Loading...
VRC SUB COM MINS 19960418 APPROVED 0 0 JULY 18, 1996 ' -n' CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 18, 1996 The meeting was called to order by 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Vice Chairman Sweetnam. PRESENT: Subcommittee Members Commissioners Gee, Long, Vice Chair Sweetnam, Chairman R. Green Also present was Commissioner A. Green. Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Petru, Senior Planner Rojas, and Recording Secretary Kennerson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chairman Sweetnam moved to accept the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Long. Approved (4-0). DISCUSSION OF VIEW RESTORATION POSITION LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL The discussion began by Chairman Green's requesting that the Sub-committee review his draft letter to the City Council and Commissioner A. Green's memorandum on defining "viewing area." Commissioner Long felt that Chairman Green's draft letter should include a discussion of the reference to "vacant" because it would arbitrarily exclude views taken from outside the structure. Commissioner Long continued to say that Commissioner A. Green's memorandum contained some good discussion of precisely what is wrong with "the same view" concept. He said that the Commission might want to combine Chairman Green's letter with some of Commissioner A. Green's discussion on this topic. . • Commissioner Sweetnam stated that, as part of the Staff Report that is prepared for each case, Staff would present it's interpretation of where the viewing area is and then the Commission would make its own interpretation. Commissioner Long agreed but stated that the Commission must rely on the language of the Code in making its own interpretation. If the language is not clear, the Commission may become bogged down in trying to determine where the viewing area should be for a particular case. The key issue was what degree of judgement the Commission was going to be given in making these determinations. Commissioner A. Green stated that Commissioner Long's comments made an excellent point. He noted that the definition of"view" was very broad and the definition of "viewing area" was very narrow. Therefore, the two terms were in conflict with one another. If the City Council wanted only one best view, then the City Council would have to change the wording in the definition of this term. Commissioner Long suggested that if this was the Council's intent, the definition of view should specify that it extends in a single horizontal direction to a maximum arc of a specified number of degrees. Commissioner Sweetnam commented that the conversation is going back to the debate the Commission had when putting together the Guidelines and that is why the Commission agreed on using a much broader definition of"viewing area." Commissioner Long suggested that the position letter should state that, in order to do its job effectively, the Commission should be given broader discretion to apply judgement as to what constituted the best view, without having to consider arbitrary issues like direction, whether it is in the structure or out, or whether the definition of the "viewing area" is independent of, or somewhat different from, the "view." Commissioner A. Green stated that he believed that he believed that the City Council had already passed judgement on the issue addressed by Commissioner Long. He continued to say that the City Council had not expressed an interest in making the guidelines broader. He added that he was interested in ensuring that the Commission's decisions were consistent. Commissioner Long pointed out that he was not solely concerned with consistency. He further stated that he does not want to hold out for consistency as a goal which could never be achieved. View Restoration Commission Subcommittee Minutes April 18, 1996 Page 2 0 0 Chairman Green responded that the City Council had already decided on the philosophical approach that it wanted the Commission to follow. Commissioner Long pointed out that he did not want to suggest that what the Commission was recommending would detract from consistency. He continued to say that he did not think that any Commission would always make consistent determinations, no matter how rigidly the terms were defined. Chairman Green responded that he thought because of the number of members on the Commission, the results would be similar over a long period of time. Commissioner Long agreed, saying that there will always be . He also said that if the Commission felt the issue of consistency had been decided, then the Commission should address the issue of vagueness of definitions. Chairman Green stated that the goal of the Commission was to analyze the proposed changes to the Development Code would as it would impact the function of the View Restoration Commission. Commission A. Green commented that rather than having the City Council choose between the recommendations forwarded to them by the previous Commissions, the goal was to open up a dialogue with the City Council on the issues of concern. Commissioner Long suggested that a paragraph be added to the end of the position paper suggesting a "workshop" to consider changes to this portion of the Development Code. He added that perhaps a joint workshop between the Planning Commission and View Restoration Commission would be useful. Commissioner A. Green agreed with Commissioner Long's suggestion. He noted that the View Restoration Commission's point of view was put together over a year ago, while the Planning Commission's point of view was formulated just last fall, that there was additional information that had been received between the time of the two Commissions submitting their points of view, and, therefore, the Planning Commission had updated information which the View Restoration Commission did not have at the time that it formulated its recommendations on the Development Code Revisions. Commissioner Gee commented that the position paper should discuss the issues clearly enough so that the City Council and subsequently the Planning Commission would understand why the VRC wanted the workshop. View Restoration Commission Subcommittee Minutes April 18, 1996 Page 3 0 0 Commissioner Sweetnam asked Staff if it was realistic to have a workshop before the end of the City Council's review of the Development Code Revisions. Director Petru responded by saying it would be possible, however, it would be important to provide the issue of getting the Commission's position paper to the Council in a timely manner. . Commissioner Gee suggested that a subcommittee from each body could be appointed to attend the workshop. Commissioner Long suggested that the joint workshop would be more successful if it was attend by the full membership of each Commission. Commissioner Sweetnam said that the City Council received two different recommendations on Chapter 17.02. What the VRC was proposing was to meet with the Planning Commission, integrate the two documents and present one document to the City Council that the VRC and Planning Commission agree on. Vice Chairman Sweetnam asked Staff what would be the appropriate time table for forwarding the position paper to the City Council. Director Petru stated that the timing would be tight because the first opportunity to bring back the position paper to the full Commission was on May 2, 1996. However, that was the day that the agenda packets go out for the next City Council meeting on May 7, 1996. Commissioner Sweetnam asked Staff if it would be appropriate for the Chair of the VC to approach the Chair of the Planning Commission. Director Petru responded that she thought it was appropriate for the two chairs to speak about the concept of a joint workshop. However, since both Commissioners have forwarded recommendations and City Council is currently considering the Development Code, it would not be appropriate to arrange a workshop without Council authorization. The Sub-committee continued to review the draft position letter and provided Chair Green with suggestions on proposed modifications. Commissioner Long moved to continue to present the revised position paper to View Restoration Commission Subcommittee Minutes April 18, 1996 Page 4 w 0 • the entire Commission at the next regular meeting of May 2, 1996, seconded by Vice Chairman Sweetnam. Approved (4-0). ADJOURNMENT Vice Chairman Sweetnam moved to adjourn the meeting, which was seconded by Commissioner Gee. The Subcommittee was duly adjourned at 8:20 pm to Thursday, May 2, 1996, 7:00 p.m. at Hesse Park. N:\GROUP\PLANNING\VRC\96VRCMN4.18 View Restoration Commission Subcommittee Minutes April 18, 1996 Page 5