PC MINS 19931206APPROVED ✓�3
r'
11219
VER TIM 1��4(
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ADJOURNED `: MEETING
DECEMBER 6, 1993
The meeting was called to order at 7:37 PM by Co -Vice Chairman
Alberio (Chairman Katherman arrived at 7:39 PM) at the Hesse Park
Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of
Alliance followed, led by Director Bernard.
PRESENT: Commissioners Clark, Mowlds, Co -Vice -Chairpersons Alberio
and Hayes and Chairman Katherman.
ABSENT: Commissioners Byrd and Lorenzen.
Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement Bernard, Planning Administrator Petru, and Associate
Planner Silverman.
COMMUNICATIONS
Director Bernard reported that a letter from the Rancho Palos
Verdes Council of Homeowners Associations and a amended copy of the
resolution for Grading Permit No. 1711, pages 5 through 8, were
distributed to the Commission.
Continued Business
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 657 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
177 GRADING PERMIT NO 1711 MISCELLANEOUS HEARING; Mr. and
Mrs. Marvin Winkler, 6100 Via Subida. (TS)
Requested Action: Allow construction of a new 13,617
square foot residential structure (including a garage)
with a pool, spa, tennis court, playing field; detached
356 square foot pool house, 703 square foot guest house
(without kitchen facilities), a 1,200 square foot
"second unit" (with kitchen facilities and a 567 square
foot attached garage) on a 5.57 acre lot. Approximately
14,330 cubic yards of a balanced on-site grading will be
required. The existing structures will be demolished.
Associate Planner Silverman read the staff report:
This item was continued from the November 23, 1993, meeting, in
order to allow the applicant, surrounding property owners, and the
City the opportunity to thoroughly analyze the issue of tree
trimming and removal as a condition of permit issuance. At that
hearing, the Planning Commission directed Staff to work with all
interested parties to reach a balance between removal of the mature
trees on the property, and view restoration from several properties
1
located on Diamonte Lane, behind this subject property.
Since that hearing, Staff has worked very closely with all of the
concerned neighbors and with the applicant and have reached what we
feel to be a reasonable compromise. After completing the
preliminary analysis, a Planning Commission subcommittee consisting
of Chairman Katherman and Commissioners Clark and Alberio joined
Staff and the neighbors to discuss our findings. The outcome of
that meeting has been detailed in the Staff Report. Essentially,
Staff and the neighbors have physically painted numbers on a total
of 25 trees. Of these trees, 7 have been recommended to be removed
outright - the rest will be subject to individual review, in order
to restore views from the properties on Diamonte Lane. Rather than
remove every tree, this will enable Staff and the concerned
neighbors to specifically identify which trees impair the view, as
well as provide the landowner with some assurance that the trees
will not be clear cut. Primarily - the trees of concern are
located on the north slope of the property, with 5 additional trees
located adjacent to Diamonte Lane. (Photographs were provided)
Based on direction given by subcommittee members, Staff has also
incorporated conditions of approval recommending that a cluster of
tees located adjacent to Diamonte Lane, in the vicinity of the
proposed second unit be trimmed to a height not to exceed 12 feet,
as this is the maximum height permitted by Code for the second
unit.
While the report prepared for this evening addressed only the
vegetation removal issues, Staff is prepared to answer any
questions you may have with respect to the vegetation removal, in
addition to any other questions you may have about the project.
We have distributed revised conditions of approval with respect to
tree trimming, aside from the 7 designated for trimming or removal.
I want to clarify one issue that we would like to make that
issuance of building or grading permit, rather than strictly a
building permit. Are there any questions?
There were no questions from Commission.
There was no objection from the Commission that two people from the
audience wished to speak first even though they expressed no
opinion for or against the project because they have to leave
early.
Ms. Dawn Henry, 6525 Via Colinita, President of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Council of Homeowners Associations and speaking on their
behalf. Ms. Henry asked the Planning Commission's brief
interpretation of Section B, Paragraph 4, of Proposition M's
ordinance.
Chairman Katherman answered for the Commission that generally the
2
position is to try to balance preservation of mature trees with the
need to meet the 161 arbitrary height that is mentioned in
Proposition M.
Ms. Henry thanked the Commission for acknowledging receipt of her
letter. According to the wording of the section for which she
asked opinion, she quoted the following from the Proposition. "The
City shall issue no conditional use permit, variance, height
variation, building permit or other entitlement to construct a
structure unless the owner removes all foliage exceeding 16 feet"
and it continues... As you will note, there is no interpretation
that states or allows for the ...... of anybody's property just
because their property is the only one to benefit from the Code.
To agree with Staff's recommendation would serve to circumvent the
intent of the voters in the passage of Proposition M. According to
the Staff's recommendation, additionally, it is ...... .....
trimming of the trees to 161 pursuant to the Code requirements will
only benefit views from Diamonte Lane even though this will
continue to impair the views from all other properties which are
unprotected -from Code. How can you deny complete foliage removal
and allow for the restoration of the view at 15 Diamonte just
because no one happens to benefit from it. We urge you to insure
the view restoration of each and all the properties located on
Diamonte., including the one at 15 Diamonte Lane.
Commissioner Mowlds stated that the Commission has been facing this
problem for two years and eventually the City Council codified what
has been in existence. You present this in your own letter. In the
last paragraph, four lines up from the bottom, you use the word
each; you request that the Commission provide for the view
restoration of each of the families that are affected by the
Winkler property.
Ms. Henry answered yes, if they fall into the category of the
Proposition M code.
Commissioner Mowlds asked if she used her interpretation which cuts
-everything to 161, you then could foliage up and mask out most of
the views of most of the people on Diamonte Lane with the exception
of 15.
Ms. Henry said that the people who do not have a view with trees
below 161 are unprotected from the view ordinance and therefore do
not apply, is that what you are saying?
Commissioner Mowlds said yes, people can go to 161; they can block
a concrete block wall, they can build a chain link fence and fill
it solid or they can grow trees. So, in this particular case, if
you use a mixture of options, and this is unusual, how many 5 and
a half acre pieces of property do we have contiguous in this city
that you run into this problem. I know of one other property that
is about 30 acres contiguous and it has not come up. Now we have
3
a case that is so big a piece of property that it is possible that
what we have might not work. You were not here when we had to deal
with the 1201 high trees on Via Campesina and, if we were to cut
these off at 161, that did not seem like the most reasonable
solution.
Ms. Henry stated that Proposition M is saying restore the view and
in all cases, for example, when eucalyptus trees that are very
high, you thin them out and it is not going to affect the view.
What I am talking about is, according to the Staff's report, if,
just because #15 is the only one that is going to benefit from
that, that you don't need to or want to interpret the view
restoration policy because they are the only ones who are going to
benefit from it. In addition, she went to 15 Diamonte Lane to look
at the view that is being referred to and I don't think he is
asking for every single tree to be cut to 161 but what he is asking
is for the (inaudible word) policy to allow him to restore his view
and negotiate this with the owner and, in the case where you have
cut the trees to 161, yes, he would like that and he will be
explaining that himself but there are other situations where you
don't have to cut the trees to the 161. He just wants his view
restored.
Commissioner Mowlds said that she had hit the nail on the head and
asked if she meant that some trees could be above 161.
Ms. Henry said yes, if that is his wish. If he is willing to say
leave this tree, then that is his view, so that should be his
option. But, if you go according to the Proposition M, it does not
allow for the exercising of, well because he is the only one that
benefits. I really want us to be able to follow the Proposition
because that was the intent of the voters; that is why I voted for
it. So, I hope you interpret it as it is read and not from any
other angle.
Commissioner Clark stated that as one of the drafters of
Proposition M, he has a few observations on your comments. First
-of all, as you should know, in exercising this part of the code, it
requires an interpretation of what impairs a view. It is not up to
the homeowners to make this interpretation; it is the body that has
the responsibility - be it the Staff, the Planning Commission, the
View Restoration Committee on foliage -related issues, or the City
Council if it is appealed. The interpretation of what impairs the
view ultimately rests with the Government body, not with the
homeowner.
