Loading...
VRC MINS 19901115 410 411. (1."-s-1/49zs‘rq-s:L3 1131a‘ 41k1 MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES NOVEMBER 15, 1990 The meeting was called to order at 7: 12 p.m. by Chairman Clark at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT Committee Members Boudreau, Burrage, Cartwright, Eastwood, Lorenzen, Quatrochi, Sweetnam, Weisz, Chairman Clark ABSENT Committee Member Murphy Also present were Senior Planner Carolynn Petru, Associate Planner John Leung, Assistant Planner Terry Silverman, Assistant City Attorney Deborah Hakman and Recording Secretary Lucile Rogers. COMMUNICATIONS Senior Planner Petru reported distribution to the Committee of correspondence received from the foliage owner on View Restoration Permit No. 6, a memorandum from Committee Member Lorenzen regarding Monterey Pines, and a draft ordinance on tree replacement policy from the Assistant City Attorney. CONSENT CALENDAR Committee Member Cartwright moved the minutes of the October 18, 1990 View Restoration Committee meeting be approved as submitted. Committee Member Burrage seconded and the motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no new applications on the agenda. CONTINUED BUSINESS VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 6: Mr. and Mrs. William G. Traver 30367 Avenida De Calma The following six Committee Members were eligible to vote on this application: Burrage, Clark, Eastwood, Lorenzen, Quatrochi and Sweetnam. 1 111 VIEW RESTORATION MMITTEE MEETING November 15, 1990 Associate Planner John Leung reported that staff has revisited the site to verify the foliage measurements and amplify the findings in the first staff report. Staff has concluded that tree no. 1 and shrubs no. 2 and 4 exceed the ridgeline height criteria and should be trimmed as noted below. Revised Recommendation: Approve View Restoration Permit No. 6 to trim the bottom two branches of tree no. 1 to the trunk and the remaining shrubs no. 2 and 4 to a height not to exceed the ridgeline of the residence at 30405 Avenida de Calma. (Trim a maximum of 2 feet off the top of remaining foliage. ) Senior Planner Petru clarified for the Committee that staff's position is that the 16 feet measurement is taken from the base of the foliage and the ridgeline measurement is taken from the building pad. The public hearing remained open from the November 1, 1990 meeting. Applicant Mrs. Karen Traver stated that the foliage owner has trimmed tree no. 1, but not to the trunk. Limb no. 1 has a 4 foot branch remaining, and limb no. 2 was trimmed back to where it was split. The tree is continuing to grow rapidly. Mrs. Traver stated she hoped in the future the interpretation of the "16 feet or ridgeline" would be amended so that each application could be evaluated on an individual basis. If the Travers had known the "guidelines" would be taken as hard and fast rules they would not have spent the $400 application fee and all the time and effort that have gone into the matter. At this point, however, they just want to get it over with. The foliage owner, Mr. Hooshang Mozaffari, stated he was willing to comply fully with the Committee's direction but at this time he feels only bushes no. 2 and 4 qualify for the View Restoration process. When they grow to 16 feet from their base, which he estimated would be 6 or 7 years from now, he will maintain them at that height. Mrs. Traver questioned whether the "16 feet or ridgeline" measurement was specified in Proposition M or arrived at later on by the Committee. Chairman Clark assured her it was stated in the Proposition. Mr. Mozaffari stated he also has spent a lot of time and money on this application and would like to have it resolved at this meeting. Committee Member Quatrochi moved the public hearing be closed. Committee Member Sweetnam seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Assistant City Attorney Hakman advised the ordinance indicates that the lowest point to which the Committee has jurisdiction to trim is 16 feet or ridgeline, whichever is lower. Only those trees above the ridgeline have been recommended by staff for trimming. She stated she concurs with staff's interpretation and 2 VIEW RESTORATION OMMITTEE MEETING November 15, 1990 their recommendation is in compliance with the ordinance as it is written. Chairman Clark expressed the Committee's regret that this application has taken as much time as it has, but said that there were new elements in this case which required legal interpretation. Committee Member Sweetnam stated that the 16 feet measurement was originally put in the ordinance because it was the normal height of a house that could be built on the property. He felt this implies that the 16 feet deals with the buildable area of a lot. Attorney Hakman stated the ordinance is silent with respect to the buildable area versus the slope area of a lot. It is the City Attorney's opinion that if the 16 foot height was measured from the pad it would eliminate the distinction between different elevations. This is a case where the law doesn't work to restore the view in its entirety, but as it is currently written she feels that is the