Loading...
VRC MINS 19910103 ' 4 11044Y :(14// MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES JANUARY 3, 1991 7744 The meeting was called to order at 7: 07 p.m. by Chairman Clark at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT Committeemembers Boudreau, Burrage, Cartwright, Eastwood, Lorenzen, Murphy, Quatrochi, Sweetnam, Weisz, Chairman Clark ABSENT None Also present were Director of Environmental Services Robert Benard, Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas, Associate Planner Terry Silverman, Assistant City Attorney Deborah Hakman and Recording Secretary Lucile Rogers. COMMUNICATIONS Director Benard distributed copies of correspondence relating to Permit Applications No. 7 and 9, to be discussed during the Public Hearings and Continued Business sections of the agenda. Chair Clark requested an agenda addition to discuss the public notice and cover letter from Director Benard concerning the public hearing process associated with amendments to the view restoration ordinance. CONSENT CALENDAR Committee Member Sweetnam moved approval of the consent calendar, Member Lorenzen seconded and the motion passed without objection, approving: A. Minutes of November 15, 1990 B. V.R.C. Resolution No. 91-1, approving View Restoration Permit No. 4 to trim and remove vegetation at 2410 Daladier. PUBLIC HEARINGS VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 9: William and Annie McNeely, 5747 Wildbriar Drive; and Michele Masdeo, 5739 Wildbriar Drive. Director Benard reported that the foliage owner requested in writing on December 18, 1990 that the hearing be continued to February 7, 1991. Staff suggested a two week extension to the January 17, 1991 meeting would be more appropriate. 1 VIEW RESTORATION tiMITTEE MEETING January 3 , 1991 The public hearing was opened on a motion from Member Weisz, seconded by Member Sweetnam and passed without objection. Committee Members Cartwright, Lorenzen, Murphy, Quatrochi, Sweetnam and Weisz were eligible to vote on this application. Member Eastwood was appointed to replace Chairman Clark, who had not visited the site. Foliage owner Mr. James Quong of 26144 Barkstone Drive stated he had not received the required early notice of the application and did not learn of it until the week of November 26; therefore, the November 30 staff report contained input only from the applicants and none from him. He requested time to issue a statement to balance the statements of the applicants. He said a two week extension would be adequate if the four week extension was not granted. Co-applicant Mr. Michele Masdeo stated he felt the foliage owner has had ample time to respond to the November 30 staff report. He and the McNeelys would like to resolve what they see as a clear-cut issue as expeditiously as possible; however he said they would agree to a two week extension if the Committee felt it would be beneficial. Committee Member Weisz moved to continue consideration of Permit Application No. 9 to January 17, 1991. The motion was seconded by Member Quatrochi and passed unanimously on a roll call vote. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 10: Betty Jo Hood 5547 Bayridge Committee Members Lorenzen, Quatrochi, Sweetnam, Weisz and Chairman Clark were eligible to vote on this application. Members Boudreau and Burrage replaced Members Cartwright and Murphy, who were not present for the discussion of Permit Application No. 10 at the November 1, 1990 meeting. Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas reported that this application had been continued from the November 1 meeting to allow the applicant to amend the original request to include two trees on an additional property (5555 Graylog Street) . The amended application includes this additional property; however, the foliage owner at 5555 Graylog and the applicant have concluded a written agreement that the two trees in question will be trimmed to a height of 18 feet and maintained at intervals of not more than 24 months. Thus, the application for discussion at this meeting contains only the pittosporum tree at 5564 Graylog Street, as specified in the original application. Recommendation: Trim the pittosporum tree to the ridgeline of the residence at 5564 Graylog Street. 2 VIEW RESTORATION tIMITTEE MEETING !II January 3, 1991 Applicant Mrs. Betty Jo Hood was present but declined to make a statement. Mr. de Freitas advised that the applicant agrees with the staff recommendation. Additionally, the foliage owner has agreed in writing with the staff recommendation. Committee Member Sweetnam moved the public hearing be closed. