Loading...
VRC MINS 19990603 APPROVED DECE , 1999 VIEW RESTORTION COMMISSION REGLUAR MEETING JUNE 3, 1999 The meeting was called to order by Chair Kipper at 7:04 P.M. at Fred Hesse Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Vice Chair Sweetnam. Present: Commissioners Black, Drages, McBride, Mehlman, Mueller, Vice Chair Sweetnam, and Chair Kipper. Commission Green arrived at 7:10 p.m. Absent: Commissioners Cordova (excused) and Long. Also present were Project Coordinator Ursu, and Recording Secretary Peterson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chair Sweetnam moved approve the Agenda, seconded by Commissioner Black. There being no objection, the agenda was approved. COMMUNICATIONS Project Coordinator Ursu distributed and briefly discussed several items of communication with the Commission: 1.) A copy of a letter and photograph submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Roland Ilsen, 6847 Abbottswood Drive, regarding View Restoration Permit No. 67; 2.) A copy of the Notice of the City Council Workshop public hearing on June 14, 1999 at 9:00 a.m.; 3.) A copy of a letter dated June 2, 1999,from Mrs. Jil Mastous, 6863 Abbottswood Drive, regarding View Restoration Permit No. 67; 4.) A copy of the June 3, 1999 View Restoration Updated Status Log. Chair Kipper discussed her attendance at the Mayor's Breakfast. She reported that a written report discussing the issues to be on the Agenda at the City Council ad hoc committee workshop regarding the view restoration process would be sent to the Commission in the middle of the next week. Commissioner Black requested that the absent Commissioners be notified of the meeting immediately. Chair Kipper explained that the Ad Hoc Committee would be reporting to the Council their findings and invited the Commission members to submit their comments in writing to the Council prior to the hearing. • CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF MAY 6, 1999 Commissioner Mueller pointed out an error regarding the outcome of the vote on page 4 of the minutes and clarified that Vice Chair Sweetnam was the dissenting vote, not Commissioner Mueller. Chair Kipper noted a typographical error on page 4 of the minutes. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Green. Approved, (6-0-2). Commissioner's McBride and Black abstained. CONTINUED BUSINESS: NONE NEW BUSINESS: 2. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 67: Mr. and Mrs. Roland Ilsen, 6847 Abbottswood Drive, Dr. and Mrs. Ling, 6857 Abbottswood Drive (EU) Commissioner Black moved to open the public hearing. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. A roll call was taken to see which Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioners Black, Drages, Green, McBride, Mehlman, Mueller, and Chair Kipper had visited the site. Vice Chair Sweetnam was recused because he participated in the pre-application meeting. Vice Chair Sweetnam was excused from the meeting, since there were no other items on the Agenda. Project Coordinator Ursu presented the Staff report. He explained that the Notice of Intent to File Application was submitted on October 13, 1998 by Dr. and Mrs. Ling and Mr. and Mrs. Ilsen. Two foliage owners were listed, Mr. and Mrs. Moentmann, 6924 Grovespring Drive and Mr. and Mrs. William Mastous, 6863 Abbottswood Drive. Two pre-application meetings occurred, the first with Mr. and Mrs. Mastous and the second with Mr. and Mrs. Moentmann. Mr. and Mrs. Mastous had trimmed their trees lower than 16 feet and below the height of the ridgeline of their house. As such, their trees were no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the view ordinance. No agreement was reached between the applicants and Mr. and Mrs. Moentmann at the Pre-application meeting and a formal application was submitted on April 5, 1999. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 3,1999 Page 2 of 9 0 0 Project Coordinator Ursu identified the applicants' view as the Pacific Ocean, Malibu coastline and, according to the applicants, a partial city light view. Staff found that the living rooms of each applicant's residence as having the most important view. He stated that in Staffs opinion, the view from the Ilsen's viewing area was not impaired, and did not believe that trimming or removal was necessary to benefit the Ilsen's view. On the other hand, Staff found that the Ling's view was significantly impaired and identified eight trees that should be trimmed or removed as stated on page 3 of the Staff Report, in order to restore the view. Mr. Ursu stated that there is evidence to support all five of the findings included in the Draft Resolution. He concluded by distributing photographs which staff had taken along with a letter and photograph just received from the Moentmann's. Roland Ilsen (applicant), 6847 Abbottswood Drive, thanked Mr. and Mrs. Mastous for trimming the foliage on their property. He stated that when he and his wife moved into their home 36 years ago, they had a wonderful view, which has slowly disappeared. Mr. Ilsen agreed with the Staff recommendation of trimming and lacing and removing foliage on the Moentmann's property, but requested that he and his wife be recognized as applicants with significant view impairment by the foliage on the Moentmann property. Ringo Ling (applicant), 6857 Abbottswood Drive, stated that when he purchased his home in 1997, he began discussing the view issue with Mr. Moentmann. Dr. Ling agreed with Staffs determination made on page 3 of the staff report regarding trees no's. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. He commented on trees no's. 2 and 9. He stated that trees no's. 2, 3, and 4 are grouped close on the West Side near his backyard and that these trees block the view of the sunset. Dr. Ling submitted a photograph to the Commission showing the sunset behind tree no. 2. He stated that lacing the trees may not be enough because the trees are so close together and requested that tree no. 2 be topped or removed. He further requested that the tree be topped to a level below the height of his building pad, to ensure the view of the sunset. Dr. Ling then discussed tree no. 9, an Aleppo Pine. He stated that although the tree may look small, the tree should be trimmed to a height below the level of his building pad or removed, because it sits in the middle of his view. Norman Moentmann (foliage owner), 6924 Grovespring Drive, opened by stating that in order to defend his trees, he would be a few minutes longer than the applicants. He stated that he has lived in his home since 1971. He further stated that the previous owners of the Ling's home sent him a letter regarding view issues and he responded with a letter. He continued that when he moved in, there was Ice Plant on a steep slope. He and his wife were concerned with the stability of the slope because of the mudslides, which were occurring in the area. According to his measurements, the slope is 27 feet high and has a slope of 34 degrees, therefore causing him to question the slope's stability. He stated that the trees on the slope are holding the slope, thus keeping it from sliding. Mr. Moentmann commented on a newspaper article discussing a landslide, which had just occurred at the Ocean Trails Golf Course. He stated that he planted the trees in order to ensure slope stability and now they are mature trees. Mr. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 3,1999 Page 3of9 • Moentmann raised issues regarding the Ling's property. He said that a 1990 property appraisal report stated that their home rests on an unstable slope and suffered from some structural damage in past years. He continued by stating that the previous owners, the Kelly's made some repairs. Mr. Moentmann stated that they removed a chain link fence and built a planter and retaining wall which sits at the top of the 27-foot high slope in his backyard, without an engineers report or approval by the Planning Department. He stated that although the City geologist found that the slope was stable, he believes that the retaining wall is in fact deteriorating. Chair Kipper asked Mr. Moentmann to finish his comments because he had exceeded his time limit. Mr. Moentmann continued by stating that he had meet with the Ilsen's and Ling's, at a pre-application meeting, and offered to have some of their trees removed. He felt that this proposal should have been meet with a positive response, but it was not. He stated that he had followed up this proposal in writing and was presenting the offer again, to voluntarily remove four trees, no's 1, 3, 5, and 6. He further stated that the rest of the trees should remain and be protected, ensuring slope stability. Mr. Moentmann concluded, stating that he had no objection to trimming tree no. 9. In rebuttal, Dr. Ling addressed Mr. Moentmann's concerns regarding the slope stability. He felt the slope stability issues had been addressed by Staff and the City's geologist who reported in writing that cutting the trees would not affect the stability of the slope. He addressed Mr. Moentmann's concerns regarding the retaining wall, stating that Mr. Moentmann raised the same point with the previous owners who wanted their trees trimmed. As far as he knew, the retaining wall had been correctly constructed, but that he would monitor that situation. Dr. Ling concluded by addressing the foliage owner's proposal of removing some trees. He felt that the language of the proposal was subjective, especially the phrase, 'best health and appearance' and asked that a height limit be specified. In rebuttal, Mr. Moentmann stated that he agreed to top tree no. 9, but wanted to keep its roots for slope stability. He stated that tree no. 2, a Monterrey Pine would be ruined by Staffs recommendation of lacing the portions of the tree between 3 and 8 feet, creating a window effect. He further stated that his main concern was the slope stability and requested 24-inch box trees be listed as a possible replacement tree. He clarified by stating that he did not want to ask for more money but wanted to ensure more control in the replacement process. He concluded by stating his intentions to fully abide by the decision of the Commission. Commissioner Green moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Black. There being no objection the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Green was concerned that tree no's 2, 3 and 4 were very close together and questioned whether lacing those trees would give the applicants enough of a view. After looking at the photograph, he concluded that lacing would probably be VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 3,1999 Page 4 of 9 0 0 satisfactory. He stated that lacing may lead to maintenance problems because tree no. 7 is a massive tree in the middle of the yard. Regarding tree no. 9, he disagreed with Staff and felt that once the other trees are trimmed and laced, it would be a focal point. He suggested that Mr. Moentmann's offer to reduce the crown on tree no. 9 would be a suitable solution. Commissioner Green agreed with Dr. Ling, regarding the vagueness of the phrase `health and