Loading...
VRC MINS 19940602 APPROVED 6/19/94 V MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING JUNE 2, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7: 03 p.m. by Chairman Clark at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT: Committee Members Boudreau, Green, Sweetnam, Weisz, and Chairman Clark. ABSENT: Committee Members Black, Cartwright, Eastwood, Goern and Scala. Also present were Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru and Recording Secretary Michelle Kennerson. The flag salute was led by Committee Member Warren Sweetnam. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of May 19, 1994 . Committee Member Weisz moved, seconded by Mr. Sweetnam, to approve the Minutes of May 19, 1994. The motion passed without objection (5-0) . ADOPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES Planning Administrator Petru stated that she has received comments back from the City Attorney on the draft procedures. Ms. Petru suggested making the City Attorney's comments as the Committee reviewed the draft procedures page by page. 1. 2 (Quorum) Ms. Petru indicated that the changes dealing with a minimum of four votes as a requirement for a rendition of a decision by the Committee on a View Restoration Permit were in brackets and bolded for easy identification. Committee Member Sweetnam suggested that the language be in both Section 1.2 (Quorum) and Section 4. 1 (Voting) . Ms. Petru stated that she thought it would be more appropriate under Section 4 . 1 (Voting) . Mr. Sweetnam reiterated that he felt for clarification purposes, the language should be in both Sections. The Committee agreed to have the language in both Sections. Ms. Petru stated that the City Attorney commented that in the current adopted Guidelines, there is a discussion about the requirements for living within a certain distance of the subject property and the conflict of interest requirement. The City Attorney suggested that the language be transferred into the administrative procedures document under Section 1.2 (Quorum) as 010 411 an informational item. The Committee agreed to this addition to the administrative procedures. Discussion then ensued among the Committee regarding the requirement of four votes affirming the motion in order to render a decision of the Committee on a View Restoration Permit. After discussion, Chairman Clark suggested the language remain as written and stated that if the requirement of the four votes causes any problems as the Committee proceeds with applications, the Committee can review and possibly amend the requirement. The Committee agreed with the Chairman's suggestion. Section 1.5 (Special Meetings) Ms. Petru reported that the City Attorney suggested that this Section, which refers to who receives notice of the special meetings, be amended to include at the end of the sentence "and any other person entitled to notice under the Brown Act" . The reason for this addition is due to changes to the Brown Act that were effective this year. The Committee accepted this addition. Section 1.7 (Study Sessions) Ms. Petru stated that the City Attorney commented that the second sentence should be removed from the text, since under the provisions of the new Brown Act there must always be an opportunity at public hearings for persons to speak on items on the agenda. Chairman Clark suggested that the sentence be modified to read: "When a matter is set for a study session, public testimony will generally be limited to five minutes or more per person, at the discretion of the Chairperson" . The Committee agreed to this modification. Section 1.8 (Open and Closed Sessions) Ms. Petru stated the City Attorney suggested replacing the language in the first sentence which read "Except as otherwise provided by this Resolution" with "Except as otherwise provided by the Ralph M. Brown Act. . . " The Committee agreed. Section 1. 10 (Agendas) Ms. Petru referred to the middle of this Section stating that the reference to Government Code Section 54954 .2 will be checked because the Brown Act was re-numbered and the section numbers may have changed. MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING JUNE 2, 1994 PAGE 2 • 411 410 Section 1. 11 (Staff Reports) Ms. Petru stated that the City Attorney indicated that the fourth line where it states "before or at the beginning of any hearing or meeting" should be replaced by "at the same time the report is disseminated to the Committee" . The basic idea is that the public does not receive the information before the Committee does. Also, the City Attorneyrequested that the phrase "closed sessions as prescribed in Section 1. 6 above" be replaced with "attorney/client privilege memorandum" . The Committee agreed to these two changes. 2 . 1 (Minutes and Recordings) Ms. Petru stated that there has been a change in the Brown Act regarding when the public can request copies of the meeting tapes. The City Attorney will check the reference in the Brown Act, since she believes that the public can request copies of the tapes up until the time that they are erased by the City and do not necessarily have to request them before the meeting. 2.2 (Order of Presentation) Ms. Petru stated that in this Section the City Attorney indicated that the Public Hearing should be listed first, so that there could be no question that the Staff Report is part of the public record. Discussion ensued among Chairman Clark and Staff regarding this subject. Ms. Petru assured the Committee that the same changes would also be made with the Planning Commission Administrative Procedures. 2 . 3 (Rules of Evidence) Ms. Petru stated that in the second to the last sentence in this Section, the City Attorney would like the word "rude" replaced with the word "irrelevant" . It was felt by the City Attorney that the word "rude" is too broad of a term, but that "irrelevant" could be more easily defined and recognized. After some discussion, the Committee agreed to this language change. 2 . 5 (Oral Evidence, Time Limits, and Number of Speakers) Ms. Petru referred to the second paragraph, last sentence, stating that the City Attorney thinks this sentence conflicted with Section 2 . 2 (Order of Evidence) because Section 2.2 allows speakers to make their presentation for 5 minutes and Section 2 .5 states that the Chairperson may limit the presentation to less than 5 minutes. Chairman Clark commented that he did not think MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING JUNE 2, 1994 PAGE 3 410 that the Committee should be bound by absolutes in terms of time. Ms. Petru stated that the City Attorney felt strongly that there needs to be a minimum time limit. Committee Member Weisz suggested that in Section 2 . 