Loading...
VRC MINS 19901004 410 111 0,,,„,,,, MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES OCTOBER 4, 1990 The meeting was called to order at 7 : 10 p .m. by Chairman Clark at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard . PRESENT Committeemembers Boudreau, Burrage, Cartwright , Lorenzen, Quatrochi , Sweetnam, Weisz, Chairman Clark ABSENT Committeemembers Eastwood , Murphy present were Director of Environmental Services Robert Also Benard , Senior Planner Carolynn Petru, Assistant Planner Bonnie Olson, Assistant Planner Mike Patterson, Assistant City Attorney Ols Michael Colantuono and Recording Secretary Lucile Rogers . COMMUNICATIONS Senior Planner Petru distributed to all Committeemembers a current roster of all City commissions, committees and City Council members. CONSENT CALENDAR Committeemember Sweetnam moved the minutes of the View Restoration Committee meetings of September 6 and September p 20, 1990 be accepted as submitted. The motion was seconded by Committeemember Quatrochi and carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Clark briefly outlined for the audience the View Restoration Committee procedures . Planner Petru reported that the foliage owner involved Senior p in Permit Application No. 7 has notified the City that he will be out of town through the month of October. He has requested an extension and staff recommends the application be continued to the November 1 , 1990 View Restoration Committee meeting . Committeemember Cartwright moved that staff's recommendation be accepted and Permit Application No. 7 be moved to the November g 1, 1990 agenda. The motion was seconded by Committeemember Quatrochi and passed unanimously. -1- 411 RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE - 10/4/90 VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 8: Mr. Lanai leimat 28517 Seamount Drive Alternate Committeemembers Boudreau and Burrage replaced Committeemember Murphy, who was absent , and Committeemember Quatrochi , who abstained because he had been unable to visit the site. Assistant Planner Mike Patterson presented the staff findings and recommendations on Permit Application No. 8 , as summarized in the staff report dated August 28 , 1990 and amended by memorandum dated October 4 , 1990. He reported that since both the property owner and the foliage owner agreed that the two northernmost cypress trees did not present a significant view impairment, the original recommendation to remove them was changed to recommend trimming to ridge height. Additionally , because the two eucalyptus trees are planted upslope from the house, the revised recommendation is to trim them to 16 feet . Requested Action: Trim or remove trees in the side yard to restore applicant ' s view. Recommendation: Trim eucalyptus trees to 16 feet , trim • oleanders to ridge height , remove 5 southernmost cyprus trees and trim 2 northernmost cyprus trees to ridge height. The applicant , Mr. Ramal' Neimat, stated he agreed with the staff recommendations for the two eucalyptus and the five cyprus trees , but he hoped the two remaining cyprus trees and the oleander would be trimmed to 16 feet rather than the ridgeline. Mr. R. Steven Shean, the foliage owner at 28533 Seamount Drive, stated he accepts the staff recommendations. There were no other interested parties who wished to testify , and no rebuttal comments from the property owner or the foliage owner. Committeemember Weisz moved the public hearing be closed. The motion was seconded by Committeemember Sweetnam and passed unanimously. Regarding the applicant ' s request to trim foliage to 16 feet g g PP rather than the ridgeline, Senior Planner Petru explained that staff only recommends trimming to 16 feet or to the ridgeline to the extent that it restores the view. The recommendation was to trim the trees as much as is necessary to restore the view, and no more. -2- 111 !II • RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE - 10/4/90 The applicant , Mr . Neimat , indicated he wished to clarify a point. Committeemember Sweetnam moved to reopen the public hearing to allow the applicant to address the Committee. The motion was seconded by Committeemember Weisz and carried unanimously. Mr. Neimat said the two cyprus and one oleander in question are not between the two properties , so trimming them doesn' t affect the foliage owner ' s privacy in any way. He recommended they be trimmed to 16 feet or the ridgeline , whichever is lower. Mr . Shean indicated that the trees are between his property and another property to the north, and he wished to protect his privacy on that side. The public hearing was again closed on a motion from Committeemember Sweetnam, second by Committeemember Weisz, and unanimous consent. Discussion by the Committee disclosed that several members felt the three trees in question should be trimmed to the ridge height of the house next door to the foliage owner . It was moved by Committeemember Weisz and seconded by Committeemember Lorenzen that the staff recommendations be adopted with the modification of trimming the two northernmost cypress and the oleander to the ridgeline of the house next door. Assistant City Attorney Colantuono advised that the Committee ' s jurisdiction is limited to directing removal of foliage as needed to the lower of 16 feet from the point at grade where the tree is rooted and the ridgeline of the subject property. If another reference point is used it must be no lower than the subject ridgeline. Mr. Shean stated the house next door is 7 feet below the level of