Loading...
VRC MINS 19940406 411 411 APPROVED April 21, 1994 MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APRIL 6, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7: 34 p.m. by Chairman Clark at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT: Committee Members Black, Boudreau, Cartwright, Green Sweetnam, Weisz, Eastwood, Goern, Chairman Clark. ABSENT: Committee Member Scala Also present were Director of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement Bret B. Bernard, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, Senior Planner Joel Rojas and Recording Secretary Michelle Kennerson. Chairman Clark welcomed the returning and new members of the View Restoration Committee and gave an overview of goals for the Committee. Director Bernard welcomed the Committee members and introduced the Staff that was present. SWEARING IN OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS City Clerk, Jo Purcell, administered the oath to the Committee members. SELECTION OF VICE CHAIRMAN Chairman Clark nominated Committee Member Jon Cartwright for the position of Vice Chairman. Committee Member Warren Sweetnam nominated Paul Weisz. Mr. Weisz declined the nomination. Jon Cartwright was selected as Vice Chairman by unanimous vote. ORIENTATION Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru reviewed the items contained in the packet that the Committee members received prior to the meeting. Ms. Petru encouraged each member to come to the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement offices and meet with staff. Chairman Clark asked Ms. Petru if any or all of the Associate and Assistant Planners may come before Committee. Ms. Petru responded that in the past all levels of the Planning Staff prepared reports for this committee, and this will probably happen on the first cases that are heard. Eventually, the Associate and Assistant Planners will carry the bulk of those reports. Chairman Clark then asked Director Bernard about the concept of hiring an outside consultant for the View Restoration Committee. Director Bernard responded that in the past, the Staff was larger and, given the Department's current workload (including assignments that has been received from the City Council and Planning Commission) , Staff 411 111 feels that it cannot provide the Committee with the level of support that this body requires at current Staffing levels. Currently before the City Council is a proposal to hire an outside planning consultant. The City Manager's recommendation to the City Council is to go with the consultant. Regardless of the Council's final decision during the budget process, Senior Planner Joel Rojas and/or Director Bernard will be present at the View Restoration Committee meetings. A recess was called at 7:53 p.m. for photographs to be taken of the committee by the Peninsula News. The meeting was reconvened at 8:04 p.m. ORIENTATION-CONT. Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru the review of the orientation materials. Chairman Clark stated that the fee for the View Restoration Permits are the highest in the City, and that the Committee needs to discuss this item with Staff. Ms. Petru then directed the Committee's attention to City Council Policy Memo #21. This policy was adopted last December for the appropriate interaction between Commission/Committee members and the City Attorney's office. Previously, the City Attorney was present at all of the View Restoration hearings when the Committee was considering the various cases. One of the issues this Committee needs to explore is the regular attendance of the City Attorney at the meetings, and how this effects the access that the Committee has to the City Attorney's office. Ms. Petru added that one of the resons that the fee for a View Restoration Permit is so high is due to the cost of having the City Attorney attend the previous meetings. Ms. Petru discussed the Ralph M. Brown Act, which is the "open- meeting" act, in regards to the a number of changes made to this law effective April 1, 1994. Ms. Petru also provided (to the new members) copies of the View Restoration Preservation Ordinance (taken directly out the Development Code) and Proposition M (the actual ballot measure) . The ballot measure includes a very important preamble, which did not carry over into the Development Code. Also contained in the packet to the new members were the View Restoration Committee Guidelines and Procedures, which were adopted in 1990. Ms. Petru discussed with the Committee the distribution of the packets and the City's new extended office hours. The Committee should expect to receive their packets on the Thursday proceeding the meeting. When the Committee starts to hear cases again, the packets will be delivered at an earlier schedule, generally 30 days in advance of the hearing, in order to give the Committee members VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 6, 1994 PAGE 2 111 111 the opportunity for site visits to the subject property. Chairman Clark stated that a unique feature of this body is that each member must visit the applicant's property in order to be eligible to vote on a particular case. A future discussion should include whether or not the site visits of the foliage owners will take place. Ms. Petru informed the Committee members that name plates would be ordered. It was suggested that the ordering of business cards be postponed due to the City Council's review of the actual title of this body. Chairman Clark stated that this body should be formally recognized as a "Commission" and he intends to make this proposal to the City Council. Committee Member Weisz asked what the practical impact was of the name change. Chairman Clark responded by stating that the change enhances the "appearance" and "protocol" of the Committee and should be consistent with the 1991 ruling that this is a single purpose body. Ms. Petru proceeded to distribute disclosure forms and appointment certificates to the Committee members, as required by the City Clerk. It was also decided to have coffee available at the future meetings. In closing her orientation, Ms. Petru welcomed the Committee members and stated this