Loading...
VRC MINS 19971106 APPROVED 0 0 NOVEMBER 20, 1997 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 6, 1997 The meeting was called to order by Chair R. Green at 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Commissioner Boudreau. PRESENT: Commissioners Black, Boudreau, A. Green, Goern, Long, Marshall, Vice Chair Sweetnam, and Chair R. Green ABSENT: Commissioner Karmelich was excused Also present were Principal Planner Rojas, Project Coordinator Nelson, and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA Before reviewing the agenda, Chair R. Green felt that staff had communications that would affect the agenda and felt that should be discussed first. Principal Planner Rojas distributed to the Commission correspondence from a foliage owner for V.R.P. No. 42, a summary list of proposed amendments to the VRC Guidelines, and a copy of the proposed urgency ordinance from City Council regarding replacement foliage which he would like to add to tonight's agenda. He explained that the City Council directed that no new decisions be made by the View Restoration Commission until this urgency ordinance was adopted, and requested the View Restoration Commission continue any new items on tonight's agenda until then. Mr. Rojas further explained that staff had contacted the applicants and foliage owners for View Restoration Permits 52, 36, and 50 (Items 5, 6, and 7) and explained the Council direction, informing them their items would be continued to the December 4, 1997 meeting. Regarding the Resolutions on the agenda, the Commission could adopt them this evening, as decisions had already been made on these items. Lastly, staff was recommending that the View Restoration Commission meet on November 20 to discuss and review the draft language of the amended guidelines and forward them to City Council at that time. Chair R. Green informed the Commission that he had received a FAX from the Chairman of the Planning Commission discussing the possible reimbursement of mileage for site visits. He would like to add the discussion to this evening's agenda as to whether the View Restoration Commission would like to consider reimbursement for mileage. 0 • Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to amend the agenda by adding discussion of the urgency ordinance as Item 8 and discussion of the mileage reimbursement as Item 9 and accept the agenda as amended, seconded by Commissioner Black, (8- 0). COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Black commented that there was recently a Jewish holiday not observed by the View Restoration Commission. She suggested staff consider the possibility of notifying the Commissioners ahead of time if a meeting was going to be scheduled on one of the Jewish holidays. Commissioner Long commented he had received a letter from Mr. Purinton and verified that staff had received the same letter. Chair R. Green stated that he had received a resignation letter from Commissioner Karmelich. He also received a memo from the City Clerk reminding the Commissioners that if they wish to reapply for the View Restoration Commission they must submit their applications to her. Vice Chair Sweetnam said he had verbal communication with some applicants and foliage owners that he would like to discuss when their items come up in the public hearings section of the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 Commissioner Black moved to accept the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Long. Approved, (6-0-2) with Commissioners Goern and Marshall abstaining since they were absent from the meeting. 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 2, 1997 Vice Chair Sweetnam pointed out a grammatical error on page 9. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to accept the minutes, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Goern. Approved, (5-0-3) with Black, Boudreau, and Long abstaining since they were absent from the meeting. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 1997 PAGE 2 II • 3. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 29 - RESOLUTION Principal Planner Rojas informed the Commission there were two speakers requesting to speak on this item and the next item. He felt the best way to proceed was to take Items 3 and 4 off of the consent calendar, vote to approve the consent calendar, and then hear items 3 and 4. Commissioner Long moved to remove items 3 and 4 from the consent calendar and approve the consent calendar, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Principal Planner Rojas reminded the Commission that the public hearing was closed on this item and discussion could only take place on the draft language of the Resolution. No new testimony could be heard. Mr. Norbert Keilbach (applicant) 3632 Greve Drive, stated that he had read the Resolution and felt that it accurately reflected the decision of the View Restoration Commission. Mr. Jon Echevarrieta (foliage owner) 30327 Ganado Drive, discussed how he had requested a continuance which was denied by the Commission and how he had made himself available to the Commission for site visits, which never happened. He felt this new Resolution was unacceptable to him and requested the Commission not adopt the Resolution until the City Council had adopted the new guidelines and urgency ordinance. Mr. Keilbach (in rebuttal) felt the matter had been delayed numerous times, all parties had been heard from, and it was time to adopt the Resolution. Chair R. Green clarified that City Council had specifically indicated that decisions already made by the View Restoration Commission could be acted on and adopted prior to adoption of the urgency ordinance. The request from City Council was that any new applications should not be heard until the urgency ordinance was adopted. He therefore felt it was appropriate for the Commission to consider the adoption of the Resolution. Commissioner A. Green commented that in Exhibit A of the Resolution, the first paragraph, he would like to add language that states that in regards to the replacement foliage special attention should be given to the distance from the top of the transitional slope, the natural height of selected foliage, and anticipated frequency of maintenance. He felt this would alert the arborist to the special situation on this property. