Loading...
VRC MINS 19980305 APPROVED APRI:1.2, 1998 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 5, 1998 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chair Long at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed led by Commissioner A. Green. PRESENT: Commissioners Black, Drages, A. Green, R. Green, McBride, Mehlman, Mueller, Vice Chair Sweetnam, Chair Long ABSENT: Commissioner Kipper was excused. Also present were Acting Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Project Coordinator Nelson, Project Coordinator Ursu, and Recording Secretary Peterson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Long mentioned that there was a request for a continuance on VRP No. 48 and felt it would be appropriate to modify the agenda to hear the request for continuance next on the Agenda. Commissioner R. Green moved to approve the Agenda, as amended, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. Approved, (9-0). 1. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 48: Mr. Nick Papadakis, 3228 Parkhurst Drive (TN) Chair Long began by stating there was a written request from the Palos Verdes Unified School District requesting an extension of the public hearing. He requested the representative of the school district, present in the audience, to explain to the Commission the basis for the request for extension. Dennis Welsh, the Assistant Superintendent of Business for the Palos Verdes Unified School District, stated he had not had enough time to communicate with the attorneys to the extent that he would like regarding the application. Chair Long asked Mr. Welsh what date the school district would like to have the hearing moved to. • r Mr. Welsh responded that the school district would like a continuance to June. Nick Papadakis (applicant) 3228 Parkhurst Drive referred the Commission to a letter dated December 2, 1997 addressed to the City Manager from the school district. In that letter the school district requested a continuance from the meeting scheduled on December 4, 1997 to February 5, 1998. The purpose for the continuance was to further study the staff report and recommendations. He felt the school district has had ample time to study the staff reports, make their studies, prepare their arguments, and appear before the Commission. He felt the process should move forward at this time. Chair Long asked staff when the next available date would be to hear the application if the Commission allowed a continuance. Acting Director Rojas responded that there was only one item scheduled to be heard at the next mee ging (April 2) so there would be time to hear this application at that time. Commissioner A. Green stated that he did not feel, based on the wording of the letter, that the school district was showing good cause for postponement. Chair Long commented that, if the applicant was someone other than a public agency requesting this postponement he would be inclined to consider this not to be good cause. However, since this is a public agency he would be concerned about not giving a public agency an opportunity to be heard. However, he did not feel a 90 day postponement was necessary. Commissioner A. Green commented that he did not see an end in sight. He stated there was no definite fixed time stated that the school district would be ready. Chair Long asked Mr. Welsh if, the Commission did not grant the extension, would they be prepared to present their case. Mr. Welsh responded that the school district had prepared a statement which he was prepared to read. Commissioner R. Green agreed with Chair Long in stating that the school district, being a public agency, had bureaucratic challenges not experienced by an individual homeowner. Commissioner A. Green responded that since the school district had a VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 5,1998 PAGE 2 t a representative at the meeting with a prepared statement from the district, that the request for extension should be denied and the Commission should hear the case. Commissioner R. Green moved to continue VRP 48 to the April 2, 1998 View Restoration Commission meeting, with the condition that no further extensions be granted, seconded by Chair Long. Approved, (6-3) with Commissioners Black, A. Green, and Vice Chair Sweetnam dissenting. COMMUNICATIONS Acting Director reminded the Commissioners that as part of the Planners Institute in Long Beach there would be a session on preservation of views. He encouraged any Commissioner that would like to attend to contact him for more information. Chair Long reminded the Commissioners to be careful of comments and opinions made to applicants and foliage owners during site visits. Vice Chair Sweetnam informed the Commission that he had spoken at the city council meeting regarding the proposed waiting period for new view restoration applications. Commissioner McBride stated he had received a letter from J.D. Melara and also distributed some information he received during a site visit from Mr. Barrows, a forensic expert, regarding tree trimming and topping. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 36: Mr. and Mrs. David Wyte, 28417 Covecrest Drive (TN) Chair Long began by requesting Commissioner Mehlman to recuse herself from hearing this case as a Commissioner, since she is the foliage owner. Chair Long then asked the applicant and foliage owner if the usual speaking time of 5 minutes and 3 minutes for rebuttal was sufficient for them to present their cases. Both applicant and foliage owner agreed that it would be sufficient time. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 5,1998 PAGE 3 A roll call was then done to see which Commissioners had visited the site. All Commissioners had visited the site. Therefore one alternate member, Commissioner Drages, was recused from hearing the item. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Project Coordinator Nelson presented the staff report. She explained there were three trees involved in this application, two Monterey Pines and one Canary Island Pine. All three trees are located on a transitional slope between the two properties. Commissioner A. Green felt there was a second Canary Island Pine that should be added to the application. Linda Robins 28417 Covecrest Drive spoke on behalf of Mr. Wyte, who is currently residing in Virginia. She stated that Mr. Wyte was requesting the view be restored back to the view he had when he originally purchased the property. Diane Mehlman (foliage owner) 28508 Coveridge Drive stated that her understanding of Proposition M was that the applicant must be a resident. Mr. Wyte is currently living in Virginia. She also felt that privacy was an issue. The neighbors would be able to see into her yard and patio area, two upstairs bedroom and bathroom windows, and the downstairs kitchen and family rooms. She also expressed concern over the stability of the slope. She further commented that if the trees were laced they would die. She also commented that replacement trees would not replace her privacy. Linda Robins responded that Mr. Wyte's intention was to move back to his property in the next few years. Commissioner A. Green asked Ms. Mehlman, if given the choice between maintaining her trees and having them removed and replaced, which she would prefer. Ms. Mehlman responded that trimming the trees would kill them and she did not feel that replacement foliage would protect her privacy. Chair Long asked Ms. Mehlman if she knew if the slope her trees were on was cut or fill. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 5,1998 PAGE 4 Ms. Mehlman responded that it was her understanding that there was fill on the slope, but she had not had a geological report done. She also stated she had never had any kind of failure of the slope, but if the trees were removed she feared the slope might fail. Commissioner McBride asked Ms. Mehlman if she had ever attempted to maintain, specifically lace or top, the trees in the past. Ms. Mehlman responded that they had been topped once. Chair Long asked Ms. Mehlman what type of compromise she would suggest to help restore Mr. Wyte's view while at the same time maintain a fair amount of her foliage. Ms. Mehlman answered that Mr. Wyte had a view to either side of her foliage. She also stated that behind her trees were the houses across the street and their roof levels would continue to block Mr. Wyte's view. Commissioner Mueller wondered if planting trees at the base of the slope, next to the yard, might help provide privacy to Ms. Mehlman's home and yard. Ms. Mehlman responded that it would not help at all. Only taller trees would protect her privacy. Commissioner Black moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner R. Green began by addressing the concern about the applicant not being a resident. He referred the Commission to Ordinance 319 and the section stating who could apply for a view restoration permit. Vice Chair Sweetnam stated that his interpretation of the wording was that any residential property owner in the City could apply for a permit. Acting Director Rojas also stated that it was the City Attorney's opinion that the view restoration process was open to anyone who owned property in the City. In this case, the property owner had signed the application, and staff felt this was a valid application. Chair Long made the point that the City Attorney had previously stated that views go with the property, not with the individual. He felt reluctant for the VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 5,1998 PAGE 5 Commission to depart from established practice without having direction from the City Council or City Attorney to do so. Chair Long then suggested the Commission review the Draft Resolution and Exhibit A prepared by staff. Commissioner R. Green pointed out that the second Canary Island Pine needed to be added to the Resolution and Exhibit A. Commissioner McBride felt that there was some confusion as to the issue of privacy. He felt staff indicated in earlier reports that privacy could be a concern, and in fact when standing in the applicant's back yard you do look down to the Mehiman backyard. However, in Section 8 of the draft Resolution staff states there is no privacy issue. Staff recommends replacement foliage of a two foot high Acacia tree, replacing the existing 15 foot tall trees. He didn't feel the privacy issue had been addressed satisfactorily. Chair Long clarified by stating that if the trees were removed without replacement it would infringe on the privacy. However, removal with replacement would satisfy the privacy issue. Staff was recommending a smaller tree near the top of the slope. There could also be the option of placing something taller near the bottom of the slope. Staff Coordinator Nelson clarified that since the staff report was written, staff had been informed by a nursery that the Acacia usually grow 3 to 4 