Loading...
VRC MINS 19910221 411 3/? 1c1 CDP MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES FEBRUARY 21, 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, Lorenzen, Murphy, Quatrochi, Sweetnam, Weisz, Chairman Clark ABSENT Committeemembers Cartwright, Eastwood Also present were Senior Planner Carolynn Petru, Associate Planner Mike Patterson, Associate Planner Joel Rojas, Assistant City Attorney Deborah Hakman and Recording Secretary Lucile Rogers. COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Clark introduced Chief Paul Rippens of the Los Angeles County Fire Department, Forestry Division, who described the Fire Department's program of providing seedling pine trees free to residents of Los Angeles County. The program, in effect since 1913, is primarily for use in erosion control and to provide wind breaks. Chief Rippens stated that the Department is willing to work with the View Restoration Committee regarding the type of trees they provide on the Peninsula. They are in the process of changing from conifer type seedlings to native oaks and other native vegetation which are more acceptable in the way of drought resistance. Committee Members indicated interest in trees which would not grow higher than 16 feet, and Chief Rippens explained that the trees they provide are for erosion control as opposed to landscaping, and most of them are quite tall. He said the fire stations on the Peninsula could, when they provide the seedlings, hand out material indicating how high the trees are likely to grow and stating the requirements of the View Restoration and Preservation ordinance. Staff was requested to work on developing such a handout. In response to inquiries about the Fire Department providing lower growth foliage, Chief Rippens advised that although the County charter mandates the provision of the free seedling service to the public, the Fire Department is not allowed to compete with the nursery industry. He agreed to meet with the City Arborist and staff to discuss low water usage vegetation which is also fire resistant. Senior Planner Petru was asked to set up the meeting. 1 VIEW RESTORATION OMMITTEE MEETING February 21, 1991 Chairman Clark then announced with regret that due to health reasons, Committee Member Quatrochi is resigning from the View Restoration Committee. Stating that Member Quatrochi was involved in the committee which drafted Proposition M and has been incredibly valuable to the VRC, Chairman Clark thanked him for his service on behalf of all the Members. Mr. Quatrochi in turn thanked the Committee and staff, and departed from the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Senior Planner Petru indicated no other communications had been received. Mr. John Sharkey protested that he had delivered two letters to the City intended for discussion at this meeting, and also indicated that evidence had been removed from his file. CONSENT CALENDAR Mr. James Quong requested that the Minutes of January 17, 1991 and VRC Resolution No. 91- , approving View Restoration Permit No. 9, be removed from the Consent Calendar since he wished to object to portions of both. Committee Member Weisz questioned the standing of a member of the public to revise the minutes or a Resolution concerning a public hearing which has been closed. Assistant City Attorney Hakman advised that the public hearing could not be reopened and there could be no discussion as to the merits of a case, but if there are technical deficiencies they could be discussed. Committee Member Sweetnam moved that items A and B of the Consent Calendar be removed for discussion after the public hearing. Member Murphy seconded and the motion passed without exception. Member Sweetnam moved adoption of Item C of the Consent Calendar. Member Lorenzen seconded and the motion passed without exception. PUBLIC HEARING 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 presented the staff report. Replying to a query as to the rationale for removing rather than trimming some of the trees, Mr. Patterson said it was felt that too great a portion of those trees would need removal to restore the view. Committee Member Weisz moved to open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Member Sweetnam and passed without objection. 2 111 VIEW RESTORATION MMITTEE MEETING February 21, 1991 Applicant Mr. Soterios Menzelos stated that when they purchased their house in 1966 they paid extra for the view which is now obstructed. He said they have attempted over the years to talk to their immediate neighbors and were willing to work with them if the neighbors would meet them half way. Mr. Menzelos stated they are not against trees or growth, but are for cooperation, and he appealed to the Committee for a fair and just solution. Upon questioning, Mr. Menzelos stated he is in agreement with the staff recommendations. Applicant Mr. John Watters agreed with Mr. Menzelos and said he is in agreement with the majority of the staff recommendations but would like to make the following changes: 5074 Silver Arrow a) Thinning of the two shorter, bushier pine trees (C & D) . b) Removal of the two taller pine trees (A & 13) . Mr. Watters explained that he had met with foliage owner Mr. Ronald Ross and they had agreed on the changes. He also suggested that the palm tree designated as (E) at 5071 Silver Arrow be removed. He stated that he also preferred trimming trees rather than removing them as long as the trees are trimmed down to a level that restores his view. Associate Planner Patterson indicated