Loading...
VRC MINS 19901101 II/ 12,/ I Oi 4111 MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES NOVEMBER 1 , 1990 The meeting was called to order at 7 : 12 p .m. by Chairman Clark at Hesse Community Park , 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT Committeemembers Boudreau, Burrage , Eastwood , Lorenzen, Quatrochi , Sweetnam, Weisz , Chairman Clark ABSENT Committeemembers Cartwright , Murphy Also present were Director of Environmental Services Robert Benard , Senior Planner Carolynn Petru, Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas , Associate Planner John Leung , Associate Planner Joel Rojas, Assistant Planner Terry Silverman, Assistant City Attorney Deborah Hakman and Recording Secretary Lucile Rogers . COMMUNICATIONS Senior Planner Petru distributed to Committeemembers some recently received letters regarding applications on the current agenda. She also noted a request from a member of the audience to address Permit Application No . 7 early on the agenda. Chairman Clark agreed this would be the first item under Public Hearings. CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Committeemember Weisz, seconded by Committee- member Sweetnam and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the View Restoration Committee meeting of October 4, 1990 and to adopt V.R.C. Resolution No. 90-4, A RESOLUTION OF THE VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 8 TO TRIM AND REMOVE FOLIAGE AT 28533 SEAMOUNT DRIVE. PUBLIC HEARINGS VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 7: Bill and Betty Herman 4 Top Rail Lane Mr. Larry Bowdle of 4 Golden Spur spoke on behalf of the foliage owners, requesting that the public hearing on this application -1- s } 111 111 RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE - 11/1/90 be continued as Mr. English ' s job has required him to remain out of town. Mr. Bill Herman, the applicant , requested that the hearing go ahead as scheduled , since the November 1 date had been requested by Mr. English and he could have arranged to send a representative if unable to attend . Chairman Clark mored that Permit Application No. 7 be continued to the November 15 meeting, and shall not be subject to further continuance. The motion vas seconded by Committeemember Quatrochi and carried on a 6-1 rote with Committeemember Burrage dissenting. Committeemember Sweetnam lives within 300 feet of the applicant , and therefore abstained from voting . VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 10: Betty Jo Hood 5547 Bayridge Drive Alternate Committeemembers Burrage and Boudreau replaced absent Committeemembers Cartwright and Murphy. It was noted that Ms. Boudreau resides 2500 feet from the subject property , not within 300 feet as stated on the Staff Report . Requested Action: Remove or trim one pittosporum at 5564 Graylog to restore view at 5547 Bayridge. Recommendation: Trim the pittosporum to the ridgeline of foliage owner ' s residence. Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas presented the staff findings and recommendations on Permit Application No. 10, as summarized in the staff report dated September 28 , 1990. He added that both the applicant and the foliage owner have agreed to the staff recommendations. The applicant , Ms. Betty Jo Hood, stated that in addition to the pittosporum at 5564 Graylog there are some large trees at 5555 Graylog that are blocking her view. She did not include them in her initial application because the property owner assured her they would be trimmed in October. This has not occurred , and she asked if she could incorporate the foliage at 5555 Graylog under Permit Application No. 10 with the payment of an additional $75 fee. Discussion of this matter followed. It was noted that if an additional property is added the applicant would need to submit a revised application and staff would have to make another inspection, write a new report and issue a new 30-day notice of hearing . Director of Environmental Services Benard advised that the original and amended application should be addressed -2- 111 RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE — 11/1/90 at the same time so that both could be incorporated into one Resolution. Assistant City Attorney Hakman suggested that a policy needs to be developed regarding amendments to applications with respect to the same property and also to additional properties being added. Chairman Clark asked staff to put this item on the agenda for discussion at the next meeting . Mrs . Hood stated she was willing to wait on her original application so that the additional property could be added. Ms. Yvonne Goppert of 5504 Bayridge Road asked to address the Committee . She said the Committee needs to consider how to handle the case when someone relies in good faith upon a neighbor 's promise to take care of a foliage matter and then fails to keep his word , because this occurs frequently. Chairman Clark agreed the Committee needs to set some guidelines as to how to handle applications that are expanded after submittal . Committeemember Sweetnam moved continuance of View Restoration Permit Application No. 10 to allow modification and the required staff actions and due process. The motion was seconded by Committeemember Weisz and passed unanimously. CONTINUED BUSINESS VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 4: Mr. Ben larmalich, 19 La Vista Verde; Mr. and Mrs. Josef lubicek, 18 La Vista Verde; Mr. and Mrs. Nino Rosini, 20 La Vista Verde; Mr. and Mrs. Mervin Tarlov, 21 La Vista Verde. Associate Planner Joel Rojas reviewed the background of Permit Application No. 4 , which had its public hearing at the September 20th meeting. He reported that staff had determined in a subsequent inspection that the height of the Aleppo pine is approximately 10 feet higher than the ridgeline of the foliage owner 's residence, and that all views would be restored by trimming the 28 eucalyptus trees to that height . At its meeting of September 20, 1990, the View Restoration Committee approved Permit No . 