Loading...
VRC MINS 19970807 • APPROVED 10/02/97 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 7, 1997 The meeting was called to order by Chair R. Green at 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park Community Building, 29310 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Commissioner Karmelich. PRESENT: Commissioners Black, Boudreau, Goern, A. Green, Karmelich, Marshall, Long, Vice Chair Sweetnam, Chair R. Green ABSENT: None Also present were Principal Planner Rojas, Project Coordinator Ursu, and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Boudreau moved to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Black. Approved, (9-0). COMMUNICATIONS Principal Planner Rojas distributed a request for a continuance for View Restoration Permit No. 45 from the foliage owner as well as a field inspection report from the City Geologist for View Restoration Permit No. 45. Staff also informed the Commission of a workshop scheduled with the City Council on Saturday, September 6, 1997 and that packets for the August 21, 1997 View Restoration Commission meeting will be distributed on Monday, August 11, 1997 because of a computer failure at City Hall. A brief discussion followed among the Commissioners as to what type of format was anticipated for the workshop and how it would be run. Commissioner Long moved to agendize the discussion of the joint workshop with City Council to the next View Restoration Commission meeting, seconded by Commissioner Black. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Vice Chair Sweetnam discussed letters to the editor that have been appearing in the local newspapers that seem to be full of misstatements and misunderstandings. He felt that the Commission should respond to these and offer an explanation of the Commission's responsibilities and function. • • Principal Planner Rojas explained to the Commission that any one Commissioner could respond in writing to a letter in a newspaper. However, writing a letter that states an official position of the Commission would have to be considered by the entire Commission as an agenda item and may have to be approved by the City Manager or City Council. Commissioner Long suggested that the editorial letters be included in the next packet of information given to the Commission so they could be discussed at the next meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF JULY 10, 1997 Vice Chair Sweetnam pointed out an error in the vote on page 3 of the minutes and an error in a name on page 14 Commissioner Black moved to adopt the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. Approved, (9-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. PROCEDURES HANDOUT Principal Planner Rojas suggested the Procedures Handout be discussed after the Public Hearing item for the benefit of the applicants and foliage owners in the audience. Chair R. Green agreed to continue the item to after the Public Hearing. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 42: Mr. and Mrs. Tom McFadden, 30731 Ganado Drive; Mr. and Mrs. Felix Krasovec, 3041 Ganado Drive; Mr. and Mrs. Kena Hamilton, 30747 Ganado Drive (TN) Principal Planner Rojas pointed out to the Commission that staff was recommending the item be continued to the September 4, 1997 meeting. Commissioner Black moved to continue the item to the September 4, 1997 View Restoration Commission meeting, seconded by Commissioner Goern. Approved, (9-0). VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 7, 1997 PAGE 2 4. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 45: Dr. and Mrs. John Chou, 29500 Highpoint Road (EU) Before beginning, Chair R. Green discussed a request from the foliage owner requesting a continuance of the item. Commissioner Long felt that the basis of the request, which was possible changes to Proposition M as a result of the upcoming workshop, was not a valid reason and the Commission had a responsibility to hear the item tonight. Commissioner Long made a motion to reject the request for continuance, seconded by Commissioner Black. Approved, (9-0). Chair R. Green opened the public hearing. The Commission was polled as to who had visited the site. All Commissioners had visited the site, therefore the two alternates, Commissioners Long and Karmelich, would not participate in the discussion. Project Coordinator Ursu then presented the staff report, explaining the request was to restore the view of the Pacific Ocean, San Pedro, Vincent Thomas Bridge, and the harbor which was being impaired by 5 pine trees and 1 other type of tree. Mr. Ursu explained that in Staffs opinion the Pepper Tree on the foliage owners property was not significantly impairing a view and no action was recommended on that tree. Staff was recommending that 2 pine trees be removed and the other 3 be heavily laced. If removal was not acceptable with the foliage owner, staff recommended topping. Further, the City Geologist visited the site and recommended that if any pine trees were removed from the slope that the slope be planted with a plant that had a woody root system to help maintain the stability of the slope. The city geologist also noted a drain pipe inlet at the top of the slope was clogged and should be opened to help prevent slope failure. Finally, he suggested the top of the slope should be bermed with a soil berm to prevent spillage over the top of the slope. Dr. John Chou (applicant) 29500 Highpoint Road stated that the reason he bought his house was for the view, and his purpose for this application was not to cut down trees, but to restore a view. He felt that views were a great asset to the peninsula and needed to be restored and preserved. Finally, Dr. Chou explained that the staff recommendation would not restore his view. The view could not be restored unless all of the trees in the application were removed. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 7, 1997 PAGE 3 • 111 Mr. Bremsner (foliage owner) 3070 Crownview Drive, began by stating there was a privacy issue involved, and they wanted to protect as much of their privacy as possible. Further, he did not want to be under the command of his neighbor who could dictate to them what needed to be done in order to satisfy their need for an unobstructed view. He pointed out that the applicant was fully aware of the trees when he purchased the property. Mr. Bremsner also stated that he topped the trees by approximately 15 feet. Finally, Mr. Bremsner stated that the applicant bought his property at a lower price because of the partially obstructed view. Therefore, if the trees were removed the applicant stood to gain an increase in the value of his property at Mr. Bremsner's expense. The value of his property would be greatly diminished. He felt that, if a compromise had to be reached, then the staff recommendation was not too far off the mark, but he wanted to make sure that the trimming was done by a licensed arborist and in accordance with the laws of the state of California. Roy Rawlings 29624 Grandpoint Lane explained he was a neighbor of Dr. Chou and his view was also directly impaired by the trees. He explained that when he first purchased his property the trees did not exist and he had a beautiful view. As the trees grew, the past owners would always keep them trimmed and laced so that no views would be blocked. Linda Rawlings 29624 Grandpoint Lane reminded the Commission that the way Miraleste Hills was laid out it was virtually impossible not to see the house below you, therefore she did not feel privacy should be an issue. She did not feel the trees should be topped, as that would encourage vigorous regrowth. She also did not agree with staffs recommendation to remove only 2 trees. She felt all 5 should be removed. Dr. Chou agreed that privacy should not be an issue in this application. He felt that the foliage owner's attitude was to give as little as possible and he felt that was not the spirit of the peninsula. He felt that the spirit should be to restore and protect the beautiful views available from the peninsula. Commissioner Marshall asked staff if, as a matter of policy, the Commission should consider in it's recommendations any adjacent property owners, other than the applicant and foliage owner listed on the application. Principal Planner Rojas responded that unless a property owner is a formal applicant, views from neighboring properties should not be considered when making a recommendation. Commissioner Marshall then asked staff what the space would be between the trees once the two pines were removed, and what affect would the lacing have on the view. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 7, 1997 PAGE 4 11, Project Coordinator Ursu answered that currently the pines are spaced approximately 10 feet apart. If the third and fifth pines were removed, then between the 2nd and 4th tree there would be approximately 20 feet of clear space, and between the 4th and 6th tree there would be approximately 20 feet of clear space. In Staffs opinion, simply lacing the third and fifth pines would not restore the applicant's view. Chair R. Green asked Mr. Ursu what his recommendation would be if the foliage owner did not give his consent for the removal of pines 3 and 5. Project Coordinator Ursu answered that the trees would be topped and the other trees would still be laced. Chair R. Green asked staff if there was any recommendation as far as replacement foliage if the trees were removed. Project Coordinator Ursu responded that replacement foliage was being recommended since the trees were planted on a slope. Staff has a list of approved foliage available for the foliage owner to choose from to help maintain the slope. Commissioner Marshall asked Mr. Bremsner if he was able or planned to take any action regarding his blocked drain pipe or the suggested berm on his hillside. Mr. Bremsner answered that he did not fully understand what the city geologist was asking him to do and would have to consult with him. He was not aware of the problems and would attend to them. Vice Chair Sweetnam asked Mr. Bremsner if the Commission were to call for the topping of the pine trees, would he prefer to have the trees topped or would he like them removed and replaced with something else. Mr. Bremsner answered that it was a difficult question to answer and at this point they did not want the trees to be removed. Since staff was saying the tree may die if they are topped it made the question even more difficult to answer. He replied that they would have to think about the answer. Chair R. Green wondered, since the pines have most of their foliage near the top, if Mr. Bremsner might not be satisfied if the trees were replaced with trees that had foliage growing lower. This may also help provide more privacy to the residence. Mr. Bremsner responded that he was not sure at this point. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 7, 1997 PAGE 5 • • Commissioner Black reconfirmed that Mr. Bremsner did not want his trees removed at this time. Mr. Bremsner agreed. Commissioner Boudreau commented that the way the trees were presently growing they were too close together, with most of the foliage at the top. This was providing little privacy to the foliage owners and not allowing the trees to get adequate sun. The trees need to be thinned out for them to be healthy. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Goern. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Vice Chair Sweetnam began the discussion by stating his first recommendation would be that the pine trees be removed and replaced with something else. Chair R. Green felt the language for removal should be left in the Resolution giving the foliage owner an option, with language included that stated the replacement foliage should have a woody root system. Vice Chair Sweetnam continued by stating that since the foliage owner did not seem willing to have the pines removed, the next step would be to have all six trees topped to a height not to exceed 50 feet above the foliage owner's building pad elevation. Commissioner Boudreau was not satisfied that, should the foliage owner consent to removal, removing trees 3 and 5 and lacing the rest would restore the view. She felt the remaining trees should be topped. Commissioner Goern agreed, stating that if there were heavy lacing there would be heavy growth. She would prefer to see topping. Chair R. Green thought it might be better to top trees 3 and 5 and lace the others, rather than top all six. Commissioner A. Green thought the question came down to, should there be laced pine trees in this particular viewing area. Were these trees serving a purpose being located where they were. Chair R. Green felt that lacing was a means available to the Commission and it would be appropriate to look at that issue, and if the conclusion is that lacing is not appropriate to restore the view in this situation then, and only then, should the VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 7, 1997 PAGE 6 110 11 Commission consider topping trees. Vice Chair Sweetnam added that lacing one single pine tree in a viewing area could normally be an acceptable solution. However in this situation, there are six trees in a row and he did not feel that lacing six trees would solve the problem. Chair R. Green acknowledged this but asked what would happen if two trees were removed and the