Ms. Henry asked if this was stated, that they can put their own
interpretation on it? Where does it state that?
Commissioner Clark asked who determines what impairs a view. You
tell me.
4
Ms. Henry said that if you are not able to see through something,
it is impairing the view.
Commissioner Clark said that was her interpretation.
Ms. Henry said that if there ten people present, nine times out of
ten, that would be their interpretation.
Commissioner Clark repeated that the ordinance requires
interpretation and judgment and that it has always been that way,
it was crafted with the idea that it would require it; otherwise,
there would not have been Government bodies set up to enforce it.
Secondly, when you point out in part of the reading of that part of
the ordinance, you fail to continue to read that the exercise of
restoring the view will not happen if removal of the foliage will
constitute unreasonable invasion of privacy.
Ms. Henry said that in this particular case, she does not see where
it would invade privacy.
Commissioner Clark reiterated that it is not her responsibility in
this case to make that determination. The fact of the matter is
the ordinance already provides for a negation of that requirement
if it is determined that there is a privacy issue. Correct?
Ms. Henry agreed.
Ms. Lorenzen, who had also asked to speak first, agreed to wait
until a little later.
The applicant or the representative was called at this time.
Scott Yanof sky, 1142 Manhattan Avenue, #311, Manhattan Beach. Last
week, he met with a subcommittee of the Planning Commission and
showed them which trees we had proposed to take down, trim, lace,
whatever that would be necessary to restore some of the views. I
met with all of the neighbors on Diamonte Lane that are affected by
the trees on the property, with Dr. Rowan, the Lorenzens, the
Sterns, the Kaplans and the Cullens. I think, and I say this with
some restraint, that we have come up with some things, and I know
it is a difficult thing for us to see through trees and see what
they are. Dr. Rowan had given me some pictures from 1970 showing
what the view was prior to the trees growing. I understand that
there are some benchmark pictures that the City has from Mr.
Lorenzen that would more coincide with the view restoration
ordinance (inaudible word) what goes on here tonight. In my
discussions with the Commission the other day, I basically agree
with everything the Commission had proposed to me. I had resolved
the situation with trimming the trees. There was something that
came up. Mr. Clark had indicated that the area in front of the
Cullens, those bushes and trees should remain at 121 and that is
one of the conditions on page 2 of the report near the bottom of
5
the page at #5 Diamonte Lane. There are some picture here showing
the elevation, the trees at 12', the telephone pole which is in
front of Mr. Cullen's house. There is a picture of a telephone
pole with a 161 2x4 nailed to it. This is directly across the
street from the Cullens' house. I have 121 marked and 161. This
is an approximate line drawn across the horizon showing what the
121 mark would be and the 161 mark. Actually, the higher the trees
that are allowed at that point is the elevation of 1054 so you can
see the difference where we are allowed at 161 if we build a home
here and where it would be where Commissioner Clark suggested where
we might bring the trees down to. For reference, I took a picture
and marked the trees that we are talking about taking out. I also
have pictures of the Cullen's house. This is looking down Diamonte
and you see some trees out in front of the house here, quite large
trees out in front. This is a picture I tried to take at a sitting
level so you can see again, what you are seeing, there is - I
noticed something interesting when I took the picture. It seems
that these trees on this side were very important to some of the
people to come out and in this particular case, it seems like the
view is being blocked by the trees over there so if these trees are
taken out, we will restore the view on the other side but not do
anything for the views on the other side. What I would like to do
on this 121 is bring it up to 161 benchmark over there.
Commissioner Mowlds asked if Mr. Yanofsky meant in front of the
Cullen house? (Yes from Mr. Yanofsky) Why shouldn't it be the
same; it shouldn't be higher than the ridgeline of the house you
are building that sits in front of there.
Mr. Yanofsky answered that we will have to go to elevation 1054 and
look at the 161 level of the ridge line of the main house.
Chairman Katherman said it would be 121
Mr. Yanofsky indicated that would be acceptable. He was under the
impression that it would covered all the way across. How far out
does that 121 go - is that the 201 that was indicated that
surrounds the building?
Chairman Katherman stated that his interpretation of the Staff
Report was that we are talking about the bushes right along
Diamonte Lane which would screen the guest house from view from the
homes on Diamonte Lane. That was the subcommittee's understanding
when it was out there.
Commissioner Clark indicated that his observation was that in the
Cullen's backyard by doing so, you would restore some of the harbor
and San Pedro view that is blocked from different parts of their
property.
Mr. Yanofsky asked again how far across would that go - would that
be up to Staff to determine? Is that a 20' perimeter from the
2
house?
Associate Planner Silverman said that, based on the direction we
received from the subcommittee, the existing (inaudible word -
cross?) structures would be changed to 121 and then, as well,
(inaudible word) vegetation around the structure, a 20' perimeter
around the structure, not to exceed (inaudible word - 201 or 121).
Mr. Yanofsky said that he read nothing in the Codes that indicated
that plants needed to be brought down to 121 but that is okay.
Chairman Katherman said that this was Commission and Staff
interpretation of the Code again to try to balance the view
enhancement with the privacy.
Mr. Yanofsky said that was acceptable.
(Planning Administrator Petru asked Chairman Katherman how much
additional time the speaker should be allowed. Chairman Katherman
asked Mr. Yanofsky how much time he needed. Mr. Yanofsky stated
that he is representing the entire Winkler group; he indicated that
Sherry Winkler may like to come up to say something and the time
needed should be very short)
Mr. Yanofsky had a question regarding the submittal of the plans.
Is it possible that we can separate the project between the granny
flat and the main house and be able to submit separately and get
separate approvals on that? The reason is that we would like to
build the granny flat quickly so her mother can move in there.
Chairman Katherman indicated that he saw no problem with that and
asked Director Bernard and Planning Administrator Petru for their
opinion. They indicated it would be acceptable.
Mr. Yanofsky stated that he was mostly in agreement with the Staff
Report and hoped that the neighbors will be able to understand the
situation he is in dealing with all the people and I thank the
Commission for all their help.
Mrs. Sherry Winkler, 6100 Via Subida, indicated that it has been a
pleasure meeting all those present and enjoyed meeting with all of
you at the house and working with the neighbors and stated that it
was her family's intention to do whatever is best for the property
and the neighbors and is looking forward to getting this house
completed. There is a fourth child on the way and in a bit of a
hurry so would appreciate whatever can be done to move things along
to build this beautiful home and they look forward to moving into
it. She indicated that if there is anything they can do to
cooperate, please let them know. She mentioned the trust that she
has in her staff; they have been with her for ten years on various
buildings, including the home that she is in now and hopes the City
enjoys working with them as much as she does.
7
(Three more reps present for Winkler group - no need to speak)
Warren Sweetnam, 7 Top Rail Lane, mentioned that he is speaking as
the former president of the Council of Homeowners Association, and
along with Larry Clark, one of the drafters of Proposition M.
(Larry Clark added that Mr. Sweetnam is Vice -Chairman of the View
Restoration Committee). His main concern is what seems to be
happening to Proposition M and the ordinance that resulted from it.
It seems that the Staff or other people are not applying it without
going through the required procedures which is to have a complete
public hearing at the Planning Commission level and at the City
Council level just as you have for any zoning changes. Some of
those concerns are this particular case which is an example of why
the particular section was put into the ordinance which would allow
people who had their views taken away from irresponsible,
inconsiderate landowners who allowed the trees to grow up over a
period of time without going to a view restoration permit. The
requirement was, as spelled out, when those landowners wanted to
improve the property, they should bring it into conformance with
the City's requirements as far as views are concerned. It doesn't
seem to be happening. Another thing is, as was indicated in the
press reports of your last meeting, on one of your other cases,
where a member of the Staff said it was not necessary to erect
frames on a request for a variance and the ordinance spells that
out very carefully. -
Another item is that Commissioner Mowlds has indicated that the
City Council has given direction to the Planning Commission to
change the interpretation of the ordinance without going through
the procedures for a change in the ordinance. I would like the
Planning Commission to re -read the ordinance that was passed by 70%
of the voters in this city and to enforce that ordinance as written
and voted on by the voters.
