Loading...
PC MINS 20120313 Approved April 2 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:09 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, FLAG SALUTE Patrick Granger of Boy Scout Troop 128 led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner, Leon, Lewis, Nelson, Tomblin, and Chairman Tetreault. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas and Senior Planner Alvarez. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was reviewed and unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed amendments to the Resolution as well as correspondence related to agenda item No. 1. Commissioner Lewis reported that he met with Mr. Randall regarding the proposed dog beach issue that will eventually be brought before the Planning Commission, SELECTION OF VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioners Emenhiser and Leon were nominated for the position of Vice Chairman. Commissioner Emenhiser was elected, as he received votes from Commissioners Emenhiser, Lewis, Nelson and Tomblin while Commissioner Leon received votes from Commissioners Gerstner, Leon, and Chairman Tetreault. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. View Restoration Permit No. 2010-00010 Director Rojas stated that there is a requirement that for a Commissioner to participate in this item they must make a site visit to the applicants' properties. He polled the Commission if they had made the required site visit, and it was affirmed that they all had. Therefore, all Commissioners were eligible to participate in the public hearing. Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report, giving a brief background of this permit application. He explained that at this time staffs analysis and recommendations concerning the applicants' requests focus on whether or not the six permit findings could be met. He stated that staff felt that all six permit findings can be made to approve Mr. Zar's request to trim trees on the Gober property, however, staff did not believe that two of the six required permit findings could be made to approve Mrs. Goodwin's request to trim the trees on the Towner-Enna property and the Gober property. Notwithstanding staffs recommendation of denial of Mrs. Goodwin's application, he stated that staff felt her view would be improved should the Commission agree with staffs recommendation to trim or remove the trees on the Gober property related to Mr. Zar's view restoration request. He elaborated that in order for a View Restoration Permit to be approved, the Commission must make Finding No. 1, and explained how staff was able to make this finding in relation to Mr. Zar's request, but could not make the finding in regards to Mrs. Goodwin's request. He also noted that staff was not able to make Finding No. 2 in regards to the Goodwin application, In conclusion, he stated staffs recommendation was for the Planning Commission to approve Mr. Zar's application request to trim two trees on the Gober property, and to deny Mrs. Goodwin's application request on the grounds that two of the six findings could not be made. He stated that in order to improve the Zar's view, which would also improve Mrs. Goodwin's view, staff recommends the Gober pine trees be trimmed to the Gober roof line height; however, staff prefers the Gobers provide consent to remove and replace the trees as the City's arborist opined the trees would die as a result of the trimming recommendation, Commissioner Leon asked staff if they took into account that some of the trees on the Towner-Enna property are deciduous trees and at this time have no leaves; however, the tree will fill in during the spring and summer months. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that staff was aware the Elm tree would fill in, but the view analysis was based on the existing condition of the tree. Commissioner Leon referred to Ms. Enna's letter and her comment that some of the trees are very close to fences. He asked staff if there is a policy regarding consequential damages to fences if a tree is removed and the fence is damaged. He asked who would be responsible if a fence is damaged during tree removal. Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2012 Page 2 Senior Planner Alvarez referred to Ms. Enna's letter noting that Ms. Enna states that during a private removal of a tree the crew that did the work damaged her fence. He explained that the City does not involve itself in that type of issue. If it were a City decision that was being carried out, the City is indemnified from the tree contractor's work. The tree contractor that is hired has its own insurance policy in place to take care of these types of issues. Commissioner Leon asked staff what is needed as proof of early neighborhood consultation. Senior Planner Alvarez stated the View Restoration Guidelines refer to the applicant providing written proof in the form of a certified letter. Chairman Tetreault referred to the item of late correspondence and asked if staff considers this letter would satisfy one component of finding No. 1 that the applicant has complied with the early neighborhood consultation process. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that the contact information in the Goodwin letter is dated at a time when staff had already involved itself in the application. The early neighborhood consultation process specifically says that the applicant's contact should occur prior to the notice of intent application. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Gayle Goodwin (applicant) stated she has enjoyed a panoramic view from her property for the four decades she has lived at the property. She explained that she originally contacted between 32 and 35 foliage owners and asked them to cooperate with the applicants to help restore their view. She noted her submission of a letter from Mrs. Towner-Enna dated July 2010 in which she mentions the walk-through of both the Towner-Enna property and the Goodwin property and confirms several conversations and conferences that have taken place. She stated that there has been quite a bit of foliage growth since the summer of 2010 and it has taken quite a bit of time and a good deal of money for request to be denied on a technicality. She stated she has been part of the application process from the beginning and has completed every detail and it would be unfair to cut her out of the negotiations with such a large filing fee and expense. She stated that the view restoration mediator, Colleen Berg, has been negotiating with Ms. Tower-Enna since December 2009. She also stated she has received nothing in writing from Ms. Berg and she did not feel Ms. Berg. She distributed pictures to the Commissioners showing her view of the trees on the Towner-Enna property. She pointed out the deciduous tree mentioned by Commissioner Leon, showing the tree with the leaves on it. Commissioner Gerstner asked Ms. Goodwin at what point staff advised her or at what point did she become aware that staff may or may not support her application because of the failure to communicate with the foliage owners in advance of the application. Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2012 Page 3 Ms. Goodwin stated that she was informed very recently, as the written report was the time she was informed. David Zar (applicant) was sorry he couldn't come to an agreement with the Gobers. In regards to Ms. Goodwin, he explained that she approached him in 2009 and got him involved in the process. He stated that the foliage on Towner property affects the Goodwin property the most, and that letters to the Towner property were from Ms. Goodwin, He questioned why the mediator or staff did not inform them earlier of any problems with the notifications, as they could have corrected them early on. He felt that Ms. Goodwin should be included in the decision. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Zar if there had ever been any discussion or consideration of lacing the trees on the Gober property to help with his view. Mr. Zar answered that Mr. Gober had laced the tree several years ago, however it didn't do much for the view from his property. Joel Gober (foliage owner) explained there has been a lot of talk over the years on how to trim the trees, however when he consulted with an arborist on the trimming he was informed the trees would die as a result of the proposed trimming. He stated that throughout the process he was never informed of the Goodwin request and has never spoken to Ms. Goodwin. On that basis, he felt her application should be denied. He stated he was in agreement to remove tree No. 5 and agreed that the views from the Goodwin and Zar property, as shown in the staff report, are the best views from a prominent location. In looking at staff's picture, he noticed that his tree covers up approximately 10 percent of the view of Catalina Island. He questioned what staff and/or the Commission considers significant. He noted that the Code does not say that a view owner should have a sweeping, 100 percent unobstructed panoramic view from their property. In looking at staff's photo taken from the Goodwin property, he noted that several trees on the Goodwin property block up to 50 percent of her own Catalina view, and his trees block only 13 percent of the view. He also noted that some of the Goodwin trees actually block the view of his trees. He stated that tree No. 5 should not be part of the consideration, as he has been planning to remove the tree at his own expense. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Gober his opinion on tree No. 6. Mr. Gober did not want to trim the tree to the suggested level, as he did not want to cause the death of the tree. Commissioner Leon explained that the Planning Commission has heard other cases where Canary Island pine trees are involved, and felt that when the City Arborist opines that trimming will kill the tree, often times what he means is that he cannot guarantee that the tree will survive. He asked Mr. Gober if it would be in his interest to try cutting the tree to a certain point and see if it lives, or would he rather have the tree removed and replaced. Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2012 Page 4 Mr. Gober responded that his first choice would be to deny the application because the tree does not cause a significant impairment. His second choice would be to try trimming the tree and see if it survives, while his third choice would be to remove the tree. Katherine Enna (foliage owner) explained that the property is owned by the Towner Living Trust, which includes herself and her two brothers. Regarding the letter that Ms. Goodwin stated she sent to her, she stated that she just received it in her mailbox last night. She also explained that the letter dated July 15th was a result of wanting to tell Ms. Goodwin what she was willing to do with the vegetation to begin the negotiation process. She stated that she has already removed a willow tree and Cyprus tree at her own cost, laced and lowered the elm tree, trimmed and laced the pine tree in the front, and trimmed and laced the pear tree. In regards to notifications and letters, she explained that the initial letter she received was only from Mr. Papadakis and Mr. Zar and the contact information in the letter was to Mr. Papadakis, She had a conversation with Mr. Papadakis, followed up by an email, and there was no mention that Ms. Goodwin was part of this request. She later received a letter from the City that a new applicant, Ms. Goodwin, was added to the application. She stated that she trimmed her trees to the roof line of her residence and removed two trees, but never heard from Ms. Goodwin until she received the notification that she was going to file a view restoration application. Ms. Goodwin has not contacted her and the only communications have been letters received from the City, the receipt of the staff report, and the letter that was left in her mailbox yesterday. Nick Papadakis stated that Mr. Zar and Ms. Goodwin approached him in 2009 with their concerns in regards to the trees that blocked their views. He explained that there were initially 33 certified letters sent out and he would be surprised if there were no mistakes made in this mailing. He stated that Mrs. Towner did receive a certified letter, and while it may not have