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Weisz and passed without objection. Committee Member Sweetnam moved acceptance of the staff recommendation. Member Lorenzen seconded and the motion was passed unanimously on a roll call vote. There was a procedural discussion of whether Committee Members who are not present when an application is first heard may be eligible to participate in a continued hearing of the matter if they have read the minutes of the original meeting, or whether they must have heard the tapes of the meeting. Mr. Benard advised it is City policy not to retain audio tapes of meetings after the minutes have been approved. Assistant City Attorney Hakman agreed to investigate this matter and report back to the Committee. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 16: Mr. Irvin Glushenko 35 Avenida Corona Committee Members Cartwright, Lorenzen, Murphy, Quatrochi, Sweetnam and Weisz were eligible to vote on this application. Member Boudreau replaced Chairman Clark, who had not visited the site. Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas presented the staff report, indicating that the applicant's views from all viewing areas of his home are impaired by 30 to 40 large trees at 37 Avenida Corona. Requested Action: Prune, trim, and remove 30 to 40 trees at 37 Avenida Corona. Recommendation: Prune, trim, and remove the subject vegetation per Staff recommendations to restore the applicant's view. Committee Member Sweetnam moved that the public hearing be opened, Member Cartwright seconded and the motion passed without objection. Applicant Mr. Irvin Glushenko stated he agrees with the staff report and recommendations. Member Quatrochi questioned the applicant about his intentions regarding the several tall trees on his own property, and Mr. Glushenko replied that no one has complained about them, but if anyone did he would have them cut. 3 VIEW RESTORATION IRMITTEE MEETING January 3 , 1991 Foliage owner Mrs. Jeanne Shorr testified she has lived in her house for 27 years, planted some of the trees herself, and does not agree with staff's recommendations to trim or remove 30 to 40 trees. She stated the trees on the south side do not impair the applicant's view and should not be removed. Her privacy is very important to her and would be greatly affected. Mrs. Shorr then introduced her attorney, Mr. Christ Troupis, who questioned the necessity to restore a view which was never there since the applicant moved into his residence. He felt that the recommendation to reduce foliage to 11'6" (the height of the foliage owner's ridgeline) , when there is a difference of 16' between the building pads of the two properties, was excessive. He stated the trees on the south side of the properties (numbered 1, 2, 4 and 5 on the staff report) do not present a serious view obstruction, and trees 8, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 16 are also out of the view lines. On questioning by Committee, Mr. Troupis acknowledged he had not seen the view from Mr. Glushenko's property because his request to do so had been denied by the applicant, but he had been to the borders of the property in an attempt to assess the impact of the foliage on the view. He represented to the Committee that he and his client would be happy to retain a landscape expert to make specific recommendations on each of the items if they were given permission to go onto the Glushenko property to do so. Mr. Lee McGee of 34 Avenida Corona asked to speak to the Committee as an interested party. He stated his home was the first to be built of the stack of four homes on the canyon, and is the uppermost of the four. He said when Mr. Glushenko's residence was built there was an unimpaired view from it, and it was unfortunate that the extensive growth on the Schorr property had gone on so long without concern for its effect on others. He felt that if the tall pine trees were trimmed up per the staff recommendations they would be quite top heavy and present a considerable danger. He said he might have joined in this application had he realized that Mr. Glushenko's efforts would be cut back to the extent that he would not benefit from them, and reserved the right to join in at a later date. In his rebuttal, Mr. Glushenko testified he still goes along with the staff report. Committee Member Lorenzen asked how high he felt the foliage could be without impairing his view. The applicant stated it could be higher than the ridgeline of the residence but no higher than the level of his back yard. He added that two photos submitted to the City which were taken in 1971 or 1972 show that the view from his lot was almost to Dana Point. He said he had not agreed to a visit from Mrs. Schorr and her attorney because he had written to her on July 12 and waited two months for a reply, which came from her attorney. He felt that was long enough to wait, and turned the matter over to the City. 4 VIEW RESTORATION L ITTEE MEETING 111 January 3, 1991 Mrs. Schorr did not wish to testify in rebuttal. Committee Member Sweetnam moved that the public hearing be closed, Member Quatrochi seconded and the motion passed without objection. Assistant Planner de Freitas reported that staff feels the foliage owner's privacy will be maintained