that if the applicant and foliage owner agreed on the above revised recommendations, staff would have no objection. Mr. Ronald Ross, the foliage owner at 5074 Silver Arrow, commended the Committee for their dedicated public service to the City. He pointed out, however, that they also have a duty to the Constitution of the United States and the State of California. As an attorney, he stated that the ordinance is not an ex post facto law and does not create a right or impose a duty where none existed in the past. He interprets the law to mean that if your view was already blocked in November of 1989 the ordinance does not apply, and only after that date is foliage required not to exceed the set limits. He asserted that the procedural requirements have not been met with regard to resolving conflicts, since Mr. Menzelos has not spoken to him other than one contact last year. Mr. Ross said he did visit Mr. Watters' home and mention was made of removing the two pine trees, but no agreement was arrived at with regard to removal or replacement of the trees. He stated that when he moved into his home in 1975 the trees were tall and mature, and no proof has been presented that they did not exist prior to development of the lot. He said he has trimmed his trees regularly, and pointed out that the applicants live two blocks away, possibly exceeding the maximum 1000 foot separation. He contended that if the removal of trees 3 111 VIEW RESTORATION CITTEE MEETING February 21, 1991 is ordered the City will be confiscating his property and there must be just compensation. He assured the Committee that if they order confiscation of his property he would file suit to stop the action and for damages. He suggested the City Council hire an independent attorney to investigate the City's liability, and/or ask the Attorney General for an opinion. When questioned whether he agreed with any of the staff recommendations, Mr. Ross said no, that he objected to removal of any of his foliage. He said the Aleppo pines had just been trimmed and cannot be further trimmed without damage, and he has been advised by Travers Tree Service that the two Monterey pines will be killed if any foliage is removed. In further discussion, Associate Planner Patterson verified that the distance between the properties was measured at less than 1000 feet. He said that Mrs. Menzelos had provided photographs indicating that the area was stripped before the development proceeded, and the grading records in the City tract files had not been investigated. Assistant City Attorney Hakman advised that the burden of proof is on the applicant with respect to all issues except the privacy issue. Mr. Hal Kaufman, foliage owner at 5071 Silver Arrow, testified that his property is the furthest away from the applicants' homes. He was in agreement with the staff recommendations pertaining to his property, but strongly objected to Mr. Watters' suggestion that the palm tree (E) in his front yard be removed. He felt that especially at a distance of two blocks, the tree adds to Mr. Watters' view rather than detracting from it. He said all the trees were in place when he moved into his home in 1969. He added that before agreeing to trimming of his foliage he would like the assurance of a tree expert that such trimming would not result in the death of the tree nor result in the tree looking like a stump. He said he would be willing to keep the dead branches cleaned up after the initial trimming. Committee Member Sweetnam clarified that the applicant is responsible for obtaining three bids from professional tree trimmers. The foliage owner is then free to contract with anyone he wants to do the work (including performing the work himself) and the City will reimburse him the amount of the lowest bid. There was general agreement that tree trimming companies cannot guarantee that a tree will survive. Mr. Sam Huang, foliage owner at 27317 Warrior Drive, stated that he purchased his home in 1987 because of the landscaping, which he has tended carefully over the years. He said that in August 1990 his neighbor trespassed on his property and cut his border trees to 3' high without his permission; therefore, he refused to sign the Acknowledgement of View Restoration Request. He objected to the request due to his understanding that Monterey pines are environmentally protected trees, that the recommended 4 111 VIEW RESTORATION ItIMITTEE MEETING February 21, 1991 actions would cause environmental and financial damage, that his privacy and his view must be protected, that the City Council has forbidden the removal of trees until a tree replacement policy is adopted, and because of the religious and spiritual value of trees to Chinese-Americans. He stated that he did not agree with the staff recommendations and did not want any changes to any of his foliage. It was clarified by Chairman Clark that the City Council has not forbidden the removal of trees; they are currently considering an amendment to the ordinance that would add express language granting to the Committee the authority to order the removal of trees. Member Weisz added that the Committee has not found any evidence of the protected status of Monterey pines. Mr. James Quong of 26144 Barkstone Drive spoke as an interested third party, contending that no proof of cooperation to avoid conflicts had been shown, especially in view of Mr. Huang's assertion that his neighbor had trespassed into his yard. In rebuttal testimony, Mr. Menzelos stated that he has submitted photographs showing