Loading...
VRC MINS 19910117 • ck.v.rcz5,..3_,z_ik, cm,cy‘svv.r. MINUTES c 1 VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES JANUARY 17, 1991 The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Chairman Clark at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT Committee Members Boudreau, Burrage, Cartwright, Eastwood, Lorenzen, Murphy, Sweetnam, Weisz, Chairman Clark ABSENT Committee Member Quatrochi Also present were Director of Environmental Services Robert Benard, Senior Planner Carolynn Petru, Associate Planner Joel Rojas, Assistant City Attorney Michael Colantuono and Recording Secretary Lucile Rogers. COMMUNICATIONS Senior Planner Petru distributed five communications, which were discussed as the related items came up on the agenda. Chairman Clark asked Assistant City Attorney Colantuono to provide guidance on discussion of cases which may result in litigation. Attorney Colantuono stated that every city agency which has quasi-judicatory powers gets sued sooner or later. Committee Members may continue to participate in public debate and express their opinions about matters before the Committee. They should not, however, speak about the details of a case that has already been decided. This will allow the City Attorney's office to defend cases on the documentary record. Attorney Colantuono explained that there is no authority for the View Restoration Committee to hold closed sessions. Only the City Council can go into closed session, and then only when the City Attorney is present. When it is necessary for the City Attorney to communicate to the Committee on items deemed not appropriate for public discussion, it will be done in writing and annotated as "Attorney/Client Privileged. " Individual members (or a group of no more than three members) may consult with the City Attorney on an individual basis. CONSENT CALENDAR Item B was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion of a letter related to View Restoration Permit No. 5. Committee Member Murphy moved adoption of Items A, C, D and E of the Consent Calendar. Committee Member Sweetnam seconded and the motion passed without exception. 1 VIEW RESTORATION L ITTEE MEETING 111 January 17, 1991 Director of Environmental Services Benard said the City Attorney has advised that when items on the Consent Calendar are in the form of a Resolution, because the item is closed for public discussion the only testimony that can be given is on the form and content of the Resolution itself. Committee Member Weisz moved to address Item IV.b, VRC Resolution No. 91- , approving View Restoration Permit No. 5. The motion was seconded by Member Cartwright and passed without exception. Mr. John Sharkey of 30320 Avenida de Calma, the foliage owner in View Restoration Permit No. 5, submitted a letter dated January 14, 1991 which was summarized by Attorney Colantuono. The letter requested that Application No. 5 be denied because the request for extension of time was signed by Yun Lee, who is not the applicant of record. Attorney Colantuono explained that the Permit Streamlining Act requires the City to approve or disapprove of matters within six months of the application. If the City fails to do so, the application is deemed approved. In this case, the result would be that all action requested on the application would be approved rather than the limited action adopted by the Committee, which is probably not the result Mr. Sharkey intended. Additionally, it was pointed out that Yun Lee is a member of the applicants' family and was accepted as speaking for the applicants. Committee Member Weisz moved adoption of VRC Resolution No. 91- , approving View Restoration Permit No. 5 to trim vegetation at 30320 Avenida de Calma. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Burrage and passed on a 6-0 roll call vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 17: Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Dyda 5715 Capeswood Drive Committee Members Cartwright, Lorenzen, Murphy, Sweetnam, Weisz and Clark were eligible to vote on this application. Member Eastwood replaced absent Member Quatrochi. Associate Planner Rojas presented the staff report. It was determined that several trees on the two foliage owners' properties impaired the applicant's view. Because staff was denied access to both foliage owners' properties, staff was able only to approximate the height of the trees and the total height to which said vegetation should be trimmed. Applicant Mrs. Lorraine Dyda read her testimony, requesting that all existing and future vegetation be maintained at a level no higher than the height of their deck, and that foliage in the view corridor between the two foliage owners' properties be trimmed to the height of her neighbor's fence. 