Loading...
VRC MINS 19910307 411 C5iTs‘rs-v-elk, CLZ1, l�lq MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MARCH 7, 1991 The meeting was called to order at 7: 10 p.m. by Chairman Clark at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT Committee Members Boudreau, Burrage, Eastwood, Lorenzen, Murphy, Sweetnam, Weisz, Chairman Clark ABSENT Committee Member Cartwright Also present were Director of Environmental Services Robert Benard, Senior Planner Carolynn Petru, Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas, Associate Planner Mike Patterson, Associate Planner Joel Rojas, Associate Planner Terry Silverman, Assistant City Attorney Deborah Hakman and Recording Secretary Lucile Rogers. COMMUNICATIONS Senior Planner Petru reported that copies of two letters received from Mr. John Sharkey were mailed to Committee Members with their packets and his concerns are being addressed by staff. CONSENT CALENDAR Committee Member Weisz moved approval of the minutes of February 7, 1991. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Sweetnam and passed without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 23: Dr. Keerthi R. DeSilva 30225 Avenida de Calma Committee Members Burrage, Eastwood, Lorenzen, Murphy, Sweetnam, Weisz and Clark were eligible to vote on this application. Committee Member Murphy moved to open the public hearing, Member Weisz seconded and the motion passed without objection. Associate Planner Rojas presented the staff report, noting that in items c) and d) of the Recommendations the designations of Pine Trees 7 and 4 should be reversed. In addition, staff recommends that some ground cover be planted where the trees are removed to minimize soil erosion. 1 VIEW RESTORATION Ci MMITTEE MEETING March 7, 1991 The applicant, Dr. K. R. DeSilva, distributed copies of his statement to Committee Members. He testified that he had made repeated attempts to resolve the view obstruction problems with his neighbor. At his own expense he installed a brick retaining wall with a 4" plastic drain pipe to divert water runoff to an adjoining drain swale. Dr. DeSilva denied the existence of any landslide danger and stated he agrees with the staff recommendations. Foliage owner Mrs. Lani Melara of 30212 Calle de Suenos testified that in an attempt to preserve the view of Dr. DeSilva, she and Mr. Melara have engaged the services of professional tree trimmers and handymen. She said the retaining wall constructed on Dr. DeSilva's property is not a swale and will not be effective in times of heavy rainfall. In addition, Mrs. Melara said the applicant waters his plants constantly, and water seepage is a problem. She maintained that removing trees and bushes on a hillside of fill will result in loss of soil. She said they have planted ground cover on the hill several times and it has always died. Mr. and Mrs. Melara requested that the Committee order replacement and maintenance by the applicants of any foliage removed. They also demanded written guarantees from the City and from Dr. DeSilva to hold them harmless from any liability if the hill comes down. Speaking as an interested party, Mr. Harbans L. Bhatia of 30237 Avenida de Calma stated that the Melara foliage also intrudes on his view and he has written them requesting that they remove or trim it. He added that the foliage is all dried out and presents a fire hazard. (It was noted that Mr. Bhatia is not a co- applicant. ) Another interested party, Dr. T. A. Savo of 30326 Avenida de Calma, agreed that the slope is overgrown and not well kept. He said he was present when the lots were created and saw them compacted. They all passed the County compaction tests, there have been no landslides in the area, and he felt there would not be an erosion problem with the removal of foliage. In his rebuttal, Dr. DeSilva stated he waters his plants carefully and minimally, and water seepage is not a problem. In reply to a question from Member Murphy, Dr. DeSilva said his wall is footed about 12" below the pad level and in front of it is the drainage pipe which empties into the swale. Mrs. Melara maintained that their lot is different from the others in the area and there is no swale. She said it is very frightening when the rains come. They have tried jute netting (as suggested by Dr. Savo) and it didn't work. She pointed out that if something happens to their hill, Dr. DeSilva's property will be damaged too. 2 VIEW RESTORATION INIMITTEE MEETING 411 March 7, 1991 Committee Member Weisz moved the public hearing be closed, Member Murphy seconded and the motion passed without objection. Chairman Clark asked if staff feels there could be significant erosion if the Committee does not provide for replacement foliage, and whether replacement shrubs or bushes might be safer than ground cover. Associate Planner Rojas replied that it is a steep slope and planting vegetation on slopes does minimize erosion. The reason for recommending ground cover is that the applicant's view begins at the top of the slope, so anything higher, other than ground cover, will impair the view to some extent. However, low growth shrubs could be planted down a bit from the top of the slope. He recommended that any trees "removed" be cut only to ground level so that the root structure remains. Replying to a query by Chairman Clark, Assistant City Attorney Hakman advised that the tree removal/replacement policy being considered by the City Council was introduced for first reading but will not be in effect until the 31st day after the second reading. Still in effect is the Committee's interim policy stating that removal and replacement of trees will not be ordered unless the