Loading...
PC MINS 20080325 Approved Apri 22, 200 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANING COMMIISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MARCH 25, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perestam at 7:07 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Ruttenberg led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Knight, Lewis, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, and Chairman Perestam. Absent: Commissioner Tomblin was excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, City Attorney Lynch, City Arborist Dave Hayes, Senior Planner Alvarez, Senior Planner Schonborn, Assistant Planner Kim, and Assistant Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Since he and Commissioner Ruttenberg must recuse themselves from Agenda Items 3 and 4, Chairman Perestam suggested hearing Agenda Items 5 and 6 after Items 1 and 2. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that the appeal of the Planning Commission's determination on the View Restoration Permit on Rolling Ridge Road has still not been formally decided upon by the City Council, and will be re-noticed and heard before the City Council at their June 17th meeting. 1. Selection of Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission Commissioner Tetreault nominated Commissioner Lewis for the Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission, and Commissioner Gerstner nominated Commissioner Ruttenberg. Since the vote ended in a 3-3 tie, Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue this item to the next Planning Commission meeting when all Commissioners are present, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (6-0) COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) None CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Height Variation Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2006-00653): 6930 Hedgewod Drive Commissioner Knight moved to continue the item the meeting of April 22, 2008 as requested by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (6-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Six-month review of Conditional Use Permit, Sian Permit, and Site Plan Review(Case No. ZON2005-00294): 31186 Hawthorne Boulevard Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, stating that the business has been in operation since August 2007 and that since it has been open staff has not observed any non-compliances in regards to the Conditions of Approval. He stated that staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve the six-month review via minute order. Commissioner Tetreault asked if there has been any public feedback regarding the 7-11 and the six-month review. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that there has not been any public feedback. The Planning Commissioners all expressed their pleasure on how well the 7-11 blends into the Golden Cove shopping center and the asset it has been to the community. Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the six-month review as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. Minutes of March 11, 2008 Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (5-0-1) with Chairman Perestam abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2008 Page 2 CONTINUED BUSINESS (cont) 3. View Restoration Permit(Case No. VRP2006-00007): 3103, 3109, 3117, 3125, 3131, and 3139 Dianora Drive, and 3102 Corinna Drive Commissioner Ruttenberg and Chairman Perestam recused themselves from this item, as well as Item No. 4, as they both live in the immediate neighborhood. They left the dais. Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report, explaining that the Planning Commission had asked at the previous meeting that the City Attorney respond to the issues raised by the attorney representing two of the foliage owners regarding statutes of limitations. The Planning Commission had also asked that the City Arborist comment on the height and growth rates of certain trees that are in the view, as well as additional information from staff regarding the maintenance of certain trees. He stated that staff has not changed their opinion that the trees recommended for trimming were not view impairing trees at the time the applicant's lots were created with the exception of tree Nos. 19 through 21. Commissioner Knight asked staff to clarify which trees are recommended to be replaced with a 24-inch box as requested by Mr. Parker, and which trees are being recommended to be replaced with 15 gallon sized trees. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that staff is recommending 15 gallon size trees as replacement for the recommended removal of three Eucalyptus trees (tree Nos. 28 through 30), noting that the Eucalyptus trees in question do not appear to be mature size trees and are not focal points on the foliage owners property. He stated that staff is recommending the other removed trees in the application be replaced with a 24-inch box size tree. Commissioner Knight asked staff if, in terms of ongoing maintenance, each individual property owner will be able to ask staff to enforce the view restoration decision. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that after the foliage has been trimmed or removed staff will document the view from each of the applicant's properties. He stated that it will be up to each individual property owner to contact the City if there is an issue with the maintenance of the foliage. Commissioner Knight asked staff to clarify the different pad elevations and height differentials relative to the discussion of the height of the trees in 1961, the year the applicants' lots were created. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that the foliage on the tree owners' properties are not confined to their building pads and are at different elevations across the foliage owners' properties. He explained that the view from a property at a lower elevation will have much more of a view impairment from vegetation than the applicant's property at a Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2008 Page 3 higher elevation, and all of these elevations have been taken into account. He showed photographs to help clarify that certain pine trees on the Liehr property may have been view impairing from certain properties in 1961, yet those same trees were not view impairing from the other higher elevated properties on Dianora in that same year. City Arborist Dave Hayes discussed growth rates of the various trees involved. He explained that eucalyptus and redwoods are fast growing trees, while pines have various growth rates. He stated that the growth rate of Aleppo pines is between 1 Y2 feet and 3 feet per year. A ten year old Aleppo pine might be between 20 and 29 feet tall. He explained that the Canary Island,pine grows faster and at the end of 10 years it will most.likely be a minimum of 30 feet tall. He stated it was more difficult to estimate the height of the olive tree, as it is not known how big it was when planted. He also noted that olive trees are not fast growing trees. He discussed the bottle tree, noting that they are of moderate growth like the Aleppo pine, however the tree on Mr. Liehr's property is a multi-trunk tree and the trunks are very small. Therefore it was very difficult for him to determine anything about the age of that tree because of the abnormal form. