Loading...
VRC MINS 20021107 • Approved on December 5, 2002 VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING November 7, 2002 Chairman Alberio called the meeting to order at 7:02 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, Franklin and Weber. Commissioner De Moraes arrived at 7:48 P.M. Absent: Commissioners Iseda and Drages were absent (excused). Also present were Project Coordinator John Alvarez and Recording Secretary (vette Munoz. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Alberio called for a motion to approve the agenda. Commissioner Franklin moved to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Dyda. Motion carried (5-0). COMMUNICATIONS Staff: Project Coordinator Alvarez stated Staff is currently revising the View Restoration Guidelines revisions. Given the length of the October 3rd meeting there was a lot of information in the minutes. He also stated that Senior Project Coordinator Nelson had advised that she would deliver the guideline revisions tomorrow. Chairman Alberio stated that Senior Project Coordinator Nelson had called all the Commissioners today and advised that she would deliver the revised guidelines tomorrow. Commission: Chairman Alberio stated that today all Commissioners had received a call regarding the Donald Trump breakfast to be held this Saturday at Ocean Trails. All Commissioners were allowed to bring a guest. They should R.S.V.P. to Toni Harris if they were going to bring someone. Commissioner Dyda stated that there was a waiting list for Saturday's event when he called at 4:30 P.M. that afternoon. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES November 7, 2002 Page 1 of 9 • 0 Chairman Alberio stated he received a call from the Planning Institute regarding their annual conference. The conference, usually held in Monterey, has been moved to San Diego. It will be held March 21 and 22, 2003. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17, 2002 Chairman Alberio called for a motion regarding the minutes. Commissioner Slayden moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Dyda. Motion carried (5-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. VRP No. 132 DODELL Chairman Alberio stated we would be reviewing VRP No. 132. The applicant is Martin Dodell who resides at 5751 Capeswood Drive. The foliage owner is Ann Priest who resides at 26210 Barkstone Drive. This item had been continued from the October 17th meeting. Commissioner Alberio called for a motion to open the public hearing. Commissioner Franklin stated that the Staff report needed to be reviewed first. Chairman Alberio asked Staff to deliver the report. Project Coordinator Alvarez addressed the Commissioners by presenting Staffs report for View Restoration Permit Application No. 132. It was continued from the last VRC meeting due to a lack of quorum. VRP 132 was requested by Mr. Martin Dodell, view owner at 5751 Capeswood Drive in order to have his view restored by trimming foliage located at 26210 Barkstone Drive. He proceeded to give the Commission some background on the case. The case had been submitted to the View Restoration Staff earlier this year. The foliage owner, Ms. Anne Priest, had canceled the pre-application meeting. She did not believe the meeting would be productive. Ms. Priest decided not to attend tonight's meeting but had given the Commission a written statement identifying her concerns. Project Coordinator Alvarez noted a reference to a mediation meeting, which referred to last years pre-application meeting for a preservation case between the applicant and herself. Commissioner Drages sat in that meeting. Staff had recently closed that preservation case since the foliage owner had recently complied with the Notice of Decision. Staff has conducted site visits to the Dodell and Priest properties and has identified 2 pine trees on Ms. Priest's property that significantly impair a cityscape and city light view from Mr. Dodell's viewing area, his dining room and rear yard patio. In Staffs report, three Aleppo Pine trees are mentioned, however, after VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES November 7, 2002 Page 2 of 9 0 0 conducting a site visit to the foliage owner's residence in mid September, Staff had established that there are 2 pine trees on the Priest property. Staff also noticed that one Yucca tree may impair the applicant's view, however, because foliage beyond the subject pine trees is not visible from the applicant's property, Staff could not confirm whether or not the Yucca tree or any other foliage is within the view frame. Project Coordinator Alvarez distributed revised Exhibits. Exhibit C illustrated the revised plot plan with foliage keys and Exhibit B; an updated photograph showing 2 pine trees. To address foliage that had not been identified in Staff's report, Staff added a condition (condition No. 4) to the conditions of approval whereby other view-impairing foliage on the Priest property would be trimmed. In reference to Ms. Priest's letter, Staff agreed that in order to restore the view of the city lights, the pine trees need not be removed or topped. Staff, however recommended that the 2 pine trees be trimmed by raising the crown of the pines to the level illustrated in revised photo exhibit B. The revised exhibit