Loading...
VRC MINS 20021121 0 0 Approved on l. Dec yber 5, 2002 VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING November 21, 2002 Chairman Alberio called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. at Fred Hesse Community Park, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Commissioner Weber. Present: Chairman Alberio, Vice Chairman Slayden, Commissioners Dyda, Drages, Franklin, Weber and De Moraes. Absent: Commissioner Iseda was absent. Also present were Project Coordinators Trayci Nelson and John Alvarez, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Joel Rojas and Recording Secretary (vette Munoz. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Alberio called for a motion to approve the agenda. Commissioner Dyda moved to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Drages. Motion carried (7-0). COMMUNICATIONS Staff: Staff handed out a copy of Chapter 8.24, Property Maintenance, of the Municipal Code. Commission: NONE. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 3, 2002 Senior Project Coordinator Nelson stated these would be reviewed at the December 5, 2002, meeting. 2. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7, 2002 Senior Project Coordinator Nelson stated these would be reviewed at - the December 5, 2002, meeting. }i!I y:w RESTORATION wS $ I rS ON MINUTES November 21, 2002 Page of 13 CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. VIEW RESTORATION GUIDELINE REVIEW Senior Project Coordinator Trayci Nelson directed the Commission to the View Restoration Guidelines Review memo dated November 21, 2002. The memo is a continuation of the first memo and it summarized the Commission's intent and Staffs comments in reference to the issues discussed at the last VRC meeting. She requested to the Commission that Issue 1 be discussed last, as this issue required further discussion in consideration of Commissioner Dyda's clarification of the issue. In reference to the revised Guidelines changes dated November 21, 2002, Senior Project Coordinator Trayci Nelson explained that everything addressed in the September 19, 2002, version is identified, as underlined text. Underlined and highlighted text is added language that the Commission had decided to include and the strikeouts are the sections that the Commission had decided to omit. Staff suggested that the Commission discuss Commissioner Franklin and De Moraes' memos when the reaches those issues. Issue 2 — How often to trim? Senior Project Coordinator Nelson stated that the Commission, at the last meeting, had decided that the word "significant" should remain in the guidelines. However, the Commission decided to incorporate a referenced trim level and growth height limitation as an extra option to the existing maintenance schedule provision. She asked the Commission to advise where this language best fits in the Guidelines. Alternatively, the establishment of a referenced trim level and growth height would, at the Commissions' discretion, be an option that can be added to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Franklin suggested using the language derived from his memo dated November 13, 2002, on page 3, first paragraph. He suggested this highlighted paragraph be added into paragraph G of page 16 of the draft Guidelines as it addresses maintenance. He suggested it be inserted directly in front of the sentence beginning with "In establishing the maintenance...", his suggested verbiage is as follows: "Alternatively, the Commission may specify the amount of allowable growth as measured with respect to a stable reference which will not significantly encroach on the view and require that when this point is � $ J l f- S I O} ( U...I..F{ reached, the foliage owner be required to trim the foliage back to the boundaries established by the Commission." Commissioner Dyda commented on the wording of Commissioner Franklin's suggestion. He felt the text was fine with the exception of the word "significantly". Commissioner Dyda suggested that instead of using the word "significant", use the term "allowable growth". The Commission will decide how much encroachment or allowable growth is acceptable at the time the resolution is passed. That decision addresses significance and makes it a moot point in the future. His proposition was to trigger maintenance based on an established view frame and reference point. This would leave no room for interpretation and would simplify the process. Commission Franklin stated that the intent of his verbiage was to have the Commission decide how much encroachment to allow at the time of review and not leave it to the owner interpretation after the resolution had passed. Commissioner Dyda suggested that the Commission omit "...which will not significantly encroach on the view..." as this text is redundant given the context of Commissioner Franklin's recommendation. The matter of significance is a moot point with this omission as noted in Commissioner Franklin's recommendation. Commissioner Weber stated he agreed with the maintenance trimming option, yet understands that it won't apply to all view restoration decisions such as lacing. Commissioner Drages stated that she wanted to leave the term "significant" in the guidelines. Commissioner Slayden accepted the recommendation. Commissioner De Moraes agreed with Commissioner Dyda's point, and understands the issue of significance had been discussed, established and decided. Commissioner Alberio commented that the Commission had decided that the issue of significance is to be discussed later. Commissioner Franklin moved to accept the recommendation as presented and add to page 16 paragraph G of the Guidelines, in its entirety, his proposed verbiage as presented in the first paragraph, page 3 of his memo, seconded by Commissioner Weber. Motion carried (5-2) with Commissioners Dyda and De Moraes dissenting. Issue 3 —What is the view enforcement process? i ORA'c ION CormssioN miNU„,,,..I ? :,+.,v e D e 21 2":0•3.. rh:j!i•N j+ 4..