Loading...
VRC MINS 19970116 • APPROVED MARCH 20, 1997 Cts CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 16, 1997 The meeting was called to order by Chair R. Green at 7:06 P.M. at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Commissioner Marshall. PRESENT: View Restoration Commissioners Black, Boudreau, Goern, A. Green, Long, Marshall, Vice Chair Sweetnam, Chair R. Green. Commissioner Karmelich arrived at 7:42 P.M. ABSENT: Commissioner Gee Also present were Principal Planner Rojas, Project Coordinator Nelson, Project Coordinator Carter, and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Long moved to accept the agenda, as presented, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. Approved, (8-0). COMMUNICATIONS Principal Planner distributed copies of Ordinance 319 which adopted the clean-up changes made to Proposition M, the finalized copy of the Guidelines for Preservation of Views Where Foliage is Involved, and supplemental information regarding City Tree Review Permit No. 12. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF MAY 16, 1996 Commissioners Long and Black noted that they were not excused from the meeting but were in attendance. Commissioner Black moved to approve the minutes, as amended, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. Approved, (8-0-1) with Commissioner Marshall abstaining since he was excused from the meeting. • 0 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 3, 1996 Commissioner Boudreau moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. Approved, (5-0-4) with Commissioners Long, Black, Goern and Vice Chair Sweetnam abstaining since they were excused from the meeting. 3. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17, 1996 Vice Chair Sweetnam noted he was excused from the meeting, not absent. Commissioner Boudreau moved to approve the minutes, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Goern. Approved, (4-0-5) with Commissioners Black, Karmelich, Long, Marshall, and Vice Chair Sweetnam abstaining since they were excused from the meeting. 4. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 5, 1996 Commissioner Boudreau noted a minor change on page 2 of the minutes. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to approve the minutes, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. Approved, (8-0-1) with Commissioner Long abstaining since he was excused from the meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. CITY TREE REVIEW PERMIT NO. 12 -APPEAL; MR. AND MRS. WALTER MCHUGH, 2222 RUE LE CHARLENE. Project Coordinator Carter presented the staff report to the Commission in which he summarized the background, analysis and recommendation to deny the appeal of City Tree Review Permit No. 12. Chair R. Green requested a roll call vote to determine which Commissioners had visited the site. All Commissioners had visited the site. Chair Green commented that alternate Commissioners could not vote on the project, but could participate in the discussion. Commissioner Marshall asked Staff who would be responsible for the cost of removing the trees in question. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 16, 1997 PAGE 2 • 9 Project Coordinator Carter responded that the applicant would be responsible for the cost of the tree removal. Vice Chair Sweetnam asked who owned the trees in question. Project Coordinator Carter explained the trees were planted by previous property owners but were on City property, making them City trees. He further commented that jacaranda trees were not on the approved list of City street trees. Chair R. Green opened the public hearing. Mr. Ted Wertz, 15332 Antioch Street, Pacific Palisades, representing the appellants, began by stating that during a visit to the McHugh's property he saw no trees blocking views from their property. He believed the problem was the trees may block a view some time in the future. He gave a brief history of the voluntary tree trimming the Martins had performed since buying the property and how well they have maintained the trees and their property. He felt that by removing the trees it would substantially infringe on the privacy of the Martin's property. Commissioner Black questioned what the Martins objection was to entering into a Covenant with the City. Mr. Wertz responded by stating the objection was two-fold. The first was the objection of someone telling them they were not doing the right thing by maintaining the trees on their own. The second was having someone coming on to the property and seeking to have the trees removed if they were not happy with what they saw. There was no problem right now with trees blocking views. He continued by stating the trees in question have been there 23 years without the City maintaining them and the Martins were voluntarily maintaining the trees. He felt by signing a Covenant it was opening the door for people to subjectively complain about perceived matters of view. Principal Planner Rojas clarified for the Commission that a decision was made by Staff in 1995 that the trees in question had to be removed because they were impairing a view and were illegal trees, unless the landowner wished to enter into a Covenant with the City to maintain them. Even if it was a potential view that may be blocked, the trees were illegal and on City property, and the City has the authority to remove the trees to avoid future view impairment. At this point the City is recommending the trees be removed unless a Covenant is entered into. Chair R. Green commented the difference was the determination of significant impairment at the time Staff made the viewing of the property and finding in 1995 VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 16, 1997 PAGE 3 • 9 versus the Commissioners' viewing of the property within the last two weeks. Commissioner Long added that even if things had changed, Staffs decision on view impairment in 1995 was correct and in the appeal to the Commission, the Commission cannot make the original decision invalid by unraveling and changing the facts. Therefore, even if the appellant now commented that the trees as they exist today do not pose a problem, it isn't relevant. Walter McHugh, 2222 Rue Le Charlene summarized the history of the trees in question and stressed to the Commission that taking their case to the City was a last resort for them. He said they would prefer to have the trees removed, but