showed the correct labeling for both pine trees. The dotted line also represented the upper boundary of the city light view. Staff concluded their report, which recommended the approval of View Restoration Permit application No. 132 and the Conditions of Approval with the omission of Condition No. 3. Project Coordinator Alvarez noted that the applicant was in the audience and available for questions. Chairman Alberio asked Commissioner Dyda if he was going to recuse himself from the discussion. Commissioner Dyda said he would as soon as the public hearing was opened. Commissioner Franklin noted that we are in the process of revising guidelines. The revised guidelines will have the pay once policy. The current guidelines allow for the foliage owner to request that the trees not be removed and if they die within a year the applicant pays for the trees to be replaced. The new guidelines say that you pay in the beginning one of those two times. Commissioner Franklin's question was which guidelines would apply in this case. Chairman Alberio stated that the new guidelines have nothing to do with this case. Only the current guidelines would apply to this case. Commissioner Franklin restated that his question was if Staff felt that the new guidelines would apply a year from now if they were approved. Project Coordinator Alvarez stated Chairman Alberio was correct. The revised guidelines, if and when approved, will have no bearing on this case. Commissioner Franklin stated that on the revised exhibits Project Coordinator Alvarez had just passed out, the trees had been relabeled. Tree number 1 was VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES November 7, 2002 Page 3 of 9 formally the tree to the left. Tree number 2 is now called tree number 1. Tree number 2 is the same tree as number 1. Trees 1 and 2 are the same. Tree number 1 is really to the left of these trees. Commissioner Weber asked for confirmation on the application covering 2 not 3 trees. Project Coordinator Alvarez confirmed there are 2 trees. He explained that in revised exhibit B he shifted the tree numbers to the right. What he originally thought was a third tree is really part of the crown of tree number 2. Commissioner Franklin stated that there are only 2 trees in question. He stated that the trees in the revised Exhibit B were mislabeled. Chairman Alberio asked how many trees were involved. Project Coordinator Alvarez responded stating that after conducting his last site visit he stands by his revised Exhibit B with 2 trees. Commissioner Slayden agreed that there are 2 pine trees. Commissioner Franklin stated that he had also visited the foliage owner's property and he had come away with a different impression. Commissioner Weber questioned a palm tree seen in Exhibit B. Project Coordinator Alvarez stated that the palm tree is located on a different property and is not part of the application. Commissioner Weber said he had visited Ms. Priest's property and seen a number of Cypress trees that would shortly be impairing Mr. Dodell's view. He asked whether those were relevant. Project Coordinator Alvarez responded that the Cypress trees were not on her property and not part of this application. He also stated Mr. Dodell had expressed that he was already working with his neighbor to address those Cypress trees via a private agreement. Commissioner Dyda wanted to clarify that those Cypress trees do not currently impact Mr. Dodell's view. Project Coordinator Alvarez stated he could not confirm whether they did or didn't impact the view. The density of the 2 pine trees prevents other foliage from being assessed as view impairments. Commissioner Dyda said he asked the question because he wanted to know if these Cypress trees would fall under restoration or preservation. Chairman Alberio asked if any of these trees were on public rights of way. Project Coordinator Alvarez responded that as far as he could tell, they were not. After the pine trees were trimmed, Staff would make a better assessment. Commissioner Weber pointed out a tall thin tree on a neighbor's property. Chairman Alberio stated it is not a tree. It is a shrub. Project Coordinator Alvarez commented that Mr. Dodell has an agreement with that neighbor to trim down the hedge, which that particular plant is a part of. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. VRP No. 132 DODELL VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES November 7, 2002 Page 4 of 9 411/ COMMISSIONER SLAYDEN MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN. Commissioner Dyda recused himself from the discussion. He lives within 300 feet from the applicant's property. Chairman Alberio asked Mr. Dodell to take the podium and introduce himself and state his address. Mr. Martin Dodell, applicant and owner of the property located at 5751 Capeswood Drive, opened by thanking the Commissioners for their site visits. He also thanked Staff for their professionalism yet, strongly disagreed with Staffs recommendation. Mr. Dodell felt the recommendation does not comply with or meet the intent of the Ordinance nor does it restore his near view. He believed that the foliage in question was in violation of the height limitations set by the Ordinance. His opinion is that if the Staff recommendation is followed, the