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Hayes if he was in agreement with staff's recommendations regarding the trimming of the foliage. Mr. Hayes answered that he is in agreement with staffs recommendations regarding the trimming of the foliage. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Hayes if any of his recommendations would change if it was shown that any of the trees were infested with pine beetles. Mr. Hayes explained that pine beetles are a problem that must be dealt with at the time the pruning is taking place. He stated that some of the trees on the property have been treated with injection and needed time to work. He added that the Canary Island pines do re-grow, adding that redwoods don't regrow well, and shouldn't need to be trimmed for another 3 to 5 years. Senior Planner Alvarez added that Mr. and Mrs. Wyman have requested that the City's decision have an open ended time frame in order to deal with the beetle eradication. He referred to Condition No. 17 which allows for one year to pass before the trees are trimmed. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Hayes to clarify how a tree that grows between 1 Y2 feet to 3 feet per year would be 20 to 29 feet tall in 10 years. Mr. Hayes explained that seedlings will grow very fast in the first 3 to 5 years after planting. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Hayes if he also agrees with staffs recommendations regarding the trimming schedule of the trees. Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2008 Page 4 Mr. Hayes agreed with staff's trimming schedule. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Hayes to respond to the comments made by other arborists retained by the foliage owners that annual pruning of the two varieties is detrimental to the health of those trees. Mr. Hayes stated that in regards to the Canary Island pine it would depend on whether it was blocking the view or not. He explained there are things that are recommended for view restoration that wouldn't normally be recommended when considering what is best for the tree. He added that the frequency of pruning also depends on observation after- the-fact, and if there is no need for pruning he strongly recommended that they not be pruned. He added that the recommendation for annual pruning is based on the growth rate of the trees in order to maintain the views at a reasonable level. City Attorney Lynch discussed the statutes of limitation and noted that she and Mr. Parker have agreed to disagree on this topic. She explained that Mr. Parker feels that the statutes of limitations as set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure should apply here and prevent the view applicants from filing their application with the City. She stated that it is her position, based on research done, that statutes of limitations are applicable to litigation proceedings filed in court and not to administrative proceedings conducted by an administrative agency, such as a city. She noted that Mr. Parker has also discussed latches and undo delay. She stated that latches is typically applied to judicial proceedings. She also stated that delay alone is not enough, as there has to be delay that causes material change to the status quo. She explained that the trees are on the property and continue to grow, and in her opinion this is not a change that invokes the provision of latches which would prevent someone from filing. She did not think that all of these doctrines have much application in these circumstances, as it would be undermining of the basic provisions of the Ordinance not to allow someone to file an application for view restoration or view preservation. Commissioner Gerstner opened the public hearing. Ava Shepard referred to pages 108 and 109 of the staff report and the numbering map she had submitted that was dated with the County in 1957. She felt that his should be the date the lots were created, as the County would not have been able to assign addresses to lots if they didn't exist. She felt that this date will then change the heights of tree Nos. 19 through 21 by several years. She then referred to pages 102, 103, and 104 which are the sworn affidavits of the three original property owners who testified at earlier meetings, as to their observations of the trees at the time of lot creation, noting that they did not observe any trees which impaired their view. She stated that at this point she is in favor of approximately 90 percent of the staff s recommendations. She referred to Condition No. 27, stating that she does not disapprove the three year maintenance schedule, but asked that the Planning Commission consider adding a clause that addresses unusual re-growth which will give the applicants and staff the opportunity to address the two trees if they grow more rapidly than speculated and Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2008 Page 5 obstruct views prior to the three year interval. Finally, she requested that all eucalyptus referred to in the staff report be scheduled for semi-annual trimming, if necessary, if they are not removed. Commissioner Knight asked Ms. Shepard if this 1951 document is actually part of a tract map. Ms. Shepard answered that the title is house numbering map, dated 1951. City Attorney Lynch noted that the actuat tract map is on page 219, and the date of recordation on that map is May 17, 1961. She stated that the house numbering map was probably included with the tentative tract map when it was being processed, but that is not the recordation of the final tract map. She explained that until the tract map is recorded, the property is not legally subdivided. Barbara Hanlon Keller stated that she bought her lot at 3139 Dianora Drive in 1961. She stated that her sworn affidavit is part of the staff report, along with those of two of her other neighbors, stating that there was no view impairment when she bought the lot. William Scar 3154 Deluna Drive, stated there are pictures in the staff report that show the same grove of trees from the point of view of his lot, which was plated six years prior to the other lots on Dianora. He noted that his lot is also 15 to 25 feet below the other lots on Dianora. He felt that in order to restore his view the trees would have to be cut at a level