Loading...
VRC MINS 19940421 • APPROVED 411 1111 5/19/94 MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APRIL 21, 1994 After a Closed Session with the City Attorney at 7 : 00 p.m. , to discuss the status of pending litigation effecting the View Preservation and Resotration Ordinance, the meeting was called to order at 7:42 p.m. by Chairman Clark at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT: Committee Members Black, Boudreau, Cartwright, Eastwood, Goern, Green, Sweetnam, Weisz and Chairman Clark. ABSENT: Committee Member Scala. Also present were Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, City Attorney Carol Lynch, and Recording Secretary Michelle Kennerson. The flag salute was led by Vice Chairman Jon Cartwright. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of April 6, 1994 • Chairman Clark stated that he wanted to add to his comments to those of Committee Member Weisz on Page 3 , Paragraph 2 , regarding the name change of this body and that the name should be consistent with the ruling that was obtained in 1990 with respect to this body being a "single purpose commission" . Chairman Clark and Planning Administrator Petru discussed her comments concerning the subject of the litigation and its aftermath once it is over, and how it effects the new View Restoration Permit applications. However, there was no change to this portion of the minutes. Chairman Clark stated that he would like to discuss with the Committee 'the establishment of reasonable time limits for the Committee meetings. Committee Member Boudreau asked City Attorney Carol Lynch, referring to Page 4, second to the last paragraph, if the establishment of an appeal procedure would render the View Restoration Committee a non-quasi-judicial body. Ms. Lynch responded that the View Restoration Committee would still be a quasi-judicial body. Committee Member Warren Sweetnam moved, seconded by Committee Member Jennifer Boudreau to approve the minutes of April 6, 1994 as amended. The motion passed unanimously (9-0) . • 111 111 ORIENTATION (with Staff and City Attorney) City Attorney Carol Lynch stated that the Committee discussed the case of Yen vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes in Closed Session and no decision was made. Ms. Lynch outlined her three major topics for that evening: 1) Conflict of Interest Laws; 2) the Brown Act; and, 3) Due Process in connection with hearings. Ms. Lynch stated that the conflict of Interest Laws are extremely complicated, because they are governed by three separate sets of laws: 1) the Political Reform Act; 2) Government Code Section 1090; and, 3) Common Law Cases that were decided before the Political Reform Act was adopted. Whenever there is a question about a Commissioner, Councilmember or a Committee Member having a conflict of interest, all three areas of the law have to be consulted to render a decision. Ms. Lynch stated that the City Council has given direction in the past that requests for legal advice from City Committees and Commissions should come through the City Staff. There is one exception, however, with regards to potential Conflicts of Interest. If any Committee Member feels that they have a conflict of interest and would like to discuss it, the Committee Member should call Ms. Lynch directly. However, the City Attorney's office cannot give the Committee Members immunity, -only the Fair Political Practices Commission can do that. Chairman Clark stated that conflicts of interest usually deal with either financial relationshops or how far a Committee Member lives away from the subject property. Ms. Lynch agreed and stated that if a Committee Member receives $250 or more from a person or an entity that is connected with a particular case during the proceeding 12 months, the Committee Member would be disqualified from voting on that case. Elected officials are not subject to this restriction. However, Ms. Lynch cautioned the Committee Members that there are particular and unusual rules with respect to seeking elected office and getting campaign contributions. If the person -were to receive a campaign contribution as a Committee or Commission Member, and does not. get elected to the office, the Member would be in violation of the act if the amount exceeds $250 and the member considers a case involving the contributor. However, if the was a Council member and received that same donation, there is no violation of the law. It is an interesting loophole that the legislators created in favor of those that are elected. Ms. Lynch then discussed conflicts of interest as they pertain to the distance a Committee Member lives from a particular case. She advised the Members that if they own property, or have an interest VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 21, 1994 PAGE 2 111 in property, which is located within 300' of property which is the subject of an application, the Committee Member is presumed to have a conflict and is automatically disqualified. If the Member's property is more than 2 , 500 feet away, the Member is presumed to have no conflict of interest. The gray area is for those Member's properties that are located between the 300 and 2500 feet of the subject property. In that case, the testis whether the decision on the case to have a material financial effect on the Committee Member's property. The material financial effect would be if the property would go either up or down in value by a factor of $10,000. Ms. Lynch advised the Committee Members that if they want to participate in that decision, they should contact a real estate broker for advice. Ms. Lynch stated again that if the Committee Members need the City Attorney's advice, they should not hesitate to contact her directly. Committee Member Sweetnam commented that this