his house. The motion was withdrawn by Committeemembers Weisz and Lorenzen. It was moved by Committeemember Burrage that the staff recommendations contained in memorandum dated October 4, 1990 be accepted. The motion was seconded by Committeemember Weisz and passed unanimously. CONTINUED BUSINESS • Regarding V.R.C. Resolution No. 90- , approving View Restoration Permit No. 2 , Senior Planner Petru reported that staff had been unable until that morning to gain access to the foliage owner 's property to determine the height of the trees identified as "miscellaneous trees in the northeast corner of the rear yard . " -3- 111 RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE - 10/4/90 Measurements have now been made and a revised resolution will be sent to the City Attorney . Staff recommends that this item be continued to the October 18 , 1990 meeting . It vas moved by Coamitteemember Cartwright that V.R.C. Resolution No. 90- , approving View Restoration Permit No. 2 to trim or remove trees at 3931 Palos Verdes Drive South, be continued to the October 18, 1990 meeting. The motion vas seconded by Committeemember Quatrochi and carried unanimously. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 3: Chris and Edith Brines 4113 Lorraine Road Senior Planner Petru reported that the two outstanding issues on this application which were continued from the September 6 , 1990 meeting have now been resolved. The jacaranda tree in question has been determined to be on the property of Mr . Joe Gregorio at 4100 Lorraine Road; therefore, it is not subject to this permit application. The olive tree was found to be not a City street tree; it is located on the foliage owner ' s property at 4116 Lorraine Road. Staff recommends excluding the jacaranda tree from this application and requiring removal of the olive tree. It was noted that Mr. Gregorio has stated he intends to remove the jacaranda tree , but Committeemembers were concerned that if this action is not taken, the applicant might have to file a new application and pay another filing fee. Director of Environmental Services Benard assured the members that the applicant would be given an opportunity to file an amendment rather than a new application if this need arises . Assistant City Attorney Colantuono added that the Committee has the power to reopen the public hearing if they choose, but if they do so he would recommend they reconsider the entire application. Another matter raised by Attorney Colantuono was a contention in Mr. William Sulentor ' s letter of August 31 , 1990 that the olive tree on his lot (which staff has recommended be removed) "was in place before the Brines' lot was ever graded or the house built. " Mr . Colantuono said the standard that controls under the ordinance is when the lots were created , and he has been informed by staff that both the Brines lot and the Sulentor lot were created simultaneously. There is , therefore, no predecessor foliage that would take it out of the Committee ' s jurisdiction. The health of the olive tree was reviewed . Staff felt the tree was unhealthy and should be replaced with a smaller , lower growing species . The foliage owner said he thought it might have been poisoned but it seems to be doing better now. He -4- • 111 111 • RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE - 10/4/90 said he would agree to appropriate trimming and lacing but not to its removal. Staff felt there was a question as to the viability of the tree after severe pruning (bringing it down from 25 feet to 16 feet) . Committeemember Quatrochi suggested that if the tree should die after being trimmed rather than removed (to satisfy the foliage owner) , it should be the responsibility of the foliage owner to remove and replace it . There was general agreement among the members on this idea. It was moved by Committeemember Quatrochi that the olive tree be trimmed to the ridgeline and if it does not survive it is the foliage owner's responsibility to remove and replace it. The motion was seconded by Committeemember Weisz and passed unanimously. A discussion ensued about the jacaranda tree at 4100 Lorraine Road. It was decided that no action needs to be taken at this time. If at a later date the applicant wishes to add this tree and the new foliage owner to his application, it will be handled as an amendment to Permit Application No. 3 and only an amendment fee will be required. At 8: 25 p.m. , Chairman Clark called for a 15 minute break. The meeting was reconvened at 8:40 p .m. Senior Planner Petru announced two additions to the agenda: Item VI.D, Tree Replacement Policy ; and Item IX.A. 3, Mileage Reimbursement. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 5: Mr. and Mrs. Byong Dae Lee 30341 Camino Porvenir Senior Planner Petru stated she had given all Committeemembers a copy of correspondence received from the foliage owner . Assistant Planner Bonnie Olson presented the staff findings and recommendations on Permit Application No. 5 , as summarized in the staff report dated August 17, 1990. Requested Action: Remove approximately 10 trees along the rear property line to restore the applicant 's view. Recommendation: Remove 12 cypress along rear property line and remove 4 pines located along the south side yard yard at 30320 Avenida de Calma. Allow the Monterey pines in the front and north side yard to remain. Ms. Olson added that a letter has been received from the applicants stating they are unsure of the exact number and species of trees along the south side property line and they would like their