Loading...
VRC MINS 19980604 Approved 8/6/98 TL/ VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 4, 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 Mueller. Present: Commissioners Black, Drages, R. Green, Kipper, McBride, Mehlman, Mueller, Vice Chair Sweetnam, and Chair Long Absent: Commissioner A. Green (excused) Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Rojas, Project Coordinator Nelson, Project Coordinator Ursu, and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner R. Green moved to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. Approved, (9-0) COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed a letter from the applicant of VRP No. 58. Vice Chair Sweetnam distributed an article from the Los Angeles Times. Commissioner Mueller asked staff about the procedure involved in continuing an item and procedures involved in informing the applicant and foliage owner that the case may not be continued even if that is what staff is recommending. Chair Long informed the Commission that he had sent a letter to the Palos Verdes Unified School District regarding their view restoration permit. He requested that staff distribute a copy of the letter to the Commissioners. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF MAY 7, 1998 Commissioner Mueller asked staff if they had reviewed the tape of the May 7, 1998 View Restoration Commission meeting regarding the question of Commissioner 1110 110 Kipper's vote on VRP No. 48. Director Rojas responded that staff had listened to the tape and it was very clear that the vote was as reflected in the minutes. Commissioner Kipper pointed out a typo on page 4 of the minutes. Commissioner Black moved to adopt the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner R. Green. Adopted, (7-0-2) with Commissioners Drages and McBride abstaining since they were absent from the meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 58: Mr. and Mrs. Hooshang Mozaffari, 30405 Avenida De Calma (EU) Project Coordinator Ursu presented the staff report which stated that in the original application the applicants had identified trees on one property causing a view impairment. Approximately one week after staff had completed their report, the applicants identified another property they would like to include in their application. At that time staff determined it would be best to continue the item so that both properties could be considered as one application at one hearing. Therefore, staff recommended that the item be continued to the August meeting. Commissioner Mueller asked staff why they requested the continuance to August rather than July. Project Coordinator Ursu stated that the pre-application meeting with the applicant and foliage owner had not been held yet and that after the pre-application meeting a thirty day notice of the view restoration commission hearing is required. Commissioner R. Green moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Black. There being no objection the public hearing was opened. Mr. Hooshang Mozaffari (applicant) 30405 Avenida De Calma requested the Commission continue the hearing to the August meeting. Commissioner R. Green moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Black. The public hearing was closed. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION JUNE 4, 1998 PAGE 2 6 • Commissioner R. Green moved to continue VRP 58 to August 6, 1998, seconded by Commissioner Black. There being no objection, it was so ordered. 2. CITY TREE REVIEW PERMIT NO. 23 - APPEAL: Dr. and Mrs. Gregory Teles, 5433 Whitefox Drive (EU) Project Coordinator Ursu began the staff report by stating that the applicant's view was a multi-component view consisting of the ocean, coastline and city. He stated that staff felt that four Pine trees blocked the applicant's view of the coastline. Staff felt the applicant's view of the ocean and the city were not significantly impaired. As such, staff was recommending the Commission uphold the Director's decision to remove two Canary Island Pine trees and lace two Canary Island Pine trees that are impairing the view of the coastline. Vice Chair Sweetnam asked staff to clarify that the trees in question were trees on city property owned by the city and not on an easement on school district property. Director Rojas answered that these are city owned trees. Commissioner R. Green asked staff if the commissioners were required to visit the site for a city street tree appeal. Director Rojas answered that in this type of application the commissioners were not required to visit the site to be able to vote. There would be no reason to poll the commissioners to see who had visited the site, and any language in the Resolution regarding the site visit would be stricken. Chair Long felt that there were enough commissioners present who had visited the site and that in this situation he would rather poll the Commission and those who did not visit the site might want to recuse themselves. Vice Chair Sweetnam stated that he felt the city street tree policy was set up for the city to be a good neighbor, that they would maintain foliage so as not to impair anyone's view. He also felt that it was set up so that when a decision was appealed to the View Restoration Commission, it would basically be treated like any other view restoration situation, with the city being the foliage owner. Therefore, he felt that all of the requirements for a view restoration commission permit apply to the appeal of a street tree permit. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION JUNE 4, 1998 PAGE 3 Commissioner Black asked staff why the palm trees below the applicant's house, which appear to block their view, were not addressed by staff. Project Coordinator Ursu answered that staff was reluctant to recommend removal or trimming of palm trees. Palm trees tend to grow up and out of the view frame. The commissioners were polled and all commissioners except Commissioner R. Green had visited the site. Therefore, Commissioner R. Green was recused as well as Commissioner Mueller as he was the next alternate in the rotation to be recused. Commissioner Mueller reported to the Commission comments made by Mr. Hanson, the appellant. He stated that Mr. Hanson was concerned that the City required $700 to appeal the Director's decision, while the applicant did not have to pay any fee. Mr. Hanson also commented that in 1986 there was some verbal assurance by the then mayor of Rancho Palos Verdes that the city would not remove the trees in this area. The final comment was that he did not feel city officials took seriously his appraisal of the value of those trees. Commissioner Black moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Colleen Teles (applicant) 5433 Whitefox Drive stated that her husband had purchased his home 15 years ago and at that time had a completely unobstructed view of the coastline, the city lights, and the ocean. Over the years many trees have obstructed the view, but most significantly, the Canary Island Pines. She felt the coastline view was a major focal point of their view and they paid a premium price for that view. She felt their property value was declining because of the loss of the coastline view. She commented that they were entitled to have their view restored because the trees are within 1,000 feet of their home, the view is impaired significantly, and the trees did not exist when the lot was created or when Mr. Teles purchased the house. She felt that by removing all of the Canary Island Pines it would not only restore their view, but the views of several of her neighbors. She stated that she would like to see the pines removed and replaced with lower growing trees that are more appropriate for this type of area. Finally, she stated that the trees also create a hazard for the children with their needles and cones dropping during the year. John Hanson (appellant) requested that Mrs. Robertson speak first, but requested he speak in rebuttal. Maria Robertson 26427 Basswood Ave began by stating she and her neighbors were at the meeting tonight to save the Canary Island Pine trees. She stated that the pine trees VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION JUNE 4, 1998 PAGE 4 • were one of the major reasons they bought their home 30 years ago and these trees are her view. She commented that the shade from these trees is used on a daily basis by the children of the school as well as all residents and visitors to the neighborhood. She distributed pictures of the trees to the commissioners. She continued by saying that the loss of any of the trees would diminish her property value as well as many of her neighbors. She questioned the statement that the applicant's view was significantly impaired by the trees. She felt that there was at least a 180 degree panoramic view from the applicant's property and any view impairment was very minor. Mrs. Robertson felt that it would cost the city a significant sum of money to restore the view from one property, while diminishing the property value of at least 12 adjacent properties. Furthermore, she stated the trees were there when the applicant purchased the house in 1984. Greg Teles 5433 Whitefox Drive stated that he bought his property in 1984 with an unobstructed view. He did not feel that the shade from the pine trees even reached the school property. He claimed that the trees have grown so high that his beach view is completely obstructed by the trees, and felt that he was within the guidelines set forth by the Ordinance. He stated that the view from his property is worth more than 50% of the value of his house. Harold Robertson 26427 Basswood Avenue stated that it had been documented in many scientific journals that trees furnish much more than monetary value. He also stated that the ability to put a monetary value on people's well being is very difficult. He commented that in the city guidelines it is stated that the city would like to protect the health and welfare of the public. He suggested the Commission think very seriously about the health and welfare of the children attending Silver Spur School. He reminded the Commission that children are much more sensitive to air pollution than adults and the trees provide a tremendous amount of protection to the children. He felt that the trees were responsible for a very minimal impact on a view and a major impact on the Basswood Avenue environment. William Stinger, 5425 Whitefox Drive stated that he has a view very similar to the Teles' and it is very clear the pine trees obstruct a significant portion of the coastline, which is a significant factor in the property value. Chris Duffy 26461 Basswood Avenue commented that he has never seen pine needles causing any type of hazard to the children of the school. He felt that Dr. Teles was going to have to deal with foliage from many homes on Montemalaga Drive that will be blocking his view in the next few years. Bill Gerich 5403 Whitefox Drive began by saying he lives several houses down from the VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION JUNE 4, 1998 PAGE 5 11 applicants. He stated the trees in question are also blocking his view of the ocean. He agreed with Mr. Robertson that trees do help with the air pollution, however he did not feel that taking down two trees and trimming back two others would greatly affect anything. Mary Lou Williams 5331 Whitefox Drive began by stating she has lived in her home since 1958. She stated that when they moved in there was no Silver Spur School and they had an ocean view, city light view, and a little bit of coast view. Today