Commissioner Alberio mentioned that in the last joint session
between the Planning Commission and the City Council the Planning
Commission made some recommendations to the City Council in the
presence of the City Attorney and the City Council and the Planning
Commission adopted the changing of the Code.
Planning Administrator Petru clarified that this was not a
modification to the Code; they were guidelines. They did take
motions that night to have the Staff make the changes but the
guidelines still need to be brought back to the City Council.
Commissioner Alberio stated that the City Attorney suggested that
the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council in which to
have that (inaudible words) by now so that you can benefit from it.
The Lorenzens can benefit by it too. This came as a result of the
case that we had at Via Campisina, where the trees were so high
that it would kill the trees if they would have been trimmed or
laced out and it was approved by everybody with no objection by the
8
City Attorney.
Mr. Sweetnam repeated that he wanted the proper procedures to be
followed.
Chairman Katherman clarified that this was not a change in
ordinance, but the guidelines which effectuate the ordinance. This
turns the legalese into something practical. Since you are on the
View Restoration Committee, I assume you were at that meeting.
Mr. Sweetnam said that he was and that it was his understanding
that those were going to be put together by the Staff and come back
for public hearings before the City Council.
Commissioner Mowlds stated that there was a public hearing that
night.
Planning Administrator Petru agreed that there was a public
hearing; it was a joint public workshop where the City Council took
particular motions for Staff to come back with additional
information so we had to go back to the City Council for
clarification on some of the points on which they wanted more
information but there are some items that they have already taken
an action on; that they already voted on, based on recommendations
from Staff.
Mr. Sweetnam asked if this was presented in a formal way and then
on a consent calendar basis.
Planning Administrator Petru said no, this was a public hearing
with a joint workshop first with the Planning Commission and then
with the View Restoration Committee in September.
Even though he was at the meeting, Mr. Sweetnam states that he does
not recall anything that was settled right there. It was his
understanding that they were all going to be redone by the Staff
and brought back.
Planning Administrator Peti
motions on certain items
motions, seconded and then
raised. There were a few -
as an example - that they
Staff is going to have t,
discussion on that particu:
guidelines.
*u repeated that there were particular
and the City Council actually made
voted on eight points that Staff had
the exact method of measurement of 161,
wanted additional information on and
come back to the Council for more
Lar item before they adopt it into the
Mr. Sweetnam mentioned again that it has been brought up and seems
to be a difference of the opinion on the 161. The origin of the
161 was theoretical building height on the buildable portion of the
lot. It isn't a plane that extends over the whole area; it only
refers to places where you could build to 161 as being a logical
0
way to measure the height that somebody could put there. The idea
was that if they could put a house there, then they could put a
tree there but, if it is on a unbuildable portion of the lot, where
they couldn't put a house that height anyway, then the 16' does not
apply as a plane.
Commissioner Clark stated for the record that he and Warren
Sweetnam worked together for two years on the View Restoration
Committee; he was my vice-chairman, and I have the utmost respect
for his knowledge and understanding of the ordinance. Given that,
Warren and I both know from dealing with cases that came to us
through the View Restoration process on restoring views, there were
several cases that we had that were of a similar nature to this in
that there was horrific amounts of foliage to deal with and
expansive views. The point I was making to Dawn Henry to reiterate
is that we found it is an interpretive process and a judgment
process as to what is required to restore views. It isn't just
clear cutting and, in many cases, we found in view restoration,
that we just did not clear cut foliage to 161. Sometimes, we
culled and laced and sometimes we said that isn't near as
significant. (Warren agrees) I hope no one in this room is pre-
judging what this Commission is going to do in this case. I think
it has already been evidenced by the action taken, continuing this
particular case, having visited the site, having special meetings,
having Staff involved and holding a special hearing indicates that
we want to use as much diligence and forethought and appropriate
measures to be equitable in this case and that's what, I believe,
we will end up doing. It is not that we are dealing with
absolutes; we are dealing with judgment calls.
Mr. Sweetnam agreed and stated that he is exactly what he wanted to
bring out is that writing an ordinance is a hard job and you
couldn't take every possible circumstance into account; it was
written to try to give a working document that could be used with
judgment but, again, the judgment is tempered by the purpose as
spelled out on the ballot which is to maintain views in the City.
Chairman Katherman added a footnote on Mr. Sweetnam's comment on
the silhouette issue, that was for a variance case not a height
variation case and there is no requirement for a silhouettes for
those cases. Yes, it is an anomaly in our Code where if you were
to request a structure which is higher that it would be allowed by
height variation but it is in fact what the Code says.
Mr. Sweetnam said that he does not think that this ordinance says
that.
Chairman Katherman confirmed that this ordinance does not say
anything about variances; it says it is for height variation.
Planning Administrator Petru said that in the case to which Mr.
Sweetnam is referring, the house on Graylog did not exceed the 16'
10
height limit as measured under the Code and that's what triggers a
height variation. The variance was for the fact that the home was
built on an extreme slope and it is not subject to Proposition M.
Mr. Sweetnam is looking for information regarding this and will
come back later tonight if he finds the reference he is seeking.
Richard Stern, 13 Diamonte Lane, thanked the Commission for their
time and the work that they have been doing. He stated that he was
sorry that he couldn't be at the meeting last Thursday when the
Commission came out to the neighborhood; unfortunately, he found
out about it on Wednesday evening and it was too late to change his
plans. The neighbors are interested in arriving at an appropriate
compromise on views and, in fact, we have been working with Scott
toward that end. Somehow, I get the feeling that some people think
we are being unreasonable for the request for view restoration. I
personally feel that the tall trees that are located on the south
end of the lot, across from #5, the Cullen's property, of which it
was recommended that 4-5 be removed and there would be two to
remain. Scott and I stood on my deck last Friday, after the
Commission had been there and he said there will be two other trees
remaining and we couldn't see the two other trees because one of
the trees that is being removed will give you an excellent view of
this tree that is not going to removed - I understand it is a
Grevillea robusta which grows to a height of 80-100' and is
recommended for those places where you want to block something out
- and that is one of the ones that is not recommended to be
removed. If these trees are removed in that cluster across from
#5, it would really help greatly restoring views not only for #5
but also #7, 13, and 15 on Diamonte Lane. I would like to see some
written assurances that these views will not be diminished due to
any growth or new plantings in those areas where that view has been
freed up and I think that is a reasonable request.
Scott Yanofsky also indicated to me on Friday before we saw the
report that there was going to be a number of trees removed on the
north slope. When the report came out, we found out, I was led to
•understand that was not incorporated into the report and I guess
that may be just a case of information catching up with one another
but that is certainly a concern for me because those trees on the
north slope impact my view. One of the things I would really like
to see from the Staff on the new construction is a tentative plan
that, as trees come out, as I explained, and other areas are
exposed, certain of them will be topped. The reason is that if you
will recall that the last time we all got together here, at that
point, I was really under the impression that all the trees that
had been removed was all that was going to removed and not until
after the meeting was over did I find out there were going to be
more removed. We are not at loggerheads with anybody. The four
towers do exceed the 16' limit. It has not been raised in any of
these conversations because everyone is more interested in the
trees. Will that be an issue later on? There is some feeling
11
that we are being unreasonable. For instance, at our last meeting
with the architect on the project he stated that the project would
resemble a Tuscany Village. (Mrs. Winkler corrected quietly that
it was "Villa".) The word village is rather ominous in some ways
when you think about it because construction is going to make a
great deal of noise from bulldozers, power saws and other noises
associated with construction. This is going to go on for almost a
year. I really do not expect they will use hand shovels rather
than bulldozers and certainly don't expect them to use hand saws
instead of power saws and I know they are not going to be driving
in nails with a rubber hammer. However, the Staff is not going to
hear that noise and the Commission won't. In fact the Winklers
won't. Scott is probably the only person who is going to hear most
of it. The neighbors will hear it too as well as many other
disturbances that will affect our lifestyle. We understand that
some of these difficulties and we understand this has got to be
done but we are asking for understanding on the impact on our views
and out ability to get those views restored. I am asking you to
put yourselves in our shoes; if you owned those properties. We are
being reasonable; just give us the opportunity to arrive at a
compromise between the people associated with the project, the
Winklers and let us remove the few trees that stand in the way of
an equitable compromise.