had the correct name on it, the letter was received. He felt the intent of the early neighborhood notification is to make the foliage owner is made aware, early on, that there is a problem. He stated that this intent was satisfied. He showed written communications from Mrs. Towner which date back to December 2009, He stated that throughout the process Mrs. Goodwin was part of the team. He felt that Commission members typically follow staffs recommendation unless there is a compelling reason not to. He felt that there is a compelling reason not to follow staffs recommendation in this case since Ms. Goodwin was part of this process from the beginning. He also felt that Ms. Goodwin negotiated in good faith with Mrs. Towner from the beginning, including the time spent with the mediator. He felt this situation cries out for fairness and that the Commission should set aside the Guidelines, since the Guidelines are not the law and is just a guideline which is bendable and flexible. He asked the Commission give Ms. Goodwin the benefit of the doubt, as everything was done. Gayle Goodwin (in rebuttal) stated she has been a team member from the beginning and she initiated the foliage question and they have worked as team through the Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2012 Page 5 entire process. She believed Mrs. Berg was negotiating with Mrs. Towner on her behalf, but she never had a written offer that she could respond to. David Zar (in rebuttal) stated he agrees with the comments made by Mr. Papadakis. and asked the Commission to not abide by staffs recommendations in regards to Ms. Goodwin. Joel Gober (in rebuttal) stated he was not aware that Ms. Goodwin was participating in the process until just a few weeks ago, and she did not participate in the early neighborhood consultation process. He also referred to staff s photo labeled "alternate view of Gober trees 5 and 6" and reminded the Commission that tree No. 5 will be removed. He felt that alternate views should probably be stricken from the staff report because there should be one view from a prominent location and not multiple views, and when the City agrees upon on a view from a prominent location that is in standing for subsequent years if there is a future view restoration process. Katherine Enna (in rebuttal) felt she made a good faith effort to trim her trees to help restore views. She noted that these trees were trimmed and removed in March 2011 and nothing came to her attention that anyone was unhappy until May 2011. Further, even though she was willing to speak to somebody about it, she was never contacted. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff what their recommendation would have been if they felt Mrs. Goodwin had followed all of the procedures correctly, Senior Planner Alvarez answered that staff does not feel the Towner trees constitute a significant view impairment to the Goodwin property, as they impair the ocean view and not the Catalina Island view. Further, staff feels the view impairment to the ocean view is very minimal, as Mrs. Goodwin currently has an existing extensive ocean view, Commissioner Lewis referred to the photo labeled "alternate view of Gober trees 5 and 6" and asked staff if the purpose of the photo was to show significant view impairment or if the purpose was to help orientate the Commission to the position of the two trees on the Gober property. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that staff was concerned that, from the patio view, the Goodwin's tree trunk impairs a good portion of tree No. 6 and staff did not want to give the impression that tree No. 6 is larger than it actually is. Therefore staff took a picture of tree No. 6 from a different position to better show the tree on the Gober property. Commissioner Leon noted that staff did not feel that the prerequisites for the Goodwin application had been met, and questioned why staff would accept an application and fee from Ms. Goodwin if the prerequisites had not been met. Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2012 Page 6 Director Rojas explained that view restoration permits are not development applications and are not subject to the Permit Streamlining Act and therefore do not go through the same thorough completeness review as the development applications that the Commission typically sees. He also noted that staff had been under the impression that the early neighborhood consultation process had been met in regards to Ms. Goodwin. However, in early December of last year when the notice of public hearing was mailed, staff received a response from one of the foliage owners challenging the early neighborhood consultation process and alerting staff that perhaps there was an issue with this application. He explained that typically the findings for approval of an application are quite broad, however the uniqueness of view restoration applications is that there are very specific guidelines that explain exactly how view restoration findings are to be met. Therefore, faced with the very strict wording of the Guidelines, staff had to determine that finding No. 1 was not met. Commissioner Leon asked what was determined as the viewing area on the Goodwin property. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that in 1998 Ms. Goodwin and Mr. Papadakis filed a view restoration permit application and at that time the View Restoration Commission established viewing areas for Ms. Goodwin's view. This area included the living room, a bedroom, and the patio area. He noted that multiple viewing areas are allowed provided it is the same view from each area. Commissioner Leon referred to staff's photo taken from the Goodwin property and stated that he did not think the photo matched his perception when he was at the residence. Senior Planner Alvarez clarified that staff took the photos from the patio area of the Goodwin property, since the view is maximized from that area and therefore the best representation of the view from the property. Staff felt that the views are more narrow from inside the residence. Commissioner Leon thought views were always considered from the interior of a residence. Senior