Loading...
VRC MINS 19950518 APPROVED/3 11/ 0 3/7/96 MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES May 18, 1995 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cartwright at 7:00 PM at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes. FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Boudreau led the flag salute. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Boudreau, Clark, Goern, A. Green, R. Green, Weisz, Vice Chairman Sweetnam and Chairman Cartwright. Absent: Commissioners Black and Eastman (both excused). Also present were Carolynn Petru, Planning Administrator, and Helena Eudave', Recording Secretary. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA: Commissioner Weisz made a motion to approve the agenda, seconded by Commissioner R. Green, and passed unanimously. COMMUNICATIONS: Staff: None. Commission: Vice Chairman Sweetnam mentioned two articles that had appeared recently in the South Bay edition of the Los Angeles Times regarding the City of Rolling Hills. Both articles discussed neighborhood disputes resulting from trees blocking views. • 0 APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of May 4, 1995 In reviewing the draft minutes of May 4, 1995, on Page 2, Paragraph 3, Commissioner Goem asked if landowners were given a choice between filing a Covenant or having the Staff conduct a Site Vegetation Inspection on their property. Ms. Petru responded that for ministerial permits, the landowners are given a choice between the two options. If the landowner chooses to have a Site Vegetation Inspection, the cost is $110.00 and Staff visits the surrounding properties to determine if there is any foliage obstructing a neighbor's view. If there is view obstructed foliage, the City requires the foliage to be trimmed or removed to restore the view before the project is submitted to the Building and Safety Division for plan check. Commissioner Goem then asked what would happen if the foliage grew back into the view. Ms Petru responded that, unless the surrounding neighbors have submitted photographs to the City documenting their restored view, the City could not require the property owner to maintain the foliage after the Site Vegetation Inspection. She went on to add that Staff preferred the Covenant, because it made future enforcement much easier. Chairman Cartwright asked what triggered the requirement to submit a Covenant or request a Site Vegetation Inspection. Ms. Petru said it was not based on the cost of the remodeling, but on the square footage of the project. She added that the Site Plan Review application form has been changed to include information about the Covenant and Site Vegetation Inspection options. Chairman Cartwright and Commissioners requested several minor corrections to the draft minutes. Chairman Cartwright asked if there were any more comments or corrections on the draft minutes. Hearing none, he called for a motion to accept the draft minutes, as amended. Commissioner R. Green moved to approve the Minutes of May 4, 1995, as amended, seconded by Vice Chairman Sweetnam. Approved, (8-0) Minutes: View Restoration Commission May 18, 1995 Page 2 411 CONTINUED BUSINESS: 2. Covenants to Protect Views in Conjunction with View Restoration Permits Chairman Cartwright began the discussion by referring to the draft position letter prepared by Commissioner R. Green and Vice Chairman Sweetnam titled, 'View Covenants as a Condition of View Restoration Permit Application." Commissioner R. Green stated that he had not received any comments regarding the draft letter that was previously distributed to the Commission. Therefore, he finalized the draft position letter by making it as brief and to the point as possible. Chairman Cartwright suggested the Commissioners take a moment to read the letter and then provide their comments. Commissioner Clark offered that in the paragraph titled, Due Process to the Applicant, the parenthetical phrase"(i.e., privacy, shade)"should be omitted, since he felt that the phrase implied that the foliage added value to the subject property. Commissioner Weisz disagreed with Commissioner Clark, since he felt that the way the sentence was currently written conveyed the Commission's message. After a lengthy discussion regarding the applicant's "view rights" and the rights of the foliage owner, the Commission agreed to remove all of the quotes from the paragraph. In addition, the Commission agreed to change the last two sentences of the paragraph to read: "Based on the fact that the view covenant concept specifically excludes this weighing/balancing process, a compulsory view covenant would force an applicant to forfeit his/her own foliage rights or not to pursue their own view rights. The Commission felt that forcing this choice is inconsistent with the purposes of Proposition M and would discourage applicants." During the discussion, Commissioner Weisz asked Staff if an applicant would be required to sign the Covenant at the time they applied for a View Restoration Permit or once they acquired the Permit. Planning Administrator Petru responded that an applicant would be required to submit the Covenant when they applied for the Permit, but that the document would not be recorded unless they were granted a View Restoration Permit. Chairman Cartwright asked if there were any more suggestions in the position paper. Minutes: View Restoration Commission May 18, 1995 Page 3 1111 0 Commissioner Weisz stated that he felt that the position paper, as modified, was very clear and should not be changed any further. He felt that it should be communicated to the City Council that the letter represented the unanimous position of the Commission. Commissioner Clark remarked that he felt that each member of the Commission should sign the letter since it was intended to be presented to the City Council. Commissioner Goern felt that it