Loading...
VRC MINS 19960307 APPROVED 't MARCH 21, 1996 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 7, 1996 The meeting was called to order by Chair R. Green at 7:05 pm at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed led by Commissioner Gee. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Black, Boudreau, Gee, Goern, A. Green, Karmelich, Long, Marshall, Vice Chair Sweetnam and Chair R. Green ABSENT: NONE Also present were Planning Administrator Petru, Senior Planner Rojas and Recording Secretary Kennerson COMMUNICATION Commissioner Goern distributed a recent newspaper article from the "Montecito Journal" regarding the need to trim large trees regularly for safety purposes. She also distributed a flyer from the Los Angeles County Fire Department regarding the proper distances for brush clearance around single family residences. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF MAY 18, 1995 In reviewing the draft Minutes of May 18, 1995, on page 3, Vice Chair Sweetnam stated that the Commission had decided to allow the Chair to sign the position letter to be sent to the City Council regarding Covenants. He asked that a statement to that effect be included in the Minutes. Commissioner Gee asked if the position letter had ever been sent to the Council. Ms. Petru answered that, to her knowledge, it had not been sent. Chair R. Green asked Ms. Petru, on page 5, if the City Council was going to review the Request for Proposals (RFP) to seek a consultant to assist the City in processing View Restoration Permits. 0 • Ms. Petru said that at the meeting on February 6, 1996, the City Council authorized Staff to proceed with the RFP. She went on to say that the City Attorney had provided her with comments on the document that day and that, once revised, Staff would be sending the RFP to various firms for responses. Commissioner Goern asked, if the City Council did not intend to approve the Development Code until June 1996, did that mean the Commission could not hear View Restoration cases until that time. Ms. Petru answered that the direction Staff had received was not to accept or process new applications until after the Development Code and the revised View Restoration Permit Guidelines had been approved by the City Council . Chair R. Green stated that he thought that the Development Code would not be adopted until after June, and more likely in July, based on the Council's current schedule. He also confirmed that the direction to the Commission was to wait until the Code was adopted before processing any new permit applications. 2. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1, 1996 Vice Chair Sweetnam asked for clarification in the last paragraph of page 3, where there seemed to be a verb missing. Ms. Petru stated that the sentence would be modified to indicated that the Commission and Staff had made an effort to inform the public about the importance of documenting their existing views by submitting photographs to the City. 3. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 1996 On page 2, Vice Chair Sweetnam noted some minor errors. In the second paragraph, in the next to the last line, the word "on" should be changed to "one." Also, in the next paragraph the word "delude," should be "dilute." On page 3, Vice Chair Sweetnam noted that in the second paragraph from the bottom the correct phrase should be "to it's." On page 4, Vice Chair Sweetnam stated that he was not sure if the first sentence in the second paragraph was accurate. Mr. Sweetnam recalled that he had asked if the 1993 Height Variation Guidelines were still current, but could not remember what the reference to "16 feet" was related to. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 2 0 III After some discussion with Vice Chair Sweetnam, Planning Administrator Petru concluded that Staff would change the sentence to read "inquired if the Height Variation Guidelines from August 1993 were still a current version being used by the City and asked if Staff would consider views from the lot as protected viewing areas". Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to approve all three sets of minutes, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. The motion passed without objection, (10-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 4. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS, SECTION 17.02.040 Planning Administrator Petru stated that Staff had not prepared a Staff Report on this item, but indicated that on February 20, 1996, the City Council had discussed this Section of the proposed Development Code Revisions. Staff had placed this item on the agenda since, at the last meeting, the Commission had expressed a desire to discuss the outcome of the Council's review of this Code Section. Vice Chair Sweetnam asked what was Staffs understanding of the Council's direction at the February 20, 1996 meeting. Senior Planner Rojas responded that it was Staffs understanding that the City Council wanted the Planning Commission's recommendations to be incorporated into Section 17.02.040. He went on to say that the "final" draft version of Section 17.02.040 would be brought back to the City Council at the conclusion of their initial review of the Development Code revisions, which was anticipated to be June 1996. For