Loading...
VRC MINS 19981001 aft" APPR VED 1/7/99 VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 1, 1998 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Long at 7:10 P.M. at Fred Hesse Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Commissioner Mueller. Present: Commissioners Black, Cordova, Kipper, Mehlman, Mueller, Vice Chair Sweetnam, Chair Long. Commissioner McBride arrived at 7:15 p.m. Absent: Commissioners Drages and Green were excused Also present were Project Coordinator Nelson, Project Coordinator Ursu, and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Black moved to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. Approved, (7-0). COMMUNICATIONS Project Coordinator Nelson distributed three items to the Commission: 1) a continuance request from one of the foliage owners for VRP No. 58; 2) a dispute resolution handout; and 3) a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Mozaffari regarding VRP No. 58. Project Coordinator Ursu briefly discussed the new visual equipment (projector and lap top computer) being used at the meeting this evening. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 Commissioner Black pointed out that she was excused from the meeting of September 17, rather than absent, which was confirmed by Chair Long. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to adopt the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. Approved, (5-0-3) with Commissioners Kipper and Black and Chair Long abstaining since they were not at that meeting. 0 0 CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 58: Mr. and Mrs. Hooshang Mozaffari, 30405 Avenida De Calma (EU) Project Coordinator Ursu explained that one of the foliage owners, the Schweisbergers, would not be able to attend the meeting due to the medical problems of one of their children, and requested the hearing be continued to the January meeting. Chair Long asked staff if the applicant had expressed a view on the request for continuance. Project Coordinator Ursu answered that he had not spoken to the applicant, but had discussed the continuance request with the other foliage owners, the Lals. Chair Long asked Mr. and Mrs. Mozaffari if they would like to be heard on the request for the continuance. Mr. Mozaffari stated that he had no objection to continuing the hearing. Commissioner Black moved to continue the hearing to the meeting of January 7, 1999, seconded by Commissioner McBride. Approved, (8-0) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. VIEW PRESERVATION PERMIT NO. 2 - APPEAL: Mr. and Mrs. Richard Kipper, 5 Chaparral Lane (appellant); Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Oliveri, 6 Chaparral Lane (applicant). (EU) Chair Long requested that Commissioner Kipper recuse herself to the audience as she was the appellant in the application being heard. The Commissioners were polled as to who had visited the sites. All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner McBride had participated in the pre-application meeting and therefore recused himself. Project Coordinator Ursu presented the staff report. He explained the 6 trees involved were all Canary Island Pine trees of varying heights. He stated the Kippers were appealing the Director's decision on the basis that they did not feel the applicant's view was significantly impaired. He explained the three factors, as stated in the guidelines, that are used to help determine whether a view is significantly impaired. He displayed VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 1,1998 PAGE 2 4110 0 on the overhead several photographs taken with the digital camera from the viewing area on the Oliveri property which staff felt showed a significant view impairment. He also distributed photographs for the Commission to view. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. There being no objection the public hearing was opened. Chair Long asked the applicant and appellant how much time they felt would be necessary to present their views to the Commission. Mrs. Kipper requested 10 minutes for herself and 10 minutes for her husband, a total of 20 minutes. Chair Long agreed to 20 minutes speaking time for the applicant and the appellant. Marianne Kipper (appellant) 5 Chaparral Lane began by reading a description from a real estate listing for 6 Chaparral Lane describing a panoramic view from most rooms. Mrs. Kipper commented that this was not a pre-1989 statement, but from a listing when the Oliveri's purchased their home. She stated the view had not changed since that ad. She commented that their Canary Island Pines were 20 years old and their growth had slowed substantially. Further, the Oliveri's enjoy a view over 90% of the Kipper's lot and house. She did not feel that Proposition M intended foliage owners to remove every twig, leaf and branch from a view. She felt she was providing an expansive view over her property and stated she was willing to assist the Oliveri's in increasing their view by lacing the trees. Mrs. Kipper commented that the photograph the Oliveri's were using to claim view preservation does not support the downtown buildings as a prominent landmark, as the buildings are only visible 10% of the time, and when they are visible the Oliveri's can easily walk into another portion of their home to see them. Therefore, she did not feel this was a major view component in their panoramic view. She commented that if the Oliveri's wanted to increase their view of the downtown area they could do so by cutting their own foliage to a lower height. Mrs. Kipper explained the trees were planted immediately after 7 Chaparral Lane was built in order to provide privacy on the western end of their property. She also commented that tree #2 provides extensive privacy