Loading...
PC MINS 20110412 Approved May 24r,,201 1 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING APRIL 12, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:10 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Leon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Knight, Leon, Vice Chairman Tetreault, and Chairman Tomblin. Absent: Commissioners Emenhiser and Lewis were excused Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Associate Planner Trester and Associate Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Because agenda item Nos. 3 and 4 are related items, the Commission agreed to open the public hearing for both of these items at the same time. With that, the Agenda was approved without objection. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their last meeting the City Council continued the item regarding the possible elimination of the temporary special event banner sign program to the April 19" meeting. He also reported that at the April 19th meeting the City Council will also consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of an addition at 21 Cayuse Lane. Director Rojas distributed 12 items of correspondence and 4 photographs for agenda item No. 3 and 9 items of correspondence and 5 photographs for agenda item No. 5. Chairman Tomblin reported that he attended the monthly Mayor's Breakfast. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2010-00331): 6530 LaGarita Drive Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining that staff had made several attempts to document the view from a neighboring property, however only recently did the weather clear up enough to do so. However, a staff report was not prepared prior to viewing the viewing area from that particular property and therefore the applicant has agreed to continue the public hearing to April 26th. The Commission unanimously agreed to continue the public hearing to April 26, 2011. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Revision to Master Sign Program (Case No. ZON2010-00104): 31244 Palos Verdes Drive West Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the proposed signage as well as the applicant's request to amend the sign program to allow for temporary identification banners, temporary promotional banners, and temporary For Lease banners above vacant properties. She reviewed the proposed signs for the Admiral Risty, noting that staff could recommend approval of the signs if the color were changed to green to be consistent with the rest of the signs at Golden Cove. She also discussed the proposed conditions staff placed on proposal for temporary banners. Vice Chairman Tetreault noted that there are currently temporary banners on the Admiral Risty, and asked if these have been addressed. Director Rojas explained that those particular signs are what prompted this item. He noted there have been a few temporary signs throughout the Center, and their sign program allows for no temporary signs. This matter became a code enforcement issue and after discussing the issues with the property owner it was agreed that this request would be made a part of the sign program to allow those signs. .In terms of staffs recommendations for temporary banners, Vice chairman Tetreault asked staff how they proposed to monitor the number of banners and how long they have been in place. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that staff logs all applications into the computer and will be able to track who has banners and when they last had a banner. Additionally, staff will do a site visit to verify the number of banners in place before granting any approvals for a new banner. Planning Commission Minutes April 12,2011 Page 2 Commissioner Gerstner questioned where the temporary banners can be hung, noting there are some arcades in front of some of the tenant spaces. He questioned if a banner can be strung in the open space between the columns, and would that be classified as being on the building. Director Rojas answered that is something staff does not want, and will tighten up the language so that cannot happen. He also suggested that if this is something the Commission feels strongly about, that they add such prohibitive language to the sign program. Commissioner Leon asked if the proposed changes in regards to the banners are consistent with the Code. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the Code is much less restrictive than what is currently before the Commission. Chairman Tomblin stated that over time Golden Cove Center has become a very upscale and beautiful center and asked staff if there is any reason for the Planning Commission to consider not allowing the temporary banners to be on the outside of the building and being kept strictly in the windows of the business. Associate Planner Mikhail responded that if the Planning Commission feels there is already an adequate amount of signage on the building frontage and the only available space left for these types of promotional banners is in the window frontage, the Resolution can be modified to reflect this. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Randy Weston (Wellington Sign Company) explained what he was trying to accomplish was a happy median between the tenants and the City. He agreed with staff's suggestion to limit the number of temporary banners allowed. He noted that unfortunately, for business purposes, the tenants will most likely put up banners whether they are allowed to or not. He stated that his main interest is the signage at the Admiral Risty, and that the three proposed signs are in the same location as the previous three signs. He stated that the Admiral Risty logo is trademarked in a sense, as the logo, with the blue color, has been used for decades at this location. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight asked if Building B was part of the revision to the master sign program. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that Building B is not part of this proposed revision to the master sign program. She explained that Building B, which is the Montessori school, is identified and is allowed to maintain its current signage, which does not meet Planning Commission Minutes April 12,2011 Page 3 the requirements of the program. If the current tenant vacates Building B then the new signage will have to be brought into conformance with the current sign program. Chairman Tomblin asked staff if there is a review of Golden Cove coming up in the next year, and if so, would it be possible to add the signage to that review so that the Commission can review how the signage is working. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that there is a review of Golden Cove and that the Commission can add the signage to that review. Vice Chairman Tetreault moved to approve the revision to the Golden Cove Master Sign Program as modified by staff and with an additional condition that the banners be mounted to the building and that this be brought back for review at the next time the Center is reviewed by the Commission, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Commissioner Leon asked the Commissioners if they would consider allowing the Admiral Risty have the unique blue sign they are requesting, which does not match the sign program colors. Commissioner Knight stated that the Admiral Risty had three signs before the remodel and the Commission has allowed them to put up three new signs. He also felt that the Admiral Risty has always had the blue sign and, though the logo may not be nationally registered, he would want to give them the opportunity to have that same color on their sign. Commissioner Knight moved to amend the motion to allow the Admiral Risty to have their sign blue. He added that for the tenant identification banners the starting date should be identified as the date of the submission of the sign application so that there is a clear starting date. Vice Chairman Tetreault stated he was willing to accept the second part of Commissioner Knight's motion regarding the starting date of when temporary sign banners can be placed, however he would not accept the Admiral Risty blue sign as part of his motion. Commissioner Gerstner agreed. Commissioner Knight amended his motion to allow the Admiral Risty to have their blue sign, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Vice Chairman Tetreault explained he was opposed to the amendment, as he felt it will open up exceptions to the rule that the signs be green throughout the center. He felt that the Admiral Risty signs have been grandfathered in for quite some time because they had existing signs on the building, however now that there has been a major remodel he felt the signage should come into compliance with the palette requirements of the sign program. He stated there may be other tenants who would likewise Planning Commission Minutes April 12,2011 Page 4 trademark their logos and then request their signage be altered to comply with their trademark. Commissioner Knight felt this was a valid point, but noted that the Commission is also making an exception to allow the three signs, which is also something that the City would not grant to any other tenant in the center. He felt that the motion should be clarified that if the Admiral Risty were to vacate the property, that the rights to the three signs and the blue color would leave with them. Commissioner Gerstner asked if there was some characteristic of the Admiral Risty that makes them unique from all of the other typical tenants of the center which would allow for the proposed exception to the sign program to be made. Commissioner Knight answered that it would be for the same stated reason for allowing the Admiral Risty to have three signs, which is that their signs were in place long before there was a sign program at the center. Chairman Tomblin stated that the Admiral Risty has been at this site for thirty plus years and in itself is a trademark of the community. He agreed with the idea that if the Admiral Risty vacates that it's sign rights go with it. He understood the Vice Chairman's comments and stated they were well taken. He stated that he can support the amendment. The amendment to the motion to allow blue color on the Admiral Risty signs was approved, (4-1) with Vice Chairman Tetreault dissenting. Director Rojas stated the motion before the Commission is to adopt staff s recommendation with the additional conditions to specify how the temporary signs will be affixed to the building, to review compliance of the sign program at the same time as the next review of the Golden Cove Center, to clarify that the time for temporary banners begins on the submittal of the sign application, and that the Admiral Risty signs are allowed to be blue. The motion was approved, (5-0), and PC Resolution 2011-016 approving the revision to the Golden Cove Master Sign Program was approved. 