Loading...
VRC MINS 19950504 410 APPROVED 5/18/95 r MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES May 4, 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 R. Green led the flag salute. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Black, Boudreau, Eastwood, Goern, A. Green, R. Green, Weisz, Chairman Cartwright. Absent: Commissioner Clark and Vice Chairman Sweetnam. Also present were Carolynn Petru, Planning Administrator, Joel Rojas, Senior Planner and Helena Eudave' , Recording Secretary. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA: Commissioner R. Green made a motion to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau, and passed unanimously. COMMUNICATIONS: Staff: Planning Administrator Petru reported that Vice Chairman Sweetnam and Commissioner Black had called and asked to be excused from the meeting. In addition, Ms. Petru noted that a communication from Commissioner R. Green had been distributed to the Commission prior to the start of the meeting. Commission: Chairman Cartwright reported he had attended the monthly Mayor's Breakfast that morning. This informal meeting had given him the opportunity to tell the Mayor about what the Commission had been doing with respect to the Development Code Revisions. Chairman Cartwright noted that there was a good deal of disagreement among those present at the breakfast regarding the outcome of the Joint Meeting held with the City Council in January 1995. 411 410 It became apparent to Mr. Cartwright that the Mayor and Chairman of the Planning Commission took a position very similar to the one that Staff had presented to the View Restoration Commission at the previous meeting, i.e. that only one view could be protected, but that it could be taken from several adjacent viewing locations on a property. Although he expected that the Planning Commission would continue to embrace this position, Chairman Cartwright felt that the View Restoration Commission should continue to support the position that different views should be protected from different locations on a property. Chairman Cartwright said that he also had the opportunity at the Breakfast to talk about Covenants to Protect Views. He told the Mayor that the View Restoration Commission was putting together a "white paper" on the topic, explaining its rational for opposing Covenants. Chairman Cartwright said that, although there seemed to be general support for Covenants, there is also a lot of confusion regarding how and when they are required. Mr. Cartwright noted that both the Mayor and the Chairman of the Planning Commission had signed a Covenant, and that he had also signed one about six months ago in conjunction with a addition he was contemplating. Commissioner Goern asked Staff if Covenants expired when ownership of the property changed. Planning Administrator Petru responded, that, since a Covenant is recorded against the deed to a property, it runs with the land and not the ownership of the property. Ms. Petru went on to explain what types of projects were required to comply with Proposition M and that landowners are given the choice of filing a Covenant or having the Staff conduct a Site Vegetation Inspection on their property. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Chairman Cartwright asked for a motion to approve the Minutes of April 20, 1995. Planning Administrator Petru noted a few minor corrections to the draft Minutes that had been suggested by Commissioner Sweetnam. In addition, Commissioner Weisz noted on the bottom of Page 1, that the word "Chairman" after his name should be omitted. Commissioner R. Green moved to adopt the Minutes, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau, and passed unanimously. CONTINUED BUSINESS: Adoption of V.R.C. Resolution No. 95 - ; Recommending to the City Council approval of the revisions to Section 17. 02 . 040 in the Municipal Code. View Restoration Commission Minutes May 4, 1995 Page 2 of 7 411 411 Chairman Cartwright asked if there were any comments from the Staff on this item. Planning Administrator Petru said that Staff had revised several pages in Exhibit "A" of the V.R.C. Resolution, based on comments received from the Vice Chairman Sweetnam and the City Attorney after the agenda packet was delivered to the Commission. Ms. Petru offered to have the Staff review the new pages with the Commission and point out the City Attorney's proposed changes. Senior Planner Rojas distributed the revised pages to the Commission and stated that the first change was on page 4, item 4, where Staff had added a definition of "livable area. " This new definition was added since, at the last meeting, the Commission inserted the term "livable area" into the definition of "viewing area, " and Staff noted that this phrase was already used in another Section of the Ordinance. Staff had based the definition of "livable area" on the definition contained in the Uniform Building Code. However, unlike the Uniform Building Code, Staff excluded bathrooms from the list of areas not considered to be liveable, based on‘ the Commission's desire to include bathrooms as protected viewing areas. Therefore, only garages, closets, halls, and storage/utility areas could not be protected viewing areas. Senior Planner Rojas then referred to page 6, item 16, and noted that the definition of "Viewing Area" had been rewritten based on the Commission's direction at the previous meeting. Staff had clarified the term "lot" to be the "buildable area(s) of a lot, " at Vice Chairman Sweetnam's suggestion. Mr. Rojas