Loading...
CC MINS 19970916 JNTMINUTES RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JOINT MEETING WITH VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 This meeting was called to order at 7:10 P.M. by Mayor John C. McTaggart at the Hesse Park Community Center, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. Following the Pledge of Allegiance, roll call was answered as follows: PRESENT: Ferraro, Lyon, Byrd, Hollingsworth and Mayor McTaggart ABSENT: None Also present were: City Manager Paul Bussey; City Attorney Carol Lynch; Finance Director Dennis McLean; Building & Code Enforcement Director Carolynn Petru; Principal Planner Joel Rojas; Administrative Services Director /City Clerk Jo Purcell; and Recording Secretary Chandra Kincaid. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilman Byrd moved, seconded by Councilman Hollingsworth, to approve the Agenda. Motion carried without objection. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR City Manager Bussey requested that. Item No. 4, Award of Contract - Palos Verdes Dr. So. Reconstruction - Narcissa to Peppertree, be removed from the Consent Calendar and discussed separately. Speaking to the review of the grading permit for the single - family residence at 30764 Tarapaca Road was Keith Reynolds, 30745 Tarapaca Road, who stated that he would like the Planning Commission re- examine this project and attach additional conditions, if necessary. Councilman Byrd moved, seconded by Councilman Hollingsworth, to approve the Consent Calendar as follows: Minutes (301) Approved the Minutes of September 2, 1997. Vacation of Tarapaca Road Sewer Easement (450 X 1204 x 1402) Adopted Resol. No. 97 -81 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Declaring its Intention to Vacate a Portion of a Sewer Easement. Notice of Completion - Safety Striping, Inc. - Fiscal Year 1996 -97 Striping Program (1204 x 1404) 1. Accepted the work as complete. 2. Authorized the City Clerk to record a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder. 3. Authorized the City Clerk to notify the Surety Company to exonerate the payment and performance bonds if no claims are filed within 35 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion. 4. Authorized the Finance Director to release the retention 35 days after the recordation of the Notice, contingent upon no claims being filed and the contractor posting acceptable security. Review of Planning Commission Action Approving Grading Permit No. 1933 for a new, single - family residence at 30764 Tarapaca Rd. (1203 x 1801) Remanded Grading Permit No. 1933 to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Tract No. 46651 (Seabreeze) - Acceptance of a Conservation Easement & Replacement of Subdivision Agreement (1203 x 1411) 1. Accepted a Conservation Easement over Common Open Space Lot B of Tract Map No. 46651 and authorized staff to record said easement; and 2. Accepted a new Subdivision Agreement between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rancho Palos Verdes LLC and exonerate the existing Subdivision Agreement between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and Kajima Development Corporation. Register of Demands (602) Adopted Resol. No. 97 -81, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Allowing Certain Claims and Demands and Specifying Funds from Which the Same Are to Be Paid. AML The motion to approve the Consent Calendar carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Ferraro, Byrd, Lyon, Hollingsworth, and Mayor McTaggart City Council & VRC Joint Meeting September 16, 1997 Page 2 NOES: None Award of Contract -Palos Verdes Dr. So. Reconstruction - Narcissa to Peppertree (1204 x 1404) Senior Engineer Richard Schlesinger presented the staff memorandum of September 161 1997, and the recommendation to 1. Award a contract for the reconstruction of Palos Verdes Dr. So. (Narcissa Dr. to Peppertree Dr.) to Los Angeles Engineering, Inc. for a total amount of $442,229.90; and authorize staff to spend up to an additional $44,222 for contingencies, for a total authorization of $486,451.90. 2. Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Los Angeles Engineering, Inc. City Manager Bussey clarified that change orders can be made in the contract. Councilman Byrd moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ferraro, to approve the staff recommendation. The motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Byrd, Ferraro, Lyon, Hollingsworth, and Mayor McTaggart NOES: None PUBLIC COMMENTS Jack Downhill, representing a group of homeowners called STFP (Stop the Financial Plight) provided the City Clerk with a document and petition requesting that all funds available to the RDA be returned to the County to pay off bonds and interest. (This petition is on file with the City Clerk's Office.) Mike Satalich, 4125 Lorraine Rd., addressed the Council with respect to Code and Ordinance enforcement