Loading...
VRC MINS 19990204 APPROVED 111 40 MARCH 4, 1999 1)'‘ VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 1999 The meeting was called to order by Chair Kipper at 7:00 P.M. at Fred Hesse Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Commissioner Cordova. PRESENT: Commissioners Cordova, Drages, Green, Mehlman, Mueller, Vice Chair Sweetnam, and Chair Kipper ABSENT: Commissioners Black, Long, and McBride were excused Also present were the City Council Ad-Hoc Committee consisting of Mayor Pro- Tem Bird and Councilwoman Lyon, Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Project Coordinator Nelson, and Recording Secretary Peterson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Green moved to approve the Agenda as presented, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. Adopted without objection, (7-0). COMMUNITCATIONS Project Coordinator Nelson distributed two items to the Commission: 1) A memorandum from Staff updating the View Application Status Log; and, 2) A memorandum from Commissioner Black regarding the process escalating costs of view restoration/preservation. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF JANUARY 7, 1999 Joe Oliveri 6 Chaparral Lane stated he had received and reviewed the draft copy of the minutes and felt there were some issues discussed at the January 7 meeting that were omitted from the minutes. He requested a copy of the audio tape of the meeting so that he may verify his concerns regarding these omissions. Vice Chair Sweetnam requested Mr. Oliveri make any corrections or comments to the minutes this evening • e Mr. Oliveri responded that he would prefer to wait until Commissioner Long was in attendance before he made his comments. Commission Green asked Mr. Oliveri if it was corrections or omission that he was concerned with and if these were substantial in nature. Mr. Oliveri answered that it was omissions to the minutes he was concerned with and it was his feeling that the omissions should be made part of the record. Chair Kipper suggested that the Commission review the minutes, make their comments, and continue the item to the next meeting. The Commission agreed to this suggestion. Chair Kipper pointed out a typo on page 12 of the minutes. Vice Chair Sweetnam pointed out a typo on page 13. He also felt that on page 15 third paragraph, the words "viewing area" should be changed to "view area". There being no further changes by the Commission, Chair Kipper stated the minutes would be brought back to the next meeting for approval. NEW BUSINESS 2. DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL VIEW RESTORATION AD- HOC COMMITTEE (JR/TN) Director Rojas explained the reasons for the formation of the City Council Ad-Hoc Committee and stated the Committee was at this meeting to get any input or suggestions from the Commission members and public on view restoration and view preservation issues. Councilwoman Lyon stated that she was anxious to get the Commission and public input on this issue. She explained that the City Council needed to make some decisions on the extreme expenditure the City has to make for the view restoration/preservation process. Mayor Pro-Tem Bird explained that it cost every person in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes roughly $6 per year for the view restoration process. He felt view preservation was the costliest process and something needed to happen to make that process better. He stated he would prefer not to go back to the ballot and would like to hear suggestions on how to make the procedures better and help defer some of the cost the city has to pay. He stated that Commissioner McBride had made an excellent presentation to the City Council regarding using a mediation process similar to the one being used for view restoration for the view preservation process. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1999 PAGE 2 0 0 Commissioner Mueller felt that there were many areas that could be addressed and changed allowing the City to save money yet maintain the intent of Proposition M. He felt the major cost of implementing the entire program was the staff time involved in visiting properties and writing reports. He felt the staff reports were exceptional and made the Commissioners job much easier, but wondered if it would be possible to reduce the number and thoroughness of on- site inspections done by staff. He felt the cost of an arborist's opinion could be transferred to the party requesting that opinion, rather than the City. He also suggested an increase in fees for both view restoration and view preservation. applications, making them comparable to the real cost of the application. He commented that it would be better, when there are multiple applicants involved in a project, to charge every applicant the same fee rather than allowing them to split the fee. He felt that if there were three or four applicants involved in one application staff would be spending three or four times more on site visits, pictures, and staff reports. Finally, he felt staff spends a tremendous amount of time on the pre-application process and felt that it may need some review. Commissioner Green agreed that the biggest problem was the fee involved. He wondered if there could be a type of"pay as you go" process implemented. He did not understand why view preservation applications did not adopt this type of procedure as view preservation provides a benefit to the property owner who