Loading...
2014-11-05_Occhipinti.pdfMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS NOVEMBER 5, 2014 CALL MEETING TO ORDER A meeting of the Committee on Trees and Views was called to order by Chairperson Smith at 10:05 a.m. on Wednesday, November 5, 2014, in the City Council Chamber, at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Committee Members Present: Gray, Mirsch and Chairperson Smith. Committee Members Absent: None. Others Present: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Shahiedah Coates, Assistant City Attorney. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Annie Occhipinti, 34 Crest Road East. Howard Weinberg, Attorney. Brandon Gill, Arborist, American Arbor Care. Michael and Sandy Sherman, 33 Crest Road East. Samantha Lamberg, Attorney. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MINUTES OR ANY ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2014 (SHERMAN/OCCHIPINTI). Chairperson Smith noted one correction of a typographical error on page 5 to change the word than to that. Committee Member Gray moved that the Committee on Trees and View approve the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, October 2, 2014 as corrected. Committee Member Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF VIEW IMPAIRMENT COMPLAINT REGARDING TREES AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATION: LOCATION OF TREES: 33 CREST ROAD EAST PROPERTY OWNER: MR. AND MRS. SHERMAN COMPLAINANTS: MR. AND MRS. OCCHIPINTI, 34 CREST ROAD EAST Chairperson Smith introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that this is a continued public hearing and the Committee on Trees and Views last heard this case at its October 2, 2014 meeting at which time, the public comment portion of the meeting was closed and the Committee began deliberation. She stated that the public hearing is still open and the Committee may ask questions or request information from those present. She briefly reviewed the applicant's request and stated that the Shermans have provided a list of what they have offered. She stated that at the last meeting, the Committee was unable to determine which trees were which on the tree survey plan and requested that staff take a photograph so that the applicant can identify the trees by number on the Minutes Committee on Trees and Views 11-05-14 -1- photograph. She stated that the photographs were taken from the middle of the window in each of the viewing areas straight out and then a panoramic photo was taken panning from the edge of the window to the edge of the window. Planning Director Schwartz then reviewed the findings that the Committee made at the last meeting which included: that there were no mature trees on the property; that there was a view and it is impaired; and that the viewing area is the appropriate area from which the remediation should be addressed. She stated that the Committee's next step is to determine the appropriate remediation while considering the provisions established by Measure B including its intent not to restore panoramic views but rather a view corridors and views through trees. She stated that the Committee should also consider if the remediation action will have a negative impact on the environment or on the Sherman's privacy and enjoyment of their property. In response to Chairperson Smith, she stated that the requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) can't be determined until the Committee makes the findings and determines what restorative action is required. She further stated that Mr. Weinberg has submitted a letter indicating why he believes this request is exempt from CEQA. Planning Director Schwartz stated that once the Committee has made a determination the action required will be memorialized in a Resolution which will be brought back to the Committee for adoption. She stated that once adopted, any party may appeal the Resolution to the City Council within 20 days of adoption. Planning Director Schwarz reviewed the materials that were submitted since the Committee's last meeting which include large copies of the photographs. She stated that when considering and taking action with regard to the Fournier case, there are some trees that are common between this case and the Fournier case and staff has prepared two charts, one which contains the trees common to both cases and what action was ruled for those trees in the Fournier case. The second chart contains the remaining trees that the Occhipintis are requesting action on and what action is being requested. She stated that staff's recommendation would be to make the same finding on the common trees. She further stated that copies of an e-mail correspondence from Ms. Lamberg on behalf of the Shermans disputing the photographs has been placed on the dais and made available to the public. The correspondence contends that the enlarged photographs are identified differently than the photographs that were submitted. She stated that staff also just received a certification from the Occhipinti's arborist stating that the trees in the photographs are the same trees that on the tree survey. In response to Chairperson Smith, Assistant City Attorney Coates stated that since some of the evidence before the Committee is conflicting, and given that both arborists are present, it would make sense to have the arborists confirm the identity of the trees. Chairperson Smith stated that the Committee will continue its deliberation until noon at the latest and will ask the parties for information as needed. In response to Committee Member Mirsch, regarding the Committee's inability to provide panoramic views under the