application to cover those trees as well as those along the rear property line. _5_ 411 RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE - 10/4/90 Alternate Committeemembers Boudreau and Burrage replaced Committeemember Cartwright , who abstained from this hearing due to residing within 300 feet of the property , and absent Committeemember Murphy. Chairman Clark asked who had visited the foliage owner 's property. Staff had viewed it from above and from the front only. Committeemembers Sweetnam and Lorenzen and Chairman Clark had been on the property . Committeemember Weisz explained he had tried to contact Mr. Sharkey but was unable to find his telephone number. Assistant City Attorney Colantuono advised that the ordinance requires Committeemembers to visit the applicant ' s property but not the foliage owner ' s property , and that any conversations with the foliage owner or particular knowledge about the case gained from such visits need to be entered into the record . It was agreed that some of the "unusual and indigenous Monterey pines" do constitute a view impairment and Mr . Benard stated the staff report should have recommended some effort to reduce the view impairment through trimming , reducing the crown or thinning ; or, if there was a feeling that the tree was of unique value and needed to be removed, there should have been a recommendation for replacement. Attorney Colantuono added that if foliage being considered is of particular importance it may not be appropriate to forego environmental review under the California Environmental 'Quality Act , in which case an Initial Study and Environmental Assessment would be required andossibl an Environmental Impact Report . Typically, the P y cost of the studies would be imposed upon the applicant. He cautioned the Committee to be sensitive to those issues even though the View Restoration ordinance speaks primarily to balancing views with privacy. The California Environmental Quality Act will not stop the Committee from removing trees but it does require them to pause and consider additional information before acting . Director of Environmental Services Benard suggested that the staff recommendation excluded the large trees in order to avoid the need for a study and a possible Negative Declaration. He requested that if the Committee feels there is a view impairment and the trees need to be removed , a continuance be granted to give staff time to investigate whether a CEQA categorial exemption is appropriate. That information would be brought back to the Committee and mitigation (i .e. , replacement trees) could be pursued . If there is a significant adverse impact that could not be mitigated , an EIR and possibly a statement of overriding considerations may be needed. This is an issue that has never come before the Committee before . -6- RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE - 10/4/90 Mr. Benard pointed out that CEQA transcends the legislation that created the View Restoration Committee, and that any Committee action is subject to CEQA. Committeemember Quatrochi questioned whether the Monterey pines would actually be subject to CEQA, since they are indigenous to Monterey and not the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Assistant City Attorney Colantuono advised that when in doubt , it is best to complyCEQA, and encouraged the Committee to grant staff ' s with request for a two-week continuance to research the matter, to prepare a negative declaration, and make sure the requirements of the statute are being complied with. The Committee will be required to approve any negative declaration that may come before it . Chairman Clark asked if the entire application should be deferred and Attorney Colantuono replied it would be advisable to move forward with the public hearing since both parties were present and the testimony would be helpful to staff in their study. There was a discussion of what the term "unusual and indigenous" actually means. Assistant City Attorney Colantuono explained that an environmental lawyer might say that something is unique if it is relatively rare in the region, which would mean Southern California, not just the Peninsula. Indigenous describes a class ofP lants which grow naturally in a region. He felt that an Environmental Impact Report would probably not be required but there is enough cause for legal concern that the Committee would be well advised to either leave those trees out of its consideration or ask that CEQA compliance be initiated. Mr. Benard mentioned there are 28 categories which are exempted from CEQA, and all foliage considered by the Committee thus far has been considered categorically exempt under Class IV, but because of the nature of the trees in this case it might not apply . Assistant CityAttorney Colantuono advised that the public hearing should not be closed because after the negative declaration (if needed) is available, all parties must be given an opportunity to speak to that declaration on the record. The hearing should be continued to a date and time certain. It was moved by Committeemember Sweetnam that the public hearing be opened. The motion was seconded by Committeemember Weisz and carried unanimously. Lee, daughter of applicant Mr. Byong Dae Lee of 30341 Ms. Yun g Camino Porvenir , explained the background of the conflict between the two families. She said when her family moved in there were _7_ 411 RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE - 10/4/90 two or three pine trees between the properties which did not affect their