within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Lynch reported that no action was taken by the City Council on the City Council & VRC Joint Meeting September 16, 1997 Page 3 matter of existing litigation; however, with regard to the three cases dealing with foliage removal, staff was directed to go back to court and secure warrants. JOINT SESSION WITH THE VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION The City Council then met in Joint Session with the View Restoration Commission (VRC) to discuss policy Issues related to the implementation of Municipal Code Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance) regarding view impairment caused by foliage. The following VRC members were present: Karmelich, A. Green, R. Green, Boudreau , Black, Marshall, Sweetnam, and Goern. The Council and VRC then proceeded to take public testimony. Bob Sprague, 5753 Wildbriar Drive, speaking in favor of view preservation, stated that the Ordinance was well conceived and when implemented works well; that the views are an essential part of property value and should be maintained; and, that a view is something that a property owner is entitled to keep. Norbert Keilbach, 3632 Greve Drive, speaking in favor of view preservation, stated that because he pays taxes for a view, he should have a view; and urged that the code be enforced. Alan Paynter, 6880 Vallon Drive, speaking in favor of view preservation, pointed out that property Owners are paying taxes for views that they no longer have and he cited some of the problems that large trees have caused. Charles Edson, 28987 Palos Verdes Drive East, speaking in favor of foliage preservation, commented that because his property was already-fully forested when he bought it, the view restoration should not apply because no one had a view when they bought in the area. Jon Echevarrieta, 30327 Ganado Drive, speaking in favor of foliage preservation, addressed the issue of privacy. Lloyd Phillipson, 6564 Chartres Drive, speaking in favor of foliage preservation, provided the City Clerk with copies of his comments in which he addressed Section 5 of Proposition M; and suggested that view restoration be considered only p for impairments created since passage of the Ordinance and only for impairments created since the City Council ,& VRC Joint Meeting September 16, 1997 Page 4 applicant acquired his property. Sunnie Leiter, 29865 Knollview, speaking in favor of foliage preservation, commented on the fact that there are no manuals for tree people; and that trees provide safety from mud slides. Ken Dyda, 5715 Capeswood Drive, speaking in favor of view preservation, provided the City Clerk with copies of his remarks, commented on grandfathering the foliage, noting that the Ordinance is very clear on this matter. He further stated that restoration is required because a value possessed by a homeowner was unilaterally taken by another and that the Ordinance needs no revisions, but implementation. Brian Mazen, 29929 Knoll View Drive, speaking in favor of view preservation, provided the City Clerk with copies of his comments in which he addressed the following topics raised by the staff report: foliage management, imposing fees on homeowners', Code enforcement, and long -term management of foliage. Nick Papadakis, 3228 Parkhurst, speaking in favor of view preservation, provided a letter to the City Clerk in which he stated that the Ordinance was passed by a 67 percent vote and mandates that the view owner must pay to have his foliage cut back or removed to restore his views; and that the City government has a duty to enforce this Ordinance. Marty Dodell, 5751 Capeswood Drive, speaking in favor of view preservation, provided a copy of his comments to the City Clerk which addressed the privacy issue, noting that this issue has been abused simply to make political points and encouraged Council to think of ways to resolve disputes. Ralf Bremsner, 3070 Crownview Drive, speaking in favor of foliage preservation, provided the City Clerk with a copy of his comments which addressed compensation in connection with trees, noting that they add value and beauty to the property; and that the City needs to establish measurable guidelines for such compensation. Ian Tober, 2062 Redondela, speaking in favor of foliage preservation, provided the City Clerk with a copy of his comments in which he stated that the problem with the current View Restoration Ordinance is that it creates an easement across tree owners' property solely for the benefit of neighbors to obtain a view. He urged the City to put this Ordinance on hold and change it before the City is flooded with lawsuits. Barbara O'Sullivan, 30466 Via Cambron, speaking in favor of foliage preservation, expressed her concerns of the City placing a higher value on views than on trees and City Council & VRC Joint Meeting September 16, 1997 Page 5 foliage. She also noted that the Ordinance is full of ambiguities and lacks