Chairman Katherman asked if Mr. Stern could be a little more
specific in his description of an equitable compromise. You have
been very general; you have mentioned one tree, the Robusta which
grows to 1001 or so. Is that an elm?
Associate Planner Silverman said it is called a Grevillea robusta
and my recollection is that it grows to about 40 to 501 at the
most. Right now, it is probably about 251 now.
Mr. Stern said immediately to the south there is another rather
large pine tree. In other words, that cluster of trees will help
go a long way to restoring the view and those on the north slope...
Chairman Katherman asked Mr. Stern if he had not said that there
was nothing in the report about removing trees on the north slope?
Mr. Stern said that the recommendation showed one of the several
trees was going to be removed. I was led to believe by Scott that
there were going to be several trees.
Chairman Katherman asked Associate Planner Silverman if she could
verify what was going to be done in this area.
Associate Planner Silverman said that there are specific trees that
were identified that impair the view that will be removed. The
remaining trees will be trimmed or removed on an individual basis
and go one by one and that way, we will assure that all the trees
that block their view are trimmed while keeping the trees on the
12
property that don't impair any views. some mature trees will be
retained if they don't impair views.
Mr. Stern said that some of the other neighbors will talk about
those specific trees.
Chairman Katherman told Mr. Stern his concern should only be with
those that block his view. The other neighbors can explain their
situation.
Mr. Stern indicated that he thinks these trees being discussed will
block his view as well.
Associate Planner Silverman explained again that once one tree is
trimmed, if there is a tree behind it blocking the view, we will
then require that tree to be trimmed or removed and so on until the
view is restored.
Mr. Stern asked what happens if the Winklers or someone else
involved in the project says that tree may block someone's view but
I would like to keen it.
Associate Planner Silverman said that the Staff will come out and
based on input from people but the actual determination will be
from the Commission.- What I did offer to do is once all the trees
are trimmed that I will come up to the properties and take
photographs for documentation. That way the City has photographs
of existing foliage that will best enable us to maintain the views
and that will be the documentation of existing foliage. We will
also provide all the owners with forms to be completed in
conjunction with the photos and will place those on file with the
City so that views will be maintained.
Mr. Stern said that it is good that views will be restored. I also
recognize that there are a lot of tall trees that we would like to
compromise and keep them but some of them may require trimming.
Chairman Katherman asked if Mr. Stern could point out his location
on the photos displayed.
He did so. (just below the Lorenzen property on deck) He showed
that there is another tree behind this one and when it is removed
he will get a view of the tree with the botanical name being
discussed.
Gail Lorenzen, 15 Diamonte Lane. The Staff Report that we received
does not recommend complying with the ordinance because it would
restore just our view. It also states that trimming or removal of
the trees below the 161 view would restore views for the other
parties and this is a questionable assumption and the other people
will address this themselves. As Mr. Stern said, as it is written
now, really the only view that is restored for us is the flat to
13
the left of the one large tree.
restores the view for us.
•
That is the only part that
Commissioner Clark asked that she please point out her view on the
photo board.
Mrs. Lorenzen indicated the view that would be restored if two
particular trees she pointed to.
Commissioner Clark asked if there weren't five trees to come out in
that specific area.
Mrs. Lorenzen explained that some of them were behind each other.
It looks like two trees but it really is five. None of these have
been slated for removal. One is to be trimmed a little but that
will not improve our view or that of Mr. Stern either.
Commissioner Clark asked her to use the photo board to make
reference to the particular trees she is discussing.
(Associate Planner Silverman adjusted the photo board and
microphone so that the Commission could see and hear better.)
Mrs. Lorenzen said that another thing she wanted to mention is
there are five other houses that are definitely and directly
impacted. Four houses are on Grandpoint and the one house on the
right of us on Diamonte Lane. Two of these houses on Grand Point
did sign the August 6 letter asking that the trees be trimmed to
the ridgeline. The house on Diamonte Lane and another one are
rental houses and another has an absentee owner. Their views are
also being denied because they have pretty much the view that we do
on the same level. Also, I want to remind you that the stated
purpose of the ordinance is that the views should be retained for
future generations as well. I am sure that the owners of these
rented houses and the absentee -owner house would want these views
kept. These were not even addressed in the report and I feel they
should be considered. At the meeting last week with the
Commission, we, as the owners, were directed to get together and
reach a compromise and negotiate and compromise. That process was
ongoing when the three subcommittee members came out on Thursday
morning. After the meeting, when the subcommittee directed the
Staff to do certain things, the negotiation process really stopped
because essentially there was no more negotiation to be done.
Also, after the meeting, we were all instructed to mark trees that
we wanted out that were encroaching on our view. At #5, the
Cullens did that and they waited for approximately an hour and Dr.
Rowan at #14 did his trees and then we finally when it came to our
turn, we came to the first tree, which is approximately here, a
very large tree in front of this group (pointed to the photo
board) , and Associate Planner Silverman could not decide if we
could even list that tree and she decided not to list it. When I
asked her if we could make a request, she said that she did not
14
want to mark any more trees. I said could we make a request to
have some trees trimmed and she said she did not want any trees
trimmed. Andy and were taken aback when we realized that we, as
owners of the property for 30 years, and have lost more of our view
more than anyone, were not even given an opportunity to mark one
single tree. Also, I want to mention that, at one point during
that afternoon, Scott Yanofsky specifically stated to us that by
giving the neighbors below us what they wanted - cutting the trees
below the 16' mark or trimming or removing trees below this mark,
had effectively isolated us from our neighbors and they had no
longer given us their support. That is exactly what he said to us.
All of us on Diamonte Lane have worked together and don't
appreciate that a division is being caused.
Chairman Katherman stated that he is sure that was not Mr.
Yanofsky's intent.
Mrs. Lorenzen also mentioned that the harbor and channel are very
important to us and that we have offered compromises which give us
the view we have lost to help our neighbors keep their view. This
initiative was brought about because hundreds of people on the
peninsula were having problems with views. We do have a view law
now and people expect it to be enforced. We have to learn that we
can have beautiful gardens and trees but we have to plant
responsibly and expect that the trees have to be kept trimmed and
maintained. The recommendation of the Staff would forever take
away our views. I sincerely hope that you consider the important
decision that the Planning Commission makes.
commissioner Clark said that one of the things we want to do
tonight is where speakers have issue with Staff recommendations, we
want to get very specific. We don't want to be fuzzy. I listened
very closely and I took notes during your testimony. You indicate
that the proposal now on the table would only restore a view where
they are going to take out the five trees. You also indicate the
channel/harbor views are important to you and you have offered
compromises. Could you tell us specifically what are the
additional areas of foliage removal or trimming.
Mrs. Lorenzen indicated that her husband has a picture which will
be very helpful.
Commissioner Clark asked Mrs. Lorenzen to please explain her point
specifically.
Mrs. Lorenzen said that the trees in front of this mass are not
even listed so if all the trees that Dr. Rowan wants out are
basically in the middle of the mass so that the trees in front us
and that doesn't really help us. The tallest tree in the group is
in there so really the trees that would be coming out, if they come
out, will be in the middle.
0- 0
Commissioner Clark asked again that she point them out.
Mrs. Lorenzen said what we are looking for is first of all, this
tree and this one which all the other... I think that with some
trimming in here and possibly one other removal and some lowering
of this and this which would be a big compromise on our part
because we would still lose a lot of this view but we have stripped
back to what is really important to us.
Commissioner Clark asked if she had specifically written this down.
Mrs. Lorenzen again indicated that her husband had a picture.
Commissioner Clark asked that she write it down just as she had
described it and leave it with the Commission.
She said she would.
