Loading...
VRC MINS 20000803 • 41 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 7, 2000 VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING August 3, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Alberio at 7:04 P.M. at Fred Hesse Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Vice Chairman Slayden. Present: Commissioners Drages, Dyda, Franklin, Iseda, Simmons, Weber, Vice Chairman Slayden, and Chairman Alberio. Absent: Commissioner Monks was excused. Also present were Project Coordinator E. Ursu, and Recording Secretary R. Ursu. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Dyda moved to approve the Agenda as presented, seconded by Vice Chairman Slayden. There being no objection, the Agenda was approved. COMMUNICATIONS Project Coordinator E. Ursu stated that there are three pre-application meetings scheduled in August and circulated a Commissioner sign-up sheet for the meetings. Commissioners Dyda, Simmons, and Vice-Chairman Slayden signed-up to serve at the pre-application meetings. Project Coordinator E. Ursu informed the Commission that an abatement warrant to enforce VRP No. 41 had been issued, and will be executed on August 4, 2000. Vice Chairman Slayden stated that he had received a letter from Mr. Robert Zimel, foliage owner of VRP No. 59, regarding the discussion at the July hearing and summarized the letter. Commissioner Franklin reported that he participated in the pre-application meeting for VPA No. 36, and stated that the parties did not reach an agreement. Chairman Alberio stated that he will submit a request to the City Council, asking that VRC members be eligible to participate in the Planning Institute in March, 2001. Chairman Alberio reported on his attendance at the Mayor's Breakfast, summarizing numerous items that were discussed. He invited the Commission members to attend a joint session between the Traffic Committee and Planning Commission regarding the Long Point project on August 22, 2000. CONSENT CALENDAR: 0 • 1. MINUTES OF JULY 6, 2000 Vice Chairman Slayden moved to approve the Minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Dyda, (8-0). 2. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 2, 1999 Commissioner Drages moved to approve the Minutes as presented, seconded by Vice Chairman Slayden, (8-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS: NO ITEMS PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 87: Mr. and Mrs. Harold Hanson, 17 Stirrup Road (EU). A roll call was taken to see which Commissioners who were present had visited the site. Commissioners Dyda, Franklin, Simmons, Weber, and Vice Chairman Slayden had visited the site. Commissioner Drages, lseda and Chairman Alberio were recused, as Commissioner Drages participated in the pre-application meeting, Commissioner lseda had visited the site but did not observe the view from the viewing area inside the house, and Chairman Alberio lives within 2,500 feet of the subject property. Vice Chairman Slayden moved to open the public hearing. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Project Coordinator E. Ursu presented the Staff report. He explained the history of the case, discussing the applicant's request, the foliage owner's concerns, and Staffs recommendations as presented in the written Staff Report. He indicated that the applicant, on the advice of his attorney, did not attend a pre-application meeting, as there is a civil case pending. Project Coordinator E. Ursu stated that Staff accepted a formal application in January, 2000. At the request of the foliage owner's attorney, Staff had continued the item until a deposition could be taken in the pending civil suit. He concluded by stating that Staff felt that there was adequate evidence to support the five findings that are necessary to approve the case. In response to Commissioner Alberio's query, Project Coordinator E. Ursu stated that the previous week Mr. Finazzo verbally indicated that he was interested in continuing the VRC hearing until the civil case is resolved. Staff instructed the applicant to submit a written request to continue the matter and inform him that the VRC would decide whether or not to continue the item. Vice Chairman Slayden asked if the pending civil suit would affect the View Restoration Permit that the Commission was discussing. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES August 3, 2000 Page 2 of 6 410 0 Project Coordinator E. Ursu stated that the civil suit involved a separate issue, and the City's decisions and Ordinances are applicable regardless of the outcome in the civil case. He further stated that the City has an obligation to implement the Ordinance and process the application in a timely manner, especially since the application was filed eight months ago and a civil suit may take years to settle. Vice Chairman Slayden gave a brief background of the civil case that is pending stating that allegedly the applicant removed one larger tree and five or six smaller trees. He asked the Commissioners to state their opinion as to whether to proceed with the hearing. Commissioner Franklin stated that he felt it was premature to hear this item. He stated that had the trees remained in place, and not been cut, one of the remedies available to the Commission was to raise the crown of seven Ash trees, and to trim the trees that have been left in place. Since the trees were cut, this remedy has been eliminated. Commissioner Franklin continued, stating that if the Commission proceeds and directs that the trees be trimmed then one of the remedies available to the court would be eliminated. Commissioner Franklin moved to continue the hearing of VRP No. 87 until after the court has made a decision in the civil case. Vice Chairman Slayden stated that he thought the Commission should go forward with this item. Commissioner Simmons stated that the Commission does not know the background or details of what happened to the trees addressed in the civil suit. He felt that the Commission had no evidence as to what happened to the missing trees. Commissioner Simmons further stated that the trees in question may be significantly impairing the view, and the Commission should make a decision regarding these trees. He agreed with Staffs recommendations to proceed with the hearing of this case. Commissioner Weber stated he agreed with Staffs recommendations. The motion to continue failed due to lack of a second. In response to Commissioner Dyda's query, Project Coordinator E. Ursu discussed Staffs rationale for recommending reduction of the height of the three trees to a level five feet above the level of the tree owner's house. He further stated that the tree owner expressed a concern of loss of shade if the Eucalyptus tree is trimmed to five feet above the top of his house. He also stated the foliage owner did not object to trimming the other two trees to the recommended height. Commissioner Dyda confirmed that the applicant and foliage owner were aware of the option of replacement foliage. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES August 3,2000 Page 3 of 6 Commissioner Weber moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Simmons. Harold Hanson (applicant), 17 Stirrup Road, stated that he has lived in his home since 1970, and has maintained the trees on his property in such a manner as to not impair his neighbors view, and asked that the foliage owner trim his trees in order to restore his view. Christian Ehlers (foliage owner's Attorney), Gunderson & Schlichter, LLP, 3601 Aviation Boulevard, Suite 2700, Manhattan Beach, CA, 90266, distributed a packet to the Commissioners which contained a history of the pending civil case. Mr. Ehlers stated that the View Restoration Case is related to the civil case pending. He stated that if the civil case settles before October 5, 2000, then that settlement will include negotiations regarding the three trees (the Eucalyptus, Modesto Ash, and Chinese Elm) that the Commission is discussing. He asked that the Commission continue this item. Mr. Ehler further stated that Staffs recommendations were solely based on the information provided by the Hanson's. He stated that based upon their investigation, information provided by the Hanson's is not reliable. He summarized the depositions of Harold and Linda Hanson taken in the civil case. In conclusion, Mr. Ehlers stated that the Hanson's cut down seven trees on Mr. Finazzo's property and then only after Mr. Finazzo pursued a civil remedy, did the Hanson's file this application. He asked the Commission to consider why seven trees were identified as view impairing foliage in the Hanson's first application, but in the current application, only three view impairing trees are identified. Vice Chairman Slayden asked Mr. Ehlers to respond to the statement made by several Commissioners, that the hearing tonight is not affected by this civil suit. Mr. Ehlers strongly disagreed. He stated that the civil litigation could have a large impact on this Commission's decision. Vice Chairman Slayden asked if the civil suit involved the three trees being discussed by the Commission. Mr. Ehlers stated that these three trees are the only trees that remain on the Finazzo property because the Hanson's cut down the other trees. Commissioner Dyda asked if the civil suit would abrogate Ordinance 319. Mr. Ehlers responded stating that he did not feel this statue was applicable in this case because the good faith requirement had not been met. Commissioner Weber suggested that the Commission make a determination in this case, and thereby eliminate the uncertainty of a pending action by the City before a settlement in the civil case is made. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES August 3, 2000 Page 4 of 6 • In rebuttal, Mr. Hanson stated that they did not cut several trees, and gave a history of the previous agreement that was never finalized between the Hanson's and the Buerk's, the previous foliage owners. Mr. Hanson stated that he objected to the discussion of the civil case, and asked the Commission to make a decision regarding the three trees. Lastly, in response to Commissioner Dyda's question, Mr. Hanson stated that the initial agreement was never signed. In rebuttal, Mr. Ehlers asked the Commission to look at the packet submitted. He stated that he disagreed with finding (e) in the Staff report, that the removal or trimming will not cause an unreasonable infringement on the privacy of the foliage owner. Mr. Ehlers further stated that the foliage owner's property would be left bare with no trees or shade. Commissioner Simmons stated that the Commission was aware of privacy needs of foliage owners, and stated that these issues are present when each commissioner visits a site. He reassured Mr. Ehlers that this was a concern of the Commissioners. Mr. Ehlers discussed the hedge height on the Hanson property in relation to the height of the foliage on the Finazzo property. Commissioner Weber moved to close the public hearing seconded by Commissioner Dyda. Project Coordinator E. Ursu addressed the foliage owners concerns as expressed by Mr. Ehlers. He stated that the early neighbor consultation was complied with, the foliage owner choose not to attend the pre-application meeting. He further stated the concern of loss of shade was an issue addressed in the Staff Report. The Commission discussed the decision of the trimming of the trees, and the time frame for any required trimming. It was a consensus that the City Attorney should look at the Commission's decision regarding the three trees on the Finazzo property. Commissioner Dyda moved to adopt VRC Resolution No. 2000-02 as presented, seconded by Commissioner Simmons, (4-1), with Commissioner Franklin dissenting, and Commissioners Drages, Iseda, and Chairman Alberio not voting. Project Coordinator E. Ursu explained the appeal process, as well as the trimming process to the applicants and foliage owner. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:00 P.M. the View Restoration Commission took a short recess until 8:10 P.M. at which time they reconvened. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES August 3, 2000 Page 5 of 6 0 • NEW BUSINESS: 4. REVIEW OF AD HOC COMMITTEE'S PROPOSED CHANGES TO VRC RESOLUTION NO. 94-1 (VRC Meeting Procedures) Chairman Alberio introduced Agenda Item 4, the Ad Hoc Committee's proposed changes. Commissioner Franklin presented the Ad Hoc Committee's proposed changes to the VRC meeting procedures. The Commission discussed all of the suggested changes including two options (option A or B) for voting and quorum requirements. Chairman Alberio stated that the Resolution does not require City Council approval. By a majority vote, the revised meeting procedures with Option B selected were adopted, with Commissioners Franklin, Iseda, Simmons, Weber, Vice Chairman Slayden and Chairman Alberio voting in favor of option B, and Commissioners Drages and Dyda voting in favor of option A. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS: Project Coordinator E. Ursu stated that the appeal of City Tree Review Permit No. 78 will be placed on an upcoming agenda. Project Coordinator E. Ursu reported that Staff was organizing a field trip to familiarize the Commission with trees common on the peninsula and mentioned the possibility of visiting the South Coast Botanic Garden. The revised VRC meeting procedures (VRC Resolution No. 94-1) will be presented at the September 7, 2000 meeting for adoption by the Commission. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): Warren Sweetnam, former VRC member, commented on the existing VRC meeting procedures and the proposed changes. Dan Vannorsdall, Planning Commissioner, suggested Staff contact Mr. Len Farrel to coordinate a VRC field trip to the South Coast Botanic Garden. ADJOURMENT: . Commissioner Franklin moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Weber. The meeting was duly adjourned at 8:40 P.M. to Thursday, September 7, 2000 at 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES August 3, 2000 Page 6 of 6