feet high, providing a little taller hedge near the top of the slope. Commissioner R. Green felt the privacy issue should be more focused on the patio and backyard area rather than the bedroom windows upstairs, where a curtain or other means could be placed to help protect privacy inside the house. Commissioner Black stated she sat in a chair on the back patio of the Wyte residence and did not feel that privacy was an issue. Chair Long reminded the Commission that under the new guidelines, the Commission could specify replacement foliage even if there was no privacy concerns. Chair R. Green suggested rewording the section regarding replacement foliage to read "Staff believes that removal or trimming, with replacement foliage, will not cause an unreasonable infringement on privacy." VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 5,1998 PAGE 6 i • Vice Chair Sweetnam objected to saying the current trees provide a privacy screening. He did not feel the trees provide privacy. Chair Long suggested looking at Exhibit A. Beginning with the wording dealing with the removal and replacement of Pines M1, M2, M3, and M4 he wondered if there was something specific the Commission would like to specify for replacement. Commissioner R. Green suggested changing the sentence dealing with remove and replace to "remove, with the consent of the owner or lace heavily once a year during the winter months." Then language could be added to address the type and number of foliage to be used for replacement. A lengthy discussion followed among the Commissioners as to the size, location, and number of trees to offer as replacement foliage. A consensus was reached to recommend a one to one replacement. Chair Long then clarified by stating a sentence should be added to Section 1 of Exhibit A stating " If the trees are removed provide 4 fifteen gallon replacements." Staff should also add the standard language addressing the type of foliage to be used. Commissioner McBride felt that the 24 inch box tree should be offered since there was some concern with privacy. Commissioner Black asked staff what their recommendation would be. Project Coordinator Nelson explained that generally the arborist recommends the smaller size trees because they tend to establish themselves a lot faster than the larger trees. In keeping with that, she would suggest a 15 gallon size. Vice Chair Sweetnam felt that the phrase "lace heavily" needed to be defined further. After a brief discussion, Chair Long suggested the rephrasing of Section 1 of Exhibit A as follows: "Foliage at 28508 Coveridge Drive (Mehlman property) remove pine trees numbers M1, M2, M3, and M4 with the consent of the foliage owner, or lace heavily the portion of the trees at a plane defined by the applicant's pad level running to the ridgeline of the homes across street from the foliage owner. Such lacing to be done annually during the winter months. If the trees are removed, provide four 15 gallon replacements." Then staff would insert the new standard language, that applies to removal and replacements. Chair VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 5,1998 PAGE 7 Long added the proposed change in Section 8, the last sentence, to read "Staff believes that the removal or trimming, with replacement foliage, will not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the foliage owner." Commissioner R. Green moved to adopt the Resolution, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Black. Approved, (6-1) with Commissioner McBride dissenting. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 9:10 P.M. the Commission took a short recess until 9:20 P.M. at which time they reconvened. 3. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 50: Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Cangemi, 30130 Avenida Tranquila (EU) A roll call was taken to determine which Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioners Drages and R. Green had not visited the site and were recused from hearing the case. Project Coordinator Ursu presented the staff report. He stated that the applicants had originally stated there were three trees on each of the foliage owner's properties causing view impairment. Upon staffs site visit, however, staff determined there were actually 4 trees on the Walker property that caused a significant view impairment. There is also an Italian Stone Pine in the parkway of the Walker property that is in the public-right-of-way that will be addressed under a separate street tree application. Staff identified 6 trees on the Miao property that caused a significant view impairment. Chair Long asked the applicant and foliage owners if 5 minutes would be sufficient time to present their case. Mrs. Walker requested 7 minutes to speak with 3 minutes rebuttal. Chair Long agreed. Commissioner A. Green moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner R. Green. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Steven Cangemi (applicant) 30130 Avenida Tranquila began by stating he agreed with Staffs recommendations. He added he had some flexibility with the tree issue, but did not want to have to continually ask his neighbors to maintain VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 5,1998 PAGE 8 , • their trees. He stated he had paid to have trees trimmed at the Walker residence twice in the past. Debrey Miao (foliage owner) 30127 Avenida Tranquila did not feel Mr. Cangemi had met the early neighborhood consultation requirements. She stated that he had casually mentioned trimming her trees but never mentioned specifically which trees or that he might possibly be contacting the City about the view restoration process. She acknowledged that several years earlier Mr. Cangemi had contributed towards the cost of having trees trimmed on her property. She stressed to the Commission that they were not trying to be uncooperative. She felt that when Mr. Cangemi asked for the trees to be trimmed she would do it. She just wanted to be able to do it within her own time frame. She also stated that the Cangemi's moved into their residence seven years ago and the trees on her property are at approximately th': same height as they were at that time. Mrs. Miao questioned staffs recommendations concerning the trees on her property. She stated the Jacaranda was not 20 feet tall as stated in the report, and was not dense and could be seen through. Regarding the two Melaleuca trees, she agreed they are a little dense however the trees have not been trimmed as they did not know what the outcome of this decision would be. Trees 4, 5, and 6 (Cyprus Trees), she felt were lower than the staff estimates. She also mentioned that if all the trees were cut to the ridgeline of her roof, they would have no privacy in their courtyard. Margaret Walker (foliage owner) 30137 Avenida Tranquila began by stating when she originally spoke with the Cangemi's the only tree mentioned was the pine tree, which is a street tree. She stated that she has already trimmed and removed several trees on her property and did not understand why the Cangemi's were bringing up all of the other trees now. She referred to the staff report regarding the Ash tree which said it was 65-75 feet tall. She felt the tree is 50 feet tall at the very most. Staff recommended raising the crown 30 feet and she said all she would be left with was something that looked like a paint brush. The other Ash trees she felt needed only to be thinned, shaped, and have the dead wood removed. She stated she would be willing to do that and pay for it herself. Finally she stated that her front yard was mainly fill and the tree roots were mostly responsible for holding the yard together. Mr. Cangemi (in rebuttal) stated that his view was still blocked from trees on both properties and the trees needed to be trimmed. Mrs. Miao (in rebuttal) stressed that she felt Mr. Cangemi filed the application for the view restoration permit before talking with her. She did not think it was fair that the Cangemi's could get a view they did not have at the time they purchased VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 5,1998 PAGE 9 ti • the house, at the expense of her family and trees. Mrs. Walker (in rebuttal) felt that even with her trees removed, the Cangemi's would have the trees from the nearby golf course blocking their view. Walter Barrows 7406 Stanley Park Road, Carpinteria, spoke as a consulting arborist and forensic expert in courts of law in tree matters. He stressed he was at the meeting on his own time. He was concerned that he had not heard any discussion regarding the depreciation of value of real estate for the owners of the trees. He discussed preferred methods for topping trees and the impact of poor trimming methods on the trees. Vice Chair Sweetnam asked Mrs. Miao if removal of the Melaleuca (Tree #3) would have an impact on the privacy of the swimming pool area. Mrs. Miao stated that it would have an impact. Commissioner McBride asked Mr. Barrows if raising the crown on the Ash trees on Mrs. Walker's property would be feasible. Mr. Barrows responded that raising the crown 30 feet was not an acceptable practice and would, in time, endanger the tree by decay where the big cuts were going to be made. He felt that it would be better to take the tree out. Commissioner Mehlman asked about Mrs. Walker's Silver Dollar tree and the staff recommendation regarding the trees. Mr. Barrows stated the trees were clinically dead because of poor trimming procedures in the past. Commissioner Black commented to Mrs. Walker that the arborist had just recommended the ash trees be removed rather than crowned. She asked if this would be an alternative she would consider. Mrs. Walker responded she was worried that the removal of the ash trees would endanger the stability of her front yard. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Black. There being no objection the public hearing was closed. Commissioner A. Green began by asking the other Commissioners about an VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 5,1998 PAGE 10 • , alternative to the Ash trees on Mrs. Walkers property since, based on the testimony of Mr. Barrows, the staff recommendation would be harmful to the trees. Commissioner McBride agreed that alternatives should be discussed, especially since the ash trees currently have very little foliage on them and it was very difficult to determine how far down the leaves go. His larger concern was the street tree. He felt that if the street tree were not there then there would be a much larger view corridor between the two ash trees. He agreed that Eucalyptus #3 was a problem. However, in looking at his own photographs of the site, he could not see the top of the jacaranda against the ridgeline of the house. He also did not feel all three Cyprus trees needed to be addressed, possibly only two. Chair Long stated that, assuming the street