balance. She read a section from the City Tree Review Permit which provided a procedure for the pruning and /or removal of trees and foliage which are on City property. She urged Council to take a closer look at the Ordinance. John Rosental, 2410 Daladier, speaking in favor of foliage preservation, quoted sections from an article printed in the PV Peninsula News in which Prop M was defended, along with quotes from Proposition M itself. He further stated that Prop M does not recognize environmental, economical, social, psychological, or geological benefits derived from trees. Jill Mastous, 6863 Abbottswood Drive, speaking in favor of view preservation, provided the City Clerk with a copy of her comments in which she suggests the Planning Department or City Council take a look at an Ordinance in Rolling Hills Estates that may help with the enforcement. She also made mention of several topics in her letter: that Proposition M was passed by an overwhelming 67 percent; and, that the Ordinance is called View Restoration, not View Arbitration. John Chou, 29500 Highpoint Road, speaking in favor of view preservation, commended everyone for taking the extra precaution in enforcing Proposition M. He stated that after eight years of conducting numerous workshops and public hearings regarding Proposition M, the City now has an obligation to enforce it. Bob Rockoff, 5525 Seaside Heights Drive, speaking in favor of view preservation, stated that there is a high demand for real estate with views. He feels that local views should be guarded and protected by the City. Carl Newton, 5615 Mistridge Drive, in favor of view preservation, commented that one of the reasons for moving to Rancho Palos Verdes was in part due to the view. He further stated that the Ordinance that has been adopted places the Council in the position of a court and suggested that every citizen of the community resolve to try to settle their dispute without resorting to the City's intervention. Ronald Ross, 5074 Silver Arrow Drive, speaking in favor of foliage preservation, provided the City Clerk with copies of his comments. He stated that it was his opinion that the Ordinance itself is unconstitutional and urged the Council to seek an independent opinion of its validity and the City's potential liability before these orders are enforced. In closing, he questioned whether it was worth the controversy and expense to provide a few people in the community with a view at the expense of other residents. City Council & VRC Joint Meeting September 16, 1997 Page 6 Mike O'Sullivan, 30466 Via Cambron, speaking in favor of foliage preservation, commented on the fact that he was told that the proposition was tested in the courts and that litigation went on for years; however, later found out that it had never reached the courts because the statute of limitations ran out. He also commented to the fundamental rights of ownership and rights to a view and the fact that "view" is poorly defined; and that the Ordinance has not been implemented with any degree of balance. He suggested that the parties involved enter into mandatory arbitration to create a reasonable balance. RECESS AND RECONVENE: At 8:35 p.m., Mayor McTaggart declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m. Tom Kinley, 6938 Grovespring Drive, speaking in favor of foliage preservation, addressed the privacy issue stating that the View Restoration Ordinance clearly indicates that in order for a View Restoration permit to be issued the Commission must find that the removal or trimming of foliage will not cause an unreasonable infringement of privacy, and that this is being completely ignored. He further stated that chopping of trees is not recommended and feels that the Commission is trying to make bushes of trees; and that modifications of the Ordinance could result in increased fairness to tree owners. Margaret Walker, 30137 Avenida Tranquila, speaking in favor of foliage preservation, stated that trees are necessary for privacy; and that she foolishly supported Proposition M because she thought it was for preserving views, not creating views. She suggested that if Proposition M could not be fixed, then to get rid of it and form a mediation board. Larry Clark, 3354 Corinna Drive, speaking with no stand on view or foliage preservation, summarized the history of this 'Ordinance as well as the genesis of Proposition M. He encouraged both Council and the View Restoration Commission not to over react to a particular point, but to put it in context of the overall ordinance and its purpose and to balance the rights between neighbors. Jack Satalich, 4125 Lorraine Road, speaking in favor of view preservation, stated that the key issue on this View Restoration is consistent enforcement and streamlining the issue. Dr. J. Favre- Newton, 5615 Mistridge Drive, speaking in favor of view preservation stated that while she loves trees and the views, admitted that she was one