Loading...
VRC MINS 19941117 411 APPROVED 49:7 12/1/94 MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES November 17, 1994 AGENDA ITEM I: Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:05 PM by Chairman Clark at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes. AGENDA ITEM II: Roll Call PRESENT: Commissioners Black, Boudreau, Eastwood, Goern, Alan Green, Ray Green, Sweetnam, Weisz, Vice Chairman Cartwright and Chairman Clark. ABSENT: None Also present were Carolynn Petru, Planning Administrator; Joel H. Rojas, Senior Planner; Helena Eudave' , Recording Secretary. AGENDA ITEM III: FLAG SALUTE The flag salute was led by Chairman Clark. AGENDA ITEM IV: COMMUNICATIONS A. Staff Planning Administrator Petru announced that she had distributed two revised pages for the Development Code Revisions and when the Commission reaches that item, the changes would be addressed specifically. B. Commission - None AGENDA ITEM V: CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of October 27, 1994 2 . Minutes of November 3, 1994 The Minutes for both meetings were approved, without changes, (7-0) . 410 410 View Restoration Commission Meeting November 17, 1994 Page 2 of 11 AGENDA ITEM VI: DISCUSSION OF REVISIONS TO DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 17. 02 . 040 (View Preservation) and Chapter 17. 96 (Definitions) Planning Administrator Petru thanked Commissioner Sweetnam for advising Staff that Page 12 was missing from the agenda packet. This missing page had been passed out to the Commission at the beginning of the meeting. Staff also announced that the revised definition of "view" had not been included in the agenda packet. The approved definition was included in the revised Page 13 that was distributed to the Commission that evening. Since the last meeting, Staff incorporated the Commission's suggested changes into the View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance. The revised text was presented to the Commission for its final review, with the V.R.C. Resolution recommending adoption of the Development Code Revisions to the City Council to be brought back at the first meeting in December 1994. However, since the agenda packet was prepared, a question had been raised regarding Street Tree Permits. Currently, Street Tree Permits are reviewed pursuant •to procedures adopted by the City Council (by Resolution) in December 1989 (shortly after Proposition M was passed by the voters) . Like other long standing policies, Staff had suggested that the Street Tree Permit procedures should be codified into the Development Code. Since these permits deal with City-owned street trees that are impairing views, Staff felt that it was appropriate for the View Restoration Commission to review this new Code language. In addition, Staff had received some additional policy direction from the City Council regarding Street Tree Permits at their last regular meeting on November 15, 1994. Therefore, Staff will incorporate the Council's direction into this new section of the Code and present the draft language to the View Restoration Commission for their review and comment at the next meeting. Commissioner Sweetnam asked Staff why a Street Tree Permits is required, rather than going through Code Enforcement. In other words, if the foliage did not exist prior to November 1989, the person wishing to have their view restored should not be required to pay for the cost of trimming or removal. Staff responded that the City would pay for the cost of trimming or removal, only if the property owner had documented with the City that the street tree in question did not block the view in 1989. Staff reminded the Commission that the City regularly trims the trees for traffic and pedestrian safety reasons at no charge to the adjacent landowner. However, this same policy is not applied to requests to trim trees to restore views, since the City must verify that the street tree is in fact impairing someone's view. Street trees provide certain benefits and aesthetics to the community, and, therefore, should 411 111 View Restoration Commission Meeting November 17, 1994 Page 3 of 11 not be removed arbitrarily. Chairman felt that it was a reasonable approach and directed Staff to return with the draft Code language regarding Street Tree Permits. Chairman Clark stated that the Commission would go through the Development Code Revisions page by page and provide Staff with its comments. Senior Planner Rojas recapped the differences between the notations in the text which denoted changes made in 1991 and those changes made as part of the 1994 revisions. On Page 4, Commissioner Sweetnam brought to the attention of Staff that, in the lower illustration, the left hand dimension line should be labeled as the "set back line", rather than the "property line" . On Page 5, Chairman Clark remarked that adding the word "significantly" to Paragraph 4 will give the Commission greater latitude in interpreting the facts of a particular case and applying the Ordinance. Commissioner Sweetnam felt that the changes to Paragraph 3 , where the format was revised and the last sentence added regarding "grandfathering", made this section more understandable and precise. Commissioner R. Green referred to Paragraph 4, the single underlined statement "or records with the city a Covenant to Protect Views", and