PC MINS 197711160 0 (04)
M I N U T E S
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission
Special Adjourned Meeting
November 16, 1977
The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman McTaggart.
PRESENT: Bacharach, Hinchliffe (late arrival), Hughes
Rosenberg, McTaggart
ABSENT: None
Also present was Director of Planning Sharon Hightower.
TREE TRIMMING ORDINANCE Mr. McTaggart explained that this
meeting was erroneously noticed as a
public hearing, but that after a brief work session, the public hearing
would be re -opened to allow testimony on only those portions of the ordi-
nance in which changes have been made, as shown in the revised draft copy.
Director Hightower briefly reviewed the changes to the ordinance, explaining
the intent of each of the changes.
Mr. Rosenberg requested staff to add other changes, including (1) if
trees are blocking the views of more than one property, all of the
affected homeowners may file a complaint together; and (2) one complaint
may be filed against more than one property owner if the trees obstructing
his/her view belongs to more than one property.
Mr. Hughes expressed concern about the wording of Section 9692 A. 1. as
he felt the intent of this section was not clear. Re 9692 A. 3., he was
concerned about the meaning of "focused element". Re 9693A, he wanted it
to clearly state that personal contact with the owner of the obstructing
tree was required and also that the statement indicating contact was made
be signed.
On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously
carried, the work session was adjourned to later thisevening.
Mr. McTaggart re -opened the public hearing and requested that comments be
limited to only the proposed changes.
Pat Hanlon, 3139 Dianora Drive, addressed Section 9692 A.l. and said he
disagreed with the measurement from a recreational area, as a patio may
be located well below the living room. He felt people sat on a patio to
enjoy the view and five feet would be well above eye -level. He also ex-
pressed concern about stating the measurement must be made at one foot from
the foundation, as he felt the average patio extended 10-20 feet from the
house.
Mr. McTaggart said that the Commission felt five feet was a reasonable
standard, as in a seated position, many views could be lost from the
erection of a legal fence. Re the one -foot measurement, he said the
committee must have a reasonable point from which to measure.
Elza Cortes, 29681 Highpoint Road, was opposed to the five-foot measure-
ment standard, pointing out that she was not even five feet tall and,
therefore, would not have a view. She also felt that, whether inside or
outside, people sit down to enjoy their views.
Mr. McTaggart pointed out that the five-foot measurement inside the
house need not be taken from one foot of the foundation wall.
Mrs. Cortes felt that existing trees which were not now obstructing views
should be treated the same as trees planted after adoption of the
ordinance; i.e., that the owner of the tree should pay for trimming if the
trees ever obstruct views.
Mr. McTaggart said the Commission felt that trees planted after adoption
of the ordinance should be done in a manner that would not obstructviews,
and that parties involved would be aware of the ordinance and comply with
it. He did not feel that someone who has legally planted trees should be
forced to comply with an ordinance passed after the fact, and that the
complaining party should bear the cost for the first complaint on all trees
now in existence. He felt the Commission should not prepare an ordinance
that would not hold up in court.
Ann McNeely, 5747 Wildbriar, wondered about the possibility of having a
tree declared a pdlAic nuisance because of its extraordinary height
and the neighbors' concern about it falling on someone's house.
Kathy Hubbard, 6519 Via Colinita, questioned the possibility of having
Miraleste excluded from the ordinance. She explained it was an historical
area and that the trees were already nicely taken care of by the
Miraleste Parks District, which works very closely with the homeowners. She
said this placed Miraleste in a different position than the other areas of
the City.
Mr. Rosenberg felt this was a legal question that must be answered by the
City Attorney. He was concerned that the ordinance may be declared in-
valid if it did not apply to everyone.
Mrs. Cortes said the people of Miraleste are assessed and pay for this
service through their taxes.
Tim Burrell, 4038 Exultant Drive, was in favor of deleting the word ".private"
in Section 9690 A., thereby including public trees under this ordinance.
On motion of Mr. Rosenberg, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously
carried, the public hearing was continued to another meeting.
Mr. McTaggart re -opened the work session.
