Loading...
VRC MINS 19970821 • APPROVED 10/02/97 CD CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 21, 1997 The meeting was called to order at 7:07 P.M. by Chair R. Green at Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Commissioner Goern. PRESENT: Commissioners Black, Boudreau, Goern, Karmelich, Long, Vice Chair Sweetnam, Chair R. Green ABSENT: Commissioners A. Green and Marshall (excused) Also present were Principal Planner Rojas, Project Coordinator Ursu, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Boudreau moved to accept the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Black. Approved, (7-0). COMMUNICATIONS Principal Planner Rojas distributed to the Commission: 1) correspondence for View Restoration Permit No. 49; 2) Miscellaneous correspondence related to Prop M; and, 3) the packets for the September 4, 1997 View Restoration Commission meeting. Mr. Rojas also informed the Commission that the workshop scheduled with the City Council on Saturday, September 6, 1997 was moved to Tuesday, September 16, 1997 at 7:00 P.M. Commissioner Long distributed a memo he drafted in response to a foliage owner's petition which he had asked staff to distribute to the City Council. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF JULY 24, 1997 Commissioner Long wanted to expand on the remarks he made under communications. He suggested it read: "Commissioner Long discussed the misunderstandings regarding staff recommendations and foliage owners and expressed the view that foliage owners 0 0 should be made aware that they need not cut foliage pursuant to staff recommendations and their own expense, but should wait until the hearing. If the application process does result in the order to trim foliage, the initial expense will be borne by the applicant." Commissioner Long commented on page 9 of the minutes that it was unclear as to what findings were made regarding the replacement foliage for the Kunkle property (View Restoration Permit No. 39). He suggested checking the wording in the Resolution and making sure the minutes reflected that the Commission decided to provide replacement foliage. On page 12 of the minutes, Commissioner Long pointed out that paragraph 6 may be worded clearer by stating: "Commissioner Long asked Mr. Schroff if he felt that the notice he was given did not give him adequate time to prepare evidence. If he did feel that way, could he specifically identify the evidence that he thought he could have developed if he had additional time." Commissioner Goern pointed out a typo in the first paragraph on page 13. Commissioner Long pointed out a typo in the last paragraph on page 14 and in the 6th paragraph of page 15. Commissioner Boudreau moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Long. Approved, (4-0-3) with Commissioners Black, Goern, and Vice Chair Sweetnam abstaining since they were absent from the meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 49: Mr. and Mrs. Robert Henry, 6525 Via Colinita (EU) Project Coordinator Ursu presented the staff report, stating the view was being blocked by a jacaranda tree and a eucalyptus tree. The applicant had also requested action on eleven other trees, however staff did not feel they created a view impairment at this time and did not recommend any action on those trees. Chair R. Green polled the commissioners as to who had visited the site. All Commissioners present had visited the site, with the exception of Commissioner Long and Vice Chair Sweetnam. Therefore, Commissioner Karmelich, being an alternate member, would be participating in the discussion and voting on this application. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 21, 1997 PAGE 2 0 0 Chair R. Green opened the public hearing. Dawn Henry (applicant) 6525 Via Colinita stated that she had read the staff report and agreed with the recommendations. She asked the Commission to adopt the Resolution and recommendations. Christian Juarez 1545 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, representing the foliage owner Mr. Bruce, stated if the two trees in question were trimmed lower there could possibly be a privacy issue for the Bruces. The trees also provide shade to the house and yard. He also felt cutting the trees, while improving the view for the Henrys, would reduce the tree lined street that other neighbors in the area enjoy. Finally, Mr. Juarez stated the Bruces were willing to comply with the staff recommendations. Dawn Henry told the Commission that the two trees in question were not indigenous to the area. The trees were not a view problem until the 1980's. She stated that if trimming the trees created an eyesore for the neighboring properties they would be very happy to plant Bougainvillea to improve the area. Commissioner Boudreau asked staff how high the ridgeline was on the foliage owner's residence. Project Coordinator Ursu answered it was 24 feet as measured on the upslope side and 28 feet as measured from the downslope side. He explained the tree was planted on the downslope side of the residence, and measured approximately 35 feet in height from the downslope side and 28 feet in height from the upslope side. Chair R. Green asked Mr. Juarez to clarify the privacy issue he had raised earlier. Mr. Juarez responded that it was regarding the foliage that grows along the street area. He felt that the foliage hides the house from the street. Chair R. Green noted that this foliage had no action recommended by the staff. Mrs. Bruce (foliage owner) 6528 Via Colinita stated that they would be willing to trim the two trees and they will take care of any replanting along the city street as necessary. Chair R. Green closed the public hearing. Commissioner Black moved to accept the staff recommendations as presented, adopting V.R.C. Resolution 97-19, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. Approved, (5-0). VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 21, 1997 PAGE 3 3. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 51: Mr. and Mrs. William Mastous, 6863 Abbottswood Drive; Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Seary, 6907 Abbottswood Drive (EU) Project Coordinator Ursu presented the staff report explaining there were three foliage owner properties identified in the application with various trees on the three properties creating view impairment. Chair R. Green polled the Commission as to who had visited the applicants' properties. All Commissioners had visited the sites with the exception of Commissioner Long. Chair R. Green opened the public hearing. Jil Mastous (applicant) 6863 Abbottswood Drive, explained she had reviewed the staff report and had some comments. She began by commenting that Mr. Mastous had taken a sample of the Acacia tree located at 6932 Grovespring Drive to the Begonia Farm and a nurseryman there told him that type of acacia triples in size in the first year and grows extremely quickly thereafter. She pointed out the acacias in the staff report and reminded the commission that they were rapid growing trees. She requested that, due to the rapid growth of the acacia at an average of one foot per month, and the fact that anything growing over 25 feet tall blocks their view, the acacia screen and olive tree be kept to the 25 foot pad elevation. She accepted the staff recommendation to heavily lace the canary island pine. She asked for clarification regarding a branch on a multi-trunk pepper tree. She requested the two pepper trees be trimmed to a height of 30 feet, which will allow the trees to still grow to a level twice the height of the foliage owner's ridgeline. The other recommendations she accepted. Joseph Seary (applicant) 6907 Abbottswood Drive, stated he accepted the recommendations of the staff report. John Jacques (foliage owner) 6932 Grovespring Drive distributed photos of his property in 1985 when he purchased the property and photos taken recently. He began by stating that his neighbor's issue of view impairment was, in his opinion, also his right to privacy. He stated when he bought the home there were several large and small trees in his yard. He removed several of the trees over the years to help satisfy his neighbors issue of view impairment. Regarding the staff recommendations, he felt severely trimming the canary island pine would kill the tree. He questioned what would happen if the tree died. Regarding the acacias in the back, he felt trimming them would affect his privacy as well giving the neighbors a view of his house and yard rather than green trees and foliage. He addressed the early neighborhood consultation process. He stated he did not receive a letter from the Searys at 6907 Abbottswood Drive. He did VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 21, 1997 PAGE 4 • not receive a letter from the Mastouses either. He did not feel what he received complied with the requirements of the early neighborhood consultation process. He concluded by saying he was very deeply concerned with the loss of any value to his property, which would occur if required to trim or remove trees from his property, and did not think it was fair. Tom Kinley (foliage owner) 6938 Grovespring Drive, began by stating the staff report indicated that his privacy was provided by dense foliage between the building pad and the level of the top of the slope. He did not feel this was true, as he felt the foliage was quite sparse and his privacy was limited. He stated his foliage had never been maintained in a dense fashion. He explained that five months ago he had a tree trimmer trim trees and foliage on his lot, with emphasis given to address concerns that neighbors had expressed. The pine was trimmed and laced as much as possible, without damaging the tree. He also explained that if he trimmed the trees as requested in the staff report, he would have nothing but branches and trunks left to protect his property. He added that there were health concerns, as his wife could not medically tolerate any sun or even reflective sun. He claimed that for most of the year the trees provided a good deal of shade as the sun moves across the south, especially in the patio area. Finally, he stated the applicants identified several different viewing areas from their properties with many different views. His viewing area is his patio and he did not want to devastate it by giving the applicants a 180 degree, 100 percent view. It would increase their property values dramatically, while decreasing his. He concluded by stating that he had always maintained his property in a responsible matter and had only been approached by Mr. Mastous on four occasions in 21 years, the last time being in 1990 when he asked them to remove approximately 15 feet from the top of the pine tree. That was rejected, as it would probably kill the tree. Mr. Seary had never approached him regarding the trimming of vegetation. Jim Smith 6944 Grovespring Drive (foliage owner) stated he had never been approached by the applicants to trim or remove his foliage until he received his early neighborhood consultation letter. He has over the years kept his yard trimmed and has, as a result, lost most of his privacy. Jil Mastous responded that they paid a premium for their home because of the ocean view and would like to have their view restored. Mr. Jacques stated that the attraction for his property was the foliage and he would like that maintained. Mr. Kinley