from not only the street, but also the Oliveri's patio area. She stated that tree #1 was no longer necessary for privacy and agreed to it's removal. She further stated that the trees planted on the western side of the property were there to provide shade to her property. She pointed out that lacing the trees would continue to allow them to provide shade, while topping them would not. Mrs. Kipper continued by stating that the area the trees are planted in had, at one point, extensive mud slides. The trees were planted because of their deep tap roots. There have been no further problems in this area. She felt that staff recommendations did not point out that topping the trees would, in her opinion, kill the trees. She stated that she had supplied articles VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1998 PAGE 3 to staff and would have an arborist attend a future meeting, if necessary, to state that topping trees was not recommended as a method of tree reduction. She stated that if the trees did die, a 15 gallon or 24 inch box tree replacement would not be sufficient to protect their privacy and the ambiance of the yard. Further, if the trees did live they would be deformed and unattractive. In conclusion, Mrs. Kipper stated that lacing was the only option which will allow the trees to live and afford the Oliveri's some view through and around them. Joe Oliveri (applicant) 6 Chaparral Lane, reminded the Commission that this application was for view preservation, not restoration. He hoped that the Commission had a chance to review the documentation he sent them. He stated that the Kipper's claimed the trees provided shade to the property. He pointed out that the trees were approximately 70 feet tall. He felt that trimming the trees to a height that would allow them their view would leave the trees at a sufficient height to continue to provide shade to the property. He also did not feel the trees provided any privacy from the street. Mr. Oliveri stated that the circumstances of view impairment were so obvious that any casual observer could tell the trees block the view. He stated the Kippers were, in his opinion, in clear violation of Section 17.02.040 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. He felt this violation had been determined on three different occasions by Rancho Palos Verdes code enforcement staff. He stated that lacing the trees was a completely unsatisfactory solution, as lacing would promote the dense, rapid growth of the trees. He stated that you could not see the tops of the trees if you were standing on the Kipper property, and trimming the trees as recommended by staff would not change that. He did not feel the Kippers would be able to see the trimmed areas they are requesting, as that would be 35 feet above the roof line of the house. He stated the Kippers have an unobstructed view of their own and would not concede to give back the view that once existed on his property. He did not feel privacy was an issue at all. He pointed out to the Commission that the Kipper's trees were in the center of his view, blocking downtown. The trees block his view from the patio, living room, family room, bedroom, and entry area. Mr. Oliveri concluded by stating that significant view impair was obvious and requested that all the trees be topped. Richard Kipper (appellant) 5 Chaparral Lane, began by stating he felt the issue at hand was in violation of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution, as it was unlawful taking of property. He felt that this was condemnation of his property. He stated that the estimated value of his trees is between $50,000 and $125,000 and removing the trees would also have to take into account the loss in property value, privacy, and ambiance. He stated the Oliveris were attempting to create a view that did not exist when they purchased the property and in doing so were lessening the value of his property for the Oliveri's personal gain. He stated that arborist and builders agreed that trimming the trees would decrease the value of their home. He reminded the Commission that people buy homes because they like trees, just as people buy homes because they like VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1998 PAGE 4 111/ 110 the view. He read from an article from the Los Angeles Times that said that view owners must accept the fact that at some time they might loose their view because property owners situated between them and the view own the air space and can put in it what they want. He stated that there was nothing in the Constitution that allows anybody to come in and summarily have ownership to someone else's airspace. Therefore, Mr. Kipper felt that unless there was something in the Oliveri's title that gave them ownership over the airspace above the Kipper property, they do not have a fundamental right to demand destruction of their property. He also felt the City was attempting to create a permanent view easement over his property. He stated that the imposition of Proposition M was a clear example of spot zoning which discriminates against certain property owners by incumbering their property with easements and maintenance requirements. Mr. Kipper further stated that twice in the past neighbors had planted trees that partially blocked his view. He commented that they do not own these views by title and are thankful and appreciative of the views they do have. He reiterated that the Oliveri's could increase their view by removing some of their own foliage. He concluded by stating that he would be willing to remove tree No. 1 and lace the remaining trees. Jody Oliveri (applicant) 6 Chaparral Lane, began by stating that the foliage on the right side of their home was there to block the view directly into their neighbors pool. She commented that they have a right to ask the Kipper's to trim their trees, according to Proposition M. Mr. and Mrs. Kipper both stated that they had nothing to say in rebuttal. Mr. Oliveri stated that, as he stated in the June 19, 1998 pre-application meeting, his position has not changed since the determination of staff in November of 1997 that there is significant view impairment and all of the trees should be trimmed to the height of the pool deck. He asked the Commission to enforce the law of the City and ask the Kippers to trim the trees in question. Commissioner Mueller asked Mrs. Kipper to clarify for him which trees were tree #1 and tree #2. Mrs. Kipper clarified the two trees for the Commission and explained they had agreed to the removal of tree #1 because it would give the Oliveri's the largest view. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Black. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Chair Long requested staff display on the overhead one of the pictures taken from the Oliveri property. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1998 PAGE 5 0 0 Chair Long felt the Commission should begin their discussion with issue of the finding of significant view impairment. He felt their was a significant view impairment. He reminded the Commission that the guidelines specifically addressed the issue of city skyline, which was meant to encompass downtown. He commented that he has a view of the downtown area from his home and is able to see downtown far more than ten percent of the year, and it is often visible at night. He felt the trees obliterated the downtown view from all of the viewing areas at the Oliveri residence. Commissioner Mueller agreed and commented that he was at the Oliveri residence on a very clear day and could not see the downtown area from any of the viewing areas. He stated the trees appeared to be in the center of the view frame in most instances and in all instances the trees blocked the downtown area. Chair Long next addressed the issue of what the view was in 1989. The Commission reviewed pictures submitted by Mr. Oliveri that were taken in 1989. Commissioner Black commented that by viewing the photographs it was very obvious there was a view from the Oliveri residence in 1989. Chair Long next addressed the issue of privacy. He did not feel the trees provided any privacy from the street and little if any privacy from the Oliveri residence, but were very important to privacy from 7 Chaparral and to the view and ambiance in the area of 7 Chaparral. Mr. Long asked staff if they had discussed their recommendations with an arborist. Project Coordinator Ursu responded that they had not discussed the recommendations with an arborist. He also reminded the Commission that the findings that would normally apply to a view restoration permit do not apply to a view preservation request. He commented that view preservation requires the foliage owner to maintain the status quo as it existed in 1989. Therefore, the Commission should not require the foliage owner to remove more foliage than what existed in 1989. Chair Long added that replacement foliage then would not be required using the rational that the foliage owner as of 1989 acted at their own peril in electing not to comply with the Ordinance. Further, the only question would be what was the status in 1989 and has the foliage grown above the status of 1989 in a way that significantly impairs the view. Commissioner Mueller asked staff if they had a firm estimate of the tree heights in 1989. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 1,1998 PAGE 6 0 0 Project Coordinator Ursu answered that staff has to rely on the evidence provided by the applicant. Vice Chair Sweetnam commented that it was obvious from the photographs that the tree growth was post 1989 growth. Chair Long stated that the purpose of the View Restoration Commission was to enforce the Ordinance, and did not have the power to declare the Ordinance unconstitutional. Vice Chair Sweetnam stated that he was inclined to recommend all trees be trimmed to the appropriate level rather than be laced. Commissioner Mehlman was concerned that trimming the trees would possibly cause the trees to die. She felt that removal of tree #1 and lacing of the remaining trees was a fair compromise. Chair Long commented that after observing the placement of the trees, which are stacked behind each other, lacing would not bring back the core of the view. Chair Long suggested adopting the staff recommendations as presented with the modifications of omitting Section 4 and changing the remaining section numbers. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to adopt the staff recommendations as modified, thereby denying the appeal and adopting the Resolution as amended, seconded by Commissioner Black. The Resolution was adopted (5-1) with Commissioner Mehlman dissenting. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:50 P.M. the Commission took a short recess until 9:05 P.M. at which time they reconvened. 4. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 63: Mr. and Mrs. Clarence Hustler, 6614 Abbottswood Drive (EU) Commissioner McBride asked to be recused from hearing the application and excused from the rest of the meeting Chair Long excused Commissioner McBride. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1998 PAGE 7 • • The Commission was polled as to who had visited the site. All Commissioners had visited the site. Project Coordinator Ursu presented the staff report. He displayed a photo showing the trees addressed in the application. He explained the staff recommendation to trim one Pepper Tree and one Pittisporum Tree to 16 feet in height and remove the other Pepper Tree with consent of foliage owner, or trim it to 16 feet in height, and the skirt on the Mexican Palm Tree be raised in order to have a view under the tree. Staff did not feel the Japanese Black Pine tree created a significant view impairment. He explained staff did not feel replacement foliage was necessary. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Black. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Chair Long asked the applicants how much time they felt they needed to present their views to the Commission. Mr. Hustler answered that he and his wife would need a total of 20 minutes. Chair Long granted the applicants and foliage owners a total of 20 minutes for each side to speak and three minutes for rebuttal. Mr. Hustler (applicant) 6614 Abbottswood Drive explained that he is the original owner of his home and over the years has enjoyed an unobstructed view of the ocean. He explained that over the years the view became obstructed. He stated that he and his neighbor, Mr. Lee, had contacted the foliage owner, Mr. Lemmi, about trimming his trees. He stated Mr. Lemmi refused to trim his trees until other neighbors had been contacted and trimmed their trees. Mr. Hustler stated that he contacted other neighbors who cooperated fully in having their trees trimmed, yet Mr. Lemmi still refused to trim his trees. Mr. Hustler stated that he and his wife would accept the recommendations of staff with the exception of Japanese Black Pine on the west slope. He stated the pine blocked views from several properties. He commented that the pine is directly in front of other trees that they were requesting be trimmed and it made no sense to leave it as is. In conclusion, Mr. Hustler asked the Commission to enforce the law of the City and give him back his view. Carlos Lemmi (foliage owner) 6624 Abbottswood Drive stated he had a written agreement with the applicant regarding the trimming of the trees in question. Mr. Hustler had since trimmed the junipers around the fence dividing their two properties. Mr. Lemmi explained that they also had a written agreement from the Hustlers agreeing to cover the fence to the top, as it was before Mr. Hustler trimmed the junipers. He explained that once the Hustlers acted on their written promise, they would act on VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 1,1998 PAGE 8 I • theirs. Mr. Lemmi distributed photographs showing the way the fence area looked before the junipers were cut, and the way it looked after the junipers were cut. He also pointed out that the view was not blocked when the junipers were in place. He explained that Mr. Hustler had to go onto his property to cut the junipers in the manner he did. Further, Mr. Hustler had replaced a few junipers but not nearly enough to sufficiently replace what was destroyed. He asked the Commission to postpone acting on this application until Mr. Hustler shows he is ready to resolve the conflict by acting on his promise to cover the fence to the top as it was before. He stated that once the area is replanted, the Hustler's could then apply for the view restoration permit. Mrs. Hustler (applicant) 6614 Abbottswood Drive explained that what attracted her to the area was the beautiful view. She explained that her view was now blocked and she and her husband were only asking to have their view returned. Mr. Hustler (in rebuttal) said that the issue before the Commission was a tree issue, not a juniper issue. He said the Commissioners who visited his property could plainly see that the view was being blocked by the trees on Mr. Lemmi's property. He could not understand why the junipers were playing such a big part in the discussion. He explained that the junipers were cut, not because of the view, but because they were uprooting his sprinkler heads, uprooting his patio, and making holes through the fence. He explained that when he cut the three junipers on his side of the fence, they extended through the fence and onto the Lemmi property. He explained that he had to go onto the Lemmi property to pick up the dead foliage he had trimmed. He stated that he had replanted the area and had been watering it daily. He felt that the juniper area would be looking better than ever in a short time. He asked the Commission to remember they were here to discuss the tree issue, and not the juniper issue. Mr. Lemmi (in rebuttal) asked that, if the Commission approved the permit, they make sure a licensed, approved professional landscaper trim the trees. He asked that Mr. Hustler restore the privacy along the fence that he had removed. Danny Lee 6602 Abbottswood Drive explained that he was a co-applicant with Mr. Hustler at one time. However, when staff came to visit his house it was explained that his view was on the periphery and was not, in staffs opinion, significantly blocked. He commented that he had been to the Hustler property several times and the view from their property was significantly blocked. He encouraged the Commission to enforce the ordinance, and wade through the side issues. Chair Long asked Mr. Hustler if he felt he had fulfilled the agreement with the Lemmi's regarding the replanting of the junipers. Mr. Hustler answered that he felt he had, and that the area needed time to grow, but VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 1,1998 PAGE 9 • was getting better every day. He admitted that he was a little embarrassed by the way the trimming had come out and had spent the money to replace the junipers and was watering them daily to help them grow back. He clarified that the junipers were on his property, and that the branches extended quite a way onto the Lemmi property. Chair Long asked Mr. Lemmi if he felt the base of the junipers were on Mr. Hustler's property. Mr. Lemmi responded that the junipers were planted on his property. Chair Long asked Mr. Hustler if the fence was on the property line. Mr. Hustler responded that the fence was on his property by about 10 inches. Mr. Lemmi answered that he did not know exactly where the property line was without a survey. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Black. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. A discussion followed among the Commissioners as to whether or not the junipers should be considered as part of this hearing. Chair Long suggested an appropriate way to deal with the situation might be to dismiss the case and indicate that as part of the dismissal the Commission felt that the early neighborhood consultation process should be revisited. Hopefully there would be cooperation from both parties in this process. Vice Chair Sweetnam commented that he felt Mr. Hustler made a reasonable case that the junipers were actually his junipers and on his property. Chair Long commented that he felt the junipers were not on Mr. Hustler's property and the fact that he entered into an agreement with Mr. Lemmi suggested that he knew he entered the Lemmi property without permission. He did not feel that the agreement had been honored by Mr. Hustler. Commissioner Black commented that it appeared that Mr. Lemmi was willing to do alot of the work to restore the view if his side of the slope was repaired. She felt that Mr. Hustler agreed that the slope should be repaired to some extent. She suggested that, after listening to all of the arguments, the process should go back through early neighborhood consultation. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 1,1998 PAGE 10 0 0 Chair Long agreed, stating that the application should be continued to such a time that staff had determined the early neighborhood consultation process had been complied with, or at least a reasonable effort made by the applicant, and there had been a reasonable effort to satisfy the agreement. He felt that would be the quickest way to get to a resolution in the matter. Commissioner Kipper agreed and then asked how the Commission would go about accomplishing that goal. Chair Long suggested dismissing the application as he stated earlier, and the dismissal would be without prejudice to reconsideration and without any requirement of any new filing fee. He further stated that once the issue of the slope repair was resolved there may not be much disagreement between the Lemmis and the Hustlers. Commissioner Mueller questioned if an early neighborhood consultation process could be made a requirement. Chair Long responded that it could not be required, but staff could attempt to implement the process and then report to the Commission on it's efforts. At that point the Commission will have to decide what to do based on the efforts of the staff. Commissioner Black commented that both parties have heard the views of the Commission and that may help them in resolving the matter. Project Coordinator Ursu suggested denying the request without prejudice because the early neighborhood consultation process had not been met. The process had not been met because the agreement entered into by the parties had not been implemented. He stated that once the applicant did what he needed to do to satisfy the agreement, then he could request the Commission rehear his application. Chair Long stressed that the denial must be without prejudice. The Commission was not making a finding that there was not a significant impairment of view or any such finding. Therefore, in the Resolution most of Section 4 would be deleted and wording added stating the applicant has not complied with the early neighborhood consultation process. Project Coordinator Ursu agreed adding that additional language should be added to explain why the early neighborhood consultation process had not been complied with, specifically failure on the applicants part to fulfill his obligations under the agreement the parties had entered into. Sections 1 through 3 would be deleted, as no findings were being made, as well as Sections 5 through 10. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1998 PAGE 11 0 111 Chair Long asked to include language that no additional filing fees would be required once staff felt the early neighborhood consultation process had been complied with and the application was ready to be re-heard by the Commission. Commissioner Kipper added that she hoped the two parties could resolve their differences in the early neighborhood consultation process and not have to reinstate the application and return to the Commission. Commissioner Black moved to adopt the Resolution denying VRP 63 without prejudice, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. Approved, (6-1) with Vice Chair Sweetnam dissenting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Project Coordinator Ursu stated there were no items to be placed on the November agenda. He reviewed several upcoming applications. Commissioner Kipper stated she would like to address at a future meeting, the issue of early neighborhood consultation procedures for view preservation applications. She also suggested a future discussion on possible recommendations regarding the policy of replacement tree selections for city owned trees. Commissioner Mehlman asked that a discussion be included in the future on appointments and reasonable notification periods for site visits to applicant and foliage owner's properties. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Kipper moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. The meeting was duly adjourned at 10:35 P.M. to Thursday, December 3, 1998. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1998 PAGE 12