Loading...
VRC MINS 19980507 APPROVED JUNE 4, 1998 VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 7, 1998 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Long at 7:05 P.M at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Commissioner Black. PRESENT: Commissioners Black, Kipper, Mehlman, Vice Chair Sweetnam, Chair Long. Commissioner Mueller arrived at 7:08 P.M., Commissioner A. Green arrived at 7:15 P.M., and Commissioner R. Green arrived at 7:50 P.M. ABSENT: Commissioner Drages (excused) and Commissioner McBride 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 Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Black. Approved, (5-0) COMMUNICATIONS Acting Director Rojas distributed a letter from the Palos Verdes Unified School District relating to VRP No. 48. He explained that the City Council would, at their next meeting, have a closed session item discussing the school district actions and how to proceed on the pending appeal. Vice Chair Sweetnam commented on the letter the Commissioners received from Mr. Banta regarding VRP No. 48. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1998 Vice Chair Sweetnam pointed out a typographical error on page 2. On page 3 of the minutes, Commissioner Kipper commented that a statement made by Commissioner Mehlman was actually made by Commissioner Kipper. Commissioner Mehlman agreed. Commissioner Kipper pointed out a typographical error on page 5. Commissioner Kipper felt that on page 7 of the minutes the record should reflect that Mr. Welch distributed a diagram rather than a photograph. On page 8, Commissioner Kipper did not feel that a statement by Acting Director Rojas made sense. Acting Director Rojas stated staff would clarify the statement. Commissioner Kipper pointed out a grammatical error on page 14. She also disagreed with the vote recorded in the minutes. She felt that she had voted no on the item rather than yes. Acting Director Rojas stated staff would review the tape of the meeting, and unless the tape reflected a different outcome on the vote, the vote recorded in the minutes could not be amended. Chair Long requested staff report back to him as to what was heard on the tape. He also requested that at the time he signs a Resolution, the vote be recorded on the Resolution. Commissioner Black moved to adopt the minutes as amended, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. Adopted, (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 57: Dr. and Mrs. Harbans Bhatia, 30237 Avenida De Calma (EU) Staff polled the Commission as to who had visited the site. All seven of the Commissioners present had visited the site, therefore all would participate. Chair Long opened the public hearing. Chair Long asked the applicant and foliage owner if five minutes for their presentation and three minutes for rebuttal would be sufficient time. Mr. Wheeler responded that he might need as much as ten minutes for his VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 7, 1998 PAGE 2 0 0 presentation. Chair Long stated that the applicant and foliage owner would therefore get 10 minutes for presentation and three minutes for rebuttal, and he would strictly enforce these time limits. Project Coordinator Ursu presented the staff report. He reported that staff had requested the city arborist visit the site to determine if any trees could be saved after they were trimmed to a level low enough to restore the view from the applicant's property. The arborist determined the pine tree nearest the bottom of the slope can be trimmed without jeopardizing the life of the tree. Further, regarding the trees on the slope, the city geologist had visited the site and recommended, if the trees were to be removed, that replacement foliage be planted and the root system of the trees to be cut be left in place. Dr. Harbans Bhatia (applicant) 30237 Avenida De Calma distributed pictures to the Commission showing the view from his property. He stated he moved into his house in 1964 and at that time there was no vegetation. He had requested the foliage owner's trim their vegetation in the past and he had paid to have it done. He stated that this time when the trees were trimmed his view was not restored. That is why he submitted his view restoration application. Randy Wheeler (representing the foliage owner) 30220 Calle De Suenos commented that he was concerned about the easement that would be placed on the property as a result of the view restoration permit. He did not feel it was fair to have something like this on the title or to have to disclose it when selling the house, possibly making the house less desirable to a potential buyer. He had no objection to the removal and replacement of the three trees in the rear. He did not feel the privacy of his family was taken into account. He stated that the applicant may not be able to see directly into his house, however they would have a much greater view of the applicant's house. He stated that his family had put a lot of thought and care into the backyard landscaping and questioned who would make the determination as to whether a trimmed tree was actually dying or dead after the trimming. He felt the applicant should pay to have the dead tree removed from the property and replaced. He also objected to a 15 gallon replacement tree for a 27 year old tree. He requested the replacement tree be larger. Daria Wheeler (representing the foliage owner) 30220 Calle De Suenos commented that she did not understand why it was more important for the applicant to have a view of the ocean than it was for her family to have their garden. She commented that her family had purchased the trees, paid landscapers to plant the trees and had cared for the trees for 27 years. She