would be happy if the trees were kept trimmed to the height of the ridgeline of the house. Commissioner Long asked if, when they moved into their home, the trees were newly planted or already at the present height. In answer to the question, Mr. McHugh showed the Commission a picture taken from the property in 1970 which showed the McHughs' original view with no subject trees present. Commissioner Boudreau asked if the McHughs would be happy if the trees were maintained at the height they are at now. Mr. McHugh responded that right now the trees were higher than the ridgeline of the property. He would be satisfied if the trees were kept at the height of the ridgeline of the property. Mary Ann Martin, 2215 Rue Le Charlene, questioned why the City allowed the trees to get to this point with no maintenance in the past twenty years. If the trees were in violation prior to their moving in, shouldn't something have been done by the City before. She stated if they had known the trees were out of City compliance, they would have had second thoughts before purchasing the property. She reiterated that they have done nothing but upgrade and improve the property since they have moved in. She concluded by making allegations that the McHughs' actions were racially motivated. Katina McHugh, 2222 Rue Le Charlene, distributed a picture to the Commission showing what their property looked like when they moved in. There were no trees in the area. She also distributed a picture taken in March, 1996 when the Martins cut the trees. She commented that the tree height after the March 1996 trimming was acceptable to them. She acknowledged the trees are not significantly blocking their VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 16, 1997 PAGE 4 0 0 views today, but history has shown the trees have been too high over and over. Mr. Ted Wertz spoke about Proposition M stating it spoke about the height of the trees on the effective date of the section, approved by the voters in November, 1989. He felt this should regulate the Commission's decision. The trees in question were very tall at that time, having never been trimmed. They are lower now than they were in November, 1989. He also had a concern about ridgelines. The Martin's property is a sloping lot, so it may be very difficult to determine what height a tree should be in regards to the ridgeline. Walter McHugh emphasized that the burden of proof was on the Martins. The trees were trimmed off and on, on a very inconsistent basis in the years before the Martins purchased the property. Commissioner Long wanted to state, before the public hearing was closed, that this was the first hearing for the View Restoration Commission in several years as it was delayed substantially in functioning due to litigation and changes in the Ordinance. Commissioner Bourdreau moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Black. Approved (9-0). Vice Chair Sweetnam questioned if the Commissioners not participating in the vote should take place in the discussion of the project. Chair R. Green responded that he wasn't sure what the proper procedure was, and until the City Attorney gave the Commission direction, it would be prudent to have only the Commissioners participating in the vote participate in the discussion. Vice Chair Sweetnam began the discussion by stating he felt the issue in this case was that the trees in question were City trees, the McHughs approached the City to take care of their trees, the City complied with the View Ordinance as passed by the people, and it was determined that the trees should be trimmed. However, with the street tree policy adopted by the City, the trees in question are not recognized by the City. This put the City in the position of having the trees removed or allowing the Martins to enter into a Covenant with the City to keep the trees maintained. Commissioner A. Green asked if a Covenant were put in place would it set a schedule for the tree trimming. Principal Planner Rojas answered that a Covenant would legally bind the Martins to trim the trees when the City becomes aware that they are impairing a view. Staff and the VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 16, 1997 PAGE 5 • 0 City Attorney would draft the Covenant and language could be included that requires the trees to be trimmed at specified intervals. Commissioner A. Green then inquired what would happen in there were a Covenant in place on the property to maintain the trees and for some reason the owners of the property were not able to trim the trees according to schedule. Commissioner Boudreau questioned if a Covenant were entered into, was there still an option to have the trees taken out at any time, thereby terminating the Covenant. Principal Planner responded that was correct. Commissioner Goern asked if the trees were removed would they be replaced with another type of tree. Principal Planner Rojas responded that the policy states that illegal trees are to be removed and not replaced. He interpreted that to mean they could not be replaced by the same type of tree, but believed they could be replaced by a tree from the City approved tree list. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to deny the appeal, thereby upholding Staffs initial determination to remove the existing ten trees in the City right-of-way or allow the Martins to enter into a Covenant with the City to maintain the trees at a height that does not obstruct the view of the McHughs. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, (8-0). Principal Planner Rojas stated that there is a fifteen day appeal period. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Principal Planner Rojas reminded the Commission the next meeting would be held on February 20, 1997, where they would hear View Restoration Permit Nos. 18, 20, and 21. Commissioner Black notified the Commission she would miss the next two meetings and Commissioner Goern notified the Commission she would be out of town for the February 20 meeting. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Black moved to adjourn, which was seconded by Commissioner VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 16, 1997 PAGE 6 0 110 Boudreau. The meeting was duly adjourned at 9:10 P.M. to Thursday, February 20, 1997 at Hesse Park, 7:00 P.M. N:\GROUP\PLANNING\VRC\97MIN01.16 VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 16, 1997 PAGE 7