2 111 VIEW RESTORATION RIMITTEE MEETING January 17, 1991 Applicant Mr. Ken Dyda commented that since access to the foliage owners' property was denied it was impossible to count the number of trees involved; therefore, he requested that the decision specify that all the trees blocking the view in the view corridor be included. He circulated "before and after" photographs showing the panoramic view from his property. The foliage owners, Mr. and Mrs. Kent Hammond and Mr. and Mrs. Richard Pyle, were represented by Mr. I. Michael Bak-Boychuk, Attorney at Law. Mr. Bak-Boychuk stated that due to the limited time available for testimony he wished to incorporate into the record the unfinished comments he made on September 20, 1990 on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Vincent Yen (View Restoration Permit No. 2) with regard to the Committee's final and binding jurisdiction. He said the privacy rights of the foliage owners should be fully addressed, as well as the costs involved in a perpetual obligation to maintain foliage at a certain level. He said that any proceeding that is confined to a five-minute presentation of evidence is without any consideration of due process. Chairman Clark granted Attorney Bak-Boychuk ten minutes since he is representing two foliage owners. Assistant City Attorney Colantuono reminded Mr. Bak-Boychuk that the Committee has no authority to discuss the validity of the ordinance and asked that the time be utilized to address issues relating to Permit Application No. 17. Mr. Bak-Boychuk stated he wished to have experts testify as to the monetary consequences of perpetual burdening of land, and as to the consequences to other plant life of the major trimming or removing of existing foliage. He had not, however, taken advantage of the opportunity to submit written testimony to the Committee because he felt it was important to present testimony in person. Attorney Colantuono advised Chairman Clark of his belief that the applicant has had a fair opportunity, has a clear understanding of the rules, and could state his case insofar as it is relevant; however, he suggested the Committee might want to consider holding the hearing open until a subsequent meeting to allow submittal and consideration of written material. Mr. Bak-Boychuk contended that expert testimony requires interchange, questions and answers that cannot be handled in writing and would take far longer than the five minutes allowed for each foliage owner. He asserted the perpetual burden to be placed on the foliage owners could amount to "billion dollar dimensions. " In his rebuttal, Ken Dyda objected to the inclusion of material by reference which he has not been able to see, and requested it be stricken or he be provided with the information. He pointed out that trees which are removed can be replaced with smaller trees which will not impair his view. He disagreed with any privacy considerations. 3 410 411 VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MEETING January 17, 1991 Mr. Bak-Boychuk pointed out that replacing or trimming of trees is to be done for the benefit of and at the discretion of the property owner, not for the pleasure of the applicant. He contended that "lopping off" of foliage affects the private enjoyment of property protected by California law. When asked if the foliage owners were in agreement with any of the staff recommendations, Mr. Bak-Boychuk said his clients object to deed restrictions and perpetual burdens. Committee Member Weisz moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Member Sweetnam and passed without objection. In reply to a query from Chairman Clark regarding due process, Assistant City Attorney Colantuono advised that due process requires the provision of a reasonable opportunity to be heard. There may be some cases which are so complex or involve so many parties or so much foliage that the Committee might wish to grant extra time for testimony, but in this matter the foliage owners' counsel chose to use his time to question the validity of the process rather than to address the specifics of the case. Chairman Clark noted he saw no reason to recommend continuing the case. Committee discussion reflected agreement that there is a definite impairment of the applicant's view, and basically supported the staff recommendations. They reported frustration with staff's inability to visit the foliage owners' properties or to ask their opinions on the staff recommendations. It was pointed out that every foliage owner in the City is obligated to maintain his foliage to avoid view obstruction. It was felt that the foliage would survive heavy trimming, and in the absence of an expression of preference by the foliage owner as to trimming versus removal of trees, the policy of the Committee is to recommend trimming. Committee Member Burrage moved acceptance of the staff recommendations with the following modifications: a) Per staff recommendation. b) Per staff recommendation. c) Trim ash and eucalyptus tree to the level of the applicant's rear yard deck. d) Per staff recommendation. e) Per staff recommendation. (All foliage on Wildbriar to be trimmed to the deck level; all foliage on Grayslake to be trimmed to the ridgeline. ) The motion was seconded by Committee Member Weisz and passed unanimously on a roll call vote. 4 VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MEETING January 17, 1991 Assistant City Attorney Colantuono cautioned against ordering trimming of any trees which were not identified in the application, on the basis that the property owners may not have had sufficient notice of their inclusion. He suggested that in the future staff might include a statement in the application or staff report stating that the Committee will consider all foliage on the property which is above 16 feet or the ridgeline and is found to be impairing the view. Director Benard stated that if the applicants wished to amend their application to include additional foliage not covered by the original application, they could request a waiver of fees based on their inability to identify all foliage due to the foliage owners' refusal to cooperate. At 9: 13 p.m. the Chairman