The Commission discussed the possiblity of exempting the Miraleste area
J from the ordinance. The majority of the Commission did not wish to exempt
At for the following reasons: all of the residents of the City are
entitled to the sa-m-ReNlaws; if exemptions are made, the ordinance would
E�n
become very complicated, if it's legal at all; and the patchwork of
districts would create problems for adjoining areas.
kV Section 9692 A.l., second sentence, was amended to read as follows: "A
primary viewing area may be from inside the residence, at principal floor
elevation, or from an established recreational area outside at pad level
within one foot of the foundation horizontally. The view shall be de-
termined from the height of five feet.
There was some discussion about whether the measurement should be from
five feet or some lower number.
Director Hightower said one of the reasons for choosing five feet was
because you developed more of an arc than with a lower viewing level.
It was the consensus of the Commission to keep it at five feet.
P.C. Minutes -2- 11/16/77
0 -
Section
9692 A.3. was amended to read as follows: "The view or vista is
of a scene, such as the ocean, city, harbor, shoreline, or Catalina
Island."
Section 9693, line 8, was amended to read ..must include a signed
statement..."; line 9 was amended to read "...including applicant's
personal contact..."
Section 9696 B. was amended to read as follows: "Three estimates for the
work to be performed in A above shall be chosen from an approved list of
licensed, bonded tree surgeons or landscape contractors. The owner of
the property on which the obstruction is located may choose any contractor,
however, the cost borne..."
Section 9696 C. was amended to read as follows: "If the corrective action
is the result of the second or subsequent complaint brought against the
owner of the same property for the same obstruction by the same complaining
property,the costs required..."
Mr. Rosenberg said the next draft will also include additional changes
previously mentioned to staff.
The Commission wished to schedule another public hearing on the ordinance
for the meeting of `_Decemk`"13; and asked that copies of the draft
ordinance, as revised tonight, be sent to them and to the homeowners'
associations by December 5.
As there will not be a quorum for the regular meeting of December 27 it
was suggested that the Commission meet on December 21 instead. Director
Hightower said she would check whether or not there would be a room avail-
able for a meeting on that date.
Mrs. Bacharach suggested a news release re the tree trimming ordinance
public hearing, since legal notice would not be published again.
DRIVEWAY ACCESS Mr. Hughes said it appeared most of
the problems discussed in the letter
were due to the behavior of people rather than a driveway. He felt the
common driveway was a good planning tool which should not be eliminated.
Director Hightower explained that if an easement was sold it was recorded
with the County, but that nothing comes through the City. She said there
was a minimum width required for single driveways, but nothing in the
Code which covers a common driveway.
Re the proposals, as listed in the letter, the Commission reached a
consensus on the following: they did not agree with the first proposal
because it would greatly increase the grading, and a common driveway was
often the most desirable approach; they felt the new grading ordinance
allows enough leeway that the second proposal was essentially accomplished;
and they did not feel that a request for a common driveway was any reason
to hold a public hearing, as the third proposal suggested.
The Commission felt that although a common driveway was not the first
alternative considered, it was, in many cases, the most desirable method
and the most viable solution.
Mr. McTaggart felt the City Attorney should be asked if the City has the
right to prevent someone from establishing an easement for a driveway other
than the one approved by the City, both on existing and future lots. He
felt if it was determined that this is under the City's purview, the
Commission would work on a policy.
P.C. Minutes -3- 11/16/77
•
•
OTHER MATTERS Mr. McTaggart reported that the'West
Portuguese Bend Homeowners Association
told the Council that they were having a problem with vandalism, etc., as
a direct result of the patking problems at St. Peter='s Church, near the
proposed Tentative Tract No. 33358. He discussed various solutions for
alternative access, including redesign of the tract to allow access through
a portion of it.. He said the applicant (Mercury Enterprises) of the tract
has indicated to the Council that he would give an easement for a footpath.
Mr. McTaggart said he wished to disucss this problem and perhaps come up
with some sort of solution for the Council.
The Commission felt a footpath was not a long term solution, and did not
feel Mercury Enterprises should be required to correct an existing
problem that is being created by the church. They suggested that the
church investigate thepossibility of alternative parking methods,
increasing to four services, or perhaps a shuttle service to transport
people.
The Commission
did not bring
hearing on the
ADJOURNMENT
also expressed concern that the Homeowner's Association
these problems forward when the Commission was holding public
tract map.
At 10:45 p.m. it was moved, seconded,
and carried to adjourn to Tuesday,
November 22, 1977, at 7:30 p.m.
P.C. Minutes -4- 11/16/77