Loading...
VRC MINS 19900920 • 10 to, c o MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES SEPTEMBER 20, 1990 The meeting was called to order at 7 : 10 p.m. by Chairman Clark at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT Committeemembers Burrage, Cartwright , Eastwood, Lorenzen, Murphy , Quatrochi , Sweetnam, Chairman Clark ABSENT Committeemembers Boudreau, Weisz Also present were Director of Environmental Services Robert Benard , Planning Administrator Curtis Williams, Senior Planner Carolynn Petru, Associate Planner John Leung , Associate Planner Joel Rojas , Assistant City Attorney Deborah Hakman and Recording Secretary Lucile Rogers . Chairman Clark explained to the audience that this meeting was being videotaped for incorporation into a future broadcast regarding the View Restoration Committee and was not being shown live. In the absence of Committeemember Weisz, alternate Committeemember Burrage was chosen (in alphabetical sequence) to serve in his place. COMMUNICATIONS Senior Planner Petru reported receipt of correspondence from the applicants for View Restoration Permit No . 7 stating they will be out of town on October 4 and requesting postponement of their hearing until a later date. Staff recommended that this item be continued to the November 1 meeting . Chairman Clark advised that the Committeemembers have received an ex parte communication, including photographs, from the foliage owners involved in View Restoration Permit Application No. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Senior Planner Petru reported that the minutes of the September 6 meeting of the View Restoration Committee are not available because the Director of Environmental Services and -1- 110 RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE - 9/20/90 the Assistant City Attorney were reviewing them. They will be placed on the agenda of the October 4 meeting. B. Planning Administrator Williams noted some minor technical corrections to the first V.R.C. Resolution involving the numbers of pine trees and the height of an ash tree , which he read into the record. He explained that these Resolutions, when adopted, will be numbered sequentially beginning with 90-1 (in 1990) . It was moved by Committeemember Quatrochi, seconded by Committeemember Sweetnam and carried unanimously to adopt V.R.C. Resolution No. 90-1 as corrected, A RESOLUTION OF THE VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 1 TO TRIM AND REMOVE FOLIAGE AT 5920 MOSSBANL DRIVE. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Clark reviewed the procedures for the public hearings for the benefit of audience members who were not present at the last meeting. View Restoration Permit Application No. 5 was considered out of sequence since the applicant requested that the application be continued to October 4 , 1990. Staff recommended that the request be granted. It was mooed by Committeemember Cartwright that staff's recommendation be accepted and Permit Application No. 5 be mored to the October 4 agenda. The motion was seconded by Committeemember Murphy and passed unanimously. The foliage owner , Mr. John Sharkey of 30320 Avenida de Calma, was present and noted for the record that he had spent considerable time and effort preparing his case and had not been notified that the continuance had been requested. He also stated his property had not been visited by any Committeemembers or staff. Chairman Clark explained that the procedures adopted by the Committee allow for visits to the foliage owners on an exception basis only, primarily on a privacy issue. Mr. Sharkey stated that privacy is definitely the issue here, but he has not been contacted by the City since receiving a letter dated July 27 stating that staff would contact him to arrange for a visit . Assistant Planner Bonnie Olson was not present because of the expected continuance of the matter. Assistant City Attorney Hakman advised that continued discussion was inappropriate since the public hearing had been continued to the October 4 meeting . Mr. Sharkey gave copies of his prepared testimony to staff for distribution to the Committeemembers. -2- 110 RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE - 9/20/90 VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 4: Mr. Ben Karmalich, 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 Tarlow, 21 La Vista Verde. Associate Planner Joel Rojas presented the staff findings and recommendations on Permit Application No. 4, as summarized in the staff report dated August 17 , 1990. Requested Action: Remove or trim 34 trees at 2410 Daladier to restore views at 18, 19, 20, and 21 La Vista Verde. Recommendation: Remove three eucalyptus and trim remaining 31 eucalyptus and pepper trees. In the first applicant ' s presentation, Mr. Ben Larwalich expressed his pleasure that all members of the Committee had visited his home. He said he was in agreement with most of the staff report but disagreed on the height of the eucalyptus trees, which he estimates to be 80 feet high. He would like them and the pepper trees trimmed to the ridgeline in accordance with the provisions of Proposition M. Mr. Josef Lubicek and Mr. Nino Rosini voiced their agreement with Mr. Karmalich. Mr . Rosini added that he felt the pepper trees should be trimmed to 8 feet because they are on a higher grade than the eucalyptus. Mrs. Frances Tarlow concurred and stated she just wanted the property returned to its condition when Mr. Rosenthal purchased the home. She presented some early photographs of the property which were entered into the public record. The foliage owner , Mr. John Rosenthal of 2410 Daladier Drive, expressed his general agreement