also noted that, at the last meeting, the Commission had removed the last sentence of the definition referring to how a view is taken from outside of a structure. However, Staff did some research and determined that the verbiage is from the original Proposition M. Therefore, the City Attorney recommended that this language be restored. Senior Planner Rojas then referred to Page 8, item 5, and explained that previously this paragraph was split into two paragraphs, one for determining "View" and the other determining "Viewing Area. " Vice Chairman Sweetnam had suggested that, since most of the language was similar, the two paragraphs should be combined into one paragraph. Mr. Rojas noted that the City Attorney had concurred with proposed change and had suggested that the words "view" and "viewing area" be pluralized throughout the Ordinance, in order to reflect the Commission's preference for allowing multiple views and viewing areas. View Restoration Commission Minutes May 4, 1995 Page 3 of 7 111 Lastly, Mr. Rojas referred to page 8, item 2 (b) , and noted that the second sentence was re-worded slightly at the request of the City Attorney. In addition, the procedures for when the Commissioners must visit the foliage owner's property was added, in order to reflect the language in the draft revised View Restoration Permit Guidelines. At the conclusion of Staff's comments, the Commission decided to review the revised Exhibit "A" page by page. On Page 4, Commissioner R. Green asked why "bathrooms" were not excluded from "liveable area. " Chairman Cartwright answered that this issue had been discussed previously and the Commission decided to continue to recommend that bathrooms be protected viewing areas. On page 5, item 15 (b) , Chairman Cartwright recalled a discussion at the previous meeting that the less specific the list of mountains and off-shore islands, the easier it would be for Staff to conduct the view analysis. Planning Administrator Petru replied that the Chairman's statement was correct. Chairman Cartwright said that he did not recall that the Commission had asked for the more specific list of mountain ranges and off-shore islands. Ms. Petru indicated that the detailed list was Staff's idea. On page 5, item 10, Commissioner Weisz noted that the definition of "privacy" contained two ambiguous words, "reasonable" and "intrusive, " both of which were open to interpretation. Planning Administrator Petru responded by saying that the definition of "privacy" was the original language from Proposition M. Chairman Cartwright asked if there was any interest on the Commission to modify the definition of "privacy. " None was indicated. On page 6, item 16, Chairman Cartwright felt that the proposed revisions to the definition of "viewing area" had captured the spirit of the discussions at the last meeting, and unless the Commission wished to further modify the language, he suggested that the Commission move on to page 7. Commissioner Goern asked Staff if the City Attorney was comfortable with the revised definition of "viewing area. " Senior Planner Rojas responded that the City Attorney was satisfied with the current language. Chairman Cartwright asked Staff if item 4 on page 7 pertained to the View Restoration Commission. Planning Administrator Petru replied that this Section pertains to the permits issued by Staff and the Planning Commission. Mr. Cartwright went on to say that the inserted language, " . . .or records with the city a Covenant to Protect Views, " was confusing to him. He thought that the Commission had decided to take this language out. Ms. Petru replied the requirement for filing a Covenant has been removed from that the section of the Code entitled "Restoration of Views Where Foliage is a Factor, " but not from this particular section of the Code, entitled "Removal of Foliage as a Condition of Permit Issuance. " View Restoration Commission Minutes May 4, 1995 Page 4 of 7 411 After the Commission had an opportunity to review the remaining pages of the revised Exhibit "A, " Chairman Cartwright asked for a motion to adopted the V.R.C. Resolution. Commissioner Weisz made a motion to adopt V.R.C. Resolution No. 95- 02, recommending to the City Council approval of the revisions to Section 17.02.040 in the Municipal Code, seconded by Commissioner Goern, and passed unanimously. Commissioner Weisz complimented Staff on their hard work on the complicated task of revising Proposition M. Chairman Cartwright concurred with Commissioner Weisz. Chairman Cartwright asked the Staff when the Development Code Revisions would be heard by the City Council. Senior Planner Rojas answered that Staff was still working with the Planning Commission on its review of the Code, however, Staff expected to finish with this process by the end of June 1995. Therefore, the entire Development Code Revision, included both the View Restoration Commission and Planning Commission proposed revisions, would be forwarded to the City Council as an entire package in early July 1995. 