who over planted, but feels that a comprise could be worked out if people worked together. Katina McHugh, 2222 Rue Le Charlene, speaking in favor of view preservation, stated City Council & VRC Joint Meeting September 16, 1997 Page 7 that she moved to the Peninsula for the view, which she no longer has She feels Proposition M should be honored, because views are so important to those who bought view lots and that those who want trees buy property on the tree lots. Luella Wike, 29172 Oceanridge, speaking in favor of view preservation, provided the City Clerk with copies of her comments in which she stated that the View and Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines are essential for the restoration and maintenance of views and view lots in this City. She also stated that grandfathering the foliage existing prior to 1989 will destroy the entire ordinance and she recommended that no action be taken to amend the VRC guidelines or the ordinance. She suggests that the long -term maintenance section be reviewed. Daniel Yang, 3511 Bendigo Drive, speaking in favor or foliage preservation, provided a copy of his comments to the City Clerk and stated that it is unconstitutional for laws to require retroactive compliance and explained, in detail, his proposed solution. Vivien Yang, 3511 Bendigo Drive, speaking in favor of foliage preservation, stated that there is a flaw with the City and the View Commission handling the view preservation for the home owners and suggested the City Manager and the City Council seek advice from other cities who also have view versus tree problems. Captain Radan Singh, 5714 Wildbriar Drive, speaking in favor of foliage preservation, commented that privacy, justice, dignity, and peace of living are crucial to the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes and suggested that an independent body be formed that would assess without bias and give recommendations to the City and VRC which would be binding on both parties. He further stated that tree owners would be willing to trim their trees within reason of privacy. Patricia McBride, 6162 Arrowroot Lane, speaking in favor of foliage preservation, commented that she does not feel trees are a nuisance but instead are beautiful and that they add value to the property. She further stated that Proposition M is law, but not necessarily a good law. She requested the Council to act responsibly in resolving these issues and to try to strike a balance. Greg Barth, 5537 Seaside Heights Drive, speaking in favor of view preservation, stated he needs to see Proposition M fully enforced. He further stated that most trees are out of place on the Peninsula and that it is more of a torture to see the trees pruned incorrectly than it is to have them removed completely. Walter McHugh, 2222 Rue Le Charlene, speaking in favor of view preservation, discussed Proposition M as it stands, pointing out that it came into being because there City Council & VRC Joint Meeting September 16, 1997 Page 8 was a lack of consideration on the part of some people and that he feels the proposition is well balanced. Anthony Segretto, 5677 Mistridge Drive, speaking in favor of view preservation, stated that he believes it is the responsibility of the City ensure homeowners that their views will not be destroyed or depleted; and that the public at large should be notified before building permits and hearings are allowed. Dawn Henry, 6525 Via Colinita, speaking in favor of view preservation, commented that she feels the View Restoration was very thorough, fair and careful to consider the neighbor's privacy and how a tree would look after it was cut. She further stated that it is the voters' responsibility to know what they're voting for. Ron Malin, 9 Cayuse Lane, speaking in favor of foliage preservation, said he regretted voting yes on Proposition M because people are now acquiring views when they did not have a view at the time of purchase. Roy Lorenz, 30419 Ganado Drive, speaking in favor of foliage preservation, expressed his opposition to this ordinance and that balanced decision would involve a compromise allowing the foliage owners to maintain 50 percent of their foliage and the view owners receiving 50 percent view restoration. Gregory Schroff, 5331 Manitowac, speaking in favor of foliage preservation, commented that Proposition M is causing division among the view seekers and the foliage owners and feels that there needs to be a compromise on both sides and not leave it in the hands of the Council. Stacey Matsuma, 15 Cayuse, speaking in favor of foliage preservation, stated that he bought his property for the trees and that he did vote in favor of Proposition M, but feels it was misrepresented. He further felt that for those property owners who bought property with a view should have one, however those who bought the property and it did not have a view and are using Proposition M to acquire views to increase