parties agree. Committee Members discussed the feasibility of trimming the foliage to the level of the brick retaining wall rather than removing it. Associate Planner Rojas pointed out that this would leave virtually nothing but stumps, and the foliage would have to be maintained at that level. Member Lorenzen explained that Pine Trees No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9 are Japanese Black Pines, which take very well to pruning. She recommended trimming them to the level of the retaining wall and trimming Tree No. 8 (a Canary Islands Pine) up and out of the applicant's view. Committee Member Sweetnam moved that all the foliage except Trees 1, 7 and 8 be trimmed to the level of the top of the brick retaining wall, that Tree No. 8 be trimmed up out of the view as described in the staff report, and that Trees No. 1 and 7 be trimmed either up or down as the foliage owner chooses. The motion was seconded by Member Weisz and passed unanimously on a roll call vote. TREE REPLACEMENT GUIDELINES Director of Environmental Services Benard reviewed his memorandum of January 22, 1991 to the Planning Commissioners regarding an amendment to the Development Code dealing with tree removal and replacement. Council introduced the ordinance at their last meeting, it will receive a second reading at their March 19 meeting, and if adopted will become effective April 19, 1991. The first VRC meeting after the ordinance becomes effective will be May 2, 1991. 3 111 VIEW RESTORATION MMITTEE MEETING March 7, 1991 Important meeting dates to keep in mind are: 3/19 City Council meeting - Second reading of VRC ordinance. 3/21 VRC meeting - Discussion by full Committee of items addressed by VRC leadership and staff. 4/4 VRC meeting - Committee to finalize position on all items discussed at 3/21 meeting and prepare for the City Council meeting of April 18. 4/18 - Joint VRC/City Council meeting to discuss matters of concern to both groups. 4/19 - Effective date of Development Code amendment regarding removal and replacement of foliage. 5/2 - First VRC meeting under amended Code. Director Benard reported that Council has set forth in the ordinance a somewhat different direction from that taken by the Committee with regard to replacement trees. The ordinance will specify that trees may only be removed with permission of the foliage owner and the cost must be borne by the applicant. He suggested that the Committee defer lengthy discussion on these and other subjects contained in the report until the meeting of March 21, after the leadership and staff have had an opportunity to meet and discuss them. A full report will be provided by staff of all matters discussed at the leadership/staff meeting. If any issues remain unresolved after the March 21 meeting, continued discussion may be held at the April 4 meeting. All issues will then be available for discussion with Councilmembers at the joint meeting on April 18. If acceptable to the Council, the Guidelines could be acted on that night and become effective the following day, April 19 (the same day that the Development Code amendment becomes effective) . Committee Member Sweetnam moved to open the public hearing on tree replacement guidelines, Member Lorenzen seconded and the motion passed without objection. Mr. John Watters, 5117 Oconto Avenue, asked for clarification on the effective date of the amendment and whether existing applications would be subject to a grandfather clause. Chairman Clark explained that the amendment will provide express language covering removal and replacement of foliage, and that Guidelines and Procedures will also be adopted. In the meantime, the Committee has been operating under a policy of ordering removal of trees only if the foliage owner agrees to have it done. Any replacement trees to be provided will be on a basis to be specified in the Guidelines and it is not clear now what this basis will be. No grandfathering is expected, but that also is subject to discussion. 4 111 VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MEETING March 7, 1991 Mr. Ronald Ross, 5074 Silver Arrow, asked if the Committee intended to defer actions with regard to removal of trees until the City Council has approved the new Guidelines. Chairman Clark replied that all tree removal ordered to date has been with the consent of the foliage owner, where the suggested trimming would have been so severe that it might result in the death of the trees. Mr. Ross commented that in his case (Permit No. 20) , the trees cannot be trimmed sufficiently to restore the view. It was moved by Committee Member Weisz and seconded by Member Sweetnam that the public hearing be continued to March 21, 1991. The motion passed without objection. CONTINUED BUSINESS VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 20: Soterios Menzelos, 5113 Oconto Avenue; John P. Watters, 5117 • Oconto Avenue. Committee Members Boudreau, Lorenzen, Murphy, Sweetnam, Weisz and Clark were eligible to vote on this application. Associate Planner Patterson reported that this case was continued from the February 21, 1991 VRC meeting to allow staff time to investigate the tract geology file to determine whether foliage existed prior to the creation of the lot. Mr. Patterson stated that all records indicate that the area was completely cleared of all vegetation at the time of tract development. According to provisions made at the February 21 meeting, any testimony at this meeting was required to be limited to the issue of whether the foliage existed prior to the creation of the lots. Applicant Mr. Soterios Menzelos testified that when he bought his property in 1965 there was no vegetation, no