Loading...
VRC MINS 19910207 III (5-Nasu3Nre 3/ 7/ ct1 MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES February 7, 1991 The meeting was called to order at 7: 08 p.m. by Chairman Clark at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT Committee Members Boudreau, Burrage, Cartwright, . Eastwood, Lorenzen, Murphy, Quatrochi, Sweetnam, Weisz, Chairman Clark ABSENT None Also present were Director of Environmental Services Robert Benard, Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas, Assistant City Attorney Deborah Hakman and Recording Secretary Lucile Rogers. COMMUNICATIONS Director of Environmental Services Benard reported that a letter dated January 25, 1991 and addressed to the Planning Commission was received from Mr. David English, appealing the View Restoration Committee's decision on Permit Application No. 7. The Planning Commission received and filed the letter without comment. CONSENT CALENDAR Committee Member Lorenzen requested a change to the minutes of the January 3, 1991 meeting as follows: Page 6, Action 9 (on View Restoration Permit No. 16) to be changed to: 9. Trim the (15') Pittosporum located at the rear of the property to the diagonal. The above change is also to be incorporated into VRC Resolution No. 91- , approving View Restoration Permit No. 16. Committee Member Weisz moved adoption of the consent calendar as amended, Member Sweetnam seconded and the motion passed unanimously. 1 VIEW RESTORATION ITTEE MEETING February 7, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 19: Rolland and Diane Richenberg 27739 Hawthorne Boulevard All Members and Alternates were eligible to vote on this application; therefore, the Committee was composed of Members Cartwright, Lorenzen, Murphy, Quatrochi, Sweetnam, Weisz and Chairman Clark. Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the staff report. He said that subsequent to the issuance of the staff report, staff located a 1959 report stating that the area was to be stripped of all vegetation before creation of the lots, indicating that the subject eucalyptus tree did not exist at the time the lot was created and is therefore subject to the provisions of the View Restoration Ordinance. In Committee discussion it was clarified that trimming the eucalyptus tree to a height of 12 feet per the staff recommendation would bring its height just to the bottom of the view, and any subsequent growth would intrude into the view. The applicant, Mr. Rolland Richenberg, stated he essentially agrees with the staff report. He said than when they moved into their house there were many more trees but about eight years ago the homeowner removed all the trees except the eucalyptus. About five years ago, Mr. Richtenberg asked if he could trim the tree and was allowed to do so, at his expense. In May of 1989 he was allowed to trim it again, but he said the tree grows very quickly and needs to be trimmed about every year. Mr. Robert Briedis of 5938 Flambeau Road stated he has lived there since 1978 and the tree was mature at that time. He said he has consulted with landscape experts who have told him the tree could easily have been more than 20 years old when he moved in and therefore could have existed prior to the development of the property in 1959. He stated that the tree has value to him, he paid for it as part of the purchase price of his property, and the taking of his property is in violation of the constitution of the United States. He said that when the tree was trimmed in May of 1989 and paid for by Mr. Richenberg, the tree was "butchered" and cut much lower than it should have been. He disagreed with item 4.d) of the staff report which indicated the tree did not exist in 1976, and said he has located it on the City's 1976 aerial photographs. He requested additional time to study staff's finding that no vegetation existed prior to the lot's creation in 1959. In response to a query from the foliage owner, Assistant City Attorney Hakman stated the applicant has the burden of proof with respect to all findings except the privacy finding. Staff has 2 VIEW RESTORATION IRMITTEE MEETING 111 February 7, 1991 provided evidence in this matter that the tree did not exist prior to the time the lots were created; however, she advised that the foliage owner could request a continuation of the hearing to give him time to respond to the evidence presented by staff tonight. Mr. John Sharkey of 30320 Avenida de Calma spoke as an interested party, expressing his opinion that the staff research had been inadequate in this matter as well as in his. He said the aerial photograph clearly shows that the eucalyptus tree was there in 1976 and he believes it was there in 1959. Mr. Bill Cinnamon of 5932 Flambeau Road testified that the eucalyptus tree is the only thing that protects his privacy since the applicant built a family room which extends to the edge of the property. He said he could get a petition signed by the other neighbors who also want the tree to remain, to prevent their seeing into the applicant's house. He felt they have a right to the privacy they enjoyed before the applicant built his family room. He also claimed that Mr. Richenberg had installed an illegal retaining wall without City approval. Committee Member Murphy pointed out that Mr. Cinnamon is not a party to the application process; therefore, the matter of his privacy is not at issue. In rebuttal, Mr. Richenberg read a letter from the City Planning Department dated January 16, 1991 stating that the retaining wall is in compliance with all City requirements and no permits are needed. He said he plans to have foliage growing on the chain link fence to provide more privacy for the neighbors. He stated that when the tree was trimmed in May 1989 he was not present, but Mrs. Briedis was there and she directed the trimmer as to how the tree was to be cut. He also pointed out that he had permits for the room addition and everything was legal. Mr. Briedis said he felt the Committee should base their decision on the staff report and not on any information that was brought up later. He also felt the staff and Committee should have visited his property as well as the applicant's. He pointed out that the staff report contained an inaccuracy with regard to the aerial photograph and may contain other inaccuracies. He stated that trees contribute to the beauty of the Peninsula and his should be allowed to grow tall so that it will be above the view. He also said he had not indicated any unwillingness or inability to keep the tree trimmed. Committee Member Sweetnam moved the public hearing be closed. The motion was seconded by Member Quatrochi and passed without objection. 