their property value is unfair. Felix Krasovec, 30741 Ganado Drive, in favor of view preservation, stated that Palos Verdes is known for its coastline views and views of Catalina, it's not known as a forest. He felt that Proposition M is a good ordinance and is much needed. Margaret Costello, 41 Rockinghorse, speaking in favor of view preservation, commented that the only reason she bought her house was for the 180 degree panoramic view and that her view is now in jeopardy. She also commented that with City Council & VRC Joint Meeting September 16, 1997 Page 9 respect to grandfathering in old trees you get into the issue of the age of the trees. Jerald Simon, 4272 Stalwart, speaking in favor of view preservation, commented that if a person buys a home with a view and pays additional taxes, they have a right to that view and not to lose it within a few years. However, he felt that people do not have a right to expand their view at the expense of somebody else. He further stated that Proposition M should be implemented without further delay, but in a fair and reasonable way. Joe Oliveri, 6 Chaparral, speaking in favor of view preservation, made a plead for leadership to the Council to enforce Proposition M. He felt .it balanced the concerns of both the view owners and the foliage owners. Douglas Purinton, 5320 Manitowac, speaking in favor of foliage preservation, stated that his property is covered with trees. He also stated the following flaws in the process: the View Restoration staff is overworked, undertrained, and not required to visit the foliage owner's property prior to the issuing of their recommendations. He also provided Council with suggestions as to how the process could be changed. RECESS AND RECONVENE: At 10:05 p.m., Mayor McTaggart declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 10:20 p.m. (Councilman Hollingsworth having excused himself from the remainder of the meeting.) The City Council and the View Restoration Commission then proceeded to address the issues listed in the staff report as follows: 1. Grandfatherina of existing foliage Staff presented the following options: 1) If the Council agrees that only foliage existing as view impairing vegetation prior to a VRP applicant's lot being created is "grand fathered" by the Ordinance, take no action to amend the VRC Guidelines or Ordinance at this time. 2) Notwithstanding the 1993 Council's directive or the City Attorney's interpretation, if the Council wishes to "grandfather" all foliage which existed as of the effective date of the original Prop M Ordinance (November 1989), propose to amend the Ordinance and VRC Guidelines to clearly state this. However, because the City Attorney believes that such an amendment would constitute a significant change to the Ordinance, carrying out this option would also require that the amended Ordinance be placed on the ballot for voter approval. City Council & VRC Joint Meeting September 16, 1997 Page 10 3) In order to avoid the documentation difficulties that may be associated with Options 1 and 2 above, propose to amend the Ordinance to "grandfather" all foliage which exists as view impairing vegetation on any selected future date. This option would give residents an opportunity to document their existing view and foliage situations. Such an amendment would also constitute a significant change to the Ordinance, and thus require that the amended Ordinance be placed on the ballot for voter approval. After discussion, it was the consensus that only foliage existing as view impairing vegetation prior to a VRP applicant's lot being created is "grand fathered" by the Ordinance, and thus took no action to amend the VRC Guidelines or Ordinance on this issue. 2. Long Term Foliage Maintenance Staff presented the following options: 1) Direct Staff to amend the VRC Guidelines to require a long term foliage maintenance schedule be incorporated into the conditions of approval of all VRP Applications. Said maintenance schedule should dictate the minimum frequency of future trimming (i.e. semi - annual, annual or biennial) and should factor the growth rates of the trees and seasonal dormant periods when trimming is least harmful to certain trees. The approved schedule would also dictate the number and frequency of Code Enforcement verification visits. 2) Direct Staff to present a fee resolution to the Council to collect fees to offset the cost of Code Enforcement's field determinations as to whether specific foliage is in compliance with a VRP's conditions of approval. Said fees would be charged when an applicant or foliage owner requests that the City verify a specific field situation. 