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 1997 PAGE 3 e 0 Chair R. Green felt the language was too restrictive and was uncomfortable adding this language. He did not want the language to be too specific, but rather general so the city arborist and planning department have some discretion. He felt that the stipulations requested were going to be considered by the city and the arborist when making foliage selections. A lengthy discussion followed as to whether or not to include the language requested by Commissioner A. Green. Commissioner Marshall moved to adopt the Resolution, as presented, seconded by Commissioner Goern. The motion failed with a vote of(3-1-4) with Commissioner A. Green dissenting, Vice Chair Sweetnam recused, and Commissioners Black, Long, and Boudreau abstaining since they were absent from the meeting. The discussion continued as to whether to add additional language that might restrict what is planted on the foliage owner's property. Commissioner A. Green felt that because so many plants were to be replaced and privacy was such an issue, that special attention should be paid to the specific points. Commissioner Long suggested to Chair R. Green that language could be worded in such a way to say the arborist will provide the foliage owner with all information that will help the foliage owner in selecting plants including, but not limited to, the distance from the top of the transitional slope, the natural height of selected foliage, and anticipated frequency and cost of maintenance. This would make it clear that the arborist is not dictating what the foliage owner can or cannot plant, while making sure the information is provided to the foliage owner. Chair R. Green agreed with this suggested language. Commissioner A. Green moved to adopt the Resolution with the amendment agreed to by Chairman R. Green, seconded by Commissioner Goern. Approved, (4-0-4) with Vice Chair Sweetnam recused and Commissioners Long, Black and Boudreau abstaining since they were absent from the meeting. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:00 P.M. the Commission took a short recess until 8:10 P.M. at which time they reconvened. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 1997 PAGE 4 0 • 4. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 42 - RESOLUTION Vice Chair Sweetnam asked Project Coordinator Nelson if she had met with the applicants prior to the meeting to discuss the Resolution. Project Coordinator Nelson responded that she did not feel the meeting was necessary as the points they wanted included in the Resolution were minor wording changes which would be up to the Commission to make. Mr. Kean Hamilton (applicant) 30747 Ganado Drive stated the Resolution said all work shall be reviewed one year after the initial trimming. Mr. Hamilton asked for clarification as to what reviewed meant. Principal Planner Rojas explained that the intent was that one year after the trimming took place, staff would visit the site and observe how foliage is growing and being maintained and would make a report to the View Restoration Commission. A public hearing would follow where the report would be presented. Mr. Hamilton wanted clarification as to what would be expected of him at that time. Principal Planner Rojas answered that he would receive a notice of the public hearing and could make comments at that time. Mr. Hamilton stated that he was concerned about language in regards to the Yang property. He felt that language should have been included that said any foliage growing into the view plane must be trimmed below the view plane. He further stated that the points that Mr. Krasovec was going to bring up he fully agreed with. Mr. Felix Krasovec (applicant) 30741 Ganado Drive verified that all Commissioners had received a copy of the letter he had submitted with the requested revisions to the Resolution. He also requested that any foliage that grows into the view plane must be cut to a level below the view plane. He pointed out that the Resolution incorrectly identifies November as a winter month. He requested that be changed. He further stated that the Commission, at the October 2 meeting, had used the one year review period only to address pine number 3 on the Schatzlein property. He felt staff had incorrectly added the one year review period to cover all of the trees. He commented that he had an audio tape of the October 2 meeting and could very quickly and easily play the tape sections that illustrated his points. Vivian and Dan Yang (foliage owners) 3511 Bendigo Drive began by stating the trees identified as Aleppo Pines on their property were actually Monterey Pines. Mr. Yang also stated that with the heavy predicted rains he was concerned there would be VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 1997 PAGE 5 • damage to his property if the trees were removed. He requested the trees be removed after the winter rains. Mrs. Yang stated they had met with the applicants and tried to reach a compromise with them. Mr. Hamilton (in rebuttal) commented that they had met with