called for a recess. The meeting was reconvened at 9:27 p.m. CONTINUED BUSINESS VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 9: William and Annie McNeely, 5747 Wildbriar Drive; and Michele Masdeo, 5739 Wildbriar Drive. Committee Members Cartwright, Eastwood, Lorenzen, Murphy, Sweetnam and Weisz were eligible to vote on this application. Vice Chairman Sweetnam chaired this portion of the meeting. Two letters from the foliage owner, James Quong, were distributed to Committee Members. Senior Planner Petru presented the staff report. The staff recommendation is to remove one pine tree and trim two yuccas to 16 feet to restore the view. Ms. Petru suggested the Committee might like to consider providing a replacement tree for the pine. Mr. Quong's contention that there was no early neighbor consultation and no proof of cooperation was discussed. Attorney Colantuono advised that although the McNeelys' letter to Mr. Quong was sent after the date of the application, the City has deemed the application complete and if the Committee finds there was a reasonable effort to cooperate, the permit can be issued. Committee Member Weisz moved the public hearing be opened, Member Cartwright seconded and the motion passed without objection. Applicant Mr. William McNeely of 5747 Wildbriar Drive testified that he first spoke to the foliage owner about the view problems in 1981 and has repeated his request for trimming nearly annually since then. He said he completely agrees with the staff recommendations. Co-applicant Mr. Michele Masdeo of 5739 Wildbriar Drive also agreed with the staff findings and recommendations. He 5 VIEW RESTORATION ITTEE 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. !II VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MEETING January 17, 1991 introduced additional photographs and mentioned several instances of communication with Mr. Quong in unsuccessful attempts to resolve the view impairment problem. He pointed out that the McNeelys' registered letter of September 9, 1990 to Mr. Quong was sent at the suggestion of Associate Planner John Leung, as a follow-up since the Masdeo letter of July 24, 1990 had not been sent by registered mail. 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. Mr. John Sharkey of 30320 Avenida de Calma spoke as an interested party. He expressed his opinion that Mr. Quong did not understand the Committee's policy that it will not order removal of a tree if the foliage owner does not want it removed and will not accept responsibility if the tree is trimmed and subsequently dies. In rebuttal, Mrs. Ann McNeely said she worked on the View Restoration ordinance because of Mr. Quong's tree, which has been obstructing her view since 1981. She said Mr. Quong offered to remove his tree if she would pay for re-landscaping his front yard and putting in a new driveway, but she wasn't willing to and was turning to the Committee to take care of the problem. Mr. Michele Masdeo stated his belief that the foliage owner understands the Committee's policies and rules very well. He said he tried to resolve the problem through cooperative efforts but was not successful. He also pointed out that the pine tree is leaning toward a neighboring property at about a 15 degree angle and may constitute a safety hazard. He said he would agree to trimming of the pine if removal is not required by the Committee. Mr. Quong asserted he had not spoken to Mrs. McNeely in the last five or six years except for two phone calls which he initiated. He told her in the second phone call that he withdrew his request for a driveway. He restated that he would prefer to keep the pine tree, but if something has to be done he would prefer to have it removed. He said that if there had been a genuine spirit of give and take anything could have been worked out. Committee Member Weisz moved the public hearing be closed, Member Boudreau seconded and the motion passed without objection. (Revised 2/21/91) 6 111 VIEW RESTORATION MMITTEE MEETING January 17, 1991 In discussion, Committee Members felt that there had been adequate notice to Mr. Quong and sufficient evidence of early consultation and attempts at cooperation. The question of a replacement tree was discussed and it was pointed out that the current tree replacement policy directs that the first five trees replaced are the responsibility of the foliage owner. Committee Member Gail Lorenzen moved that the staff recommendation be accepted. The motion was seconded by Member Weisz and passed unanimously on a roll call vote. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business on the agenda. QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE Ms. Lois Larue of 3136 Barkentine Road complimented the Committee on its work and recounted a "success story" of a neighbor's cooperation in trimming his foliage to restore her view. She asked the Committee's help in persuading the City to remove a fence it has recently erected which impacts her view of Abalone Cove. Chairman Clark explained that view impairment associated with structures is not within the authority of the Committee, and advised her to request from staff an approach to dealing with this problem. Mr. John Sharkey stated that Paragraph 9 of the VRC Resolution dealing with Permit Application No. 5 is a clerical error and should be removed. He also wished to correct a statement by a Committee Member that it is the obligation of every citizen to maintain their trees to avoid view