson, representing the Peninsula Youth Sports Council, stated that he has
waited a long time for this presentation; commended staff for its excellent job in
evaluating these sites; and asked that as site visits are conducted by the Council, that
Council keep in mind what the actual needs are, what the actual utilization is and how it
all functions. He noted that participants would bring their food to the parks at times, but
explained that the snack shacks generate enough revenue for field maintenance, which
is a significant amount of revenue. He stated that the Girls Softball League deals with
children from the ages of 6 years old to 14 years old. and recommended Saturday, May
22nd, closing day for the softball league, as the day for the Council to tour.
Councilman Wolowicz noted his preference that the fields have multiple uses; and that
they be able to accommodate adult leagues if possible.
City Council Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 18 of 20
Mr. Anderson stated that adult league fields are significantly larger in size than that for
the youth.
Councilman Long asked that the selection of fields proportionately and reasonably fit
this City's share of the overall Peninsula needs.
Mayor pro tem Clark asked that some youth sports leadership be present on the tour
and noted that the Council is already booked for a conference on May 22nd.
Councilman Stern complimented staff on this presentation.
Councilman Wolowicz addressed his desire for future discussion of fund raising efforts,
noting that he would like to participate.
Lisa Carol suggested that the Council tour the fields next Saturday or the following
Saturday; she advised that there were currently 42 teams playing this year at 4 fields
that are dedicated just for girls softball. She stated that 3 of these fields are extremely
small and addressed the need for regulation size fields. Ms. Carol stated that practice
fields are also in short supply.
Wendy Klashman commented on the health and psychological benefits derived by the
girls who play sports; and noted that the snack shacks are very beneficial to the fund-
raising efforts of the league.
Juan Torres stated that there is not only a strong need for girls' softball fields on the
peninsula, but also for all recreational fields on the Peninsula and throughout the nation;
he addressed the increasing rate of obesity in the youth population nationwide and
stated that these facilities are vital for the health of the nation's children; and noted his
desire to see 4 additional girls softball fields on the Peninsula.
Joe McGuiness, president of the Palos Verdes Girls' Softball League, which represents
450 girls, expressed his appreciation for this City's commitment to this cause;
emphasized the growing demand for additional sports facilities for the area youth; and
urged the Council to seek a location that will provide adequate space. He
complimented staff on their efforts.
Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor pro tem Clark, to set a date and time for
the Council to make site - visits and that the Council members give City Manager Evans
available dates to schedule the tour. No objection was noted.
Michael Tom noted support for additional recreational facilities.
City Council Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 19 of 20
ADJOURNMENT:
At 12:09 A.M. the City Council meeting was adjourned to Wednesday, 7:30 P.M. to
conclude the remainder of the agenda. Motion made by Mayor Pro Tern Clark.
Attest:
W:\2004 City Council Minutes \05042004 CC MINS.doc
City Council Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 20 of 20