VRC MINS 19940519 411 411 APPROVED Al
6/2/94
MINUTES
410 VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MAY 19, 1994
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Clark at
Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Blvd.
PRESENT: Eastwood, Goern, Green, Scala, Sweetnam, and Chairman
Clark.
ABSENT: Black, Boudreau, Cartwright, and Weisz
Committee Members Scala arrived at 7:30 p.m.
Also present were Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru and
Recording Secretary Michelle Kennerson.
The flag salute was led by Planning Administrator Petru.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes of April 21, 1994
Chairman Clark asked Ms. Petru for clarification on the section
of the minutes dealing with immunity for the Committee Members.
110 Ms. Petru responded that what the City Attorney was referring to
is if an allegation is made that a Committee Member has acted in
violation of the Fair Political Practices Act, conferring with
the City Attorney will not provide the Committee Member with
immunity.
Chairman Clark noted that imbedded in the minutes there were
several action items.
Committee Member Sweetnam moved, seconded by Committee Member
Eastwood to approve the minutes. The vote was unanimous (5-0) .
Chairman Clark recognized Planning Commission Chairman Gilbert
Alberio who was in the audience. Commissioner Alberio remarked
how he was glad the View Restoration Committee was meeting again
and discussed with Chairman Clark and Staff two possible dates of
the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and View Restoration
Committee: June 9, 1994 or June 16, 1994.
REVIEW OF DRAFT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
Chairman Clark, Committee Member Sweetnam and Staff discussed
Section 1. 1 (Quorum) of the Draft Administrative Procedures with
regards to the number of alternate members required for a quorum
to conduct regular business and to hear View Restoration Permits.
Chairman Clark suggested discussing this item further at the next
1111 regular meeting of the Committee. Staff suggested preparing the
language in question in bold and italics, so the Committee can
111
refer to it quickly. Chairman Clark agreed and asked that the
alternate language also be indicated with in brackets.
Committee Member Sweetnam suggested to Staff that they add a
section to the draft document regarding the Committee hearing
non-case items as a whole. Staff responded that a new Section
can be added for review at the next meeting.
Chairman Clark referred to Page 2 , Section 1.2 (Regular Meetings)
dealing with the meeting times ending at 12 : 00 a.m. Mr. Clark
continued to say the document reads that the meeting could
continue past midnight by the majority vote of the Committee.
However, he would prefer that it read "by a unanimous vote" . Mr.
Clark suggested that the Committee should not be making decisions
and considering important city business the wee hours of the
morning. Making it a unanimous vote will ensure that the
meetings will end at midnight.
Committee Member Sweetnam, referring to Page 3 , Section 1.7 (Site
Visits) , stated that the sentence was not clear. Chairman Clark
suggested that the sentence be chang to read "In order to
conduct a public hearing on a View Restoration Permit application
all of the Committee participating in the public hearing must •
visit each site as defined in the adopted Guidelines" .
Chairman Clark suggested for consistency and in keeping with the
4111 powers of the Chairperson, that the last word of the second
paragraph in Section 2 .2, be changed from "Committee" to
"Chairperson" . The sentence would then read " All speakers will
be limited to a five (5) minute or less presentation, as
determined by the Chairperson.
Chairman Clark suggested the last line of the second paragraph of
Section 2 . 2 be omitted so the text reads "Except when necessary
for immediate clarification of a particular point, no person
shall be allowed to speak a second time until all others wishing
to speak have had an opportunity to do so, and then only at the
discretion of the Chairperson" .
Chairman Clark also suggested on Page 4, Section 2 . 2 (d) through
Section 2 . 2 (h) , that language be introduced to this section
indicating these are nominal times. Therefore, the Chairperson
at his/her discretion, depending upon the complexity of the case
and the number speakers would determine the specific time. Staff
suggested that the introductory sentence read "The Chairperson in
his/her discretion should direct . . . the order and duration of
presentation" .
Committee Member Sweetnam suggested that in the first paragraph
of Section 2 .7 (Evidence Received Outside a Hearing) , the word
VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MINUTES
1111 MAY ,19, 1994
PAGE 2
411 411
"independently" should be omitted so the text would read "If any
1111 Committee member visits a site or receives any information at a
site visit or through any other means pertinent to a pending
matter, he or she will disclosed the information or evidence so
received during the hearing on the matter" .
