Loading...
VRC MINS 19990506 1110 APPROVED JUNE 3, 1999 VIEW RESTORTION COMMISSION REGLUAR MEETING MAY 6, 1999 The meeting was called to order by Chair Kipper at 7:03 P.M. at Fred Hesse Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Vice Chair Sweetnam. Present: Commissioners Drages, Mehlman, Mueller, Vice Chair Sweetnam, and Chair Kipper. Commissioner Long arrived at 7:07 P.M. and Commissioner Green arrived at 7:55 P.M. Absent: Commissioners Black, McBride, and Cordova were absent (excused). Also present were Project Coordinator Nelson, Project Coordinator Ursu, and Recording Secretary Peterson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Mueller moved to add an item 4 to new business of the agenda to discuss and review the view restoration application status log, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. There being no objection it was added to the agenda. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to approve the agenda as amended, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. There being no objection, it was so approved. COMMUNICATIONS Project Coordinator Nelson distributed to the commission the View Restoration Commission May calendar and a memo updating the view application status log. She also briefly discussed: 1) an agreement reached for VRP 70 and the withdrawal of the application; 2) An update on the City Council ad hoc committee; 3) the City Council interpretation of language discrepancy for View Preservation Request No. 1; and 4) An update on the court case for VRP No. 29. Chair Kipper discussed her attendance at the Mayor's Breakfast. She reported that the City Council ad hoc committee would be having a City Council workshop regarding the view restoration process. Commissioner Mehlman distributed a memo responding to comments made in memos from Commissioners Black and Long. • • CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 1999 Vice Chair Sweetnam pointed out a typographical error on page 4 of the minutes. Chair Kipper noted typographical errors on pages 6, 9, and 10 of the minutes. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. Approved, (6-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 50: Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Cangemi, 30130 Avenida Tranquila (EU) Project Coordinator Nelson reminded the Commission of the Commissioners who had originally participated in the public hearing for this project, which were: Commissioners Mehlman, Long, Black, Mueller, Vice Chair Sweetnam, and Chair Kipper. Commissioner Long questioned staff if Commissioner Drages, who had read the minutes and had visited the site, could now participate in the discussion of this application. Staff acknowledged that since she had read the minutes and visited the site, she could participate in this discussion. Staff Coordinator Ursu reminded the Commission that this item had been continued in order for staff to determine whether 20% of the foliage on the trees had been trimmed. He stated that the trees in question are conical in shape and that when the trees are measured there is an actual reduction in height of the trees, but not in the volume or amount of foliage. Therefore, after measuring the trees at the site he could determine that in terms of overall reduction in the height of the trees, less than 20% had been trimmed. Mr. Ursu further stated that, based on clarification from the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, the interpretation of the condition by the View Restoration Commission may only be appealed to the City Council if the interpretation results in a major change to the condition. A substantive change would, in essence, result in a new decision on that application. For example, he stated if the Commission's decision entailed something different than trimming the trees to the ridgeline or removing 20%, the change would be considered substantive and therefore appealable. To make a substantive change a properly noticed hearing to contemplate the change would be required. If, however, the Commission VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 1999 PAGE 2 • • interprets the decision and the change is not a substantive change, then it can be done by minute order and completed at this hearing. Commissioner Drages asked staff how much of the tree would have to be taken off to make it level with the ridgeline. Project Coordinator Ursu answered that the trees are from 22 to 24 feet in height. His best estimate would be lowering the trees between 3 and 5 feet to the highest ridgeline. He further stated that the arborist had recommended that rather than cut the trees straight across the top, to find branches at the top, follow them down to where they were on the trunk, and cut them at that point which is a technique known as "drop crotching". Commissioner Long was concerned about properly shaping the trees and wondered what amount of volume had already been lost on trees 4, 5, and 6. Vice Chair Sweetnam stated that he felt the arborist had originally meant for the trees to be brought down to the ridgeline and should, if possible, be given a conical shape and the additional trimming to give that shape should not remove more than 20% of the foliage. Commissioner Long understood what Vice Chair Sweetnam was saying, but his interpretation of the Resolution was for the trees to be cut to the ridgeline, but