4 specifying (in part) that the three pepper trees along the north side property line should be trimmed to approximately 12 feet . Mr. Rojas advised that staff has now determined that one pepper tree would exceed the Aleppo pine level after being trimmed to 12 feet and would impair views at two applicant residences. Therefore , staff recommends also trimming the three pepper trees to, the level of the Aleppo pine height. crui.A, -tp c,to • Revised Recommendation: Trim the 28 eucalyptus trees located downslope of the residence in the south yard and the three pepper trees located upslope of the residence along the —3— fIII 111 RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE - 11/1/90 north property line to a height level established by the existing top of an Aleppo pine tree located at 2435 Rue Le Charlene. The three eucalyptus trees located upslope of the residence along the north property line should be removed as previously determined. Committeemembers Boudreau and Weisz were not present at the September 20 VRC meeting and therefore were ineligible to vote on this matter. Committeemembers Burrage, Eastwood , Lorenzen, Quatrochi , Sweetnam and Chairman Clark constituted a quorum. The Committee discussed how to revise a motion which had been previously passed , and Assistant City Attorney Hakman advised that the decision is not final until passage of the Resolution; therefore, a new motion could be passed after rescission of the original motion. Committeemember Burrage moved to rescind the original portion of the motion concerning the three pepper trees. The motion was seconded by Committeemember Eastwood and passed unanimously. Committeemember Burrage then moved that the Committee accept the revised staff recommendation including trimming the 28 eucalyptus and three pepper trees to the height of the Aleppo pine and removing the three eucalyptus trees along the north property line. The motion was seconded by Committeemember Eastwood and passed unanimously. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 5: Mr. and Mrs. Byong Dae Lee 30341 Camino Porvenir Assistant City Attorney Hakman requested a continuance of this application in order to amplify and clarify the staff report. Director of Environmental Services Benard added that a continuance to the first meeting in December would be beneficial. Because of the Permit Streamlining Act , if the case is not concluded by the January 9, 1991 deadline, the Committee would be required to deny the application. However , the applicant has indicated a willingness to grant an extension if the matter is not resolved by the first meeting in December. Chairman Clark asked for elaboration on the reasons for the delay and Ms. Hakman said she would prefer not to detail them at this meeting. She recommended not making any decisions on this application until the December 6 meeting . Committeemember Sweetnam askedif the continuance was related to the status of the "unusual and indigenous" trees on the property and the possible need for an environmental assessment . Mr. Benard indicated this is one of the matters to be investigated. '---- AWL. AiNNtli.., afro& Alks- ciarS13.r-sNrc -4- RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE - 11/1/90 Committeemember Sweetnam moved that View Restoration Permit Application No. 5 be continued to the December 6 meeting. The motion was seconded by Committeemember Quatrochi and passed unanimously. Director of Environmental Services Benard advised the interested parties that they would not receive additional notice of the hearing , but would receive revised staff reports before the meeting. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 6: Mr. and Mrs. William G. Traver 30367 Avenida De Calms Associate Planner John Leung stated he had distributed to Committeemembers a letter from Mr. Hooshang Mozaffari , the foliage owner , which disputes the measurements obtained by staff on his property . Mr . Leung requested this application be continued to allow staff to make additional measurements on the site and amplify the findings in the staff report . The foliage owner , Mr. Hooshang Mozaffari, reported he had complied with the law by trimming the branches of a tree which exceeded 16 feet , but his remaining foliage measures less than 16 feet in height by precise engineering survey. He invited staff to return to his property and take accurate measurements which will show that the trees do not fall within the guidelines of the ordinance. Mrs. Laren Traver, applicant , said that the previous owner of the Mozaffari property had kept the bushes trimmed to two or three feet lower than their current height. When the application packet was sent to the Travers they called the Planning office and were told that the "16 feet or ridgeline" guidelines were not hard and fast rules , and that each case would be judged independently . Mrs . Traver explained that with the "stairstep" P inif one neighbor ' s roperty is not lots their neighborhood , P low enough in relation to another, foliage can grow high enough to impair the view yet not be within the 16 foot criteria, and this should be taken into account by the Committee. She also pointed out that good views increase property values and the entire neighborhood benefits from these increased values, so neighbors should be willing to work with each other to maximize views. Chairman Clark indicated that the 16 feet or ridgeline criteria are written into the ordinance and seem to be hard