Loading...
VRC MINS 19970619 0 0 APPROVED 7/24/97 CP CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 19, 1997 The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Sweetnam 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, Goern, A. Green, Long, Marshall, Karmelich, Vice Chair Sweetnam ABSENT: Chair R. Green (excused) Also present were Principal Planer Rojas, Project Coordinator Nelson, Project Coordinator Ursu, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Boudreau moved to accept the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Goern. Approved, (8-0) COMMUNICATIONS Principal Planner Rojas distributed copies of the View Restoration Ordinance from the town of Tiburon and copies of the City's newly adopted City Tree Review Ordinance. Commissioner A. Green reported on a conversation he had with the applicant of V.R.C. Permit 38, Ms. Bonnie Hoenisch, who informed him that she was not aware of the fact that once the Commission had ruled on an application the applicant still had the option to withdraw selected trees or foliage from the findings and continue to have the rest of the findings taken care of. Because of the lack of this knowledge, she had elected to keep several trees on the foliage owners property out of her application because she was afraid the cost of the entire removal would be too high. Commissioner Green reported that he had explained to Ms. Hoenisch the fact that she had 30 days from the adoption of the Resolution to decide which trees or foliage she would like to have removed and which she would like to withdraw from the application. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF MAY 1, 1997 Commissioner A. Green pointed out a minor correction on page 4, paragraph 4, indicating that it should be clarified that it was Commissioner A. Green making the comments. Commissioner A. Green moved to adopt the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Goern. Approved, (8-0). 2. MINUTES OF MAY 15, 1997 Commissioner Black pointed out a grammatical error on page 4. Commissioner A. Green pointed out an error on the time of adjournment. Commissioner Boudreau moved to adopt the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. Approved, (8-0). 3. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 28 - RESOLUTION Principal Planner Rojas informed the Vice Chair that there were two speakers who wished to comment on this item. Vice Chair Sweetnam felt it would be easiest to first go through the Resolution, then hear comments from the speakers. Commissioner A. Green pointed out that on page 2 of the Resolution, Section 5, the fourth line should read "25 feet", rather than 925 feet. Section 11, fourth line was not consistent with the rest of the Resolution. Rubber Trees 1, 2 and 3 were to be removed, not trimmed or topped. Principal Planner Rojas explained that the audience comments on this item would actually be directed at the Consent Calendar since this item was on the Consent Calendar portion of the agenda. Based on the comments, the Commission could then vote to remove the item from the Consent Calendar to discuss it as part of the agenda. Mr. Richard Denno (applicant), commented that he was speaking in support of the Resolution. Mrs. Jenny Cotrufo (foliage owner), commented that she would rather have the avocado and Podocarpus trees removed, Hibiscus tree trimmed to the ridgeline of the residence, and the unknown tree topped and maintained. Principal Planner Rojas reminded the Commission they could now vote to move this VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 19, 1997 PAGE 2 item off of the Consent Calendar and on to the agenda for further discussion, but he cautioned the Commission that any discussion would need to be limited to the language of the Resolution, making sure the Resolution was consistent with the prior decision made. If there was a desire to change the decision in any manner, there would then be a need for a notice of public hearing. Vice Chair Sweetnam felt that there was no reason to make a change to the Resolution since the way it was currently worded reflected an option for the foliage owner to either trim the trees or remove them. Commissioner A. Green questioned whether the rubber trees were to be removed or topped, as the Resolution did not give the foliage owner the option. Commissioner A. Green moved to move View Restoration Permit No. 28- Resolution from the Consent Calendar to the Agenda (Item No. 6) for further discussion, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. Approved, (7-1) with Commissioner Long objecting. 4. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 32 -RESOLUTION After reviewing the Resolution and attachments Vice Chair Sweetnam asked Staff if there were any speakers on this item. Mr. John Bannister (applicant) read a letter he received from the Ridgegate Condominium Association stating that the trees and foliage in question would be trimmed or removed on or before the middle of June. Mr. Bannister recalled that it had been agreed at the last View Restoration Commission meeting that the trees would be removed rather than trimmed. He also felt that the trees would not be trimmed down to a level low enough to restore his view. Commissioner A. Green moved to move View Restoration Permit No. 32- Resolution from the Consent Calendar to the Agenda (Item No. 7) for further discussion, seconded by Commissioner Marshall. Commissioner Long objected to the motion by stating that the Commission was empowered under Ordinance 319 to make the order for the removal of a tree or foliage if the foliage owner consented to the removal. In the case of Item No. 3 and Item No. 4, the foliage owners had agreed to removal at the time of the public hearing, and since the Commission could not at this time change the decision without a new notice and public hearing, he did not see the need to remove the items from the Consent Calendar. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 19, 1997 PAGE 3 Commissioner A. Green responded that in all of the past decisions from the View Restoration Commission the Resolutions were worded in such a way as to give the foliage owner the option to have the tree or foliage trimmed to a specified height or removed. He felt that since that language was not included in this Resolution the Commission was obligated to reopen the item for discussion. Commissioner Long urged the Commissioners to leave this item on the Consent Calendar and agree that if an agreement was made in an open public hearing the Commission was going to hold the parties to that agreement. Allowing the items to be further discussed and re-examined was allowing the parties involved to retract consent they had already given. Vice Chair Sweetnam asked for a vote on the motion before the Commission. The motion to remove View Restoration Permit No. 32-Resolution from the Consent Calendar failed by a vote of 3-5 with Commissioners Long, Boudreau, Marshall, Goern, and Black dissenting. Commissioner Long moved to place Item No. 6 (View Restoration Permit No. 28- Resolution) back on to the Consent Calendar by the same rational as used for Item No. 7, seconded by Commissioner Black. Vice Chair Sweetnam felt that Item No. 6 needed further clarification from the foliage owner, who was present at this meeting, as to the status of her rubber trees. Commissioner Long agreed and withdrew his motion. Vice Chair Sweetnam reviewed the findings of the Resolution for View Restoration Permit No. 32. He included Commissioner A. Green's comments that the Commission did not have the authority to remove trees or foliage without the foliage owner's consent. However, he felt clarification was needed as to whether the foliage owners had agreed to remove the trees and foliage during the public hearing. Commissioner A. Green felt the problem with the Resolution was that nowhere in the Resolution did it state what was going to happen to each individual tree. Commissioner Long responded that Exhibit A stated that all trees were going to be removed. He further stated that in reviewing the minutes of May 15, 1997 on page 8 the President of the Homeowners Association stated the Homeowners Association was willing to have all of the trees in question removed, thereby giving their consent. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 19, 1997 PAGE 4 1111 Commissioner Long made a motion to adopt V.R.C. Resolution 97-9 as amended, for View Restoration Permit No. 32, seconded by Commissioner Black. Approved, (6-1) with Commissioner A. Green dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 38: Ms. Bonnie Hoenisch, 6343 Rio Linda Drive (EU) Project Coordinator Ursu presented the staff report explaining that, while the applicant felt all seven trees in the application created a significant view impairment, staff had determined that the two Purple Leaf Acacia shrubs, the two Eucalyptus trees, and the Liquid Amber tree (which was not included on the application) created a significant view impairment. All the view impairing foliage was located in the rear yard. One eucalyptus tree and two Acacia trees were excluded from the application because they did not impair a protected view. Staff determined that development in Palos Verdes Estates and vegetation outside the City limits caused the view impairment of city lights, not the Eucalyptus and Acacia. Mr. Ursu further reported that the foliage owner had expressed concern over the loss of privacy if the two Purple Leaf Acacia shrubs were removed. Commissioner A. Green asked staff why they recommended the liquid amber tree's crown be reduced 18 inches and laced, and not be reduced to the ridgeline. Project Coordinator Ursu responded that the Liquid Amber should be laced and trimmed back rather than topped because it would look better aesthetically and lacing would allow the applicant a view through the foliage. Furthermore, topping the Liquid Amber tree would restore a view of the sky, not the ocean. Before opening the public hearing, Vice Chair Sweetnam polled the Commissioners on who had visited the site. All Commissioners had visited