Loading...
CC MINS 19930927 JNT (2)CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL/VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE JOINT WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 27, 1993 The meeting was called to order at 8:50 P.M. on Monday, September 27, 1993, in the Fred Hesse Community Center, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard* PRESENT: Council members Bacharach, Kuykendall, McTaggart and Mayor Brooks. View Restoration Committee members Boudreau, Modell, Eastwood, Goern, Mrs. Lorenzen, Sweetnam and Chairman Weisz* ABSENT: View Restoration Committee Member Black, ALSO PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Antil, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Bernard, Planning Administrator Petru and City Attorney Lynch. Planning Administrator Petru presented the staff report. She advised that pending litigation which suspended the View Restoration Committee will be heard by the Court in the next few weeks and that the Council may, therefore, wish to consider whether any amendments to the Code would be appropriate at this time. Input regarding the pending litigation was supplied by City Attorney Lynch. As a former member of the View Restoration Committee, Mr. Edward Murphy, 6304 Via Ciega, voiced his support of restoring views and maintaining views, Mr. Mel Rowan, 14 Diiamonte Lane, discouraged lacing as a viable alternative to removing trees. Mr. Sam Soterios, 55113 Oconto Avenue, asked to be notified when it would be appropriate for him to reapply for a View Restoration Permit. City Attorney Lynch advised that individuals will be noticed when the View Restoration Committee is reinstated. JOINT WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 271 1993 1 PHASED FOLIAGE REMOVAL The incremental removal of foliage impairing views was discussed and Council agreed that the View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance should remain as it currently exists. The following motion was offered. I MOTION: Council member Bacharach moved that, with regard to the incremental removal of foliage impairing views, the View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance shall remain as it currently exists. The motion was seconded by Council member MoTaggart and it was so ordered without objection, RE-VISITATION OF MAJOR VIEW RESTORATION CASES The idea of re-visiting, re-hearing and applying different guidelines to cases already decided by the Committee was discussed. City Attorney Lynch advised that, unless the Ordinance were to allow for re-visitation of specific cases, it would be beyond the Committee's jurisdiction to do so. Planning Administrator Petru noted a letter from View Restoration Committee member Lorenzen regarding the recommendations included in the staff report. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDING THE VIEW PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION ORDINANCE The Staff recommendations were discussed as follows, Staff Recommendation No. 1 Clarification regarding the grandfathering of foliage was supplied by City Attorney Lynch. MOTION: Council member MoTaggart moved for the approval of Staff Recommendation No. 1 as follows: Amend Section 17.02.040(B3) and the Guidelines to state that even if an owner maintains their foliage which exceeds the lessor of the ridgeline of the primary structure on the lot or sixteen feet, and the height of the foliage was as of the effective date of the Ordinance (November 7, 1989), the owner may still be required to reduce the height of the foliage as the result of the issuance of a View Restoration Permit. JOINT WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 27, 1993 R The motion was seconded by Council member Bacharach and it was so ordered without objection. Staff Recommendation No. 2 MOTION: Council member Bacharach moved for the approval of Staff 0 Recommendation No. 2 as follows, Amend Section 17.02.040(C2b) and the Guidelines to state that as part of the site inspection required to parti- cipate in the public hearing, the members of the View Restoration Committee must visit both the applicant's and foliage owner's property. The motion was seconded by Council member McTaggart and it was so ordered -without objection, The possibility of Committee members being denied access was discussed. Council asked that language along those lines be added to the amendment. Committee member Sweetnam related his impression that the Guidelines were originally designed so that the foliage owner's property would be visited at staff's direction. Chairman Weisz stated the Committee's position that, upon request, the foliage owner's property would be visited, Staff Recommendation No. 3 The sixteen foot height measurement was discussed extensively. Chairman Weisz expressed the View Restoration Committee's disagreement with Staff Recommendation No. 3. that the sixteen foot measurement should be taken from the base of each shrub or tree, regardless of its location on