Loading...
VRC MINS 19970220 APPROVED 0 • MARCH 20, 1997 (b CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 1997 The meeting was called to order by Chair R. Green at 7:08 P.M. at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Commissioner A. Green. PRESENT: Commissioners Boudreau, A. Green, Marshall, Long, Vice Chair Sweetnam, Chair R. Green ABSENT: Commissioners Black, Goern, Karmelich (excused), and Gee Also present were Principal Planner Rojas, Project Coordinator Carter, Project Coordinator Nelson, and Recording Secretary Peterson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to accept the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. Approved, (6-0). COMMUNICATIONS Principal Planner Rojas distributed a letter from the applicant of View Restoration Permit No. 20 requesting continuance of the project to March 20, 1997 and letters regarding View Restoration Permit No. 18. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF June 20, 1996 Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to accept the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. Approved, (6-0). 2. MINUTES OF JULY 18, 1996 Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to accept the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. Approved, (6-0). 3. MINUTES OF AUGUST 1, 1996 Commissioner Boudreau moved to accept the minutes as presented, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. Approved, (5-0), with Chair R. Green abstaining since • • he was excused from the meeting. 4. MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 1996 Commissioner A. Green made a modification in regards to what he distributed at the meeting, pointed out two date errors, and made a minor change to his comments regarding foliage. Commissioner Long moved to accept the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. Approved, (6-0). 5. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 1996 Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to accept the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. Approved, (5-0) with Commissioner A. Green abstaining since he was excused from the meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair R. Green requested Item 7 be moved ahead of Item 6, if the Commission had no objection. 7. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 20; Mr. S.J. Menzelos, 5113 Oconto Drive, Mr. Jang Yi Wang, 5117 Oconto Drive Principal Planner Rojas explained that based on a request received from Mr. and Mrs. Ross, staff recommended the hearing be continued to the meeting of March 20,1997. Vice Chair Sweetnam pointed out that while speaking to one of the applicants who was a new property owner, he realized that they did not fully understand what was involved in the view restoration permit process. He felt the applicant wanted to think about whether or not to proceed with the application. Commissioner Long moved to continue Item 7 to March 20, 1997, with a directive to Staff that they consult with the applicant regarding whether they wished to proceed with the application, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. The motion was approved, (6-0). 6. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 18; Mr. and Mrs. Fred Tanner, 6432 Via Canada VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 1997 PAGE 2 0 0 Project Coordinator Carter presented the staff report, explaining the application had been approved in 1991 by the View Restoration Commission. However, the final Resolution was never brought before the View Restoration Commission because of the suspension of the Commission due to litigation. Mr. Carter explained that Staff looked at three new aspects of the case and adjusted the Resolution accordingly: 1) language adjustments with regards to the foliage growth that had occurred in the past six years, 2) minor adjustments with regards to requests made by the foliage owner or applicant and, 3) language adjustments with regards to a tree that was missing from the original application. Chair R. Green opened the public hearing and asked for a roll call on which Commissioners had visited the site. All Commissioners present had visited the site. Mr. Fred Tanner, 6432 Via Canada, reviewed the status of the trees in question on the different properties. He stated that the foliage owners at 6436 Via Canada had agreed with the original findings of the View Restoration Commission, and felt the findings should be left as stated with the exception that a statement be included saying all trees shall be maintained so as not to impair the applicants view. Regarding 6604 Via Canada, Mr. Tanner requested the Commission change the language in the Resolution to require the trees in question to be trimmed to sixteen feet, rather than eighteen feet, and be allowed to grow to eighteen feet before being pruned. At 6608 Via Canada Mr. Tanner requested the trees be laced. Mr. Tanner agreed with the recommendations regarding 6612 Via Canada and stated that the owners of 4001 Lorraine Road had removed one tree, but other trees needed to be laced. Mr. Hazen White, 6604 Via Canada, suggested the applicant cut the Eucalyptus tree down completely, at his expense. Mr. White was concerned that any worker on his property be covered by insurance and felt the applicant and the City should protect them in writing for any excessive amount over the insurance that the tree trimmer may have in case of litigation. Project Coordinator Nelson explained that all workers must be licensed to do business in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, as well as showing proof of Workmans Compensation, Liability Insurance, and State licenses which will be kept on file at the City. Mr. Edward Murphy, 6304 Via Ciega, explained he was a member of the View Restoration Committee in the past and had visited Mr. Tanner's property. He suggested that the Commission keep in mind that topping trees may not always be the best solution in restoring a view as it may cause lower branches to fan out and become a larger problem. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 1997 PAGE 3 • • Mr. Fred Tanner reiterated his objections to the trees in question. He also explained that when he had called a tree trimming company to give him estimates on several trees he was told there would be a fee to come out and give an estimate. Vice Chair Sweetnam asked Staff to see if they knew anything about this and if it was a common practice to charge people for estimates. He was concerned that the tree companies would try to take advantage of applicants who needed bids for their projects. Principal Planner Rojas said Staff would look into it but felt there was little they could do as far as these companies and their business practices. Mr. Hazen White reiterated to the Commission his concern for contractors coming onto his property having adequate insurance before entering his property. Commissioner Long assured Mr. White that the City would make sure all tree contractors have adequate insurance. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Long. Approved (6-0). Project Coordinator Carter reviewed with the Commission pictures taken from the applicants' property and the views they displayed. Commissioner A. Green asked Staff for clarification as to which document would be used as reference in making a determination for this application. Principal Planner Rojas replied that the original version of Proposition M would apply since the initial decision had already been made on this application. Chair R. Green suggested the Commission review the recommendations and make any changes necessary. Vice Chair Sweetnam asked about work already done to restore views. If the foliage were to grow back, would the Commission have to address the need for more work or would the need for more work be handled by Code Enforcement. Principal Planner Rojas responded that it would be handled through Code Enforcement. Chair R. Green commented that the question of whether to lace or remove a tree may come up. He felt the Commission should take the least intrusive approach it could, as opposed to the most intrusive. If the foliage owner wanted to remove a tree that would VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 1997 PAGE 4 0 0 be fine. Vice Chair Sweetnam suggested that since the procedure is that the applicant must get three bids and take the lower of the three, perhaps a recommendation could be worded that the foliage owner have the option of having the tree laced, trimmed, or removed within the limits of the lowest bid. Commissioner A. Green felt the Commission should lean toward the recommendation of lacing and if the foliage owner and applicant decide to do something beyond that, the Commission should not stand between them. Commissioner Long suggested the Commission review the findings and conditions of approval contained in the proposed Resolution. The Commission then reviewed all the findings and conditions of the proposed resolution and made changes in wording to reflect current conditions. After the Commission reviewed the findings and conditions and made their changes, Principal Planner Rojas explained the Commission could then adopt the Resolution as amended this evening or Staff could make the changes and bring the amended Resolution back to the Commission at the next meeting for adoption. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to adopt Resolution 97-1, as amended, thereby memorializing the action taken by the View Restoration Committee on April 4, 1991, seconded by Commissioner Long. The motion passed by roll call vote, (6- 0). RECESS AND RECONVENE At 9:05 P.M. there was a brief recess until 9:15 P.M. when the meeting reconvened. 8. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 21: Anita Gash, 6534 Eddinghill Drive Chair R. Green asked for a roll call on which Commissioners had visited the site. All Commissioners except Commissioner Marshall had visited the site. Project Coordinator Nelson presented the staff report. She informed the Commission the staff report they were reviewing was the original staff report from 1991 with minor adjustments. Ms. Nelson commented that site conditions had not changed and Staff was supporting the original recommendations. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 1997 PAGE 5 Commissioner Long asked for clarification on what was being recommended for trees one and two. Project Coordinator Nelson explained Staff had recommended the crowns of both trees be raised. This would eliminate the underbrush of the trees and allow the bottom portion of the crown of the trees to be approximately at the same elevation as the ridgeline of Mrs. Gash's and Mr. Chang's residences. Commissioner Long asked if topping trees one and two to a height of fourteen feet could be an alternative. Project Coordinator Nelson responded that topping the trees would take much of the tree away, therefore it would be better to remove the trees completely rather than top them. Chair R. Green opened the public hearing. Anita Gash 6534 Eddinghill Drive, explained she and her husband bought their house in 1971 specifically because of the unobstructed view. Between 1971 and the present they have lost virtually all of their view. She cautioned the Commission that the trees were very large and any trimming would have to be done with caution to prevent the trees from becoming too top heavy and falling down in high wind. Patrick Chana 6540 Eddinghill Drive, commented he supported the Staff recommendations but also cautioned the Commission about trimming the trees in a safe manner, as a portion of his backyard may be lost if the trees were to fall down. Mr. Chang was concerned that once the trees were trimmed the foliage owner would not maintain them. Project Coordinator Nelson assured him the foliage owner would have to maintain the trees. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Long. Approved, (5-0) Commissioner Long stated that this application was subject to the existing ordinance and guidelines which do not give the Commission the discretion to have the tree removed unless one of the findings specified was met and the foliage owner agreed to the removal. Vice Chair Sweetnam asked if Staff had gotten any input at all from the foliage owner. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 1997 PAGE 6 0 • Project Coordinator Nelson responded that they had mailed him a staff report and notice but have had no contact with him. Chair R. Green commented that if these trees were topped, as discussed, a shrub may be produced that would possibly be more of a problem. Project Coordinator Nelson agreed, adding that topping would temporarily solve the view problem but a Eucalyptus bush would be created which could end up being denser and thicker than the tree. Commissioner A. Green expressed concern that removing the trees may cause a danger to the slope due to increased erosion and that the trees should be replaced with some type of other vegetation. Commissioner Long felt that erosion problems could be alleviated by keeping the slope planted. Chair R. Green suggested the Commission review the findings of the Staff. The Commission reviewed all the findings made by Staff and made modifications to the recommendations which required the topping, rather than crowning, of the two large Eucalyptus trees, to the rear yard pad level of the applicants property; the trimming or removal of the smaller Eucalyptus trees; and the trimming of the other trees to the ridge line of the foliage owner's property, which measures 14 feet in height. Commissioner Long made a motion to adopt the recommendations of the staff report, as amended, and directed Staff to prepare a Resolution for the Consent Calendar of the March 20, 1997 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. Approved, (5-0). Commissioner Boudreau then asked Staff if it were permissible to bring spouses when they go out to do a site visit. Principal Planner Rojas responded that staff would check with the City Attorney and report back to the Committee. The Commissioners then gave input and suggestions on what they would like to see on future staff reports including: 1) phone numbers on the cover sheets, 2) whether or not the foliage owner requests the Commissioners to visit their property, 3) if it is sufficient to look at a view from the backyard, rather from inside the house, 4) include the draft Resolution with the staff report, and 5) some type of form letter sent to the applicants VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 1997 PAGE 7 40 0 explaining how they should not talk to the Commissioners on the subject matter, but to save the information for the public hearing. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Principal Planner Rojas stated there would be an item in the March 20, 1997 meeting agenda; to discuss Home Owner Associations and other groups. Chair R. Green noted that the Commission needed to select a new Vice Chair at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Long moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. The meeting was duly adjourned at 9:15 P.M. to Thursday, March 20, 1997 at Hesse Park, 7:00 P.M. N:IGROUPIPLANNINGIVRCI97MIN02.20 VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 1997 PAGE 8