streets or curbs. The homes were laid out so that views were provided from every lot, and the prices of the homes reflected the amount of view from each lot. His formerly unimpaired view, he stated, has been lost due to the growth of the foliage at issue. He agreed with staff's recommendations. Applicant Mr. John Watters commented that the staff report speaks for itself. Foliage owner Mr. Ronald Ross said he had no testimony to offer on the issue before the Committee. Foliage owner Mr. Sam Huang asserted that language in the grading plan stated, "All slopes to be planted with mesembryanthemum croceum 12" O.C. " He therefore contended that trees must have been planted to protect the slopes. Associate Planner Patterson 5 VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MEETING March 7, 1991 clarified that the grading plan was referring to an iceplant ground cover used on the slopes. Foliage owner Mr. Hal Kaufman was not present to testify. Committee Member Weisz moved to close the public hearing, Member Sweetnam seconded and the motion passed without objection. In discussion, Members agreed that removal of foliage should not be recommended unless the foliage owner agreed to removing rather than trimming. Chairman Clark moved that the following action be taken at 5074 Silver Arrow: Thin and trim Trees A, B, C & D to the minimum level that will restore the view pursuant to the provisions of the View Restoration Ordinance, with determination of the exact height to be made by staff. The motion was seconded by Member Lorenzen and passed unanimously. Committee Member Lorenzen moved to accept staff's recommendations for the property at 5071 Silver Arrow with the exception of recommendation (a) , which is changed to read: (a) Thin the 47' pine located in the front yard and top it to 25' or the minimum level that will restore the view pursuant to the provisions of the View Restoration Ordinance, with determination of the exact height to be made by staff. The motion was seconded by Member Weisz and passed unanimously. Committee Member Sweetnam moved to accept staff's recommendations on items (a) and (b) for the property at 27317 Warrior Drive, and to change and combine items (c) and (d) as follows: (c) The cypress tree (twisted juniper) and pines in the rear yard shall be trimmed to the minimum level that will restore the view pursuant to the provisions of the View Restoration Ordinance, with determination of the exact height to be made by staff. Chairman Clark called for a recess at 9 : 25 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:43 p.m. 6 111 VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MEETING March 7, 1991 VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 13: Ellett Edwards, 1902 Lasita Place & Robert Butorac, 1904 Lasita P1. Committee Members Boudreau, Burrage, Lorenzen, Murphy, Sweetnam, Weisz and Clark were eligible to vote on this application. Associate Planner Silverman reported this matter has been rescheduled twice to allow revisions to the staff report and proper noticing, and she is the third Planner assigned to it. She presented the revised report and noted that both foliage owners' signatures have been obtained on the early neighborhood notification form. Ms. Silverman pointed out that the six month decision deadline for this matter is March 23, 1991; therefore if no decision is reached at this meeting an extension will need to be requested. Committee Member Weisz moved to open the public hearing, Member Boudreau seconded and the motion passed without objection. Applicant Mr. Robert Butorac advised that the co-applicant, Mr. Ellett Edwards, was absent for health reasons. He said they agreed with the staff recommendations except that there are two pine trees rather than one along the back fence. Member Lorenzen asked about the culling and lacing of the ash tree which had been removed from the application and then added back. Mr. Butorac replied that the tree had been trimmed to the satisfaction of Mr. and Mrs. Edwards, but since then the tree has grown back and filled out so it now blocks the Edwards' view again. He said they felt that the requirement for trimming should be on record so they added it back. Applicant Mrs. Theresa Edwards testified that her neighbors had been very cooperative in trimming the ash tree but it grows fast and will soon block the view again. She said they would accept whatever the Committee recommended. Mr. Stuart Eckmier, foliage owner at 27933 Pontevedra Drive, stated that he has done whatever trimming Mr. Edwards has requested, and has no objection to cutting the branches he wants cut. He said he likes trees and does not like to see them cut down. Mrs. Fay Eckmier said she has no quarrel with the applicants but she did object to the way the application was handled. The visit to her property was made by a staff member who had not called for an appointment, arrived at a very inopportune time and displayed a lack of courtesy in her manner. Chairman Clark commented that this was the first complaint he had heard with regard to staff visits, and it would be discussed in the upcoming VRC leadership meeting with staff. Foliage owner Mr. Robert Taylor, of 27945 Pontevedra Drive, presented a map showing the applicants' view, indicating his 7 111 VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MEETING March 7, 1991 interpretation of the view impairment. He then showed diagrams of the foliage (12 trees) on his lot when he bought it in 1976, what exists today, and what he would have if the staff recommendations are implemented. He said that he had agreed with the applicant that he would take care of the foliage in the