Loading...
VRC MINS 19901206 111 v/ QP MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DECEMBER 6, 1990 The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m. by Chairman Clark at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT Committeemembers Boudreau, Cartwright, Lorenzen, Quatrochi, Sweetnam, Weisz, Chairman Clark ABSENT Committeemembers Burrage, Eastwood, Murphy Also present were Director of Environmental Services Robert Benard, Senior Planner Carolynn Petru, Associate Planner John Leung, Associate Planner Joel Rojas, Associate Planner Terry Silverman, Assistant City Attorney Deborah Hakman and Recording Secretary Lucile Rogers. COMMUNICATIONS Senior Planner Petru reported that staff and the City Attorney had some concerns regarding the adequacy of the notice given to the foliage owner in Permit Application No. 14; therefore, this application has been postponed to a later meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of November 1, 1990 Committee Member Sweetnam requested the following sentence be added to the final paragraph on page 4: "Member Sweetnam asked the applicants if they intended to withdraw their exclusion of the Monterey pine in the event that it did not require an environmental assessment, and they replied affirmatively. " Committee Member Lorenzen requested the addition of a sentence to the last full paragraph on page 3, as follows: "This benchmark line should be noted on the telephone pole, since the Aleppo pine will grow. " Committee Member Sweetnam moved the minutes of the November 1, 1990 View Restoration Committee meeting be approved as corrected. Committee Member Weisz seconded and the motion passed without objection. 1 VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MEETING December 6, 1990 B. V.R.C. Resolution No. 90- , approving View Restoration Permit No. 4 to trim and remove vegetation at 2410 Daladier. Associate Planner Rojas noted a clerical error had been made at the end of the first full paragraph of V.R.C. Resolution No. 90-5. It should read: " . . . several trees at 2410 Daladier Drive ("Subject Property") , in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") owned by Mr. and Mrs. John Rosenthal ("Property Owners") ; and" Member Lorenzen requested that Exhibit "A" (Conditions of Approval) be revised to indicate that the current Aleppo pine tree height should be noted on the telephone pole. Additionally, she stated that grinding of the tree stump was not necessary and should be removed from the Conditions of Approval. Committee Member Weisz moved that Resolution No. 90- be revised by staff and brought back to the Committee at the January 3, 1991 meeting. The motion was seconded by Member Quatrochi and passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 12: Mr. George F. Bock 27714 Eldena Drive Committee Members Boudreau, Cartwright, Lorenzen, Quatrochi, Sweetnam, Weisz and Clark were eligible to vote on this application. No communication with either the foliage owners or the applicants was reported by Committee Members. Associate Planner Terry Silverman reviewed the Staff Report, noting that the majority of the view from the applicant's property is below the ridgeline of the foliage owner's home and below 16 feet in height, and therefore not subject to the provisions of the View Restoration Ordinance. The original recommendation was to remove only the lowermost significant branch (approximately 4 inch diameter) of the fig tree to restore a portion of the view from the applicant's property. Ms. Silverman reported, however, that staff wishes to modify the recommendation to the following: Revised Recommendation: Remove the lowermost significant branch (approximately 4 inch diameter) of the fig tree to restore a portion of the view of the applicant's property. Trim citrus tree and evergreen pear tree not to exceed 16 feet in height. Photographs were passed around showing the panoramic views from the applicants' dining room and living room, with red lines indicating the ridgeline height of the foliage owner's home and the 16 foot height as measured from the base of the fig tree. It was noted that recent photos show the foliage has grown 2 410 VIEW RESTORATION L MMITTEE MEETING December 6, 1990 considerably since the early photos dated October 1989 and February 1990. Ms. Petru reminded the Committee that the City has procedures for documenting foliage height as of November 1989 and these procedures require submission of photographs to the City with the specified paperwork. These procedures were not followed by the applicants in this case; therefore, the earlier photos cannot be accepted as benchmarks for invoking the maintenance procedures of the Code. Committee Member Weisz moved that the public hearing be opened, Committee Member Cartwright seconded and the motion passed without objection. Applicant Mr. George Bock distributed recent photographs and stated he had never been informed of any procedures for submission of evidence other than what was included in the application packet. He said he agrees in principle with the revised staff recommendation but also wished to state that his application is somewhat unique because of the 15-20 foot difference in elevation between his house and the foliage owner's house. Foliage planted on a slope, particularly the fig tree, significantly impairs his view. He asked the Committee to reconsider certain aspects of the application and findings. First, rather than measuring the 16 feet from the base of the fig tree he asked that