Loading...
VRC SUB COM MINS 19960404 APPROVED 5/16/96 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 4, 1996 The meeting was called to order by Chair R. Green at 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Commissioner Karmelich. PRESENT: Commissioners Long, Gee, Vice Chair Sweetnam, Chair R. Green Also present were Commissioners A. Green and Karmelich, Planning Administrator Petru, and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to accept the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Gee. Approved, (4-0). DISCUSSION OF VIEW RESTORATION POSITION LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL Chair R. Green began the discussion by stating he did not want the letter to contain the same position and arguments that had been included in the Resolution the Commission had previously sent to the Council regarding the proposed Development Code Revisions. He further stressed the Subcommittee needed to be reasonably careful about the tone and direction of the letter. Commissioner Long suggested that the Subcommittee compare Proposition M to the Draft Development Code changes and look for inconsistencies. He felt that the purpose of the letter should be to express the Commission's evaluation as to whether these changes enhance or impair the original intent of Proposition M. Chair R. Green was concerned that what they did as a Subcommittee stayed within the boundaries of the View Restoration Commission's mandate. Commissioner Gee agreed and suggested that they narrow the scope of the letter to the specific departures from Proposition M, from the Commission's point of view. Vice Chair Sweetnam pointed out that the word "vacant" appeared in two places in the Draft Development Code changes, page 31 and page 35. He stated that inserting the word "vacant" before "lot" did not effectuate or enhance the purposes of the ordinance, since it would not allow views to be taken from the yard and outdoor living areas on developed properties. Instead, he felt that this change impaired the original intent of the ordinance. Chair R. Green thought it would be more effective to quote Proposition M and then quote the Development Code change. Commissioner A. Green pointed out that Proposition M, Section 5 (Amendment) stated the City Council may amend the ordinance following specific procedures and public hearings. He wondered if the View Restoration Commission was not stepping out of bounds in challenging what is going to be a change by the City Council to Proposition M through the normal procedures stated. Commissioner Long responded that the proposed letter was simply presenting the views of the View Restoration Commission as to whether the changes would enhance or impair the purpose of Proposition M. Vice Chair Sweetnam reminded the Subcommittee that its assignment was to draft a letter to the City Council, that would then go back to the whole Commission for review. The Commission as a whole would then decide if the letter was appropriate and should be sent to Council. Chair R. Green suggested that the Subcommittee focus the letter on how the proposed changes in the Development Code would affect the Commission's ability to fulfill its mandate and make sound decisions on View Restoration Permit applications. Commissioner Long agreed with Chair R. Green and, therefore, he felt that the letter should not use the words "enhance" or "impair", but instead concentrate on the issues that would affect the operation of the View Restoration Commission. Following a discussion concerning where a view can be considered on a property with the current Code and how that may be affected or changed, Commissioner Long suggested that the letter comment that the proposed Development Code Revisions appears to require the View Restoration Commission to disregard all outdoor viewing areas, regardless of the proximity to the house. The way viewing area was proposed to be defined will require the Commission to make some difficult and arbitrary determinations, that had nothing to do with the quality of the view from the property involved. Chair R. Green summarized what the Subcommittee had decided should be included in the letter at this point, by stating the letter would address: 1) the definition of viewing area with the insertion of the word "vacant" will require the View Restoration Commission to ignore certain important views outside the structure; and, 2) the Code VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 4,1996 PAGE 2 • • did not provide sufficient information for the Commission to determine if views from several rooms in a residence constituted "the same" view. Commissioner Gee asked if the letter should include specific language from the Proposition. Vice Chair Sweetnam responded that he felt the original language of the Proposition should be included, since the purposes that are spelled out in the ordinance passed by the voters specified: 1) "potential vista points and view lots"; 2) requires "prevention of needless destruction in impairment of these limited vista points and view lots"; and 3) protects , enhances, and perpetuates views available to property owners and visitors. Therefore, when the word "vacant" was inserted before the word "lot", outside views were excluded from consideration, which he felt violated these three stated purposes of Proposition M. Commission Long suggested that the letter question whether the proposed Development Code Revisions are better and will make the View Restoration Commission's operation more efficient and more likely to fulfill the purpose of Proposition M. He felt that requiring the Commission to disregard all outdoor views and requiring it to determine what is considered the "same view" would erode the effectiveness of the Ordinance to restore views that are impaired by foliage. Commissioner A. Green stressed again the ultimate goal of the Commission should be to get to the point where it can hear applications again, which was the main purpose of the Commission. He felt that the Commission should be careful not to get too bogged down in minute details. Chair R. Green reviewed his notes up to this point. One issue was the determination of the best and most important view with the added complexity of determining what constituted the "same view" in a situation of multiple rooms. Another issue was the inability to consider any outside views. Positive points to be included in the letter was the addition of the language "significantly impairing"which gives the Commission more discretion in its decision making. Commissioner Long expressed his concern that the proposed amendments would require the View Restoration Commission to argue over defining "the view" and will cause the Commission to spend an excessive amount of time defining the "viewing area". He felt that these efforts would detract from the Commission's ability to focus on the important role of weighing the view versus the foliage, and will slow down the processing of applications. This was the concern Commissioner Long especially wanted to express in the letter. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 4,1996 PAGE 3 . . A discussion followed between the Commissioners as to the differences between how the Planning Commission and Staff looks at viewing areas and how the View Restoration Commission should look at viewing areas. Commissioner A. Green suggested the Subcommittee include something in the letter regarding the fact that the clearer the Code language can be, the less the decisions of the Commission will be subject to the personal opinions and changing membership of the Commission. In addition, the Subcommittee may wish to discuss how changes in Commission membership may bring about a 180 degree change in point of view on such things as appeals referred back by the City Council. Planning Administrator Petru clarified Staffs interpretation of the term "the same" as it relates to determining the viewing area. The Commissioners agreed that Chair R. Green would prepare the first draft of the letter. However, he would rely on input and assistance from the other members of the Subcommittee via FAX. Commissioner Gee moved to continue the Subcommittee review of the Position Letter to April 18, 1996, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. Approved, (4-0). ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to adjourn the meeting, which was seconded by Commissioner Gee. The Subcommittee meeting was duly adjourned at 8:45 P.M. to Thursday, April 18, 1996 at Hesse Park, 7:00 P.M. N:\GROUP\PLANNING\VRC\96VRCMN4.4 VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 4,1996 PAGE 4