appropriate interpretation. Committee Member Sweetnam said the reason for putting the "16 feet or ridgeline" in the ordinance is because there are homes which are less than 16 feet high and the foliage should not be allowed to go higher than the ridgeline in those cases if it interferes with a view. Committee Member Quatrochi suggested the ordinance could be interpreted to allow the foliage in this application to be brought down to 16 feet measured from the pad elevation, rather than ridgeline, since the foliage owner's house is 20 feet high. Other members expressed their frustration with not being able to restore the applicant's view in this case if the City Attorney's interpretation of the ordinance is accepted. Committee Member Sweetnam proposed that the Committee interpret the 16 feet as measured from the building pad, and trim the foliage back to that height. Chairman Clark stated the intent of the ordinance was to be able to deal with situations such as this and he didn't feel a narrow interpretation should be allowed to render the Committee ineffective. Committee Member Weisz, who was not eligible to vote on this application, cautioned against altering the law. Attorney Hakman offered a written memorandum on the legal interpretation of the 16 foot/ridgeline measurement for the Committee to consider if they wished to again continue this hearing. Committee Members declined to delay resolution of the application. Committee Member Quatrochi moved that the Committee authorize lowering the foliage to 16 feet above the building pad and trimming the three lower branches on the acacia tree to the trunk. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Sweetnam and passed unanimously on a roll call vote. 3 VIEW RESTORATION MMITTEE MEETING November 15, 1990 Committee Member Lorenzen added that bushes no. 2 to 7 are very fast growing species and will need almost constant maintenance. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 7: Bill and Betty Herman 4 Top Rail Lane Committee Members eligible to vote on this application were Boudreau, Cartwright, Clark, Eastwood, Lorenzen, Quatrochi and Weisz. Assistant Planner Terry Silverman reported that this application has been continued twice. The foliage owner has complied with staff's recommendations and has trimmed or removed all vegetation indicated in the original staff report dated August 31, 1990 with the exception of two palm trees, one olive and one honey locust tree. An addendum report was prepared for presentation to the Committee at the November 1 meeting. This report modified the original recommendation to allow the palms to remain but still required removal of the olive and honey locust trees. The foliage owner has since further trimmed the olive tree and the honey locust. It appears that the foliage on these trees does not now exceed the ridgeline of the structure, which is approximately 16 feet in height. Ms. Silverman stated that although the trees still impair the applicant's view, if they are no higher than the ridgeline or 16 feet then they are no longer subject to the View Restoration requirements. Therefore, staff wishes to again modify its recommendations to allow the two palm trees to remain and require that the olive and honey locust be maintained so as not to exceed the ridgeline of the house or 16 feet, whichever is lower. Further action by the foliage owner would not be required other than maintenance. Committee Members Weisz moved that the public hearing be opened, Committee Member Quatrochi seconded and the motion passed without objection. Applicant Mr. Bill Herman stated he and his wife agree with the recommendations contained in the August 31 staff report. He said that the palm trees, the olive and the honey locust have been trimmed to the point that they are only "sticks in the air. " He mentioned a tall stone pine tree which the foliage owners trimmed up so that the foliage is largely above their view except for some branches that have grown down and which he would like to have pruned back to the trunk. Mr. Herman said that under the stone pine are a large number of trees (avocado, spruce, palms and others) which are above the ridgeline and should be trimmed to the ridgeline. They would be willing to replace the palm trees with another species of palm such as a Mexican fan palm which could be kept low and would be much more beautiful. Committee Member Cartwright asked for a clarification of the changes in staff's recommendations and Ms. Silverman explained that since the foliage owner has complied with recommendations 1, 4 VIEW RESTORATION MMITTEE MEETING November 15, 1990 2 and 4 of the original staff report and has trimmed up the palm trees and severely pruned the olive tree, the foliage no longer impairs the applicant's view of the harbor. She said on her initial visit the foliage was so dense it was difficult to determine which trees would require removal. Committee Member Weisz asked the applicant's assessment of the new staff recommendations. Mr. Herman replied that he does not agree with leaving the palm trees standing, and repeated his offer to replace them with a lower, better looking palm. He