Loading...
CC MINS 19940630 JNTM I N U T E S CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL JOINT WORKSHOP WITH VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE JUNE 30, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Byrd at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT City Council Member McTaggart, Mayor Pro Tem Byrd; View Restoration Committee Members Cartwright, Eastwood, Goern, Green, Scala, Sweetnam, Weisz, Chairman Clark ABSENT Council Member Brooks, Mayor Kuykendall; Committee Members Black, Boudreau LATE ARRIVAL Council Member Lyon (7:55 p.m.) Also present were City Manager Paul Bussey, City Attorney Carol Lynch, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Bret Bernard, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, Assistant Planner Joel Rojas, and Recording Secretary Lucile Rogers. The flag salute was led by View Restoration Comm. Chairman Clark. OPENING REMARKS Mayor Pro Tem Byrd noted that a quorum was present for the View Restoration Committee but not for the City Council. He commented on the importance of consistency between the View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance and View Restoration Committee Guidelines and the revised City Development Code. V.R.C. Chairman Clark reported on the work the Committee has done since April 1994, which included coordinating with the Planning staff in reviewing and suggesting areas of improvement to the Ordinance and the Committee Guidelines. Stating his concern that the administration of the View Restoration Ordinance should be easy and without too much cost to the City, Mayor Pro Tem Byrd asked how much latitude the City has in making changes to the Ordinance. City Attorney Lynch advised that the Council has the authority to make minor changes which fall within the scope of the original Ordinance, but any substantive changes would need to be put on the ballot for approval by the voters. DISCUSSION OF RECENT CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING THE APPEAL OF VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT DECISIONS TO CITY COUNCIL (1805) The recent adoption of a Code Amendment by the City Council whereby decisions of the View Restoration Committee may be appealed to the Council was discussed. Attorney Lynch clarified that the Council would primarily be addressing substantive legal issues (e.g., whether the Committee was properly interpreting and applying the Ordinance to the facts of the case) and procedural errors. The Council will not be considering cases de novo, but if factual issues are appealed, the case could be referred back to the Committee. She also clarified that if the Council felt that the Committee erred in applying the Ordinance with respect to some issue, such as primary viewing area, the Council could redetermine that issue and say that everything dealing with removal of foliage other than this primary viewing area is reversed. City Manager Bussey added that the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the View Restoration Committee would be requested at any appeal hearings to answer questions from the Council. Chairman Clark pointed out that this information needs to be disseminated to the community, especially since there was frustration voiced in some of the initial cases that there was no appeal process. Regarding the eight cases for which decisions were pending at the time of the suspension of the Committee's activities, Attorney Lynch stated that these cases would be entitled to the new appeal process, but prior decisions would not. Attorney Lynch reviewed the status of the lawsuit and said that it would not be advisable to continue forward with cases until the constitutionality of the Ordinance has been established. She cited the potential for lawsuits against the City if foliage were to be removed and the Ordinance subsequently invalidated. Chairman Clark stated that the Committee's review of the Ordinance and Guidelines, with recommended changes, will be completed by the Fall, and Mayor Pro Tem Byrd said that the issue of whether to proceed with the pending cases will be addressed again at that time. PRESENTATION OF KEY ISSUES BY THE VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE A. Requirement to Maintain Foliage at 11/07189 Height Committee Member Sweetnam explained the difference between foliage "restoration" and "preservation," and stated his opinion that all current foliage which blocks a view should be subject to the view preservation (i.e., Code Enforcement) process. He said that unfortunately, only 35 residents have submitted documentation of their views since the date of the Ordinance. Chairman Clark noted City Council /V.R.C. Workshop Minutes June 30, 19 94 Page 2 that the Committee agreed with staff that the burden of proof as to the height of the foliage on 11/07/89 is on the view owner, who must present evidence convincing to staff. Attorney Lynch added that it is important to consistently place the burden of proof on the view owner. Be Definition of Terms Chairman Clark reported that the Committee is recommending that the word "significant" be added before "view impairment" in the Ordinance, and that staff was asked to work on a definition of "significant view impairment" to be added to the list of definitions. City Attorney Lynch commented that this would be very difficult to define and recommended that some latitude be left in the definition of what is significant. She said it is a good idea to include the word "significant," and require that view blockage not be totally eliminated, but be reduced to a level where the majority of the Committee does not consider it "significant view impairment." In discussing "viewing area" Chairman Clark explained that the Planning Commission recognizes one area of the house where the "best and most important view" exists, whereas the View Restoration Committee recognizes multiple viewing areas within a house. The Committee felt that there could be two standards, i.e. a single viewing area for permits involving structures (static objects) which may impact views, and multiple viewing areas for View Restoration Permits which involve foliage (dynamic living organism) that impair views. Attorney Lynch voiced her concern about separate