stated that they had trimmed the trees on a regular basis. She stated that the tree in question provided an enormous amount of shade to the VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 7,1998 PAGE 3 1110 111 house and yard in the summer. Finally, she stated she was confused as to why the trees had to be trimmed to the level of the applicant's pad. She felt if trees were trimmed to the level of the pad, the applicant would have to lie on the ground to have their view obstructed. Why can't the trees be trimmed to a height slightly above the pad level. Dr. Bhatia (in rebuttal) commented that he would take full responsibility for any trees that died due to trimming, but would not pay for any trees or foliage that died due to neglect. Mrs. Wheeler (in rebuttal) commented that she did not understand Dr. Bhatia's comment about neglect. Vice Chair Sweetnam asked Mr. Wheeler if tree #4 had been trimmed into the beautiful dome shape it was growing in, or if it grew that way naturally. Mr. Wheeler answered that it had been trimmed to that shape. Chair Long asked Mr. Wheeler to clarify if he was objecting to having the three trees, excluding tree #4, removed and replaced. Mr. Wheeler responded that he did not object, and further, if the three trees were trimmed or removed, tree #4 may not present too much of a view blockage to the applicant. Chair Long asked Mr. Wheeler what type of replacement he would prefer if the three trees were removed. Mr. Wheeler answered that they had not really discussed it, but they were thinking of possibly some type of bush. His objective would be to have some type of privacy screen at the top of the slope. Commissioner Mueller commented that he had noticed a shrub already at the top of the fence. He was wondering if that should be included in the foliage, as it was growing rather high at what appeared to be a rapid rate. Commissioner Kipper wondered if the shrub was on the foliage owner's property. Commissioner Kipper also asked for clarification as to whether the top of the chair link fence was equal to the bottom of the applicant's building pad. Project Coordinator Ursu answered that there were two chain link fences on the VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 7,1998 PAGE 4 111 property. The fence at the top of the foliage owner's property cannot be seen from the applicant's viewing area. He felt the applicant's pad was one to three feet above the chain link fence. Mrs. Wheeler again asked for clarification as to why trees were to be trimmed to the height of the pad level, rather than a little higher. Chair Long responded that under the guidelines, the view is assessed from where people sit. Also, if trees are ordered to be trimmed right to the minimum amount that restores the view, then the trimming necessary to maintain the view becomes much more frequent. Vice Chair Sweetnam added that a view isn't strictly horizontal. If one is on a hill and the view is actually looking down a little, not straight out. Commissioner Kipper commented that Dr. Bhatia has a hedge growing along the edge of his property and the hedge appears to be two or two and one half feet high. She felt it was unreasonable to cut the tree below Dr. Bhatia's hedge level. Why take a chance on killing the tree if you could give it an extra two feet. The tree may not be below the pad level, but it would be below the hedge level. Chair Long asked the foliage owners if they would rather trim the tree at a slightly higher level, giving it a somewhat better chance of surviving and have to trim the tree more frequently, or trim the tree more severely initially but then trim it less often to maintain it. Mr. Wheeler responded that the initial trim should be trimmed to a maximum height it could be to give the tree every opportunity to live. He felt that maybe the next year it was to be trimmed it could be trimmed a little lower. Chair Long wondered how quickly an Aleppo pine grew annually. Commissioner Kipper felt that since the tree had been trimmed twice before, and the foliage owners know when the tree was trimmed, there should be some estimate as to how many feet a year it has been growing. Mr. Wheeler felt it had grown approximately six inches since It was trimmed eight months ago. However, that was new foliage and he could not be sure how much the actual tree trunk and branches had grown. Vice Chair Sweetnam felt that the tree was dome shaped and it could possible be flattened out on top, still maintain it's dome shape, and possibly restore Dr. Bhatia's VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 7, 1998 PAGE 5 • 11 view. Mrs. Wheeler responded that, in her research on the Net and in discussions with arborists, pine trees were designed never to be topped. Staff recommended a full third of the tree be trimmed off. She felt that after the pine trees at the top of the slope are removed, ten to twelve feet off of the top of the tree would not be necessary. She didn't understand why the city arborist came to her property and said ten to twelve feet off of the top of the tree should be fine, when three other arborists had told her that the tree will die if that much is removed. She further stated that if the tree were to be trimmed and died, staffs recommendation of a 15 gallon replacement tree was completely unacceptable. Commissioner Black asked Mrs. Wheeler if a 24 inch box tree would be an acceptable replacement. Mrs. Wheeler responded that she was not sure, but it sounded more reasonable. Commissioner Black asked Mrs. Wheeler if she would rather replace the tree now or trim the tree and see what happens. Mrs. Wheeler answered that she would rather trim the tree and try to give it a chance to live. Commissioner Kipper asked Dr. Bhatia