Loading...
VRC MINS 19960321 APPROVED • 1 MAY 2, 1996 . CP CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 21, 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 Long PRESENT: Commissioners Black, Gee, Goern, Karmelich, Long, Marshall, Vice Chair Sweetnam, Chair R. Green ABSENT: Commissioners Boudreau (excused) and A. Green Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Bernard, Planning Administrator Petru, Senior Planner Rojas, and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to accept the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Black. Approved, (8-0). COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Marshall distributed a recent newspaper article from the "Los Angeles Times" regarding neighbors trying to resolve tree and view disputes without going to court. Commissioner Black distributed copies of the Proposition M original ballot measure. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of March 7, 1996 In reviewing the draft Minutes of March 7, 1996, on Page 1, Commissioner Gee noted that he was the Commissioner who had asked about the position letter, rather than Commissioner Long. Commissioner Goern stated that on Page 2, paragraph 2, she had asked the question, rather than Commissioner Boudreau. Vice Chair Sweetnam suggested that on Page 3, last paragraph, the word "Commissioner" be changed to "Commissioners". • 0 Vice Chair Sweetnam also felt that on Page 4, the sixth paragraph should be slightly reworded to state the Subcommittee should consist of more than three Commissioners so that the meetings would be public hearings. Commissioner Long noted on Page 5, paragraph 3, the sentence should be corrected to read: "the owner of foliage existing prior to 1989." Commissioner Long pointed out that on Page 5, paragraph 4, the name of one of the dissenting votes was missing. Chair R. Green indicated that he had dissented on the vote. Commissioner Gee moved to approve the minutes, as amended, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. The motion passed without objection, (8-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS, SECTION 17.02.040 Planning Administrator Petru presented the Staff Report on this item to the Commission. Chair R. Green asked Staff if a letter of explanation or a Resolution would be the more appropriate way to communicate to City Council their feelings on the Development Code Revisions. Chair R. Green felt that a Resolution may be redundant, since the Commission had already forwarded its recommendations on the Development Code in the form of a Resolution. Director Bernard stated that, after discussion with the City Manager, he felt the more appropriate avenue for the Commission to take would be a letter, as opposed to a Resolution. Vice Chair Sweetnam stated that the original Proposition M had no provision for appeal of the View Restoration Commission decisions. A change made by City Council would allow View Restoration Commission decisions to be appealable to the City Council, but only on a procedural basis. The final decisions would still come from the View Restoration Commission. Commissioner Marshall noted that the Development Code language stated that any interested party had a right to appeal and the appeal didn't have to be based on a procedural error. Planning Administrator Petru responded that the Code language Commissioner View Restoration Commission Minutes March 21,1996 Page 2 III 0 Marshall was referring to related to Height Variation Permits, and not View Restoration Permits, which had its own appeal procedure. Director Bernard pointed out that the appeal procedure that applies to View Restoration Permits is located at the bottom of page 40 of the draft Development Code, Section 17.02.040, sub-section ii. Chair R. Green asked Staff for confirmation that prior to final adoption of the proposed Development Code, the City Attorney would check the language to make sure it was consistent with Proposition M. Director Bernard indicated that the City Attorney had already reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations and has not indicated that they are contrary to the intent of Proposition M. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the View Restoration Commission to express their concern in a letter that a written opinion should be rendered from the City Attorney prior to City Council adoption of the Development Code. A discussion followed between the Commission and Staff, where the Staff explained the past practices and the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding protected views and the establishment of viewing area. Staff also explained that only views from a residence that is under 16 feet in height is protected, while views from second stories are generally not protected. Chair R. Green agreed with Vice Chair Sweetnam's earlier suggestion that a Sub- committee be formed to draft a position letter to the City Council. Vice Chair Sweetnam reiterated his feelings that the Sub-committee should have more than three members, so that it be an open meeting where the public can attend and provide input. He suggested that the next meeting or two would be just Sub-committee meetings. Chair R. Green volunteered to be on the Sub-committee, as well as Commissioners Long, Gee and Vice Chair Sweetnam. Director Bernard indicated that a Staff member and Recording Secretary will be made available for the meetings. View Restoration Commission Minutes March 21,1996 Page 3 Ill ID NEW BUSINESS 3. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION RULES AND PROCEDURES (V.R.C. RESOLUTION NO. 94-1). In reviewing V.R.C. Resolution 94-1, Commissioner Black noted that throughout the document 'View Restoration Committee" should be 'View Restoration Commission". Vice Chair Sweetnam pointed out that the last paragraph on Page 1 clarified what constitutes a quorum. Commissioner Gee was unclear on the procedure of alternate members and how they are chosen if a Commissioner is absent while hearing a view restoration case. Planning Administrator Petru explained it is on a rotating basis as each case arises. Staff will keep tract of the rotation. Chair R. Green asked Staff to explain the procedure for site visits. Planning Administrator Petru responded that a Staff Report, which would be delivered to the commission 30 days in advance of the hearing, would include the name, address, and phone number of all foliage owners and applicants. A notice would be sent to applicants and foliage owners informing them when the meeting is scheduled and that members of the View Restoration Commission would be visiting and when to expect them. Ms. Petru explained that the Commissioners could go independently or in groups of two or three to visit the properties involved in the case. Commissioner Long asked if there were any guidelines as to the appropriate time of day for site visits. Vice Chair Sweetnam noted that daylight hours were best, even if the case involved a city light view, since it was easy to imagine what the lights would look like at night. Commissioner Karmelich asked if weekends were the best time to conduct site visits. Planning Administrator Petru answered that weekends were the time when most people were home. Commissioner Marshall asked if the Commissioners visited the applicant's property. Planning Administrator Petru responded that, in each case, all Commissioners voting on the case will need to visit the applicant's property. There are also provisions to visit View Restoration Commission Minutes March 21,1996 Page 4 • • the foliage owner's property, if the foliage owner specifically requests that their property be visited by the Commission. In response to a question from Commissioner Karmelich, Planning Administrator Petru explained the existing fee schedule for View Restoration Permits and the proposed modified flat fee/trust deposit system recommended by the Commission, that will be presented to the City Council shortly after the Development Code Revisions are adopted. Commissioner Long asked what the time table was looking like for applications to be presented to the Commission. Planning Administrator Petru felt that once the City Council adopted the Development Code and the new View Restoration Permit Guidelines, cases could be heard almost immediately, because of the backlog of cases that were put into suspension in 1991. Once the backlog is completed, then the Commission would begin hearing new cases. Ms. Petru also noted that there are approximately 27 old cases on hold, and that no new cases had been accepted since 1991. However, she noted that there was a very extensive interested parties list. Vice Chair Sweetnam felt that no changes were needed to Resolution 94-1 other than changing "Committee" to "Commission". By acclamation of the Commission, the item is continued to May 2, 1996 to allow Staff time to revise the Resolution. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Planning Administrator Petru explained the City Tree Review Permit policy in regards to trees in the public right-of-way or trees on City property. City Council has directed Staff to use the proposed Development Code language as a policy in the interim period until the Development Code is adopted. She explained that under the new policy, Staff decisions are appealable to the View Restoration Commission. She went on to indicate that a recent Staff decision was likely to be appealed and would be scheduled for a future agenda. Director Bernard indicated that if there is an appeal, Staff will prepare a Staff Report to the View Restoration Commission. Vice Chair Sweetnam requested that the Staff Report be provided to the Commission 30 days in advance of the hearing to allow ample time for site visits. View Restoration Commission Minutes March 21,1996 Page 5 r • • Chair R. Green requested a copy of the City Tree Review Policy, as soon as it was available. Director Bernard provided his farewell comments to the Commission and expressed his esteem for the work of the View Restoration Commission, and his gratitude for the support of his Staff during the last three years. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to adjourn the meeting, which was seconded by Commissioner Gee. The Regular meeting was duly adjourned at 8:40 P.M. to May 2, 1996. The Sub-committee meeting was adjourned toThursday, April 4, 1996 at Hesse Park, 7:00 P.M. N:IGROUPIPLANNINGIVRC196VDMN3.21 View Restoration Commission Minutes March 21, 1996 Page 6