demonstrated in the photograph on page 112 of the staff report. He acknowledged that he is not part of this application, however all the trees in question are trees that impair the view from his property, and he has every intention of filing a view restoration application to address these very same trees. He noted that he has sent several letters to the foliage owners, but has not heard back from any of them. Commissioner Knight asked staff if views from Mr. Scar's property should be taken into consideration, since he is not part of this application. City Attorney Lynch confirmed that Mr. Scar is not part of this application and therefore the Planning Commission should not be considering views taken from his property. Jeff Parker stated he is the attorney representing the O'Melveny's and the Wymans. He ..stated that he agreed with the City Attorney that the statute of limitations does not apply, per say, to this view ordinance. He stated that when it comes to an administrative action, the law is clear that there has to be a limitations period within the administrative framework. He was baffled by the fact that there are two attorneys on the Planning Commission and a City Attorney who believe that an Ordinance that was enacted 18 years ago has no risk of a limitations period being applied under any scenario. He asked if the City Attorney could point to any other administrative scheme that is like this. He explained that the aspect he is dealing with is the view restoration aspect of the Ordinance. He stated that there is no violation here and is only when people, if they chose to, submit an application for view restoration. He explained that this is a grove of Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2008 Page 6 trees that has been growing for years, and the same view impairment that is being complained of now very much existed when the Ordinance was passed. Therefore, sixteen years have elapsed before the applicants chose to do anything. He felt that if nothing else, the fact that these views have been impaired for sixteen years should point out to the Planning Commission the insignificance of the view impairment being dealt with. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Parker when, in his judgment, the applicants should have taken action regarding their view restoration in order to avoid the statutes of limitation being discussed. Mr. Parker answered that if you look under corresponding statutes of limitation a letter should have been sent no later than three years after the ordinance was passed, since the foliage was view impairing at that time. Regina O'Melveny 3071 Crest Road, discussed the three categories of costs for the foliage owners. She explained that the first cost is the personal cost, questioning why the applicants waited 16 years to file this application and suggesting that the view impairment was insignificant. She pointed out that many of her trees were full grown when she purchased her home 25 years ago. She explained that to follow staff's recommendations would cost her between $4,000 to $5,000 per year in trimming costs, and these costs would carry over to new owners of the home, which she feels is a significant burden that could reduce the value of the property. She also felt that the value of the home will be reduced because of the disfigured trees on the property caused by crown reduction of the trees. She also noted that crown reduction will cause her house to become hotter in the summer, as they have no air conditioning. She stated that since the City has adopted the attitude that any applicant can come after them any time and demand that they further cut trees, she felt compelled to insist that the law on limitations and latches be followed. She also did not feel that the applicants have ever mediated in good faith, demanding more from the neighbors even after an agreement was reached in mediation. She therefore felt that the cost to the neighborhood is great, as it is paid out in ill will. Finally, there is a cost to the community, as all residents have to share the cost for these lengthy hearings that benefit but a few homeowners. She urged the Planning Commission to deny the application because of the statute of limitations and latches, adding she would only agree to the staff recommendations as modified by her red-lined revisions. She stated that she will not agree to cut down the Eucalyptus (tree No. 36) and open the way for attacks on the trees behind it unless the City agrees that limitations and latches do apply, barring further such applications. Commissioner Lewis asked Mrs. O'Melveny if she would have felt the same if the applicants had approached her 17 years ago asking for the very same relief. Mrs. O'Melveny explained that, even today, if the applicants had approached her in a more respectful manner, and come to the table ready to accept mediation, that she would have been far more receptive to accommodate their needs. Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2008 Page 7 Rae Wyman felt that this Ordinance is in grave need of being looked at again. She felt that the case for the foliage owners is just and will prevail in a court of law. She did not think the City was looking at the problems of world pollution, and certainly not as it relates to the harbor area. She noted that their homes are directly up the hill from the harbor, and distributed a publication from the NRDC which discusses the way in which trees fight carbon dioxide. Gruden Liehr noted that Mrs. Shepherd is on the Traffic Safety Commission and therefore knows many of the Planning Commissioners quite well, and questioned if she gets special attention at certain hearings. She also questioned if Mrs. Shepherd should excuse herself as the representative of the Dianora neighbors, and noted that the Petersons were originally the representative of the neighborhood. She stated that she recently received her homeowners insurance bill and noted that they have the original construction date as 1943. She therefore felt it was logical that the original owners planted these trees in 1943 when they built the first structure on the property. Finally, she questioned why the Hillingers and the Rozas told her in 2006 that her trees did not obstruct any of their views, yet today they are saying the trees are view obstructing. Commissioner Tetreault explained that the Planning Commissioners do know Mrs. Shepherd from the Traffic Safety Commission, however this is a good size community and they know quite a few people in the community. He explained that unless there is a special type of relationship, generally the Planning Commissioners will not recuse themselves as there is generally no conflict of interest. City Attorney Lynch added that it is an issue of either a conflict of interest, which does not exist by virtue of