Loading...
VRC MINS 19901018 w111 111 CT MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 18, 1990 The meeting was called to order at 7: 08pm by Chair Clark at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT Burrage, Boudreau, Eastwood, Lorenzen, Weisz , Murphy, Quatrochi, Cartwright, Clark ABSENT Sweetnam Also present were Director of Environmental Services Robert Benard, Senior Planner Carolynn Petru, and Assistant City Attorney Deborah Hakman. COMMUNICATIONS Senior Planner Petru noted that the Resolutions to be approved under the Consent Calendar had been amended in Exhibit "A" to cover certain fee refund situations. It was also noted that a letter had been received from the applicants on View Restoration Permit No. 5 stating that they would be willing to exclude the Monterey Pines from the application. CONSENT CALENDAR A. V.R.C. Resolution No. 90-2, View Restoration Permit No. 2 (3931 PVDS) -- Member Quatrochi moved, seconded by Member Murphy and carried, to approve the Resolution including the amendments which were previously read into the record and contained in Exhibit "A" . B. V.R.C. Resolution No. 90-3, View Restoration Permit No. 3) 4112, 4116, 4124 Lorraine Road) -- Senior Planner Petru stated that she had received calls from both the applicant and property owners at 4112 and 4116 Lorraine Road expressing disagreement with the conditions of the permit. Attorney Hakman reminded the Committee that it was at their discretion whether or not to reconsider and re-notice the item. After some discussion, the Committee decided that there was little merit to reconsider the item, and expressed disappointment that the applicant didn't feel their original actions were sufficient to achieve the objective. VIEW RESTORATIO MMITTEE MEETING October 18, 1990 Member Weisz moved to reject the request for reconsideration, Member Quatrochi seconded, and the motion passed on a unanimous roll call vote. Member Burrage then moved to accept View Restoration Permit No. 2 as amended in Exhibit "A", Member Murphy seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings scheduled on the agenda. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. VIEW RESTORATION Chairman Clark acknowledged PERMIT NO. 5 correspondence from the 30341 Camino Porvenir foliage owner requesting a continuance on this item, and the staff suggestion that it be continued to the November 1 meeting. Member Murphy inquired about the CEQA issue raised by the potential removal of unusual trees, and Mr. Benard stated that because the applicant had removed the Monterey Pines from the application, it was no longer an issue. Member Boudreau disclosed that the foliage owner in this case had called her and that she had told him she could not discuss the item, and requested that he instead send a letter. Member Cartwright moved to accept the staff recommendation to continue the item, Member Weisz seconded, and the motion passed without objection. RECESS AND RECONVENE A 10-minute recess was called at 8:00pm. B. TREE REPLACEMENT POLICY Director Benard presented the staff memo of October 12 summarizing the main issues of the original committee discussion on the tree replacement policy. Attorney Hakman stated that even though these were guidelines, there could be a problem if the foliage owner was required to replace trees and they were not in consent with the process. The following is a point-by-point summary of the committee discussion: 1.& 2. Whether or not guidelines should be established Seven committee members agreed there should be a policy, and two members thought there was no need for one, but all agreed it should be a flexible policy with plenty of Page 2 VIEW RESTORATIO MMITTEE MEETING 111 October 18, 1990 room for case-by-case discretionary judgement. 3. Whether or not there should be a cap on the number of replacement trees (staff recommends ten) Chair Clark stated he did not see the need for an artificial cap if each case was heard on its own merits, and that language could indicate caution against excessive replacement. Cartwright and Quatrochi both felt there were too many variables to be able to specify a number, but the general consensus was that there should be some sort of limit on the number of replacement trees required. 4. Specification of size of replacement trees (Staff recommends minimum replacement size of 15 gallons with 24 inches as an alternative) Member Quatrochi pointed out that the size of the trees affects their survival , and suggested that an information handout be made available to the foliage owners that could also include more types of trees suitable as replacements than just ornamentals. Member Lorenzen stated she felt there should be no minimum size stated so that foliage owners could purchase more drought-resistant 1-gallon bushes instead if desired. The general consensus was that there should be a replacement size specified. 