with the staff recommendations but noted his concern that if the pepper trees are trimmed significantly they may die. He requested that if the trees die within 12 months they be replaced by the applicants. He also stated that the eucalyptus trees on the south side of the residence provide shade for his home and said that trimming them to 18 feet would leave only stumps which would be unacceptable. Rebuttal comments by Mr. Karmalich and Mr. Kubicek offered their views that trimming the trees as requested will not present problems with privacy or shade, and that any replacement foliage should be shrubs rather than trees. In his rebuttal Mr. Rosenthal stated the privacy issue will not be a problem if any trees removed are replaced. -3- RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE - 9/20/90 It was moved and seconded that the public hearing be closed. The motion was passed unanimously. With regard to removal of the three eucalyptus trees in the north side yard , Committeemember Lorenzen said when the adjacent pepper trees are trimmed , their regrowth will widen and fill the void, so that replacement will not be needed. There was a lengthy discussion of the feasibility of drawing a horizontal line from the top an of Aleppo pine located on the right side of a photograph taken from the deck area of 19 La Vista Verde to the left , to establish a benchmark for trimming the eucalyptus trees. It was agreed this would be a little higher than the ridgeline but would restore the applicants ' views. Mr. Rojas added that this measurement would have to be verified by staff, viewed from all applicants ' ro erties. P P Committeemember Quatrochi urged that the telephone lines be used as a point of reference rather than the Aleppo pine. Committeemember Cartwright felt the ridgeline should be used because it had been recommended by staff and agreed to by the applicants and foliage owner. Committeemember Cartwright moved acceptance of the staff recommendations except that no replacement trees would be required. This motion died for lack of a second. Committeemember Murphy moved to accept the staff recommendations with the following modifications: A. Trim the 28 eucalyptus trees in the south side yard using the Aleppo pine at its current height for a benchmark and carrying it horizontally across the height of the eucalyptus so that the various views from the applicant properties are not impaired above the foliage owner's ridgeline. B. Trim the 3 pepper trees to approximately 12 feet on the north side yard. C. Remove the 3 eucalyptus trees in the north sidey ard. The motion was seconded by Committeemember Sweetnam and passed5-2 with Committeemembers Burrage and Cartwright dissenting. At 8: 50 p.m. , Chairman Clark called for a ten minute break. The meeting was reconvened at 9:03 p.m. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT N0. 6: Mr. and Mrs. William G. Traver 30367 Avenida De Calma Committeemember Cartwright abstained from this hearing and was replaced by Alternate Committeemember Eastwood. -4- 111 RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE — 9/20/90 Associate Planner John Leung presented the staff findings and recommendations on Permit Application No. 6, as summarized in the staff report dated August 16, 1990. He added that the foliage owner had conducted his own survey which concluded that the trees and shrubs in question are below the ridgeline, and copies of his report were distributed to Committeemembers. Staff contends, however , their visual analysis holds true and the foliage is indeed above the ridgeline. Requested Action: Trim 2 trees and 5 shrubs adjacent to the side yard property line at 30405 Avenida de Calma to restore the view at 30367 Avenida de Calma. Recommendation: Trim botton 2 branches of Tree No. 1 and remaining tree and 5 shrubs to below the ridge (trim 1 to 2 feet off the top of foliage) . The applicant, Mr. William Traver, requested that the bottom two branches of Tree No. 1 be cut off entirely, back to the trunk, and the bushes (No. 2 to No. 7 on Exhibit "A") as well as Tree No. 7 be trimmed to a maximum height of the top of the wrought iron fence between the properties. Mr. Hoosang Mozaffari , the foliage owner at 30405 Avenida de Calma, reported he has measured the ridgeline of his house at 20 feet 1 inch, and the heights of all the bushes are less than 16 feet. He agreed with trimming the lower two branches of Tree No. 1 . He said that trimming the bushes to the fence would greatly infringe on his privacy , as his neighbors would be able to see directly into his house. Mr. Traver pointed out in rebuttal that the ordinance specifies a maximum foliage height of the ridgeline or 16 feet , whichever is less ; as the trees and bushes are located on a hillside the measurements should be taken from the same level as the base of the house. Mr. Mozaffari urged that the measurements be taken from the base of the trees and shrubs, not relative to the grade of the residence, and stated that trimming the shrubs to the fence would not be acceptable. Photographs of the property were viewed and discussed by all Committeemembers, the applicant and the foliage owner. Senior Planner Petru advised the Committee that regardless of whether the ridgeline is part of a view, if it is lower than 16 feet it has been taken as the benchmark to which the foliage should be trimmed. Mr. Leung clarified that although the trees and bushes on the Mozaffari property are only 9 feet tall , when viewed from the Traver property in relation to the ridgeline they are 18 or 19 feet tall and clearly exceed the ridgeline. -5- 111 RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE — 9/20/90 