requested that, in light of the upcoming workshop with City Council and View Restoration Commission, action on this case be held off until comments and resolutions VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 21, 1997 PAGE 5 1111 from the workshop had been obtained. Mr. Smith added that his view was of his trees and he had as much right to that view as others had to their view of the ocean or city. Chair R. Green asked for clarification from staff regarding the viewing areas on the applicants' properties. He stated that Mr. Kinley had mentioned several viewing areas on both of the foliage owners' properties and asked if that was from the application or the staff report. Project Coordinator Ursu responded that it was from the application. Staff considered the primary viewing area on the Seary property from the dining room, kitchen, and family room. These rooms all shared the same view, which was to the north. Chair R. Green asked if these rooms all were connected and shared the same space. Project Coordinator Ursu answered that they were not all in one space. The family room was furthest to the east, the kitchen was in the middle and the dining room was to the left. He continued stating that from the Mastous residence the primary viewing area consisted of the living room, office, and the master bedroom. These rooms all shared the same view. Commissioner Boudreau asked staff to clarify the pad elevation difference between the Jacques residence and the Mastous residence. Project Coordinator Ursu responded that, according to the original grading plan, the Mastous residence was at an elevation of 757 feet and the Jacques elevation was at 734 feet. He added that the Seary residence was at an elevation of 746 feet. Commissioner Karmelich thought it might be helpful if Mrs. Kinley explained her health problem in regards to the sun. Mrs. Kinley explained she had lupus which is a potentially fatal disease. Sunshine could accelerate the disease. The disease could affect the kidneys, the blood, the heart, and the liver. She explained when she stays out of the sunshine she is relatively healthy. However, she is so photosensitive that her car windows have to be specially tinted, as well as her work place. Her backyard has a good amount of shade, which allows her to go out and enjoy the outside. She felt that her neighbors should be a little more sensitive to her special needs in this situation. Chair R. Green noted a fairly large tree on the Smith property that had already been cut VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 21, 1997 PAGE 6 0 • substantially. He wondered if that tree had provided some significant shade to the Kinley property and if they had lost that shade since the trimming. Mrs. Kinley answered that they had lost the shade that tree had provided to them. Chair R. Green asked if a tree that provided a lower canopy, but a canopy that covered the area more horizontally rather than vertically, would be something that might mitigate the situation. Mrs. Kinley could not answer that question, as she was not sure. Chair R. Green explained he was trying to see if planting a tree that was lower growing yet provided a generous and wide canopy, such as a jacaranda, might be a suitable solution. Mr. Kinley answered that he had trouble envisioning that in his yard, as it would have to be planted in the middle of his lawn. He stated he would have to re-landscape his entire yard to accomplish that and didn't feel that would be a viable solution. Chair R. Green added that staff had recommended the pine tree be crowned, which would involve removing some of the middle branches that are in the area blocking the view, and leaving all of the foliage and branches that are up above. He wondered if that was something Mr. Kinley would be satisfied with. Mr. Kinley answered that he recalled the staff report recommended he remove approximately five feet of the branches, which would leave about five feet of a void in the middle of the tree. Project Coordinator Ursu clarified the staff recommendation by stating that Aleppo pine No. 7 was to be trimmed and laced and the branches of Aleppo pine No. 5, located 3 to 8 feet above the Seary pad elevation, were to be removed. Commissioner Boudreau commented that trimming and lacing the pines would result in a nicer, fuller tree. Mr. Kinley stated that he had just trimmed and laced the trees five months ago. Chair R. Green asked Mr. Kinley if he recalled what percentage of the tree had been trimmed and laced. Mr. Kinley responded that he did not know a percentage, he just instructed the trimmers VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 21, 1997 PAGE 7 to thin and remove all they could without affecting the health of the tree. Commissioner Black asked Mr. Kinley if he might want to consider replacing some of his trees with slower growing trees. Mr. Kinley stated that the trees have been there for 21 years and he has been maintaining them for the entire period. He keeps them well trimmed and has lost privacy because of it. Chair R. Green asked Mr. Kinley to clarify the privacy issue as to which of the applicants would have a view of his residence. Mr. Kinley responded that both applicants have a birds eye view of his property because he had thinned his trees five months ago. He felt that by the time he had any decent privacy, he would be forced to trim the trees again. Chair R. Green asked Mr. Kinley if providing some plantings someplace not at the top of the slope, but perhaps some distance down slope, would provide some type of visual screen. Mr. Kinley answered that he was not opposed to taking down some of the other trees, but he did not want to harm the pines. He