if, after the three pines were removed, he might consider accepting lacing only of the fourth Allepo Pine. Dr. Bhatia responded that it would be a possibility as long as he had some of his view restored. Commissioner Mueller asked Dr. Bhatia about the shrub growing at the top of the slope and if it was on his property. Dr. Bhatia commented that it was a weed that just starting growing, and that it was possibly on the foliage owner's side of the fence. He did not feel the shrub was any problem and could easily be cut down. Commissioner A. Green asked staff to clarify if this process was creating an easement on the foliage owner's property. Acting Director Rojas answered that the City Attorney had stated that the view restoration process does not result in the creation of an easement over a piece of property and in fact, the Tiburon court case had upheld that decision. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 7,1998 PAGE 6 Commissioner A. Green then asked for clarification regarding disclosure when selling a home. Chair Long answered that the law applied to everyone in the city and there was no burden of disclosure. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Black. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mueller asked staff how much of tree #4 would need to be trimmed to restore the applicant's view. Project Coordinator Ursu responded that pine tree #4 was approximately 6 to 8 feet above the applicant's pad level, therefore only 6 to 8 feet would have to be trimmed. Commissioner Black suggested that regarding tree #4 the Commission order that next November the tree be either trimmed or removed and replaced with a 24 inch box tree. Project Coordinator Ursu stated that staff would be able to modify the wording in the Resolution regarding tree #4 to say the foliage owner shall, no later than 90 days after November 1, 1998, complete the work. Vice Chair Sweetnam stated that the Resolution would need to be changed regarding the replacement of tree #4. The wording should state it will be replaced with up to a 24 inch box tree. Commissioner A. Green moved to adopt the Resolution, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Black. Adopted VRP Resolution 98-05 as amended (7-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:35 P.M. the Commission to a short recess to 8:45 P.M. at which time they reconvened. NEW BUSINESS 3. MEDIATION GUIDELINES Project Coordinator Nelson began by explaining the Commission had received an outline of mediation guidelines for early neighborhood consultation process and view VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 7,1998 PAGE 7 410 restoration preliminary notice meetings. Staff was not able to distribute the full guidelines tonight because they were still waiting for input from the city attorney. Ms. Nelson reported that the City Attorney had commented that in putting mediation guidelines together and mediation in the sense of formal mediation, was not the direction the City Council had intended to go. The City Attorney indicated that if the Commission does adopt guidelines that address a formal mediation process, those guidelines will need to go back to the City Council for review before they are adopted. A brief discussion followed regarding the mediation guidelines Project Coordinator Nelson stated that there were two early neighborhood consultations coming up that needed a Commissioner to attend. She stated the first one was an early neighborhood consultation for VRP 58 on May 15 at 3:30 and the second one is VRP 59 scheduled for May 22 at any time. There was also a notice of preliminary decision for View Preservation Application No. 2 that was open as to what day the meeting would be held. Following the rotation, it was determined that Commissioner R. Green would be available to attend the meeting for VRP 58 and Commissioner A. Green would attend the May 22 meeting. It was determined that staff would contact Commissioner McBride and Commissioner Drages to see if they would be available to attend the meeting for the View Preservation Application. 4. REPLACEMENT TREE LIST Acting Director Rojas explained that this list was a suggested list of acceptable replacement foliage that staff could hand out to foliage owners. He explained that this list was a start for the foliage owner, but by no means a complete list. In reviewing the tree list, Commissioner Kipper suggested additional information be added regarding sunlight and shade requirements. A brief discussion followed regarding the replacement tree list. Vice Chair Sweetnam suggested staff compile a list of trees that have been removed, topped or laced in the city as a result of a view restoration permit. Commissioner A. Green added that would be useful as well as the list of trees the City of Tiburon had compiled that caused view problems. Vice Chair Sweetnam suggested that staff look into any way the city can get some type VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 7,1998 PAGE 8 of credit for the green waste being generated by the trees that are ordered cut by the Commission. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Chair Long requested that the information requested be presented on a future agenda. He also requested a presentation by staff showing before and after pictures of a couple of completed VRP applications. He thought it would be good to see a picture of one that worked out well and one that may not have worked out too well. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner R. Green moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Black. The meeting was duly adjourned at 9:30 P.M. to Thursday, June 4, 1998. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 7, 1998 PAGE 9