+$•Vii v.! : 4.f< 4. 0 Senior Project Coordinator Nelson presented the topic of Issue 3 and reminded the Commission that this issue dealt with frivolous requests made to Staff in regards to foliage maintenance enforcement. She reviewed the Commission's unanimous decision to assign an incentive to discourage frivolous requests, however, the language in the Guidelines at that review meeting was left unchanged. Commissioner Drages stated she felt that 10 days was not enough time for a foliage owner to complete trimming upon notice of a maintenance-trimming request. Senior Project Coordinator Nelson stated that the Commission had decided at the last meeting, to change 10 days to 30 days. She pointed out that the revised Guidelines currently state 21 days. She asked if the Commission wanted to consider 21 days. Chairman Alberio asked for discussion on this point. Commissioner Dyda believed that using the operative term "significant" as a basis to decide enforcement action is a problem. He felt that the word "significant" was not properly addressed in the discussion of Issue 2 and it is of consequence to the discussion of this issue. Commissioner Dyda stated that the word "significant" is problematic because it allows an indefinable measure based upon an opinion rather than a fact. He understood that this issue and the term "significance" had been discussed at the last meeting but cautioned the Commission that Issue 1 and Issue 2 are not mutually exclusive actions. Commissioner Dyda also suggested that the Commission consider foliage owners manipulating the definition of"significance" to their favor. Commissioner Weber commented that he felt comfortable with the 30-day maintenance compliance period. Commissioner Drages brought up the need for the view owner to send the foliage owner a trimming request letter via a registered, return receipt letter. Commissioner Dyda felt that if an incentive structure were in place, than there would be no need for the view owner to send the foliage owner a registered letter. A letter sent regular mail, carbon copied to the City, would suffice since both parties would be mindful of City fees associated with frivolous requests and/or non-compliance. Commissioner Weber stated that if the City were to impose a fee on a resident, than the City should ensure that the foliage owner know he's on notice. He agreed with the need for a registered letter. i r �`>.,.sl ...`{k. ,['ION C Obf{S rRt L. £ }rif c 'J U I Ly 6ove oey2,f 213.1// 1110 Senior Project Coordinator Nelson reminded the Commission that the discussion was regarding maintenance trimming. She explained how Staff currently responds to maintenance requests and noted that a returned receipt letter sent by the view owner was unnecessary. Commissioner Drages pointed out that in many cases the foliage owner cannot see the extent of the foliage growth because the foliage may be on a slope. She remarked on the importance of sending a registered letter. Commissioner Franklin mentioned that there are two letters of notification referenced on page 24, paragraph 2 of the Guidelines. One letter from the view owner to the City stating there is an alleged view impairment; the other letter, a notification from the City to the foliage owner. This ensured that the foliage owner isn't assessed an improper fee. Senior Project Coordinator Nelson explained that this provision could apply to scenarios where foliage exceeds an allowable growth height and could apply to crown raising and lacing requirements. Commissioner Franklin moved to accept the recommendation as presented and change 21 days to 30 days, seconded by Commissioner De Moraes. Motion carried (6-1) with Commissioners Dyda dissenting. Issue 4 —What is the value of lacing. Senior Project Coordinator Nelson reminded the Commission that at the last meeting, the Commission decided to leave lacing as a trimming option. Chairman Alberio requested that the Commission and Staff continue to the next item. Issue 5 — I-low to assure the work is done with reasonable quality. Senior Project Coordinator Nelson introduced Issue 5, which assures trimming work is done to a reasonable quality. The Commission, at the last meeting, agreed to add a ISA certified tree trimmer or accredited arborist to the Guidelines text. She added that the City Attorney had advised the Commission to modify the language to include "perform or.." to the sentence : "Said estimates shall be submitted within thirty (30) days after the adoption of the Resolution and should include the cost to have an ISA certified tree trimmer or accredited arborist on site to perform or supervise the work being done". The added text is to be inserted on page 18, paragraph J. I . � .AsCOMMISSION O< kSS N M U '•""'f N. L �{ N.or e o J 21 2.