with their recommendations. Mrs. Schorr has indicated she plans to install a fence on the property line, which is approximately 3 feet on the pad elevation of the applicant's lot, to further protect her privacy. Mr. Glushenko stated the stakes indicate the property line is about 12 inches in on the pad elevation. Committee discussion indicated concern regarding the safety of trimming up the pine trees, and privacy was not considered to be a problem. Consideration was given to the offer by Mrs. Schorr's attorney to hire a landscape consultant to make recommendations to the Committee, but Members felt this would be setting a bad precedent. Chairman Clark raised the issue of whether the Committee could direct the removal of trees before the City Council has codified the amendment to the ordinance permitting removal. Director Benard advised that the Committee could direct staff to prepare a resolution addressing removal but defer action on it pending the outcome of the City Council meeting. Member Sweetnam moved the Committee accept the foliage owner's offer to hire a professional landscape architect to prepare a proposal to satisfy the applicant's desires for view restoration and the foliage owner's desire for privacy, and to continue the hearing to January 17, 1991. Motion seconded by Committee Member Quatrochi. The motion failed on a 2-5 vote, with Members Boudreau, Cartwright, Lorenzen, Murphy and Weisz dissenting. Committee Member Lorenzen moved that using a sloping (diagonal) plane from the elevation of the applicant's lot to the front ridgeline of the foliage owner's residence, the following action be taken: 1. Remove the (50' - 60') Eucalyptus Globulus located on the street side of the property. 2. Trim the (25' ) Brazilian Pepper tree located on the street side of the property to the ridgeline. 3. Trim the (35' - 40') Ficus located at the front of the property to the ridgeline. 4. Remove the (50' - 60' ) Pine tree located on the street side of the property. 5 VIEW RESTORATION ITTEE MEETING 111 January 3, 1991 5. Trim the (15') Pittosporum/Oleander shrubs along the street side of the property to a height of 6'0". 6. Remove the (40') pine located closest to the foliage owner's residence at the rear. 7. Remove the (60' - 70') pine located at the rear of the property. 8. Trim the (40') Jacaranda tree located at the rear of the property to the diagonal. 9. Trim the (15') Pittosporum located at the rear of the property to the ri a ie. At4 t,,,1/40,A , 10. Trim the (40' ) Fig tree located at the rear of the property to the diagonal. 11. Trim the (15' ) Pepper tree located at the rear of the property to the diagonal. 12. Trim the (30' ) Indian Laurel located at the rear of the property to the diagonal. 13. Trim the (10' - 12 ' ) Bottle Brush located at the rear of the property to the diagonal. 14. Trim all of the brush material (Oleander, Toyon, Pittosporum) located on the transitional slope at the rear to the diagonal. 15. Trim all of the trees (15' Pittosporum, row of deciduous trees, Acacias and Jacaranda) located towards the bottom of the transitional slope along the side of the property to the ridgeline of the residence. 16. Trim the (15' - 20') Purple Leaf Plum tree located at the side of the property to the ridgeline of the residence. In addition, where removal of trees is ordered it will be to the ground only, without direction to grind stumps to 18" below the ground. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Murphy and passed on a unanimous roll call vote. Chairman Clark called for a recess at 8:55 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9: 15 p.m. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 7: Bill and Betty Herman 4 Top Rail Lane Members eligible to vote on this application were Boudreau, Cartwright, Eastwood, Lorenzen, Quatrochi, Weisz and Clark. 6 VIEW RESTORATION OMMITTEE MEETING January 3, 1991 Associate Planner Silverman reported this application was continued from the November 15, 1990 meeting in order to allow the applicants to revise their application and provide the foliage owner with a minimum of 30 days notice of the revisions. Staff has since conducted further on-site analysis to verify the heights of the structure and the identified foliage. The revised staff recommendations reflect that further analysis. Applicant Mr. Bill Herman distributed copies of his recommendations, representing a compromise to help expedite the situation. He added that he would still prefer to have the two palm trees removed and replaced with a lower growing tree, rather than shaving the trunks. Foliage Owner Mr. Dave English asked that the Committee apply the "rule of reasonableness" to make the code work. He requested the denial of Permit Application No. 7 because: there has been no showing that the health, safety and general welfare of the residents has been affected by his foliage; the Hermans have not met the burden of proof of cooperation