that the hill was completely barren when he moved in. He admitted having his gardener trim the hedge between Mr. Huang's home and his, but only the portion that protruded into his yard. He said he has no interest in looking down into his neighbor's yard; he only wants to look out and enjoy the view. Mr. Watters testified that he submitted proof of early neighbor contact through receipts for correspondence sent to the foliage owners as well as the signatures of Mr. Ross and Mr. Kaufman on the acknowledgement form. He stated his willingness to consider leaving Mr. Kaufman's palm tree (E) after its thinning and scraping and the other staff recommended actions, if it does not obstruct his view. He said when he spoke with Mr. Ross there was no mention of any legal problems and his understanding was that Mr. Ross agreed to the removal of the two taller pine trees if Mr. Watters agreed to trimming of the two smaller, bushier pines, if this appeared appropriate after the trimming of Mr. Huang's trees. He said he was speaking for Mr. Menzelos also, as they are co-applicants. Mr. Ross denied any agreement with Mr. Watters and repeated that Mr. Menzelos had not contacted him upon his return from vacation, as he had promised. He questioned the public good of ordering the destruction of trees for the benefit of a few people, contending that he is entitled to protection of his property and his privacy. He said it was possible that an agreement could have been reached had Mr. Menzelos discussed with him the matter of replacement and compensation for any foliage removed. He suggested the City Council should be aware of the liability the City is undertaking, and advised that the ordinance will soon be tested in court. 5 410 VIEW RESTORATION IPMMITTEE MEETING February 21, 1991 Committee Member Weisz informed Mr. Ross that in passing Proposition M, the citizens of the community decided that a view is a property right to the same extent that a tree is, and it is the responsibility of the Committee to attempt to balance these two rights by looking at both the foliage and the view and trying to determine whether the foliage unreasonably intrudes on the view. Mr. Ross responded that everyone he has spoken with was under the assumption that the ordinance pertains only to foliage that grows after the passage of the ordinance. He added that depriving a person of his rights (whether property or view rights) requires compensation. Mr. Huang asserted that the VRC minutes of October 4, 1990 state that Monterey pines may enjoy protected status, and quoted from Article V of the Bill of Rights regarding the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. He repeated that if any of his property is taken there must be replacement or compensation, but he does not want to lose any of his privacy by the removal of foliage. Committee Member Weisz moved to close the public hearing, Member Sweetnam seconded and the motion passed without objection. Assistant City Attorney clarified that no determination has been made by staff regarding the applicability of CEQA to Monterey pines because the applicant in the case in point voluntarily withdrew those trees from the application. During a lengthy discussion of the age of the foliage, Associate Planner Patterson said staff could research the grading records in the tract files to verify that none of the foliage existed prior to creation of the lots. Attorney Hakman voiced her concern that the Committee had not seen the photos submitted by Mrs. Menzelos, and advised a continuance to allow staff to look through their files and the Committee to review the photographs. It was moved by Committee Member Murphy and seconded by Member Weisz that the hearing be continued to the VRC meeting of March 7, 1991. The motion passed on a 4-2 vote, with Members Lorenzen and Sweetnam dissenting. Committee Member Murphy moved that the public hearing be reopened and that the public comment be confined specifically to the issue of whether the foliage preceded the development of the lots. The motion was seconded by Member Weisz and passed on a 5-1 vote, with Member Lorenzen dissenting. Chairman Clark called for a recess at 9: 27 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:48 p.m. 6 41O VIEW RESTORATION OPMMITTEE MEETING February 21, 1991 MATTERS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of January 17, 1991 Mr. James Quong requested several changes to Page 6 of the minutes. The Committee explained that they are summary minutes, not verbatim. Agreement was reached to amend the second paragraph on Page 6 as follows: Foliage owner Mr. James Quong challenged the cooperation claims of the applicants, asserting that an offer to pay the costs of removal of foliage does not constitute cooperation. He said he had not spoken to the McNeelys with respect to the foliage since 1982, until the application was filed. He contended that the applicants seem to feel he owes them their view, but they don't seem to think his trees have any value to him. He said the pine tree offers him privacy, air conditioning, fresh air, and in addition the pine needles are an ionizer and some people believe they help the immune system and retard aging. On questioning, Mr. Quong stated that if something has to be done to the pine tree he would prefer removal to trimming since he has been informed by Travers Tree Service that the pine tree might not survive trimming. Committee Member Weisz moved and Member Murphy seconded that the minutes be approved as amended. The motion passed