Measure B, Assistant City Attorney Coates stated that the Ordinance states that the intent of the Ordinance is not to create unobstructed views and if a view was panoramic and unobstructed at the time of acquisition, it is beyond the Committee's authority to restore that view. Discussion ensued concerning the common trees with the Committee concurring that the same action should be required on those trees. Further discussion ensued concerning the perspective of the photographs. Committee Member Gray commented that he feels that the Committee only needs to consider the stand of trees straight down because once the action is taken based on the Fournier case, there will be view corridors created by that action and the only area left to consider is that stand of trees. Discussion ensued concerning trees unique to the Occhipinti property. It was noted that Tree #4 has been removed from consideration because it is beyond the property line. Committee Member Gray commented that he feels that all of the trees on the West side of the property have been dealt with in the Fournier case. Committee Member Mirsch and Chairperson Smith commented that they would like to discuss those trees and determine their impact on the view. It was noted that Tree #4 has been removed from consideration because it is beyond the property line. It was also noted that Trees #28-59 are located along the West side of the property but are not individually identified on the photograph. Planning Director Schwartz commented that Mr. Weinberg submitted additional photographs that he took to help identify the trees but those photographs were not provided to the Committee because they are additional evidence beyond what the Committee requested from staff. Minutes Committee on Trees and Views 11-05-14 -2- Assistant City Attorney Coates further noted that those photographs may identify some of the trees not appearing in the City's photographs, but those photographs are taken from a different perspective. She further commented that if the Committee wishes to see those photographs they will also need to be provied to the public. The Committee decided not to use the photographs submitted by Mr. Weinberg. Further discussion ensued concerning the trees along the western side of the Sherman property. In response to Committee Member Gray, Mr. Sherman commented that the trees are not showing in the photographs because they cannot be seen from the Occhipinti property and he should not be subject to ongoing maintenance on those trees. Committee Member Gray commented that he feels the Committee with the action in the Fournier case has already provided corridor views and no more action needs to be taken. Committee Member Mirsch commented that it was her understanding that the trees can be seen and are obstructing the view. Planning Director Schwartz clarified that the Occhipintis claim that the reason they are not seen is because the trees already acted upon in the Fournier case are in front of these trees and once the trees in the Fournier case are trimmed then these trees would be in the view. In response to Chairperson Smith, Assistant City Attorney Coates commented that although there are common trees, the angle at which those trees are seen from each property is different. Further discussion ensued with Committee Member Gray commenting that he feels with the action on the common tress, view corridors have been created and no further action is necessary on the other trees; he further commented that he does not feel it would be fair to Mr. Sherman to have to maintain additional trees. Committee Member Mirsch suggested taking similar action on those trees as was taken on the common trees with crown reduction to the ridgeline of the house. Chairperson Smith suggested moving on from the trees on the West side of property. Discussion ensued concerning Trees #29, 32, 34, and 35 which can be seen on the photograph with Chairperson Smith suggesting that those trees be reduced to the ridgeline of the house. At the suggestion of City Manager Cruz, the Committee took a brief recess at 11:20 a.m. for a restroom break and to briefly discuss the matter. The meeting was called back to order at 11:31 a.m. Assistant City Attorney Coates noted that the Committee did take a restroom break, but did not meet during the break. The Committee then discussed Trees #79-81 noting that they are at the bottom of the Sherman property. Chairperson Smith suggested no action on those trees. Committee Members Gray and Mirsch concurred. The Committee then discussed Trees #87, 88, 89, 90 and 91. Discussion ensued concerning Tree #91 and it was noted that it is the large multi -trunk tree with Committee Member Gray noting he feels this tree could be removed. Discussion ensued concerning Tree #91 with Mr. Sherman requesting it be cut to 8 ft. rather and removed. Following discussion, the Committee concurred that that Tree #91 should be cut to 8 ft. as requested by Mr. Sherman, Tree #90 be reduced to the ridgeline of the house and that there be no action on the rest of the trees. Discussion ensued concerning Trees #92, 93 and 94 and 98-99 with Ms. Lamberg noting that the tree survey is incorrect and there is no Tree #92. Mr. Weinberg concurred. Following discussion, the Committee concurred that that Brazilian Peppers Trees #93-94 and 98-99 should be reduced to the ridgeline of the house. Further discussion ensued concerning Eucalyptus Trees #95-97 with the Committee concurring that the trees should be laced. Discussion ensued concerning Trees #112-117 and 121 with the Committee concurring that there be no action required on those trees. Committee Member Mirsch