Loading...
CC MINS 19990719 ADJMINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, JULY 19, 1999 The meeting was called to order at 9:10 A.M.- by Mayor Tom Hollingsworth at the Fred Hesse Park Community Center, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file. After the Pledge of Allegiance, roll call was answered as follows: Present: Ferraro, Lyon, McTaggart, Byrd, and Mayor Hollingsworth Also present were City Manager Les Evans, Assistant City Manager Carolynn Petru, City Attorney Carol Lynch, Director of Building, Planning & Building & Safety Joel Rojas, City Clerk/ Administrative Services Director Jo Purcell, and Finance Director Dennis McLean. VIEW RESTORATION &PRESERVATION PROGRAM (1203 X 1806) The Subcommittee (Lyon and Byrd) summarized their deliberations on this matter which after several meetings focused on eight issues: process, pre - application, documentation, fees, cost of foliage trimming, removal & replacement, foliage replacement and privacy. Additionally, the Subcommittee noted the cost of $244,390 to the City for the'administration of this ordinance over the past twelve months and that they felt a more equitable method for sharing this cost must be considered by the City Council. The Council then proceeded to clarify certain elements of the View Restoration Ordinance: • Only changes strengthening the ordinance could be made by the Council without going to the voters; and, that an attempt to balance the ordinance between foliage owners and view owners would require a vote. • That the ordinance had been amended to add an explanation of replacement foliage; that the guidelines had been written to provide basic procedures for enforcement of the ordinance, one of which was early neighbor consultation. • Fees for administration of the ordinance have been adopted by City Council resolution and that there was no need for voter approval of such fee which were implemented to reimburse the City for actual costs incurred. Council then proceeded to listen to testimony from the following speakers: Representing RPV Voice (Voter Information Committee for Education) was Walter Marshall, 28817 Cedarbluff Drive, who read the "Mediation" section of that Committee's Recommendations Summary Document. (Said document is on file with the City Clerk's Office.) Also representing RPV Voice was Robert Rockoff, 5525 Seaside Heights, who summarized the One Process, View Frame, and Trimming Frame section of this document. VOICE Director Marty Dodell, 5751 Capeswood, summarized the Committee's One Permit recommendation. Lastly, VOICE Chairman Ken Dyda, 5715 Capeswood, summarized the Committee's recommendation regarding Enforcement, Appeals and Costs. Speaking as one of the authors of Proposition "M" was Warren Sweetnam, 7 Top Rail Lane, who summarized the history of this proposition: that all view impairment was considered in violation of the preservation portion of the ordinance; that restoration dealt with views already blocked; however, the ordinance required that before issuance of a building permit, foliage must be removed. He questioned the fairness of requiring residents to prove what the view was ten years ago when the ordinance was approved; and, that it was unfair to have people pay to have their view restored. Timothy Emke, 55224 Middlecrest Road; praised the View Restoration Commission for a job well done, however, felt that staff was pro view. He felt that the ordinance lacked adequate guidelines for determining "significant" view impact; that the process should be more impartial; and, that there should be some agreement signed by the parties as part of the mediation process; Jon Echevarietta, 30327 Ganado Drive, stated that he felt the ordinance was unconstitutional; that the City should not be involved in these issues between neighbors; that implementation of this ordinance has cost the City over $1 million; and, he requested that a moratorium be imposed on enforcing this ordinance until the courts had determined its constitutionality. City Council Minutes July 19, 1999 Page 2 Leonard Freeland, 28809 Crestridge, felt that the process was specific enough; that the costs were mostly attributable to Willdan Associates; and, that because some of the Commission members had view restoration cases pending that they had a conflict in administering this ordinance. Margaret Walker, 30137Avenida Tranquila, felt that some of the View Commissions were biased in favor of views; that her view is blocked by County trees on the Los Verdes Golf Course and that the ordinance has no control over the blockage caused by those trees; that according to the law there is no privilege to air, light or view over another's property; suggested some compromise through the mediation process; and, felt that it was not necessary to have a panoramic view. She felt that staff recommendation should be done after the mediation process. View Restoration Commissioner Carol Black, speaking as a private citizen, suggested that as a means of reducing costs, that only appeals on procedural error be heard by the Council; that costs be shared between the parties; and, that the burden on the view owner is unreasonable: Sonya Leitner, 29865 Knollview, suggested that the ordinance be placed on the ballot so the voters can understand the issues. (Ms. Leitner's statement is on file with the City Clerk's Office.) Walter