VRC MINS 20000601 APPROVED
JUL 6 2000
VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
June 1, 2000
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Alberio at 7:05 p.m. at Fred Hesse
Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed,
led by Commissioner Dyda.
Present: Commissioners Drages, Dyda, Franklin, Iseda, Monks, Simmons, Vice
Chairman Slayden, and Chairman Alberio.
Absent: Commissioner Weber was excused.
Also present were Project Coordinator Nelson, Project Coordinator E. Ursu, City
Attorney Carol Lynch, and Recording Secretary R. Ursu.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Dyda moved to approve the Agenda as presented, seconded by
Commissioner Drages. There being no objection, the agenda was approved.
COMMUNICATIONS
Deputy City Clerk, Jackie Drasco, swore in the members of the View Restoration
Commission.
Project Coordinator Nelson announced that Commissioner Cordova had resigned from
her position as a View Restoration Commission Alternate. Project Coordinator Nelson
further stated that the Commission will proceed as a body of nine members without a
replacement for the seat vacated by Commissioner Cordova, per the direction of Joel
Rojas, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.
Chairman Alberio requested that the Commission receive a copy of Commissioner
Codova's resignation letter.
Project Coordinator Nelson distributed and briefly discussed several items of
communication with the Commission: 1) The View Restoration Handbook for term 2000-
2002; 2) A copy of the June, 2000 updated View Applications Status Log; and, 3) The
Commissioner's Handbook For The View Restoration Commission, prepared by City
Attorney, Carol Lynch.
Project Coordinator Nelson asked that the Commission review the draft View
Restoration Commission Members list and make any necessary changes. She further
stated that Staff would be ordering business cards and name plates for each
Commissioner.
Chairman Alberio asked for a summary of the court cases pending resolution as listed in
the View Applications Status Log.
City Attorney, Carol Lynch responded, and summarized the events that had occurred in
the court case regarding foliage on Mr. Echevarrieta's property. She stated that she
expects that Mr. Echevarrieta will file a brief by the end of June, 2000. She further
stated that the City Attorney's office has filed motions for summary judgement against
eight foliage owners, whom have not complied with the View Restoration Commission
Resolutions, and that all those motions were granted. City Attorney Lynch concluded,
stating many of those cases are now in compliance.
Chairman Alberio welcomed and congratulated the newly appointed Commissioners.
CONSENT CALENDAR: NONE
CONTINUED BUSINESS: NONE
NEW BUSINESS:
Chairman Alberio moved to appoint Commissioner Slayden as Vice-Chairman,
Seconded by Commissioner Franklin. Approved (8-0).
Project Coordinator Nelson introduced the View Restoration Staff to the Commission.
The Commissioners introduced themselves and summarized their experiences.
Attorney, Carol Lynch, reviewed the Brown Act with the Commission, and answered
Commissioner's questions about the Brown Act.
Project Coordinator Nelson discussed the role of regular and alternate members of the
Commission as described in View Restoration Commission Resolution No. 94-1.
Commissioner Dyda asked if an alternate member has an opportunity to add to the
discussion during deliberation, although the member cannot vote, if there is a full
commission.
Project Coordinator Nelson responded, stating that the only time an alternate can
participate is if they are acting as a voting member, in place of a regular member.
Vice Chairman Slayden asked why there are alternate members on the View
Restoration Commission, whereas, on the Planning Commission and traffic Committee,
there are no alternate members.
Commissioner Dyda responded stating that the Council wanted to ensure that there is
VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES
June 1, 2000
Page 2 of 4
0 0
always a quorum.
The Commission discussed the roles of View Restoration Commission members when
hearing a case.
Project Coordinator Nelson introduced the pre-application process, stating that the
Commissioners will spend a majority of their time serving at pre-application meetings,
instead of at public hearings.
Chairman Alberio asked what the costs of View Restoration and Preservation
Applications were for applicants, in comparison to the City's costs to process an
application.
Project Coordinator Nelson stated that for a View Restoration Application, the applicant
pays $185.00 filing fee, then a trust deposit is set up which is based on the number of
parties involved and the number of trees involved. She further stated that the City
Council has created an Ad Hoc Committee to examine the costs of the program.
Project Coordinator E. Ursu discussed the pre-application meeting process which was
adopted as a part of the February, 1998 revisions to the Guidelines and Procedures for
Restoration and Preservation of Views. He stated that the City has about a 70 to
75 percent success rate in working out agreements between parties. Project
Coordinator E. Ursu further stated that the View Restoration and View Preservation
pre-application meeting processes differed in that, if no agreement is reached at a pre-
application meeting in a View Restoration case, the application is heard by the View
Restoration Commission. In a View Preservation case, the application is decided
administratively by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement and is only
heard by the VRC if there is an appeal filed.
Chairman Alberio asked who usually pays for trimming of foliage in a Pre-Application
meeting.
Project Coordinator E. Ursu responded by stating that this issue is negotiated by
the parties and written into their private agreement.
Chairman Alberio stated that if the property changed hands, the agreement would not
be binding to the new property owner since the agreement between the parties is a
private agreement, whereas if a decision is rendered by the Commission or by the City,
then that decision is binding to the property.
Project Coordinator Nelson stated that parties may record the agreement.
Commissioner Dyda stated that the criteria for trimming and maintenance trimming are
clearly defined in the Guidelines, and that this criteria resolves any unwarranted issues
that either party may raise.
VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES
June 1, 2000
Page 3 of 4
0 e
Project Coordinator E. Ursu stated that the Comission's decision for replacement foliage
is limited by the specifics of the Guidelines, whereas private parties are not limited in
their choices for the number, size, or type of replacement foliage when entering into a
private agreement.
The Commission and Staff discussed the differences between the View Restoration and
View Preservation processes.
ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS:
Project Coordinator E. Ursu stated that View Restoration Application No. 59 will be
placed on the July 6, 2000 Agenda, and View Restoration Permit No. 87 is tentatively
scheduled for the August 3, 2000 meeting.
Project Coordinator E. Ursu stated that approval of the December 3, 1999 VRC Minutes
would also be placed on the August 3, 2000 Agenda instead of the July 6, 2000 Agenda,
since Commissioner Drages, the only incumbent on the Commission that participated in
the December 3, 2000 meeting, is excused from the July 6, 2000 meeting.
Commissioner Franklin requested that the new Commission review the rules and
procedures of the View Restoration Commission as stated in Resolution No. 94-1.
Commissioner Simmons moved to schedule a training session, in order to have a
clearer understanding of the process of View Restoration and Preservation,
seconded by Commissioner Drages. Approved (8-0).
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Dyda moved to adjourn, seconded by Vice Chairman Slayden. The
meeting was duly adjourned at 9:10 p.m. to Thursday, June 8, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. at
City Hall.
VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES
June 1, 2000
Page 4 of 4