asked if this language was to be left in the Code. Staff indicated that this language would be left in, because this it is a condition of permit issuance i.e. building permits or planning permits) . However, the Covenant was eliminated as a requirement for filing a View Restoration Permit. Commissioner Sweetnam asked if the landowner could choose between a Site Vegetation Inspection or filing the Covenant. Staff indicated that this was still the case. Chairman Clark requested that the Staff Report presented to the City Council highlight the significant change to the Code and any differences between the View Restoration Commission's suggested changes and those proposed by the Planning Commission. On Page 10, Chairman Clark noted that the requirement to submit a Covenant to Protect Views as part of a View Restoration Permit application had been eliminated. In addition, he noted that the sentence stating that the decisions of the Commission were not appealable has also been eliminated, based on a recent City Council amendment to this portion of the Code. On Page 12, Planning Administrator Petru stated that at the last meeting, the Commission had raised the concerns regarding the potential for an "endless loop" of appeals and remands developing between the Commission and the City Council. After conferring with View Restoration Commission Meeting November 17, 1994 Page 4 of 11 the City Attorney, Staff suggested that the Commission could recommend that the Council either 1) set a limit to the number of appeals that could be filed on a single application; or, 2) include a provision in the Code which would allow the Council to rule on a particular aspect of the appeal that they felt the Commission was not interpreting correctly. Chairman Clark asked how would the Commission convey their preference to the City Council. Staff said that draft Code language could be prepared and brought back for the Commission's consideration at the next meeting. Commissioner Sweetnam asked if these proposed changes would revise that portion of the Code that the Council recently amended to allow appeals of View Restoration Commission decisions and Staff indicated that it would. Chairman Clark asked for remarks from the Commission. Commissioner R. Green suggested that the statement, " . . .appeal any decision, " should be amended to read ". . .appeal the decision" . Staff agreed that this was a useful clarification. Commissioner R. Green went on to state that some attorneys might appeal only parts of a decision, as opposed to the entire decision, thereby abusing the appeal process. Commissioner Weisz asked about the current appeal fee. Staff indicated that for a major application, the appeal fee is $940. 00. Mr. Weisz then asked if a View Restoration Permit would be considered a "major application" and Staff indicated that it would. Ms. Petru went on to state that if the City Council upholds an appeal, the appellant receives their appeal fee back. However, if the City Council remands the item back to the Commission, it is not clear what would happen to the appeal fee. Staff would have to research this issue further. Chairman Clark stated his understanding that the City Attorney felt that the current language of the Code could be interpreted to allow the City Council to rule on a particular aspect of the appeal that they felt the Commission was interpreting incorrectly. Planning Administrator Petru clarified that the City Attorney indicated that the Code language would need to be amended in order to allow the Council to rule on a particular aspect of an appeal. In other words, the City Attorney did not feel that the current Code language gave the Council that discretion. Chairman Clark felt that the Commission should not attempt to draft language at this time to address the "endless loop" situation, but suggested that the Commission wait until they are faced with the prospect and deal with it at that time. After some discussion, the Commission directed Staff to summarize the "endless loop" issue as part of the Staff Report that will be presented to the City Council. Staff asked if the Commission would !II View Restoration Commission Meeting November 17, 1994 Page 5 of 11 object to the Staff incorporating the two possible options into the Staff Report for the Council's consideration and Chairman Clark indicated that this approached was acceptable. On Page 13 , Chairman Clark reminded the Commission that Staff had modified the definition of "view" to be consistent with the current format found in the Code. On Page 14, Chairman Clark stated that the Commission had concluded its work with respect to the Development Code Revisions. Staff indicated that a Resolution, recommending approval of the proposed amendments to City Council, would be brought back to the Commission at the next regular meeting for adoption. Staff anticipated that the Planning Commission would complete its review of the Development Code Revisions by December 1994, although one issue (Large Domestic Animal Overlay District) would be held over until January 1995. Staff felt that the entire Development Code would probably be presented to the City Council by January or February 1995. AGENDA ITEM VII: KEY ISSUES LIST Chairman Clark indicated that he had asked that this item be re- agendized in order to verify that all of the Key Issues identified