would be too much if each member signed the letter. Commissioner Weisz felt that all of the members of the Commission should sign the letter, since some members of the Council had made an inference in the past that some of the members of the View Restoration Commission were unduly influenced or dominated by other members. The Commission then considered the logistical problems of obtaining signatures from all of the members of the Commission. Planning Administrator Petru offered to keep the letter at the City Hall, where each individual member could stop by and sign the letter when it was convenient for them. She also suggested that the Staff could arrange a "round robin" mailing of the letter to each Commissioner, or to have the members signs the final version of the letter at the next regular meeting. Commissioner Weisz made a motion to accept the position letter, as modified by the Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner R. Green. The motion passed (7-1), with Commissioner A. Green dissenting. The Commission then continued the discussion as to who should sign the position letter to the City Council. It was determined that only the Chairman would sign the letter, on behalf of the entire Commission. NEW BUSINESS: 3. Future Work Schedule Chairman Cartwright asked Planning Administrator Petru if the Commission's Key Issues List and recommended revisions to the View Restoration Permit Guidelines had been forwarded to the City Council. Ms. Petru responded that Staff was holding on to the Guidelines and Key Issues List until the City Council adopted the revised Development Code. Staff would then present the revised Guidelines and other issues to the City Council as a single package. Minutes: View Restoration Commission May 18, 1995 Page 4 0 filb Commissioner Clark felt that the Council should be provided with copies of the draft revised Guidelines and the Key Issues List to consider along with the Commission's recommendations on the Development Code Revisions. He felt that having all of this information up front would allow the Council to see how each item complements the others. He felt that if the Council just read the Commission's recommendations on the Development Code, it would not provide the important background information and help the Council understand how the Commission arrived at its recommendations. Commissioner Boudreau asked Staff if the Commissioners would receive copies of the final draft of the Development Code Revisions that would be presented to the Council. Planning Administrator Petru said that once those portions of the Development Code pertaining to the View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance and the Street Tree Permit were ready to be presented to the City Council, those portions would also be distributed to the Commissioners. Vice Chairman Sweetnam stated that, depending on what the Council did with the Development Code, it may be necessary to make other revisions to the View Restoration Permit Guidelines. Commissioner Clark asked Staff if there was any news on the status of the lawsuit. Planning Administrator Petru stated she had talked with the City Attorney the week before, and the Attorney was still waiting for the Appellant Court to set a date for the hearing. Commissioner R. Green said that he very much doubted that the Appellant Court would hear this type of appeal, since it is only a procedural question. He went on to say the it takes the Appellant Court about three months to process these cases. Therefore, since Staff said that it been two months since the legal briefs had been filed, the City could hope to have a decision in approximately one month. Planning Administrator Petru indicated that Staff will be preparing a Request for Proposals (RFP) within the next few months to seek a consultant to assist the City in processing View Restoration Permits. Due to the cutbacks in Staffing levels since the Commissions was last hearing cases, the City would require outside help to keep up with the anticipated increase in the workload. Ms. Petru indicated that the City already had Statements of Qualifications from several consulting firms on file, however, these documents did not specifically address how each firm would propose to provide services to the City and how much it would cost. Ms. Petru also noted that Senior Planner Joel Rojas would serve as the Staff Coordinator to the Commission once it resumed its regular duties. Minutes: View Restoration Commission May 18, 1995 Page 5 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS: Staff: None. Commission: None. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE: Chairman Cartwright asked if there had been any requests to speak from the audience. Planning Administrator Petru indicated that Staff had not received any requests to speak. Commissioner Clark asked Staff when they thought the Development Code Revisions would first be heard by the City Council. Planning Administrator Petru responded that Staff was hoping to finish the Planning Commission's review of the Development Code by the end of June 1995. She noted that the review of the Development Code Revisions by the City Attorney was progressing much more slowly than Staff had originally anticipated, due to scheduling difficulties between the Staff and the City Attorney. In addition, Staff was still waiting on direction from the Council as to whether it wanted to consider the Development Code as a single package or in smaller segments. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner R. Green made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau and passed unanimously. Planning Administrator Petru noted that the Commission would be notified when the next regular meeting would be held. The meeting was duly adjourned at 7:55 pm. N:\GROUPIPLANNING\VRC\95VRCMN5.18 Minutes: View Restoration Commission May 18, 1995 Page 6