it be measured from the pad of the house. In addition, he asked that the orange tree and the evergreen pear tree behind the fig tree also be trimmed to 16 feet from their bases. This would greatly improve the view from their living room, family room and pool area. He said he would like the evergreen pear tree to be trimmed even lower than 16 feet, or be replaced by a smaller species. Mr. Bock added that the oleander hedge has grown since the February photos were taken, from about 3 feet in height to about 6 feet in height, and he believes the CC&R's proscribe hedges that block views. He said they are not trying to have all foliage on the property trimmed, but only the three trees and shrubs that block their view. Committee Member Lorenzen asked if Mr. Bock would accept trimming of the bottom of the fig tree so he could look under it rather than trimming the top. Mr. Bock stated he would not object to that. He said the spirit of Proposition M is to restore views and he understood that property owners must keep their foliage trimmed to heights which do not impair views. Member Weisz explained there is a section of Proposition M and the Code which provides that an applicant for relief from view obstruction may submit to the City photographic evidence of the state of that obstruction as of November 1989. He may later provide evidence to the City that the foliage has grown since that date and request that the City, without involving the View Restoration Committee, enforce the Code to have the foliage owner trim the foliage to the level existing in the earlier photographs. Mr. Bock said he was not aware of that part of Proposition M. 3 410 VIEW RESTORATION MMITTEE MEETING December 6, 1990 The foliage owner, Mr. Ian Tober, asked for clarification of the requirement for site visits by Committee Members, noting that no Members have visited his property. Chairman Clark explained that Committee Members visit the applicant's property but normally do not visit the foliage owner's property unless specifically recommended by staff. Mr. Tober then said the applicant made no effort to contact him regarding the foliage, but did enter his property the night before they moved in and cut down a number of trees which are now being referred to as a hedge. He stated that the certified letter was not received by them, and the signature on the certified mail receipt is not that of his wife. Mr. Tober also stated that the Bocks' lot was not listed as a view lot in the CC&R's or real estate listings. He questioned why staff modified their recommendation at the last minute, adding two trees to be trimmed after stating this would have no effect on view restoration. Committee Member Weisz asked if Mr. Tober objected to trimming of his foliage. Mr. Tober replied he had no objections to trimming providing the guidelines set by the ordinance are followed, i.e. , 16 feet from the base of the tree or the ridgeline, whichever is lower. He stated he wanted a surveyor or perhaps a staff member on site to guarantee the trees are not cut lower than what is set forth in the ordinance. Chairman Clark clarified that the ordinance is silent on where the foliage is measured from, and it is up to the Committee to interpret the application with staff input. Mr. Tober said the staff member who visited his home measured the trees from the base and said that is where the measurement is taken from. In the applicant's rebuttal, Mr. Bock stated he has complied with all the rules for filing an application, including sending two certified letters (one of which was never picked up) , and if he had cut down any trees on the foliage owner's property he probably would not be appearing before the Committee trying to get his view back. He distributed a summary of his presentation to Committee Members. Mr. Tober, in his rebuttal, asserted that Mrs. Bock clearly stated that they cut down and trimmed trees to restore their view, as documented in the Sheriff's Department report distributed to Committee Members. Committee Member Weisz moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Sweetnam and passed without objection. Assistant City Attorney Hakman advised the Committee that all references to the lawsuit are irrelevant for purposes of this application. In answer to a query by Member Cartwright, Ms. Hakman stated that when a staff recommendation is modified after 4 110 VIEW RESTORATION COMMITTEE MEETING December 6, 1990 the original recommendation is issued, if either the applicant or foliage owner feels he needs more time to respond, a continuance may be requested. Committee Member Weisz discussed the problem of how to measure the 16 feet, stating that staff has designated it as being measured from the base of the foliage but a reconsideration is under way by a subcommittee of the VRC which would have a real impact on the decision in this application. Other members said they are in favor of measuring the 16 feet from the pad. Another discussion ensued of code enforcement as related to maintenance of foliage levels at their November 1989 levels (View Preservation) as opposed to View Restoration, which is the function of this Committee. Senior Planner Petru advised that the two parts of the ordinance are explained to anyone who calls the City or comes in to the office with view problems or questions. In addition, the City has mailed out 145 copies of the ordinance to residents who have made inquiries. Member Quatrochi asked about a change in the Fences, Walls and Hedges ordinance from 6 feet to 36 