Committee Member Sweetnam also suggested that, as discussed
earlier in the meeting, the language on Page 8 , Section 4 . 1
(Voting) should be changed to read "Approval of any motion
brought before the View Restoration Committee shall require the
affirmative vote of a majority g of the memberspresent [four
votes] , unless otherwise specified by law" .
Chairman Clark referred to Page 10, Section 4 .4 (Continuances)
and asked Staff if the language in the section is consistent with
the City Council and Planning Commission procedures. Staff
responded that it is consistent with Planning Commission and
would have check the languages regarding the City Council. Mr.
Clark asked if any member of the public can request a
continuance. Staff responded that this is true for the Planning
Commissionp rocedures, but that the request would still have to
be approved by the Commission.
Chairman Clark stated that he would like his middle initial used
for all documents he signs, so that the signature block will read
"Lawrence E. Clark" .
1111 The Committee directed Staff to bring back a final draft of the
Administrative Procedures at the next regular meeting on June 2 ,
1994 .
KEY ISSUES LIST
Chairman Clark added "City-owned Foliage" to the Key Issues List.
Mr. Clark continued that, with 10 members on the Committee, a
"homework assignment" would be given to each member and they
would then brief the entire Committee on their topic at the next
meeting.
Committee Member Sweetnam agreed with Mr. Clark and added that
the Key Issues List needed to be defined, in order for the
members to research their particular topics. He suggested at the
next meeting, when all the members present, that Staff review
ig the key issue and define it forhe members.
Committee Member Eastwood concurred with Committee Members
Sweetnam's suggestion.
After discussion among the Committee regarding the benefits of
defining each key issues, Staff was directed to expand the Key
VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MINUTES
11/1 MAY 19, 1994
PAGE 3
Issues List to include a discussion of each topic and bring this
1111 item back to the Committee on June 2, 1994 .
REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
A. STAFF
1. Amendment to the View Restoration Ordinance (Appeals)
Planning Administrator Petru reported that the City Council
adopted the proposed Amendment to the View Restoration Ordinance
(Appeals) on May 17, 1994. This established a procedure by which
decisions of the View Restoration Committee may be appealed to
the City Council, regarding the interpretation or application of
the provisions of the View Preservation and Restoration
Ordinance. However, the Ordinance does not allow the City
Council to conduct a de novo (i.e. new) hearing on the merits of
the View Restoration Committee's decision.
Committee Member Goern asked Staff if the View Restoration Permit
fee could be lowered since the City Attorney's attendance at the
View Restoration Committee Meeting was no longer necessary.
Staff responded the matter would be looked into and stated there.
may be a possibility that the fee could be lowered.
Committee Member Scala stated that he had reviewed all of the
11/1 files for the past View Restoration Permits and suggested that
there should be more uniformity among the photographs taken for
the cases. He suggested more panoramic views be taken.
Chairman Clark stated that the photos need to be taken from the
primary viewing area on the property, which is designated by the
property owner, and can vary from one property to another. He
continued to say he was not sure that absolute uniformity was
possible.
Ms. Petru stated that the City does have a panoramic camera and
has used it to take photographs of panoramic views, especially
for Height Variation Permits. However, the process of developing
the photos is very expensive. Staff is researching the
possibility of having the photos developed less expensively.
2 . Laguna Niguel Free Dispute Newspaper Article
Chairman Clark commented on the article submitted by Mr. Edith
Brines and noted an interesting similarity between Rancho Palos
Verdes and Laguna Niguel in trying to balance the enjoyment of
resident's trees and foliage verses preserving their neighbor's
views. Mr. Clark added that many cities are watching to see what
VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MINUTES
11/0 MAY 19, 1994
PAGE 4
411
finally happens in Laguna Niguel because they are also interested
11/0 in how to deal with this issue.
3 . City Council/View Restoration Committee Joint Workshop
Planning Administrator Petru reported that at the last City
Council meeting on May 17, 1994, the City Council considered
Chairman Clark's letter regarding the Key Issues List, and
established a date for a Joint Workshop with the Committee. The
Joint Workshop was set for Thursday, June 30, 1994 between 7: 00
p.m. and 9: 00 p.m. at Hesse Park.
Chairman Clark asked that a copy of his letter to the City
Council be distributed to the Committee Members.
B. COMMITTEE
None.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was duly adjourned at 8:04 p.m.
1111 The next regular meeting of the View Restoration Committee was
scheduled for Thursday, June 2, 1994 at 7: 00 p.m. at Hesse Park.
VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MINUTES
11/1 MAY 19, 1994
PAGE 5