Committee has three alternate members, so if the above scenario were to occur, it would be easier to have one of the alternate members vote on the case. Ms. Lynch acknowledged Mr. Sweetnam's observation and added that it would be useful for the Committee Member to abstain if they have any questions on a particular case, due to the cost of contacting the City Attorney. Vice Chairman Cartwright commented that part of the Staff's Review of an application is to determine the Committee Members live from the project. Ms. Lynch continued her discussion with Government Code Section 1090, which is a preclusion against a member of a body, who makes decisions concerning this particular type of matter from having a contractual relationship with the body. For example, a Councilmember owns a trash franchise. This Councilmember would be absolutely precluded by Government Code Section 1090 from ever negotiating a franchise agreement between his trash franchise and the City. Instead, the Councilmember would be precluded from participating in the decision making process. Ms. Lynch continued the discussion with the subject of bias. There may be -a particular instance where a Committee Member may not be legally precluded from participating in a case, but perhaps one of the parties involved in the case is their best friend or worst enemy. Ms. Lynch suggested the Committee Member review his feelings and if he/she could not render an impartial decision, he/she should abstain from hearing the case. Ms. Lynch then discussed providing due process at the public hearings. She continued to say it was very important that the Committee Members, when conducting a site visit, not to allow the applicant to discuss the case with them on-site. The information on the case needs to come to the Ccommittee through the public VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 21, 1994 PAGE 3 hearing process. Ms. Lynch stated that she realizes this is very restrictive, but is in the best interest of the Committee Member and especially the applicant. Chairman Clark commented that the previous City Council had given direction to Staff to amend the Guidelines to require the Committee members to visits not only to the applicant's property, but also to the foliage owner's property. Ms. Lynch advised the Committee that if the applicant or foliage owner mentions something they find important, they should write it down, so it can be discussed at the meeting. The important thing about due process is to give everybody the same information and the opportunity to respond. Ms. Lynch then discussed the Brown Act, stating it is the open meeting law. The Brown Act was extensively amended this year and most of these amendments have been helpful because they clarify points that have always been ambiguous. For example, it is now clear that in addition to a quorum of this body being a legislative body that is subject to the Brown Act, if the Committee were to appoint a standing committee to address some issues, that body would also be subject to the Brown Act. Chairman Clark recalled from a joint workshop that the Committee had with the City Council, there was discussion on an idea about a subcommittee acting as an informal arbitration. Ms. Lynch responded the subcommittee would be subject to the Brown Act. If the Committee appointed some -members to function on an "Ad Hoc" basis, perhaps to deal on one issue only, that would not be subject to the Brown Act. Committee Member Sweetnam asked Ms. Lynch when the View Restoration Committee was originally organized to write the Procedures and Guidelines, the Committee appointed a three-member subcommittees to address particular sections, were these subcommittees considered standing or Ad Hoc committees? Ms. Lynch responded that if the subcommittees met once for a specific purpose that would be an Ad Hoc committee. If, however, these subcommittees met on several occassion over time, they would be considered standing committees. Vice Chairman Cartwright asked Ms. Lynch if the Committee appointed a subcommittee to meet with the Planning Commission, would it be subject' to the Brown Act. Ms. Lynch responded that it would. Committee Member Sweetnam initiated a discussion concerning the site visits where 3 or more Committee Members arrive at a property site at the same time. Ms. Lynch suggested to the Committee that they coordinate their site visits so that there is always less than a quoram of the Members at a property at one time. However, she cautioned the Committee Members not to discuss the case while they are there at the site, at any time. VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 21, 1994 PAGE 4 411 Ms. Lynch continued to say that the Amendments to the Brown Act confirmed the prohibition against Members engaging in "serial meetings" . It is very clear that Council or Committee Members cannot discuss with each other "serially" a case in order to avoid having a quorum present. Members of the Committee should not call each other, in turn, asking their opinions on any case and making a decision prior to the public hearing. Ms. Lynch stated another change regarding the Brown Act was if the Committee or a quorum of this Committee goes to a Council meeting or vice versa, that does not constitute a meeting of the visiting body. Ms. Lynch added that the City Council lately has been asking the Chairman of the Planning Commission to come to the meeting when there is a Planning Commission item to be heard on appeal and to be available to answer questions by the City Council. If any Committee Member goes to the City Council in that capacity, they are there to answer questions only, not to be there in an advocacy role. Another change in the Brown Act effects the Committee Members who happen to be at the same event, such