to resolve the conflict; the large pine tree was on the property before the lot was split by the previous owners; the foliage was in place before passage of the ordinance; the process does not provide for revised applications; the staff report does not provide for inclusion of the foliage owner's response; the required 30 days notice was not provided; and no consideration was given to the view from his property. He added that the olive tree is 13'6" rather than the 16' specified in the staff report, the cluster of eucalyptus trees is not on his property, and the approximately 200 avocado trees in the canyon are a commercial project. Copies of his remarks were distributed to Committee Members as well as copies of his letter to the Committee dated January 2, 1991. Attachments to his letter indicated extensive trimming he has done, including a bill for $250 for removal of trimmings. Assistant City Attorney Hakman said the staff report was mailed 30 days in advance of the hearing, as required by the ordinance. She said the ordinance does not provide for an appeal within the City; however, parties are free to take appeals to the courts if they so desire. Foliage in existence prior to the creation of the applicant's lot does not come under the jurisdiction of the Committee. Associate Planner Silverman stated that staff members have reviewed aerial photographs of the site and have been unable to verify when the pine trees were planted but believe it was subsequent to the creation of the lots. She added that if the foliage owner can supply evidence to the contrary, he should do so. Member Quatrochi asked the foliage owner if he was aware that costs of trimming and removing foliage are to be borne by the applicant. Mr. English replied that he had tried to cooperate and avoid a hearing by doing the trimming himself. 7 111 VIEW RESTORATION 011MITTEE MEETING January 3, 1991 Mrs. Betty Herman, in rebuttal, claimed the eucalyptus trees are definitely on the English property, below the house. She asked that the lower cut branches of the stone pine tree be trimmed to the trunk. She pointed out that the revision of the application was done because the Committee requested her to name the trees under the stone pine. She said she was concerned about the jacaranda tree growing into their view but understands it must be maintained at its November 17, 1989 height. She agrees with the staff recommendations except for the revisions she added in her letter of November 18, 1990. Mr. English testified that there is a yucca and a Brazilian pepper around the water tank but their height is lower than that of the tank, and that side of the property is not the Hermans' primary view. He said that since the photos were taken he has trimmed the honey locust and olive tree. He maintained the eucalyptus trees are not on his property, but he has trimmed them in the past and will do so again. Director Benard advised that since staff now has taken a new position on measurement of foliage, it might be well to reconsider the foliage growing downslope from the pad. In addition, in the absence of a survey to determine whose property the eucalyptus are on, they should be removed from consideration at this hearing. If it is determined they are not on the English property, the applicants would be required to amend their application and pay an additional fee to include them. Committee Member Weisz moved that the public hearing be closed, Member Quatrochi seconded and the motion passed without objection. Chairman Clark summarized the two issues before the Committee: (1) jurisdiction over the foliage which is asserted by the foliage owner to be on an adjoining property, and (2) measurement of foliage downslope of the foliage owner's building pad. Mr. Benard suggested that the Committee could direct staff to prepare the resolution deleting trimming of downslope foliage if it does not exceed the ridgeline of the house, and including for trimming as appropriate that foliage which does exceed the ridgeline. Director Benard notified the Committee that the deadline for resolution of Permit Application No. 7 is January 26; therefore the matter needs to be closed out at this hearing and a resolution brought back to the January 17 Committee meeting or an extension must be requested by the applicants. Discussion of proposed action followed. The height of the olive tree was agreed to be 13 '6" (the 16' specified on the report included some "straggler" branches exceeding that height) , and the height of the Brazilian pepper near the driveway was corrected to 14'6" rather than 15'6" . 8 111 VIEW RESTORATION OMMITTEE MEETING January 3, 1991 Chairman Clark led the Committee through discussion of each item on the staff recommendations. Consensus was reached as follows: 1. Olive tree (13'6") in lawn area to be maintained so as not to exceed 13'6". 2. Brazilian pepper (13'6") in lawn area to be maintained at 13'6". 