or 42 inches in view areas, subject to 95% light and air. Ms. Hakman replied this applies only to hedges planted subsequent to May 1990. Committee Member Weisz moved adoption of the revised staff recommendation plus the provision that the foliage owner be given the option of trimming the fig tree to 16 feet or cleaning under it so the view is not obstructed. Member Sweetnam initially seconded the motion, but then withdrew his second. The motion died for lack of a second. Committee Member Sweetnam moved that the Committee issue a permit to trim trees no. 1 and no. 16 to 16 feet as measured from the pad, and trim the fig tree at the foliage owner's discretion either out from underneath or down from the top to 16 feet as measured from the pad, in order to restore the view. In the discussion that followed, Member Lorenzen added that if the foliage owner chooses to trim the fig tree from beneath, she would like the other smaller branches on the right fork of the tree trimmed out as well as the large branch. Member Weisz stated he was uneasy about the late changes to the staff recommendation. Attorney Hakman pointed out that her office agreed with the staff determination that the 16 feet should be measured from the base of the foliage. The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. 5 VIEW RESTORATION MMITTEE MEETING December 6, 1990 VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 13: Mr. Ellett Edwards, 1902 Lasita Place; and Mr. Robert Butorac, 1904 Lasita Place Committee Members Boudreau, Cartwright, Lorenzen, Quatrochi, Sweetnam, Weisz and Clark were eligible to vote on this application. No communication with either the foliage owners or the applicants were reported by Committee Members. In response to the Chairman, Director of Environmental Services Benard explained that any conversations between Committee Members and either applicants or foliage owners not disclosed prior to hearing could possibly jeopardize the Committee's decision and the position of the City. Member Cartwright stated he hoped that if staff had any problem with the conduct of any member of the Committee, they would bring it to the attention of that person and the Chairman. Mr. Benard said that will be done if it becomes necessary. He agreed to ask the City Attorney's office to prepare a memorandum detailing the types of conversations that are appropriate on the sites and what disclosure is necessary. He reminded the Committee of his earlier recommendation to bring a notebook with them on site visits to make cursory notes as to any conversation they may become engaged in, and to bring those notes to the public hearing in order to put on the record anything that might be questioned or challenged. Further questions were deferred for later discussion under Committee Reports on the agenda. Associate Planner John Leung reported that the applicants have requested a revision to add another tree to the application. As a result of the revision, staff recommended a continuation of this item to January 17, 1991, to allow time to re-notice the foliage owner and revise the staff report. In the ensuing discussion it was clarified by Senior Planner Petru that when a foliage cluster consists of an unknown number of trunks, if staff can count and identify each specimen on the site they will do so. In this case the application mentioned a hedge but there was a tree behind it which was not identified by either the applicants or staff. It was only after the staff report had been issued that this new tree was brought to the attention of staff. Since the foliage owners had already been noticed that a certain number of trees were part of this application, staff felt it was important to re-notice them so they would understand the full scope. If additions are discovered before the staff report is issued, modifications can be made without an extension of time. Committee Members urged staff to make every effort to ensure that all appropriate trees are identified, and also to stress to applicants the need to be very specific about which foliage they wish to have covered. Ms. Petru said staff would look at the application packet to see if more specific instructions are needed. 6 410 VIEW RESTORATION MMITTEE MEETING December 6, 1990 Committee Member Quatrochi moved that consideration of View Restoration Permit Application No. 13 be continued to January 17, 1991. The motion was seconded by Member Weisz and passed on a unanimous voice vote. At 9: 00 p.m. the Chairman called for a recess. The meeting was reconvened at 9: 15 p.m. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 5: Mr. and Mrs. Byong Dae Lee 30341 Camino Porvenir Committee Member Cartwright was excused from the meeting. Members Boudreau, Lorenzen, Quatrochi, Sweetnam, Weisz and Clark were eligible to vote on this application. Director Benard distributed copies of two letters received by the City on December 3, 1990 from Mr. Sharkey, and a site plan from the original tract grading that identifies the Sharkey and Lee residences. He also referred to two photo boards, one submitted by Mr. Sharkey and one prepared by staff. Mr. Benard summarized the status of this application, which was originally heard on October 4 and has subsequently been continued several times at the request of both the applicant and the foliage owner. Since the original filing, the applicant removed several Monterey pines from the application. The current application addresses three Aleppo pines, a cluster of eight cypress and a separate cluster of