Loading...
VRC MINS 19910321 411 LA-/ 1 g c\\ MINUTES QF) VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MARCH 21, 1991 The meeting was called to order at 7: 12 p.m. by Vice Chair Sweetnam at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT Committee Members Boudreau, Burrage, Cartwright, Lorenzen, Murphy, Sweetnam, Weisz ABSENT Committeemember Eastwood, Chairman Clark Also present were Senior Planner Petru, Associate Planner Terry Silverman, Assistant City Attorney Deborah Hakman and Recording Secretary Lucile Rogers. COMMUNICATIONS Senior Planner Petru reported that two communications were distributed to Committee Members before the meeting: (1) a memorandum regarding the VRC Resolution on the Consent Calendar, and (2) a draft Acknowledgement of View Restoration Request form prepared by the City Attorney's office. Ms. Petru said these communications would be addressed at appropriate times in the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR Committee Member Lorenzen pointed out a typographical error on page 8 of the Minutes of February 21, 1991. The firt sentence of the second full paragraph should read, "Assistant City Attorney Hakman explained that if the Committee takes no action by the action date, the application . . . . " After discussion, item 4 of Exhibit "A", Conditions of Approval, View Restoration Permit No. 13 (V.R.C. Resolution No. 91-10) , was changed to read: 4. The two eucalyptus trees located in the front yard of 27945 Pontevedra shall be trimmed at the applicant and co- applicants' expense to between a maximum height of twenty (20) feet and a minimum height equal to the ridgeline elevation of the structure, as necessary to restore the view, and shall be maintained at this height by the foliage owner of this property so as not to impair the view. Committee Member Lorenzen moved that the Consent Calendar be approved as amended. The motion was seconded by Member Boudreau and passed without objection. 1 411 VIEW RESTORATION MMITTEE MEETING March 21, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS A. TREE REPLACEMENT GUIDELINES Senior Planner Petru referred to the memorandum from Director Benard dated March 21, 1991 and said that now that the City Council has adopted the amendment to the ordinance, the Committee should begin to discuss how to amend the guidelines and procedures to implement the changes made in the language. The public hearing was opened without objection on a motion from Member Lorenzen and a second by Member Weisz. No one wished to testify, and the public hearing was closed. Vice Chair Sweetnam reviewed the action of the City Council in amending the ordinance to authorize the View Restoration Committee to order the complete removal of foliage and, in some circumstances, to order the replacement of foliage. The Council specified that (1) complete removal of foliage can only be done with the approval of the foliage owner, and (2) the replacement of foliage is to be at the expense of the applicant with the approval of the foliage owner. There was a lengthy discussion of whether any revisions to the guidelines need to be made at all, especially in light of the specific requirements spelled out by the Council in the ordinance amendment. Some members voiced their opinion that each decision should be made on a case-by-case basis. Asked if staff needs some guidelines, Senior Planner Petru replied that without specific criteria it is difficult for staff to formulate recommendations. The Committee also discussed the difficulties inherent in attempting to develop guidelines for such a myriad of possible situations and combinations of foliage, terrain, etc. Committee Member Weisz moved adoption of the "Committee Position" column in the Tree Replacement Issues Table as the guidelines for tree replacement. There was no second and the motion was withdrawn. Member Boudreau urged that replacement trees be 1 to 5 gallon size rather than 15 gallon, based on cost and drought considerations. Member Burrage objected to any specified sizes and spoke for the use of discretion rather than strict guidelines. Member Cartwright felt strongly that guidelines are necessary, and Senior Planner Petru reiterated staff's position that they would prefer to have guidelines. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved that no revisions to the guidelines be required to implement the amendment to the View Restoration ordinance. The motion was seconded by Member Weisz and passed 5 to 2 on a roll call vote, with Members Cartwright and Murphy dissenting. 2 411 VIEW RESTORATION L MMITTEE MEETING March 21, 1991 B. FOLIAGE HEIGHT MEASUREMENT POLICY Senior Planner Petru referred to the memorandum dated March 1, 1991 from the Director of Environmental Services regarding Foliage Measurement, stating that the amendments to the Development Code proposed therein were developed by staff and the VRC Subcommittee in an effort to address the wide variety of lot configurations found in the City. If approved, they will be submitted to the City Council as a code amendment similar to the removal and replacement revisions. Vice Chair Sweetnam clarified that the language in the proposed amendment allows measurement either from the pad of the house or from the base of the foliage, whichever results in the least view impairment, in order to solve the problem of downsloping and upsloping lots. Committee Member Weisz moved that the public hearing be opened, Member Boudreau seconded and the motion passed without objection. Mr. Skip Seel, 28520 Vista Tierra (Courtyard Condos) , said he was interested in the problems of upsloping lots and asked for an explanation of how "health, safety and welfare" relate to trees, how the policy of one tree per 1, 000 square feet relates to a condo complex where the homeowners' association owns all the common area, and questioned the power of the Committee if it cannot order removal of trees without the consent of the foliage owner. Vice Chair Sweetnam said the Committee frequently has been faced with the problem of upsloping lots, where trees are planted almost on the property line at the top of the slope and must be ordered cut down very low to restore the view. He pointed out that in some cases the Committee has ordered trimming foliage to the level of an angled line from the viewing point on the upslope lot to the ridgeline of the house below. Member Weisz noted that the 16 feet and ridgeline constraints are imposed by the language of the ordinance and the Committee has no discretion to order anything but that. Regarding the "one tree per 1, 000 square feet" proposal, Vice Chair Sweetnam explained that the Committee has decided not to use that as a guideline. In reply to another query, Mr. Sweetnam advised that on a flat lot where a tree is removed the stump will be entirely removed, but when the tree is located on a slope its root structure is holding the hill together, and for erosion control reasons it is best not to remove the stump. "Health, safety and welfare" language is contained in most ordinances, and Vice Chair Sweetnam said it definitely pertains to trees. He pointed out that the Committee does have the authority to order removal of trees if the foliage owner consents, and if he does not consent the Committee may order his foliage trimmed to a level that is so low as to be considered a stump. 