3. Trimming follow-up for City Tree Review Permit (Case No. VRP2008-00031): Via Cambron/Via Collado/Berry Hill 4. Appeal of interpretation of City Tree Review Permit No. 178 As agreed, item Nos. 3 and 4 were presented to the Commission together and would be discussed and heard at the same time. Director Rojas began by explaining a Planning Commission decision was previously made on the City Tree Review Permit, the trimming was done, and this is the follow-up Planning Commission Minutes April 12,2011 Page 5 hearing required by the Planning Commission to assess the trimming at the time of the Commission's decision on the City Tree Review Permit. Staff noted that there was a different application decision involving most of the same trees, including a different applicant, and there were questions on how the views from the different applicant would be assessed. Staff had taken the position that the trimming would be done for the City Tree Permit and then staff would assess the view from the other applicant's property to see if additional trimming would still be required. The trimming was done and it was discovered that if further trimming was done to satisfy the requirements of the other application there would be no limbs left on these trees. He explained there is a provision in the Code which states that the body that makes the final decision can make an interpretation to clarify certain conditions of approval. Thus, an interpretation of the conditions of approval was made by staff which requires some additional trimming of seven of the ten trees included with the City Tree Review Permit, and this interpretation has been appealed. Therefore, agenda item Nos. 3 and 4 are being heard together. Associate Planner Trester presented the staff report, explaining the first item before the Commission is the follow-up view assessment for the trimming completed for a City Tree Review Permit. She showed pictures of the applicants' properties before the tree trimming and again after the trees were trimmed. She stated that staff believes the significant view impairment from all four of the applicant's properties has been eliminated due to the trimming of tree Nos. 1 through 10. She noted that staff has received correspondence from Mr. and Mrs. Perez indicating they still do not consent to tree No. 4 being adopted. Because they do not consent, staff has scheduled the removal of tree No. 4 for early May. In regards to agenda item No. 4, Associate Planner Trester explained that the item is an appeal of the Director's interpretation of the conditions of approval for City Tree Review Permit No. 178. She gave a brief background of CTRP No. 178, noting the trees in question are the same pine trees that were recently trimmed for CTRP 2008-31. She explained that the amount of trimming that had just occurred as a result of CTRP 2008- 31 had significantly changed the conditions of the trees also subject to CTRP No. 178, and as a result the Director determined that these circumstances warranted an interpretation review of the conditions of approval. With that, the Director issued an interpretation review which modified the conditions of approval related to CTRP No. 178. This interpretation was then appealed. Ms. Trester briefly explained the revised conditions of approval per the interpretation and that staff believes the additional required trimming will eliminate the significant view impairment for the applicant. She summarized the appeal letter statements, but noted that staff did not feel that any new information was received to change staff's recommendation. Therefore, staff was recommending the Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director's interpretation of the conditions of approval. Vice Chairman Tetreault disclosed that one of the applicants, Mrs. Liberman, is a friend of his however his friendship with her will not alter his interpretation, evaluation, or decision of these matters. He also stated that he has not discussed any of these issues with Mrs. Liberman. Planning Commission Minutes April 12,2011 Page 6 Commissioner Knight also disclosed that he is friends with the Libermans and the Parsons, however that will not affect his decision. Commissioner Leon stated his mother lives on Via Cambron, however her home is not near any of the trees being discussed. . Commissioner Leon asked staff the current height of the trees in question that need additional trimming. Associate Planner Trester did not know the exact height the trees were trimmed to, but had photographs of the trees taken from street level. She noted that City owned trees are not subject to the same height requirements as privately owned trees. Chairman Tomblin asked staff if the City Arborist has rendered an opinion on whether or not there will be permanent damage done to these trees if there is further trimming done. Associate Planner Trester answered that she reviewed photographs of the trees with the arborist from West Coast Arborist to try to determine if additional trimming might render the trees unable to survive. The arborist stated that Canary Island Pines are able to survive extensive trimming, however if the trees do die it would be difficult to determine if it was the extensive initial trimming or if was the minor additional trimming that caused the trees to die. He felt that the trees would likely survive, but could not say that with any certainty. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Ann Marinovich (7315 Berry Hill Drive) stated she is happy with the results of the trimming, she still has serious concerns regarding staff's interpretation of the trimming in terms of topping to the horizon and then trimming the trees. She stated there is nothing in the Resolution that provides for that, and showed a photograph of tree No. 10 that was topped to the horizon line. She felt tree No. 10 still causes a significant view impairment from her home. She also referred to tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 which were originally considered to be a significant view impairment but were later taken off of the application. She felt these trees cause a significant view impairment not only for her but for the other applicants as well, and argued that these trees are not on the peripheral of the viewing area. She asked that the Commission direct staff to top all of the trees down to the level of the shoreline rather than the horizon line. Marlene