she has just a small avenue where she can see the ocean. She commented that the pines do not affect her view, but the trees along in the median on Montemalaga Drive do obstruct the view. Rosemary Caterson 26315 Basswood Avenue commented that she walks throughout the neighborhood and Whitefox Drive is part of her walk. She felt the problem was that there are beautiful trees that are the object of appreciation by about 200 homes. She stated people drive by them daily and if there were gone they would be missed very much. She further stated that the monetary value of the trees is great, but not nearly as great at the ambiance they lend to the neighborhood. She hoped that her neighbors on Whitefox Drive could be persuaded that the trees do not detract from their view, but rather add to the view. In addition, she felt that the amount of oxygen these trees put into the air must be significant. She concluded by stating that one could apply to remove something that is part of a view, but how does one apply to keep a view and not have it removed. Dr. Teles (in rebuttal) stated that he appreciated Ms. Caterson's comments about having a tree view, but he did not pay extra money for that view. He bought the house for an ocean, coastline, and city view. He stated that the trees probably do provide a lot of oxygen, however he has already applied to have replacement trees for the pines. He stressed that the pines are not pin points in his view, they completely block the coastline. He addressed the trees that will eventually block his view by stating when the trees do grow into the view he will be able to talk to the neighbors and work out an amicable arrangement. He asked the Commission to look at the facts, look at the three criteria that are met, and make a fair decision. John Hanson 26409 Basswood Avenue (in rebuttal) stated that when Dr. Teles moved into his home in 1984 the pines were mature trees. He distributed to the Commission pictures of the trees taken in 1986. He commented that in 1986 the city decided to cut down all of the Canary Island Pines in the area, and did cut down seventy-three trees. He stated that after much cage rattling at city hall the mayor called and stated that the eleven trees along the school would be saved as a scenic asset. He felt that at that point the trees were protected. Now there is no record of this promise. He further VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION JUNE 4, 1998 PAGE 6 stated that he and neighbors have been out measuring the trees and trying to find out how the trees block the view. Commissioner Black moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner McBride stated that he did not receive a completed application in his packet, as well as a map showing the location of each tree. He wondered why the Commission was hearing an application with an incomplete packet. Project Coordinator Ursu answered that with the city tree permits staff had, to simplify the process, requested that anyone applying for a city tree permit simply submit a letter stating their name, address, and location of the tree. Chair Long added that he hoped Commissioner McBride did not want to put form over substance. He felt all that would result in would be the application would have to be refiled and the matter reheard. He felt he had seen enough and heard enough to make a decision on substance and was personally very doubtful that the view was significantly impaired. Commissioner Kipper agreed with Chair Long that the view was not significantly impaired primarily because, in looking at the pictures, if you cut down the two pines trees the remaining palms would still block the view. She felt there were many issues to consider, as the Commission would be making a decision that may trade one persons view and property value for another persons view and property value. She felt it was a tremendously complex case, especially with so many residents opposing the loss of the trees. Commissioner Black stated that she did not feel there was anywhere in the Ordinance that stated a tree view was considered a relevant view. She thought what was more important was that the Teleses had lost their white water view, which is considered the most important view there is. She agreed that if the pines were removed the palm trees would be blocking the view from the Teles property, and felt the palm trees should be addressed and included in the Commission's decision. Chair Long felt that the application was for the Canary Island pine trees and he did not think the Commission had the ability to expand the application to include the palm trees on the Montemalaga median. Further, he stated he was not persuaded that there was a significant view impairment by the pine trees. He was not swayed by the arguments that the trees provided shade or helped the environment. He felt it was rather thoughtless for the trees to be planted in the first place and felt it was a shame they VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION JUNE 4, 1998 PAGE 7 4110 were not cut down in 1986. However, he did not feel any of that was pertinent to the decision the Commission was being asked to make regarding the impairment of a view. Vice Chair Sweetnam disagreed with Chair Long. He thought there was a significant view impairment. He stated that the view of the coastline was often called the queen's necklace by real estate agents. Part of the view obscured on the Teles property is the forefront of the necklace and he considered that a major portion of their view. He stated it may only be a small portion of the total span of the view, but the part obscured is the most important part of the view. Chair Long asked staff for clarification on the palm trees on the Montemalaga median and if the Commission could include them in their