also would like the honey locust removed and the trees under the stone pine trimmed. Committee Members studied photographs taken August 31 as well as more recent ones which showed major trimming having been done. None of the photos showed the most recent pruning. Chairman Clark stated he would like the staff to consider providing slides and a screen that could be projected so all Committee Members and speakers could see the foliage being discussed at the same time. Committee Member Sweetnam agreed but added that the panoramic "storyboard" photographs would still be needed as well. Senior Planner Petru said she would discuss this request with the Director. Mr. Herman mentioned a jacaranda tree which has now grown to where it is beginning to block their view. Committee Member Lorenzen said this tree would be covered by the maintenance agreement. Ms. Silverman pointed out that the jacaranda tree was not mentioned in the staff report because it was not contained in the application. Mrs. Jean English, the foliage owner, stated that the trees Mr. Herman was focusing on were not part of the original application. She said all the foliage has been trimmed to a height that is in compliance with the ordinance. The most recent trimming was just completed over the past weekend. She submitted Polaroid photos showing the current view from the Hermans' property. She said she is in concurrence with the latest staff recommendations. Committee Member Quatrochi advised Mrs. English that the pampas grass on the property will need constant maintenance and the olive tree is also a high maintenance tree. He said he would not remove the palm trees but suggested having their trunks cleaned which would reduce their width by half. Mrs. English said the olive tree is one of the focal points of their landscaping and if it survives the trimming they will be maintaining it. Applicant Mrs. Betty Herman stated that all the trees under the stone pine tree are on the application. It says "various shrubs and trees" and they are all listed except for the jacaranda. She said that at the time of their application they could not name all the other trees and foliage that needed trimming because they were so dense. From all areas of their home they are now looking at stumps and trunks which definitely impair their view of the 5 111 VIEW RESTORATION MMITTEE MEETING November 15, 1990 harbor. She asked the Committee to take action to provide them with a clear view. Mrs. English repeated that they have complied with the ordinance, trimming up the two palm trees and the stone pine so that the view has been restored, and have met the recommendations of staff with regard to all foliage. Mr. Larry Bowdle of 4 Golden Spur testified that he has a degree in horticulture and has looked at the view from both residences. His opinion is that staff's most recent recommendation is reasonable and it should be implemented by the Committee. Committee Member Weisz moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Member Quatrochi and passed without objection. Ms. Silverman pointed out that the olive and honey locust trees appear to exceed the ridgeline due to the perspective of the photographs. From the site it appears they do not exceed the ridgeline but measurements should be taken to make sure. She added that the jacaranda and some of the other foliage being discussed was not mentioned in the application but concurred it was reasonable to assume it was omitted because of the density of the foliage at the time of the application. Committee discussion followed, with members agreeing on the difficulty of determining the correct trimmed height to be required but differing on the necessity for removing the palm trees. Assistant City Attorney Hakman stated she feels the foliage owner has not received adequate notice of the precise trees included in the application, and recommended the applicants provide a written statement of which additional trees they wish to have trimmed. Staff should follow up with another site visit and the foliage owner needs to be given an additional 30 days notice as required by the ordinance. She recommended reopening the public hearing and continuing it to the January 3 meeting to give sufficient notice to all parties concerned, and also urged that all action on this application be deferred until that date. Staff concurred on both points. Committee Member Weisz moved that the public hearing be reopened. Member Quatrochi seconded and the motion passed without objection. Committee Member Weisz then moved that the applicants be advised of the necessity to submit to staff a more current specification of what needs to be done to restore their view, and that staff revisit the site and prepare a new report for the Committee to consider on January 3, 1991. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Quatrochi. 