Loading...
VRC MINS 19950406 APPROVED 4; • 411 111 4/20/95 MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES April 6, 1995 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cartwright at 7: 02 PM at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes. FLAG SALUTE: Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru led the Flag Salute. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Black, Boudreau, Eastwood, Goern, Sweetnam, Weisz and Chairman Cartwright. Absent: Commissioners Clark, A. Green, Ray Green (all excused) . Also present were Carolynn Petru, Planning Administrator and Helena Eudave' , Recording Secretary. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA: Chairman Cartwright asked Staff about "Approval of Agenda" . Ms. Petru remarked that this was something new and reported that the Planning Commission and the View Restoration Commission's agenda have been modified to use the same Agenda format as the City Council. Staff had found that it was easier for the public to use Arabic numerals rather than Roman numerals. In addition, the Commission would now have the ability to rearrange the agenda order before beginning the meeting. However, items cannot be added to the Agenda. If there are items to be added, they can be identified for discussion at the next meeting. SELECTION OF A VICE CHAIRMAN: Chairman Cartwright opened the meeting by expressing, on behalf of the Commission, his gratitude to out-going Chairman Clark for his leadership and contributions in the previous year. He hoped that the Commission would be just as successful in the coming year. Chairman Cartwright nominated Commissioner Sweetnam as Vice Chairman. Commissioner Black seconded the motion and the Commission voted unanimously to appoint Sweetnam as the new Vice Chairman. COMMUNICATIONS: A. Staff Chairman Cartwright asked Staff if there were any other Communications. Planning Administrator Petru reported that she had provided a copy of Ordinance No. 307 to each of the Commissioners, which is an Amendment to the Municipal Code that expands the authority of this Commission to make formal recommendations to the City Council regarding proposed Code Amendments. The next item Ms. Petru addressed was regarding the pending law suit (Yen et. al. versus the City of Rancho Palos Verdes) and reported that all the briefs have been filed and the City is now waiting for a court date to be set. Once a trial date is known, Staff will inform the Commission. The last item Staff addressed was the Minutes. Since the Commission's last meeting in December 1994, Staff learned that, because the Commission's regular meeting dates are established by the Municipal Code, a meeting cannot be cancelled without posting a notice of an adjourned meeting due to a lack of a quorum. As a result, Minutes must be prepared reflecting this action, which is taken by Staff. B. Commission At this time Commissioner Sweetnam remarked that he had watched the March 4, 1995 meeting of the City Council on television. Vice Chairman Sweetnam went on to say that when Ms. Petru brought up the subject of the Covenants, looking for direction from the Council, this issue created a lot of discussion by the City Council. No conclusion was arrived at, but the Council suggested that Staff pursue this issue further with this Commission. One member of the Council apparently felt that there were some strong personalities on the View Restoration Commission, who were `beating up' on the rest of the members, intimidating them into submission on this issue. The Commission went on to recollect their discussion of this issue with the Council at the Joint meeting held in January 1995. Commissioner Weisz asked if this Commission should write a letter to the City Council and/or the Mayor their views on the matter. Staff reported that the Council had tabled the issue, saying that both the Planning Commission and the View Restoration Commission should take their `best shot' at the Development Code language, each interpreting how they would like to see it written. The Council would then have a public hearing and make a final determination. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 6, 1995 PAGE 2 110 111 When asked about the progress of the Development Code Revisions, Ms. Petru replied that Staff had been working with the City Attorney for about a month and a half, and hoped to have the review completed by the end of the month. It was anticipated that the final version would be presented to both Commissions in May 1995. Vice Chairman Sweetnam said that the City Council would like this Commission and the Planning Commission to resolve any differences between them regarding the language in the Development Code before presenting the final version to the City Council. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR: Staff noted that the December 1, 1994 Minutes should indicated that both Commissioners Goern and Weisz should be both noted as excused from that meeting. Vice Chairman Sweetnam moved that the Commission accept all of the Minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. The motion passed unanimously. CONTINUED BUSINESS: Chairman Cartwright called for the Staff Report. Planning Administrator Petru stated that the Commission had last considered Development Code Section 17.76. 150 (City Tree Review Permit) at the December 1, 1994 meeting. The purpose of this Code Section was to codify the Council's existing policy regarding Street Tree Permits into the Development Code. Based on recent experience with processing Street Tree Permits, Staff approached the City Council at the March 21, 1995 meeting to get further direction on this particular permit. Based on the input received from the Council, Staff further revised the language and was presenting it to the Commission for further review and additional comments. Previously, there were two levels of Staff review, and then an appeal procedure to this Commission. Now, there was only one level of Staff review and then the appeal to the View Restoration Commission. Consistent with other changes to the Code, appeal to the City Council was also included. The other change made in the Code was a distinction between "official" city street trees, i.e. , ones that have been planted by the city or the county as distinguished from "unofficial" or "private" street trees that have been planted by private landowners within the public right-of-way over the years. Staff has found many times that the people have removed the city trees and have replaced them with a variety of foliage, some of which have reached tremendous size and height. To perpetuate the idea of a 'good neighbor policy' , if an official city tree was blocking a view the city will perform a view analysis and assume the costs for the removal or trimming. However, if there are private trees/foliage, there would still be no fee for VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 6, 1995 PAGE 3 411 110 the city to conduct the view analysis, but if the trees were removed or pruned to restore the view, the applicant would have to pay all costs associated with this activity. The general premise would be to remove the trees rather than the City taking on the burden of having to maintain them on an annual basis. However, if the person living next to the foliage was willing to maintain the trees themselves, the city would be willing to enter into some type of covenant or agreement with those landowners in that case. Commissioner Goern asked what would happen if the people maintaining that foliage moved away. Staff answered that the covenant is recorded against the deed to the property and runs with the land, regardless of ownership. Chairman Cartwright asked if it was possible to distinguish between official city trees/foliage and those which have been planted by a private citizen on city property. Ms. Petru said that it was usually quite obvious which trees have been planted by the city or county due to the repetition of species involved in the planting. An isolated plant/tree of a different species was more likely to have been planted by a private individual. Staff clarified that currently, an applicant was required to pay a street tree permit application fee, as well as the cost for trimming or removal, regardless whether the foliage was an official city tree or not. In answer to a question, Staff stated that there seems to be more "unofficial" foliage rather than "official" in the city. Vice Chairman Sweetnam asked that on Page 2 of the Resolution, under Section 3 in the last sentence the word "there" should be spelled, "their. " And then in Section 5 in the first sentence the word, "under" should be changed and Staff recommended the word, "would. " Staff agreed to make the corrections. Chairman Cartwright moved to adopt VRC Resolution No. 95-1, seconded by Commissioner Black and passed unanimously. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS: Vice Chairman Sweetnam asked that the Covenant to Protect Views should be put on the next agenda, so that the difference between this Commission and the Planning Commission on this issue could be resolved. Planning Administrator Petru noted that the revisions to the View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance should be completed in time for inclusion on the April 20, 1995 meeting agenda. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 6, 1995 PAGE 4 • Commissioner Boudreau asked about the disposition of the volumes of material she had accrued from the previous meetings of the Commission. Ms. Petru suggested that Ms. Boudreau could give the material to the Staff for review in case there are any items which Staff did not have in the City files, particularly background material. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE: Chairman Cartwright noted that there was no one in the audience. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Cartwright asked for a motion of Adjournment. Vice Chairman Sweetnam so moved, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. The motion passed by acclamation and the meeting was adjourned at 7:40 P.M. (A:VRC#1-VRCMIN4.6) VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 6, 1995 PAGE 5