added that losing the other trees would probably not affect the shade in the yard, but the pines provided good shade to the yard in the afternoon. Chair R. Green asked Mr. Kinley if they were going to be losing some shade from pine tree No. 7, would putting some type of new planting in the area of his property that has a foliage void be a way to add some shade into the yard. Mr. Kinley responded that the reason he has the void was because there was a tree there at one time that he voluntarily removed. That area was primarily a privacy area, not a shade area. The area they seek shade in is primarily the patio area. He stressed to the Commission that he did not want anyone to redesign his landscaping and was happy with what he had. He felt that what he had, when properly trimmed, presented no problem to the neighbors. Chair R. Green asked if Mr. Kinley would have a problem bringing the pines down 4 to 5 feet in height. Mr. Kinley responded that he would not have a problem with that. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 21, 1997 PAGE 8 0 9 Vice Chair Sweetnam asked Mr. Jacques if he had any problem with having the pine tree in the front yard trimmed and laced. Mr. Jacques answered that he had been told by an arborist that severe trimming would probably kill the tree. Vice Chair Sweetnam acknowledged that severe trimming may harm the tree, but asked how he felt about lacing the tree. Mr. Jacques felt that was hard to answer without knowing how it would look. Chair R. Green asked if the acacia trees on the top slope had been cut back recently. Mr. Jacques answered that they had been trimmed in November at the request of the Mastouses. Chair R. Green asked what specific areas of privacy Mr. Jacques felt he would be losing if the trees were trimmed. Mr. Jacques responded that all the acacia trees on the back slope provided privacy from the Mastous property as well as from the house above them. Chair R. Green asked if the acacia were trimmed down to the fence level if that would be a problem. Mr. Jacques answered that the property above the Mastous residence would be able to see down into his property. Chair R. Green asked specifically what part of his property they could see into. Mr. Jacques answered that they would be able to see into the bedroom. Commissioner Boudreau felt that there was a tremendous amount of foliage in Mr. Jacques' back yard and even with topping the acacias there would still be an enormous amount of foliage. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Karmelich. Approved, (6-0) VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 21, 1997 PAGE 9 0 9 RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:55 P.M. the Commission took a short recess until 9:05 P.M. at which time they reconvened. Chair R. Green suggested beginning with 6938 Grovespring, the Kinley property. He began with the Myoporum (tree #1 on the site plan). He noted that staff recommendation was to trim it to a height not to exceed 3 feet above the elevation of the building pad, which he thought sounded reasonable. The Commission agreed with him. The next tree considered was a Pepper tree. The Commission agreed with staff recommendation and Commissioner Goern felt wording should be added so the tree would also be shaped. Pepper Tree No. 3 was discussed and the Commission felt wording should be added to include shaping the tree. Chair R. Green then discussed the Mock Orange (Tree No. 4 on the site plan). He felt that wording should be added that gives the option to replace the Mock Orange with suitable foliage, should the foliage owner decide to have it removed. He questioned staff as to how big a five gallon replacement tree typically was, which was what the Commission had recommended as replacement in the past. Project Coordinator Ursu answered that they were usually no more than 10 feet tall with very little foliage on them. Chair R. Green asked staff if they knew approximately how big a 15 gallon tree would be. Project Coordinator Ursu responded, that depending on the species, it could be 10 to 15 feet in height but with more foliage on it. Chair R. Green suggested the replacement tree be specified as a 15 gallon replacement tree. Regarding Tree No. 5, the Aleppo pine, Chair R. Green asked staff how much of the foliage on the tree was below the Seary pad. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 21, 1997 PAGE 10 11 0 Project Coordinator Ursu answered that approximately 1/3 of the foliage is below the Seary pad. He added that when you look at the tree from the Seary pad, most of the foliage is up near the top of the tree. Commissioner Black felt that if the tree had branches removed and was topped a few feet, it would help the tree grow and the tree will look better. Vice Chair Sweetnam did not feel it was appropriate for the Commission to make recommendations on the part of the tree that was not in the view area. Chair R. Green suggested the Commission accept the staff recommendation regarding the Aleppo Pine No. 5. The Commission agreed. Chair R. Green addressed the Myoporum No. 6 next. He felt the staff recommendation could be accepted as written. The Commission agreed. Tree No. 7, the Aleppo pine was addressed by the Commission next. Chair R. Green commented that the last lacing performed on the tree looked quite good and felt the tree was in good condition. He didn't feel there was too much more lacing that should be done to it. He thought there was a branch or two that needed to be trimmed out of the middle section. Commissioner Black agreed that the branches in the viewing area needed to be removed. She asked staff for an estimate of how much would need to be removed. Project Coordinator