is having the view brought back. That is directly translated into a positive value in the assessment of their property the day the trees are trimmed. He felt that there may be a way for a view preservation applicant who is successful in getting their view back to go to small claims court to attempt to recover from the foliage owner some part of the fees paid for the process. He felt that fees should also be charged for the appeal of a City Tree Permit. He felt that if the applicant was not satisfied with the way City Staff made a determination on how to trim the trees then pay a fee to appeal this decision to City Council. He commented that initiating a mediation process for view preservation may become difficult for the volunteers involved as it is a very time consuming process. Vice Chair Sweetnam agreed with most of what Commissioners Mueller and Green had said. He did not feel that there should be a large fee charged to an applicant for a view preservation permit. He felt that a pre-application meeting for view preservation would be beneficial. Mayor Pro-Tem Bird understood what the Commissioners were saying and commented that if the City had to hire a staff member on a full time basis to do nothing but mediation, and it was successful, that would be a lot less expensive than what the City is currently implementing. Commissioner Drages asked staff if they had any idea what the cost of staff time was for the pre-application meetings. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1999 PAGE 3 0 0 Project Coordinator Nelson answered that meetings generally last one to two hours plus the noticing and prep time that is involved before the meeting. She estimated staff cost was approximately four to five hundred dollars. Commissioner Drages continued that at this time she felt the pre-application meeting should not have a fee involved with it, however she did feel that view preservation applications should have a fee attached to them. She also felt that if there are more than one applicant the same fee should be charged to all applicants. Commissioner Cordova commented that in the little time she has been on the Commission, she has felt tremendous anger in the applicants and the foliage owners. She liked the idea of hiring a mediator because she felt that no matter what the Commission accomplished there was still a great deal of fighting after it was accomplished. She further felt that something had to be done with the View Restoration Commission. She did not feel certain things were working. She felt that the Commission wasn't very coherent as there was a group that was against cutting trees and a group that was for the view. Commissioner Mehlman also felt a mediator was a good idea and the City staff should not be involved. She felt very strongly that the privacy issue was being ignored in the view restoration/preservation process. Chair Kipper felt the suggestion that multiple applicants pay multiple fees was an excellent idea. She also felt fees for view preservation and city tree review was an excellent idea. She felt that staff put in a great deal of time before pre- application meetings. She would not object to a moderate fee for pre-application meetings, just enough so people take the process seriously. She also would not object to a fee for view preservation. A discussion followed between the Commissioners and staff on the appeal process and appeal fees involved. May Pro-Tem Bird clarified that the City is limited by their fee structure that they can only charge the fee that it actually costs the city to process the application. He reminded the Commission that when an appeal is brought before the City Council there is a law that must stand, and appeals are not usually based on the interpretation of the law. He felt appeals were brought before City Council based on what the appellant thinks is the right thing to do, however the City Council is obligated to uphold the law. Therefore, when an appeal is won the fees are refunded to the appellant because in the City Council's opinion the law was not upheld. Vice Chair Sweetnam stated that Commissioner Black had submitted a letter to the Commission stating her views for the discussion tonight. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1999 PAGE 4 Commissioner Green moved to add Commissioner Black's memorandum as an attachment to the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. It was approved, (7-0). Ken Dyda 5715 Capeswood Drive shared the concerns of everybody with respect to the costs of the process. He felt view restoration and preservation need to be consistent. He further discussed encroachment of foliage into a view frame and whether or not that encroachment was considered significant. He suggested the Commission decide, in a view restoration permit, a view frame and a trimming frame. This will eliminate any arbitrary definition of where foliage should be trimmed and should streamline the job of code enforcement. Martin Dodell 5751 Capeswood Drive reminded everyone that the overwhelming majority of citizens in the City have done a very good job in dealing with their neighbors over view issues. He estimated that only one percent of the citizens in the City were forced to apply for view restoration. He stated he was pleased to hear the comments from the View Restoration Commission as well as the City Council members. Robert Rockoff 5525 Seaside Heights Drive had some suggestions for the pre- application