McHugh, 2222 rue le Charlene, suggested that mediation process be separated from the pre - approval process; that a reasonable fee for the mediation process be established; that a skilled mediator hear the matter; if a resolution is not achieved that would be the basis for appeal. Recess & Reconvene: At 10:00 a.m. the Mayor declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 10:16 A.M. Council then started discussion of the matter: the efficacy of requiring a view covenant and the extent of involvement and legal exposure this place on the City; whether a view covenant could cover more than one piece of property; the desirability of using mediation between the parties from the outset of the case; if a City Council subcommittee could be formed to meet with the County regarding the view blockage caused by County golf course trees; if there could be an agreement signed by the parties involved upon the completion of the mediation process; that the same process to be used for both preservation and restoration; that privacy be considered in both restoration and preservation situations; what would be considered an equitable system for sharing the costs of this process; the process of recording the "primary" view location and the extent of staff involvement in that process; and, when trimming is required, whether there should be a requirement that a certain amount of foliage below the view plane should be removed. City Council Minutes July 19, 1999 Page 3 Council then proceeded to address each of the seven issues outlined in the Subcommittee's Report to the Council: Process & Pre - Application: That mediation meetings be held prior to staff making a determination and or recommendation on a case. With regard to view preservation, that once a settlement is arrived at, that staff will draft up the agreement for the parties to sign and once the work is done the view be documented and that the photo be kept on file; that the participants get a copy of photo to show their arborists for future trimming purposes. It was the consensus that these amendments to the guidelines would be presented to Council at some future meeting. Documentation: When viewing photo documentation for view preservation, the property owner should request that staff make site visit to document the view and establish the primary viewing area; that staff take a photo which will become the picture of record; that there be rigid adherence to the application of the ordinance; that specifications be established for the kind of camera used by the staff. Fees: It was the consensus that staff should itemize the specific actions involved in the view preservation and restoration process and recommend a fee that will reflect City costs; that the persons who receive the benefit from the view preservation process should pay some fee; that a fee be charged for the site visit and taking the "view" documentation photo; and, that the fee for this enforcement be reasonable. Cost of Foliage Trimming, Removal & Replacement: These guidelines to remain as is for the view restoration process. The view owner is required to pay the reasonable costs of any initial foliage trimming, removal and replacement foliage. For view preservation the foliage owner is responsible for all cost of trimming, removal and replacement. (Policy remained unchanged.) Foliage Replacement: These guidelines to remain as is. The view restoration process requires that replacement foliage be provided in certain situations. If replacement foliage is authorized, the view applicant must pay. The foliage owner may replace foliage at his /her own expense. (Policy remained unchanged.) Privacy Issue: That the matter of privacy be considered with both the view preservation and restoration process. Specific guidelines presently exist for view restoration that can be applied to view preservation process. Multiple fees: That each applicant be charged actual cost of restoring their view; staff to examine alternatives for determining how true cost can be apportioned. City Council Minutes July 19, 1999 Page 4 The guidelines should be amended to describe what process to follow in the event an offending tree is overlooked during staff's inventory of the view impairing foliage, that this be considered an act of omission and that such tree be immediately included in trees to be trimmed /removed; if it felt that staffs determination is incorrect then the involved parties have opportunity to appeal the staff or commission decision. Subcommittee (Lyon /Byrd) to meet with Supervisor Knabe regarding the County golf course trees, and finalize these issues for Council's approval. The draft amendments to be presented to the Council for review on September 7, 1999. AUDIENCE COMMENTS: Responding to the Mayor's call for audience comments for items not on the agenda were the following persons: Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine, thanked the Council for conducting the workshop on this matter; questioned how photographs for views will be done; and spoke to the closed session Brown Act Checklist on the July 15 and July 20 agendas. Katina McHugh, 2222 rue le Charlene, questioned who determined the viewing area. ADJOURNMENT: At 11:40 A.M. Councilwoman Ferraro moved to adjourn the meeting. ATTEST: WA1999 City Council Minutes \074999CCMINS.doc City Council Minutes July 19, 1999 Page 5