Commissioner Alberio said that she indicated in the beginning of
your presentation that after the subcommittee visited your site
that all negotiations stopped. I wanted to let you know that there
is some confusion if you feel the applicant and the Commission are
opposed to negotiation.
Mrs. Lorenzen said that the owner had nothing more to negotiate.
He seemed to know what you were going to request and everything
that was going to be said so he had no more incentive to negotiate.
Commissioner Alberio said if he knew that he must be a good mind
reader because we do not know.
Mrs. Lorenzen said that he had heard from the Staff what was being
requested by the subcommittee.
Bill Cullen, 5 Diamonte Lane. Congratulated Staff on balanced
report and is not really here to speak against the Staff
recommendation. We certainly want to welcome the Winklers as
neighbors and welcome the project. We just hope we can all work
out these issues that threaten to be divisive. The key thing from
my standpoint is that there are those trees in question directly
across from our house which have been referred to in earlier
testimony.
Commissioner Clark asked Mr. Cullen to point out his location on
the photo board.
Associate Planner Silverman said that he was third from the bottom
on the photo board.
Mr. Cullen said that the cluster of five trees Mr. Stern mentioned
- there were three being taken out and two remaining. We have the
same view. If those two trees - the one with the botanical name
M-
and the very scraggly pine tree that is right adjacent to it. I
think it is important that those two trees be removed. If they are
believed to provide privacy for the new home, I would certainly be
willing to commit to plant something in their place that would
provide the same level of privacy that would not have the same
growth characteristics as the ones that are in there now. other
areas about which we are concerned and I will confine my remarks to
our property, procedures for follow up removal and trimming and
some of my concerns have already been answered by responses from
the Staff as to how this will be carried out.
The issue of lighting has not received any attention in any of the
discussions, either in the Staff report or elsewhere. We are very
concerned with the landscape lighting and tennis court lighting,
particularly making sure that it is low to the ground and will not
itself severely disrupt the night views which are beautiful.
Chairman Katherman said that it is his understanding that there was
a condition dealing with lights. There has been a lighting plan
submitted so that is a condition of approval. Is that right?
Associate Planner Silverman said that Mrs. Cullen has talked to me
about her concerns about tennis court lighting. To my knowledge,
there is nothing in the Code which strictly prohibits it except
that there is a limit of lot in height and one of the conditions
that we provide, #25 on the revised handout, require that any
exterior lighting be approved by the Director.
Chairman Katherman added that lighting would be covered and
directed downward.
Planning Administrator Petru added that the Code does have a
requirement that for residential properties, only incandescent
light may be used and generally tennis court lighting is high-
pressure gas of some type and also the wattage that is required to
light a tennis court far exceeds the maximum cumulative wattage for
a property. Subsequently, tennis court lighting needs a
Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner Alberio asked if there were limitation of hours these
lights could be used.
Planning Administrator Petru said that this would be conditioned
through a CUP.
Commissioner Mowlds said that what Planning Administrator Petru is
referring to is a technicality limited to the number of watts that
you can use in landscaping and they can't get a tennis court inside
that envelope. We will comment later on the lights; there are some
things wrong with the way this is written but we can clean them up.
I want to go back to trees. I think, and I just want Bill Cullen
to identify, I think what we are talking about, the trees, isn't
17
this the trees that they say they are removing 16-19, I think, I
was out there on Diamonte today, across from your property and 16-
19 removes all the trees in front of your property except for that
scraggly thing that comes up and bends over and that one was not
listed for removal. Is that right, Terry.
Mr. Cullen said that there are two trees that don't have numbers on
them and I have not paid close enough attention to know 16-19 is
except the one with the botanical name and the scraggly pine do not
have numbers painted on them and they are the ones that are the
most objectionable.
Commissioner Mowlds said the scraggly pine would be dealt with
later but I couldn't find a number on it today.
Mr. Cullen said it does not have a number on it.
Commissioner Clark asked if he understood Mr. Cullen correctly when
he said he would be willing to have foliage planted in place of
these two trees to provide privacy.
Mr. Cullen said that, if privacy is an issue with the applicant,
and they are willing to go with low vegetation, I would be happy to
plant substitute foliage.
Commissioner Clark asked if he would be willing to plant this on
his property and Mr. Cullen said anyplace would be fine but that he
did not believe there was room on his property. There was a point
brought up by Scott about the trees and bushes directly across from
our house and I don't know if the Commission is interested in my
response to this proposal to raise it from 12 to 161. I saw the
pictures here earlier tonight and I will say at this point that it
does not appear to be a major difference in the view line from our
patio and it that helps moves things along, I am willing to agree
to that change as well. It looks like 161, if I saw the pictures
correctly, is actually below where the growth is now, is that
correct? Apparently, I am the person impacted by this
•recommendation. Am I supposed to respond to this tonight or give
input on or will this be evaluated by Staff?
Associate Planner Silverman said that, based on Scott's photos, she
would agree that the 16' mark would be accurate but we haven't been
out to measure it ourselves.
Chairman Katherman asked if the lower red stripe indicates the 121;
the upper red stripe indicates the 161.
Mr. Cullen said that this shows the elevation of 1054 (Associate
Planner Silverman said that would be for the ridge of the
structure, Chairman Katherman said for the main house, not the
guest house) and the 16' line is below the current height of the
vegetation so it does not seem to have a major impact on him.
18
•
11
Planning Administrator Petru clarified that the 161 is being
measured from the existing grade.
Dr. Mel Rowan, 14 Diamonte Lane. I really appreciate the effort
you all have made and being out there and seeing all the work being
done for this process. I can see where we all can compromise for
this beautiful piece of property. This is a well written report
which I thought was well worded in the way it was put together. I
noted that earlier Scott Yanofsky, myself, along with Terry marked
9 trees along the northern slope that impair my view. one of these
trees slated for removal, after looking at the report further and
talking with Terry, I realize the difference with the northern
slope as to the others. It is not as easy to say this tree and
that tree are very identifiable - the trees on the northern slope
are very thick from east to west, very hard to identify so the
position adopted by Staff was that they would be willing to look at
this area one tree at a time. When additional wording was put in,
on pages 5 and 81 the addendum you received, the underlined item
#10 was further clarified and I feel comfortable with it.
Corresponding to the problem, I would like to see added to that is
underlined part, line 3, the sentence beginning at the end of this
"The trees" I would like to suggest that it state "the numbered
trees and others that may become exposed during the process shall
be trimmed and/or removed as needed to restore views, etc." The
problem is we keep finding trees behind trees and we don't want to
put Staff in the unfortunate position that they cannot look at
another tree that has not been numbered. Hopefully, this will give
Staff some flexibility.
Chairman Katherman said he understood that was what Staff meant.
Associate Planner Silverman stated that she feels fairly confident
that we have actually numbered every tree on the north slope.
Chairman Katherman stated that, for clarification, some way is
needed to clarify the trees on the northern slope.
-Dr. Rowan said that working with Staff and with the homeowner, we
have the same philosophy that we want to improve the trees and not
take out any trees that won't impair views. With that in mind, I
can certainly support the entire project.
Commissioner Alberio said that on the north slope, there are trees
that do not belong to the applicant, that are outside their
property, as viewed on the west side, we realized some of these
trees impaired views also.
Dr. Rowan said that was true; we will deal with that too. We are
still not certain where the property line is and hope to deal with
them in the same manner.
Angus Lorenzen, 15 Diamonte Lane. Mr. Lorenzen stated that he has
19
E
a proposal to make.
•
Chairman Katherman asked if the applicant has seen the proposal and
Mr. Lorenzen said yes, Scott Yanofsky, the representative of the
applicant, has.
Mr. Lorenzen stated that he has attempted to create a sketch that
represents the profile of the trees as seen from our viewing area.
We have good stadia from the standpoint that we have trees and
telephone poles that provide good elevation reference and on a
clear day, we have good reference from the ridge on the mountains
in the back. Therefore, we are'able to identify the profile of the
trees in our direct viewing area as seen. This is just a profile;
it does not necessarily identify each individual tree and, even
with the photographs, it is hard to do this.