3) Direct Staff to amend the Ordinance to require the sharing of long term maintenance costs between the foliage owner and the applicant(s). The current ordinance requires that all long term foliage maintenance must be performed at the foliage owner's expense. Therefore, to implement this option would require an amendment to the Ordinance, which in Staffs opinion probably is not significant enough to warrant voter approval because it still furthers the basic purposes of the Ordinance to protect views. After discussion, it was the consensus that given some of the difficulties that the City has faced, and may continue to face, in trying to ensure long term foliage maintenance, City Council & VRC Joint Meeting September 16, 1997 Page 11 the City Council directed the VRC and Staff to institute a policy whereby after a final decision is made on a View Restoration Permit, a VRC hearing is scheduled 6 to 12 months (depending on foliage growth rates) after the initial trimming to allow the VRC to review the adequacy and or need for follow -up foliage maintenance by the foliage owners. For foliage maintenance situations outside of the VRC process (i.e. the preservation of views which existed as of the effective date of the Ordinance -- 1989), the Council agreed that documentation of a view existing on November 7, 1989 or any date thereafter would entitle a property owner to have such a view preserved through the City's Code Enforcement process. 3. Compensation to Foliage Owners After discussion , it was the consensus that this issue was addressed in part by the Council's directive to expand the circumstances under which replacement foliage is provided to foliage owners (see No. 5 below). 4. Privacy The Council agreed that the present Ordinance and VRC Guidelines adequately address the subject of privacy protection and therefore, did not direct any Ordinance or VRC Guideline amendments on this issue. 5. Replacement Foliage Staff presented the following options: 1) Direct staff to take no action at this time, leaving the situation as it currently exists. Although pursuing this option would not require that replacement foliage be provided for tree removal situations not involving safety or privacy concerns, such instances would only occur with the foliage owners concurrence since foliage cannot be removed without the foliage owner's consent. 2) Direct staff to amend the Ordinance and VRC Guidelines to allow for replacement foliage when neither safety nor privacy issues are a factor, but where significant and or substantial foliage is being removed. It was staff s opinion that these amendments are not significant enough to warrant voter approval. After discussion, Council directed Staff to amend the Ordinance and VRC Guidelines to City Council & VRC Joint Meeting September 16, 1997 Page 12 allow for replacement foliage when neither safety nor privacy issues are a factor, but where substantial foliage is being removed and there is a concern about loss of shade, energy efficiency or aesthetics (these amendments do not warrant voter approval). The amendments will include standards (size and type of trees) to ensure that the replacement foliage is comparable to the foliage removed. Furthermore, the Council directed the VRC and Staff to formulate a policy for providing replacement trees in cases where trees ordered to be trimmed by the VRC happen to die. 6. Definitions Staff presented the following options for Council's consideration: 1) Pursuant to previous Council direction received at the time of the Development Code amendments, the currently adopted Ordinance does not address multiple room viewing areas but the VRC Guidelines do. Staff seeks direction, whether the Council wishes to modify this situation. 2) Staff seeks Council direction as to whether a significant amendment, requiring voter approval, should be made to the Ordinance to re- define available (protected) views as those views in existence at the time of purchase by a view applicant, or 1989, whichever is more recent. 3) Staff seeks direction from the Council as to whether to amend the VRC Guidelines to include criteria for determining significant view impairment. After discussion, the City Council agreed not to amend the adopted Ordinance which does not address multiple room viewing areas even though the VRC Guidelines do. However, the Council did direct the VRC and Staff to ensure that the VRC Guidelines and VRC Staff Reports are clear on where and how protected views are determined and that such viewing areas be clearly documented in each situation. The City Council agreed not to amend the Ordinance or VRC Guidelines to re- define available (protected) views as those views in existence at the time of purchase by a view applicant, or 1989, whichever is more recent. The City Council directed the VRC and Staff to amend the VRC Guidelines to include criteria for determining significant view impairment. 7. Technical Support The City Council agreed that the present VRP application processing procedure City Council & VRC Joint Meeting September 16, 1997 Page 13 adequately utilizes the services of the City's consulting geologist and arborist on an as- needed basis, and therefore did not direct any Ordinance or VRC Guideline amendments on this issue. 