CC MINS 19890503 ADJCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
MAY 31 1989
M I N UT E S
The meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. at Hesse Park Community
Room, 29 301 Hawthorne Boulevard.
Present: Council Members Hughes, Ryan, McTaggart, Hinchliffe and Mayor
I Bacharache
City Manager Dennis. McDuff ie announced that the meeting was being held
in order to review the City Council's revised version of the View
Preservation Initiative, to assess the impacts of foliage on views, to
review current protection measures, and to analyze the policies of
neighboring communities*
Mayor Bacharach stressed that decisions would not be made at this
meeting, but the concerns of all involved parties would be compiled and
considered.
Director of Environmental Services Robert Benard presented an overview
of the height variation ordinance, the current procedures for applying
for a height variation, and his staff's role in the application process.
Councilman Ryan reviewed the current street tree policy, and the City's
role in enforcing view protection.
Katie Pitcher, Public Information Officer, reviewed the street tree
policies covering the cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills
Estates and Rolling Hills.
City Attorney Steve Dorsey noted that there are other enforcement
actions and abatement procedures which are utilized by other cities. He
also reviewed the procedures for granting variances and addressed the
issue of whether or not property rights are taken away from persons in
the creation of restrictions by ordinance.
Francis Catanzar ite, 28805 Covecrest Drive, discussed the enforcement
mechanisms and ordinances related to views that are in place in the City
of Rolling Hills. He emphasized that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
should have a view protection ordinance, and not a covenant.
Gail Lorenzen, 15 Diamonte Lane, requested information on the City's
Public Nuisance Ordinance.
City Attorney Steve Dorsey outlined the way the Public Nuisance
Ordinance is written and noted that this ordinance cannot be applied to
views unless there is a specific provision in the Code. He then
reviewed how the initiatives might be amended and how the codes could
eventually be affected.
Bill Pike, 2159 Santorena Drive, asked whether CC &Rs are enforceable
when they refer to view barriers and other obstructions, including
foliage.
City Attorney Steve Dorsey noted that CC &Rs are not enforceable by
the City because it is a private agreement, but the idea of view
protection could be incorporated into an ordinance.
Ugo Voce, 27733 Hawthorne Boulevard, reported that his view is
blocked by a wall, and stated that it is the duty of the City Council
to make ordinances to protect the rights of citizens with regard to
view protection.
City Attorney Dorsey and Director of Environmental Services Benard
reviewed the landscape covenant in detail in response to Holly Cain's
question on enforcement of the 16 height limit on existing vegetation
and about view obstruction by second story structures. They also
reviewed the City's standards to control walls and hedges for Mr.
Voce' s benefit, and Mr. Dorsey addressed the City's enforcement
measures.
Joel King stressed that communication between neighbors is a major
problem in the City.
Mayor Bacharach then introduced the City's proposal and stated that
the citizens' initiative was rewritten by the City Attorney to become
more workable. Council is currently deciding whether to place both
initiatives on the November ballot, therefore citizens will have a
choice of voting for the initiative which best responds to their
concerns.
Warren Sweetnam presented the basic intent of the Council of
Homeowners' initiative, and addressed how ordinances and statutory
rights might conflict with each other. He also discussed the issue
of how an amortization period would apply in a residential context
and in the context of view protection.
City Attorney Dorsey reviewed the differences between the two
initiatives and noted that principal viewing area (Page 4 , No. 10) is
now consistent with the definition in the covenant, but a final
decision still has to be made on this issue.
Mr. Dorsey stated that the definition of a structure was another
significant issue and one that is potentially invalid in the height
variation initiative. He clarified that antennas, balconies, decks,
skylights, parapets, outside stairways, solar panels, etc., will be
dealt with as they currently exist in the Code. References to near
view and far view have been retained, but most of the language on
view lots has been removed.
With regard to the View Restoration Committee Mr. Dorsey reported
that a separate committee will be appointed to consider applications
for view restoration permits, and this committee, not the Planning
Commission, will determine the issues involving foliage.