Commissioner Clark stated it seems to him that the profile is
fairly representative of the view.*
Mr. Lorenzen agreed that it should be a very reliable
representation of what the photographs show because I made the
sketch weekend before last and that is when the trees had been cut
so it shows the condition as it exists today. Based on the
recommendations made by the Staff, the trees that will remain after
the cutting are shown by the red line. We see that six trees that
will take out on the south side will open up a hole right in here.
There are trees behind them that will continue to block the view.
We are not really sure but we believe if all the trees that were
marked were taken out, we could get a profile roughly like that on
the north side of the property. What we would like to do is to
work toward a compromise but unfortunately after the subcommittee
of the commission met on Thursday, and we met again with Scott on
Friday. At that time, he indicated that he would not discuss
taking out any other trees. Essentially, all negotiations were
over. He had the report of the subcommittee and felt that was what
was going to passed today by the Commission. So, we are not able
to negotiate even though we have indicated a willingness to
negotiate. So, this time, I would like to propose a solution which
I think meets the intent of what the Commission is trying to
achieve by balancing views of the different neighbors and the
rights of the property owner.
This sketch is basically the profile that we would like you to
consider. (Chairman Katherman asked Mr. Lorenzen to go over the
differences between the two and he said OK) . It requires the
removal of only three additional trees in addition to the roughly
seven that have been proposed by the Staff. The additional trees
that we would like to have removed are two on the south side of the
property that every neighbor so far has mentioned except the
Rowans, who can't see them from their property.
Commissioner Mowlds asked if these two trees are numbered.
991
Mr. Lorenzen said they are not numbered because they were not
recommended for removal.by the subcommittee of the Commission.
Commissioner Mowlds asked if you walked over to that site, where
would they be located in relationship to the bulldozer, the water
tank, the frame, etc.
Mr. Lorenzen said he could not answer because I don't know where
are all those things are - oh, the frame is here. The frame is
roughly in this range right here - in this big clump of trees. The
Cullen house is roughly here - this tree is approximately on the
border of the Cullen's house.
Commissioner Clark said that it appears to be on the extreme south
of the property and he pointed at the picture.
Mr. Lorenzen pointed to a particular tree and the Grevillea we
talked about earlier and the pine - both of which were mentioned by
Mr. Cullen and Mr. Stern.
Commissioner Clark asked if it were the remaining portion of that
cluster and that those are the same two trees that Mr. Cullen and
Mr. Stern out pointed out.
Mr. Lorenzen agreed.. The third tree that we would like to have
removed is a pine tree that is located right about the middle of
the property. It is shown here (pointed at sketch) and in talking
with Scott Yanofsky, he indicated that they would probably be
taking out that tree anyway because it is in a graded area. So, I
would like to suggest that we agree now that the tree will be taken
out because it does have a rather large impact on our view. He
pointed to a tree in the photo that is right next to the existing
house.
Scott Yanofsky clarified that it is between the existing house and
the driveway. As you go down the driveway, it is on the left side.
Mr. Lorenzen repeated that these are the only three trees that he
is asking to be removed, assuming that the palms would move as
Scott has indicated. He has stated that the various groups of palm
trees which do stick up into our view line will be moved and that
we do not have to be concerned about that. We would like to have
that confirmed. Other than that, we believe that some trimming or
thinning of trees would give us a profile that is slightly lower
over this very large clump of trees where the house is located. In
fact, this is one tree that at one time Scott indicated that the
owners would possibly be willing to take out because it has a large
top but the bottom third has a lot of dead areas and it is not an
attractive tree. Be that as it may, we believe that some trees in
this area, and it is not drastic and radical at all, could restore
some of our lost view of the curve of the bay and possibly the
Vincent Thomas Bridge. For this reason, we are proposing some
21
moderate trimming here. We would also like some minor trimming in
a grove of eucalyptus and a grove of pines back here which also
have been indicated that they are very dense and they will be doing
something with anyway because they are a not an attractive issue
from the house. We feel this is a compromise that we all live with
but we would like to protect what has been agreed to with the
Rowans and the Cullens but we would like this additional trimming
which would benefit the Sterns and ourselves. So, we request that
you seriously consider that as a balanced solution to the issue
that we have been discussing here.
Commissioner Clark asked Mr. Lorenzen to point out the last two
components of his compromise - the trimming of the groves of
eucalyptus and pines.
Mr. Lorenzen indicated that in the picture, there are trees on the
north side that we believe will be taken out as part of the already
agreed upon plan (pointed them out). The ones that we are looking
for are a blob that sticks up here, it is one branch on a tree that
could be taken out. There is at the very top, a tree with a large
top but an unattractive bottom. We believe that could be topped
and, if they wish, taken out. And then there are pines and
eucalyptus in this area which can be topped without any harm
because they don't see from the bottom, looking up, they can't see
the top of these trees from the property. Then, there is a
eucalyptus right here which is so far from the property and behind
it is a deciduous tree and I don't know what the nature it - it is
approximately 301 high and it sits into the entryway to the house.
It is a large ball with many small branches which create a balloon
type shape and it is the very kind of tree that is very effective
to lacing, trimming, shaping. Here are some of the pines on the
east side of the property that I have also requested might be
trimmed and the owners have already stated that they are going to
take these out for their own benefit. one last request, in the
Commission's deliberations this evening, that you consider these
alternatives as actions:
(1) Continue the meeting and let us proceed with negotiations
which have been tainted inadvertently, through no one's fault,
because of the direction of the subcommittee to the Staff and how
their report should be written.
(2) The committee consider the compromise plan that he has
proposed here.
(3) 1 don't think anyone is going to like this one but I will
mention it anyway. To approve the permits tonight in strict
accordance with the Development Code and if the Commission decides
to do that, we pledge that we will negotiate in good faith to
achieve the same objectives that you have and that is protecting of
the Rowan's and Cullen's property and to achieve a negotiated
position which would be as reflected on this last overlay.
22
0
Chairman Katherman invited Mr. Warren Sweetnam to speak again. Mr.
Sweetnam said that Chairman Katherman had been correct, this was
not a height variation and does not apply to a variance. The Staff
said it was a different application and Planning Administrator
Petru mentioned again that this was the Graylog property.
Break from 9:10 to 9:29 PM
Chairman Katherman asked Mr. Scott Yanofsky, the applicant's
representative if he would like to respond to any of the speakers,
particularly to Mr. Lorenzen's proposal.
Mr. Yanofsky stated that they can agree with Mr. Cullen's,
Lorenzen's and Mr. Stern's issue with the trees. Seven or eight
that will be take out. Sherry Winkler agrees with Mr. Cullen's
offer to plant something to replace to maintain privacy. There is
no problem with 161 or lower as a compromise.
Commissioner Clark said on the other pine tree that would take care
of the additional trees and Mr. Cullen and Sterns agreement on #1.
Mr. Yanofsky said that the one pine tree that Mr. Lorenzen had
talked about on the left side of the driveway, that is a, pine tree
which is mostly likely going to come out during the grading. If
not, we will trim it to the 16, level, whatever it takes torestore
his view on that - the 1054 elevation.
Commissioner Clark asked if Scott is proposing the removal or
trimming of this tree as requested by Mr. Lorenzen so that it does
not block his view.
Scott: Yes, and the palm trees will all be relocated. Even though
the placement of palm trees will be below the 1054, 1 will consult
with all the neighbors to make sure it does not impair any of the
views, even if it is within our right to do that.
Commissioner Clark stated that takes care of the third condition in
-the Lorenzen proposal.
Chairman Katherman asked Mr. Yanofsky about the minor trimming of
the clump of trees where the new house would be located.
Mr. Yanofsky replied that he thought they would work something out
- the three or four trees that we are talking about in that clump
and some of those pines might even be part of Dr. Rowan's on that
slope that would be trimmed or removed so I think we can top those.
Commissioner Clark asked about the final component of the Lorenzen
proposal regarding the trimming of the groves of eucalyptus and
pine trees on the north side.
