PC MINS 19940609F)
APPROVED
P.C.
7/27/94
MINUTES
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE/
PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE
JUNE 9, 1994
APPROVED
seV.R.C.
7/22/94
The Joint Subcommittee Workshop was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by
Co -Chair Clark at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.
PRESENT Planning Commission: Alberio, Vannorsdall, Wang
View Restoration Committee: Clark, Green, Sweetnam
Also present were Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru and
Recording Secretary Lucile Rogers.
DISCUSSION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 17.02.040
Following roll call, Co -Chair Clark welcomed the -members of the
Subcommittee and stated their role is to harmonize the way
Development Code Section 17.02.040 is interpreted and implemented
by the Planning Commission and the View Restoration Committee, as
both bodies must deal with view impairment issues. He introduced
to the Planning Commissioners Warren Sweetnam, who was one of the
original drafters of Proposition M and has been on the View
Restoration Committee from its inception; and Raymond Green, an
attorney, who was recently appointed to the Committee.
Co -Chair Clark suggested that the Subcommittee first look at the
definition of terms to find any differences in interpretation and
determine if any changes should be recommended to the City Council,
and then follow the same procedure with regard to procedural
aspects. There was agreement that the meeting would terminate at
8:30 p.m.
Co -Chair Alberio noted that the Planning Commission has already
reviewed and updated this portion of the Code with regard to Height
Variation Permits, and their recommendations will soon be sent to
the City Council for approval. He mentioned the need to discuss
foliage on upslope lots, and rooms of the house to be considered
"viewing areas."
Copies of Proposition M and the V.R.C. Guidelines and Procedures
were distributed to all Subcommittee Members by Planning,
Administrator Petru, and discussion began with Section A,
Definitions.
Concerning "Privacy," Co -Chair Alberio and Ms. Petru clarified that
the Planning Commission did not redefine this term (which in the
present Code is only mentioned in reference to view restoration
permits), but they added it into one of the criteria used in
evaluating Height variations. Co -Chair Clark remarked that the
V.R.C. had found that many issues of privacy could be mitigated by
the use of curtains, drapes, or vegetation screening. He pointed
out that the V.R.C. needs to look at the recommendations of the
Planning Commission to see if there are any inconsistencies.
The definition of what constitutes a "View" was discussed and the
Subcommittee agreed that the phrase "distant mountain areas not
normally visible" should not be excluded as a protected view, as is
the case in the current Development Code.
Ms. Petru advised that staff is recommending that the Definition
section be moved from Section 17.02.040 into the General section
for the entire Development Code.
In discussing "Viewing Area," five of the members felt that
bathrooms should be removed from the excluded areas of a structure,
as many newer homes are built with large master bedroom/bathroom
suites with sunken tubs, jacuzzis, etc. Co -Chair Alberio disagreed
that bathrooms should be protected "viewing areas."
Ms. Petru explained that the Planning Commission and staff have
traditionally selected one "viewing area" in the house where the
"best and most important" view exists, whereas the V.R.C. has
determined in their Guidelines that there can be multiple viewing
areas. Staff's opinion is that this does not comply with the way
the ordinance is currently written (although the Guidelines were
adopted by the City Council), and the Council has asked staff to
re -look at that issue. In issues of Height Variations
particularly, Ms. Petru said choosing the one viewing area seemed
to work well.
Subcommittee Member Sweetnam pointed out that there can be a
different underlying basis for looking at viewing area when dealing
with foliage impairment issues as opposed to structures, and Ms.
Petru suggested that perhaps there could be- two separate
definitions of viewing area - one pertaining, to structures and one
pertaining to vegetation. This would codify the existing situation
and formalize the differences. The Subcommittee Members agreed
that separate definitions should be recommended.
Ms. Petru noted that the Planning Commission is completing their
review of the Development Code and the city council is anxious to
receive it as soon as possible. The View Restoration Committee
will receive copies of the revised Code and should make sure that
their recommended changes to Section 17.02.040 (which will be
reviewed by Council at a later date) fit into the comprehensive
update and do not create any conflicts.
V.R.C./PC Subcommittee Minutes
June 9, 1994
Page 2
Co -Chair Clark asked staff to notify him of the date that the City
Council will be considering the proposed Development Code
revisions.
Co -Chair Alberio stated his opinion that the title of the View
Restoration Committee should be changed to a Commission. Co -Chair
Clark stated that this issue had been previously discussed and the
City Council had adopted a Resolution saying that, for purposes of
reviewing potential amendments to this part of the Code, the V.R.C.
would operate as a single -purpose Planning Commission. The
definition of "View Restoration Committee," therefore, needs to be
changed in the Code.
Decisions of the View Restoration Committee were formerly not
appealable to the City Council; however, Co -Chair Clark pointed out
that they are now appealable, but only in terms of procedural
accuracy.
Section B, Regulations, was next reviewed. Member Sweetnam
reported that the limitation of foliage height to the lesser of (a)
the ridge line of the primary structure on the property, or (b) 16
feet, comes from the Height Variation standards and is based on the
fact that a 16 foot structure may be built on the buildable portion
of the lot. Any foliage, therefore, is allowed to be 16 feet as
measured from the building pad. He commented that this pertains to
foliage that is impinging on a view; if foliage is not in a view,
it can be any height.
Stating that the 161 height limit is so definitive in the Code that
it doesn't seem to allow the flexibility for lacing or trimming
trees instead of cutting them to the 161 level, Ms. Petru suggested
that some flexibility be built into the foliage height measurement.
It was agreed that the word "significantly" should be added before
"impair a view" in paragraph 8.3, Foliage Obstruction, and in other
applicable places. 'In addition, a definition of "significant view
impairment" should be added to the Defihitions section.
Ms. Petru pointed out that the requirements in- paragraph B.6
concerning property located in the Miraleste Recreation & Park
District are not included in cases where the Planning Commission is
considering foliage removal as a condition of a permit. She
suggested that it would be a good idea to have it in both sections
to ensure consistency. In addition, staff is recommending that the
street tree policy be incorporated into the Code. The Subcommittee
agreed with staff's recommendations in this regard.
Regarding Section 5, Amendments, Ms. Petru observed that the City
Attorney will review any proposed changes to Section 17.02.040 and
give her opinion as to whether the amendments can be adopted by the
City Council or whether an electoral vote would be required.
V.R.C./PC Subcommittee Minutes
June 9, 1994
Page 3
ADJOURNMENT
The Joint Subcommittee Workshop was adjourned at 8:42 p.m. The
View Restoration Committee will meet on June 16, 1994, at 7:00 p.m.
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be on June
14, 1994, at 7:00 p.m.
V.R.C./PC Subcommittee Minutes
June 9, 1994
Page 4