back in April 1994 had been addressed by the Commission. Staff observed that all of the issues had been covered, with the exception of Existing Cases & Previous Decisions and the New Cases, which were still pending the final settlement of the litigation against the City. The Commission indicated that they were satisfied that all of the applicable Key Issues had been addressed by the Commission. AGENDA ITEM VIII: SINGLE VS. MULTIPLE VIEWING AREAS (City Attorney correspondence) Staff reported that the City Attorney has revised her memorandum to reflect the previous input from the Commission. At that point, the Commission recessed while Staff made extra copies of the correspondence for some of the Commissioners. Chairman Clark asked Staff to summarize the changes that had been made to the City Attorney's correspondence. She replied that most of the Commission's comments were minor, with the most substantive comments relating to the Conclusion paragraph. After the Commission had re-read the Conclusion, Chairman Clark asked Staff to ask the City Attorney to add a sentence to the effect that " . . .the View Restoration Commission recommends the City Council go with the approach of. . . " 411 111 View Restoration Commission Meeting November 17 , 1994 Page 6 of 11 Chairman Clark asked if this memo would be sent to the City Council at the same time that the Development Code Revisions were presented and Staff indicated that it would. AGENDA ITEM IX: VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT FEE CALCULATION Commissioner Weisz offered to start the discussion regarding the Staff Report entitled "Calculation of New View Restoration Permit Fees. " He felt that Staff's calculation of the flat fee was fair and very straightforward. Therefore, he had no objection to recommending that the City Council establish a $185. 00 flat fee for View Restoration Permit applications. Vice Chairman Cartwright stated that he was troubled by the proposed flat fee, since he did not feel that the applicant was getting very much for their money; only filing the application and having it deemed complete. He felt that the proposed fee would not assist the landowner in deciding whether or not they want to go forward with their application. Mr. Cartwright felt that the flat fee should be high enough to include a site visit, so that the Staff could estimate how much more it would cost to complete the application. In addition, he stated that he would like to see a maximum cap established for the total cost of the application. After a lengthy discussion, the Commission asked Staff if the total cost of processing an View Restoration Permit could be estimated by the Staff, as suggested by Vice Chairman Cartwright. Planning Administrator Petru replied that, due to the vast differences in complexity between applications, it would be nearly impossible for Staff to accurately estimate the total cost of processing a View Restoration Permit after only one site visit. In addition, since there have been so few permits that were completed prior to the litigation, Staff could only provide accurate estimates after the Staff has had more experience processing additional applications. Vice Chairman Cartwright suggested that the flat fee be expanded to include the preparation of an initial Staff Report. He felt that the report would provide the applicant with enough information to make their own assessment of how much additional work would be required to complete the permit. Commissioner Sweetnam agreed with Vice Chairman Cartwright. Planning Administrator Petru stated that it would be very difficult for Staff to estimate, with any accuracy, an average cost of preparing the first Staff Report, again due to the wide variety in the complexity of the cases. Vice Chairman Cartwright reminded the Commission that the cost of a View Restoration Permit had increased from $400. 00 to $2 , 200.00 and that he felt that this was too large of a gap. 111 View Restoration Commission Meeting November 17, 1994 Page 7 of 11 Chairman Clark responded that the $400.00 fee was established by the City Council before the Staff had ever processed any View Restoration Permit applications. After a number of cases had been heard, a comprehensive review of the amount of Staff time required to process an average application found that the $400. 00 application fee did not come close to covering the actual cost to the City. Therefore, based on the Staff's calculations, the fee was increased to $2 ,200. 00. Chairman Clark went on to say that the expense involved in obtaining a View Restoration Permit was not trivial and the applicants should be aware of that fact going into the process. Chairman Clark went on to say that Staff should make sure that the View Restoration Permit application packet is very clear that the flat fee is just the initial cost of filing the application and that all additional costs will be paid for by the applicant through a trust deposit account. Planning Administrator Petru explained that for an application with a trust deposit, the Staff must record the time they spend working on the application and the total is then transmitted to the Finance Department. After the Finance Department deducts the expenses incurred by Staff and an administration processing fee, the applicant is refunded any balance still remaining in the