3. Brazilian pepper (14'6") near driveway to be trimmed an additional one foot and maintained at 13'6". 4. Jacaranda (24') adjacent to driveway - no action required. 5. Honey locust (13') in lawn area to be maintained not to exceed 13'6". 6. Palm tree (28'0") at east side of structure to be shaved to clean trunk of fronds and debris. 7. Palm tree (27'0") at NE corner of structure to be shaved to clean trunk of fronds and debris. 8. Italian stone pine (50'-60' ) - trim cut branches to the trunk. 9. Exclude from consideration the cluster of Eucalyptus trees (30' ) due to the question of jurisdiction. 10. Avocado (24') to the north, downslope of the residence, to be trimmed and maintained to a height consistent with the ridgeline of the residence. 11. Avocado (26') to the south, downslope of the residence, to be trimmed and maintained to a height consistent with the ridgeline of the residence. Committee Member Quatrochi moved adoption of the above action with an additional provision that the hedge between the two properties be maintained at a height not to exceed 6 feet. The motion was seconded by Member Boudreau and passed unanimously on a roll call vote. Director Benard advised that if staff is unable to have the resolution prepared in time for the January 17 meeting, they will contact the property owners and will secure an extension from the applicants. Attorney Hakman stated that if it is determined that the eucalyptus trees (removed from consideration due to the question of jurisdiction) are in fact on the foliage owner's property, that information would need to be submitted to the Committee before the next meeting. The Committee could then decide whether to reconsider the application taking into account the new 9 111 VIEW RESTORATION 411MITTEE MEETING January 3 , 1991 information. B. Vegetation Height Measurement Policy Director Benard reported that after discussion of this matter at the last meeting of the Committee, the City Manager called for a meeting with Mayor Hughes, Senior Planner Petru and Mr. Benard. Mayor Hughes had been on the original committee which drafted the language for Proposition M, and asserted that the intention was to measure foliage using the same criteria as that used for measuring structures, i.e. , from the base of the building pad on a level lot, from the average elevation across the front property line on a downsloping lot, and from the highest point on the lot covered by the structure on an upsloping lot. Mr. Benard added that in order to avoid any confusion for applicants and property owners, he would like to see this officially incorporated into the Committee Procedures through action of the City Council. It was suggested that the recommendations of the Subcommittee on Standards be taken into account when drafting the proposed change in the Procedures. Mr. Benard agreed that staff will prepare a report to the Committee for the January 17 meeting, including comments on the Subcommittee recommendations. Attorney Hakman stated she would like to review the issue of amendments to the ordinance as opposed to amendments to the Guidelines. C. Application Revision Policy Committee Members received a memo from Senior Planner Petru restating and clarifying the action taken at the December 6, 1990 meeting regarding the amendment of View Restoration applications. Assistant City Attorney Hakman added that in view of the Permit Streamlining Act, staff should start counting the six month period from when the original application is deemed complete, and when a revision is requested an extension of time should be obtained. If the applicant refuses to grant an extension, the Committee should reject the revision. On another issue, Attorney Hakman advised that the government code requires that a public hearing be held before imposition of any new fees, so the application amendment policy definitely needs to go to the City Council for approval. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business on the agenda. QUESTIONS FROM AUDIENCE There were no questions from the audience. 10 411 VIEW RESTORATION ITTEE MEETING January 3, 1991 REPORTS A. STAFF Director Benard reported there are still 23 applications on file with the City. Deadlines for those applications in the 90- day bid period are shown in parentheses on the January 3, 1991 memo from Carolynn Petru. All conditions of View Restoration Permit No. 1 have been met, at a cost to the applicant of $1,720. This cost is broken down in a memorandum dated January 3, 1991 from Senior Planner Petru. Chairman Clark again requested a statistical summary indicating how many trees have been ordered removed, trimmed, etc. Director Benard said the City Council also wants an accounting of staff time used in the processing of View Restoration Applications. B. COMMITTEE Committee Member Lorenzen stated it would be very helpful if trees were numbered in both staff reports and photographs. She then inquired whether, when a property owner is