Ursu answered that, when viewed from the Mastous property, there was one branch on the west side of the tree that needed to be removed. On the east side of the tree there were 2 branches that needed to be removed. From the Seary property there was only one branch that needed to be removed. That branch was the one lowest to the ground, protruding west. Chair R. Green suggested that rather than trying to "clear cut" a vertical line, to remove certain branches, recognizing they might leave a branch or two in the view line, simply to keep the shape of the tree. Project Coordinator Ursu suggested a rewording to say: Remove the first major branch, VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 21, 1997 PAGE 11 0 0 measuring from the ground up, protruding to the east, and remove the three branches protruding to the west. The Commission agreed with staff recommendation for trees 8, 9, 10 and 11. Regarding Tree No. 12, the unknown, Commissioner Black suggested adding the option that if the tree was removed, it could be replaced with a 15 gallon tree. Chair R. Green then suggested discussing the trees located at the Jacques property. Vice Chair Sweetnam asked if trees 5 and 6 should be trimmed to a height level with the pad, rather than 2 feet above the pad. Trimming them level with the rear yard pad would bring their height down to the top of the lower acacias. Chair R. Green was hesitant to recommend cutting the trees lower just because they would look better aesthetically. If the foliage owner chooses to cut it lower than the commission's recommendation, that would be his choice. Vice Chair Sweetnam felt that cutting the trees to a height 2 feet above the pad would bring the trees down to the level of the top of the wrought iron fence. Chair R. Green pointed out that the top of the wrought iron fence was about the same as the top of the house across the street. After reviewing the pictures, Vice Chair Sweetnam agreed with Chair R. Green that the trees should be cut two feet above the pad level. Chair R. Green felt that the wording should say the trees should be trimmed 30 inches above the rear yard pad elevation. The Canary Island pine was discussed next, tree No. 8. Vice Chair Sweetnam felt that lacing and trimming the tree would adequately restore the view. Principal Planner Rojas commented that since there was a finding made that there was no significant view impairment from one of the applicant's, there should be language in one of the findings that states that. He suggested that in finding section 3 on the first page of the Resolution, language should be added to state that there is no significant view impairment from the property at 6944 Grovespring Drive. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to adopt the Resolution, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Goern. Adopted, (6-0). VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 21, 1997 PAGE 12 • • NEW BUSINESS 4. CITY COUNCIL AND VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION WORKSHOP (JR) Principal Planner Rojas reported that the City Council had changed the date of the workshop to September 16, 1997, at their last regular City Council meeting. He explained that the Council agreed with the proposal to cancel the View Restoration Commission meeting of September 18 because of the workshop. He briefly explained the anticipated format for the meeting. Finally, he explained to the Commission the City Council direction regarding View Restoration appeals. Appeals were to be accepted, temporarily, without a fee, until the issues are resolved at the workshop. However, appeals would not be processed or heard without an appeal fee. Maureen Ford 30659 Ganado Drive discussed her opinion that all upcoming View Restoration Commission decisions be suspended until after the City Council meeting. Nick Popadakos 3228 Parkhurst Drive explained he felt the Commission should not suspend their work until the voters or a court of law told them to stop. 5. RESPONSES TO PUBLIC LETTERS (JR) Vice Chair Sweetnam reviewed with the Commission the letter he drafted in response to several Letters to the Editor in the newspaper. A discussion followed as to how the letter was to be submitted to the newspaper, whether it needed to be approved by anyone at City Hall, and whether it should be submitted as a letter from the Commission as a whole. Mayor John McTaggert spoke on the issue and reminded the Commission that if the letter will be signed by several Commissioners that it should be the consensus of the Commission to take such action. Commissioner Long was going to add a paragraph to the letter and the Commission felt it was something that should be sent to the newspaper. The Commission also discussed a memo that Commissioner Long had written regarding some of the comments and suggestions brought up in the letters to the editor. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 21, 1997 PAGE 13 40 6 Vice Chair Sweetnam moved that the draft letter be given to Commissioner Long to edit and that the finalized version be forwarded to each Commissioner who had the choice to sign it or not. Once signed, the letter would be forwarded to several newspapers in the area, seconded by Commissioner Black. Approved, (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Principal Planner Rojas commented there would be an item placed on the next agenda for discussion of the draft outline for the upcoming workshop. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Black. The meeting was duly adjourned at 10:20 P.M. to Tuesday, September 16, 1997, 7:00 P.M. to a workshop with the City Council. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 21, 1997 PAGE 14