trust deposit account. If there is a deficit in the account, the applicant is notified that no work can continue on the application until the trust deposit is replenished. Vice Chairman Cartwright asked Staff if the applicant has the option of withdrawing their application at any time during the process if they feel it is becoming too expensive. Ms. Petru indicated that the applicant can withdraw their application at any time, but that they would still be charged an administrative processing fee in order to close out the trust deposit account. After additional discussion, Chairman Clark declared he would bring the discussion to a close, by suggesting that the Commission accept Staff's recommendation, since he felt that Staff's approach accurately conveyed the overall sentiment of the Commission with respect to each applicant only being charged for the actual amount of Staff time spent processing the application. Commissioner Weisz made a motion to approve Staff's recommendation on the new fee schedule for View Restoration Permits. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. Chairman Clark then called for discussion of the motion. Commissioner Sweetnam suggested that the motion be amended to modify the flat fee to include the preparation of an initial Staff Report and an estimate on the total cost of the permit. 411 411 View Restoration Commission Meeting November 17, 1994 Page 8 of 11 Commissioner Weisz was unwilling to accept Commissioner Sweetnam's proposed amendment to his motion without further discussion by the Commission. After discussion, Commissioner Weisz agreed to amend his motion to include the preparation of an initial Staff Report, but not to include a cost estimate by Staff. After further discussion, Commissioner Weisz withdrew his motion. Planning Administrator Petru reminded the Commission that a member of the audience had requested to address the Commission on this issue. Chairman Clark called the speaker to the podium. Ken Dyda, 5715 Capeswood Drive, stated that he shared Vice Chairman Cartwright's concerns about the applicant having no way of knowing how much the permit will cost until the process has been completed. As an alternative, Mr. Dyda suggested that, as the funds in the trust deposit are depleted, Staff would inform the application of where they stood in the permit process and how large of an additional deposit must be made to the account in order to proceed. The applicant would then have the choice of either abandoning the project, thereby minimizing his losses, or proceeding with the permit, thereby protecting his initial investment. Mr. Dyda went on to say that Mr. Cartwright's point about providing the applicant with an opportunity to make mid-stream decisions was a valid one. In order to illustrate Mr. Dyda's suggestion, Staff explained that the applicant would pay the $185. 00 flat fee and establish a trust deposit account at the time the application is submitted to the City. The initial amount of the trust deposit would probably be the same for each application, unless actual case experience demonstrates that it should be changed. Staff commented that perhaps sometime in the future the initial amount of the trust deposits could be based on the size of the application request, i.e. "small, medium, or large. " Commissioner Sweetnam made a motion that the Commission approve the Staff's recommendation, with the amendment that the flat fee be expanded to include the preparation of a preliminary report after the first site visit has been conducted. Vice Chairman Cartwright seconded the motion. Commissioner Weisz asked Commissioner Sweetnam if he could define the difference between the "preliminary report" and the "first Staff Report. " Commissioner Sweetnam responded that the preliminary report would simply outline the overall scope of the view restoration request, while an initial Staff Report would include greater detail, such as location and identity of each tree . and shrub, and the exact work that must be done to restore the view, i.e. which trees and shrubs would be trimmed and which would be removed. 111 411 View Restoration Commission Meeting November 17, 1994 Page 9 of 11 Commissioner Goern asked if a landowner could request, and pay for, a preliminary report, without actually filing a View Restoration Permit application. Staff answered that the City does not currently have a mechanism to conduct a site visit and prepare a report without a formal application. Commissioner Weisz observed that the Staff Report is prepared for the benefit of the Commission, and not for the applicant. Chairman Clark stated that he could not support the motion, since a preliminary report would have to be so general that it would not provide the applicant with meaningful information and that it would only be an added expense to the applicant. The Chairman asked for a roll call vote on the motion on the floor. AYES: Black, Boudreau, Sweetnam, Cartwright. NOES: Eastwood, Goern, A. Green, R. Green, Weisz and Clark. The motion failed, (4-6) . Commissioner R. Green asked Staff how long it took the Finance Department to inform the Planning Department of the remaining balance in the trust deposit once the Staff time logs were submitted. Staff replied that the Finance Department typically responds within a week or two from the time the Staff's logs have