Regarding Building Height Mr. Dorsey noted that. individuals may apply
for a Height Variation Permit to build a structure not exceeding 30
feet. He also noted that the City Council is of the opinion that the
citizens' initiative is too restrictive in allowing for blockage of
5% of views, and has changed that rule to read "significant
impairment ".
2
Mr. Dorsey noted that the language in the section on foliage
obstruction is stronger than the citizens' initiative. The City
requires that foliage which causes significant view impairment to a
principal viewing should not exceed 16 feet as of the date of the
ordinance.
Mr. Dorsey addressed the section on procedures and requirements and
noted that the applicant should take reasonable steps to consult with
and obtain the signatures of property owners located within 500 feet.
Mr. Dorsey addressed the findings that are required to be met when
applying to build to a maximum of 30 feet and the definitions that
are included in the findings. He also clarified the appeals
procedure, and noted that the basic issue of restoration of views
where foliage is a factor is the same in both initiatives. However,
the five year amortization period was reduced to one year to
eliminate some of the costs associated with tree trimming, pruning
and removal. Mr . Dorsey noted that a clause has been added to allow
the City Council to amend the ordinance if it is found that the
ordinance would further the purpose of the initiative or is necessary
for effectuation of the initiative.
A recess was taken from 9:35 p.m. until 9:47 p.m.
Rick Edsol, who lives adjacent to the Miraleste Library, addressed
the issue of the eucalyptus trees in his area and questioned how the
trees would be affected by the view preservation initiative. It was
his opinion that the ordinance could protect a view which never
existed prior to the construction of homes and remove significant
mature landscaping and that is a severe inequity.
Bob Scala of Upper Monaco noted that the percentage factor in
defining a primary view has to be very clearly quantified.
Council members briefly discussed the problems associated with fixed
percentages because this would take discretion away from the City
Council in exercising reasonable judgment in reaching the goals of
the initiative. City Attorney Dorsey also pointed out that the issue
of cumulative standards is not included in neither the City's nor the
citizens' initiative.
Elz a Cortez, 29 861 H ighpoint Road, requested an explanation on the
exact definition of foliage obstruction. She also questioned the
definition of primary viewing area, because she felt the definition
was ambiguous as it is written.
Larry Clark, 3354 Corina Drive, noted that there were some areas
within the City's view initiative that were unclear, but he thought
it was a good idea to have a view restoration committee to deal with
some of the issues. He was also in favor of the proposed one year
amortization period to deal with trees that act as a public nuisance.
Ms. Lorenzen noted that over 50% of her views have been lost over the
years, and reviewed the efforts she has expended to correct the
problem. She felt that each individual should be responsible for
their own trees, and advocated neighbors working together to solve
issues such as these.
3
Susan Brooks, 3419 Corina Drive, was concerned about placing this
issue on the ballot and proposed that the City's and the citizens'
proposals be codified, made into a law, and placed on the ballot in a
general election*
Norman Taylor, 5752 Sunmist Drive, also reviewed the problems he has
encountered in contacting City officials to correct his view
impairment and foliage issues.
Warren S wee tnam reported that he is in support of Ms. Brooks'
proposal that the City make the initiative into a law.
Mr. Catanz ar ite proposed that only one initiative be placed on the
ballot and requested modification of the ballot to be satisfactory to
all parties.
Mayor Bacharach then reiterated the similarities and the differences
between the two proposals. She explained that the ballot cannot be
changed, and a City ordinance cannot be adopted that would take
precedence over an initiative. City Attorney Dorsey noted that one
alternative would be adoption of a replacement initiative with the
cooperation of the Council of Homeowners.
Mayor Bacharach also asked Council members Ryan and Hughes to meet
and come up with a plan of action on this issue, then bring it back
for further discussion. She noted that the processes and time lines
involved in an initiative will be addressed at the May 16, 1989 City
Council meeting*
Director of Environmental Services Benard requested permission for
his department to pursue the issue of limitation on distances.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was duly adjourned at 11:27 p.m. to the Monday, May 8,
1989 Workshop with the Planning Commission to discuss Coastal
Subregion One and the golf course area concept.
4
IAq
Mayor