Galvin (7333 Berry Hill Drive) stated the Canary Island Pines have been crowned, severely laced, and trimmed and her view has been greatly improved. Still, she wished to express some concerns. She explained that the trimming to the horizon rather than the ocean view has left thick trunks and branches sticking up through the ocean view to the horizon and is unsightly. She hoped that in the future the Municipal Code would be followed so others do not have an unsightly view. Secondly, Canary Planning Commission Minutes April 12,2011 Page 7 Island Pines Nos. 1, 2, and 3 have been severely laced and trimmed but because they are layered, only small pockets of ocean are visible through the thick multiple trunks, vertical branches and foliage. Even though these pines may be in the peripheral, they are still well within the view. Lastly, she expressed her concern with tree No. 10. She explained it was not considered to be in her ocean view and therefore not included as having a significant view impairment. However, with the topping of tree Nos. 9 and 10 a near view of the hillside to upper Point Vicente was revealed. She stated that staff did not evaluate the final trimming results of tree No. 10 and its effect on her Upper Pointe Vicente and hillside near view. She stated there are many branches which obscure the hillside. Tim Galvin stated he is trying to avoid a future problem rather than address the present problem, referring to condition No. 6 in the conditions of approval which allows for a trimming period from November through February. He noted that tree sponsors are required to trim the trees during a certain time period each year, and asked if city staff will remind the sponsors to trim the trees. He asked what happens in February if the trees are not trimmed, do they have to wait until November. Mike O'Sullivan asked the Commission in evaluating the applicants' restored views to try to strike a balance between the applicants' rights and those of the neighbors who value and wish to preserve the trees. He asked that the Commission uphold the staff's views and recommendations that the applicants' views have been adequately restored. With respect to reinterpretation, he felt that any further trimming of these trees to preserve views would be detrimental to their chances of survival. He stated that common sense dictates that any further trimming be delayed until these severely trimmed trees have had a chance to recover and show promise of survival. Otherwise, the whole purpose of the effort to preserve them will have become compromised. He stated the trees have not been trimmed pursuant to the Liberman's CTRP for eight years, and questioned why they have to.be trimmed now when the trees have been so severely trimmed and are vulnerable. He felt there was also a legal argument which applies to this case, referring to latches, and disagreed with the City Attorney's dismissal of the argument. He did not feel either the City or the Libermans have exercised their right to trim the trees as required by CTRP 178. He asked that the trees be allowed to recover for at least two or three years or until the City Arborist feels their survival is assured and then evaluate the Libermans view and require trimming similar to what the Director has suggested in his reinterpretation. Stu Thomson (30463 Via Cambron) stated that much staff and Commission time has gone into this application to try to resolve the issues in a manner that will attempt to be fair to all involved. He felt that this was done with the January Resolution by directing certain tree trimming actions that were carried out in February under very close staff supervision. He felt the staffs Resolution with its follow-up review is well done and thorough, and the report's conclusion is reasonable. He felt that it can be decided to continue to debate whether views have been restored adequately, or move forward accepting that in disputes such as this it is rare that all parties will be completely satisfied with the Commission's decisions. He felt everyone should step back and take a Planning Commission Minutes April 12,2011 Page 8 breath and agree to let the trees and the habitat recover for a few years before the chain saws are taken out again and more importantly, let the neighborhood heal over what has become a very divisive issue. Nancy Parsons stated that in regards to agenda item No. 3, she felt City staff did a good and diligent job with the trimming and that the trimming done does satisfy the requirements of the resolution. She discussed tree Nos. 1-3 and reminded the Commission that there is just one property from which these trees were said to have caused a significant view impairment. These trees were excluded in the original decision and were considered not considered not significant, and that decision was not appealed by those home owners. Therefore, comments made about the trees being view impairment should be considered irrelevant, as the trees cannot be considered. In reviewing the language for the covenants, she felt that since the adoption scheme was thought up by the city it should be administered by the city. She proposed that any time a neighbor is not able to continue the adoption covenant that the tree be re-noticed among the potential pool of adopters. In regards to tree No. 4, she did not believe that an abutting neighbor should have the power to have a tree removed that has no proven Public Works Department issues, and is contrary to other parts of the City codes. She agreed with Mr. O'Sullivan that the latches argument applies in regards to item No. 4. She noted that even though Mrs. Liberman spoke at the last public hearing, there was no mention of a previous CTRP, only that she had asked the City to trim the trees. She did not