unanimously. B. VRC Resolution No. 91- , approving View Restoration Permit No. 9 to trim and remove vegetation at 26144 Barkstone Drive. Mr. Quong made a comment with respect to photographs not being entered into evidence and requested that replacement trees be mentioned in the Resolution. His requests were considered and then rejected by the Committee. Committee Member Murphy moved and Member Boudreau seconded that the Resolution be approved as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business on the agenda. QUESTIONS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) Mr. Fred C. Tanner, 6432 Via Canada (Miraleste) , said he submitted View Restoration Permit Application No. 18 in September of 1990, which was approved in October and given to Associate Planner John Leung to process. When Mr. Leung left the City, it was assigned to Fabio de Freitas, and the hearing date has been put forward twice since then. The City is required to process the application within six months (by 4/9/91) and Mr. Tanner has 7 111 VIEW RESTORATION MMITTEE MEETING February 21, 1991 now been asked to sign an application for a 90-day extension. Mr. Tanner stated that he does not want an extension, and requested that his case be moved up on the schedule. Senior Planner Petru explained that due to the reassignment of the project, because there are several property owners and a lot of foliage which is in the Miraleste district, and because it was necessary to clear the agenda on March 21 for discussion of the proposed amendment to the view restoration ordinance, staff was running into a deadline problem. She proposed that staff could prepare the Resolution for the April 4 meeting, when the hearing is scheduled, and if the Committee doesn't reach an agreement at that time, a 30-day extension could be requested. Assistant City Attorney Hakman explained that if the Committee takes no action by the 4ittr. action date, the application is granted automatically, without any discussion or decision by the Committee. However, the Committee could choose to deny the application if the applicant does not agree to an extension. A new application would then have to be submitted. She noted that this has not come up before and she would like to look into the subject. It was agreed that both the staff report and the resolution would be prepared for the April 4 meeting. Mr. Tanner agreed to sign a request for a 30-day extension to cover the possibility that no decision is reached on April 4 . Mr. John Sharkey of 30320 Avenida de Calma read a prepared statement which asserted that the Committee must develop a tree replacement policy providing for all costs to be borne by the applicant. Additionally, he urged that all pending cases be suspended, all permits issued be recalled, that provision be made for replacement of any trees which do not survive trimming, and that trees ordered removed be removed by the root system. The full statement was distributed and entered into the record. Mr. James Quong inquired whether his request to listen to and copy portions of the January 17, 1991 meeting tapes had been approved. Senior Planner Petru replied that the Director of Environmental Services is currently assessing the request. Mr. Quong then asked whether his five-page letter and other letters he submitted to the City had been read by the Committee Members, staff and the Assistant City Attorney. He was assured that all Committee Members and staff receive copies of such correspondence and it is all read. REPORTS A. STAFF Senior Planner Petru reviewed the status of View Restoration Permit applications. She added that Application No. 25 has just 8 111 VIEW RESTORATION L MMITTEE MEETING February 21, 1991 been received and is being reviewed for completeness. Member Sweetnam suggested that perhaps after April the VRC meetings could be held only once a month. B. COMMITTEE Chairman Clark reported on the City Council meeting of February 19, 1991, when the second public hearing was held on the tree removal and replacement amendment to the ordinance. As a result of several residents voicing their objections to the Committee's procedures and actions, the Council continued the public hearing and directed the Committee to finalize its position regarding procedural implementation of the changes to the ordinance and bring that back to the Council. Chairman Clark said he spoke to the Mayor after the meeting and was assured that the Council has not changed in its full support of the Committee and its actions. Chairman Clark stated that the half-hour interview spot for cable TV should be ready to be shown very soon; he asked Senior Planner Petru to check on the status. Ms. Petru reported that a City consultant is putting the final touches on the newsletter containing information on the view restoration process. Committee Member Sweetnam reported that the Subcommittee on Measurement Standards will meet on Thursday, February 28. Chairman Clark mentioned that the executive workshop was quite productive, covering staff reports, foliage owner visitation, ex parte communications, litigation and other matters. A follow-on meeting will be held on March 1. The results of the workshops will be documented and distributed to Committee Members. The need for a joint workshop with the City Council and the View Restoration Committee was expressed by Chairman Clark. He said it is important to move rapidly and develop an agenda for such a meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:47 p.m. to March 7, 1991 at 7: 00 p.m. # # # 9