VRC MINS 19940623 411 APPROVED t,
7/22/94 '1)44 "
ti
MINUTES
VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
JUNE 23, 1994
The meeting was called to order at 7: 15 p.m. by Chairman Clark at
Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.
PRESENT Committee Members Boudreau, Clark, Eastwood, Goern,
Green, Scala, Sweetnam, Weisz
ABSENT Black (excused)
LATE ARRIVAL Cartwright (7:45 p.m. )
Also present were Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru and
Recording Secretary Lucile Rogers.
The flag salute was led by Committee Member Eastwood.
COMMUNICATIONS
Planning Administrator Petru distributed copies of the proposed
changes to the Single-Family Residential Districts section of the
Development Code that the Planning Commission is currently
considering, which includes the View Preservation and Restoration
ordinance. She pointed out that the Definitions, which are shown
as being deleted, are being moved from this section to the General
Definitions area of the Code. The revised Code will not be
finalized until next month, so copies will not be available at the
Joint City Council and View Restoration Committee Workshop
scheduled for June 30, 1994.
KEY ISSUES LIST
Chairman Clark noted that Key Issue items 1, 2, 3, 5 and 8 were
covered at the June 16, 1994 V.R.C. meeting, and it was hoped that
the remainder of the items could be discussed at this meeting.
4 . Phasing and Pace of Permit Review
Committee Member Boudreau reported that the past practice of the
View Restoration Committee was to handle one or two cases per
meeting, but with the backlog of cases to be processed when the
Committee begins operation again, this will need to be increased.
In addition, the length of time allowed for processing cases has
been changed from six months to three months, due to changes in
State law. In addition to increasing the ending time of the
meetings from 10:00 to 11: 30 p.m. , Ms. Boudreau noted that meetings
may have to be held more frequently than twice a month, initially.
Planning Administrator Petru explained that staff has 30 days to
review an application and make sure it is complete before beginning
the processing. Once the application is complete, it is assigned
to a planner and the 90 day processing period begins. Because of
staff reductions, the City will be hiring a contract planner who
will do nothing but process View Restoration cases.
Ms. Petru said that Planning staff time spent in the past averaged
approximately 29 hours per case, which includes site visits,
telephone calls, and writing the staff report. After the staff
report is written, the hearing is scheduled at least 30 days later
to allow time for View Restoration Committee Members to visit the
site.
Committee Member Sweetnam pointed out that staff reports would have
to be generated much faster, or additional consultants or staff
will be needed. Ms. Petru indicated that the City does not have
enough full-time staff to work on these cases, especially with
their new long-range planning responsibilities.
Discussing how many View Restoration cases could realistically be
heard per meeting, most Committee Members felt that two to three
would be the maximum. Committee Member Sweetnam voiced his opinion
that once the initial eight backlog cases are dispensed with, the
caseload will settle down to about one case per month. Pointing
out that if the process is not completed in 90 days the applicant
can have the permit granted by default, Mr. Sweetnam noted that it
is possible to negotiate more time, with the permission of the
applicant. Committee Member Boudreau reiterated that one or two
extra meetings may be required at the beginning just to get the
process going, if staff reports can be prepared in time.
Regarding the $2 ,200 application fee, Chairman Clark summarized the
decision of the Committee at its June 16, 1994 meeting to recommend
that the City Council consider the concept of a flat fee plus a
time-and-materials trust account, because the amount of work varies
so much between applications. The base fee should be worked out
through calculating the amount that is known to be required (for
consultant time, staff meeting time, etc. ) . Staff indicated their
agreement with this concept.
6. Records Management
Committee Member Green reported on his research into ways to
safeguard the photographic records involved in the view restoration
and preservation process. Digital photography seems to be a cost-
effective method to accomplish the records management needed for
this process and would also have wide application to other areas of
City operation. The City has all the computer hardware needed
except for the digital camera, which could be purchased for
V.R.C. Minutes
June 23 , 1994
Page 2
410 111
approximately $600. Black and white images would be shown on a
computer screen instantaneously, at significant savings in staff
time and film processing costs, as well as producing very storable
and long-lasting records. Approximately ten images could be stored
on one disk, and the size of the picture could be manipulated on
the computer screen and printed on a laser printer.