in no event remove more than 20% of the foliage. He felt that if less than 20% of the foliage has been removed and the trees have not yet been trimmed to the ridgeline, then more trimming needed to be done. However, if 20% of the foliage has already been removed then, even though the trees are not to the ridgeline, no further trimming would be necessary. Commissioner Drages stated that in looking at the trees now she did not feel that 20% of the foliage has been removed because as the tree tapers off at the top there is not as much foliage near the top. Where they may be close to having 20% of the tree height cut, that would not mean 20% of the volume had been cut because of the way the trees taper off at the top. Commissioner Mueller agreed with Vice Chair Sweetnam in that the original intent was to restore the blue water view for the applicant and trim the trees to the ridgeline. The arborists recommendation of 20% foliage removal was an attempt to shape the trees. He felt it would be rather difficult to determine what volume of the foliage had been removed. Further, the decision was made and every opportunity was given to the foliage owner to return to the Commission and say the trees could not withstand that type of trimming and request replacement trees. That was not discussed nor followed through and to come back and say that based on what the arborist said we cannot trim more than 20% of foliage, was something he felt was beyond what the Commission should be considering, as it would be overturning their original decision. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 1999 PAGE 3 0 0 Commissioner Long's recollection was that trimming the trees more than 20% could be harmful to the trees, however he realized that 20% in height would not necessarily be 20% in volume. He suggested staff consult with the arborist to arrange to have the trees further trimmed as close to the ridgeline as possible, based on the arborists best estimate of 20% reduction in foliage volume. Project Coordinator Ursu roughly calculated the amount of volume of foliage that had been trimmed from each tree. Based on his rough calculations, 14% of the volume of the tree furthest to the left had been trimmed, 12% of the center tree, and 10% of the tree to the right (trees 4, 5, and 6 respectively). Commissioner Long stated that it was clear that less than 20% of the trees had been trimmed, and even though the Commissioners may have had different reasons for approving the Resolution, a common result could still be achieved. Vice Chair Sweetnam felt the Commission was getting too tied up in detail and that bringing the trees down to the ridgeline was what the Commission had originally decided and what the Commission should continue to recommend. Commissioner Long moved to direct staff, with the assistance of the City Arborist, to require further trimming of trees No. 4, 5, and 6 to bring them down as close as possible to the ridgeline but to not exceed staffs and the city arborist's best estimate of 20 percent removal of the volume of the foliage from each tree (20 percent from the original crown). Also, in accordance with Section 17.78.050 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, the Commission determines that their interpretation in this matter constitutes a minor, non-substantive revision to the approved application, seconded by Commissioner Mehlman. Approve, (5-1) with Vice Chair Sweetnam dissenting. NEW BUSINESS 3. TREE REPLACEMENT PROCESS (TN) Project Coordinator Nelson distributed an example of a letter given to a foliage owner when there is the option of trimming or removing a tree. She discussed the process of how a foliage owner chooses a new tree and how the applicant pays for that new tree. Commissioner Long expressed concern over the fact that many of the trees on the replacement tree list are in excess of the cost guidelines. He stated that he felt the Commission needed more information as to the cost of different types of replacement foliage. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 1999 PAGE 4 A lengthy discussion followed among the Commissioners on the types of trees available and the prices of various possible replacement trees. They also discussed possible ways to make the replacement tree process more equitable to the applicant and the foliage owner. Chair Kipper suggested that this topic may be one for the City Council ad hoc committee to address. Project Coordinator Nelson stated that the Ordinance does specify that replacement foliage can be recommended but does not restrict the cost of replacement foliage and this topic may be more of a Guidelines issue. Chair Kipper directed staff to gather more information regarding the cost range of replacement foliage and report back at a future meeting. 4. REVIEW OF VIEW RESTORATION STATUS LOG Commissioner Mueller asked staff for clarification on the changes to the monthly status log, especially the pending applications and applications pending resolution. Project Coordinator Nelson clarified the status log and explained how the numbers were arrived at. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Green moved to adjourn, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam The meeting was duly adjourned at 8:45 P.M. to Thursday, June 3, 1999 at Hesse park. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 1999 PAGE 5