<,,r Page 5 of . .r 4111 Chairman Alberio asked for comments from the Commission. Commissioner Weber commented that adding the new text is fine. Commissioner Dyda moved to accept the recommendation as presented and add the text "perform or..", seconded by Commissioner De Moraes. Motion carried (7-0). Issue 6 —What should be the tree replacement guidelines. Senior Project Coordinator Nelson introduced Issue 6. Again, the City Attorney had suggested that the Commission move the highlighted text from page 14, paragraph B to precede the sentence "The replacement foliage shall be provided..." of the same paragraph. To clarify the proposed recommendation, Commissioner Drages suggested omitting the word "foliage" from the sentence, "However, if the city arborist determines that culling, lacing, or trimming said tree or shrub will in all probability cause the foliage to die..." and replacing the text with "tree or shrub". Senior Project Coordinator Nelson also mentioned that the City Attorney questioned the meaning of paragraph C, page 15 that states, "Complete removal of any remaining portion of the tree or shrub that does not significantly impair the view will only be ordered if the owner of the property where the foliage is located consents to the complete removal of the remaining tree and scrub and agrees to take the risk of the tree or shrub dying after the work is performed the Commission finds:". The City Attorney suggested that the Commission remove the entire paragraph. Commissioner Dyda commented that leaving the choice of removal of a tree to the foliage owner would mean that a foliage owner could unilaterally encumber the view owner with a cost. Senior Project Coordinator Nelson clarified the paragraph's intent to deal with remaining foliage after Commission-ordered trimming whereby the arborist had determined that the degree of trimming would likely cause the tree or shrub to die. Commission Franklin suggested leaving the paragraph in and add after the sentence (paragraph C, item 2), "If the foliage owner agrees to take the risk of the tree or shrub dying and if it does die one year after the work is performed, then the foliage owner shall remove and replace the tree or shrub within a reasonable period of time at their own expense". 7 t< 4 E Y }O R •^ COMMISSION O ISON $ m t ;% In response to Commissioner Franklin's suggestion, Commissioner Dyda questioned the reasoning of the foliage owner's requirement to replace the tree. He also suggested that any replacement should be at the expense of the foliage owner. Commissioner Franklin withdrew his proposal in light of his understanding of the City Municipal Code Section 8.24.060, which enforces property maintenance. Commissioner De Moraes suggested that the Commission make the property maintenance provision readily available in future resolutions so that the foliage owner could pursue that option. Commissioner Dyda agreed and suggested that the municipal code's property maintenance section be referenced somewhere in paragraph C. Commissioner Franklin recommended that the municipal code's property maintenance section be included in the conditions of approval. Senior Project Coordinator Nelson suggested inserting the Municipal Code section into page 14, paragraph B, which would read "If the tree or shrub dies, then it is subject to removal pursuant to Section 8.24.060 of the RPV Municipal Code". Commissioners Dyda, De Moraes, Slayden agreed. The Commission moved to omit the text "...agrees to take the risk of the tree or shrub dying after the work is performed..." from paragraph C, page 15 and insert a reference to Municipal Code Section 8.24.060. Issue 7 —To what extent does privacy become an issue. Senior Project Coordinator Nelson stated at the last meeting the Commission agreed to the current provisions within the Guidelines that give the Commission adequate authority to address privacy, thus no change to the Guidelines was necessary. Commissioner Dyda commented that under the current Guidelines, the Commission could require that foliage be planted where no prior privacy existed. He strongly recommended that the Commission insert language that addresses only existing privacy in the event future Commission decisions require replacement foliage. Vice Chairman Slayden mentioned that privacy in the context of the Guidelines meant privacy where the foliage is located. 