decision. Director Rojas stated that the Commission could not make the trees on the Montemalaga median part of the application without providing proper notification. The Commission could ask staff to add the trees to the application, at which time the application would be continued to a future date. Commissioner Black stated that she walked along Montemalaga Drive and the two palm trees were not near any other trees, but standing out by themselves. Commissioner McBride reminded the Commission that one of their duties was to maintain a harmonious character of the neighborhood. He suggested some type of lacing of the pine trees rather than removal, which may facilitate the view owners and maintain the character of the neighborhood. Vice Chair Sweetnam felt that palm trees usually did not cause a view impairment, but in most cases gave the look of a semi-tropical area and usually improved the looks of the area. Therefore, he would oppose including the palm trees in the application. He felt if the applicant wanted to do something about the palm trees once the view was restored, that would be a separate application. Commissioner Mehiman agreed with Commissioner McBride and felt the Commission should look more to compromise with lacing of the trees. Chair Long stated that the Commission still needed to go back to the question of significant view impairment and if it existed. Commissioner McBride agreed with Chair Long that there was not a significant view impairment as there were other sections of the queens necklace that were visible from the applicant's property. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION JUNE 4, 1998 PAGE 8 Vice Chair Sweetnam felt that the pine trees were originally planted 40 years ago because they were economical and the fire department was giving them out at no charge. Now, 40 years later the trees are not doing the job they were put in there for. The trees are blocking views, ripping up sidewalks and streets, and are too tall. He felt the Commission should authorize the removal of all eleven pine trees. Chair Long agreed with everything Vice Chair Sweetnam said except the last sentence. He reiterated that he did not feel the trees caused a significant view impairment and therefore the Commission could not authorize their removal. Commissioner Black asked Chair Long if he felt he could see any portion of the queens necklace from the Teles property. Chair Long answered that he felt he could see small portions of the queens necklace and removing the two trees recommended would not restore the queens necklace, particularly with the palm trees in the way. He added he might change his mind as to whether or not there was significant view impairment if the palm trees were included in the application. Commissioner Kipper felt there were several other trees on the school district property that would continue to block the view if the pine trees were removed. Commissioner Black moved to have the application returned to staff to revisit the situation and possibly include the palm trees and any other trees that staff felt were significantly impairing the view, seconded by Commissioner Drages. The motion failed, (2-5) with Commissioners Kipper, McBride, Mehlman, Vice Chair Sweetnam, and Chair Long dissenting. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to remove 10 pine trees, excluding tree #11, and replace them with shade trees that are lower growing and more appropriate for the location, seconded by Commissioner Black. The motion failed, (3-4) with Commissioners Kipper, McBride, Mehlman, and Chair Long dissenting. Chair Long moved to amend and adopt the draft Resolution stating there will be a Resolution reversing the Director's decision to lace and remove foliage and to specify as the finding that the applicant has a view that is not significantly impaired, seconded by Commissioner Kipper. The motion passed, (4-3) with Commissioners Black, Drages, and Vice Chair Sweetnam dissenting. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION JUNE 4, 1998 PAGE 9 RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:50 p.m. the Commission took a short recess until 9:05 p.m. at which time they reconvened. NEW BUSINESS 4. VIEW RESTORATION BEFORE AND AFTER PRESENTATION (TN) Project Coordinator Nelson explained that staff had prepared two photo boards showing two different examples of before and after vegetation. The photo boards were distributed to the Commission to view. Commissioner Black suggested the photo boards be shown at the early neighborhood consultation meetings. The Commission discussed the photos. 5. EARLY NEIGHBORHOOD CONSULTATION AND VIEW PRESERVATION DISCUSSION MEETING GUIDELINES (TN) Project Coordinator Nelson briefly explained the guidelines and asked the Commission for any input they may have. The Commission reviewed and discussed the guidelines and the early neighborhood consultation and view preservation processes at length. Commissioner R. Green moved to adopt the Early Neighborhood Consultation and View Preservation Discussion Meeting Guidelines, seconded by Commissioner Black. There being no objection, the Guidelines were adopted. OTHER BUSINESS Director Rojas pointed out that the next regularly scheduled meeting was due to be held on Thursday, July 2. He requested that meeting be cancelled since there were no items scheduled for that meeting, making August 6 the next meeting. The Commission agreed. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION JUNE 4, 1998 PAGE 10 • ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Black moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner R. Green. The meeting was duly adjourned at 10:25 P.M. to Thursday, August 6, 1998. N:\GROUP\PLANNING\VRC\98 M I N 06.04 VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION JUNE 4, 1998 PAGE 11