V.R.C. Members supported the concept of including this as an area
to be explored. Committee Member Goern added that her daughter is
a professional artist and has volunteered her time to do sketches,
if it would be helpful.
7. Documentation of Existing Views/Code Enforcement
Committee Member Boudreau's report on documentation of existing
views revealed that since Proposition M was passed, only 35
residents have submitted photographs documenting their views. A
long discussion ensued regarding how to get residents to document
their views now, and how to determine in future View Restoration
cases whether the foliage blocking views in these cases existed in
November 1989 or grew into the view since then.
Committee Member Sweetnam suggested it should be assumed that the
foliage did not block a view before November 7, 1989, and make it
the responsibility of the foliage owner to prove that it had not
grown into the view since the effective date of the ordinance. Ms.
Petru expressed the opinion that this would be very difficult, if
not impossible, to prove.
Chairman Clark suggested eliminating the problem of how to
determine foliage growth between 1989 and 1994 by eliminating the
date of 11/7/89 in the ordinance and changing it to the present.
In this way, any foliage that impairs a view in the future will be
a Code Enforcement matter, while any present view obstruction will
require a View Restoration Permit.
Stating that the City made a reasonable attempt to notify residents
in 1989 of the need to document views, Committee Member Cartwright
felt the City should not now have to rewrite the ordinance to
accommodate those who chose not to document their views. Committee
Member Weisz also disagreed with the idea of changing the date in
the ordinance.
Two choices were offered by Committee Member Sweetnam: (1) Ask the
City Council to revise this portion of the ordinance to state that
five years have passed so it is no longer necessary to assume that
foliage did not exist before 11/7/89 and, therefore, all foliage
impairing a view would be handled as a Code Enforcement case; or
(2) the City could make a reasonable effort through Code
Enforcement to determine whether foliage existed before 11/7/89,
V.R.C. Minutes
June 23 , 1994
Page 3
411 411
and if it could not be determined, then it would require a View
Restoration Permit.
Chairman Clark reiterated that the language in Section 17. 02 .040
B.3 should be revised for clarity. Committee Member Green remarked
that it is well crafted on the basis of legal language, but it
would be difficult to properly reword it in lay terms.
Planning Administrator Petru stated the opinion of staff that it is
valuable to leave the 11/7/89 date in the ordinance but state that
the burden of proof as to the height of the foliage on that date
should be on the view owner. Adding that he would like the
ordinance to state that if proof is not demonstrated satisfactory
to the staff, then it would revert to the View Restoration process,
Chairman Clark asked Ms. Petru and Member Sweetnam to meet with him
to work on appropriate language before the June 30, 1994 Workshop.
In discussing how to get the word out to residents about
documenting their views, Committee Member Boudreau suggested an
announcement in the newspaper and also having a group of V.R.C.
Members attend homeowners association meetings and other public
meetings with an agenda or script (and a handout) that clearly
covers the important points. Chairman Clark said the next edition
of the City newsletter should have a feature article on the V.R.C.
process, the status - of the lawsuit, and how to document views.
Staff was asked to work on developing a suitable presentation and
handout.
9. Dead Foliage
Committee Member Goern reported that dead trees, foliage and
flammable vegetation are required by the L.A. County Fire Code to
be removed. Ms. Petru observed that if the City receives a
complaint about dead foliage it is referred to the Fire Department.
Chairman Clark suggested that the matter of dead foliage should be
addressed in forthcoming publicity, including the regulations
regarding how many feet a tree needs to be away from a structure.
RECESS AND RECONVENE
At 9: 15 p.m. the Chairman called for a recess. The meeting was
reconvened at 9: 30 p.m.
KEY ISSUES (Continued)
Chairman Clark reviewed his suggested format for the June 30, 1994
Workshop with the City Council. He will summarize the V.R.C.
objectives and process to date, outline the key issues, and ask for
any overall direction to the Committee by the Council. Discussion
then resumed on most of the remaining key issues. Staff was
V.R.C. Minutes
June 23, 1994
Page 4
411
directed to provide the City Council and Committee with copies of
the minutes from the September 1993 Joint Workshop as well as the
minutes from the June 9, 1994 Joint Subcommittee meeting with the
Planning Commission and the Committee's June 16 and June 23, 1994
meetings.