seven cypress. There is a 2 : 1 slope between the foliage owner's property, which sits at the lower elevation, and the applicant's property at the higher elevation. There is a difference of 29 feet between the two building pads. The Aleppo pines are located midway down the slope and are approximately 35 feet high. The bases of those trees are 8 feet above the pad level of Mr. Sharkey's house. The cluster of 8 cypress trees are 15 to 20 feet up from the pad level and are approximately 20 feet tall. The cluster of 7 cypress at the top of the slope are 25 to 29 feet above the pad and are also 20 feet tall. Mr. Benard stated that staff has determined that the ridgeline of Mr. Sharkey's house is 24 feet above the pad. (Committee Member Quatrochi maintained that the ridgeline of Mr. Sharkey's house is 21 feet high. ) Director Benard advised that based on the view impairment from the identified foliage, staff recommends the following modifications. Recommendation: 1. Remove the 3 Halepenis (Aleppo pine) which exceed the height of the ridge of the foliage owner's residence located at mid-slope in the southeast corner of the rear yard. The basis for this recommendation is that removing 7 411 VIEW RESTORATION MMITTEE MEETING December 6, 1990 the portions of these trees which exceed the ridge height of the residence and which are blocking views would completely remove the crown of these trees, leaving only a trunk. It is likely that pruning these trees to such a severe level would kill them. 2. Trim and/or prune the 8 Cupresscyparis leylandii adjacent to the pool to a height no greater than 4 feet above their base, coinciding with the ridgeline height of the residence, leaving enough foliage in the crown to regenerate and partially restore the view in this area. 3 . Remove the 7 Cupresscyparis leylandii which are planted along the top of the rear yard slope as they exceed the ridgeline height of the residence and impair the applicants' view. 4 . Consider offering the foliage owner replacement trees for the 3 Aleppo pines and the cypress to be removed from the slope for installation of a hedge row at mid-slope to provide outdoor privacy to the Sharkey residence. The hedge material chosen to replace this foliage should have a mature growth potential which would not exceed the top of the foliage owner's rear yard slope. Committee Member Weiss moved the public hearing be opened. Member Quatrochi seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Ms. Yun Lee of 30341 Camino Porvenir spoke on behalf of her parents, the applicants. She repeated their contention that the cypress trees along the foliage owners' rear property line were planted around 1985, and submitted photographs of their pool area taken in 1980 showing no existing cypress trees. With regard to Mr. Sharkey's letter of October 13, 1990 addressed to Committee Member Boudreau and suggesting ways to settle the issues in this matter, Ms. Lee said most of the suggestions are unacceptable to the Lees. They plan to erect an iron bar fence but will not agree to a concrete wall. She said his suggestions will not restore the view they had when they moved to the property, and reiterated that Proposition M is primarily to preserve and restore views, not to protect foliage. Their view can be restored by removing the trees on the hillside and trimming the other trees to the height of the ridgeline. She suggested the Sharkeys could plant a row of trees at the base of the hillside and have them grow to the height of their ridgeline, to give them 100% privacy. Committee Member Weisz asked if the Lees concur with the current staff recommendations. Ms. Lee said they do if they do not have to pay for installation of the hedge at mid-slope, which would be for the Sharkeys' privacy. Member Quatrochi asked why the Lees had removed the Monterey pines from their application and Ms. Lee replied that they thought it would take additional money and time if they had to go 8 VIEW RESTORATION MMITTEE MEETING December 6, 1990 through an EIR process, but if that wasn't the case they would prefer to include the Monterey pines in their application. Mr. John Sharkey, the foliage owner, read his letter requesting repudiation of the staff recommendations and denial of the Lees' application on the basis of misrepresentation, the right to privacy, due process requirements, environmental reasons, ecological grounds, grandfathering, financial loss, and lack of an environmental impact report. Time requirements prevented reading the entire letter, but all Committee Members received a copy of the letter and it was entered into the record. He stated he was rescinding the offer in his letter of October 13, 1990. He repeated that their pastoral view of their own property is as valuable to the Sharkeys as the Lees' ocean view is to them, and asserted the staff recommendations would totally destroy their view and were not to be accepted. Ms. Lee stated they could only see into the Sharkeys' house or any part of his backyard from the edge of their upstairs windows, but from the majority of their rooms they can see nothing but a portion of his roof line. She added that any realtor will say that an ocean view is worth a lot more than a pastoral view of a hillside. Upon questioning she stated that if the cypress trees along the hillside were trimmed to 3 feet it would probably be acceptable to them, but it would leave only trunks and she questioned if the Sharkeys would agree to this. Mr. Sharkey contended that since he can see the Lees from