the site. Since Chair R. Green was not present at the meeting, Commissioner Long would be voting on this application. Commissioner Boudreau moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Black. The motion was passed without objection. Bonnie Hoenisch (applicant) 6343 Rio Linda Drive, distributed pictures to the Commission and explained that the major selling point of this property when they purchased it in 1964 was the view. They paid considerably more for the property VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 19, 1997 PAGE 5 • Ill because of the view at that time. Ms. Hoenisch felt that privacy was not an issue since they could presently see very easily into the foliage owners back yard, patio, living room, bathroom, and bedroom windows. She further stated that she disagreed with Exhibit A of the Resolution regarding the omission of the trees in her application. Commissioner A. Green asked Ms. Hoenisch if the three trees on her property not identified in the application, a 30 foot Acacia tree, a 30 foot Eucalyptus tree, and an 18 foot Acacia tree, all on the right side of the property, should be included in the application. Ms. Hoenisch replied that she would like these trees to be included in the application and that they should be trimmed or laced. Mary Julie Hessick (foliage owner) 6318 Monero Drive, began by stating when they moved into their house 25 years ago all of the trees and foliage was small and had grown over 25 years. She felt that they have maintained their property and have already removed a Sugar Pine, 3 Acacias, 2 Liquid Amber trees, and a Pepper tree. They have continually maintained and trimmed their trees over the years. Ms. Hessick further stated that the trees in the back yard not only provided privacy but gave shade to the yard and house during the day. She agreed to the trimming of the Hop Seed shrubs, but did not want them removed because of the privacy issue. The two Eucalyptus and the Liquid Amber she also agreed to trim, but wanted to point out that the Liquid Amber does lose it's leaves and is leafless 6 months out of the year. Commissioner Boudreau asked for clarification regarding the Acacia and Hop Seed. Ms. Hessick replied that what Mr. Ursu referred to as Purple Leaf Acacia shrubs were actually Hop Seed bushes. Commissioner Marshall asked how much of the Hop Seed was specified to be topped. Ms. Hessick answered that staff had specified topping the Hop Seed two feet above the pad of the applicant's property, and that was acceptable to her. Commissioner Boudreau asked Ms. Hessick about trimming or topping the Acacia on the back of the property. Commissioner A. Green clarified that the tree Commissioner Boudreau was referring to was not included in the application. Project Coordinator Ursu further clarified that staff had excluded that Acacia from the VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 19, 1997 PAGE 6 • 0 application, since if the tree was trimmed, the view of the city lights would still be blocked by foliage and structures outside of the city limits. Ms. Hessick added that according to Sunset Western Garden Book, that type of tree generally has a life span of 25 years. This tree is 35 years old now, and she was very concerned that if it is cut in any way it will not come back. Principal Planner Rojas clarified for the Commission that the tree being discussed was actually part of the application, however Staff did not recommend any action on the tree and therefore it was not included in the recommendations. If the Commission disagrees with Staffs recommendation, it may take action on the tree, since the tree is technically part of the application. Commissioner A. Green felt it would be helpful if, in future staff reports, all trees are included in the recommendations whether or not any action was being recommended by Staff. Commissioner A. Green moved to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Goern. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner A. Green asked staff, specifically regarding the applicant's view loss of the city lights to the north, for a more detailed analysis on how staff came to its conclusions. Specifically, what percentage of that view was gone and what was currently blocking that view. Project Coordinator Ursu distributed pictures taken by the applicant in the early 1960's. He pointed out in the pictures where he and Project Coordinator Nelson had stood and where they had looked to see if they could view city lights. He explained there is now vegetation that is outside the city limit line that eliminates all of the city light view. There is also a large house in Palos Verdes Estates that blocks the view. Commissioner Boudreau felt that if you top the Acacia tree it would make no difference to the foliage owner as far as privacy, but would open up a view of city lights for the applicant. Commissioner Black agreed that she saw no privacy issue with the Acacia tree. Commissioner A. Green stated that the only privacy issue was the Hop Seed bushes, which do an