Committeemember Quatrochi moved the public hearing be closed. The motion was seconded by Committeemember Sweetnam and passed unanimously. In their discussion, Committeemembers agreed that because of the placement of the trees and bushes away from the house, the privacy issue was not a real factor. In addition, trimming 2 to 4 feet from the top of the bushes would cause them to spread out, increasing the sense of privacy. The question of whether the bushes constitute a hedge, because of their thickness, was discussed. Assistant City Attorney Hakman pointed out that if the foliage is considered a hedge it must be trimmed to no higher than 6 feet according to the City Fences, Walls and Hedges ordinance. Committeemember Quatrochi moved to trim the bottom two branches of Tree No. 1 up to the trunk, to trim the third branch which goes around the back of the tree to be consistent with the trimming of the first two branches, and to trim the remaining foliage to 4 feet below the ridgeline. There was no second to this motion. Committeemember Burrage moved to trim the bottom two branches of Tree No. 1 to the trunk, to look at the third branch and see if it needs to be trimmed, and to trim the remaining shrubs No. 2-7 (which constitute a hedge) to the top of the wrought iron fence. Chairman Clark suggested modifying the motion to trim the remaining foliage in conformance with the Fences, Walls and Hedges ordinance, as determined by staff. The modified motion was seconded by Committeemember Murphy. Assistant City Attorney Hakman advised that staff would like to have this item continued so that two issues could be clarified: (1 ) how to measure the 16 feet and the ridgeline, and (2) whether hedges should be handled through the View Restoration Committee or through code enforcement. She said the City Attorney needs to confer with staff as to how to approach this situation and develop a standard for the future. Chairman Clark recommended the Committee agree with counsel 's recommendation. Committeemember Burrage then withdrew her motion. Committeemember Murphy moved that View Restoration Permit Application No. 6 be continued for two weeks so that staff can investigate the implications of the Fences, Walls and Hedges ordinance as it pertains to the foliage in this case. The motion was seconded by Committeemember Lorenzen. -6- 411 RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE - 9/20/90 The public hearing was reopened to ascertain the availability of the applicants. Mr. Traver said they would be out of the country during October. It was moved by Committeemember Sweetnaa and seconded by Committeemember Burrage that Permit Application No. 6 be continued to Thursday, November 1. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Traver requested that he be sent a copy of the new staff report before the meeting . CONTINUED BUSINESS VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 2: William and Joy Carter 3930 Admirable Drive Committeemember Quatrochi abstained from this hearing since he resides within 300 feet of the applicants, and was replaced by Alternate Committeemember Eastwood. Senior Planner Carolynn Petru presented the staff findings and recommendations on Permit Application No. 2, as summarized in the staff report dated August 3 , 1990. Requested Action: Remove the trees in the front yard and trim the bamboo hedge in the rear yard to restore the applicant 's view. Recommendation: Remove the eucalyptus trees , trim the carob and melaleuca trees in the front yard, the bamboo hedges in the rear yard and the tree in the northeast corner of the rear yard. The applicant , Mr. William Carter, said he basically agreed with the staff recommendations except that the "bamboo hedge" referred to in the staff report actually consists of bamboo on the right side and a cluster of four trees on the left side: a pine, a eucalyptus, a carob and another tree (species unknown) , which are also blocking his view. The foliage owners , Mr. and Mrs. Vincent Yen of 3931 Palos Verdes Drive South, were represented by Mr. Michael Bak-Boychuk, Attorney at Law. He pointed out that in the Yen records there is no mention of deed restrictions , easement, covenant or CC&R' s. He said the VRC process creates a view easement where there was none previously. He noted that none of the Committeemembers has a judicial appointment yet the Committee is assuming jurisdiction that is final and binding. He wished the record to show that he was present in a "special appearance" and he does not concede, on behalf of the Yens, that the Committee has any right to take from the Yens a tree or any other foliage of their property. He requested the Committee consider that -7- !II 411 RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE — 9/20/90 (a) a property right is being created for Mr. and Mrs. Carter that reduces the vested property rights of the Yens and (b) these vested property rights are being taken by a Committee which has not complied with any constitutionally mandated provisions of judicial appointments. Finally, he stated the Yens decline the jurisdiction of the Committee and he has instructed them to use whatever force is necessary to resist any taking of their property. He urged the Committee to refer the matter promptly for a court order. Assistant City Attorney Hakman stated that it is the position of the City that the ordinance is constitutional and the Committee has jurisdiction. Mr. Carter stated in his rebuttal that Proposition M was voted in by the majority of the residents and it gave him the right to ask for his view back. There were no rebuttal comments by the property owners or their counsel , who had left the