Mrs. Yang since the October 2 meeting, but did not feel the Yangs had included anything in their proposal that was sufficient enough for them to deviate from the decision that was made by the View Restoration Commission. He further stated that the applicants had made an additional proposal to Mrs. Schatzlein which she was not interested in. Mr. Krasovec (in rebuttal) simply stated that he agreed with everything Mr. Hamilton had said. Mrs. Yang (in rebuttal) questioned if the trees could be laced, and if that was not satisfactory, could she then request the trees be removed. Chair R. Green responded that it would not be appropriate to put the burden on the applicant to have to pay twice for the lacing and removal of trees. There might be some sort of compromise that she could work out with the applicants that would resolve the situation. Commissioner Long reminded the Commission that the only discussion they were to have regarding this item was concerning the wording of the Resolution. They were not to discuss any new information related to the application. Commissioner A. Green felt that the Commission should review the Resolution point by point and make sure it reflects what the Commission intended. Chair R. Green commented that in Exhibit A number 1-c should be corrected to read "reduced below the view plane" rather than reduced by 4 feet. Vice Chair Sweetnam stated that he felt it was valid to add "if any other trees on this property protrude into the view plane, they are to be reduced to a height below the view plane" because he did feel that was discussed and that was their intent. Chair R. Green commented that wording should be changed to say all work should occur during the winter months, and leave out specific months. Project Coordinator Nelson stated that the pines identified as Aleppo pines in the Exhibit A number 2 b and c would be changed to read Monterey pines. Commissioner Marshall moved to adopt the Resolution, as amended, seconded VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 1997 PAGE 6 • 0 by Commissioner Goern. Adopted, (5-0-3) with Commissioners Black, Boudreau, and Long abstaining since they were absent from the meeting. Mr. Hamilton asked for clarification and an explanation as to what exactly was just adopted. Chair R. Green suggested that, if Mr. Hamilton wished to speak further he should fill out a request to speak and he will be heard during the comments from the audience section of the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. View Restoration Permit No. 52: Mr. S. Finazzo, 2175 Rockinghorse Drive (EU) Principal Planner Rojas stated that, given the City Council directive, Staff was recommending this item be continued to December 4, 1997. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to continue to December 4, 1997, second by Commissioner A. Green. There being no objection, it was so ordered. 6. View Restoration Permit No. 36: Mr. and Mrs. David Wyte, 28417 Covecrest Drive (TN) Vice Chair Sweetnam began by stating that he felt the trees on the foliage owners property were code enforcement items rather than view restoration items. He felt Staff should look into this. He did not feel the applicant was aware of this. Principal Planner Rojas stated that staff would look into that. Also, he stated that staff will have to prepare a supplemental staff report to address the issue of replacement foliage as directed by the proposed urgency ordinance. Vice Chair Sweetnam further commented that the foliage owner at 28567 Coveridge Drive was uninformed about the view restoration process and felt that if the applicant and foliage owner were to meet, then possibly the issues could be resolved. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to continue the item to December 4, 1997, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. There being no objection, it was so ordered. 7. View Restoration Permit No. 50: Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Cangemi, 30130 Avenida Tranquila (EU) Vice Chair Sweetnam commented that again, he did not feel the applicant and foliage VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 1997 PAGE 7 i • owner had made any real attempt to resolve the issue before bringing this before the Commission. He felt that some type of educational process needed to be initiated by staff. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to continue the item to December 4, 1997, seconded by Commissioner Black. There being no objection, it was so ordered. NEW BUSINESS 8. Review of the joint workshop directives from City Council (JR) Principal Planner Rojas presented the staff report. He explained that it was the same staff report that was presented to the City Council the previous evening. He summarized the report and explained he had passed out a summary of the actual amendments being proposed to the VRC Guidelines, as determined by the City Council. The Commission discussed the idea of mediation between applicants and foliage owners prior to a meeting, as well better methods of informing the applicants and foliage owners of the view restoration process. 