excellent job in protecting the foliage owners privacy. Commissioner Boudreau asked what it would take to top the Acacia down to the top of VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 19, 1997 PAGE 7 • • the applicant's pad or possibly down to the top of the fence. She didn't feel the tree would have to be topped too much. Project Coordinator Ursu responded that it would have to be topped quite a bit, possibly half of the tree, thereby removing all of the foliage. Commissioner A. Green mentioned that besides the Acacia tree there was also on the right hand side of the property two thirty foot trees, one Eucalyptus and one Acacia, that block the view. He felt that if those trees were brought down to the ridgeline there would be a little foliage left. Commissioner Boudreau felt the Liquid Amber tree should be brought down more than the 18 inches recommended by staff and trimmed and laced. She further stated that all of the trees on the left side (looking down on the property) needed to be cleaned up and trimmed. Vice Chair Sweetnam reviewed the recommendations of staff, beginning with the Purple Leaf Acacia. He directed staff to change "Purple Leaf Acacia" to "Hop Seed". He reminded the Commission that the foliage owner did not want to remove the Hop Seed, so the recommendation should be to trim it to two feet above the applicant's pad. Replacement vegetation, therefore, would not be an issue. Commissioner Boudreau asked Project Coordinator Ursu how he came to the decision to trim the Liquid Amber 18 inches. Project Coordinator Ursu responded that he mainly considered the width of the tree. Bringing the width of the tree in 18 inches off of each side would be adequate. Commissioner Boudreau was more concerned with the height of the tree. Therefore, she would recommend lowering the tree to restore the view. Commissioner A. Green had the opinion that the Liquid Amber should not be topped at all. He did not feel the crown should be dealt with much at all. It was not the height of the tree that blocked the view. The height was blocking sky. He felt lacing would help. After reviewing a picture of the area, Vice Chair Sweetnam asked staff to provide more information on the growing patterns of Liquid Amber trees before they could make a decision. The Commissioners discussed the Eucalyptus and felt that the staff recommendation was good, as Eucalyptus would bounce back after being trimmed or topped. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 19, 1997 PAGE 8 • 0 Commissioner A. Green's comment was the wording of#3 of Exhibit A. He felt a slight rewording was necessary. Commissioner A. Green further felt it would be helpful if staff would give additional information to the Commission regarding the Acacia (the one staff had no recommendation on). He wanted to know what would be left of the tree if it were topped to a level necessary for the view to be restored. Commissioner Boudreau also requested staff to identify the type of Eucalyptus being considered. Vice Chair Sweetnam requested staff to produce more photographs that would help clarify the situation at the site. Commissioner A. Green moved to continue View Restoration Permit No. 38 to the July 10, 1997 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Goern. There being no objection, it was so ordered. RECESS AND RECOVENCE At 8:50 P.M. there was a brief recess until 9:05 P.M. when the meeting reconvened. OTHER ITEMS 6. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 28 - RESOLUTION Vice Chair Sweetnam began by stating he felt the question to be resolved was the question of Rubber Trees #1, 2, and 3. He reminded the Commission that the Resolution stated the trees were to be removed and the stumps ground up. He felt the foliage owner had stated this evening that she didn't agree with that finding. Project Coordinator Nelson responded that the foliage owner did not make any statement about her rubber trees. Commissioner Long read from the minutes of May 15, 1997 where the foliage owner stated twice she would rather have the applicants remove the trees than try to maintain the trees to the ridgeline. He therefore felt it was not pertinent if, at this time, the foliage owner had changed her mind. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 19, 1997 PAGE 9 Principal Planner Rojas reminded the Commission they could not open the public hearing on this matter. They could only discuss the language of the Resolution and make sure it was clear and represented the decision made by the Commission. Vice Chair Sweetnam again asked Staff it the foliage owner, when she spoke earlier in the meeting, had specifically said she did not want Rubber Trees 1, 2, and 3 removed. Project Coordinator Nelson responded that Ms. Catrufo had not made any statements that evening regarding her rubber trees. She had specifically spoken about her Photocarpus, Hibiscus, and the unknown tree. Principal Planner Rojas clarified that although the Commission could not reopen the public hearing, it could ask the foliage owner or applicant