appearance', and preferred not to use that phrase if possible. Commissioner Green stated he had no major objections to the parties' preliminary agreement or with the Staff Report. Chair Kipper stated that a percentage of trimming should not be stated in the resolution. Commissioner Green stated that a section of tree no's 2 and 4 should be laced since tree no. 3 was going to be removed. He asked Staff what the height difference between the Ilsen and Ling building pad levels is. Project Coordinator Ursu answered 11 feet. Commissioner Green felt that the parties had worked out an agreement. Commissioner Black concurred with Staff's decision except for details regarding tree no. 9. She agreed that Mr. Moentmann made a wonderful offer. Commissioner McBride reminded the Commission to consider the slope stability issue and stated the purpose of the ordinance as read on page 2 of the View Restoration Guidelines, is balancing the rights of applicants and foliage owners. He felt that Mr. Moentmann made a very generous offer, and felt that the language regarding tree no. 9 should read, "trim to a said height," instead of lacing. He further stated that he would take out the language, between 3 and 8 feet, in the Resolution. Commissioner McBride did not feel it was necessary to add the language 'best health and appearance,' as suggested by the foliage owner. Commissioner Green raised some questions regarding the size of replacement foliage. Project Coordinator Ursu stated that the language of the Resolution could be changed to state "replace with one 24-inch box or equivalent". Chair Kipper was concerned that the language of the Resolution may not be clear to the parties in the future, and felt the wording should read "24-inch box or monetary equivalent". Commissioner Green did not want to allow replacement foliage to be replaced by a monetary amount. He stated that the Statute does not allow for that. Chair Kipper suggested that the language should state "replace with one 24-inch box tree or up to three 15-gallon trees." VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 3, 1999 Page 5 of 9 0 0 Commissioner McBride asked what the value of a 24-inch box tree was. Commissioner Mueller discussed the replacement foliage and restrictions. He felt that specifying a monetary limit would be a good restriction. Project Coordinator Ursu explained the details of replacement foliage and suggested that the Resolution state "either one 24-inch box tree or two or three 15-gallon trees." Commissioner Mueller requested that the Commission be specific and put some restrictions on the number of replacement trees. He was concerned about using the word "equivalent" in the Resolution. Chair Kipper suggested substituting the phrase, "three 15-gallon trees" for the word "equivalent". She stated that this language would allow the foliage owner the choice of planting a shrub instead of a tree if they wanted, which in some cases seems more appropriate. Commissioner Mehlman asked about stating a monetary dollar amount in the Resolution. The Commission agreed that they could not state a dollar amount. Commissioner Black felt that the word "equivalent" would suffice. Commissioner Green suggested using the phrase "24-inch box or three 15-gallon trees", if they are equivalent in cost. Commissioner McBride suggested the phrase "24-inch box or equivalent." Commissioner Mueller asked Staff if one 24-inch box is equivalent to the cost of three 15-gallon trees. Project Coordinator Ursu explained that the trees would be about the same dollar amount, but the labor cost of planting three 15-gallon trees could be higher than that of planting one 24-inch box tree. Commissioner McBride thought that three 15-gallon trees would better serve the purpose of the foliage owners concerns, but did not want to impose a financial burden to the applicants. He suggested adding the phrase "equivalent cost" to the Resolution. He asked if Commissioner Mueller agreed with that concept. Commissioner Mueller agreed with using that language concerning the foliage in the back yard slope but expressed concern about using the same language regarding replacement foliage in the front yard since there is not a stability issue. He felt that grinding the stump should be the foliage owner's responsibility, not the applicant's. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 3,1999 Page 6 of 9 0 0 Commissioner Green stated that historically, the Commission routinely ordered the stump be ground when a tree is removed, in order to plant replacement foliage in the same spot of the yard. Chair Kipper felt that it was appropriate to have the stump ground. Commissioner Green discussed replacing tree no. 1 with one 24-inch box tree instead of possibly three 15-gallon trees or equivalent. Commissioner Mueller agreed that grinding the stump would help, and felt the replacement foliage should be listed as "one 24-inch box tree." He suggested using the phrase "or equivalent" when addressing the backyard slope replacement foliage. The Commission agreed to use the phrase "or equivalent" for the backyard slope replacement foliage. The commission discussed possibilities for replacement foliage and the cost implications for the replacement foliage in the Moentmann's front yard. Chair Kipper asked if there were any further questions regarding Exhibit A of the Staff Report. Commissioner Mueller discussed tree no. 9. He clarified that he thought Mr. Moentmann meant to trim the tree to the height of the fence, around 3 feet above the applicant's building pad level, when he offered to