6 111 VIEW RESTORATION MMITTEE MEETING November 15, 1990 Discussion followed, with Committee Members Cartwright and Lorenzen arguing that the Committee should be able to handle cases such as this, where previously unidentified trees emerge after clearing of specified trees, by saying that the application includes all trees that impair the view. They felt that to keep postponing resolution and requiring additional visits by staff and Committee is burdensome and unproductive. A need was felt to discuss and perhaps revise the process at a later meeting. The motion was passed on a 5-2 vote, with Committee Members Boudreau and Cartwright dissenting. The Committee agreed to set November 21 as a deadline for the applicant to identify the additional foliage to be included in the application. At 9:35 p.m. the Chairman called for a recess. The meeting was reconvened at 9:50 p.m. TREE REPLACEMENT POLICY A draft amendment to the View Restoration ordinance regarding a tree replacement policy was distributed to Committee Members along with memoranda from the Assistant City Attorney pertaining to Removal/Replacement of Foliage, "Viewing Area, " and Jurisdiction of the VRC re Hedge Height. Attorney Hakman advised that the memos are all Attorney-Client Privileged and are not to be disseminated outside the Committee and staff. The memo re Removal/Replacement of Foliage will be going to the City Council along with the amendment to the ordinance, with a recommendation for adoption of the amendment. The Council has to review the ordinance on first and second reading, and if adopted it would go into effect 30 days later. A 15-minute break was taken to allow Committee Members to read and digest the memoranda and proposed ordinance amendment. At the conclusion of the break, Chairman Clark asked the Assistant City Attorney to summarize the draft ordinance. Attorney Hakman explained that Section 5 of Proposition M allows the City Council to amend the ordinance only under limited circumstances in order to further the purposes of the original proposition. Section 1 of the draft amendment will not appear in the code but serves to justify that those purposes are being furthered. Section 2 provides a catchall for the Committee to impose "such reasonable conditions or restrictions . . . as may be necessary to protect the public health, safety, or welfare. " It then identifies restrictions in two areas: (1) The Committee may require complete removal of foliage when trimming or reducing it is likely to kill the foliage or threaten public safety, and (2) replacement of such foliage may be required when the Committee finds it necessary to avoid an adverse aesthetic impact or an adverse impact on the privacy of the property owner. 7 111 VIEW RESTORATION MMITTEE MEETING November 15, 1990 Committee Member Weisz noted that the issue of who pays for tree replacement has not been addressed. Attorney Hakman felt it was sufficient to include this in the Guidelines, which must be adopted by the City Council. This will allow the Committee to condition a permit on the replacement to some extent of trees that are ordered removed. It is very open and does not specify numbers of trees. Committee Member Cartwright recommended that the Committee encourage the staff to point out to the City Council that this is an extremely complex matter. Council should understand that when they approve this amendment they are significantly changing the costs that the residents will be dealing with. Chairman Clark suggested the memo should indicate that the Committee and staff have worked very hard to prepare this revision and the implementing guidelines to follow will also require a lot of work and will also be subject to their review. Committee Member Sweetnam moved that the Committee endorse and support the ordinance amendment as written. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Quatrochi and passed unanimously. On questioning as to the advisability of postponing submission of this amendment to the City Council until an amendment on the 16 feet or ridgeline issue can be prepared, Attorney Hakman advised that it was important to get the present amendment to the Council as soon as possible. She felt the 16 feet or ridgeline issue may go beyond a clarification to the very heart of the ordinance, and might have to go back to the people. Her recommendation was that any further amendments be considered separately. Chairman Clark suggested that the "16 feet or ridgeline" issue should be looked at by a subcommittee of the VRC, which would consider the standards and intent of the original ordinance. Committee Members Sweetnam, Quatrochi and Weisz volunteered to serve on this subcommittee. They agreed to prepare a written summary of their discussions and perspective for distribution to staff and VRC Members on January 17, 1991. The matter will be put on the agenda for discussion at the February 7th meeting. The memorandum from the Assistant City Attorney to the Committee regarding "Best and Most Important View" and "Viewing Area" was discussed briefly and it was noted that any changes to the meaning of these terms would be addressed in the Guidelines, not as an amendment to the ordinance. It was agreed to defer further discussion on this topic to a subsequent meeting. The cover memo from the Assistant City Attorney to be sent to the City Council with the proposed ordinance amendment was discussed and Committee Members were not fully in agreement with all aspects of it. It was suggested (but not agreed) that the minutes of the October 18th VRC meeting be appended to apprise Council of the Committee's views. Since the Council meeting was to be held the next day, it was agreed that staff would prepare a 8 VIEW RESTORATION MMITTEE MEETING November 15, 1990 letter to the Council stating that the Committee recommends the ordinance amendment be adopted but has strong opinions on the implementing procedures which may in some aspects be at variance with the City Attorney's views. The Committee will formulate proposed implementing practices and will forward them to Council at a later date. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business on the agenda. QUESTIONS FROM AUDIENCE There were no questions from the audience. STAFF REPORTS 1. Senior Planner Petru reported there are 23 applications on file with the City. There will be three new public hearings and one continued hearing at the VRC meeting of December 6, 1990. 2. Committee Requests for Information - Because of the short turnaround time between VRC meetings and deadlines for mailing out information packets, Ms. Petru stated that VRC requests for staff reports will need to be addressed on the second meeting following the request. The agenda for the December 3 meeting will include discussion of a proposed procedure to amend applications (to add new foliage, new properties, etc. ) The "16 feet or ridgeline" matter has been referred to the newly created subcommittee. 3 . Ms. Petru informed the Committee that staff is planning a training session with all the planners in the next couple of weeks, to update them on how the view restoration analysis is to be done and how staff reports are to be written. COMMITTEE REPORTS Chairman Clark reported that the memorandum to the City Council regarding proposed mileage reimbursement for Committee Members was received and filed without action. The Mayor will write a letter to the Committee explaining that the City budget will not allow the additional expense at this time. Chairman Clark reported the progress being made on a cable TV spot on the View Restoration Committee. A half-hour program is planned featuring a panel discussion with two Committee members (Clark and Sweetnam) , two staff members (Petru and Benard) , the Mayor, and a moderator. Film coverage of some of the foliage in the community will be included to illustrate and amplify the description of the process. Taping and editing should be complete prior to Christmas. 9 VIEW RESTORATION MMITTEE MEETING November 15, 1990 Committee Member Quatrochi expressed his concern that some foliage owners think they have to pay for the removal or trimming of foliage. Ms. Petru suggested a paragraph could be added to the application form specifying that the applicant will pay. Committee Member Lorenzen noted that it has been a year since the ordinance was passed and many residents will be using the maintenance provisions rather than the restoration provisions of the ordinance. Ms. Petru said the City has received numerous inquiries about this matter but very few people have submitted the documentation of existing foliage which must be on file with the City. The information has been circulated to residents via newsletters and newspaper articles but it was felt most residents do not understand it. Chairman Clark stated this will be covered in the television interview program. It was noted that the removal and replacement policy will not have become law when the TV program is taped so it can be mentioned only in the context of a possible future provision of the View Restoration ordinance. Member Sweetnam suggested that prior to making a decision to remove a tree the foliage owner should be asked if he is willing to have the tree removed. If the foliage owner is unwilling to allow removal of his tree and insists it be trimmed instead, he should be notified that if the tree dies it is his responsibility. Attorney Hakman agreed this would be advisable. Chairman Clark moved that the Committee adopt an interim policy position that in cases where there is a potential for deciding to remove a tree, the foliage owner be asked whether he would agree to the removal of that tree. This interim rule is to be in effect until the City Council makes a final decision on the ordinance amendment and the Guidelines. Member Sweetnam seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Committee Member Burrage suggested that staff prepare a notice to residents encouraging them to turn in their documentation of foliage to the City, and to trim their trees, to be run on the free public service (Reader Board) spots on Dimension Cable TV. Senior Planner Petru said this could easily be done. Chairman Clark reiterated his request that slides and a screen be provided at Committee meetings to facilitate the visualization of foliage issues being discussed. Member Cartwright suggested it would be beneficial for staff to collect and document the cost to applicants of implementing the recommendations of the Committee. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. to December 6, 1990 at 7: 00 p.m. # # # 10