Mr. Yanofsky said that these are trees are below the 1054 line and
23
they are very thick grove that we will be thinning out, trimming
and opening up views for the Winklers because that is a Catalina
view for them from their master bedroom and the living room. That
is below the 1054 level but we will be taking out some of that for
our own view restoration.
Commissioner Clark clarified that this was indeed a part of the
Winkler's plan anyway.
Mr. Yanofsky again asked about the guest house, we are talking
about the 121 vs. the 161. Chairman Katherman asked if he was
suggesting the 161 and Mr. Yanofsky said yes but he will consult
with the neighbors and we can adjust. Also asked about the
separate submittal for the granny flat prior to the main residence.
Chairman Katherman said that he believes that is not an issue that
the Planning commission has jurisdiction over. The Building Code
simply allows that, is that not correct, Terry.
Motion to close the public hearing - moved by Alberio, seconded by
Hayes, without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Katherman stated that the Commission appears to have
reached a resolution on the tree issue and asked Associate Planner
Silverman if she is. clear in her mind and her notes about the
trees.
Associate Planner Silverman said that the two trees, number #24 and
#25 just for the sake of the conditions, are slated for removal -
the Grevillea and the scraggly pine.
Commissioner Clark commented that as a consequence of the good will
of the applicant, the Winklers, and their people and the neighbors
here to finally come to a compromise solution and it is a difficult
process and we have seen this in the City before, in fact, on view
restoration cases, the Staff and Committee that worked that. I
think that what we have achieved here tonight in the hearing an the
tree and view blockage issue is a comprehensive solution that is a
win-win. It is a win-win for the residents and it's a win-win for
the applicant because the applicant has to live with the
surrounding neighbors and 1 think Mrs. Winkler and her staff have
reflected flexibility and a desire to make that a win-win situation
so I think that's where we are and we can move on.
Chairman Katherman agreed.
Associate Planner Silverman asked about the pine on the driveway -
#26.
Chairman Katherman asked if she meant for the purpose of the
conditions?
24
Commissioner Mowlds asked about page 8 of 8 of the addendum
furnished by Staff tonight regarding the lighting. I do not think
we should limit lights on the structure to the height of 101
because I'll bet before they are finished, they will want their
security lights under the eaves so I don't think the lights on the
structure should be limited but I wonder if we should limit any
lights. At Marymount College, in the parking lot, there are
bollard lights going up the driveway and I think, before we give a
carte blanche that you can have lights any place at 101 that that
has to come back to the Staf f because they have all the good ideas.
I really don't want to lower them to lot on the structures because
you historically put the security lights right up under the eaves,
so that the house across from the Cullens, here we are at 121 and
the ones on the main house are going to be up at 161 but we have to
have some provision that the Staff gets to look at them so that the
security lights across from Cullen's are not shining into Cullen's
every time a stray dog walks down the property because they will
probably have motion sensors on them. Something's got to be worked
out there.
Chairman Katherman indicated that it was even more important that
the lights be pointed downward but I agree with you, Commissioner
Mowlds.
Commissioner Clark pointed that Marymount did eventually do this
because there were so many complaints from the surround area. They
changed the direction of the lights so that this was not an issue.
Commissioner Mowlds said that if you keep condition #25 and there
is one that had bothered him and if the applicant knows - the one
about the fire protection. Somehow, because this house is so big
and it is in a most inaccessible place you could ever want to think
of, make sure that they are going to do this - the Staff must make
sure that Building and Safety is happy before we let them proceed.
They say they are going to put in their own fire hydrant. Somehow,
we should note that. And, we don't need to put this into the
conditions but somehow, they should be aware of what our building
Code says on exterior lighting. It is very limited as to what they
can do. It must be made clear that this approval tonight does not
grant them lights on the tennis court.
Planning Administrator Petru said that she has some language for
this.
Commissioner Clark said that this does not preclude the possibility
in the future of lighting on the tennis court it just has to be
done under a different domain.
Commissioner Mowlds agreed and said they would have to get an
amended CUP.
Planning Administrator Petru said that a new CUP would be required
25
because this CUP is only for the second unit.
Commissioner Clark stated that he believes this is a spectacular
project, an enormous project, based upon the designs that I have
Jseen and the plan, it could be a real addition to the community.
Commissioner Alberio said that he had heard comments in the past
from the meeting some of the neighbors were concerned that this
project was not compatible with the rest of the community but I can
envision this. This is 5 acres, you cannot actually put a 2000
square foot house - you have to present something to go with the
size of the lot. It seems to me also that no neighbors or anyone
else, even here, have mentioned if you were to eliminate all the
trees you would be looking at a sizable building. This is
something that was mentioned at the field meeting in looking at the
size of the building which is about 14,000 square feet. We should
keep the trees in there. Everybody is concentrating on eliminating
the trees because of the views and we want to make sure that and it
will be, it is going forward, you might be looking at a sizable
piece of property. Just remember that; it will be too late at that
time. It is a beautiful project; it will enhance the neighborhood
and the value as well. I think it is going to be a good addition
to the neighborhood.
Commissioner Mowlds said if we go forward, we must be very specific
as to what trees are where. We should address this project like
the La Barba house. We need from the applicant a drawing that
physically locates on that drawing, a monument drawing, which trees
are allowed over 161, what areas are cut clear and that it be
recorded so that, because I have seen this happen before, I know
that after we leave here, I want it to be clear - well someone
says, I will put a 60' tree someplace else because you didn't tell
me I couldn't. We need a drawing that says these are the only
trees that can ever go above 161, without coming back. Right now,
there are the only ones and this document should be recorded and
the Staff approve it before construction permits are issued.
Commissioner Clark asked if that would be consistent with the other
very large home that we approved.
Commissioner Mowlds said yes, that if you recall, on that other
.very large home, we approved every tree over 16' and we cut that
view corridor for coming down Palos Verdes Drive with a very
specific and identified position of that view corridor. Therefore,
this is not an inconsistent request on this project.
Chairman Katherman asked Associate Planner Silverman if she had a
map describing all the trees.
Associate Planner Silverman said that it was not to that extent.
Scott has a map and we have been working with that. She is
wondering if maybe the photographs to document the trees after the
26
trimming are just as beneficial - like on La Barba.
Chairman Katherman indicated that he had no objection to that - it
would show the silhouette of the trees and put this in the record.
Commissioner Mowlds expressed his concern that when he pulled out
photographs from the Via Campisina house, and that was a year and
a half ago, the photographs have faded so badly you can hardly see.
They are only about 30% of what they were the night we approved it.
Presently, we don't have a way of maintaining photographs.
Mr. Yanofsky indicated that he had no problem supplying a site plan
with the proposed heights. With the 161 height, there is a lot of
downsloping so I think that it is better that we pick an elevation
rather than the 161 because there are some areas where 301 high
trees would still not be seen.
Commissioner Mowlds said that unfortunately Mr. Yanofsky was not
here the night of the workshop and actually it gets complicated, as
you go downhill, you can actually get higher, as you go uphill,
they get lower so they are very good experts.
Chairman Katherman asked what the Commission wanted to do about the
121 vs. the 161. Terry, do you have a comment, either way?
Commissioner Clark mentioned that the one most affected is Mr.
Cullen and he is willing to accept the 161; that he did not see a
major negative impact and I think in keeping with the other
compromises made by the applicant and the compromises made by the
other neighbors, I think we ought to go with the 161.
Commissioner Alberio had a different opinion. This condition runs
with the land and not with the neighbor. If you do that, you may
get a different owner in the future who will not like that
condition. The condition should run with the land and not the
neighbor so I would like to keep the 121.
Commissioner Clark stated we could argue that logic in some of the
compromises made by the Lorenzen's and others in terms of giving up
what they consider their right to some adjustment and this argument
could be made across other homeowners properties.
Commissioner Alberio said that the difference is that trees can be
trimmed down but a structure would have to be demolished in order
to return it to the 121 not the 161.
Commissioner Mowlds moved that on condition #11 on page 6 of 8,
change the word from 121 to 161 to be measured from the base of the
pad. This applies to the in-law house.