3. Covenants to Protect Views in Conjunction with View Restoration Permits. Chairman Cartwright reminded the members that at the last meeting, Commissioner R. Green and Vice Chairman Sweetnam were appointed to a subcommittee to draft a "white paper" on the topic of Covenants to Protect Views in Conjunction with View Restoration Permits. He also noted that a draft of this document had been distributed to the Commission before the beginning of the meeting and asked Commissioner R. Green to review the draft with the Commission. Commissioner R. Green briefly described the three arguments against Covenants that had been identified in the draft paper and asked it there were any other arguments that should be presented. Chairman Cartwright indicated that he had spoken with Vice Chairman Sweetnam and that the Vice Chairman supports the letter, as it is currently written. After much discussion, the Commission decided to move the third paragraph, titled "Due Process to the Applicant, " and make it the first paragraph. In addition, the last paragraph was slightly modified to read as follows (modified language is in bold) : View Restoration Commission Minutes May 4, 1995 Page 5 of 7 411 111 For the foregoing reasons, the Commission concludes that the addition of the view covenant requirement was not beneficial to the view restoration process or procedure. The Commission therefore recommends against adding said requirement to the provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. The Commission and it(s) members appreciate the consideration of the Council on this issue and stand ready to answer any questions. Chairman Cartwright felt that the Covenant to Protect Views was created to minimize the number of cases heard by the View Restoration Commission or the City Council. However, he went on to say that he felt a landowner would still have some recourse to the City Council if they did not agree with the Staff's implementation of the Covenant. Chairman Cartwright suggested that Vice Chairman Sweetnam, Commission R. Green and himself should try to redraft the letter and bring it back for final approval at the next meeting. Chairman Cartwright then asked Staff how long the Commission had to prepare the letter. Planning Administrator Petru indicated that, since the City Council would probably receive the Development Code Revisions in July 1995 or possibly later, there was no rush to complete this issue paper. Chairman Cartwright asked that, if the members had any additional thoughts on the position paper, to provide those comments to Commissioner R. Green by May 12, 1995. The revised document would then be presented to the Commission at the next regular meeting on May 18, 1995. Commissioner Green provided his FAX number for the Commissioners to send him their comments. Chairman Cartwright invited the other Commissioners who were interested to join the subcommittee. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS: Chairman Cartwright asked the Commission for any items to be scheduled for the next agenda. Commissioner R. Green suggested that the Commission prepare a "white paper" on the subject of the "multiple viewing areas, " similar to the one it was preparing on "Covenants to Protect Views. " Chairman Cartwright said that, although the idea had merit, he felt that, since there had already been a considerable amount of discussion on this topic, that it would not be in the best interest of the members to give the impression that the Commission was entrenched with regards to this issue. He noted that there were some who felt that the Commission was determined to implement the Code only as it saw fit, and would disregard any direction from the View Restoration Commission Minutes May 4, 1995 Page 6 of 7 411 City Council. Chairman Cartwright went on to say that he tried to tell the Mayor that the Commission had no intention of battling with the City Council on this issue, but that there was genuine disagreement over the outcome of the Joint Meeting held in January 1995 that the Commission decided to put forth its best recommendation to the City Council, and then allow the Council to determine the final Code language, as it deemed appropriate. The Mayor felt that the Commission should make its best recommendation to the Council on the most appropriate language for Proposition M. Chairman concluded his remarks by saying that he was not sure a "position paper" would be the best tactic, since opinions were already polarized on this issue. Commissioner Weisz concurred with Chairman Cartwright's position on this issue. Mr. Weisz noted that the Commission already had an opportunity to express its views to the City Council and since the City Council apparently did not agree, he felt that preparing a position paper would cause additional harm by calling more attention to this issue. Chairman Cartwright stated that at the next meeting it would be prudent to talk about the View Restoration Commission's activities future work schedule. He also asked Staff to provide the Commission with an update on the pending litigation (Yen et. al. versus the City of Rancho Palos Verdes) . COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE: Chairman Cartwright noted that the Commission was very pleased to have someone in the audience and asked if the gentleman would like to provide the Commission with any comments. Richard R. Denno, 2256 Sunnyside Ridge Road, said that he would be an applicant before this Commission once the current litigation is settled and the View Restoration Permit process reinstated. Mr. Denno stated that he had come to the meeting in order to familiarize himself with the Commission and its current activities. In addition, he thanked the Commission for its good work. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Weisz moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Boudreau and the meeting was duly adjourned at 7:57 PM. The next regular meeting will be held Thursday, May 18, 1995 at Hesse Park, 7 : 00 PM. View Restoration Commission Minutes May 4, 1995 Page 7 of 7