Loading...
VRC MINS 19941201 APPROVED ', 411 - 4/6/95 '� MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES December 1, 1994 AGENDA ITEM I: Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Clark at 7: 03 PM at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes. AGENDA ITEM II: Roll Call PRESENT: Commissioners Black, Boudreau, Eastwood, A. Green, R. Green, Sweetnam, Vice Chairman Cartwright and Chairman Clark. ABSENT: Commissioners Goern and Weisz (both excused) . Also present were Carolynn Petru, Planning Administrator; Joel H. Rojas, Senior Planner; and, Helena Eudave, Recording Secretary. AGENDA ITEM III: Flag Salute Mr. Edward Murphy, a former member of the View Restoration Commission, led the Flag Salute. AGENDA ITEM IV: Communications A. Staff Planning Administrator Petru stated that a revised Exhibit "B" relating to Item VI had been distributed to the Commission and would be discussed when that item was considered by the Commission. B. Commission The Commission had no communication to report. AGENDA ITEM V: Consent Calendar 1. Minutes of November 17, 1994 . The Commission approved the Minutes, with several minor corrections, (8-0) . AGENDA ITEM VI: Adoption of V.R.C. Resolution No. 94 -; Recommending Approval of the proposed revisions to the Development Code, Section 17.02.040 (View Restoration) , Section 17.76. 150 (City Tree Permit) and Chapter 17.96 (Definitions) to the City Council. Planning Administrator Petru reported that, in preparing the draft V.R.C. Resolution for this item, Staff discovered that the View View Restoration Commission Minutes December 1, 1994 Restoration Commission only had the authority to recommend changes to the City Council on a very specific portion of the View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance [Section 17 . 02 . 040 (C) (2) ] . Therefore, Staff recommended that the Commission adopt a V.R.C. Resolution forwarding recommendations to the City Council on the portion of the Development Code over which it had authority, and to approve "suggestions, " via Minute Order, on the other areas of the Code, which could then be considered by the Planning Commission. Ms. Petru noted that, if the Planning Commission rejected any of the View Restoration Commission's suggestions, such as the definitions of "view" and "viewing area, " the Staff would forward the recommendations of both bodies to the City Council and highlight the discrepancies in the Council Staff Report. Chairman Clark asked Staff if the wording in Section 2 . 21. 020 (C) was the same as that adopted by the City Council in 1991. Planning Administrator confirmed that this section of the Municipal Code had not been altered since it was first adopted. Chairman Clark then questioned whether the Commission needed specific authorization in the Municipal Code in order to make recommendations to the City Council. Ms. Petru responded that, because the Municipal Code language is so specific, it was her conclusion that the Commission's authority was truly limited to that one section of the Development Code. Chairman Clark stated that the Commission should be able to make recommendations on all portions of the Code relating to restoration of views where foliage is involved, since the View Restoration Commission was the body in the City specifically created for that purpose. Commissioner Sweetnam stated that he had to agree with Staff's conclusion, because the View Restoration Commission was established to deal solely with View Restoration Permits, which is embodied in Section 17. 02 . 040 (C) (2) . Planning Administrator Petru suggested that the omission of the definitions of "view, " "viewing area" and "view restoration commission" from the Commission's purview may have been inadvertent, but that any modification to the Commission's authority would require approval by the City Council. Commissioner R. Green asked if the Commission could exceed its authority and make recommendations on other portions of the Development Code relating to view restoration. Ms. Petru responded that the Commission could make other recommendations, or "suggestions" as she had termed them, but that the V.R.C. Resolution adopted by the Commission should only include those sections that the Commission had authority to make formal recommendations to the City Council. Page 2 111 View Restoration Commission Minutes December 1, 1994 The Commission asked Staff for any possible alternatives. Staff suggested that, since the Planning Commission would not conclude its review of the Development Code until late January 1995, the View Restoration Commission could table this item and the City Council could be approached in the meantime about amending the Municipal Code to expand the authority of the View Restoration Commission to review other sections of the Development Code. Chairman Clark expressed his concern that the role of the View Restoration Commission was being subjugated to that of the Planning Commission. Chairman Clark made a motion to table this item, and directed Staff to forward a request to the City Council to expand the authority of the View Restoration Commission to include all sections of the Development Code relating to restoration of views where foliage is a factor. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Cartwright and passed unanimously, (8-0) . Senior Planner Rojas suggested that the Commission still review the draft Code language before them that evening and provide Staff with any comments or amendments. The Commission agreed with this approach. Senior Planner Rojas started the review on Page 2 of Exhibit "B" (City Tree Review Permit) and explained that this would codify an existing City Council policy (established via Resolution) which allows a property owner to request that the City trim of remove trees or vegetation located on City property (such as the public right-of-way) which is impairing their view. Mr. Rojas noted, that as currently drafted, the View Restoration Commission's decision on an City Tree Permit Appeal would not be appealable to the City Council. Chairman Clark asked if there were any comments from the Commission on City Tree Permits. Referring to Section (E) (1) , Commissioner R. Green asked Staff why the word "the" had been changed to "a. " Staff responded that the change was made to be more consistent with the Commission's previous modifications to the definition of "viewing area, " i.e. that there should be multiple viewing areas allowed on each view property. The Commission noted that Section (E) (3) should be modified to read: "The foliage which is significantly impairing a view from a viewing area of the applicant's lot did not exist as view impairing foliage when the applicant's lot was created. " Page 3 411 View Restoration Commission Minutes December 1, 1994 Referring to Section (C) , Chairman Clark stated that he felt that exempting the Miraleste area from the provisions of the City Tree Permit excluded a large number of City-owned trees from the City Tree Permit process. Staff responded that this exclusion was consistent with the City Council's 1989 Resolution establishing the Street Tree Permit process. Mr. Edward M. Murphy, 6304 Via Ciega, asked to address the Commission on this issue. Mr. Murphy felt that there should be a clear distinction between the Miraleste Recreation and Parks District and the private landowners in the Miraleste area. He felt that the City Tree Permit process should apply to trees located in City-owned public right-of-ways adjacent to private properties in this area of the City. The Commission also noted that Section (I) (3) , which requires the applicant to file a Covenant To Protect Views as a condition of submitting the City Tree Permit application, should be removed, consistent with the Commission's recommendations for View Restoration Permits. The Commission also asked Staff to investigate whether, legally, a City Tree Permit must be appealable to the City Council, since the City is a party to the application. Chairman Clark asked for any comments on the draft V.R.C. Resolution and the attached Exhibit "A" . The Commission had no comments on this document. AGENDA ITEM VII: Audience Comments (regarding non-agenda items) Mrs. Lorraine Dyda, 5715 Capeswood Drive, asked about the lawsuit against the City challenging the View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance. Chairman Clark responded that the City Attorney was representing the City in this matter and asked Staff to provide Mrs. Dyda on the current status of the litigation. Planning Administrator Petru responded that, based on certain legal time frames, a Court hearing is expected no sooner than May 1995, with a final decision anticipated by the end of the year. Mr. Edward M. Murphy, 6304 Via Ciega, asked if a resident in the Miraleste area could apply for a City Tree Permit under that Code language just reviewed by the Commission. Planning Administrator Petru responded that the answer was yes, if the City Council accepted the Commission's recommendations. Only trees located on property owned by the Miraleste Recreation and Parks District would be exempted at this point. Page 4 411 410 View Restoration Commission Minutes December 1, 1994 AGENDA ITEM VIII: ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Sweetnam made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. Chairman Clark thanked the Commission and Staff for their efforts and cooperation during the past year. Staff also wished the Commissioners and their families an Happy Holiday Season. After some discussion, the Commission determined that the next meeting would be held on February 16, 1995, in order to allow sufficient time for the Municipal Code Amendment request to be presented to the City Council. The motion to adjourn to February 16, 1995 was passed unanimously and the meeting was duly adjourned at 8:35 PM. Page 5