Loading...
VRC MINS 19941006 APPROVED 15 11/3/94 0 MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES October 6, 1994 AGENDA 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 II: Roll Call PRESENT: Commissioners Black, Eastwood, Goern, A. Green, R. Green, Sweetnam, Weisz, Vice Chairman Cartwright, and Chairman Clark. ABSENT: Commissioner Boudreau. Also present were Planning Administrator, Carolynn Petru, (hereafter known as Staff) and Recording Secretary, Helena Eudave' . Chairman Clark welcomed new member of the Commission, Alan Green, who was appointed by the City Council to take the place of Mr. Scala. AGENDA III: The flag salute was led by Chairman Clark. AGENDA IV: Communications Staff: Staff stated that they had received two items of additional correspondence: a supplementary memo from the City Attorney dated October 6, 1994 and a copy of the Ladera Linda Homeowners Association Newsletter provided by Commissioner Weisz. Commission: Commissioner Weisz reported that the recent Home Owners publication had an article regarding the City's View Restoration Ordinance. However, the article included several errors and / or subtle misrepresentations. Chairman Clark asked if Commissioner Weisz would contact the Homeowners Association and inform them of the correct information needed for their newsletter. 411 111 At Chairman Clark's request, new Commissioner Alan Green gave a brief overview of his background, tenure as a resident in the City and his interest in volunteering his time and effort to the community. AGENDA V: Consent Calendar 1. Joint Workshop Minutes of June 30, 1994. Chairman Clark suggested that the Commission go through the Minutes page by page and discuss any items that are of concern to the Commission. He particularly wanted to discuss the philosophy behind "multiple views" versus the "best and most important view. " On Page 3 , Chairman Clark noted that when the View Restoration Guidelines were drafted in June 1990, that considerable effort went into the creation of this document and those long-time members of the Committee that worked on the Guidelines were people who were involved in the drafting of the ballot measure. Chairman Clark felt that, with regard to restoration of views, there could be two viewpoints, i.e. , blockage by foliage could change with time, whereas blockage by structures is fixed and permanent. Chairman Clark suggested that this point should be included in the Minutes. Commissioner Weisz made the motion to accept the Minutes of the Joint Workshop Meeting with the City Council on June 30, 1994, as amended by Chairman Clark. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Eastman, and passed by acclamation. AGENDA VI: Discussion of Draft Guidelines (including City Attorney's summary of single vs. multiple viewing areas) . Chairman Clark reported that the meeting with City Attorney Lynch, Planning Administrator Petru, Chairman Clark, Commissioner's Sweetnam and Green to discuss arguments both for and against the issue of single versus multiple viewing areas was most productive. The key factors of the discussion were itemized and detailed by Attorney Carol W. Lynch in a Memorandum to the Members of the View Restoration Commission dated October 1, 1994 . This Memorandum was distributed by Staff to the Members of the Commission at this time. Chairman Clark asked the members if they wished to walk through the Guidelines first or deal with the Memorandum sent by Attorney Lynch. Vice Chairman Cartwright suggested they go through the Guidelines point by point first. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 1994 PAGE 2 411 At the Chairman's request, Commissioner Sweetnam explained the purpose of the Guidelines to the new Commissioner, Alan Green. The meeting then moved on to Page One of the draft revised Guidelines for discussion: Staff indicated that the appeal procedures to the City Council had been included based on the Commission's suggestion at the last meeting. Commissioner R. Green expressed concern that the finding that "the Commission has not properly interpreted or applied the provisions of the Ordinance" was too broad. Commissioner Weisz reminded the Commissioners that the City Council cannot overturn a decision that this Commission has made. Commissioner Weisz said that the word, "provision" in Paragraph 1. should be pluralized. At this time, Chairman Clark referred to Page 2 of Attorney Lynch's Memorandum. Commissioner Sweetnam discussed a Height Variation case that was decided by the City Council just prior to the passage of Proposition M which supported a single pad elevation of a lot being designated as the primary viewing area. Chairman Clark said that it is reasonable for someone to advocate either approach based on the current language of the Code and felt that Attorney Lynch's review captured what was collectively done by the Commission on this point. Commissioner Weisz asked if the Commission was going to make a recommendation to the City Council on this issue? In response, Chairman Clark offered that the Commission could go forward with a specific recommendation and asked if there were any remaining issues to be considered? Commissioner Goern asked the Chairman if the City Attorney was comfortable with the present Guidelines? Chairman Clark responded that the City Attorney felt that it could be argued that the Guidelines were inconsistent with the Ordinance. Commissioner R. Green added that the City Attorney conceded that the Ordinance could be clarified. Chairman Clark stated that to present a complete package to the City Council, the Commission should review and comment on the language of the Ordinance, as well as the Guidelines. Commissioner Sweetnam suggested that a fifth point be added to Page 5 of the City Attorney's memorandum stating that a "viewing area" is a plane or an elevation on a lot, and that the Commission can protect the views from any rooms or outdoor areas located within that plane. Chairman Clark felt that the last full paragraph on Page 4 of the Attorney's memo needed to capture the fact that the Guidelines were VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 1994 PAGE 3 411 410 developed through an extensive subcommittee process, which was made up of several people who were drafters of Proposition M and that they had first order understanding of the intent of the Ordinance. The Commission agreed that the memorandum's Conclusion should be expanded to recap the two possible interpretations of the single versus multiple viewing areas. In addition, Commissioners Sweetnam and R. Green felt that the word "inconsistent" should be modified to "invites interpretation" or "ambiguous" . The Commission also agreed that the word "viewing area" should be in quotes. Commissioner Cartwright moved, seconded by Commissioner Goern, to strongly recommend that the City Council support the position of multiple viewing areas. The motion passed unanimously, (9-0) . Chairman Clark then asked which one of the members of this Commission would like to go to the City Council with this decision? After much discussion, it was determined that the delegation would consist of Chairman Clark, Vice Chairman Cartwright, Commissioner R. Green and Commissioner Sweetnam. However, Chairman Clark stressed that all members were welcome to be present. Returning to the draft Guidelines: With regard to the language regarding View Preservation on Pages 9 and 10, Commissioner Sweetnam recommended using the City Attorney's suggested language from her October 6, 1994 memorandum. The rest of the Commission agreed with this amendment. AGENDA VII: Items to be Placed on Future Agendas Staff stated that they would bring a revised memorandum from Attorney Lynch to the next meeting, in addition to the draft language of the Code. Commissioner Weisz asked when would the Commission deal with the fee schedule? Staff responded that, hopefully, the issue cold be included on a November agenda. Vice Chairman Cartwright asked if it were possible to use some of the previous cases as models to test how the proposed fee would be applied. Staff responded that this would be done. AGENDA VIII: Adjournment A motion to cancel the next regular meeting of October 20, 1994, and to conduct an adjourned meeting on October 27, 1994 was made by Commissioner Weisz, with Vice Chairman Cartwright's second. The motion was passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 PM. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 1994 PAGE 4