inside his house and his pool area, they must be able to see him too. He added his views on misrepresentation, grandfathering, the destruction of the ecology of his property, and the environmental grounds as contained in his letter. He repeated that absolutely no cutting or removal of any foliage on his property will be tolerated. He stated that if the staff recommendations are adopted by the Committee, he will appeal its decision to the City Council. Director Benard explained that the ordinance passed by the citizens and adopted by the City Council does not provide for any appeal procedure; however, any resident may bring any matters of interest to the City Council under Audience Questions on the agenda. Committee Member Sweetnam moved the public hearing be closed, Member Weisz seconded and the motion passed without objection. Member Quatrochi suggested removing the one large cypress tree by the Lees' pool, trimming the rest of the cypress along the hillside to 3 feet, and then creating a trim line that would start at the top of the trimmed cypress (3 feet above the Lees' pad) and continue down at approximately a 3 degree angle to a height of 26-29 feet above the Sharkeys' pad. This would leave most of the foliage just about at the horizon level from the applicants' home and would fully protect the Sharkeys' privacy. 9 VIEW RESTORATION ITTEE MEETING 410 December 6, 1990 During the discussion of alternatives, some Members suggested trimming the Monterey pines to the ridgeline. Director Benard explained that these trees are not now part of the application, and if they are to be added back the application has to be amended again. That decision is up to the applicant, and would require re-noticing. Attorney Hakman added that the Committee has no jurisdiction over the Monterey pines now. If there is a decision to add them back, a 90 day extension of the action date should probably be requested. A 60 day extension (from January 9 to March 9, 1991) has already been received. On the question of the need for environmental review, Mr. Benard stated an initial study would be necessary under CEQA, which might result in the issuance of a Negative Declaration which may or may not have mitigation measures. There is a question as to whether the Committee could challenge such a determination and attempt to have it overruled. Mr. Benard said that if the Committee came to a decision on the application tonight and the applicants decided later to amend the application to include the Monterey pines, as long as the Resolution had not yet been adopted the amendment could be considered and the Resolution revised. If the Resolution had already been adopted, the applicants would have to submit a new application but could apply to the City for a fee waiver, which might or might not be granted. Committee Member Weisz moved the staff recommendations be adopted. The motion was seconded by Chairman Clark. Member Sweetnam objected to removing the cypress, asserting that trimming them back would be more productive. Several Members agreed. The motion failed on a 2-4 roll call vote, with Member Weisz and Chairman Clark voting for the motion, and Members Boudreau, Lorenzen, Quatrochi and Sweetnam dissenting. Committee Member Sweetnam moved that all the trees covered by the application be trimmed back to a plane from 3 feet above the Lee pad level (630 feet elevation) running to the ridgeline of the Sharkey house (approximately 622 feet elevation) , with no removal and no replacement of trees. The motion was seconded by Member Quatrochi. Director Benard advised that using a height differential of 29 feet between the two pads, the Aleppos would remain at a height of 24 feet from the pad of the foliage owner's property, the cypress in midslope would be between 12 to 17 feet in height, and the cypress at the top of the slope would be 3 feet high. Chairman Clark asked Member Sweetnam why he did not concur with the staff recommendations, and was told that by not removing the trees the hillside is not disturbed and Mr. Sharkey's backyard privacy is retained. The motion passed on a 4-2 roll call vote, with Member Weisz and Chairman Clark dissenting. 10 110 VIEW RESTORATION L MMITTEE MEETING December 6, 1990 B. Vegetation Height Measurement Director Benard summarized his memorandum of November 30, 1990 to the View Restoration Committee explaining why staff interprets the ordinance to require measuring foliage from its base rather than from the pad of the residence. Committee Member Sweetnam pointed out that the wording was changed in Proposition M from what it had been in Proposition L, which clearly said the foliage was measured from its base. In Proposition M that definition was eliminated and 16 feet substituted, because that was the legal limit a structure could be built on a lot without any variance; therefore, a tree could be planted which would grow to that level without blocking a view. Member Sweetnam mentioned his concern with regard to foliage planted on a slope in the setback area, which was not addressed by the ordinance but has come up in two permit applications and will need to be addressed. Chairman Clark called on Member Sweetnam, chairman of the subcommittee on foliage height limitation, to summarize the findings in the subcommittee's memorandum of December 6, 1990. Member Sweetnam reported the following recommendations: (1) The 16 foot height limitation for foliage is to be measured from the pad elevation of the foliage owner's residence. (2) The ridgeline shall