Loading...
VRC MINS 19991202 APPROVED AUGUST 3, 2000 VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING December 2, 1999 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Long at 7:01 P.M. at Fred Hesse Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Project Coordinator E. Ursu. Present: Commissioners Black, Drages, Cordova, Mehlman, Vice Chair Sweetnam, and Chairman Long. Absent: Commissioners Green, McBride, and Mueller were excused. Also present were Project Coordinator Nelson, Project Coordinator E. Ursu, and Recording Secretary R. Ursu. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to approve the Agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Black. There being no objection, the agenda was approved. COMMUNICATIONS Project Coordinator E. Ursu distributed and briefly discussed several items of communication with the Commission: 1) The December 1999 View Restoration Commission Calendar; and, 2) A copy of the December 2, 1999 updated View Applications Status Log. Chairman Long raised the issue of scheduling future View Restoration Commission Hearings, stating that the number of hearings has decreased, and wanted to clarify the status of the new applications that have gone through the pre-application process, so that the Commission knows when to expect public VRC hearings. Project Coordinator Nelson responded, stating that the decrease in hearings is due to the success of the pre-application meeting process. She explained that after the pre- application meetings are held, the parties either reach a private agreement, or the applicant's file a View Restoration Permit, and the View Restoration Commission hears the case. She then discussed the resolution of the court case regarding Mr. Echevarrieta. Project Coordinator Nelson further stated that the City Attorney was proceeding and will start processing the abatements on the other View Restoration Cases where action is necessary. Chairman Long summarized the case and stated that the Court upheld the View Restoration Ordinance. • 0 Vice Chair Sweetnam asked about the status of View Restoration Permit No. 22, which was originally filed in 1990. Project Coordinator Nelson explained that this case was going to be processed under the current View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines and Procedures, which were adopted in February 1998. She stated that Staff sent notices to the nine original applicants asking them to respond if they were still interested in pursuing the case through View Restoration. She further stated that Staff had received responses from eight of the nine applicants, all of whom had requested to be named as applicants on this Permit, thus; Staff will begin to schedule pre-application meetings with the applicants and foliage owners. Commissioner Drages inquired about the status of View Restoration Permits No.'s 41 and 65. Project Coordinator E. Ursu responded, stating that the foliage owner, Dr. Ebrahimi, had not done the required maintenance trimming, and has no intention of completing the trimming until he knew the outcome of the Echevarrieta Court case. The Commission discussed the updates to the View Applications Status Log summary. Chairman Long requested a process for dormant cases, where Staff would send the applicants' a letter stating that the applications will be closed unless there is action taken by the applicants within a specified time period. Commissioner Black stated that there should be specific expiration dates. Project Coordinator Nelson stated that typically Staff allows 60 days as the specified time period. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 2, 1999 Vice Chair Sweetnam pointed out an error regarding the outcome of the vote on page 6 of the minutes. Chairman Long stated that the word "modified" should be changed to "adopted" in the last sentence of the paragraph. Commissioner Cordova moved to adopt the minutes as amended, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. Approved, (4-0-2) with Commissioner Mehlman abstaining as she was recused, and Commissioner Black abstaining, as she was not at the September 2, 1999 meeting. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 2,1999 Page 2 of 5 CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. MINUTES OF JUNE 3, 1999 Chairman Long moved to suspend the rules to allow approval of the Minutes by a majority vote, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. Approved, (6-0). Commissioner Black moved to approve the June 3, 1999 Minutes, seconded by Commissioner Drages. Approved, (3-0-3) with Vice Chair Sweetnam abstaining as he was recused, and Commissioner Cordova and Chairman Long abstaining, as they were not at the June 3, 1999 meeting. NEW BUSINESS: NONE ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Project Coordinator E. Ursu discussed a pending View Restoration Application (VRP No. 81) that may be placed on the next agenda. Chairman Long requested that an orientation and review of the Guidelines and Procedures be discussed, and the Brown Act be presented by the City Attorney, after the new Commission is seated. Project Coordinator Nelson stated that she could schedule the City Attorney to discuss the Brown Act Summary, and perhaps at the same time, a general overview of the Guidelines and pre-application process could occur. Vice Chair Sweetnam asked Staff about the status of the review of the draft revisions to the Guidelines by the City Council. Project Coordinator Nelson responded, stating that tentatively, the Council may conduct a public hearing in either late January or early February, to discuss the Guidelines. Commissioner Black clarified that after the Council reviews the Guidelines the Commission would have an opportunity to review them. Commissioner Drages asked for feedback about holding pre-application meetings at the applicant's home. Commissioner Cordova stated that she thought the Commission's role was to be one of neutrality during pre-application meetings. Chairman Long stated that initially the pre-application meeting process was not expected to solve as many cases as it has. He further stated that it would be helpful to actually be able to see the site when discussing the case with the applicants and foliage owners. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 1999 Page 3 of 5 Commissioner Black stated that during View Preservation Permit No. 9, it was helpful for the parties, Staff, and the Commission to visit the site. Chairman Long stated that perhaps visiting the site during a pre-application meeting should be offered as an option to the parties, and should be discussed on a future agenda. Project Coordinator Nelson responded, stating that this has been offered to the parties during prior pre-application meetings. She further stated that Staff has begun visiting sites when necessary in order to draft agreements for the parties. Chairman Long stated that in some instances it may be beneficial to have two rooms available for the pre-application meetings. Project Coordinator E. Ursu felt that the pre-application meetings should begin with the parties together in one room, then if necessary, Staff and the Commissioner would first meet with the applicants, then separately with the foliage owners. Chairman Long stated that the parties should understand that the applicant's and foliage owner's typically want different things and more typically, if the case is heard by the Commission, neither request is fully satisfied. Commissioner Black observed from her experience, that when the applicant offers to pay for the trimming, usually the parties reach an agreement. Commissioner Mehlman stated that the meetings should continue to be customized on a case by case basis, since prior pre-application meetings have been successful. She felt that it is much easier to be impartial when the meetings are held at the City and not on the applicant's property. She further stated that if the parties feel that the process is not impartial then there will be more resistance. Chairman Long agreed and raised the question, to what extent should the Commission be seeking input from the applicant and foliage owner? Commissioner Drages stated that if pre-application meetings were held at the applicant's home, then it would be easier to understand the extent of the view impairment and clarify what the parties are discussing. Project Coordinator E. Ursu stated that in some pre-application meetings, it is beneficial for Staff to remain neutral, and therefore; may not be necessary to have all of the details that one would have when looking at the view from the physical site. He further stated, in other cases, when the details of foliage placement and height may be in question, it makes sense for the parties to meet at the physical site. He felt that the most important factor during a pre-application meeting is that the parties agree to work together to resolve the situation. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 1999 Page 4 of 5 0 0 Project Coordinator Nelson stated that it was not Staffs role during pre-application meetings to decide whether or not the applicant's view is significantly impaired, but rather to rely on the parties input to help in the mediation process. Chairman Long stated that it was imperative that Staff and the Commission identify the points that may be preventing compromise during pre-application meetings, then attempt to resolve those points. He further stated that it is important for the Commission and Staff to discuss the best way to achieve these goals. Project Coordinator E. Ursu discussed a Planning seminar about mediation he attended, and was pleasantly surprised to find that the methods raised by the speaker were methods that Staff had already implemented during pre-application meetings and are part of the pre-application meeting guidelines. Vice Chair Sweetnam stated that he agreed with Commissioner Mehlman that the pre- application meeting process already in place seems to work. He further stated that it is best when the parties meet at the City prior to a site visit, then if necessary, go to the physical site. He further stated, based on the last six months, it appears that the workload of attending pre-application meetings is increasing. Chairman Long requested that, in as much as the pre-application meetings have been successful and have become the focus of Staffs and Commission's efforts, Staff should report on the procedures used during the mediation process to the Commission. He further suggested that the City Council be notified of the View Restoration Commission's changing roles in order to appropriately consider and select future Commission members. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Cordova. The meeting was duly adjourned at 8:02 p.m. to Thursday, February 3, 2000 at Hesse Park. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 1999 Page 5 of 5