as a fundraiser, or some other social affair. This type of gathering is exempted from a definition of a "meeting" under the Brown Act. This also pertains to conferences and seminars. In her closing remarks, Ms. Lynch stated that meetings outside the City have been severely restricted. The Committee cannot hold -meetings outside the City any longer, unless it was with another City. In that case the meeting would have to take place in this City or the other City. Also, the only time a Closed Session is permitted is when the City Attorney is present. DEVELOPMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES Chairman Clark stated that he reviewed the Administrative Procedures that were adopted by the last Planning Commission and suggests that they could serve as a potential model for this Committee. Planning Administrator Petru suggested combining the Council and Planning Commission's adopted Administrative Procedures into a draft document for the Committee to use as a basis to start from. She also suggested incorporating Chairman Clark's time restraints for meetings into the draft document. Committee Member Green asked if there was a limit to the number of applications that would be heard in one meeting. Chairman Clark responded that in the past before an agenda was set, the Staff would contact the Chairman or Vice Chairman to discuss the agenda in terms of public hearings and how many cases would be practical given the anticipated length of those cases. Committee Member Sweetnam commented that the Staff also controlled the output of cases based on their ability to process them. VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 21, 1994 PAGE 5 !II 410 Staff was directed to prepare a draft Administrative Procedure for review by the Committee at the next regular meeting. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE Planning Administrator Petru reported to the Committee that at the April 12 , 1994 Planning Commission meeting Staff put an item on the agenda regarding the formation of a subcommittee to review the View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance with the View Restoration Committee. At that meeting, the Planning Commission selected three of their Commissioners to serve on the subcommittee. Chairman Clark announced the names of the Commissioners as being Chairman Alberio, and Commission Members Wang and Vannorsdall. Ms. Petru continued to say the next item to discuss would be who would serve on the subcommittee from the View Restoration Committee and when would be a convenient time to meet. Chairman Clark stated that he would like the Committee to meet in mid-June with the City Council. Chairman Clark said he would contact Chairman Alberio and arrange the meeting times with him. Ms. Petru added that for the anticipated joint workshop with the City Council, Staff would need to place the item for the City Council agenda to schedule the joint workshop. Discussion ensued among the Staff and Chairman about scheduling of these meetings. -Ms. Petru stated that she would attempt to put the request for meeting on the City Council's May 3, 1994 agenda. Chairman Clark stated that 2 of the 3 Committee Members that would serve on the subcommittee should be experienced from the previous committee. Chairman Clark suggested Committee Member Sweetnam, Boudreau or Weisz. Ms. Boudreau and Mr. Weisz declined. Chairman Clark volunteered himself. ' Chairman Clark moved, seconded by Committee Member Black to select Chairman Clark, and Committee Members Sweetnam and Green to the Planning Commission/View Restoration joint subcommittee. The motion -passed unanimously (9-0) . Discussion ensued among the Committee Members regarding the next regualr meeting on May 19, 1994 , as a result, it was determined that Committee Members Weisz and Black would be absent (excused) from the meeting and that Vice Chairman Cartwright may be absent (excused) since he is arriving home from a business trip that same day. Planning Administrator Petru commented on the status of actions mentioned in the minutes of April 6, 1994, saying that the purposed Code Amendment to the Ordinance regarding appeals to the City VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 21, 1994 PAGE 6 411 Council was introduced by the City Council at their meeting on April 19, 1994 . After conferring with the City Attorney, Ms. Petru stated that the Code Amendment is an optional item for the City Council to introduce without input from the View Restoration Committee, because it is a procedural change, and not a material change to the Ordinance. The City Council will have a second reading of the Ordinance in two weeks. Ms. Petru continued to say that Staff was directed to perpetuate the case summary list and Staff will follow through with that. When the Committee hears cases again, then Staff update that list periodically. Chairman Clark asked Staff to meet with Chairman Clark, Vice Chairman Cartwright, and Committee Member Sweetnam to begin preparing a "synopsis" of cases previusly decided by the Committee. There was discussion with Staff and Chairman Clark regarding the use black and white photography. Staff was also directed to prepare a list of "Key Issues" to be included in each subsequest agenda packet and amended as necessary. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF - NONE B. COMMITTEE Chairman Clark read a draft letter he had prepared to the City Council requesting a joint workshop. The Committee concurred with the draft language. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was duly adjourned at 8:58 p.m. The next regualr meeting of the View Restoration Committee was scheduled for Thrusday, May 19, 1994 at 7: 00 p.m. at Hesse Park. VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 21, 1994 PAGE 7