and fast rules. Committeemember Sweetnam added that the Committee does look at the circumstances to see what is reasonable in each case. -5- 110 411 RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE - 11/1/90 Committeemember Quatrochi said he was willing to concede that Mr. Mozaffari ' s measurements were accurate, but said that trimming the bushes in the back yard would not affect his privacy at all and asked if the Mozaffaris would be willing as good neighbors to trim the foliage by three feet to restore the view. Mr. Mozaffari said that he had asked another neighbor to trim his trees and the neighbor had refused , so he was not willing to trim his. Committeemember Lorenzen suggested that the foliage owners visit the home of the applicants to see that it is virtually impossible to see into their home from the Travers ' residence. She said that if he trimmed the bushes they would branch out at the bottom and become so thick there would be no privacy problem, and additionally he would be setting an example of being a good neighbor. Mr. Mozaffari replied that he likes his trees at their current height . He indicated he would fully comply with the rules and regulations but they do not apply to his foliage. Mrs. Traver reviewed the background of the current dispute , stating that a couple of years ago the Mozaffaris did cooperate by allowing the Travers ' tree trimmers to trim their foliage, which restored their view at that time. But when they asked the Mozaffaris to trim again they were told that because the other neighbor would not cooperate with the Mozaffaris , they would not cooperate with the Travers. She added that the three tree limbs which were to be cut back (in accordance with the View Restoration Committee decision at the September 20 meeting) have not yet been cut back. Only some dead branches higher up in the tree were removed. Committee discussion followed. Committeemembers Boudreau and Weisz were excluded from voting because of their absence from the September 20 meeting. The remaining six members constituted a quorum. Assistant City Attorney Hakman advised that the City Attorney feels there needs to be amplification of the staff report and recommended a continuance. Mr. Benard added that because there is a question as to the clear intent of the language in the code (16 feet or ridgeline) , these issues need to be resolved so that staff can give valid , sustainable recommendations to the Committee which will stand up if challenged. Committeemember Sveetnam moved that Permit Application No. 6 be continued to the November 15 meeting and the public hearing be kept open until that meeting. The motion was seconded by Committeemember Lorenzen and passed unanimously. At 9 : 10 p.m. , Chairman Clark called for a short recess. The meeting was reconvened at 9: 25 p.m. -6- 411 RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE - 11/1/90 NEW BIISIABSS There was no new business. QIIESTIOIfS FROM AIIDIBFCE There were no questions from the audience regarding non-agenda items. REPORTS Senior Planner Petru reviewed the status of View Restoration Permit applications. There are now a total of 22 applications. Chairman Clark reported that the Mayor asked him how many trees have been taken out through the VRC process, and Ms. Petru advised that none have been so far. Chairman Clark asked staff to prepare periodic summary statistics for the Committee' s benefit. Director of Environmental Services Benard reported that at the request of the City Manager he prepared a memorandum to the City Council from the View Restoration Committee recommending a flat payment of $35 per month to each member of the Committee as reimbursement for mileage expenses incurred visiting View Restoration Application sites. The figure is based on an average number of site visits per month. The cost to the Department of $4200 per year will require a budget adjustment. The memorandum will be presented to the City Council at their November 7 meeting , and Committeemembers were encouraged to attend and provide any testimony they might choose to present. Committeemember Quatrochi asked how amendments can be made to the View Restoration ordinance. Mr. Benard replied that it would be the same procedure that was followed regarding the subject of a tree replacement policy (i.e. , staff requests the City Council's consideration, Council directs staff to draft an amendment or policy paper for the Committee to review, then staff presents a revised policy to the City Council for adoption or amendment) . He added that the tree replacement policy is not ready to go to the Council at their November 7 meeting so it will be presented at their November 20 meeting , and to the View Restoration Committee for its review at their November 15 meeting. Committeemember Quatrochi expressed a desire for input from staff regarding clarification (or amendment) of the rules/guidelines concerning 16 feet or the ridgeline. He said that more flexibility is needed in interpreting the language of the ordinance. Mr . Benard said this item would be placed on the agenda for the November 15 meeting . -7- 410 411RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE - 11/1/90 Chairman Clark asked Assistant City Attorney Hakman for her interpretation of the language. She stated it appears that the 16 feet is measured from the base of the tree, and the ridgeline is measured from the building pad. The Committee 's jurisdiction seems to be limited to approving heights no lower than 16 feet or the ridgeline. The Committee can, however , specify a higher limit as long as the view is restored at that higher limit. Further discussion was deferred to the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. to November 15 , 1990 at 7 :00 p.m. # # # -8-