9. Review of the Urgency Ordinance from City Council (JR) The Commissioners discussed the urgency ordinance and the factors it presented. One point brought up was the concept of shade, and how subjective that term could be. A suggestion was that wording be added that states replacement foliage could be ordered if the foliage removed would have a significant, adverse affect on the foliage owners. There was also a discussion regarding replacement foliage and landscaping and landscape plans. Commissioners Black and Boudreau both expressed concern that this ordinance was getting farther and farther away from the original intention of Proposition M. Chair R. Green felt that possibly this was giving a better balance with concerns to foliage owners losing their foliage and the Commission having more flexibility in being able to order some type of replacement foliage. Commissioner Long felt that language was consistent with what was discussed at the workshop and the suggestions he had made in his August 25 memo to City Council, VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 1997 PAGE 8 with the exception of the wording relating to the integrity of the landscape plan, and felt that in the long run would benefit Proposition M. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 9:50 p.m. the Commission took a short break until 9:57 P.M. at which time they reconvened. Commissioner A. Green felt that the language of shade, energy, environment, and health was specific, but the issues of viability and integrity of landscape was too vague and should be excluded from urgency ordinance. Chair R. Green summarized the decisions made by stating that the phrase "or any residual benefits provided by the foliage" should be deleted. The words "significant adverse impact" should be added to clause A. Commissioner Long moved to recommend that City Council adopt the urgency ordinance, with the following amendments: take out, in the first sentence, the phrase "or any residual benefits provided by the foliage"; add immediately before sub 2a under section f the words "a significant" before adverse impact, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. The recommendation passed, (6-2) with Commissioners Black and Boudreau dissenting. Chair R. Green felt that since there were four requests to speak from the audience regarding non-agenda items, that these requests be taken before hearing Item 10, the mileage reimbursement request. The Commission was in agreement. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Jose Lauchngco, speaking in behalf of Ted and Sonya Leitner, 29865 Knollview Drive, requested a continuance of their date of compliance for Resolution 97-14 from November 26, 1997 to January 26, 1998. This would be for the topping of two Canary Island Pines between the house and the driveway. He stated the grounds for the request were for the safety of the house, preservation of the integrity of the slope, and the survivability of the trees. He stated the purpose of the request was not to delay the process, and as a demonstration of good faith the Leitners were prepared to comply with the rest of the Resolution by the compliance date. Principal Planner Rojas explained that the Commission did not have the ability to grant such an extension, however staff had granted some extensions for reasonable cause. He suggested the Leitners contact Project Coordinator Nelson with the request. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 1997 PAGE 9 0 0 Mr. Kean Hamilton 30747 Ganado Drive, questioned the Commission as to why they changed their decision on the Resolution from what was decided at the View Restoration meeting of October 2, 1997. Mr. Felix Krasovec 30741 Ganado Drive, played sections of an audio tape from the October 2, 1997 View Restoration meeting that he felt demonstrated that something discussed at that meeting was not included or changed when the Resolution was brought before the Commission at this meeting. Chair R. Green requested staff make him a copy of the audio tape for his review. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to reconsider the Resolution for V.R.P. No 42 and continue the item to the Consent Calendar of the November 20, 1997 meeting, to allow Chairman Green to listen to the audio tape of the October 2nd meeting, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. Approved, (5-0-3) with Commissioners Black, Boudreau, and Long abstaining since they were not voting on the Resolution. Maureen Ford 30659 Ganado Drive expressed her displeasure that the View Restoration Commission did not explain to the foliage owners and applicants present tonight what decisions were made at the time they were made, rather than having them stay until the comments from the audience section of the agenda. NEW BUSINESS 10. MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT Chair R. Green explained he had received a FAX from the Chairman of the Planning Commission regarding reimbursement for mileage for site visits. The Planning Commission was going to request of the City Council that this reimbursement be made available to the Commissioners and asked the View Restoration Commission to also consider the reimbursement. Commissioner Black felt that in a City that is very tight with it's budget she did not feel there was any need to offer that type of reimbursement to the View Restoration Commission members. Commissioner A. Green felt the Commission may want to consider requesting reimbursement money be made available for any Commission member who may want to request it. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 1997 PAGE 10 0 0 Chair R. Green agreed, adding that there may be an advantage to presenting some solidarity with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Goern felt that it would be a good show of faith to not take the reimbursement money, to show that they are truly volunteers. Commissioner Black moved to not request mileage reimbursement be offered to the View Restoration Commission, seconded by Commissioner Goern, approved (8-0)• ADJOURNMENT Commissioner A. Green moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. The meeting was duly adjourned at 10:50 P.M. to Thursday, November 20, 1997 at 7:00 P.M. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 1997 PAGE 11