be used to determine maximum foliage height only where the structure is in the applicant's view. (3) Where the ridgeline is relevant it shall be used to define a plane from the view area of the applicant's property to the ridgeline. Director Benard expressed his concern that if foliage is measured from the base of structures rather than the base of the foliage, a tremendous amount of foliage in the City would be subject to trimming. He felt there should be more balance between the rights of foliage owners to preserve their foliage and the rights of property owners to have their views restored. Staff needs to know what standard is to be applied so they can get the correct information to applicants and foliage owners. In fairness to the staff and all interested parties, he urged that the matter go to the City Council for determination as soon as possible. Attorney Hakman added that this would be part of the Guidelines, and any changes in the Guidelines must be approved by the City Council. Chairman Clark said he concurs the Committee needs to agree on a position on thismatter, but is concerned that all members of the Committee be present for the determination. Mr. Benard noted that if the Committee comes to a decision at their first meeting in January it could go to the Council for their January 15 meeting. He asked for a straw vote of the six members present to see where they stood on the issue, and all indicated concurrence with the subcommittee's conclusions. Attorney Hakman advised that there is a potential for a challenge to a Committee decision based on improper measurement of the 16 feet, on several grounds: (1) That the Committee acted in an 11 VIEW RESTORATION MMITTEE MEETING December 6, 1990 arbitrary manner because different standards have been applied to different applications; (2) measuring from the pad renders meaningless the distinction between the 16 foot and ridgeline that is clear in the ordinance, and all provisions of the ordinance must be read together in harmony and must not be rendered meaningless; (3) one can't look to the spirit of the ordinance and ignore the plain language of the ordinance--only when the language is ambiguous can you look to the intent. She added that Committee Members are free to disagree with this interpretation. Chairman Clark moved that discussion of foliage height limitations be continued to the January 3, 1991 meeting and requested that the City Attorney's office prepare a written memorandum on the subject for discussion at that meeting. The motion was seconded by Member Quatrochi and carried unanimously. C. Application Revision Policy Senior Planner Petru summarized the procedures recommended by staff for amending and revising permit applications: (1) From the application filing date to mailing of the staff report 30 days before the public hearing, additional vegetation on the same property may be added with no additional fees; however, addition of new properties or applicants would require $75. 00 for each addition. (2) From the date the staff report is mailed to adoption of the resolution, vegetation on the same property may be added for a fee of $75. 00; addition of new properties would require a revision fee of $145. 00 and re-noticing of the public hearing. (3) After adoption of the resolution no modifications would be allowed; any changes would require a new application. Ms. Petru also suggested that resolutions be placed on the agenda under continued business rather than on the consent calendar, and requested that the Committee make one motion covering each application rather than a series of motions on individual components of the application. Committee Members discussed the recommendations and concurred in general with the staff memorandum. It was suggested that staff should be responsible for making sure all trees are properly identified in applications, and during site visits should count and identify specimens to be included. Applicants must be notified that they are responsible for specifically identifying foliage as best they can, including vegetation that may be hidden behind other foliage. Mr. Benard pointed out that early neighborhood consultation is one of the bases of this ordinance, and getting neighbors to come to agreements so they can avoid the process is a primary goal. Committee Member Weisz moved, and Member Boudreau seconded, adoption of the staff policy on application amendments, as revised. 12 410 VIEW RESTORATION MMITTEE MEETING December 6, 1990 Attorney Hakman stated the policy may have implications which need to be researched, and it is not clear whether the City Council needs to see it, so she requested that the Committee hold off adoption of the policy until she can review it. It was agreed to continue discussion of the application amendment policy to the January 3, 1991 meeting to obtain additional input from staff and legal counsel. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business on the agenda. QUESTIONS FROM AUDIENCE There were no questions from the audience. STAFF REPORTS Ms. Petru reported there are still 23 applications on file with the City. Scheduled for public hearing at the next meeting will be Applications No. 7, 9 and 10, plus No. 14 which was continued from this meeting. Staff was requested to add the deadline for applications in the 90 day review period to the regular memorandum regarding View Restoration Permit Applications. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12 : 17 a.m. to January 3, 1991 at 7 : 00 p.m. # # # 13