the lot. Council asked Staff to further examine this matter and return with additional 'Information. JOINT WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 27, 1993 3 Staff Recommendation No. 4 Council and Committee members discussed "viewing areas," Clarification in that regard was provided by City Attorney Lynch and Planning Administrator Petru. Council agreed with Staff Recommendation No. 4 and the following motion was offered. I MOTION: Council member Bacharach moved for the approval of Staff Recommendation No. 4 as follows, Amend the Height Variation Guidelines so that the definition of "viewing area" and "best and most important view" match the express language of Section 17.02.040(C2cii). The motion was seconded by Council member MeTaggart and it was so ordered without objection. Staff Recommendation No. 5 With regard to Staff Recommendation No. 5, Planning Administrator Petru explained that, for consistency- purposes, the View Preser- vation and Restoration Ordinance should be amended to 'include . "significant view impairment." Council member McTaggart related his disagreement with the staff recommendation in that it would be contrary to the previous agreement Council made with the Council of Homeowners, MOTION. Council member Bacharach moved for the approval of Staff Recommendation No. 5 as follows: Amend Section 17.02.040(C2cii) a View Restoration Permit, one is that the "foliage exceeding line of the primary structure, significantly impairs a view f ares... so that, in order to grant of the necessary findings sixteen feet or the ridge- whichever is lower, rom the applicant's viewing The motion was seconded by Mayor Brooks and passed by a 3-1 majority vote with Council member MeTaggart dissenting. I JOINT WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 27, 1993 4 Staff Recommendation No. 6 Clarification concerning Staff Recommendation No. 6, to amend the Height Variation Guidelines to clarify the requirement for protecting the foliage owner's privacy, was provided by City Attorney Lynch. Council directed Staff to clarify language in the Guidelines regarding "unreasonable infringement of privacy." Chairman Weisz highly objected to wording in the staff report about foliage owners protecting their indoor privacy through the use of drapes, shades and opaque glass, Staff Recommendation No. 7 Planning Administrator Petru offered input on the staff recommen- dation to clarify that, when a View Restoration Permit includes a hedge, if the ridgeline of the residence is below six feet, the View Restoration Committee may require the hedge to be trimmed to below six feet in height. However, if the ridgeline is above six feet in height, the hedge should be referred to Code Enforcement, Council directed Staff to clarify the language in Staff Recommendation No. 7 and amend the Development Code and Guidelines in concept, Staff Recommendation No. 8 There was a consensus of Council that the staff recommendation to require applicants to pay for City costs to hire a soils engineer, arborist or landscape architect when deemed appropriate by the City and requested by the foliage owner, would be very burdensome. MOTION: Council member Bacharach moved for the denial of Staff Recommendation No. 8 to amend the Code and Guidelines to require the applicant to pay for the City to hire a soils engineer, arborist or landscape architect when deemed appropriate by the City and requested by the foliage owner, to ensure that the trim- ming of the foliage ordered by the View Restoration Committee will not kill the foliage and/or result in severe erosion of the property. The motion was seconded by Council member MoTaggart and it was so ordered without objection. JOINT WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 27, 1993 [El Council discussed the idea of non-binding arbitration as discussed in View Restoration Committee member Lorenzen's letter distributed earlier in this discussion* Council directed Staff to examine the idea of forming a View Restoration Subcommittee to look at the possibility of non-binding arbitration and whether members of such a subcommittee would be precluded from par- ticipating in any discussions that follow* Council suggested a list of trees which cannot be laced and a list of criteria for the re-examination of trees which have already be trimmed* Committee member Lorenzen suggested the idea of benchmarking trees which have been trimmed. She noted the importance of in- forming residents about the status of the View Restoration Committee. Planning Administrator Petru indicated that the City is precluded from enforcing benchmarking at this time because of pending litigation. Council advised that information on the results of pending litigation involving the View Restoration Committee will be disseminated to property owners* ADJOURNMENT .6 At 10*10 P.M. the meeting was duly adjourned on motion of Councilman Kuykendalle ATTRqT-- MAYOR JOINT WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 27v 1993