Committee has very important work ahead of it. The first task is to update and modify the View Restoration Guidelines and Procedures, so that once the litigation is settled (in the City's favor) the Committee will be ready to accept new applications. Chairman Clark stated that he was very glad to chair this Committee and emphasized that full participation of the Committee members is essential. The philosophy that evolved back in 1990 was that whether the member is a "regular member" or "alternate member", the treatment of said member will be equal. The only distinction is for the purposes of hearing and voting on cases, since only seven members can be involved. He added that he would like to continue this philosophy. There may also be a situation conflict where a member may or live near a subject property, thus an alternate member would then hear and vote on the case. Mr. Clark referred to his tenure on the Planning Commission where he suggested to the Commission that they not hear new items past 11:00 p.m. and the meeting not go beyond midnight, unless there was a unanimous vote of the Commission to go beyond that hour. He suggested that the Committee follow the same procedure and review and Administrative Procedures of the Planning Commission and City Council, in order to develop similar procedures for the View Restoration Committee. VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 6, 1994 PAGE 3 111 Planning Administrator Petru commented that although she agrees that the Guidelines and Procedures that were previously adopted need review, along with the adoption of Administrative Procedures, she stated that this would take a fair amount of time to accomplish both of these tasks. Chairman Clark agreed and added that the City Council adopted a procedure dealing with unruly members of the audience during their meetings. Mr. Clark said he would like to look at that procedure for the View Restoration meetings. QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE Ken Dyda, 5 715 Capeswood Drive, commented that he is glad that the View Restoration Committee is meeting again and also stated there is a significant difference between "Committee" and "Commission" . A Commission makes decisions appealable to the City Council, whereas a Committee makes recommendations. Chairman Clark stated that Mr. Dyda was part of the original City Council of the City, and is one of the founders of the City. Chairman Clark commented that once the news is out that this body is meeting, he hoped that there will be tremendous audience participation at their meetings, in addition to people applying for View Restoration Permits. DISCUSSION OF KEY ISSUES Chairman Clark led the discussion on key issues and goals for the Committee. In the course of discussion, the Committee provided Staff with direction on follow-up work: Chairman Clark made the motion that the City Attorney be present at the next View Restoration Meeting to brief the Committee in closed session on the status of the lawsuit against the City challenging the View Ordinance (Yen vs. City of RPV) . The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Jon Cartwright and passed unanimously. Regarding a proposed Code Amendment to allow the City Council to hear certain appeals of View Restoration cases, Staff was directed to investigate whether the View Restoration Committee would hear the proposed amendment first and make a recommendation to the City Council. Staff was directed to investigate whether the establishment of an appeal procedure would render the View Restoration Committee a non- quasi-judicial body. Chairman Clark made a motion to direct Staff to discuss the possible foundation of a joint View Restoration Committee/Planning VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 6, 1994 PAGE 4 110 Commission Sub-Committee to review potential changes to the Guidelines used by each body to review View Restoration Permits and Height requests, respectively. The motion was seconded by Committee member Paul Weisz and passed unanimously. Staff was directed to perpetuate the Case Summary List provided to the Committee, by revising and adding to the list once the suspension was lifted from the View Restoration Permit process. Chairman Clark made a motion to direct Staff to prepare a synopsis to the Committee's past actions on View Restoration cases. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Jon Cartwright and passed unanimously. Chairman Clark, Vice Chairman Cartwright and Committee Member Sweetnam were selected to assist Staff in this effort, The final document will be reviewed by the full Committee and forwarded to the City Council for their edification. Staff is to check with the City Attorney to determine if this document would be part of the public record. The Committee then discussed various strategies to better inform the public regarding the status of the View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance, as well as the activities of the Committee. Various methods suggested included: 1. Press releases to the newspaper and cable reader board. 2 . City newsletter articles. 3 . Handouts for the Public Counter. 4. Presentations by Committee members at homeowner and other civic group meetings. The Committee also suggested that the Staff use black and white photographs to establish the foliage benchmark, since these will not fade or become blurry overtime, like color photographs. Staff may also wish to investigate CD Rom computer technology for storing images, budget permitting. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE Future meetings were scheduled for the first and third Thursday at 7: 00 p.m. However, the regular meeting of May 5, 1994 will be cancelled, due to scheduling conflicts. Staff was directed to arrange future joint workshops with the Planning Commission and City Council. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:54 p.m. VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 6, 1994 PAGE 5 $ . v411 III 1 The next regular meeting of the View Restoration Committee is scheduled for Thursday, April 21, 1994 at 7: 00 p.m. at Hesse park. VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 6, 1994 PAGE 6