back, but not the eucalyptus. He read from the VRC Guidelines and questioned the balancing of the rights of foliage owners with the rights of applicants wanting their view restored. In rebuttal, Mr. Butorac stated that Mr. Taylor's trees block 100% of his view. He said he spoke to Mr. Taylor in August but no effort has been made to trim the trees. He said there are two eucalyptus trees in the front yard and he would not object to the taller one being trimmed up so the foliage is above the view, but he questioned the aesthetics of such an action. Mrs. Edwards said she would like the eucalyptus trimmed down to the ridgeline to restore their view of the Vincent Thomas bridge but said it would leave only a trunk. Mr. Taylor in his rebuttal pointed to the statement on Page 2 of the View Restoration Application form (signed by the applicants and reviewed by the Senior Planner) certifying that the information and materials submitted with the application are true and correct. Mr. Taylor asserted that there are several inaccuracies in the report, rendering it invalid. Assistant City Attorney Hakman advised that the Committee could take action on this matter and pointed out that the errors cited were in the original staff report and none were noted in the revised report. Mr. Taylor said he did not receive the revised report, which Ms. Silverman reported was mailed to the foliage owners and applicants on February 4 . Senior Planner Petru pointed out that the certification statement to which Mr. Taylor referred pertains to the signatures of the applicants which attest to the facts in their application. The staff signature only acknowledges receipt of the application. Associate Planner Silverman clarified that Mr. Taylor's property is adjacent to and within 1, 000 feet of the applicant's property, and is located to the east rather than west. She pointed out that the revised staff report was mailed to the foliage owners together with the 30-day notice of the hearing. Committee Member Weisz moved that the ash tree located at 27933 Pontevedra be culled and laced to the extent necessary to remove the lowermost insignificant branches which impair the view. The motion was seconded by Member Murphy and passed unanimously. Committee Member Sweetnam moved that the eucalyptus trees located in the front yard at 27945 Pontevedra be trimmed to 20 feet or lower as necessary to restore the view, and the foliage in the rear yard be trimmed to the ridgeline. The motion was seconded by Member Boudreau and passed unanimously. 8 110 VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MEETING March 7, 1991 VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 19: Rolland and Diane Richenberg 27739 Hawthorne Boulevard Committee Members Lorenzen, Murphy, Sweetnam, Weisz and Clark were eligible to vote on this application. Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas reported that this matter was continued from the February 7 meeting in order to allow foliage owner Mr. Robert Briedis time to obtain information on the age of his eucalyptus tree. Mr. de Freitas said that all evidence supports staff's findings that the subject tree could not have been in existence at the time the lots were created. Applicant Mr. Rolland Richenberg read excerpts from a letter he received from Mr. Briedis stating, "We are therefore willing to remove the tree, provided we are compensated for the loss we will incur. . . " and "Although the tree may not have been there when the lots were created. . . " Mr. Richenberg asserted that these statements indicate that the foliage owner agrees that the tree did not exist at the time the lots were created. The applicant stated he agrees with the staff recommendations. Foliage owner Mr. Robert Briedis of 5938 Flambeau Road testified he has been unable to provide new evidence regarding the age of the eucalyptus, but since he has made an offer to the applicant to remove his tree he feels resolution of the matter should be left to the two parties. He pointed out that the tree was in place before his family or the Briedis family purchased their homes, he paid for it and he should be reimbursed if the tree is removed. He offered to remove his tree in exchange for payment of $7,500, either from the applicant or the City. Mr. Richenberg expressed his unwillingness to withdraw his application, stating that discussions with Mr. Briedis have gone on for several years without resolution and he considers the foliage owner's offer unreasonable. Mr. Briedis indicated he is totally against the staff recommendations. Committee Member Weisz moved to close the public hearing, Member Lorenzen seconded and the motion passed without objection. Committee Member Weisz moved to accept the staff recommendation to trim the eucalyptus tree to a height of 12 feet as measured from the base of the tree. The motion was seconded by Member Sweetnam and passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS As it is the Committee's policy that new business items not heard before 11: 00 p.m. will be heard on the next VRC agenda, Chairman Clark suggested continuing the New Business, Staff Reports and 9 111 VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MEETING March 7, 1991 Committee Reports agenda items to the meeting of March 21, 1991. There was no one present in the audience so there was no need to continue the Questions from Audience agenda item. Committee Members agreed to the continuance. Chairman Clark noted before adjournment that the half-hour television spot on the VRC has run twice and will be shown again. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11: 13 p.m. to March 21, 1991 at 7: 00 p.m. # # # 10