Planner Alvarez stated that views are not always taken from the interior of a residence. He noted that the View Restoration Commission established by Resolution that the patio was a viewing area. Commissioner Leon noted that if the viewing area is the patio, if one were to walk the length of the patio it would be possible to manipulate the view such that the deciduous tree would be directly between you and Catalina Island. Senior Planner Alvarez agreed that one could shift their position across the width of the patio to make a significant view impairment, however staff believes that if one has to Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2012 Page 7 shift their position to make a significant view impairment then there most likely isn't a significant view impairment. Commissioner Leon noted that Ms. Goodwin has not done a particularly good job with her own foliage to enhance the view from her property, but he did not think that necessarily has any bearing on the Commission's decision. Commissioner Gerstner asked if it is determined that Ms. Goodwin's application is not appropriate because the early neighborhood consultation process was not correctly followed, does it follow that it is then determined the trees do not impair the view from her viewing area or is no decision made and there is no comment regarding the trees and the view from her property. Director Rojas explained that staff determined that two separate findings could not be made in order to recommend approval. Senior Planner Alvarez added that it would state in the Resolution that the Planning Commission cannot make the findings of early neighborhood consultation and significant view impairment. However, Ms. Goodwin does not lose any rights in regards to view preservation in that whatever view is preserved today would be documented so that no future growth could significantly impair her view. He also explained that if the Gober trees are trimmed down and/or removed Ms. Goodwin will have equal protection to preserve her view. Director Rojas also noted that if the Commission were to deny Ms. Goodwin's application but approve Mr. Zar's application and the recommended tree trimming is done, staff felt Ms. Goodwin's view would no longer be significantly impaired because of that action. In the future, for view preservation, staff would only go to the Zar residence to confirm the proper trimming was done. He added that once the trees are trimmed she can file her own view preservation documentation with the City. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if he understood that Ms. Goodwin will benefit from the tree removal or trimming, she can then benefit from this trimming by filing her own view preservation documentation with the City, and there is no charge to do so. Director Rojas confirmed that was correct. Chairman Tetreault noted a previous comment that one may be able to move laterally in the patio on the Goodwin property where at some point the deciduous tree would then be in the Catalina Island view. In comparing that suggested view to the previous determination of the viewing area, he asked if that would be inconsistent with the prior determination of a viewing area. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that would be consistent with the previous View Restoration Commission's determination of the viewing area. Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2012 Page 8 Chairman Tetreault asked staff to explain the prior determination of the View Restoration Commission in regards to the viewing area on the Goodwin property and how that is binding upon the Commission this evening. Senior Planner Alvarez displayed a copy of the View Restoration Commission's resolution which defines the view from Ms. Goodwin's property. He noted that the location defined in the Resolution is the same location staff used when determining the view with this current application which includes the outdoor patio. Commissioner Lewis moved to approve staff's recommendations with the modification that in regards to the Goodwin application finding No. I can be made, and also in regards to the Goodwin application finding No. 2 can be made with respect to the elm tree, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Commissioner Lewis explained that, in regards to the first issue, for the City to hold this applicant to a standard that cannot be met and would not have changed the circumstances of the application, is unfair. He did not think the applicant could be faulted in this case as she did all she could do. Regarding the finding of significant view impairment, if the Commission were to accept staffs premise that the deciduous tree will bear leaves in the future then there will be a significant view impairment. Commissioner Leon stated he is a proponent of having as many mature trees in the City as possible, however not when they significantly impair a view. He suggested amending the motion to order the trimming of the trees down to some level below the horizon or Catalina Island as opposed to cutting them to the 16 foot level. Commissioner Gerstner asked Commissioner Lewis to clarify his motion as to whether it was a motion saying that it was only the Elm tree on the Towner property that significantly impairs the view, or is it the Elm tree and other trees. Commissioner Lewis answered that he was focused on the elm tree in terms of disagreeing with staffs recommendation, and agreed with staffs recommendation that there is no significant view impairment caused by tree Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Commissioner Gerstner agreed with Commissioner Leon that there is a point where some water can be obscured and the view is still not significantly impacted, noting that finding where that line is can be extremely difficult. He agreed that he likes to see as many mature trees in the City to the extent that they don't impair views, he also did not want to encourage trimming trees that have been significantly topped. He felt extreme tree topping can be just as much a detriment to a view. He felt that a suggestion to lower the pines to a level where they may still block a bit of the water would be something would be one he could support. However, the trees would have to be lowered significantly and he was not sure they would survive. Commissioner Nelson felt that there is a reason the code calls out sixteen feet, and that in this case the Commission should abide by the sixteen foot rule. Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2012 Page 9 Commissioner Tomblin asked Commissioner Lewis to clarify his motion in terms of tree No. 6. Commissioner Lewis stated that he agrees with staffs recommendation in regards to tree No. 6. Commissioner Tomblin also had concerns with the elm tree, agreeing that when it has leaves it will significantly block the view. In regards to tree No. 6, he would prefer finding a way to lower the tree and lace it to restore the view of Catalina Island. Commissioner Lewis recalled that an arborist had stated that if tree No. 6 were trimmed it will most likely die. However, if the Commission could agree on a line to represent the level to which the trees must be trimmed, he would be willing to amend his motion. He thought it would be difficult for the Commission to agree on the location of such a line, and he was unsure how staff would craft an enforceable motion using this type of line. Vice Chairman Emenhiser stated he was in support of Commissioner Lewis' motion, noting that Ms, Goodwin will also benefit from the trimming of the trees on the Gober property, Chairman Tetreault asked Commissioner Lewis if the intent of his motion was that he could make finding No. 1 in regards to Ms. Goodwin for both of the foliage owner's properties. Commissioner Lewis responded that he was able to make finding No. 1 in regards to Ms. Goodwin for both of the foliage owners' properties. Chairman Tetreault noted that Mr. Gober has requested that tree No. 5 be removed from the Commission's consideration, as he intends to remove the tree at his own expense. He pointed out that this would take the cost of the tree removal away from the applicants, however by removing the tree from consideration the City could not enforce view restoration regulations on that tree. Commissioner Lewis felt that these parties waived mediation for a reason, and that they most likely are looking to the City to make a decision in regards to the trees. He did not think that Commission would be helping them by allowing them to enter into that private agreement. He agreed with the staff report, which includes tree No. 5. Commissioner Gerstner stated he supported the motion made by Commissioner Lewis, Commissioner Leon requested the Chairman reopen the public hearing to ask Mr. Gober about trimming the trees to a specific line and his opinion about tree No. 5. Chairman Tetreault reopened the public hearing for the specific purpose of asking Mr. Gober about tree No. S. Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2012 Page 10 Mr. Gober stated that he and Mr. Zar have already agreed as to where that view line should be placed, and pointed out on staff's photo the approximate location of that line. He stated that he could measure how far that line is up the telephone pole, but he would have to do so at the site and not from the picture. Director Rojas clarified that staff does not typically put a specific foot measurement in these decisions, but rather will draw trimming lines on photos. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if the Commission were to direct staff to draw a trimming line that matches the lowest telephone wire on the photograph, would that be sufficient instruction for staff. Director Rojas answered that would be sufficient instruction for staff. Mr. Zar acknowledged that he had discussed the lowest point of the lower power line with Mr. Gober several years ago, however at that time Mr. Gober had told him to file a view restoration permit. Chairman Tetreault noted that staffs recommendation is that the two trees on the Gober property be removed, and asked Mr. Zar if that was also his desire. Mr. Zar stated he would like to have the two trees removed. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon moved to amend the motion to direct staff to draw a trimming line on staff's photograph at the level of the lowest power line and that tree No. 6 be considered insignificant obstruction of view below that line, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. The motion failed, (2-5) with Commissioners Nelson, Gerstner, Vice Chairman Em:enhiser, and Chairman Tetreault dissenting. Commissioner Lewis repeated his motion to adopt staff's recommendation as amended to reflect the Planning Commission was able to make finding No. 1 for the Goodwin application and that there is significant view impairment caused only by tree No 3, the Elm tree, on the Towner property. Senior Planner Alvarez noted that staff did not provide a recommendation in the draft Resolution for the Elm tree or any other tree on the Towner property. Director Rojas added that staff will have to bring a revised Resolution back to the Planning Commission with a recommended trimming schedule for the Elm tree. Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2012 Page 11 Commissioner Gerstner clarified that there is a location on the Goodwin property where the Elm tree covers a portion of Catalina Island, and it is the Planning Commission's intent to have that portion of the tree not block Catalina Island. Commissioner Lewis added to his motion that this item will then be brought back to the Planning Commission at the next meeting with a revised Resolution, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Chairman Tetreault stated he was not able to make the finding that the early neighborhood consultation process was done as required in regards to the Goodwin application., The motion to approve the application as revised and for staff to present a revised Resolution at the April 1 Oth meeting was approved, (6-1) with Chairman Tetreault dissenting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 2. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on March 27,_2012 The Commission reviewed and approved the pre-agenda ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 13,2012 Page 12