'i{o J' sr'_ £'.E.,..S F fir,. #,•`)'c^E I O k` COMMISSION MINUTES l'Ia‘.srember 21, 2002 Senior Project Coordinator Nelson responded to Commissioner Dyda's comments by explaining that the issue of privacy is brought up in the Staff Report and that the Commission must make that finding at the public hearing. In that discussion, providing additional replacement would be addressed. Commissioner Dyda stated that he simply recommends that the Commission insert language giving the Commission authority to provide privacy to existing privacy only. Senior Project Coordinator Nelson offered to insert Commissioner Dyda's textual suggestion in paragraph D (1)(b), page 15 to read, "...where there is evidence before the Commission that replacement foliage, to mitigate the loss of privacy provided by pre-existing foliage, is needed...". Commission moved to accept the revised paragraph. Motion carried (7-0). Issue 8 — Early neighbor contact prior to mediation meeting. Senior Project Coordinator Nelson introduced Issue 8 and reminded the Commission that the Commission, decided at the last meeting, that the addition of the check box to the existing application and a certified letter be required. Commissioner Drages disagreed with the requirement of a registered letter to the foliage owner, as this would create further animosity between foliage owner and view owner. Commissioner Dyda commented that the registered letter provides the City and the mediator with the knowledge that an attempt was made between the view owner and the foliage owner before the pre-application meeting. Vice Chairman Slayden mentioned that the check box and registered letter is sensible. Senior Project Coordinator Nelson also mentioned that the City Attorney had suggested a rephrasing that would read paragraph A(2), page 6: "Each applicant shall indicate, by marking the appropriate box on the 'Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Permit Application' that they have made an attempt to contact the foliage owner prior to submittal. And shall submit written proof of that attempt in the form of a copy of a registered letter and return receipt". Chairman Alberio moved to accept the recommendation as presented and rephrased per City Attorney's text. Motion carried (6-1). Commissioner Drages dissenting. fy-4A[ION COMMISSION MINU Novemoe /20:j Page a r) .y� Issue 1 —What is the view. Commissioner Dyda opened the discussion. He suggested that the word "significant", which earlier had been used to eliminate "peek-a-view" views, became distorted from its original intent. He posed the question; are we restoring a view or restoring a significant portion of the view? Commissioner Weber asserted that Commissioner Dyda's argument favors the interest of the view owner and that the Ordinance addresses the balance between parties. Significance is the operative term by which the Commission, as residents of the City, decides and votes based on its interpretation of significance. Vice Chairman Slayden agreed with Commissioner Weber that it is the Commission that ultimately decides significance and it should not be rigidly defined. Commissioner Franklin commented that he was satisfied on how the Ordinance was written and would be reluctant to change the Guidelines in terms of removing the word "significant". Joel Rojas, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, commented that Commissioner Dyda was correct in saying that Proposition M did not contain in its language the word "significant". However, the City, prior to Proposition M, had addressed view impairment of structures using the word "significance" to balance the interest between parties. The City Council adopted the word "significance" into the language of the view restoration Ordinance in order to be consistent with the existing Municipal Code that dealt with structures and to avoid the clear cutting of trees. He understood that the term is not definable; yet, the term allows the Commission tremendous flexibility to make decisions and according to the City Attorney, is probably one of the main reasons that the courts have upheld the Ordinance. Commissioner Dyda responded that view restoration, in terms of structures impairing views, is inherently different to the restoration of foliage impairments. Commissioner Franklin moved to leave the Guidelines as is with regard to the word "significance". Seconded by Commissioner Drages. Motion carried (6-1). Commissioner Dyda dissenting. Commissioner Franklin's Memo Senior Project Coordinator Nelson suggested that the Commission discuss Commissioner Franklin's memo dated November 13, 2002. VIEW W Y..k S '/" COMMISSION YM !'tet Q MINUTES November 21, 2002 .x Page ws of 1:3 Commissioner Franklin introduced the first item is his memo which suggested the wording of the paragraph from Section A (2), page 5 be changed to read: "Each applicant shall indicate, by marking the appropriate box on the `Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Permit Application' that they have made an attempt to contact the foliage owner prior to submittal. Proof of this attempt shall take the form of a copy of a registered letter and the return receipt". Commissioner Franklin mentioned that this item had been already been addressed during tonight's discussion. His second item suggested that the wording of the paragraph from Section D (2), page 9 and 4A of page 26 be changed to read: "If an agreement is reached between the parties as a result of the pre- application meeting, Staff and/or the View Mediation Commissioner will direct the participants to prepare or assist in the preparation of the agreement for the parties to sign". Commissioner Dyda suggested omitting the word "Commissioner". Senior Project Coordinator Nelson suggested replacing " View Mediation Commissioner" with "the assigned mediator". Commissioner Dyda and Franklin agreed with Staffs suggestion. Commissioner Dyda moved to accept as amended, seconded by Chairman