3 VIEW RESTORATION O MMITTEE MEETING March 21, 1991 Mr. Seel expressed his opinion that the Committee definitely needs guidelines so that all decisions won't be left to staff. Vice Chair Sweetnam explained that the Committee does have guidelines, and the earlier discussion was concerning revisions to the guidelines. He noted that the Committee often disagrees with staff's recommendations and formulates their own decisions. Committee Member Weisz moved that the public hearing be closed, Member Burrage seconded and the motion passed without objection. Assistant City Attorney Hakman stated that her office would like to do some "fine tuning" of the language of the amendment, stating that the current language is inconsistent and fuzzy. Vice Chair Sweetnam disagreed, feeling that this language helps clarify to the public that the Committee does not have the power to remove foliage any lower than the height necessary to restore the view. Member Murphy agreed with Counsel that the current language is too subjective. Attorney Hakman said she planned to go through the entire ordinance for consistency and make sure there is nothing more that needs to be changed in light of this change. Committee Member Burrage moved that the proposed amendment be accepted and the City Attorney be allowed to fine tune the language and bring it back to the View Restoration Committee in the future as a Public Hearing item. Member Boudreau seconded and the motion passed without objection. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. APPLICATION PACKET UPDATE Senior Planner Petru reported that proposed revisions have been made to the View Restoration Permit application package, which are intended to provide better direction to the public and to aid staff and Committee in processing them. Ms. Petru reviewed the changes, as contained in her memorandum of March 7, 1991. Committee Members discussed the package and suggested additions and changes. It was suggested that a statement be added that the applicant would be responsible for all trimming and removal and possible replacement. Other comments pertained to the need for clarification of view preservation, code enforcement and documentation of foliage. It was suggested that the certification sentence at the end of the application form be modified to read, " . . . information and materials submitted with this application are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. " The inclusion of graphics illustrating different lot configurations was also recommended. A revised View Restoration Permit application package will be brought back to the Committee at the next meeting. 4 111 VIEW RESTORATION IMMITTEE MEETING March 21, 1991 NEW BUSINESS A. VIEW RESTORATION ISSUES DISCUSSED AT LEADERSHIP MEETING AND STAFF CONCERNS Senior Planner Petru reported on two of the major items discussed at the leadership meeting. (1) With regard to the problem of ex parte communication, it was decided that staff would develop some examples of typical situations where this could occur, and ways that Committee Members could deal with the situations. This would be included in a briefing/training session to be given to the two new members of the Committee when they are selected. (2) Staff reports have been sent out to all parties along with the required 30-day notice of hearing. This is not required but is helpful to Committee members. When new information comes up during the 30-day period, however, staff does not have an opportunity to modify the staff report unless the public hearing is postponed, usually requiring re-noticing. It was suggested at the leadership meeting that the staff report sent out with the 30-day notice contain draft recommendations, with the final recommendations to be included in the agenda packet sent to Committee Members the week before the meeting. A notice could be given to foliage owners and property owners that they could agree or disagree with staff recommendations at the public hearing. Vice Chair Sweetnam added three other areas of concern that were addressed: (1) The Committee and staff have differing opinions on defining the "best and most important view" for a particular lot. This subject will be discussed at the joint meeting with the City Council on April 18, 1991. (2) There was general agreement that the procedures for processing a permit application after the revised ordinance is adopted should be incorporated into the guidelines and procedures. (3) The level of specificity the applicant must accomplish in identifying the foliage needs to be worked out. Staff will develop some proposed guidelines for this. In reply to a query from Member Weisz concerning visitations to the foliage owners' property, Senior Planner Petru said that staff is reconsidering their policy of recommending site visits to foliage owners only when privacy is the major issue. They may wish to recommend visits when very complex foliage or multiple foliage owners are involved. Member Cartwright added that if anyone sees a problem in a staff report he/she should be encouraged to contact staff and bring up those concerns before the meeting. Another item discussed at the leadership meeting was possible ways to avoid re-noticing in situations where additional foliage is discovered after the application has been processed. With regard to pending litigation, Attorney Hakman advised that an action has been filed against the City and the Committee, but she was not aware if it had been served yet. 5 VIEW RESTORATION MMITTEE MEETING March 21, 1991 QUESTIONS FROM AUDIENCE There were no questions from the audience. REPORTS A. STAFF Senior Planner Petru noted that new applications are averaging about one a month now. The Committee discussed meeting only once a month until the backlog builds up again. Attorney Hakman noted this may require a change to the procedures. A temporary change would require someone coming to the meeting place on the night of the regular meeting to post a notice of cancellation. Committee Member Weisz moved that the first meeting in May be cancelled. Member Boudreau seconded and the motion was passed unanimously. B. COMMITTEE Regarding Application No. 21, Committee Member Lorenzen attempted to schedule site visits to the foliage owners (The Courtyards condominium complex) . Approximately 175 trees are involved, and they will be marked by staff with spray chalk. Committee Members who were unable to schedule their visits at this time will make their own arrangements. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. to April 4, 1991 at 7: 30 p.m. # # # 6