process. He felt that a pre-application meeting should result in a written contract or recorded agreement between the parties at the conclusion of the meeting. He felt with this document the city would no longer be obligated to future arbitration. He felt this would save the City money in staff time and legal fees. Ian Tober 2062 Redondela Drive said that this measure should be returned to the ballot. He felt the measure was poorly written originally and has decayed over the years. This time, he would like to see on the ballot arguments for and against the proposition and a fiscal impact statement. Walter Marshall 28817 Cedarbluff Drive stated that view restoration appeals are very costly to appeal to the City Council as it involves a complete reexamination of all relevant facts. He encouraged the City Council to continue to try save money on appeals. He felt the City Council could retain the authority for the process of accepting appeals based upon a View Restoration Commission error in interpretation of the Ordinance or proven abuse of some type. However, if an appellant appeals because he felt it was a poor analysis the appeal would be returned to the View Restoration Commission to be heard. Ann McNeeley 5747 WiIdbriar Drive felt it was clear the City intended the same criteria be used for view restoration and view preservation. However, in practice this has often not been the case. She felt the misinterpretation of the criteria cost the city money and should be rectified. Martin Plost 29112 Oceanridge Drive commented that there is a detailed law on the books on how to go about settling disputes between neighbors regarding VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1999 PAGE 5 0 0 view restoration and preservation. He encouraged the Commission and City Council to uphold the law that is on the books. The Commission discussed making the view restoration and view preservation process the same. Commissioner Green discussed the use of a benchmark as a guideline for measurement rather than a rigid standard. He felt that if you use a rigid standard for foliage that has grown into the area after the restoration process then perhaps you end up ordering trimming of trees that do not significantly impair views in the view frame. He felt it made sense to give staff some discretion in determining the viewing area for view restoration as a starting point for significant view impairment in view preservation. He further felt that the privacy and shade criteria used for view restoration should not apply to view preservation as the privacy and shade gained from the foliage were essentially gained illegally through foliage that was grown in violation of proposition M. Chair Kipper added that it is all well and good to say that people should have trimmed their trees in 1989, but if there was already a mature tree in place that could not be topped without destroying it, then there should be considerations of privacy, ambiance, and shade when discussing view preservation. She felt there was still an attitude that people planted trees to block views and of course that isn't true. Commissioner Mueller felt the Commission had gone a long way in asking staff for a list of recommended list of replacement trees that provide shade, privacy, and other features. He felt the Guidelines are very clear in that shade is protected in the case of providing replacement trees. He felt that privacy was the only consideration addressed in the Guidelines for preserving trees already there. A lengthy discussion followed regarding the established procedures for view restoration and view preservation. Mayor Pro-Tem Bird summarized that he has heard, with a couple of exceptions, that some type of fee should be charged for view preservation. He thanked the Commission and the audience for their input, and if anyone had any further suggestions, as a result of the discussion tonight, on some type of process to be used to encourage applicants and foliage owners to sit down and work out their disagreements to please write them down and submit it to the Ad-Hoc Committee. Mayor Pro-Tem Bird and Commission Lyon left the meeting at this point Director Rojas informed the Commission that at the next City Council meeting there was an item on the Agenda referring to adding a mediation process for view preservation. He commented that if the City Council felt it was worthwhile to VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1999 PAGE 6 0 0 have the mediation process, they will direct the View Restoration Commission to amend the Guidelines. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to recommend to the City Council that the View Restoration Commission supports Commissioner McBride's suggestion of adding a mediation process to view preservation before any preliminary determination is made by staff, seconded by Commissioner Drages. There being no objection, it was so ordered. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Chair Kipper questioned the manner in which the View Restoration Commission was conducting their public hearings. She did not feel the Commission was following the Guidelines in this matter and requested a discussion be added to the next agenda. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Green moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. The meeting was duly adjourned at 9:10 P.M. to Thursday, March 4, 1999. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1999 PAGE 7