viewing areas from different rooms, and stated her opinion that the language in the Ordinance does not support the multiple viewing areas concept and this issue would need to be taken to the voters. Committee Members Goern, Cartwright, Sweetnam, and Chairman Clark asserted that the intent of the Ordinance was to protect all viewing areas in a house or on a property. Councilman McTaggart said the original Committee members who worked on the Ordinance understood that the primary viewing area was just one area, and that the View Restoration Ordinance would fail if it was not consistent with the other City ordinances. Mayor Pro Tem Byrd concurred with many of Councilmember McTaggart's comments. Attorney Lynch felt the City would be risking another lawsuit if the Ordinance was applied differently by two City bodies (the View Restoration Committee and the Planning Commission), but Chairman Clark pointed out that the V.R.C. operated under the multiple viewing areas premise the entire time it was hearing cases, and the interpretation was supported by her law firm. City Council /V.R.C. Workshop Minutes June 30, 1994 Page 3 City Manager Bussey suggested that the Committee should make its best recommendation on this issue and let the City Council decide the final language after they see the recommendation. C. Application Fees Committee Member Weisz presented his concept of an initial non- refundable fee to cover the fixed costs of the View Restoration Permit application, followed by the establishment of a trust fund, where the applicant would deposit funds as needed and any funds not spent would be returned to the applicant. Replying to Councilman McTaggart's inquiry as to whether costs could be tracked closely enough, Planning Administrator Petru said this should not be a problem as the City is planning to use a consultant for processing View Restoration Permit cases. Mayor Pro Tem Byrd suggested that applicants be given an idea of what the final fee would be when they first apply. General consensus was reached that this is a good concept and should be pursued. D. Documentation of Existina Views /Code Enforcement Pointing out that only 35 residents have documented their views, Chairman Clark said that most homeowners don't really understand the "preservation" part of the Ordinance. The idea of a fee f or excessive use of Code Enforcement was discussed, where residents who request frequent /unnecessary staff visits might be required to pay a fee to cover the staff time. The importance of fully documenting the end result of all Code Enforcement actions was stressed by Mayor Pro Tem Byrd, E. Timing of Foliage Removal and Maintenance Thereafter The Councilmembers indicated their agreement with the Committee's recommendation that any removal of foliage or other remedial action ordered by the V . R . C . should be done at one time, rather than using a phased approach. F. Existing Cases and Previous Decisions Reporting that there were 13 cases where a V.R.C. dec i s ion had been made but the recommended action was not implemented and 8 cases for which decisions were pending, Chairman Clark suggested that the 13 cases should be subject to staff verification and code enforcement. It was felt by Attorney Lynch that the Committee would not have to go back and reconsider cases that were decided before the City Council /V.R.C, Workshop Minutes June 30, 1994 Page 4 suspension of operations, with the possible exception of cases that were decided on the basis of multiple viewing areas. She suggested that staff double -check the past decisions and see how many, if any, involved multiple viewing areas. G. Exempting Foliage That Existed When the View Lot was Created Planning Administrator Petru stated that staff would like to add to the Ordinance language clarifying that foliage which existed at the time the view lot was created means that the foliage impairs a view at the time the view lot was created, not that the foliage simply existed at the time. H. Privacv Riahts of Foliaae Owners Chairman Clark indicated that since outdoor privacy is not mentioned in the Ordinance, the Committee is recommending that the language in the Guidelines and Procedures, Paragraph B . 5 (b) on page 4, be amended to read: 'The burden of proof of "unreasonable" infringement of indoor andf or outdoor privacy should be on the foliage owner . The Committee will make judgments on a case by case basis." He noted that in their Revisions to the Development Code, the Planning Commission is including privacy as a criterion for Height Variation Permits (i.e., second story additions). DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL Mayor Pro Tem Byrd brought up the View Restoration Committee's recommendation that it be considered a Commission rather than a Committee, and noted that a City Council quorum existed with the 7:55 p.m. arrival of Councilwoman Lyon. Councilwoman Lyon moved, seconded by Councilman McTaggart, that the View Restoration Committee be changed to the View Restoration Commission. There being no objection, Mayor Pro Tem. Byrd so ordered. Apologizing for her late arrival, Councilwoman Lyon explained that she had been speaking at commencement exercises at Harbor College. As a last item, Chairman Clark asked Committee Member Green to report on his suggestion of the use of digital photography to document View Restoration and Preservation applications and Code Enforcement actions. Mr. Green described the concept, which would require only the addition of a digital camera to the City's present computer hardware and would be applicable to other City operations, as well as saving money on film processing. Councilman McTaggart expressed concern regarding the possibility of "trick photography" being used, but Attorney Lynch said if staff has the documents within their possession so they could not be manipulated, this type City Council /V.R.C. Workshop Minutes June 30, 1994 Page 5 of evidence should hold up in court. ADJOURNMENT The Joint Workshop was adjourned at 8:45 p . m. The View Restoration Committee will meet on July 21, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the City Council will be on July 5, 1994, at 7 :00 p.m. MAYOR ATTEST: RPVRC630.MIN City Council /V.R.C. Workshop Minutes June 30, 1994 Page 6