a member of the public serving on a city commission or committee, or an issue of whether or not a Planning Commissioner feels they may be biased by virtue of that relationship. Karl Liehr felt that Mr. Parker has a case regarding the statute of limitations, again noting that over the years the Rosas never had any complaints about their trees. He also disagreed with the recommended trimming height for the trees, as he felt staff should look at how tall the trees were in 1961 when the houses were built and recommend trimming the trees down to that 1961 tree height. Ava Shepherd (in rebuttal) explained that there have been other view restoration permits approved in this neighborhood, and that the trimming of those trees led to further applications and agreements to trim trees that were not visible until other trees had been trimmed or removed. She felt that a good faith effort was made by the applicants during mediation, however the foliage owners were asking that certain maintenance of the trees be done by the applicants, which is not required in the view restoration process. Barbara Hanlon Keller(in rebuttal) stating that this has been an ongoing problem since she moved into her home, explaining that residents got pine trees from the fire Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2008 Page 8 department and planted them up the area where Crest Road would be built. She explained that she knew these trees would block their views in the future, and worked with the City to have those trees removed and replaced with myoporum. Therefore, she did not feel this was a sudden problem, but one that has been known and dealt with since the 1960s. Jeff Parker (in rebuttal) explained that his clients are willing to listen to different proposals, and that is why they submitted their red-lined revisions. He noted that Mr. Scar spoke that he will be filing an application, and questioned how many people can request the trees be trimmed or removed, and for how long. Regina O'Melveny (in rebuttal) stated that in the 25 years she has lived in her home nobody has ever approached her about trimming her trees. Rae Wyman (in rebuttal) stated that in reading the Ordinance it states "the" applicant and "the"foliage owner, never the "applicants" or the foliage "owners". She felt that this makes one think that the decision to allow these multiple groups to go after other groups of people in the community on the grounds that may save time is highly questionable. Regarding the mediation, she stated that they were instructed by the mediator that they should not meet directly with the applicants. Mr. Liehr (in rebuttal) agreed with Ms. Wyman that they were not allowed to meet with the various applicants to see how much their vegetation impaired the views from the various properties. Commissioner Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Hayes if it is his opinion that the Eucalyptus trees Nos. 19-21 were of sufficient height in 1961 that they were view impairing and should be exempt from the application. Mr. Hayes answered that was correct. Commissioner Tetreault discussed the pine trees, Nos. 11, 13, 14, and 15, and asked Mr. Hayes if he agreed with Mr. Liehr that these trees were view impairing in 1961. Mr. Hayes felt that the pine trees in question are over 50 years old and therefore could have been 40 feet or more in height in 1961. However, he could not say whether or not those trees were view impairing trees at that time. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if they had done an analysis on tree Nos. 11, 13, 14, and 15 as to whether or not they were view impairing in 1961. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that he has done an analysis for those trees and based on Mr. Hayes projected growth rates and information received from Mr. Liehr, he was able to determine that tree No. 11 would have been a view impairing tree from the Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2008 Page 9 Peterson residence in 1961, however he noted that the canopy of the tree would not have been view impairing from the Shepherd property, the Sahabi property, and the Hanlan property. Regarding tree Nos. 13, 14, and 15, he felt that they would have been view impairing trees from the Roza property and the Peterson and Benzell property. He displayed a picture of the Shepherd property, showing where the horizon line would be and discussed the various trees in the view from that property. He discussed the Hillinger property, explaining the viewing area was determined to be from the living room and the trees on the Liehr property cannot be seen from the Hillinger living room. He discussed the Hanlan property and Liehr trees that can be seen from that property. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff what their opinion was as to the height of tree No. 14 in 1961. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that Mr. Liehr believes the trees were planted at a certain time based on Mr. Liehr's own analysis of the stump ring counts. He stated that Mr. Hayes has also looked at the stump rings and came up with a slightly different assessment as to the age of the trees. Therefore, Mr. Hayes opinion on the height of the trees in 1961 is based on his opinion on the age of the trees. Therefore, given 15 years of growth for the pine trees, Mr. Hayes believes the tree may have been approximately 48 feet in height in 1961. However, he was inclined to believe that the tree was not that tall, based on the different homeowners testimony who lived in their homes in 1961 and their claim no trees impair their views. Commissioner Tetreault estimated that tree Nos. 11, 13, 14, and 15 were most likely view impairing trees from the Peterson property in 1961. Looking at another picture, Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if tree Nos. 14 and 15 were view impairing from the Shepherd property in 1961. Senior Planner Alvarez did not believe they were view impairing in 1961. Commissioner Knight referred to the trellis on the Benzell property and asked if in 1961 would there be a view beneath the current trellis, and would the analysis be done irrespective of the trellis. Director Rojas explained that trying to ascertain whether a view was impaired in 1961 is difficult enough without bringing in the issue of what structures existed then in the view frame versus now. Therefore, staff is making its determination of what the view was based on what they see today. Commissioner Tetreault noted a wall that appears to be on the Sahabi property and could be blocking a portion of the Sahabi view. He asked staff if the view impairing trees have to be above the wall structure, which wasn't there at the time of the creation of the lot. Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2008 Page 10 City Attorney Lynch felt that since there is now a structure (wall) in place that blocks a portion of the view, it doesn't make sense to lower trees below that structure (wall). Commissioner Tetreault agreed, but stated that he was trying to determine which trees were view impairing when the lots were created, and therefore grandfathered in. He asked if it would be an appropriate analysis to make by deciding whether or not the trees in questions were impairing a view, even below the wall in 1961. City Attorney Lynch felt that was an appropriate analysis to make. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if they felt these trees were blocking a view of the harbor or ocean from the vantage point shown in the pictures back in 1961. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that in absence of structures, the pine trees on the Liehr's driveway island may have been blocking the Shepherd and Sahabi views in 1961. Commissioner Tetreault stated that the burden of proof is usually on the applicant seeking relief in a view restoration decision, and asked staff if that burden of proof would be the same in regards to establishing whether or not trees that may have been view obscuring when the lot was created. City Attorney Lynch explained that it is the applicant's burden to show that the view impairing vegetation did not exist as view impairing vegetation when the lot from which the view is taken was created. However, if the foliage owner can show evidence that the foliage did impair a view at the time the lot was created, then it is up to the Commission to look at the preponderance of evidence. Commissioner Knight stated that there are sworn affidavits stating that in 1961 there was no view impairing vegetation on three properties, and asked the City Attorney to help the Commission weigh this out in respect to staff's recommendations which are based on mathematical calculations of tree growth rates. City Attorney Lynch answered that sworn testimony is always important evidence to consider, but the Commission must also consider how accurate they feel the persons' recollection may or may not be. Therefore, she felt it was up to the Planning Commission to weigh the evidence and make a determination. She added that generally in-person witnesses with personal knowledge of something could have a greater credibility than trying to discern growth rates from the best available evidence. Commissioner Lewis stated that he found the declaration more credible than the experts. He was troubled by the arguments brought forth by the tree owners, as they attack the Ordinance. He stated that it is his position as a Planning Commission to uphold the City Ordinances. He therefore was leaning towards staff recommendations. He added that he was also troubled by grouping so many applicants on one application, Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2008 Page 11 as he felt that some of the applicants were getting more rights in this joint application than they would if each was analyzed individually on its own merit. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if they would review tree Nos. 16, 17, 22, and 23 and how these trees affect each applicant's property. Senior Planner Alvarez began with tree Nos. 16 and 17 and explained that Mr. Hayes does not consider these mature Eucalyptus trees, and may be volunteer trees. Therefore, Mr. Hayes does not think they were in the view frame in 1961. He showed a photograph where tree Nos. 22 and 23 can be seen from the applicant's properties. Mr. Hayes explained that Eucalyptus tree Nos. 22 and 23 were planted as roadside plantings. He stated that they grow very rapidly and it is quite possible that in 1961 the trees were view impairing. Commissioner Tetreault explained that the old aerial photographs presented by staff are very difficult to interpret, and he can't tell from these photographs if trees are present and how tall the trees are. While he appreciated the testimony of residents who lived here in 1961, he explained that the view ordinance says that any tree that enters into the view plane at all is a grandfathered tree. He did not think that those giving testimony would have appreciated that a tree may have popped into the view plane maybe in the lowest part of the harbor, however their view of Catalina or the ocean was not impaired. He therefore was going to give more weight to the City Arborist, as he is a disinterested party with no stake in the decision made. With that said, he stated that the City does have this Ordinance, and the Ordinance does not allow the Planning Commissioners to consider things such as pollution, the effect of trimming upon the health of the tree, and the cost of maintenance. He stated that the foliage owner has the choice as to whether or not to keep the trees, if they are concerned about the cost. Commissioner Gerstner suggested starting with tree No. 49 and working through the list and the recommendations. Senior Planner Alvarez showed a photograph where the tree No. 49 was visible, stating that staffs recommendation was to reduce the crown of tree No. 49. Commissioner Gerstner stated that he agreed with staffs recommendation for tree No. 49. Discussing the redwoods, tree Nos. 48 and 47, Commissioner Gerstner noted that staff was recommending heavily thinning the two trees, while the foliage owner was requesting that the trees be thinned no more than 25 to 35 percent. Mr. Hayes noted that thinning the redwood 25 to 35 percent would be considered heavily thinning. Commissioner Gerstner therefore agreed with staffs recommendation for tree Nos. 48 and 47. Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2008 Page 12 Commissioner Gerstner moved to tree No. 46, noting that staff was recommending no action be taken on that tree. Regarding tree Nos. 45, 44, and 43, as observed from the Peterson property, it was noted that the foliage owner did not have an alternate suggestion, and therefore he would agree with staffs recommendation. Commissioner Tetreault referred to the table on page 41 of the staff report, noting that staff only indicated that tree No. 44 caused a significant view impairment, which is to the Peterson property. He questioned if there was enough significant view impairment from the other two trees to warrant action be taken. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that in 2006 staff did an analysis of the view when tree No. 36 had been trimmed, and based on staff's assessment at that time, staff felt the tree Nos. 41 through 45, behind tree No. 36, were view impairing trees from the Peterson property. He noted that the trees are now hidden behind other trees and it is difficult to tell how tall they are. Commissioner Tetreault stated that it is understood that in the event that while the trees are being trimmed, a tree is found that is behind other trees and this tree wasn't addressed in the findings, that a decision can be made on site to do appropriate trimming to that tree to restore the view. He noted that there is a standard condition of approval that addresses this condition, and he therefore felt that tree Nos. 43 and 45 not be ordered to be trimmed, and to apply this condition of approval if out in the field it is determined the two trees need to be trimmed. Commissioner Gerstner agreed, and moved on to tree No. 42, which he agreed with staff's recommendation. He discussed tree No. 41, again noting that according to staff's table on page 41 of the staff report, this tree may not be causing a significant view impact. Commissioner Knight asked if the recommendation to reduce the crown on tree No. 41 would be more than 1/3 of the crown. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that it would not be more than 1/3 of the crown. Mr. Hayes agreed that 1/3 would be the absolute maximum a crown would be reduced. Commissioner Gerstner discussed tree No. 40, and questioned what reducing the crown means, noting that jacaranda trees generally do not do well when their crowns are reduced. Mr. Hayes agreed, and explained that reducing the crown means that the larger limbs are dropped to the next lateral that can support the growth, which is called drop crossing. He added that because of the way jacarandas grow, this can sometimes be quite severe. Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2008 Page 13 Commissioner Gerstner moved on to tree Nos. 39 and 38, noting that these are trees that can't really be seen at this time. He discussed the Ash, tree No. 37 and noted that the staff report states it is blocking views from five of the seven properties. He asked Mr. Hayes if an Ash tree will regrow quickly. Mr. Hayes answered that Ash trees grow very quickly, and like the Eucalyptus, may need maintenance more than once a year. Commissioner Gerstner stated that tree No. 36, the Eucalyptus, was recommended to be removed, however the tree owners asked the tree's crown be raised and laced. He asked staff why they recommended removal rather than raising the crown and lacing. Senior Planner Alvarez stated that Mrs. O'Melveny had offered this tree to be removed as a concession to the view owners. He noted, however, that from the Peterson property the crown of the tree will have to be raised to open the view below, however this will cause the view to be blocked from the co-applicants above. Therefore, staff felt the only solution was to remove the tree. Commissioner Gerstner noted the staff report recommended no action for tree Nos. 34 through 31. He moved to tree Nos. 30, 29, and 28 where staff has suggested the trees be removed and the foliage owner has requested a 24 inch box tree as a replacement for the removal of the trees. Senior Planner Alvarez stated that the difference is staff is recommending a 15 gallon size trees as replacement, and the foliage owners are requesting the 24 inch box tree. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Hayes the difference between a 15 gallon tree and a 24 inch box tree. Mr. Hayes answered that in replacing with a Eucalyptus tree, a 24 inch box tree doesn't make any sense, as most growers don't grow them that big and a 15 gallon size tree is about the largest Eucalyptus one can buy. If another variety of tree is suggested, a 24 inch box would make more sense. Commissioner Gerstner discussed tree No. 27, 26, and 25 and asked Mr. Hayes the difference between heavily thinned with selective branch removal and thinned no more ..than 25 to 35 percent. Mr. Hayes stated that there is no difference, explaining that you can take out a lot of little limbs to reach 25 percent or take out some bigger limbs to reach 25 percent. Commissioner Gerstner moved to tree No. 24, noting staff recommended reducing the crown and the foliage owner was asking that it be thinned. Senior Planner Alvarez stated that staff believes that to restore the view the crown should be reduced, and that thinning the tree will not restore the view. Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2008 Page 14 Commissioner Gerstner asked staff to explain their recommendation of crown reduction for tree Nos. 23 and 22. Senior Planner Alvarez displayed a photograph of the trees and how reducing the crown will open the view. Commissioner Gerstner noted that tree Nos. 21, 20, and 19 are exempt. He moved to tree No. 18, which staff feels resembles a hedge, and should be trimmed to 6 feet. Tree Nos. 17 and 16 there is the contention from the foliage owner that these two trees be exempt.. He discussed tree Nos. 15 and 14 and asked staff why they recommended raising the crown for tree Nos. 15 and 14. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that raising the crown would offer a view under the main canopy. Commissioner Gerstner asked what topping the tree to a height of 48 feet would accomplish. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that trimming the tree to a height of 48 feet would not accomplish any view restoration. Commissioner Gerstner noted that staff was recommending removal of tree No. 13, and the foliage owner is suggesting topping the tree. He asked staff why they are recommending removal of the tree. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that in order to restore the view staff felt that more than 1/3 of the tree crown would have to be reduced, and staff felt this would be detrimental to the health of the tree. Therefore, staff is recommending the tree be removed. Commissioner Gerstner stated that tree Nos. 12 and 11 are to be removed, and tree No. 10 is to be removed. Tree No. 9 seems to not be an issue. He stated that tree Nos. 8 and 7 (the rubber trees) are behind quite a few other trees, and staff believes it will be necessary to reduce the crown of these trees to restore the view. He stated that he would lean towards staff s recommendation for tree No. 6 and for tree No. 5 (the myoporum) where staff was recommending reducing the crown, however the owner requested it be topped to a height of 28 feet. He stated that staff recommends reducing the crown for tree No. 4, and tree No. 3 has already been removed. He discussed staffs recommendations for tree No. 2 and tree No. 1. Commissioner Tetreault noted the question regarding the size of replacement tree for Nos. 28 through 30. He stated that there has to be some balance to this decision, and part of the balance he is considering is the fact that a good amount of time has transpired from when it was that these trees got into the view plane of some of the applicants. He felt that the viability of some of the trees with the type of trimming that Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2008 Page 15 needs to be done is in question because of how large some of these trees have grown. Had the remedial