required under the maintenance provisions of the ordinance to trim foliage to its November 17, 1989 height, if he chooses to cut it back further in order not to have to trim it so frequently, the new height would become the benchmark. Director Benard stated the November 17 height (or whatever date the height was documented) is the benchmark, but if an applicant redocumented the foliage at the new height (over 16 feet or the ridgeline) and the view is still impaired, the new height would become the benchmark. Chairman Clark inquired as to the progress of enhancing the application packet in order to clarify the view restoration provisions, and Director Benard said he would have staff look into it. Member Lorenzen reported that an applicant in one of the public hearings expressed her opinion that the Committee Members were quite fair to both the applicants and the foliage owners, and said she would write a letter to the City complimenting the Committee on their hard work. Member Boudreau announced that the Fire Department is giving away seedlings, and might like to attend one of the Committee meetings to talk about their program. Staff was asked to look into this. Chairman Clark asked the status of his request for the Committee to use existing City media equipment (slide projector and screen) to facilitate presentation of cases, especially those 11 VIEW RESTORATION ITTEE MEETING January 3 , 1991 where there is a great deal of foliage involved. Director Benard said he would look into it. Member Quatrochi noted that several foliage owners have indicated displeasure with their lack of involvement in the view restoration process. They feel the Committee and staff should be visiting their property and their input should be included in the staff reports. Chairman Clark reported that the leadership of the Committee will be meeting soon with the staff to discuss this and other emerging issues. Member Cartwright stated he would like the Committee/staff meeting to include some guidance as to ex parte communications and provide concrete examples of what is and is not permitted. Chairman Clark suggested Committee Members tell the applicant at the outset of the visit that they are not at liberty to discuss the case. Member Cartwright was invited to join with Chairman Clark and Vice Chairman Sweetnam in the meeting with staff to discuss the various issues. Chairman Clark stated for the record that he is very pleased with the support of the recording secretary, and the clarity and accuracy of the minutes. Chairman Clark asked Director of Environmental Services Benard to explain the reasons for the Notice of Public Hearing dated January 3, 1991 announcing that the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on January 22, 1991 to consider an amendment to the City Development Code to allow replacement trees in conjunction with the View Restoration Permit procedures. Director Benard explained that the Planning Commission is required by law to hold a public hearing for any changes in the Development Code. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation, but the final decision is made by the City Council. Assistant City Attorney Hakman added that Proposition M contemplates this procedure by stating in Section 5, " . . .the City Council may amend this Ordinance, following the procedures, including all required public heariangs, for amending zoning ordinances. " Chairman Clark objected strongly to this procedure, indicating his feeling that if a public hearing is required it should be held before the View Restoration Committee. He stated he wished to raise the matter with the City Council before the January 22 Planning Commission meeting. He suggested requesting an amendment to the code to remove the View Restoration Ordinance from the Development Code and move it into the Municipal Code. Member Sweetnam recalled that in drafting Proposition M, the Council of Homeowners wanted to retain the language of Proposition L which required any change to the ordinance to be made through another initiative. They finally agreed to the 12 VIEW RESTORATION ITTEE MEETING January 3, 1991 revised language based on the public input required by public hearings before going to the City Council. Attorney Hakman commented that the justification for the View Restoration Ordinance is that it furthers the public health, safety and welfare, which derives from the City's zoning powers. State law requires the Planning Commission to review all Zoning Code amendments. Chairman Clark said he would attend the January 15, 1991 City Council meeting, and requested that this subject be placed on the agenda. Director Benard said he would report this discussion to the City Manager and try to get it on the agenda. If not, the matter can be brought up under Audience Questions. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11: 35 p.m. to January 17, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. # # # 13