trimming would leave an aesthetically displeasing set of bare poles in place and not restore his near views. He felt Staff had drawn an arbitrary line across the tops of the trees and identified that point to raise the crown. The trees had previously been topped and had grown back so trimming would not resolve the issue. Mr. Dodell distributed to the Commission a nighttime photograph he took of his city lights view. He felt this would give the Commission a better understanding of the extent of the view. He asked that the Commission consider that after trimming, the trees would still be in excess of 16 feet or the ridgeline of the foliage owner's residence. He passed out two additional photographs taken from a neighbor's property. He restated that the dotted line in Staffs report across the trees was vague, arbitrary and extremely imprecise. He posed several questions to the Commission. How high up should that line be? Where will it be measured? He claimed the two photographs taken by Staff seemed to be taken from a different elevation and perspective. He said all these factors contribute to a lack of precision making it very difficult to implement Staff's recommendations. He asked if the trim line had some sort of reference? He believed that typically what happens is the reference point is established at the grade of the back yard of the applicant's lot. He concluded that if this line would be made to that grade level Staffs dotted line would definitely be lower. He felt Staffs recommendation would not solve the view impairment and only cause additional costs and future conflicts. He feared that if the Commission approved Staffs recommendation as presented, then in 2 more years the foliage would grow back into his view. The cost to do the trimming recommended by Staff is the least expensive of the costs he would be confronted with. Alternatively, he proposed to pay for the removal of these trees and substituting foliage to provide something aesthetically pleasing. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES November 7, 2002 Page 5 of 9 He had been negotiating this with the foliage owner for about 13 years in an effort to come to some sort of reasonable accommodation. Mr. Dodell advised the Commission to adopt option number 2, which orders the removal of the trees. He stated that if the only solution was to trim, then there would not have been an option 2 available. His final issue related to the guideline's compliance procedures. Based on the statement in the Staff report and the current procedure, if the Commission chooses to vote for option 2 to remove the trees, the foliage owner can refuse to accept it and can impose a total veto on the said action. He believed that this is unfair because the foliage owner can refuse to comply with the Commission's order, leaving he and the Commission without recourse. In his opinion, that is to be a poor legacy to leave for the Planning Commissioners down the road when the VRC is disbanded. He understood the veto was in place because of the possibility of the trimmed tree dying even though there is a procedure in place for the applicant to deal with that situation. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Dodell to conclude up his statements. Mr. Dodell thanked the Commission for their time and asked them to consider option 2 for condition 1 and 2. Commissioner Weber stated that the dotted line was there because above that point there is no view to be preserved. Mr. Dodell responded by pointing out that the Santa Monica Mountains would be visible if trimming occurred above that point. Commissioner Weber asked Mr. Dodell if he wanted a 100% view. Mr. Dodell responded that he wanted the trees removed and be replaced with foliage that conforms to the City's list. He stated that if the Commission wanted to call it 100% of the view, then yes, that is what he wanted. He emphasized that trimming would not restore the view. He felt that trimming would not comply with the Ordinance or meet it's requirements. It violates the 16-foot level ridgeline requirement and would leave an aesthetically displeasing situation. Commissioner Weber stated that was Mr. Dodell's opinion. He felt that the foliage owner, according to her letter, clearly enjoyed her trees and finds them aesthetically pleasing. Commissioner Weber clarified that the 16-foot measurement only covers protected views. Mr. Dodell stated that his point was that the view he is asking to be restored is not a sky view. It is a city light view. Project Coordinator Alvarez stated that both conditions are basically the ones used in the past as a standard option with the foliage owner's consent that the tree be removed. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES November 7, 2002 Page 6 of 9 • 0 Commissioner Franklin stated the Commission had no choice but to include option 1 and option 2. The only choice they have is to revise the wording of option 1. The guidelines do not give them the authority to order the removal of a tree unless the owner consents to it and the city arborist agrees the tree will die if it is trimmed. He advised Mr. Dodell to rephrase some of his concerns because the Commission has no choice. They cannot opt for option 2, the only choice the Commission has is to rephrase option 1. He asked Mr. Dodell for his views on rephrasing option 1. Mr. Dodell stated he wouldn't rephrase it. He did not accept Commissioner Franklin's reasoning. He felt option 2 was a valid finding the Commission could make. Subsequent to the finding the foliage owner may not chose to accept it enacting a veto. Commissioner Franklin explained this was something the Commission had worked out over many cases. He indicated Staff was following the direction of the Commission by providing both options. If the Commission chose to go with option 2 it had to be with the foliage owner's consent. Chairman Alberio tried to clarify the point by explaining that the Commission must work with the existing guidelines therefore, it must be with the consent of the foliage owner. Commissioner Slayden stated Mr. Dodell had a point. If the Commission recommended option 2 and the foliage owner didn't agree then the issue would come back to the Commission. Commissioner Franklin stated that if the foliage owner did not consent to the removal of the trees, then Mr. Dodell has option 1 as an alternative. Commissioner Slayden said the Commission did not know how the foliage owner would react. Chairman Alberio stated that the Commission did know her position. She had already indicated it in her letter that she doesn't want the trees removed. Commissioner Franklin stated the requirement that had been worked out in past cases was to come up with a procedure that may kill a tree but restore a view. If it potentially kills the tree the foliage owner may wish to just entirely remove it. The Commission could not order it to be removed per City Council's direction. It is incumbent upon the Commission to provide direction such as how to rephrase option 1. Commissioner Slayden said the Commission has the option to cut down the tree to the specified line, even if it kills it. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES November 7, 2002 Page 7 of 9 0 0 COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WEBER. Chairman Alberio asked the Commission for discussion on VRP No. 132. Commissioner Franklin stated he had given this case a lot of thought and had come prepared for a slightly different configuration. He had a problem with the term foliage. By definition, foliage includes all branches and everything below in addition to the trunk. If you follow the wording technically, if you remove the foliage, you're basically removing all the support structure for the upper leaves. He introduced the term, scaffold branch. A scaffold branch is a branch that supports smaller branches and foliage. Removing the scaffolding branches essential would mean removing the entire tree. In his view, this is not the intent of Staffs recommendation. He suggested the scaffold branches be thinned out. He suggested leaving it up to the foliage owner to choose which scaffold branches remain. In regards to the height of the dotted line, he pointed out the 3 branches sticking out on the left hand side. He felt the dotted line was fine because it was at the limit of the city light view and is consistent with the pictures Mr. Dodell passed out. Project Coordinator Alvarez stated Commissioner Franklin's assessment was correct. He referred to the three arm-like foliage branches coming out of the left hand side of tree number 1. That is the reference point for trimming in all the photographs. Commissioner Franklin accepted the dotted line as being correct. In order to preserve the view almost all the branches below the dotted line should be trimmed for tree number 1. Commissioner Weber agreed with Staffs recommendation. He disagreed with Dodell's proposal, which would require the foliage owner to remove the trees. He suggested that the recommendation for tree number 2 be amended it to include the removal of the first lower left scaffolding branch and leave at least 4 scaffolding branches to be identified by the foliage owner. COMMISSIONER WEBER MOVED TO ADOPT VRC RESOLUTION 2002-07 THEREBY APPROVING VRP NO. 132 AS AMENDED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SLAYDEN. MOTION CARRIED (3-2) WITH CHAIRMAN ALBERIO AND COMMISSIONER DE MORAES DISSENTING. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:15 P.M. Chairman Alberio requested a short recess. We reconvened at 8:20 P.M. During this recess Vice-Chairman Slayden left the meeting. NEW BUSINESS: VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES November 7, 2002 Page 8 of 9 0 0 Commissioner De Moraes presented the Commissioners and Staff with a memo regarding additional concerns that ought to be addressed in the revised guidelines. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS: 1. VIEW RESTORATION GUIDELINE REVISIONS November 21, 2002 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 3, 2002 November 21, 2002 3. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7, 2002 November 21, 2002 COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): NONE. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Weber moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Franklin. The meeting was duly adjourned at 8:30 P.M. The next regular meeting is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, November 21, 2002, at 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES November 7, 2002 Page 9 of 9