measures been taken years ago, the risk to these trees would not be quite as great. Therefore, he was inclined to recommend that for tree Nos. 28, 29, and 30 a 24-inch box replacement tree be given. Commissioner Tetreault also believed that tree Nos. 11, 13, 14, and 15 should be included as exempt trees. He noted that the evidence is not conclusive, however given the burdens of proof and preponderance of evidence he felt those trees were view impairing at the time the lots were created. Commissioner Gerstner stated that his tendency would be to go with staffs recommendations, but discuss and consider alternate recommendations for tree Nos. 11, 13, 14, 15, 23, 43, and 45, as well as the 24 inch box issue. He stated that for tree Nos. 43 and 45 he felt very comfortable leaving the decision with staff that as the other trees are trimmed these three trees can either have nothing done to them or to do some trimming but to not exceed reducing the crowns below the line level observed from the Peterson property. Regarding the 24 inch box replacement, he felt that there is not that much difference between a 15 gallon tree and a 24 inch box tree, and that giving the larger tree would be a good concession. Regarding tree No. 23, he stated that he puts a lot of weight on testimony, and since staff has stated that the tree may or may not have been in the view frame, he would rely on the testimony of someone who was there even more. Regarding tree No. 23, Commissioner Tetreault felt that he did not have enough evidence to counteract the sworn affidavits and therefore he supports staff recommendation. Commissioner Lewis and Chairman Gerstner stated that they support staffs recommendation in regards to tree Nos. 11, 13, 14, and 15. Commissioner Gerstner moved to adopt staffs recommendation with the following exceptions: Tree Nos. 43 and 45 be attended to relative to condition No. 29 of the conditions of approval, and under no circumstance shall the trimming be greater than what is called out in the staff report; the replacement trees be a 24 inch box, as requested by the foliage owner, and that the replacement trees not be Eucalyptus trees; seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he could not support the motion, as he felt tree Nos. 11, 13, 14, and 15 should be excluded since he felt they were in the view plane in 1961 when the lots were created, but agreed with everything else in the motion. The motion was approved, (3-1) with Commissioner Tetreault dissenting. Director Rojas stated that the Resolution will come to the Planning Commission on the Consent Calendar at the next meeting. Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2008 Page 16 PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont) 4. Height Variation Permit, Grading Permit, and Variance (Case No. ZON2007- 00325): 30488 Diamonte Lane Director Rojas noted that a request has been made by some residents opposed to the project that this item be continued. He noted that there is an action deadline for this application of April 21, 2008. He noted that the applicant has to agree to the continuance in this situation. Commissioner Gerstner asked the applicant if he would agree to a continuance. Dr. Stuart Hoffman stated that he preferred not to have a continuance and have the item heard at this meeting. Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the different applications. She noted on a diagram the building envelope that would be allowed on the property by right if the applicant chose not to grade down for the garage, and explained that the proposed project would be allowed in its current location and could be approximately two feet higher. She noted a typo on circle page 29 of the staff report. With that she stated that staff was recommending approval of the height variation and grading permit and denial of the requested variance, all as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Tetreault understood the logic and rational in the fact that this project could be built in the same location and not require a height variation, however because of the choice made by the applicant that the garage be under the home, a height variation is required. He questioned if there is precedent for this type of application, in that staff is saying an alternative design could cause an even greater view impairment for which there would be no need for a height variation, so therefore, even though this project needs a variance, the view impacts will not be considered. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that in considering the grading permit that is also associated with this application, grading finding No. 2, which considers views, states that if one lowers the finished grade one shall approve that particular grading finding. Therefore, taking that into consideration, staff was also able to justify the Height Variation finding that pertains to views, while noting that the residence would otherwise be permitted "by right" if the finished grade was not lowered for the garage. Director Rojas added that in the height variation, view impact is only considered for the portion of the proposed structure that is over 16 feet in height, as measured from the highest existing grade, and/or 20 feet, as measured from the lowest finished grade. Commissioner Gerstner opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2008 Page 17 Dr. Stuart Hoffman (applicant) explained that he and his architect have tried, in developing this proposed project, to adhere to both the spirit and the letter of the Height Variation Guidelines. He felt that he has met all of the conditions and guidelines in order to have the project approved. Ron Davis (architect) explained that the grading on the property was done as part of the lot split and approved by both the County and the City. He stated that he was available for any questions. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Davis if he considered building the house without having to grade down for the garage. Mr. Davis answered that he did consider that, however the owners did not like the idea. Commissioner Gerstner noted that the staff report calls this a ranch style design, and asked Mr. Davis if he agrees. Mr. Davis felt this is more of a Mediterranean style home. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Davis if he felt this style of home is compatible with the others in the neighborhood. Mr. Davis did not know what to compare the house with, as there are many different designs in the neighborhood. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Davis about the need for the 6-foot wall which requires a Variance. Mr. Davis explained that the owners are concerned about security, living right on a corner. He stated that only approximately 30 feet of the wall will be 6 feet in height, and the rest will be open with a 6-foot wrought iron fence. Commissioner Knight noted that the plans show a 2:12 roof pitch, with the roofing material. He asked Mr. Davis if he has decided on a roofing material that is approved for this pitch of roof. Mr. Davis answered that he works with many roofers in the area, and there is a way to put the desired tile on a 2:12 pitch. Mike Tramotin 30468 Diamonte Drive, stated that he is very much in support of the project. Toni Tramontin 30468 Diamonte Drive, also supported the project, adding that the architect and owners have been very open and willing to work with neighbors to address any concerns. Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2008 Page 18 Phil Schoenwetter 30511 Palos Verdes Drive East, stated that he was having trouble visualizing the actual impact of the structure. He explained that he has a view of the Korean Bell, and his concern was where the fireplace will be located and if the chimney will block his view. Mary Dreyer 30521 Palos Verdes Drive East, felt that the neighborhood architecture will be greatly enhanced by the proposed residence, however some of the views will be destroyed. She explained the views of San Pedro will be impacted from her family room, master bedroom, and backyard entertainment area. She explained that the overall height of the lot is higher than it was several years ago, and that she was never made aware of any public hearings when this was approved. She also noted that she lives next door to a three-story home that, again, she was not made aware of any public hearings when it was approved. She stated that her main concern in this case is the grading. Ginger McGann 30509 Palos Verdes Drive East, agreed with Ms. Dreyer that the grade on this lot, as well as on the Tramontin lot, was raised 5 to 7 feet from its previous level. She explained that when the Tramontins built their house, it took away approximately 2/3 of her view. She stated that with the approval of this proposed house the final 1/3 of her view will be taken away and she will be left with no view. She noted that there are alternative designs, such as a flat roof, whereby her view would be partially restored. C.E. Boag 17 Diamonte, stated that the impact to his property is very minimal, however he wanted to speak in support of Mrs. McGann and how this project will completely destroy the little view she has left. He added that the notification system that is used by the City is not very good, as he and several of his neighbors never received notification of this hearing. He stated that he has viewed a topographic map with staff and it clearly shows a 5 to 7 foot raise in the level of the lot in question. He felt that many of the views could be regained with simple adjustments to the architectural plans. He felt that the Planning Commissioners should visit Mrs. McGann's and Dr. Schoenwetter's homes to see the actual impact to their homes. Dr. Hoffman (in rebuttal) stated that he did not hire Mrs. McGann to design his home, he hired Mr. Davis, and felt it was a little presumptuous to assume he would build a 4,500 square foot home nine feet high. He felt that the current design was compatible with the neighborhood and in the proper location. Commissioner Tetreault asked Dr. Hoffman about the statements made by several of the speakers that the present grade of the lot is approximately 7 feet higher than it once was, and asked if he had any information about that. Dr. Hoffman answered that he had no information regarding the height of the lot. Ron Davis stated that the entire lot was not raised up five to seven feet. He explained that there was some fill placed on the north side of the lot and an area at the corner of the lot was raised up approximately five feet to level the lot. He pointed out on the Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2008 Page 19 aerial photograph some trees on the lot that have been there since the 1970s, which would have had to have been removed if the entire lot was raised five to seven feet. Commissioner Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he was still concerned that this two-story home could have been built as a single story home and any adverse view impact would not be reviewed by the Planning Commission. However, that is not what was done, and this is now what is before the Planning Commission to review. Associate Planner Mikhail clarified the sections of the proposed residence that are subject to the findings of the height variation, specifically noting the area directly above the garage. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if they had done a view analysis from each of the resident's homes that are concerned about the view impact to their home. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that she had received letters from these property owners late, and was able to visit two of the properties prior to the meeting,:,as the other property owners were not home. One of the owners had said the silhouette wasn't visible due to all of the trees, and in staff s opinion the view from 30511 Palos Verdes Drive East would not be significantly impacted from the proposed residence. She also displayed a picture taken from the McGann property, taken from the primary viewing area. In high lighting the area where the height variation was, she pointed out an area of the silhouette behind the garage area that is higher. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt staff's recommendation in its entirety, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Knight felt that there will be a view impact to some of the neighbors, however he felt that view is what he calls a view that has been a privilege over the years, and not a view by right. He felt that the applicant could construct the fireplace chimney to its minimum standards, however. He acknowledged that the pad on the lot was raised, however it was done through legal applications. He asked that the motion be amended to reflect the proposed chimney to be placed at the minimum height allowed by the building code. Commissioner Lewis agreed with Commissioner Knights comments, and agreed to amend the motion to include the proposed chimney height must be at the minimum allowed by the building code. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-12 to approve the height variation and grading permit, as amended to include that the proposed chimney be built to the lowest height allowed by the building code, and denying the variation was approved, (4-0-2) with Chairman Perestam and Commissioner Ruttenberg recused. Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2008 Page 20 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of April 8. 2008 The pre-agenda was accepted as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:49 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 25,2008 Page 21