feel the trees should be trimmed in further, as further trimming now will most likely put the trees at risk. Marjorie Carter explained that she has requested and received trimming schedules from 2003 through 2011 for the trees in question from the View Restoration staff, Public Works staff, and from West Coast Arborists. She noted that the View Restoration schedule reflects trimming done in October 2003 to satisfy CTRP 178. However, the West Coast Arborist schedule does not reflect any trimming done on Via Collado or Via Cambron in 2003 through 2011. She was told by staff, however, that the City has an invoice from West Coast Arborist showing trimming done in October 2003. She felt this substantiates the argument that no interest has been shown or action taken in trimming these trees to correct any view impairment from Berry Hill Drive since the original CTRP 178 was filed in 2003. Because these trees have not been trimmed since 2003, she did not think it was appropriate to trim them now, as they need time to recover from their recent severe trimming. Regarding tree No. 4, she explained that the Perez family's claims that the tree roots has caused damage to their residence is unsubstantiated, as there are many trees in the Perez yard, and noted that they still have not contacted the Public Works Department to report a problem. She asked how one resident can have control over City property, which belongs to all residents. She requested the City defer action on tree No. 4 and consider one of the following options: the City omit tree No. 4 from the adoption option and accept responsibility and maintain it like any other City tree or waive the adoption restriction and allow another neighbor to adopt the tree. She also asked that the City waive the option for adoption of this one tree and maintain the tree as a city tree. Planning Commission Minutes April 12,2011 Page 9 Director Rojas explained that the rules for adoption are in the Code as a result of a previous policy decision made by the City Council. The City Code states that a city tree that significantly impairs a view is to be removed and there is a provision for adoption which very clearly states that the abutting neighbor must consent to the tree being adopted. Kathy Liberman (7318 Berry Hill Drive) stated she is speaking in regards to agenda item No. 4. She stated that because her neighbors seem to take issue with her not asking the City to trim the tree since 2003, she would explain her reasons. She explained in 2003 the City raised the crown and laced the tree. She stated she was not completely happy with what was done, but appreciated the effort. With that, she also noted that her view was blocked in by hedges from neighbors to the side and rear of her property. With City help she also sought resolution with the neighbors in regards to the private hedges. She explained that while that was going on she was also working with her neighbors discussing the fact that they were going to work together as neighbors and address the view issues with the City. Because she was going to be working as a group with her neighbors she was reluctant to contact the City to have the trees trimmed from her previous permit, as she felt what would be done in working with her neighbors would be more far reaching and thorough. She explained she bought a house with ocean and Catalina views and pays taxes based on ocean and Catalina views. She stated she would like to see a little more of the ocean other than the horizon. She referred to tree Nos. 4 and 5 and felt they are still substantially higher than other trees in the area and could be further trimmed so they are the same height as the surrounding trees. She stated she supports staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission deny the appeal. Chairman Tomblin asked staff if the city arborist had an opinion on further trimming the trees. Associate Planner Trester answered that the arborist had indicated there was potential for a problem because of the substantial amount of trimming that was already done and they were not sure if the additional trimming would be substantially more detrimental to the trees. Chairman Tomblin asked if the city arborist gave any opinion on additional trimming in a year's time. Associate Planner Trester explained that the arborist has said that within typically two years one should be able to see whether or not the trees are going to survive the trimming. Jim Morrison (7284 Berry Hill Drive) felt the current recommendation stops short of permanent corrective action, and felt the decision to remove the trees is still the correct one. He showed a picture of tree No. 6 and explained it is surrounded by sidewalk, curb, and is right at the storm drain. He felt that the tree will most likely have to be removed at some point because of the damage it will cause and suggested it be Planning Commission Minutes April 12,2011 Page 10 removed now. He also felt tree No. 7 will eventually cause the same problems. He showed a picture of tree Nos. 9 and 10 and noted that it won't be long before the sidewalk adjacent to these trees will have to be replaced. He was concerned with view maintenance and how it would be assured that the trees are trimmed to meet the requirements of the city permit. Commissioner Knight referred to Mr. Morrison's pictures of the sidewalk and asked staff if this was considered enough damage to have the tree removed. Associate Planner Trester explained that she has shown photographs of the right-of- way to Public Works staff and they indicated that because there is no visible trip hazard they would not consider that to be damage to the public right-of-way that would necessitate the tree being removed. Director Rojas stated that Mr. and Mrs. Hoskins had wanted to speak but are not in attendance. He understood they had wanted something shown or read into the record. Associate Planner Trester stated the Hoskins have submitted photographs of birds, however she does not have a letter that goes with the photographs. She went through the submitted photographs for the Commission. Commissioner Knight asked staff if they had a biologist look for active nests in these trees before they were trimmed. Associate Planner Trester stated the biologist went out on February 14th and found no active nests. Because there was a break in the trimming because of the rain, staff sent the biologist back to the site before trimming recommenced, and again found there were no active nests in the trees. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if they were aware of any resident recently planting trees on their private property in the same approximate area as the city trees in question. Associate Planner Trester answered that she is not aware of any new trees that have been planted in the neighborhood. Commissioner Leon asked staff if residents are allowed to plant trees in the public right- of-way. Associate Planner Trester responded that there is a process through the Public Works Department that may allow for residents to request to plant a tree in the public right-of- way. Planning Commission Minutes April 12,2011 Page 11 Commissioner Knight asked staff to review what trees were trimmed and staffs recommendation for any further trimming. Associate Planner Trester showed pictures of the trees after trimming with an illustration showing staffs suggested additional trimming so that the view from the applicants' property a5 7318 Berry Hill Drive is not significantly impaired. Commissioner Gerstner moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Gerstner explained that the City's policy is to remove the trees and feels he may have made a mistake when this first came before the Commission in that he was trying to find a way to allow everyone to get what they wanted as much as possible. He also explained that the discussion and arguments around waiting a certain amount of time for the trees to recover before additional trimming or removal are not valid because he felt this process was a more measured way of getting to the right answer than a process by which the city could then deny ourselves the opportunity to get to that end. He stated that he fully expected that some of these trees would have to be removed and if further trimming harms the trees and they have to be removed, that would be in keeping with City policy of removal. Commissioner Leon was not sure how removing one branch from tree No. 4, two branches from tree No. 5, and two or three branches from tree No. 6 is going to significantly improve the view from 7318 Berry Hill Drive. He believed the trees are impairments on the view, however it is only 3 to 5 percent of the overall view and most of the view is obscured by foliage that is on private property. Until that foliage is addressed, the street trees are not going to make any real difference in the overall view. He felt a measured and logical approach would be to deal with the trees on private property and then go through and clean up the street trees. Vice Chairman Tetreault understood the concerns of the neighbors regarding the loss of the trees, and felt the community has lost a lot of character as a result of this trimming. However, there is a City ordinance and his job is to interpret the Ordinance as it is written and give faith and weight to it. Therefore, despite his emotional feelings regarding this, he has to look at significant view impairment as directed by the Ordinance. He felt that a protected view, as defined in the Code, includes the water and that trimming to the horizon line gives a view of the sky, which is not a protected view. He explained that the Code does not provide for the problems of additional trimming and whether the additional trimming will or will not destroy the tree. He stated that he sees significant view impairment and therefore the motion which calls for the removal of the view impairment is sound. Commissioner Knight agreed with the Vice Chairman regarding actively removing trees from neighborhoods and how it affects the neighborhood's character. He felt that the character of a neighborhood is having beautiful mature trees. He agreed, however, that the Commission has a certain set of regulations that they have to follow. Based upon a Planning Commission Minutes April 12,2011 Page 12 consistent application of the Commission's deliberation on other cases, this does represent a significant view impairment. He felt the Director has done his best to come to some resolution to make the impairment less than significant. He felt part of the problem was that the wrong kind of trees were planted in the past and that there are other types of trees that give a beautiful landscape to a street that don't grow as tall as the pines. Chairman Tomblin discussed tree No. 4 noting that the Perez family has not agreed to adoption and therefore the tree must be removed. He felt that the Director and staff made the right decision since there are still significant view impacts to the applicants. Therefore, based on the Ordinance, he felt he had to support staff's recommendations. The motion to adopt PC Resolution 2011-17, thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Director's approval of the interpretation regarding the conditions of approval of CTRP No. 178, as recommended by staff, was approved, (4-1) with Commissioner Leon dissenting. Director Rojas explained that agenda item No. 3 is a follow-up for the Planning Commission to determine whether or not the newly trimmed trees cause a significant view impairment from the four