impairment. Mr. Sharkey asserted that people with large trees are not doing anything illegal and no action can be taken unless an application is filed. Next, he questioned the "interim policy" of the Committee not to order the removal of trees. Chairman Clark explained that the tree removal and replacement policy is in the process of being codified by the City Council; that meeting will be publicly noticed and Mr. Sharkey may attend and make his views known to the Council at that time. Mr. Sharkey asked why the agenda for the View Restoration Committee is not published on Channel 3 . Director Benard said he will check into this. Members discussed the need for more publicity on the view restoration process and Chairman Clark stated that an interview involving members of the Committee, staff and City Council will be taped next month. An early Committee meeting was taped but not shown, and there has been some discussion of taping another meeting. Director Benard pointed out that press releases and publicity are at the discretion of the City Manager, and suggested that the Chairman make the Mayor aware of the need so he can provide direction to 7 111 VIEW RESTORATION C MMITTEE MEETING January 17, 1991 the City Manager. Chairman Clark said this topic would also be discussed at the executive workshop of Committee leadership. Subsequent to that meeting, a joint meeting with the City Council has been suggested. Another opportunity to make residents and officials aware of the Committee's work will be the community leaders breakfast meeting on March 2 at Hesse Park. Mr. Sharkey indicated his concern about waiving of fees for View Restoration Application revisions in view of the financial condition of the City. He felt the $400 fee was insufficient to cover the costs of the process. Finally, Mr. Sharkey asked if the City had been sued in relation to the View Restoration process. Assistant City Attorney Colantuono replied he is not aware that the City has been served with a suit challenging a decision of the Committee, but there may be suits on file that have not yet been served. Mr. James Quong inquired if tree removal includes removal of the stump and wood. Ms. Petru explained that when a tree is located on a level area, staff generally recommends that the stump be ground down to 18" below the level of the grade. When it is on a slope and it is difficult to get equipment in, it is generally cut flush with the ground. Typically the bids include cleanup of all debris, but if there was a request from the foliage owner to retain the wood, that could be factored into the bid. At Mr. Quong's request, Chairman Clark again explained the Committee's interim policy regarding removal of trees. Mr. Quong then questioned his inability to comment on the Committee's discussion after the close of the public hearing, and Chairman Clark advised him of the rules covering testimony from the parties to a permit application. REPORTS A. STAFF Senior Planner Petru reported the status of View Restoration Permit applications, per her memorandum of January 17, 1991. She noted that Application No. 18 should read "VRC 2/21/91. " She read her tally of tree removal and trimming requested and permitted, and advised that she will be providing this tally at the first meeting of each month. She also reported that staff is working on amending the permit application forms to make them more understandable to the public and easier for staff to process. She added that information regarding documentation of existing foliage will be included in an upcoming newsletter. Director Benard reported that as a result of his memorandum of January 15, 1991 to the Mayor and City Council regarding Development Code Amendment Procedures, and an oral presentation by the City Attorney at that Council meeting, the Council has initiated a procedure which allows them to appoint the View 8 41/. VIEW RESTORATION VMMITTEE MEETING January 17, 1991 Restoration Committee as a planning commission for the purpose of holding public hearings related to amendments to the View Restoration Provisions of the Development Code. The Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to accomplish this (which may need to go to the Planning Commission for approval) . Director Benard distributed a memorandum dated January 22, 1991 to the Planning Commissioners recommending approval of the Committee's suggested amendment to the Development Code relating to tree removal and replacement. Council felt it would be more expedient to have the Planning Commission address this policy at their January 22 meeting than to wait until initiation of the new procedure of having the VRC hold the public hearings. VRC Members were urged to attend the January 22 Planning Commission meeting to support the staff recommendations. COMMITTEE REPORTS Chairman Clark announced the impending departure from the Committee of Member Burrage, who will be moving out of the City, and asked what the replacement procedure is. Director Benard said that a letter should be sent to the Mayor with a copy to the City Clerk. The Clerk will place an announcement of the vacancy in the newspapers and give a period of time for applications to be received. Interviews will then be scheduled with the Council. If there is an outstanding list of people interested, a replacement may be selected from that list. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to February 7, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. # # # 9