Associate Planner Silverman stated that the in-law house is a
little bit lower so that would actually make it lower than 121,
21
most likely.
Commissioner Mowlds said that we are specifically addressing the
fact that the property across from the Cullen's has a second
dwelling and they are going to allow them to mask the second
dwelling with foliage 16' high as measured from the pad of the
second unit. Therefore, we are changing the words on condition #11
to 161 as measured from the pad elevation of the second unit.
Associate Planner Silverman asked if that would apply to condition
112 also.
Commissioner Mowlds answered that whatever the agreement was
between the Cullen's and the Winkler's, that is the part of the
compromise that makes the rest of it work.
Planning Administrator Petru suggested that there was a motion on
the floor to amend condition #11 specifically, you might want to
modify that motion to approve the project, subject to modified
conditions of approval and then we can go through and make language
changes and then bring those resolutions back to you at the next
meeting.
Chairman Katherman agreed and asked commissioner Mowlds to
continue.
Commissioner Mowlds stated that he also had talked about lighting,
which was condition #25.
Planning Administrator Petru suggested the following language for
condition #25: After following the first sentence beginning with
the "submitted exterior lighting plan", we suggest that we add "for
review and approval of the Director of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement" so that is made clear. The sentence should be
eliminated which begins "the maximum height of all outdoor
lighting... and replace it with "lights affixed to the structure
shall not exceed the height of the underside of the eaves" and also
add a sentence saying "any tennis court lighting proposed in the
future shall require a separate Conditional Use Permit." The 101
height limitation would not be specified as a condition but that is
specified in the Code so it would have to adjusted according to the
review by the Director.
Commissioner Mowlds asked Associate Planner Silverman about the
requirement mentioned on Condition 21B on page 7, a minimum of 800
drought -tolerant plant materials in all landscaped areas. In an
area of five acres, does this really apply?
Director Bernard answered that it would probably more like 50%, it
is just a ratio.
Chairman Katherman asked for a motion and Commissioner Mowlds asked
28
to make his motion as it was described by Planning Administrator
Petru.
Planning Administrator Petru mentioned that she had some additional
language changes but she suggests that first the declaration be
adopted and then move on.
Chairman Katherman suggested approving all the resolutions tonight.
Planning Administrator Petru said that would be acceptable.
Commissioner Mowlds made a motion to adopt the negative declaration
as written. It was seconded by Commissioner Clark. 5-0 with no
objection. Next is the Conditional Use Permit No. 177.
Associate Planner Silverman said that before the CUP is approved,
conditions #11 and #12 must be amended because these will be more
specific for the pad elevation of the granny flat so there will be
assurance that this will be followed.
Chairman Katherman said this was not a problem and there was no
objection from other members of the Commission.
Commissioner Hayes moved that Conditional Use Permit No. 177 be
approved, as modified by Staff, and it was seconded by Commissioner
Mowlds.
With no objection, it was so ordered. 5-0.
Planning Administrator Petru stated she had suggested language for
Grading Permit No. 1711. on condition #10, on page 5 of 8, just
memorialize the suggestion made by a member of the public, the
sentence that starts "the trees.... change that to "the numbered
trees and any other trees on the north slope that are subsequently
identified during the removal and thinning process shall be trimmed
and/or removed as needed.'" She then asked if that statement should
apply only to the north slope or the entire property.
Commissioner Clark said yes, that applies to a couple of the areas
on the proposal that we have adopted on the Lorenzen's plan, in the
grove of pines and eucalyptus.
Therefore Planning Administrator Petru modified her suggested
language to "any other trees on the subject property that are
subsequently identified during the removal and thinning process
shall be trimmed and/or removed as needed." It continues the same.
Mr. Yanofsky suggested that would not be correct. It needs to be
more specific as to the exact area because then you could be
talking about all the downsloping that is way below the 1054. 1
think it would cause confusion.
29
E
Planning Administrator Petru suggested
suggested another group. This could be
the north slope cluster of pines and be
4 41
that because Dr. Rowan had
called out and we could say
specific with it.
Commissioner Clark said that Dr. Rowan did specify the northern
slope and the Lorenzen proposal's last component was trimming the
groves of pine and eucalyptus on the northern side also. I think
was the applicant is concerned about is that we don't end up with
downslope and upslope where it is not appropriate so you can put
the language in to protect that. The proposition ought to be that
it is a discovery process; as trees are trimmed, ones that are
unbared need to fall in conformance with that general approach in
terms of the trimming.
Planning Administrator Petru indicated that was her purpose;
however, if there is a concern about the 1054, does the Commission
wish that only the north slope be specified?
Commissioner Clark asked what the problem was with making this
applicable over the entire property.
Mr. Yanofsky said that would mean everything could be clear cut to
161.
Chairman Katherman -said he was assuming that this would be
applicable only to the north slope with the one tree Terry has
numbered as 26. The only other place where the second to the last
component of the Lorenzen compromise where they talked about minor
tree trimming of the clump where the new house would be located.
Mr. Yanofsky stated that he referred to this as the "crown" at the
ridge of the north side.
Commissioner Clark said if we can include this, we can cover it.
Chairman Katherman clarified that this could be a minor trimming
only.
Associate Planner Silverman said that the Lorenzens submitted
photographs to document the view in the early 1990's and she
explained to them that after all the trimming was done, we can then
go back to those photographs as benchmarks and use code enforcement
to return the views to 1989. It is possible there will be some
additional trimming.
Chairman Katherman asked Associate Planner Silverman and Planning
Administrator Petru if everything was clear on Condition #10.
Planning Administrator Petru stated that she has modified the
condition to say the north slope and the ridge of the north slope.
There are also two added conditions, #26 and #27. Number 26 is
that the landowner shall comply with all recommendations and
30
conditions of the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Number 27
(and this can probably be made clearer) within 30 days of the
completion of trimming, the landowner shall provide the City with
a diagram identifying the location, type, and height of trees which
have been approved to exceed either an elevation of 1054, or 16,
height limit. Said document shall be recorded in conjunction with
the covenant running with the land to make sure that the landowner
will maintain the foliage in the approved configuration.
Chairman Katherman said that he agreed but he was not sure why it
should be 30 days.
Planning Administrator Petru changed the 30 days to read "prior to
issuance of the grading permit."
Commissioner Clark said that the other components we must make sure
we have captured, it would be under 94, the language would be
changed so that it would not be "trees #16-19 adjacent to Diamonte
Lane", it would be "all trees."
Associate Planner Silverman said that a fifth tree had been added
so tree #24 and #25 are included.
Commissioner Clark wondered if the moving of the palms should be
included.
Associate Planner Silverman indicated that her understanding was
that it would be included as part of the landscaping plan.
Chairman Katherman believed it should be memorialized.
Associate Planner Silverman will add another condition into #11
regarding the relocation of the palms.
Commissioner Clark wanted to make sure that the one pine tree in
the middle of the property, between the existing house and
driveway, is included as well.
Associate Planner Silverman clarified that this is tree #26.
Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the Grading Permit No. 1711,
as amended, and was seconded by Commissioner Clark.
Chairman Katherman stated that with no objection, this is so
ordered. 5-0.
Chairman Katherman added that conditions will come back for both
the Conditional Use Permit No. 177 and the Grading Permit No. 1711
at our December 14 Planning Commission hearing. That will be on
the consent calendar, I assume together with any other
modifications to the Resolutions.
31
Chairman Katherman thanked everyone for participating, the time and
effort and like to commend the Winklers and their staff. I think
you have done a wonderful job in cooperating and we welcome you
into the community. I think it is going to a phenomenal home and
I wish you the best of luck.
Commissioner Alberio complimented Associate Planner Silverman on
performing an outstanding job; it was very difficult. chairman
Katherman commented that Associate Planner Silverman thrives on
difficult cases. Commissioner Mowlds agreed that this one was
handled very well.
Motion made by Commissioner Hayes and seconded by Commissioner
Alberio to adjourn at 10:12 to the regular meeting on December 14
at 7:00 PM.
32