applicants' properties. As a side issue, he noted that one of the applicants raised the issue of unsightly trees and he explained there is a provision in the code that states if a tree becomes unsightly due to the trimming it cannot be adopted. Commissioner Leon believed the whole premise was that these trees would become more and more sightly over time, and should not necessarily be analyzed on their unsightliness right after the trimming. With respect to the aesthetics of the trees, Commissioner Leon felt that if the tree lives after all of the trimming then the assumption is that it will become an aesthetically pleasing tree. In discussing agenda item No. 3 where the trimming has taken place, he noted that largely one cannot see any of the trees from the applicants' properties except for tree Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 10 which are to the side of the view. He questioned if all of the trees need to be flat in the view or whether a few trees are o.k. in the far view. Staff showed pictures from each individual applicants' property showing the view after the trees had been trimmed. Beginning with the view from 7333 Berry Hill Drive, Chairman Tomblin felt that the trimming, specifically tree No. 10, has opened up the view and there is no longer a significant view impact caused by the tree. Commissioner Leon added that he felt the trimming that has taken place has opened up a significant amount of view and any remaining view impairment appears to be caused by trees and foliage on private property. Commissioner Gerstner felt tree No. 10 needed to be trimmed a bit more to be out of the view. Planning Commission Minutes April 12,2011 Page 13 Associate Planner Trester showed the view from the four applicants' properties after the trimming to show the impact of tree No. 10 to these properties. Commissioner Leon reminded the Commission that the view in question is of the ocean and not of the horizon and therefore significant view impairment should be considered in terms of the impairment of the ocean view and not the horizon. He added that he looks at significant in terms of the percentage of the overall view that is being blocked and that its o.k. to have individual trees in a small minority of the view frame, but it is not o.k. to have a hedge of trees that blocks the entire view. Chairman Tomblin agreed with Commissioner Leon, adding that he feels tree No. 10 meets the criteria. Commissioner Knight stated he is applying standards that he tries to apply to all view restoration permits. He therefore felt the trimming of tree No. 10 is adequate to reduce the view impairment to insignificant. He explained that in making this decision he had to visually block out all of the other foliage around the tree that is not before the Planning Commission at this time. Associate Planner Trester showed a picture taken from 7284 Berry Hill Drive, where it was determined that tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 caused a significant view impairment. The picture was taken after the trimming was completed. She pointed out that there are privately owned trees in the picture located behind tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3. Chairman Tomblin asked if tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 could be further laced. Associate Planner Trester did not believe they could be further heavily laced, but thought they could have their crown reduced or topped. She also showed pictures taken from the other applicants' properties, pointing out tree Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and other trees that are on private property. After looking at all of the photographs, Chairman Tomblin felt that the trimming done has met the objectives of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Leon moved to adopt the Resolution that the required trimming for tree Nos. 1 through 10 has eliminated the significant view impairment from the applicants' viewing areas, as recommended by staff, seconded by Chairman Tomblin. Commissioner Gerstner stated that he still believes tree No. 10 should have further trimming. Commissioner Knight felt that the trimming, overall, has met the objectives of reducing the view impact to less than significant. Planning Commission Minutes April 12,2011 Page 14 Commissioner Tetreault viewed the photograph taken from 7315 Berry Hill Drive after the trimming was done. He noted that tree No. 10 appears to be right below the Isthmus at Catalina Island, which he felt is a rather significant focal point. Chairman Tomblin asked if tree No. 10 was going to be trimmed as part of the Liberman's city tree permit. Associate Planner Trester answered that tree No. 10 will be trimmed as part of that permit, and that staff has recommended it be trimmed down to the horizon line. She stated that the recommendation in the Resolution is to trim tree Nos. 9 and 10 down to the same level as the other trees. With that clarification Commissioner Tetreault felt his issues with the property at 7315 Berry Hill Drive were addressed, and Commissioner Gerstner agreed. Resolution 2011-018, resolving that the trimming required for tree Nos. 1 through 10 has eliminated the significant view impairment from the applicants' viewing areas, as recommended by staff, was adopted (5-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. Minutes of March 8, 2011 Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (3-0-2) with Chairman Tomblin and Chairman Tetreault abstaining since they were absent from all or part of that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on April 26, 2011 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved without objection. ADJOURNMENT .The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes April 12,2011 Page 15