8. Site Visits Staff presented the following options for Council's consideration: 1) Direct staff to amend the VRC Guidelines and modify the Notice of Applications � forms to require that all site visit requests by foliage owners be submitted in writing. 2) Direct staff to amend the Ordinance and VRC Guidelines to require that Commissioners visit both the applicant's property and the foliage owner's property in order to participate in a VRP Application public hearing. It was Staff s opinion that these amendments are not significant enough to warrant voter approval . However, if the Council pursued this option, the City Attorney had concerns whether this would enable a foliage owner to delay or stop an application from being processed, as well as possibly increasing the City Attorney's fees since the City would probably need to obtain an inspection warrant to visit an uncooperative foliage owner's property. After discussion, the City Council directed Staff to amend the VRC Guidelines and modify the "Notice of Application" form mailed to foliage owners to: 1) make it more clear to foliage owners of their options regarding site visits; 2) require that all site visit requests by foliage owners be submitted in writing; and, 3) explain to foliage owners the drawbacks of not allowing Staff or the VRC to visit their property. 9. Public Hearing Process Staff presented the following recommendation: 1) Direct staff to amend the VRC Guidelines and extend the current speaking allotment from five minutes to ten minutes, but leave the three minute rebuttal period unchanged. The City Council agreed that the current VRC Guidelines provide an adequate time allotment for speakers, as well as the flexibility for the VRC Chairperson to extend the comment time allotment on a case by case basis if so warranted, and therefore did not direct any Ordinance or VRC Guideline amendments on this issue. 10. Appeals City Council & VRC Joint Meeting September 16, 1997 Page 14 After discussion, the City Council agreed that the present VRP appeal procedure and fee structure is adequate and fair to both applicant and foliage owner, and therefore did not direct any Ordinance or VRC Guideline amendments on this issue. However, the Council did direct Staff to develop an application form for foliage owners to complete in order to ascertain their position on a particular VRP Application or appeal. 11. Exemption to the Ordinance The City Council agreed that the present exemption for trees located on Miraleste Recreation and Parks District property contained in the Ordinance and VRC Guidelines is warranted and clearly explained, and therefore did not direct any Ordinance or VRC Guideline amendments on this issue. 12. Public Education The City Council directed the VRC and Staff to continue to make every effort to educate the public on the view restoration process, including: 1) the preparation of an information packet for the general public, VRP applicants, and foliage owners; 2) the preparation of an informational letter to the Board of Realtors for their distribution and use; and 3) when requested, continued visits to Homeowner Association groups to explain the view restoration process to them. The Council did not direct any, Ordinance or VRC Guideline amendments on this issue. 13. General Staff identified the following alternatives available to the Council to help resolve some of the issues of concern: 1) Place the ordinance in suspension for a specified time period and hold additional public workshops to gain public testimony and discussion time on the view restoration issues. 2) Direct staff to make minor amendments to the VRC Guidelines beyond those noted in the staff report. 3) Direct staff to make minor code amendments to the Ordinance beyond those noted in the staff report. Said amendments must not be significant nor weaken the intent of the Ordinance so that voter approval of the amendments is not necessary. 4) Direct staff to make major amendments to the Ordinance and VRC Guidelines, beyond those noted in the staff report and direct the City Clerk to arrange for the City Council & VRC Joint Meeting September 16, 1997 Page 15 amended Ordinance to be placed on the next available .ballot for voter approval. The City Council directed staff to prepare a summary list of the directives and decisions made at the joint workshop for review and approval. Said list is also to be presented concurrently to the VRC for its review and approval. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 P.M. on motion of Mayor Pro Tem Ferraro to Saturday 27, 1997, at 9:00 A.M. for a Community Leaders Breakfast to be held at the Salvation Army Crestmont Facility. The View Restoration Commission adjourned on motion of Chairman Green to Thursday, October 2, 1997 7:00 P.M. MAY6k' ATTEST: CITY CLERK. cityc1erklccminutes\091697cc City Council & VRC Joint Meeting September 16, 1997 Page 16