tree was removed, the question is if there is still significant impairment of view and if so what needs to be done to restore the view. Commissioner A. Green again stressed that the Commission should consider the best way to deal with the Ash trees. Project Coordinator Ursu stated that, since the trees are located on a flat pad rather than a slope, the trees may be adding weight to the fill on the lot and not necessarily helping with stability. Chair Long stated staff had determined that a geologic consultation was not necessary and he did not feel the geologic concerns of Mrs. Walker were valid. Project Coordinator Ursu referred the Commission to the map in the staff report and pointed out the areas of cut and fill. Acting Director Rojas pointed out to the Commission that it was not the city arborist who felt that raising the crown of the tree would be harmful to the tree, but an outside consultant. He explained that this was not the type of situation where staff would ask the city arborist to visit a site. However, if the Commission wanted to look into the issue a little further, staff could ask the city arborist to make a site visit and make a determination. Commissioner McBride stated that, if the street tree is going to be removed, and some work is done on the Silver Dollar Eucalyptus, he wasn't sure anything needed to be done with the Ash trees. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 5,1998 PAGE 11 Commissioner A. Green stated he had been to the property when there was foliage on the Ash trees and the foliage was quite extensive. He felt the application should be continued to the next meeting, giving the City the opportunity to send out it's own arborist to make recommendations regarding the ash trees. Regarding the Silver Dollar Eucalyptus, Commissioner A. Green felt that the trees needed to be removed and replaced. If the owner did not agree to removal and replacement, he felt they should be topped. Since Mr. Barrows had stated these trees were clinically dead, Mr. Green felt the city arborist should look at these trees also. Chair Long stated that the arborist should therefore be sent to the Walker property to determine if it is practical to raise the crown 30 feet above the base for trees 1 and 2, and for trees 3 and 4 to assess the current conditions of the tree. Regarding the Miao property, Commissioner McBride did not feel the Jacaranda created a view problem. He also did not feel that Jacarandas were a type of tree that did well after being topped and suggested the tree be removed from the application entirely. Commissioner A. Green felt the Jacaranda was approximately 80% into the viewing area. Chair Long suggested having the arborist look at the Jacaranda while he was at the site. Commissioner McBride reminded the Commission that they should be considering not only restoring a view to the applicant, but neighborhood character and balance relative to the foliage owner. Chair Long responded that he felt that by offering the foliage owner a variety of replacement foliage, the Commission was able to address neighborhood compatibility, character, and privacy. Commissioner A. Green moved to continue the application to the April 2, 1998 VRC meeting in order to obtain further information from the city arborist regarding the trees on the Miao and Walker property (items 1-5), seconded by Commissioner McBride. There being no objection, it was so ordered. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 5,1998 PAGE 12 t RECESS AND RECONVENE At 10:50 P.M. the Commission took a short recess until 10:55 P.M. at which time they reconvened. NEW BUSINESS 4. DISCUSSION OF EARLY NEIGHBORHOOD CONSULTATION PROCESS (JR) Acting Director Rojas presented a brief staff report reviewing what the new early neighborhood consultation process entailed. He then stated the Commission should establish a procedure on how and when to use the Commissioners for this process. Chair Long suggested a random process of rotating the Commissioners and excluded the Vice Chair and Chair so they will always be available to chair the meetings. He suggested starting with Commissioner A. Green and working their way around the seating order. If a Commissioner is unable to take their assigned turn, they remain at the top of the rotation for the next hearing. Commissioner A. Green felt that, after discussion between the Commissioners, there needed to be some type of guidelines for the early neighborhood consultation process. He felt all Commissioners must be able to go into the consultation/mediation process with the same set of rules and boundaries. Chair Long appointed Commissioner A. Green to attend the first early neighborhood consultation meeting and requested he report back to the Chair on his experience and what the guidelines should be. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Commissioner A. Green requested putting the guidelines for early neighborhood consultation on the next agenda. Vice Chair Sweetnam reminded the Commission that the City Council would again be discussing the neighborhood familiarization period at their next meeting. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 5,1998 PAGE 13 ADJOURNMENT Commissioner R. Green moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Black. The meeting was duly adjourned at 11:29 P.M. to Thursday, April 2, 1998. N:\GROUP;PLANNING\VRC198MIN03.05 VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 5,1998 PAGE 14