VRC MINS 19960502 APPROVED
• 0 JULY 13, 1996
c-P
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 2, 1996
The meeting was called to order by Chair R. Green at 7:03 P.M. at Hesse Park
Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed,
led by Commissioner Goern.
PRESENT: View Restoration Commissioners Boudreau, Goern, A.
Green, Karmelich, Long, Marshall, Vice Chair Sweetnam,
Chair R. Green
ABSENT: Commissioners Black and Gee were excused
Also present were Senior Planner Rojas and Recording Secretary Peterson
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to accept the agenda, as presented, seconded by
Commissioner Marshall. Approved, (8-0).
COMMUNICATIONS
Vice Chair Sweetnam informed the Commission that the Rancho Palos Verdes Council
of Homeowner Associations is working on a Resolution to the City Council protesting
the City's ability to grant height variations that block views when neighbors protest.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
1. MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 1996
In reviewing the draft minutes of March 21, 1996, Chair R. Green noted that on page 3
he had asked Staff to confirm that the City Attorney would check the language of the
proposed Development Code.
Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to approve the minutes, as amended, seconded by
Commissioner Boudreau. Approved without objection, (8-0).
0 •
CONTINUED BUSINESS
2. DISCUSSION OF VIEW RESTORATION POSITION LETTER TO CITY
COUNCIL.
Chair R. Green began the discussion by summarizing to the Commission how the sub-
committee determined the contents and developed the position letter to City Council.
Commissioner Marshall expressed his concerns over the proposed definition of
"viewing area" and "best and most important view".
Commissioner Long responded that the purpose of the letter was not to identify
problems in the proposed Development Code Amendments, but to identify areas where
the Commission felt a meeting with the Planning Commission would allow for some
modifications in the proposed Development Code so they can operate more effectively.
Chair R. Green stressed that the View Restoration Commission is not charged with the
responsibility of analyzing or commenting on how the City Council interprets
Proposition M. However, commenting on how the proposed changes affect the
Commission's ability to operate and carry out their function is entirely appropriate.
Commissioner Goern asked whether there was time for the View Restoration
Commission to confer with the Planning Commission prior to the proposed
Development Code Amendments being approved by the City Council.
Vice Chair Sweetnam responded that at the last sub-committee meeting they had
discussed whether they should call a special meeting of the View Restoration
Commission for an earlier date to discuss the draft letter. After conferring with Staff,
the sub-committee reached a consensus that there would be time for the City Council to
review their letter and meet with the Planning Commission before the City Council
made a decision on the Ordinance.
Commissioner Boudreau requested that the Commission read the draft letter aloud
paragraph by paragraph so all Commissioners would have a complete understanding of
the contents of the letter.
Senior Planner Rojas clarified for the Commission that the letter should be referencing
Chapter 17.02 rather than Chapter 17.
View Restoration Commission Minutes
May 2, 1996
Page 2
•
After discussion of paragraph one of the draft letter the Commission agreed to change
the wording of the second sentence to read "The View Restoration Commission
believes it is necessary that a further meeting between it and the Planning Commission
to determine further adjustments to Chapter 17.02 of the Development Code are
necessary to enhance the effectiveness of both Commissions in implementing
Proposition M."
Commissioner Marshall requested an explanation as to the difference between the
Planning Commission and the View Restoration Commission in regards to viewing
areas and view blockage.
Vice Chair Sweetnam responded that the Planning Commission deals with structures
and the blockage of views by structures. The View Restoration Commission deals with
blockage of views by foliage. The Planning Commission is using a different definition
and interpretation of viewing area than the View Restoration Commission is.
Commissioner A. Green added that the View Restoration Commission is an offshoot of
the Planning Commission existing temporarily to deal with the one issue of foliage.
Therefore, the View Restoration Commission is, in effect for this one issue, the
Planning Commission.
Senior Planner Rojas explained that the Planning Commission, through its actions,
could also deal with the issue of foliage. In hearing an application for a development
permit the Planning Commission can place conditions on the approval, if applicable,
that includes the trimming of foliage to restore or maintain views.
Discussion followed on paragraph 2 of the draft letter. It was agreed to modify the first
sentence by dividing it into two sentences to make their meaning clearer. The
Commission changed the last sentence to read, "The Commission feels that such a
limitation will frustrate the view restoration expectations of those applicants."
Commissioner Marshall felt the word "definition" in the last sentence of paragraph 2
was used incorrectly.
Regarding the third and fourth paragraphs, the Commission restated and clarified the
paragraph. Commissioner Long suggested that the words "view" and "viewing area" be
in quotation marks.
View Restoration Commission Minutes
May 2, 1996
Page 3
0 0
Commissioner Marshall raised the question as to how Staff was involved in the view
restoration application process. After a lengthy discussion, Vice Chair Sweetnam
requested that Senior Planner Rojas bring some old staff reports to the next meeting for
the View Restoration Commission to review to get a better understanding of how the
process works.
The Commission reworded the last three paragraphs of the letter to simplify it and
clarify their point.
Commissioner A. Green explained the diagrams on the last page of the letter to the
Commissioners.
Commissioner Long moved to direct Chair R. Green to modify the letter, as
discussed, and send it to the City Council as soon as possible, seconded by
Commissioner Karmelich. Approved by roll call vote, (8-0).
3. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION RULES AND PROCEDURES.
Chair R. Green asked Senior Planner Rojas what the time table on the rules and
procedures was and what was on the calendar for the next meeting on May 16, 1996.
Senior Planner Rojas responded that there were no scheduled items on the agenda for
the next meeting, but if the Commission wished, they could continue this item to the
next meeting's agenda.
Commissioner Long moved to continue the item to the next meeting of the
Commission on May 16, 1996, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. Approved,
(8-0).
ADJOURNMENT
Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to adjourn the meeting, which was seconded by
Commissioner Boudreau. The meeting was duly adjourned at 9:12 P.M. to
Thursday, May 16, 1996 at Hesse Park, 7:00 P.M.
N:\GROUP\PLANNING\VRC\96VDMN5.2
View Restoration Commission Minutes
May 2, 1996
Page 4