2 the reference to times be eliminated and leave the language as it is in Section 2 . 5. Discussion ensued among Staff and the Committee regarding this issue. Staff was directed to check with the City Attorney to determine if the Guidelines could be modified to allow granting blocks of time to each side of an issue, similar to the City Council's practice. 2 .8 City Attorney Ms. Petru stated that the City Attorney asked that the sentence "Committee Members are able to call the City Attorney directly with regards to any concerns about conflicts of interest" be added to the end of the paragraph. The Committee was in agreement with this change. Chairman Clark directed Staff to investigate whether the Chairperson can call the City Attorney directly on certain matters. 4 . 1. 1 Tie Votes Ms. Petru stated that the City Attorney said that since the Committee does not hear appeals, the last sentence in this paragraph where it says "If the matter involves an appeal and an affirmative vote does not occur, the result is that the decision appealed stands as decided by the decision maker from which the appeal was taken" should be eliminated. The Committee agreed. 4 . 1.2 Abstentions Ms. Petru stated that the City Attorney asked that language be added to the end of this paragraph stating "unless the abstention was due to a conflict of interest, in which case the Committee member cannot be included in the quorum". The Committee agreed to this addition. Staff indicated that the City Attorney had no other comments on the draft Administrative Guidelines. The Committee directed Staff to make revisions and bring back on Consent Calendar on June 16, 1994, unless there are substantive issues still outstanding which would require further discussion. KEY ISSUES LIST Chairman Clark summarized the Key Issues List, stating that Staff was directed to provide a brief explanation of each issue, as MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING JUNE 2, 1994 PAGE 4 411 well as any recommendations, and to bring the Key Issues List back to the Committee for this meeting. The Key Issues List will then be divided up among the Committee Members for individual study, followed by a presentation to the entire Committee at a later meeting. Committee Member Weisz asked Staff about Item No. 18 of the Key Issues List "Use of Soils Engineers, Arborists and Landscape Architects" , stating that he was confused as to why this issue was again on the list for Committee review since the Council had decided not to proceed with this at their Joint Workshop in September 1993 . Chairman Clark responded that the List of Key Issues is intended for the Committee's reference for the future work that needs to be done to the Ordinance and View Restoration Permit Guidelines. He continued to say he does not think the Committee should come to a resolution about any of the issues at the meeting tonight. Discussion ensued among Chairman Clark and the Committee regarding this issue. Committee Members Weisz asked Staff if there was any new data _ regarding Item No. 18. Ms. Petru responded that regardless what the position was from the City Council at the last Joint Workshop, she presented the Staff's point of view all of the issues. Ms. Petru continued to say'that she concurs with Chairman Clark's position that all of the issues are on the table again for discussion because the composition of the View Restoration Committee and the City Council has changed since the Joint Workshop. Discussion ensued among the Committee with Committee Member Weisz disagreeing with the Committee on reconsidering the issue of "Use of Soils Engineer, Arborists and Landscape Architects" . Committee Member Boudreau agreed with Mr. Weisz. Chairman Clark assigned topics to individual Committee members as follows: 1. Definition of Terms - Chairman Clark 2 . Existing Cases and Previous Decisions - Chairman Clark 3 . News Cases - On hold, pending the outcome of the litigation against the City (Yen et. al v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes) . MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING JUNE 2, 1994 PAGE 5 110 II/ 4 . Phasing and Pace of Permit Review - Committee Member Boudreau 5. Application Fees - Committee Member Weisz 6. Records Management - Committee Member Green 7 . Documentation of Existing Views/Code Enforcement Committee Member Boudreau 8. Requirement to Maintain Foliage at 11/7/89 Height and Exempting Foliage that Existed When the View Lot was Created Committee Member Sweetnam 9. Dead Foliage - Committee Member Goern 10. Privacy Rights of Foliage Owner - Committee Member Green 11. Non-Binding Arbitration Process Alternative Committee Member Eastwood 12 . Viewing Area - This topic will be deferred to the Joint Subcommittee Workshop with the Planning Commission on June 9, 1994. 13 . Timing of Foliage Removal and Maintenance Thereafter Vice Chairman Cartwright 14 . Visiting Both the Applicant's and Foliage Owner's Property Committee Member Scala 15. Determining How the Sixteen Foot Height Limit is Measured Committee Member Sweetnam 16. "Significant" View Impairment - This topic will be deferred to the Joint Workshop with the Planning Commission on June 9, 1994 . 17. Hedges- Committee Member Black 18 . Use of Soils Engineers, Arborists and Landscape Architects Committee Member Weisz 19. City-Owned Foliage - Chairman Clark There was discussion among the Committee about each topic as they were assigned. This matter was continued to the next regular meeting scheduled for June 16, 1994 for oral presentation by each MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING JUNE 2, 1994 PAGE 6 411 411 Committee Member. Chairman Clark directed Staff to ask the Director to include the Key Issues List in the Status Report to City Council. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS There were no reports or communications from Staff or the Committee. QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE Mr. Sutter Kunkel, 3271 Parkhurst Drive, address the Committee and asked about the history of Proposition M. Chairman Clark provided Mr. Kunkel with an overview of the Ordinance and its history. ADJOURNMENT Committee Member Sweetnam moved, seconded by Committee Member Green to adjourn. The motion passed without objection (5-0) . The meeting was duly adjourned at 8: 52 p.m. The View Restoration Committee Subcommittee (Chairman Clark and Committee Members Sweetnam and Green) adjourned to the Joint Workshop with the Planning Commission Subcommittee on June 9, 1994 at 7 : 00 p.m. in the Fireside Room at Hesse Park. The next regular meeting of the View Restoration Committee was scheduled for June 16, 1994 at 7: 00 p.m. at Hesse Park. MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING JUNE 2, 1994 PAGE 7