view of the ocean and Catalina Island. After a few years the trees grew large enough to impair the view and they asked the Sharkeys to have them trimmed at the Lees ' expense. Mr. Sharkey agreed , but when the Lees sent their gardener to trim the trees Mr. Sharkey made him stop . After this the Sharkeys planted cypress trees all along the rear property line which grew until they blocked the entire view from both levels of the house. One of the trees blew down in a storm and with space from another tree that had blown down earlier, they now have about a 20 foot window through which they have a partial view of the ocean. Ms. Lee felt that any infringement on the Sharkey ' s privacy caused by implementation of the staff recommendations would be minimal and reasonable. She also said their dog has never caused any problems that they know of, and after the Sharkeys ' trees are removed they plan to erect a fence to keep the dog in their yard. They feel their request is fair and reasonable and staff 's recommendations should be implemented. The foliage owner , Mr. John Sharkey, said first that his property is at least 1000 feet from Committeemember Cartwright ' s home; therefore, Mr . Cartwright should not be excluded from this hearing. Mr . Colantuono advised that any Committeemember living within 300 feet of property being considered must excuse himself ; otherwise it is up to the judgment of the Committeemember whether or not he can be fair and impartial. Committeemember Cartwright said he had accepted staff ' s designation of his home being within 300 feet of the subject property , and thus had not visited the applicant' s home and could not serve on the Committee for this application. Mr. Sharkey read his two-page letter submitted to the Committee on October 4, 1990. He requested a continuance of the hearing for two weeks so that staff and Committeemembers can visit his home and look out his windows to see the importance of the privacy issue. He also said that none of his trees are 40 feet or 60 feet tall as stated in the staff report ; they are all under 30 feet. Counsel was asked for a definition of "privacy. " Attorney Colantuono read Section 17.02 .040, Subparagraph (9) of the View Restoration ordinance which defines privacy as "reasonable protection from intrusive visual observation. " In the V.R.C. Guidelines and Procedures, Section II.B. 5. (a) states , "Indoor privacy can be achieved in many unobtrusive ways such that obstructive foliage should generally not be preserved to protect indoor privacy. " -8- !II RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE - 10/4/90 Mr. Sharkey pointed out that privacy is guaranteed by the United States Constitution. He feels he has already lost a good deal of it and the only reason he has not replaced the tree that blew down is that it happened since passage of Proposition M and he is forbidden to do so by the ordinance. Staff and Committeemembers indicated their willingness to visit Mr. Shays Sharkey' s property during the next two weeks. Mr . Sharkey has now given his phone number to the Senior Planner and the RecordingSecretary so that he can be contacted for appointments. There were no other interested parties who wished to testify . In her rebuttal Ms. Lee pointed out that they have the same Py problems roblems the Sharkeys have, but complete privacy is impossible in tract homes and the more important consideration to them is the view they have lost since the trees have grown g so large. She disagreed with several of the points Mr. Sharkey had raised. Mr. Sharkeyreiterated that privacy is to be protected over P view. He repeated contentions spelled out in his two letters and said he expects fairness from the Committee. Chairman Clark recommended to the Committee that the case be ed that Committeemembers and staff visit the foliage continued, owner ' s property, and that staff investigate the implications of CEQA. CityAttorney Colantuono asked that the record note. Assistant . that both parties concede that the trees were planted no earlier than 1978. Assistant Planner Olson added that the lots were created in 1969. Committeemember Lorenzen requested that staff determine if the cypress trees can be considered a hedge. Staff was also asked to measure the height of the trees . Committeemember Quatrochi moved the public hearing and the application be continued to October 18, 1990 to allow staff foliage owner's property to determine the number to visit the 8 and. height of the trees and to consult with counsel regarding arding ns of CBA on Permit Application No. 5. The motion the implications CEQA was seconded by Commiteemelaber Weisz and passed unanimously. TREE REPLACEMENT POLICY City Assistant Attorney Colantuono advised the Committee that due to theprovisions rovisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act , the agenda of these meetings s must be posted two days in advance; therefore 111 111 RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE - 10/4/90 no decisions should be reached on items added to the agenda after that time. Items may be discussed and consensus may be reached but Committee positions may not be formally adopted until such time as it is properly noticed. After discussion at this meeting, staff can draft a proposed resolution which will be on the next agenda and can be adopted at that time. Director of Environmental Services Benard summarized the staff memorandum dated October 4, 1990 regarding Tree Replacement Policy . The staff memorandum of September 24 and comments received from Committeemember Weisz