the benefit of the Commissioners who did not attend the Council meeting or watch it on television, Vice Chair Sweetnam noted that the City Council discussed the modifications to this Section of the Code and asked Staff some questions regarding the differences between the View Restoration Commission's recommendations and the Planning Commission's recommendations. Mr. Sweetnam reported that, at that point in the hearing, the City Council asked Chair R. Green and Vice Chair Sweetnam to explain their opinion regarding the definition of"viewing area." Vice Chair Sweetnam felt that the View Restoration Commission's opinion on this point was not well received by some of the Councilmembers. Some Councilmembers expressed the opinion that a view could only be taken from anywhere on a property, if the property was a vacant lot. Once a structures was built on a lot, then views could only be taken from inside the structure. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 3 0 0 Chair R. Green noted, however, that the City Council had modified its previous position on this point, since the Council had agreed to allow the viewing area to include several rooms or zones within the structure, rather than a single fixed point. He went on to say that, regarding the issue of"vacant lot" versus just the term "lot," Councilman McTaggart had clearly articulated his opinion that once a structure was built on the lot, then the location and orientation of the rooms in that structure were the guidepost to use to define the "viewing area." Commissioner Boudreau asked Staff if the City Council could amend Section 17.02.040, without placing it on the ballot. Planning Administrator Petru responded that this Section of the Development Code was adopted by voter referendum (Proposition M). However, the City Council has the ability to amend it, as long as the Council and the City Attorney find that the amendments act to clarify or further the original intent of the Ordinance. Commissioner Boudreau expressed her opinion that the changes the City Council wanted to make to Section 17.02.040 did not further the original intent of the Ordinance, and, in fact, weakened the Code considerably. After a discussion among the Commissioners regarding the City Council's position on the proposed amendments to Section 17.02.040, Commissioner Long suggested that the Commission adopt a Resolution to the City Council containing their position on the Council's proposed changed to the Ordinance. Vice Chair Sweetnam suggested a subcommittee of more than three Commissioners should be appointed to hold public hearings and draft the Resolution. Senior Planner Joel Rojas clarified that this Section would not be considered again by the Council until at least June 1996. Therefore, the Commission had ample time to prepare a Resolution. Commissioner Gee made a motion to continue the item to the March 21, 1996 meeting, and to direct Staff to provide the Commission with a "clean copy" version of the Planning Commission's recommendations on Section 17.02.040. Commissioner Sweetnam seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 4 0 III NEW BUSINESS 5. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING COVENANTS TO PROTECT VIEWS Chair R. Green explained the history of the position letter, the three points raised in the letter and the most important point, which was the lack of due process afforded the foliage owner by the use of the Covenant. He then asked Staff to explain, for the benefit of the newer members on the Commission, how the use of the "Covenants to Protect Views" came about. Planning Administrator Petru explained that there were two primary reasons why the City Council favored the use of this Covenant: 1) the Covenant avoided the need for a property owner to submit photographs to the City documenting their view; and, 2) the Covenant was recorded onto the deed of the property, which provided legal notice of the Code requirements to the property owner and made the Covenant a very useful enforcement tool for Staff. However, Ms. Petru noted that the Commission had objected to the use of Covenants in the past, since it denied the foliage owner the ability to have their case heard by the View Restoration Commission. Commissioner Long stated that he agreed with Staff that the Covenant was an effective enforcement tool. However, he also understood how the Commission would object to the lack of due process afforded to the owner of foliage existing prior to 1989. Commissioner Long made a motion not to send the View Restoration Commission's position letter on Covenants to Protect Views to the City Council, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. The motion passed (7-3), with Commissioner Goern, Vice Chair Sweetnam and Chair R. Green dissenting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Commission Commissioner Boudreau noted that she would be absent from the meeting on March 21, 1996. Chair R. Green requested that its Rules and Procedure be placed on the March 21, 1996 meeting agenda. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 5 ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. The meeting was duly adjourned at 8:13 p.m. to March 21, 1996. N:\GROUP\PLANNING\VRC\VRCMIN3.7 VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 7, 1996 PAGE 6