four remaining laced. Vice Chair Sweetnam answered that even in that situation there were too many trees involved and lacing would not restore the view. Commissioner Black added that she could see leaving trees one and six laced, but not trees two, three, four and five. Vice Chair Sweetnam did not feel these trees were the type of trees that were shaped nicely and a laced version of it would not look very good. The trees are too bushy and would grow back as a bush if laced. Commissioner Goern added that she felt there were too many trees in question to adequately lace. After reviewing photographs of the area, Commissioner A. Green noted a 60 to 70 percent view blockage by this particular barrier of trees. He felt that by taking out pieces of the blockage, there would still be a large percentage of blockage. He felt the Commission should offer the foliage owner the opportunity of having all of the trees removed and have adequate replacement foliage. If this was not satisfactory, then all trees should be topped. Chair R. Green asked the Commission what would be an appropriate number of replacement trees/foliage to offer the foliage owner. Project Coordinator Ursu stated that the city geologist had suggested replanting 5 one gallon shrubs, spaced equally so that there would be a new shrub next to the stump of each removed tree. He added there was a list of suitable trees and shrubs that have a woody root system that the city geologist felt would help maintain the slope. The foliage owner would be able to choose from the list what type of replacement tree he would prefer. Chair R. Green summarized the findings by stating the six pine trees located on the slope were to be removed, with the owner's consent. Removal would constitute cutting VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 7, 1997 PAGE 7 the trees flush with the ground and leaving the roots in the ground. Replacement foliage would consist of foliage with woody root systems with a sufficient number provided to cover the area. If the foliage owner does not grant authority to remove the pine trees, then all pine trees shall be topped to a height not to exceed 50 feet above the foliage owners building pad elevation. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to adopt the Resolution as amended, seconded by Commissioner Goern. Adopted (7-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:35 there was a short recess until 8:45 at which time the meeting was reconvened. CONTINUED BUSINESS 5. PROCEDURES HANDOUT Principal Planner Rojas began the discussion by stating that the Commission had requested there be some type of handout given to applicants and foliage owners that briefly summarized and explained the different points and issues encountered in the process and helped prepare them for the process, hearing, and what is to occur after the decisions are made. Based on that direction, he put a very brief outline together of the topics that would be covered in putting together such a handout. He was asking the Commission to review these topics and add any additional items they felt were necessary. Commissioner Long felt there should be a point added near paragraph 4a that states the Commission is not authorized to address legal and constitutional issues and that speakers shouldn't waste their allotted time before the Commission raising issues regarding interpretation, validity, and constitutionality of the Ordinance which the Commission is not empowered to address. Commissioner Black felt it was very important to have at the end of the handout some type of addendum which just covered the definition of terms commonly used throughout the process. Commissioner Long added that it would be helpful to add something that explained that the applicant and foliage owner may want to submit in writing something to the Commission that comments specifically on the recommendations of the staff report. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 7, 1997 PAGE 8 0 6 Principal Planner Rojas added that, as with City Council appeal hearings on View Restoration Permit discussions, he would like to request that if applicants or foliage owners wished to submit something in writing to the View Restoration Commission, they do so at least seven days prior to the hearing. This will ensure that the information will be included in the Commissioner's agenda packets. Commissioner Long suggested that any correspondence asked to be forwarded to the Commission regarding anything other than specific comments on staff recommendations be filed seven days before the meeting. Only specific comments on staff recommendations can be brought to the hearing, and provided they are limited to two pages. Commissioner A. Green suggested a form be attached to the staff reports for the foliage owners and applicants to fill out where they can specifically state their agreements or disagreements on the recommendations made in the staff report. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Commissioner A. Green requested staff provide the Commission with photos of past view restoration cases that are complete. He would like to see the before and after photos of as many cases as possible to see how the sites turned out. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Ken Dyda 5715 Capeswood Drive, suggested the City prepare a form for real estate agents that explained Proposition M and require the agents to give this form to anyone purchasing a home in Rancho Palos Verdes. He also discussed the issue of replacement foliage and how he did not feel five gallon replacement trees were fair or reasonable for a foliage owner who was possibly losing a large, mature tree. James Quong 26144 Barkstone Drive, explained that he was a foliage owner from a case several years ago. He pointed out a clerical error made in his approved Resolution and asked the Commission and city staff to please do something to correct the error. Principal Planner Rojas stated he would check the records, check with the City Attorney, and contact Mr. Quong. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 7, 1997 PAGE 9 4 6 Maureen Ford 30659 Ganado Drive, began by telling the Commission she really wanted to see this Commission succeed in it's purposes. She cautioned the Commissioners that they needed to be sensitive and understanding to the speakers when they were speaking before the Commission. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner A. Green moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Black. There being no objection, the meeting was duly adjourned at 9:42 P.M. to Thursday, August 21, 1997 at 7:00 P.M. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 7, 1997 PAGE 10