5. Number of replacement trees per specified square foot area (Staff recommends one per 400 sq.ft. ) Based on the theory that trees only allowed to reach 16' would grow wider than usual , Member Lorenzen suggested that the guidelines specify one replacement tree per 1000 sq.ft. instead. Director Benard pointed out that with the average rear yard being 1800-2500 sq.ft. , increasing the limit to 1000 sq.ft. could potentially only allow for replacement of one tree. Member Murphy suggested a compromise of 600 sq.ft. , and for the information of the committee, Mr. Benard also outlined the exact circular diameters of the suggested square foot areas. Chair Clark stated he felt this question should also be judged on a case-by-case basis, but the general consensus (with Members Cartwright and Burrage dissenting) was that the number of replacement trees should be specified as limited to one per 1000 sq.ft. , with written latitude to increase the density if the committee so desired. 6. Costs for replacement trees (Committee had suggested foliage owner pay for first five, applicant for second five; staff recommends alternating costs with first tree responsibility of foliage owner, second tree responsibility of applicant, and alternating up to ten. Page 3 ' VIEW RESTORATIO MMITTEE MEETING 111 October 18, 1990 Attorney Hakman cautioned against requiring the foliage owner to pay for replacement trees and possible risk of challenge. Lorenzen expressed concern that an applicant might have to pay for tree replacement on more than one property and supported the committee recommendation, as did Quatrochi and Burrage. Cartwright, Boudreau and Eastwood agreed that although both applicant and owners were facing big expenses, it was an especially unfair burden for the foliage owners, and that the applicant should bear the major cost burden. Murphy agreed with the Attorney's assessment; Clark agreed with the staff recommendation, Weisz pointed out that the original concept had been that the applicant had already sustained application expenses, and that the committee recommendation might encourage both parties to resolve the issue privately. The final consensus was that the sharing of expenses was appropriate, although some did feel it should be borne strictly by the applicant. Chair Clark moved, seconded by Member Quatrochi and carried unanimously, to establish a written tree replacement policy to be contained in the Committee guidelines. Chair Clark moved to adopt the guidelines as follows, seconded by Member Quatrochi and carried on an 8-1 vote, with Member Cartwright dissenting on the basis of the assignation of financial responsibility for replacement: (Based on the October 12 staff memo, attached) To adopt the essence of the Paragraph #1 concept as discussed; to adopt Paragraph #2; For Paragraph #3, that there would be an identification of no more than ten ( 10) trees as eligible for replacement but that the number could be altered on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the committee; In Paragraph #4, that the policy identify replacement trees and other types of foliage without specifically limiting size parameters to allow multiples of smaller sizes to a standard based on 15 gallons; That Paragraph #5 use a basis of 1000 sq.ft. as a replacement guideline, with case-by-case flexibility at the discretion of the committee; and that Paragraph #6 balancing the costs of replacement between the applicant and foliage owner(s) follow the committee recommendation that the first five 15-gallon trees or the equivalent thereof be the responsibility of the foliage owner, and the next five or equivalent be the responsibility of the applicant. The motion also included staff recommendations that a) dead foliage is not included; b) drought-tolerant foliage be encouraged; c) to define a tree as having a 3" or larger trunk diameter, and d) that no Page 4 VIEW RESTORATIO MMITTEE MEETING !II October 18, 1990 penalty will be assessed to the applicant if the foliage owner does not wish to replace the foliage. Director Benard expressed the staff's disagreement with the 1000 sq. ft. minimum. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business on the agenda. QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE There were no questions from the audience. STAFF REPORTS 1 . Status of View Restoration Permit Applications -- Senior Planner Petru stated that there are now 21 applications. 2. Visitation of Foliage Owner' s Property by Committee Members -- After a discussion, it was suggested that the Chair, not the staff, determine when it would be appropriate for the Committee to visit a foliage owner's site. It was also noted that although this could double the number of site visits, it might make for less staff work and continuances in the end. Attorney Hakman expressed concern that not visiting the foliage owner could create a due process question. Member Cartwright moved to revise the current procedures, but withdrew his motion so that staff could bring the item back at a later date for further discussion. 3. Stump Removal Policy -- Member Quatrochi moved, seconded by Member Miesz and carried, to adopt the policy as written. 4. December 20 meeting -- Ms. Petru suggested cancelling the second December meeting, and the Committee agreed. 5. Director Benard stated that the City Council had scheduled a budget workshop on November 30, and he encouraged the Committee to attend and bring up the subject of expenses reimbursement. Chair Clark stated his intent to draft correspondence regarding the issue to the City Manager on behalf of the entire Committee. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11 : 25pm. # # # Page 5 t