Loading...
2014-10-28_Fournier MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS OCTOBER 28, 2014 CALL MEETING TO ORDER A meeting of the Committee on Trees and Views was called to order by Chairperson Smith at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 28, 2014 at the top of the driveway in front of the Fournier home at 30 Crest Road East, 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. Debi Fournier, 30 Crest Road East. Howard Weinberg, Attorney. Brandon Gill, Arborist, American Arbor Care. Michael Sherman, 33 Crest Road East. Samantha Lamberg, Attorney. Brad Travers, Arborist, Travers Tree Service Craig and Hanne Ekberg, 35 Crest Road East. 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. FOURNIER, 30 CREST ROAD EAST The Members of the Committee and the parties present assembled at the top of the driveway in front of the Fournier home at 30 Crest Road East. Chairperson Smith introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz briefly reviewed the view impairment complaint filed by the Fourniers at 30 Crest Road East regarding trees located at 33 Crest Road East owned by the Shermans. She stated that the Committee is tasked with determining the viewing area; determining if there is a view and was there a view at the time the current properiy owner acquired the property; determining if the view is impaired and whether or not it is significantly impaired; and determining if any action is necessary to restore the view. She stated that the applicant purchased the properry in 1993 and the photo submitted showing the view is from 1996. She further stated that the Committee must also consider the impact any restorative action may have on the environment and on the property owner's privacy and enjoyment of their property and reviewed the correspondence that has been received since the last meeting. The Committee proceeded into the Fournier home and assessed the view from Mr. Fournier's office located to the East of the front doors, and from the dining area and a second office located West of the front doors. City Manager Cruz took photographs from each of the viewing areas. The Members of the Committee and the parties present then assembled to the top of the driveway serving the Sherman property and viewed the trees in that area of the properiy as well as the trees along Minutes Committee on Trees and Views 10-28-14 -1- Hearing no further public comment, the public comment portion of the meeting was closed and the Committee began deliberation. The Committee concurred that there is a view and that there was enough evidence presented to confirm that a view existed when the Fourniers acquired their property and that the view is impaired. Committee Member Gray commented that he feels that parts of the trees on the Fournier property also impair the view. Committee Member Mirsch commented that the trees on the Fournier property are not in the Committee's purview. Committee Member Gray commented that when Committee considers restoring view corridors, the trees on the Foumier property should be taken into consideration. Committee Member Mirsch suggested that the Committee consider what remediation actions the Shermans have already agreed to. Assistant City Attorney Coates stated that the Committee could ask staff to provide the information as provided for the Occhipinti case or ask the Shermans for that information. In response to Committee Member Mirsch, Ms. Coates commented that the Committee has to make a decision with respect to the trees in response to each of the applications. Chairperson Smith questioned if the Committee should seek further information with regard to what remediation actions the Shermans have agreed to; the conflicting geology reports, the determination of mature vs. maturing and the CEQA requirements. In response, Ms. Coates stated that the Committee could bring in third party independent consultants but that the scope of work should be determined first and the Committee has the discretion to make some of those determinations. She stated that with regard to the environmental impacts,the decision should be based on evidence in the recard. Committee Member Gray commented that to him this matter is clear. He reviewed the view photograph stating that the hedge height is not an issue because it is already at an appropriate height based on the ridgeline of the house. He further reviewed the other trees that the Shermans have already agreed to trim ar remove and stated that he feels that will provide an adequate view corridor and still maintain the Sherman's privacy. Discussion ensued concerning what the Fourniers have requested in comparison to what Committee Member Gray is suggesting based on what the Shermans have agreed to. Planning Director Schwartz reminded the Committee that this is not a negotiation and it is not relevant whether the parties agree or disagree. She further suggested that the Committee may consider going tree by tree to consider what action should or should not be required on each tree. Further discussion ensued conceming what is being requested. Ms. Coates reminded the Committee that it is being asked to balance views, as an important property asset with the need to protect vegetation from indiscriminate removal and to consider view corridors and a view through as opposed to restoring unobstructed views. Committee Member Gray commented that what he has suggested is in line with what Mr. Sherman has agreed to and would restore a view corridor and be good for the health of the trees. Ms. Coates stated that since what Mr. Sherman has agreed to is not on the rewrd on this case, she recommends that the Committee does not characterize an agreement as having already been made. Committee Member Mirsch commented that it would be helpful to have that information. In response, Ms. Coates commented that the Committee may ask questions of the parties, if doing so will help the Committee in forming its decision. She further reminded the Committee that the matter is no longer in mediation so it is not a negotiation. Planning Director Schwartz commented that if either of the parties does not agree with the Committee's action with regard to this case, the matter can be appealed to the City Council. Committee Member Gray asked Mr. Sherman if he disagreed with anytk�ing that he had suggested thus far. Ms. Coates commented that questions of the parties should be asked on a tree-by-tree basis as the Committee moves along. The Committee then discussed the individual trees and groups of trees and came to the following determinations with regazd to remediation action, maintenance and cost allocation: Tree# Tree Type Action Maintenance 1 Eucalyptus Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years 2-3 Olive Tree Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years 6 Eucalyptus Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years 7 Canary Island Pine Lace Every two years 8 Brazilian Pepper Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years 9-16 Photinia Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years 17 Pittosporum Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years 18 BrazilianPepper Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years 19 Pittosporum Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years 20-23 Eucalyptus Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years M inutes Committee on Trees and Views 10-28-14 -3- Respectfully submitted, - t� I � � � 1 ' `�' � . i � �r�'�"� Heidi Luce City Clerk Approved, ` ��:t l` ,�t ^ � ', Ji� V. Smith Chairperson Minutes Committee on Trees and Views ]0-28-14 -5-