meeting. Committeemember Lorenzen moved the public hearing be closed. The motion was seconded by Committeemember Cartwright and passed unanimously. There was a discussion of whether or not replacement trees to provide shade should be considered by the Committee. Senior Planner Petru reported that the foliage owners had stated the eucalyptus trees provided shade for the front patio area and item d. of the Staff Recommendations was an attempt to balance the desires of the parties in this application. Staff recommends using 15 gallon replacements in conformance with the Street Tree policy. Several Committeemembers said they did not see a need to provide replacement shade, as this is not mentioned in the VRC ordinance. Chairman Clark stated for the record that the View Restoration Committee has taken every action from the beginning to attempt to balance the rights of foliage owners and applicants who wish to restore their views. Committeemember Cartwright moved that Staff Recommendations a, b and c be accepted, d be excluded, and e be added as follows: e. Trim miscellaneous trees in northeast corner of rear yard approximately 3 to 4 feet to restore applicant's view. The motion was seconded by Committeemember Lorenzen and passed unanimously. —8— 410 111 RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE - 9/20/90 NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. QUESTIONS FROM AUDIENCE There were no questions from the audience regarding non-agenda items. REPORTS Director of Environmental Services Benard reported that as a result of consultation with the City Attorney and the City Manager, a memorandum requesting authorization to amend the Development Code with regard to the issue of a tree replacement policy was forwarded to the City Council. Council concurred and directed staff to work with the View Restoration Committee to address this issue. Staff plans to put together a discussion paper for the Committee to review and provide comments on. Staff will integrate the comments and provide a more formal presentation for the next Committee meeting. Chairman Clark questioned the need to take the issue to the City Council before the Committee had discussed it fully. Mr. Benard explained that the scope of the proposed policy was more appropriately dealt with as an amendment to the Development Code , which must be done at the direction of the City Council . The ordinance which created the View Restoration Committee does not address the issue of replacement trees. Assistant City Attorney Hakman added that her office had recommended that if such a policy were to be adopted it should be through an ordinance amendment , and would need to be authorized by the City Council. She said the Committee is free to recommend that a tree replacement policy not be implemented, and the City Council will then decide whether or not to go ahead with a policy. Committeemembers Cartwright and Murphy agreed with Chairman Clark that it was inappropriate for staff to proceed on the issue before being directed to do so by the Committee. Committeemember Sweetnam brought up the matter of trees which are not mentioned in an application but become a matter of concern later in the process . He felt the Committee should allow the applicants more leeway in this situation rather than restricting Committee consideration to only the precise trees mentioned in the application. Attorney Hakman said that generally the burden should be placed on the applicant to identify the foliage of concern. Chairman Clark suggested this matter be put on the agenda for discussion at a future meeting . -9- 411 111 RPV VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE - 9/20/90 The possibility of bias on the part of some staff towards certain provisions of the ordinance was mentioned by Committeemember Sweetnam. Other members and staff said they were not aware of any bias or non-objective information in staff reports. Senior Planner Petru reported that 16 applications have been received and their status is summarized in her memorandum of September 20. She said that two or three telephone calls are received daily from residents inquiring about the process. Permit Applications No. 5 and 8 will be on the next meeting agenda. Additionally, No. 7 will be on the agenda but the applicants have requested continuance to the November 1 meeting. Chairman Clark asked the status of the press release being prepared by Pamela Weaver. Ms. Petru will check on this. Committeemember Cartwright brought up the privacy issue in relation to window coverings , and Chairman Clark advised the Committee does not need to be concerned with indoor privacy as it is assumed that property owners take care of this with appropriate drapes, etc. Mr. Clark suggested reconsideration of visitations to foliage owners to give Committeemembers and staff a more complete understanding of the privacy issue from the foliage owner 's point of view. Ms. Lorenzen added that in some cases it is impossible to see all the foliage from the applicant 's home, or to ascertain what property certain foliage is on. Chairman Clark requested staff to review whether visits should be made to the foliage owners in Permit Application No. 5, and also to place on the next agenda a discussion of a possible amendment to the policies and practices in this regard. Chairman Clark also encouraged staff to communicate with the Committee, and outside meetings with the Chair and Vice Chair, so they may be informed of positions and decisions orally rather than by written communication. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11 : 25 p.m. to October 4, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. # # # -10-