and Chairman Clark were included with the memorandum, as well as Resolution No. 89-119, the "Street Tree Policy. " He explained how staff arrived at the recommendation of replacing no more than 10 trees and reviewed Committeemember Weisz ' suggestion of requiring the foliage owner to pay for the replacement of the first five trees, the applicant to pay for the next five trees , and any additional trees to be the responsibility of the foliage owners. He added that the ultimate decision on the policy will be made by the City Council based on input from the Committee and staff. On questioning as to the need for a policy, Mr. Benard said that of the 18 applications received to date approximately 225 trees are considered view impairments and are potentially to be removed . Of the three applications dealt with to date, the recommendations were to remove 15, with only 3 replacements called for. No clear authority exists in the ordinance for providing replacement trees , and Counsel suggests the City would be on better legal ground having a reference to replacement in the ordinance rather than in the Policies. Chairman Clark said he was glad to see that staff is now suggesting guidelines rather than absolute standards so that reasonable and prudent judgment and discretion can still be applied by the Committee to each case. Attorney Colantuono pointed out that only the City Council can legislate, and Committeemembers are to implement legislation. The policy needs to be given consistency and discipline through the existence of standards that can be applied equally to all applications. Committeemember Lorenzen noted that part of the problem is that in some cases too many trees have been planted in small areas and should not all be replaced , but each case needs to be considered on its own merits. She said that in many cases a one gallon tree rather than a 15 gallon tree should be used as a replacement tree. Committeemember Quatrochi suggested that one tree for every 800 square feet would be more appropriate than every 400 feet . Committeemember Weisz agreed with the suggested maximum of 10 replacement trees . He explained that his idea of making the -10- !II 111 RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE - 10/4/90 foliage owner responsible for the cost of replacing the first five trees and the applicant responsible for the second five trees could lead to negotiation between the parties by evening out the costs of the View Restoration Permit process. Neither party could make the other party solely financially responsible. A discussion ensued of the possibility of not recommending removing any trees, just trimming them. Committeemember Sweetnam noted the ordinance calls for notice to be sent to the property owner to "trim, cull , lace or otherwise cause the foliage to be reduced to 16 feet or the ridgeline . . . " The only place removal comes in is when the foliage owner does not comply and the 90 days expires, at which point the City will come in and cause "trimming , culling , lacing or removal of the foliage. " Attorney Colantuono said that if the Committee wanted to adopt that policy it could, but in the Findings section, Finding 5 says "removal or trimming of the foliage will not cause unreasonable infringement . . . " so the word "removal" does show up in the Findings. Chairman Clark added that he was one of the framers of Proposition M, and removal of foliage was definitely contemplated. Committeemember Lorenzen asked how applicants would be notified of the replacement policy and Mr. Benard replied that this would be added to the information sheet that goes to all prospective applicants. In addition, it would be codified in the ordinance. • Committeemember Cartwright and Chairman Clark requested that staff prepare a report on the pros and cons of the options that have been presented and staff ' s recommendations. Mr. Benard replied that this would be done and he represented that he supports the concept of guidelines and flexibility, and also Committeemember Weisz' concept of cost sharing between applicants and foliage owners. Mr. John Sharkey commented that there is a real question of justice in replacing a $5,000 tree with an $85 tree. He said he voted for Proposition M but he never imagined it would involve taking out a single tree. He also said that when trees are removed the roots should also be removed. Additionally, the Constitution comes before the V.R.C. and the right to privacy is there. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. QUESTIONS FROM AUDIENCE There were no questions from the audience regarding non-agenda items. -11- 4 410 RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE - 10/4/90 REPORTS Senior Planner Petru reported there are 18 applications for View Restoration Permits. On the agenda for the October 18 meeting will be the continuation of View Restoration Permit Application No. 5, adoption of V.R.C. Resolution No. 90-2 , and the Tree Replacement Policy. Several more applications are scheduled for the November 1 meeting. It was decided that discussion of visitation of the foliage owners ' property by Committeemembers would be held over to the October 18 meeting . • On the question of mileage reimbursement, Mr. Benard reported that the City Manager would address this issue after the City Council reimbursement policy is decided. He said he would not expect any action on this matter before November. There were no Committee reports. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11 :45 p.m. to October 18, 1990 at 7 :00 p .m. • # # # -12-