3 111 VIEW RESTORATION ItIMITTEE MEETING February 7, 1991 Assistant Planner de Freitas explained that his statement in the staff report that the foliage owner has implied an inability to have the tree periodically trimmed was based on Mrs. Briedis' remarks to him. Committee discussion centered around whether or not to grant a continuance based on lack of notification to the foliage owner of information gathered subsequent to the staff report regarding the 1959 clearing of the area prior to the creation of the lots. It was felt that staff should continue to research any matters which are in contention. The opinion was expressed that the 1959 reports were strong evidence that the tree did not exist prior to the lot's creation, but in order to be fair to the foliage owner it would be proper to allow him some additional time to attempt to refute the evidence. The possibility of the Committee taking a conditional action at this meeting, to be subject to change if the foliage owner came up with proof of the tree's existence prior to 1959, was considered. Assistant City Attorney Hakman advised that when there is a conflict in the information presented to the Committee, Members may decide on which evidence to base their decision according to what is the most credible to them. She suggested that the cleanest approach would be to continue the matter without making a decision at this time. Committee Member Weisz moved the discussion of Permit Application No. 19 be continued to March 7, 1991 and the public hearing be reopened, in order to allow the foliage owner to come up with additional information on the age of the foliage involved in the case and the applicant to rebut such evidence. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Murphy and carried on a 5 to 2 vote with Members Cartwright and Sweetnam dissenting. Chairman Clark called for a recess at 8:40 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:55 p.m. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. Tree Measurement Policy A memorandum dated January 30, 1991 to the View Restoration Committee from the Director of Environmental Services reporting on the implications of the new staff procedure for measuring foliage relative to the Subcommittee on Standards' conclusions of December 6, 1990 was discussed at length. It was noted that in the Conclusion section of the Director's memorandum the second sentence should read, "Presently, only foliage above the ridgeline or 16 feet, whichever is lower, is subject to trimming. " 4 VIEW RESTORATION ILITTEE MEETING February 7, 1991 The problems of measuring foliage on upsloping and downsloping lots were explored. When an applicant has a view on an angle due to a sloping lot, the position has been to take two horizontal planes, one across the foliage owner's property consistent with the ridgeline and the other to the 16 foot height. The Code provisions allow the Committee to order foliage trimmed to the lower of those two dimensions, which on a downsloping lot may result in foliage remaining at a height much greater than 16 feet. Director Benard indicated that some standards need to be set in order to ensure equity in implementing the Code. Assistant City Attorney Hakman advised that a Code amendment would be more appropriate for the new language than a change to the Guidelines, as the Ordinance would supersede the Guidelines if a conflict were to arise. In addition, the structures portion of the Code has the measurement policy in it, so it would be more appropriate for all regulations on measurement of structures and foliage to be in the same place. Director Benard said that City Attorney Carol Lynch was directed by the City Council to begin preparing an ordinance which would create the View Restoration Committee as a second planning commission charged with responsibility for amending the view restoration provisions of the code. When and if there are future changes to the Ordinance, the public hearings would be held by the VRC as the planning commission. He noted the amendment on tree removal and replacement will come before the Council on February 19, and all subsequent amendments will most likely be heard after the VRC has been designated as a planning commission, which will probably occur within the next 60 days. It was decided to continue this subject to the meeting of March 7, 1991, and staff was requested to come up with some suggested language and also to bring a blackboard to the meeting. The Subcommittee on Standards will meet with staff in the meantime to develop a framework which will help the Committee deal with the subject. It was agreed that if Member Quatrochi is unable to attend the Subcommittee meeting, he will be replaced by Member Murphy. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business on the agenda. QUESTIONS FROM AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) Mr. James Quong of 26144 Barkstone Drive stated he attended the hearing because he thought the Resolution on his case (Permit No. 9) would be on the consent calendar for this meeting. He said the applicants were notified of the date but he was not. 5 111 VIEW RESTORATION ILITTEE MEETING February 7, 1991 Director Benard said he thought all parties involved were being notified, and he would check into it. Mr. Quong asked what would happen to the permit process if an applicant failed to prove early neighborhood consultation. Mr. Benard advised that proof of consultation is one of the requirements necessary for an application to be accepted as complete. If evidence were to come up at a public hearing that something was incomplete or incorrect, the hearing could be continued until the questions were resolved. Mr. Quong then expressed his opinion that making the foliage owner pay for the first five replacement trees does not make sense. It was clarified that this policy, if adopted, will be contained in the Guidelines, not in the tree removal and replacement policy amendment to the Ordinance. Director Benard said he would put Mr. Quong on the list of interested parties so he will be notified when the discussion of this policy comes up on the agenda. REPORTS A. STAFF Chairman Clark requested a status report on several items from previous minutes: 1. Staff's progress on revising and enhancing the View Restoration Permit application packet. Director Benard said that Senior Planner Petru has been working on this and will be reporting to the Committee soon. 2 . Seedlings donated by the Fire Department. Member Boudreau reported that Chief Paul Rippens of the Forestry Division has indicated his willingness to attend a Committee meeting and talk about the Fire Department's program of tree donations. Director Benard said that staff will invite him. 3 . Provision of slide projector and slides for use by the View Restoration Committee. Director Benard said that the City procedure is to use prints, but he will discuss the question with Senior Planner Petru and report back at the executive workshop to be held at 4:00 p.m. on February 20 at City Hall. Member Lorenzen stated her objection to the practice of requiring applicants to list every tree on foliage owners' property. Mr. Benard said that the legal implications of such a procedure, in terms of due process for the foliage owner, need investigation. Director Benard reported the status of View Restoration Permit applications. 6 VIEW RESTORATION IRIMITTEE MEETING February 7, 1991 B. COMMITTEE Chairman Clark reported that he and Vice Chair Sweetnam participated in taping of a half-hour show on the View Restoration process, to be aired on Channel 3 in about three weeks. Also, the next City newsletter will contain an article on the Committee. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10: 12 p.m. to February 21, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. # # # 7