been submitted. Commissioner Weisz made a motion that the Commission adopt the Staff's recommendation, with the amendment that the flat fee be expanded to include the costs associated with publishing the public hearing notice. The motion died for lack of a second. Chairman Clark made a motion that the Commission adopt the Staff's recommendation, with the caveat that the trust deposit would be used as a flagging system, so that as the trust deposit is depleted the applicant will be notified and will have to affirm that they want to continue the case by adding money to the trust deposit. Commissioner Weisz seconded the motion. Commissioner R. Green asked Staff if the trust deposit must be established when the application is first filed with the City or whether the trust deposit could be established after Staff had completed the first site visit. Staff said that it could be possible to require the trust deposit after the initial site visit and offered that a variable amount for the initial deposit could be made on a case by case basis, depending on the anticipated scope and complexity of the permit. II/ 410 View Restoration Commission Meeting November 17, 1994 Page 10 of 11 Chairman Clark amended his motion to include the suggestion that the trust deposit shall only be paid to the City after the initial site visit has been completed and that Staff shall vary the amount of the initial deposit based on the anticipated scope of the permit. The Chairman asked for a roll call vote on the amended motion. The motion passed unanimously. AGENDA X: FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE Chairman Clark stated that in order for the Commission to discuss the new draft language pertaining to Street Tree Permits and to adopt a resolution forwarding the proposed Development Code Revisions to City Council, the Commission will need to hold its regular meeting on December 1, 1994. However, the Commission agreed to cancel its second regular meeting on December 15, 1994. Commissioner Weisz noted that he would be unable to attend the December 1, 1994 meeting. AGENDA ITEM XI: ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS A. Staff - None. B. Commission - None. AGENDA ITEM XII: AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Ken Dyda, 5715 Capeswood Drive, explained that after he had filed his View Restoration Permit, the foliage owner planted a row of trees along his rear property line. At the time, the new trees did not intrude into his view. However, since the View Restoration process was put into suspension, . the trees have grown up and were now impairing his view. Mr. Dyda indicated that he had submitted photographs to the City documenting his view as of 1989 and asked why the Staff would not initiate Code Enforcement proceeding against his neighbor. Staff responded that since the City Council put the View Restoration Ordinance into suspension in 1991, Staff had been unable to enforce this portion of the Code, just as the View Restoration Commission had been unable to rule on View Restoration Permit requests. This situation would probably continue until the litigation against the City is finally settled or the suspension is lifted by the City Council. Mr. Kean Hamilton, 30747 Ganado Drive, asked to be put on the Interested Parties list for View Restoration. Staff assured Mr. Hamilton that, after his request at a previous meeting, both he and his neighbor's names had been added to the City's list. 410 411 View Restoration Commission Meeting November 17, 1994 Page 11 of 11 Mr. Hamilton then went on to say that he had not received any materials from the City. Staff responded that the purpose of being placed on the "interested parties" list is to receive materials to submit a View Restoration Permit application once the View Restoration process is reactivated. Until the litigation against the City is settled or the suspension is lifted by the City Council, there was no point in sending out applications forms to the interested parties. Mr. Hamilton asked Staff to send him the meeting notices, agendas and copies of the minutes. Staff informed him that in order to received the meeting notices and agendas, he should provide the City with a supply of self-addressed, stamped envelopes. In order to obtain copies of the minutes, he could come down to City Hall and pay for copies of these documents on a per page basis. Mr. Hamilton then indicated that he wished to receive copies of the entire agenda packet. Staff indicated that City Council agenda packets are sold to the public at a flat rate. However, this rate had never been calculated for the View Restoration Commission agenda packet (since no one had ever requested them) and would have to be investigated. Mr. Hamilton asked what the View Restoration Commission's duties would be while the City Council is reviewing and acting upon the draft Guidelines and Development Code Revisions. Chairman Clark responded that a delegation of four Commission members will attend the City Council hearing on these items to provide input and answer any questions. AGENDA ITEM XIII: ADJOURNMENT Vice Chairman Cartwright made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Weisz and passed unanimously. The meeting was duly adjourned at 9:41 pm. The next meeting of the View Restoration Commission was scheduled for December 1, 1994 at 7: 00 pm.