top the tree. Commissioner McBride clarified that the language used for tree no. 9 would be the same language that was used for tree no. 8. Chair Kipper stated that the language for tree no. 6 should state, "remove with the foliage owner's consent." The Commission discussed the language of the phrase 'best health and appearance,' as suggested by the foliage owners and the language used in Exhibit A, 'trim the crown and lace and shape with emphasis on lacing the portions between 3 and 8 feet.' Project Coordinator Ursu stated that most good tree trimmers would take time to lace the tree correctly, especially considering the purpose the trimming was to restore a view. After discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that the language used for trees no's 2, 4 and 7 should be: 'lace and shape the tree.' The language to be used for trees no's 8 and 9 should read: 'trim to a crown to a height not to exceed 3 feet above the Ling's existing building pad level.' The language used for trees no's 1, 3, 5 and 6 should read: `remove with the foliage owner's consent and grind the stump, otherwise top to a level not to exceed the Ling building pad level. If removed, replace with one 24-inch box tree or foliage of equivalent cost.' VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 3, 1999 Page 7 of 9 0 I Commissioner McBride moved to accept Exhibit A as amended, seconded by Commissioner Black. Chair Kipper asked if there was any further discussion on the motion. Commissioner Mueller stated that he had some questions about the Resolution. Chair Kipper agreed they should discuss the Resolution first and asked if they could table the motion or if they could discuss the other issues while the motion was on the floor. Commissioner McBride stated that the procedure should be to table the motion. Chair Kipper moved to table the motion. There being no objection, the motion was tabled. Commissioner Mueller discussed the Ilsen's viewing area. He disagreed with Staff that the view was not significantly impaired. He stated that Mr. Ilsen would benefit from the Commission's decision and suggested relaxing the language used to state that the Ilsen's view is only partially impaired. Chair Kipper discussed the photograph, which was submitted by Mr. Ilsen. She stated that the picture looked like it was taken from the corner of his yard, not the viewing area. She further stated that she felt that Staff was correct, the view from the Ilsen's primary viewing area was not significantly impaired. Commissioner McBride asked if page 2 of the Resolution would be modified to reflect Commissioner Mueller's concerns. He asked if Mr. Ilsen would be required to participate in the trust fund allowance. Commissioner Green felt that Mr. Ilsen intended to contribute to the trust fund. Chair Kipper stated that the Ilsen's could contribute if they wanted to. Commissioner Green stated that he also reached a different conclusion than Staff and felt there was significant view impairment from the Ilsen property. Commissioner McBride questioned whether the Ilsen's could file a separate action once this decision was final regarding their view impairment. Commissioner Green stated that he did not think that the Ilsen's would be able to bring the same compliant regarding the Moentmann property back to the View Restoration Commission. Project Coordinator Ursu stated that the final decision would be binding on the property now, but at a later time the applicant's could file another View Restoration Permit. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 3, 1999 Page 8 of 9 • Commissioner Green stated that the Ilsen's could file for View Preservation, but not for View Restoration again. He commented that he did not want to discourage the Ilsen's from participating financially. Commissioner Mueller felt that the main viewing area was from the patio and master bedroom, not from the living room. Commissoner McBride moved to change sections 2 and 3 of the Resolution. The motion failed due to lack of a second. Chair Kipper stated there was a motion on the floor to approve the Resolution and Amended Exhibit A. Commissioner McBride moved to approve the Resolution and amended Exhibit A, seconded by Commissioner Black. The motion was approved (7 - 0). ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATIONS Project coordinator Ursu updated the Commission on the status of City Tree Review Permit No. 26 regarding 57 trees at Hesse Park. Chair Kipper discussed the sample street tree letter from Public Works regarding the Street Tree Program. She stated that the letter never mentioned the view issue. She further stated that after speaking with Public Works she was assured that Canary Island Pine trees would not be planted. Project Coordinator Ursu stated that the Public Works department was revising the list of trees to be planted to take into consideration possible view impairment. Chair Kipper suggested that the Commission and Staff meet with Public Works to discuss the program and implementations of possible view impairment. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS A discussion occurred regarding upcoming View Restoration pre-application meetings. It was stated that depending on the outcome of the meetings, there could possibly be a Hearing in August. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Green moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Black. The meeting was duly adjourned at 9:06 P.M. to Thursday, August 5, 1999 at Hesse Park. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 3, 1999 Page 9 of 9