questions for clarification. Commissioner A. Green was still uncomfortable with the wording of the Resolution as it did not give the option to the foliage owner to refuse to remove the trees. He felt past Resolutions had given the option for topping or lacing if the foliage owner did not agree to removal. He wondered if this was setting a precedent that if an owner decides during a meeting that they will allow a tree to be removed, that they give up the right to rescind the decision in the future. Project Coordinator Nelson responded that this was the first case the Commission had heard where the foliage owner had agreed to the removal of a tree during the public hearing. Commissioner Long summarized what the problem was by stating that he felt Commissioner A. Green was saying he felt the Commission in the past had worded the Resolutions to say, even though consent was given at a public hearing, the foliage owner should have the right at any time, up to and including the time the tree was to be cut, to withdraw consent. Mr. Long felt that the Ordinance did not require that type of wording and felt the Commission should establish precedence that when either foliage owners or applicants say something in a public hearing, granting consent, the Commission should hold them to their word. Commissioner Boudreau felt that if that were the case, the applicants and foliage owners should be made aware of that. Commissioner A. Green responded that if this were the course to follow, then extra care would need to be taken to make sure that it was reflected in the minutes exactly what the foliage owner said regarding the foliage, and the question "Are you sure that you will allow this tree to be removed" must be asked, and that the foliage owner must VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 19, 1997 PAGE 10 0 0 understand that once they answer that question they lose the right to rescind. The Commission then discussed how best to do that and it was decided that all applicants and foliage owners would be given something in writing during the application process. Commissioner A. Green then asked if in this case the Commission should stick to the old wording in this Resolution. Commissioner Long felt that the Commission should include within the existing Resolution findings that support and are consistent with the decision already made. A finding should be included in this case that states that trimming, cutting, lacing, or reducing of the foliage of the rubber trees would probably kill the trees and the owner has consented to their removal. Commissioner A. Green suggested a finding that states that since the foliage owner finds it a great expense to maintain the tree if topped, and agrees to have the trees removed, then the Commission so finds that the trees shall be removed. Commissioner Long made a motion to adopt the Resolution with an amendment to add Section 12 to specify that the trimming, cutting, lacing, or reduction of Rubber Trees #1, 2, and 3 would not be economical because of the maintenance cost and the owner of the rubber trees has consented to the removal of Rubber Trees #1, 2, and 3, seconded by Commissioner Black. Approved, (7-0-1) with Vice Chair Sweetnam abstaining. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Principal Planner Rojas informed the Commission that staff was working with the City Attorney on the issue of the interpretation of the view documentation procedures for Proposition M. The City Attorney is in the process of preparing a formal opinion to give to the Commission for discussion and direction and then take it to the City Council. This will be discussed on the next agenda. Principal Planner Rojas also informed the Commission that the July 10, 1997 meeting would include the item of continued business from tonight in addition to three new cases, V.R.P. 31, 40 and 41. Commissioner A. Green added that he would like to discuss at a future meeting some type of process for providing information on procedures to applicants and foliage VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 19, 1997 PAGE 11 • owners, perhaps some type of hand-out. Commissioner Black agreed that some type of hand-out would be helpful and asked that include simple terminology used during the view restoration process, such as lacing, topping, ridgeline, etc. Vice Chair Sweetnam added that something like that could be handed out with the view restoration application. Principal Planner Rojas agreed to place this item on a future agenda. Principal Planner Rojas informed the Commission that the first appeal of a View Restoration Commission decision was to be brought before City Council on July 1, 1997. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Black moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Goern. The meeting was duly adjourned at 9:50 P.M. to July 10, 1997, 7:00 P.M. and, there being no objection it was so ordered by Vice Chair Sweetnam, (8-0). N:\GROUP\PLANNING\VRC\97MIN06.19 VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 19, 1997 PAGE 12