suggested that for the existing trees on the property, that the Resolution indicate that the trees that are not subject to action in this case be maintained at the current height. Following discussion the Committee made the following determinations with regard to remediation action and maintenance: Tree # Tree Type Action Maintenance 29 Eucalyptus Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years 32 Brazilian Pepper Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years 34-35 Pittosporum Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years 90 Pittosporum Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years 91 Monterey Pine Cut to 8 ft. in height 93-94 Brazilian Pepper Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years Minutes Committee on Trees and Views 11-05-14 -3- 95-97 Eucalyptus Lace Every two years 98-100 Brazilian Pepper Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years With the exception of the common trees discussed earlier, no action was required on the remainder of the trees in the Occhipinti's request. Definitions: Crown Reduction" = Height reduction to specified height and deadwood removal. Lace" = Crown cleaning; crown thinning; shaping and balancing (per ISA standards.) Ridgeline = based on view plane survey definition (from the viewing areas at the Fournier property.) Maintenance: All trees to be maintained every two years. Timing: Initial restorative action and subsequent maintenance to be done in the winter months (December — March). "based on input from the arborists present. Discussion ensued concerning the cost allocation. Committee Member Gray suggested that the applicant pay for the initial restorative action and the parties share the maintenance cost 50150 as orderd in the Fournier Case. Discussion ensued concerning the cost allocation of the common trees with it being suggested that it be 33 1/3% for each of the three parties on those common trees. Committee Member Gray suggested instead that the two complaining parties each pay 50%. He further suggested that the cost sharing requirement for the maintenance be recorded on the complainant's property as well. Chairperson Smith suggested that the cost allocation for the common trees be 50% for the Shermans and the remaining 50% be split between the Fourniers and Occhipintis. Committee Member Gray disagreed and alternatively suggested it be split evenly between the three parties. Committee Member Mirsch stated that she does not feel the complainants should have to pay for the ongoing maintenance. She feels that since the Committee has made the findings that the view should be restored, the applicant should not be burdened with the ongoing maintenance costs but rather those costs should be allocated to the property owner who owns the trees. She stated that she does not feel that there are extenuating circumstances to deviate from the normal allocation of cost as layed out in the Ordinance. In response, Chairperson Smith commented that she feels that the number of trees is the reason for modification of the cost allocation because it puts an onerous burden on the tree owner. Committee Member Gray concurred with Chairperson Smith. Following discussion, the following cost allocation was determined: Cost for initial restorative action: Common Trees to be split between the two complaining parties 50150 Other Trees to be paid by complainant. Cost for maintenance: Common trees to be split amongst all three parties 33 113% each. Other trees to be split 50150 between the complainant and tree owner. In response to Committee Member Gray with regard to performing the ongoing maintenance, Planning Director Schwartz stated that after the restorative action is comlpeted, staff will take a photograph of the view and the resulting view will be recorded with the Resolution. Then, every two years that standard will have to be met. Committee Member Gray expressed concern regarding enforcement of the cost allocation. Planning Director Schwartz commented that Shermans wouldn't be required to trim the trees if the applicants didn't provide payment. Mr. Sherman asked what would happen if a tree died as a result of the trimming or lacing. He stated that it would be his preference in such a case that the applicant be required to pay to have the tree removed and replaced. Brief discussion ensued concerning Mr. Sherman's request. Committee Member Mirsch commented that she feels the Committee has done its due diligence in consulting with the arborists regarding this case and she does not feel this issue needs to be addressed in the Resolution. Committee Member Gray concurred since the Shermans are able to select the arborist and timing. Following the discussion, Committee Member Gray moved that the Committee direct staff to prepare a Resolution memorializing the action as determined by the Committee. Chairperson Smith seconded the motion which carried with Committee Member Mirsch opposed. Minutes Committee on Trees and Views 11-05-14 s- In response to Committee Member Gray regarding the Fournier Resolution that will be considered on November 18, Assistant City Attorney Coates stated that staff could bring an alternate Resolution in light of what happened today. The public hearing was continued. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Smith adjourned the meeting at 12:40 p.m. to an adjourned meeting of the Rolling Hills Planning Commission Committee on Trees and Views scheduled to be held on Tuesday, December 16, 2014 beginning at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, Heidi uce City Clerk Approved, Jill . Smith Chairperson Minutes Committee on Trees and Views 11-05-14 -5-