Alberio. Motion carried (7-0). Commissioner Franklin introduced his last item, which inserts a new paragraph D to page 15 of the Guidelines. Commissioner Franklin reminded the Commission that at the last meeting the Commission agreed to the following: In order to balance trimming, the Commission may require trimming portions of a tree that is below 16 feet or the ridgeline. Otherwise, the end result would be foliage that is only partially trimmed and not aesthetically pleasing. However, if a foliage owner objects, in writing, to any trimming below the lower of the ridgeline or 16 feet within 30 days of final approval of a view restoration or view preservation application, he or she shall not be required to trim, lace or prune below that level". Senior Project Coordinator Nelson mentioned that the existing paragraph D would be changed to E. Commissioner Weber motioned to accept the new paragraph D, seconded by Commissioner Dyda. Motion carried (7-0). •'S't< •.i f£...,.ar. E tiw o >J %•i 0> COMMISSION o i i°4,.J,..i..,. ,.. Page .j M/ 410 Commissioner Franklin concluded that all the items in his memo had been discussed with the exception of the last item, which relates to the private agreement template. He suggested that the Commission insert a checklist of topics that the view owner and foliage owner should consider when drafting a private agreement. This checklist would be attached to the back of the template. He also suggested that the text "see attached template" be referenced in the appropriate sections within the Guidelines. Chairman Albedo asked Staff if the City Attorney offered any suggestion in regards to the private agreement template. Senior Project Coordinator Nelson stated that the City Attorney had not commented. She added that the agreement form had worked well in past pre- application meetings, however others felt apprehensive to use it. Commissioner Dyda commented that the form only reiterates and expedites any verbal agreement made during the pre-application meeting. Commissioner Weber asked if there is a View Preservation agreement template. Commissioner Dyda responded that in View Preservation cases, the view owner doesn't need to agree to any terms with the foliage owner. Commissioner Weber commented that the template should not be too technical as parties may be reluctant to sign. To make his point, he referred to the two paragraphs on page 2 of the View Restoration Agreement template. He suggested that the paragraphs be omitted from the template in order to simplify the form. Commissioner Drages suggested that the Commission change the title of the template to read " View Restoration Private Agreement". She also suggested that some of the topics from the checklist be inserted into the private agreement form. Commissioner Dyda disagreed with Commissioner Drage's suggestion and agreed with the Commissioner Weber's comment that the form should not be too technical. Commissioner Dyda suggested that the Commission omit the two paragraphs on page 2 of the template and insert the paragraphs into the checklist. Based on the advise made by Joel Rojas, Senior Project Coordinator Nelson suggested removal of the two paragraphs, insert the paragraphs into the checklist, and add the addition of the text "Additional Considerations see Checklist" into page 2 of the template. {{E < } .J) A f/ COMMISSION MINUTES INU ES November 21: 2002 Pace of 13 • Chairman Alberio moved to accept the amended View Restoration Agreement template. Motion carried (7-0). In regards to the Council's review of the Guideline revisions, Commissioner Franklin asked Staff when the City Council meeting would be held. Senior Project Coordinator Nelson stated that if the changes to the Guidelines were approved at this time, then Staff would likely present the Guidelines to the City Council in January 2003. Joel Rojas explained the purpose of his presence. He stated that he understood the effort Trayci and the subcommittee has put forth into the revision of the Guidelines and thought there had been improvements made to such. He also wanted to make sure that he understood the changes, as he and Staff would present the revised Guidelines to the City Council. He stated that there would be an item placed at an upcoming City Council agenda to discuss the status of the VRC. Senior Project Coordinator Nelson asked the Commission to formally take action to adopt the revised Guidelines. Commissioner Dyda moved to adopt the revised the Guidelines. Seconded by Vice Chairman Slayden. Motion carried (7-0). Chairman Alberio thanked the subcommittee for their hard work. Commissioner Weber thanked Chairman Alberio. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE. NEW BUSINESS: NONE. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS: 1. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 3, 2002 December 5, 2002 2. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7, 2002 December 5, 2002 COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): NONE. { , E... . I O h COMMISSION MIN 111- N '... .. ti/ ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was duly adjourned at 9:00 P.M. The next and last regular meeting is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park. R T 0 R 1 ON Fv1 1 N November 21: Page 13 of 13