10. Privacy
Committee Member Green reported that there is no legal precedent
establishing a benchmark for privacy in a person's back yard.
Instead, the Committee's determinations will need to be a balancing
test between a person's expectations and what can be reasonably
done. He added that there is a lot of law related to protecting a
person's privacy inside his home, but not outside in the yard.
Chairman Clark mentioned a memo from the City Attorney which said
that privacy appears twice in the Code, once with respect to the
View Restoration permit process. He said that the burden of proof
lies with the foliage owner who feels that the trimming of his
foliage would result in privacy infringement. Substantial
evidence would be required to document an abuse of privacy, and
staff reports can constitute substantial evidence. Committee
Member Green then advised that this statute actually creates a
right that does not exist in the form of any other legal precedent.
Ms. Petru commented that the Planning Commission seems to be
indicating in their recent decisions that people have some right to
privacy in their yards.
A discussion was next held on whether the V.R.C. Guidelines should
address the outside privacy issue. Ms. Petru noted that staff
agreed there should be some specific statement about outdoor
privacy, to help them analyze situations and make findings to
justify their recommendations.
Committee Member Sweetnam moved, seconded by Member Green, that
Paragraph II.B.5 (b) on page 4 of the V.R.C. Guidelines and
Procedures be amended to read: "The burden of proof of
'unreasonable' infringement of indoor and/or outdoor privacy should
be on the Foliage owner. The Committee will make judgements on a
case by case basis." The motion passed on a voice vote, with
Members Scala and Weisz dissenting.
12 . Viewing Area
Planning Administrator Petru read from the draft minutes of the
June 9, 1994 Joint Subcommittee meeting regarding their discussion
of this subject. The Subcommittee had recommended that the Code be
amended to include two definitions of "viewing area"; one for the
Planning Commission and one for the View Restoration Committee
V.R.C. Minutes
June 23, 1994
Page 5
•
411
decisions. Chairman Clark pointed out that this will be an area
where the Planning Commission and the View Restoration Committee
will have different approaches to the same subject.
13 . Timing of Foliage Removal and Maintenance Thereafter
Committee Member Cartwright reviewed his memorandum of June 16,
1994 on this subject, recommending that when the V.R.C. finds a
significant view impairment and recommends removal of foliage, it
should be done at one time rather than incrementally. After the
foliage is removed and staff has certified that the view has been
satisfactorily restored, then Code Enforcement procedures should be
used to ensure that the foliage i s maintained at the proper height.
On the question of how frequently requests for Code Enforcement of
overgrown foliage should be responded to, Ms. Petru said she would
like a more specific guideline than "as needed. " Otherwise, staff
may have to constantly respond to calls from residents who feel
their view is again being obstructed, even though it may only be to
a minor degree. She stated her concern that the two full-time Code
Enforcement Officers, who are currently handling 80 to 100 cases a
month, may be overburdened, leading to slower response times for
View Preservation cases and other Code Enforcement complaints.
Committee Member Scala suggested the City charge a fee for Code
Enforcement when it is abused, similar to a "false alarm" charge.
Member Sweetnam added that this charge should be applied to all
Code Enforcement, not just View Restoration or Preservation.
Member Weisz suggested establishing a minimum one-year interval
between Code Enforcement requests. Member Cartwright remarked that
if an offender is found to be out of compliance more than once in
a year and is charged for the second trip, he surely would not do
it a third time.
Chairman Clark noted the consensus of the Committee that there
should be some penalty for abusive cases, and said this concept
will be suggested at the upcoming Workshop with the City Council.
15. Determining How the Sixteen Foot Height Limit is Measured
Committee Member Sweetnam reported that the 16 feet comes from the
Height Variation standards, which allow a property owner to build
a structure up to 16 feet on the buildable pad. If a 16' structure
is allowed, therefore, a 16' tree should also be allowed. He noted
that once you get away from the buildable pad, the 16' minimum
height allowance does not apply.
As an aside, Chairman Clark requested that copies of the Fence,
Wall and Hedge Ordinance be provided to the Committee Members.
V.R.C. Minutes
June 23, 1994
Page 6
411
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10: 50 p.m. to June 30, 1994 at 7: 00
p.m. at Hesse Park, for a Joint Workshop with the City Council.
V.R.C. Minutes
June 23, 1994
Page 7