Loading...
VRC MINS 19980806 , . • APPROVED SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 I 4 VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION : \ REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 6, 1998 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Long at 7:00 P.M. at Fred Hesse Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Commissioner McBride. Present: Commissioners Black, Drages, Green, Kipper, McBride, Mehlman, Vice Chair Sweetnam, and Chair Long Absent: Commissioner Mueller was excused Also present were Project Coordinator Ursu and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chair Sweetnam pointed out a typographical error on page 2 of the agenda. Commissioner Kipper moved to approve the agenda as amended, seconded by Commissioner Green. Approved, (8-0). COMMUNICATIONS Project Coordinator Ursu distributed a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Lal, one of the foliage owners for View Restoration Permit No. 58. He also updated the Commission on the new applications submitted and on the pre-application meetings held since the last Commission hearing. Chair Long requested that the Chair and Vice Chair be added to the regular rotation of Commissioners who sit in on the pre-application meetings. Commissioner Kipper mentioned articles from the Los Angeles Times and Orange County Register regarding trees and views and requested that they be distributed at the next View Restoration Commission meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF JUNE 4, 1998 Vice Chair Sweetnam pointed out grammatical errors on page 7. Chair Long noticed a missing name on page 8. Commissioner Black asked for a clarification of a vote on page 9. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to adopt the minutes, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Black. Adopted, (8-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 58: Mr. and Mrs. Hooshang Mozaffari, 30405 Avenida De Calma (EU) Chair Long requested the Commissioners be polled as to who had visited the sites. Commissioner Green had only visited one foliage owner's property. Commissioner Kipper was not able to visit the Schweisberger property. Commissioner McBride had not visited the Lal property. Therefore, Commissioners Green, Kipper and McBride were recused. Project Coordinator Ursu presented the staff report, discussing the trees involved and the staff recommendations. Vice Chair Sweetnam asked staff if, after reviewing the letter submitted by the Lals which states they have been trimming their foliage annually, the foliage on the Lal property might be treated more as a view preservation issue rather than a view restoration issue. Project Coordinator Ursu answered that the applicant had not shown staff any documentation showing that they had a view. Further, he felt that the foliage on the Schweisberger property would be further blocking the view, making documentation difficult. Vice Chair Sweetnam stated that he felt the mock pear and Acacia located at 30421 Avenida De Calma were growing into the view and should be trimmed at this time and be maintained. Project Coordinator Ursu responded that it was staffs opinion that the trees were on the periphery of the view and did not create significant view impairment. Commissioner Black moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. The public hearing was opened. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 6, 1998 PAGE 2 • • Chair Long asked the applicant and foliage owners if five minutes was sufficient time to present their comments to the Commission. Mr. and Mrs. Lal felt that they would require 10 minutes to preset their case to the Commission. Chair Long agreed to 10 minutes, with 3 minutes for rebuttal but stated that the time periods would be strictly enforced. Hooshang Mozaffari (applicant) 30405 Avenida De Calma began by stating trees 1, 2, and 3 on the Lal residence (the Date Palm, and 2 Monterey Pines) were estimated to be 35 feet high and above the ridgeline of the home. Therefore, he felt those trees should be topped to the fence or two feet above his property pad rather than trimmed. He felt that trimming the trees would not restore 100 percent of his view. Trimming would only restore a partial view, which would not be acceptable to them. He also stated that there were two palm trees on the front of the property not mentioned in the staff report. He requested the palm trees be trimmed and have the dead leaves removed. He emphasized that going through the effort of the view restoration process would only be valuable if the view was totally restored. Regarding the Schweisberger property, he felt that trees 1 and 2 should be topped or replaced by reasonable trees or shrubs. John Schweisberger (foliage owner) 30421 Avenida De Calma asked the Commission to deny the application based on a number of issues. First, he felt the trees may infringe on a view. However, he felt it was only approximately 20% of potential horizon view to the very left of the property which he did not feel was significant. In the view the Mozaffaris do have, Mr. Schweisberger felt that there was significant breakage of any ocean view due to the second story of many homes. Secondly, he felt there was a privacy issue to be addressed. He felt the Mock Pear and Aleppo Pine provide privacy and ambiance to their spa area. He also felt the property value of his home would be significantly reduced if trees were removed. Finally, he did not feel the geologist could adequately access the slope stability of his property by looking over the property line from the applicant's property. He did not claim to be a geologist, but questioned how the geologist, from a distance of 20 to 30 feet away, could determine the affect the removal of a long standing pine tree on a slope would have on the stability of that slope. Mr. Lal (foliage owner) 30420 Calle De Suenos began by stating that he has been trimming his trees annually to make sure his backyard looks beautiful and does not interfere with other people's view. He stated that he bought the property because of the beautiful, secluded backyard. Since buying the property he has removed at least five trees to keep the trees out of his neighbor's view. He also questioned the definition of significant view. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 6,1998 PAGE 3 410 0 Shirley Lal (foliage owner) 30420 Calle De Suenos reiterated that they had bought their house because of the beautiful foliage in the backyard and have taken great care to keep the foliage trimmed and beautiful. Mrs. Lal explained that they had a tree trimmer at their property several times and were told that trimming the trees down to the fence line would kill the trees. She also stated cutting down and trimming the trees as suggested in the staff report would allow for gaping holes in the landscape which would affect their privacy as well as their resale value. Mrs. Lal concluded by asking the Commission to deny the application and allow them to continue to trim the trees as they have in the past. Mr. Mozaffari (in rebuttal) stressed that the view that is blocked is significant. He further stated that there were no second story structures blocking his view. Regarding the privacy issue raised by Mr. Schweisberger, he felt that the trees he was requesting be trimmed did not in any way affect the privacy between their two properties. Also, regarding the geology, he stated that the geology report stated the root system should remain in place to help preserve the stability of the slope. Mr. Schweisberger (in rebuttal) disagreed with the applicant regarding the privacy issue, stating that there would be a direct view into the kitchen window. Referencing the root system, he agreed the geologist did recommend leaving the stump and root system, creating a lack of ambiance next to his outdoor spa. Mr. Lal (in rebuttal) stressed that the Mozaffaris had been happy up to this point with the trimming that they had done in their backyard. Mrs. Lal (in rebuttal) commented that they had removed trees in the past and trimmed their remaining trees to be good neighbors. Chair Long noted that Commissioner Black had to leave the hearing due to illness, which left the Commission with a bare majority of only four to discuss and vote on the application. Since any vote would have to be unanimous, he felt it would be best to continue the hearing to the next meeting. Chair Long moved to continue the hearing to the next regular meeting of September 17, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. Chair Long polled the applicant and foliage owners as to which meeting would be most convenient for them to attend. After much discussion, the applicant and foliage owners agreed that they would all be available for the meeting of October 1. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 6,1998 PAGE 4 • Chair Long amended his motion to continue the public hearing to the meeting of October 1, 1998, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. There being no objection, the hearing was continued. Chair Long clarified that any of the Commissioners who had not visited one or more of the properties could now go out and visit the property and be able to participate in the continued hearing. He explained to the applicant and foliage owners why the item needed to be continued and apologized for any inconvenience the continuance may cause. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:10 P.M. the Commission took a short recess until 8:20 P.M. at which time they reconvened. NEW BUSINESS 3. UNDESIRABLE TREE LIST (EU) Project Coordinator Ursu presented the staff report stating that staff had recommended the suggested plant list be amended to elaborate on the purpose of the suggested trees and a description of factors foliage owners should consider when they are planting new trees. Commissioner Green moved to accept the recommendations of the staff report, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. A discussion followed as to how to amend the recommendations to not sound too negative and make the list easy to read and understand. Chair Long summarized by stating the Commission had decided to adopt the report, change the subject of the report to Factors In Tree Selection, change the recommendation to "staff recommends that the City's current suggested plant list be modified to elaborate on the purpose of the list to include a description of the factors foliage owners should consider when selecting replacements and examples of trees which adversely impact those factors." He also suggested adding language that staff and City Council should try to distribute the list to homeowners and local nurseries whenever possible. Commissioner McBride disagreed and felt that the Commission had stepped beyond it's duties of view restoration. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 6,1998 PAGE 5 I 0 Commissioner Green modified his motion to include suggestions of the discussion above, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. The motioned passed (5- 2) with Commissioners Mehlman and McBride dissenting ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Chair Long requested a discussion on the status of the request made for the use of visual aids at future meetings. Project Coordinator Ursu reviewed the status of the view restoration and preservation cases currently being reviewed by staff. Commissioner Kipper stated she would not be able to attend the September 17 meeting and Commissioner Green stated he would not be able to attend the September 17 or October 1 meetings. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Green. The meeting was duly adjourned at 9:10 P.M. to Thursday, September 17, 1998. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 6, 1998 PAGE 6 - • THERE WAS NOT A VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION HEARING HELD IN JULY 1998