Loading...
VRC MINS 19970710 APPROVED • AUGUST 7, 1997 aP CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 10, 1997 The meeting was called to order by Chair R. Green at 7:02 P.M. at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Project Coordinator Ursu. PRESENT: Commissioners Boudreau, Goern, A. Green, Karmelich, Long, Marshall, Vice Chair Sweetnam, Chair R. Green ABSENT: Commissioner Black (excused) Also present were Principal Planner Rojas, Project Coordinator Nelson, Project Coordinator Ursu, and Recording Secretary Peterson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to accept the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Goern. Approved, (8-0). COMMUNICATIONS Principal Planner Rojas distributed: 1) correspondence from the applicant of VRP 40; 2) correspondence for VRP 41; 3) a letter from the foliage owner of VRP 44; 4) the staff report packet for the August 7, 1997 meeting; and 5) correspondence from Senator Betty Karnette's office. Lastly, Mr. Rojas informed the Commission that on the Tuesday, July 15, City Council agenda there is an item related to Proposition M and view restoration. Vice Chair Sweetnam informed the Commission that some realtors may not be aware of view restoration problems that apply to trees on property they may be selling or presenting to potential buyers and requested that some education effort be undertaken. Principal Planner Rojas replied that he will check with the City Attorney and based on her recommendations, will write a letter to the Board of Realtors informing them of the view restoration process. • • CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 38: Ms. Bonnie Hoenisch, 6343 Rio Linda Drive (EU) Before beginning Chair R. Green requested that the Commission determine who had visited each of the sites being discussed tonight. He reminded the Commission that he was not at the last meeting and missed the public hearing for View Restoration Permit No. 38, but had visited the site since. Principal Planner Rojas responded that since he had visited the site he was eligible to participate in the discussion for this item tonight. A roll call followed to determine who had visited the sites being discussed tonight with the following results: 1) for VRP 38 all Commissioners had visited the site and since Commissioner Black was excused from tonight's meeting, Commissioner Long would participate in the discussion; 2) for VRP 31 all Commissioners had visited the site and Commissioner Karmelich would participate in the discussion; 3) for VRP 40 all Commissioners had visited the site, however Commissioner A. Green wished to recuse himself from this project, leaving both Commissioners Karmelich and Long to participate in the discussion; and 4) for VRP 41 all Commissioners except Commissioner Long had visited the site, allowing Commissioner Karmelich to participate in this discussion. Chair R. Green reopened the public hearing. Project Coordinator Ursu presented the staff report reminding the Commission that there were five areas of concern raised at the last meeting that staff had been instructed to further research. He reported to the Commission that: 1) the Liquid Amber tree was approximately 45 feet high and the foliage owners residence was 14 1/2 high; 2) the Eucalyptus trees were identified Ironbark Eucalyptus trees; 3) the Acacia tree closest to the applicant's house was approximately 22 feet high measured from the foliage owners pad and approximately 12 feet above the applicant's building pad; 4) a trimming and maintenance schedule for the trees had been incorporated in the conditions of approval for the resolution; and 5) additional photographs of the properties were distributed for the Commission to review. Bonnie Hoenisch (applicant) 6343 Rio Linda Drive, disagreed with the statement in the staff report addendum that the Acacia tree did not create a significant view impairment and therefore not be subject to the view restoration process. She thought it would be nice if the tree could be topped. In reviewing the draft Resolution she pointed out that the Acacia tree was not mentioned. View Restoration Commission Minutes July 10,1997 Page 2 • I Mary Julie Hessick (foliage owner) 6318 Monero Drive, commented that she was disappointed that she did not see more Commissioners on her property to review the landscaping from her point of view. In reviewing the staff report addendum, she commented that she did not want to remove the Hop Seed shrubs only trim or top them, since they did give privacy to her bedroom. Regarding the Liquid Amber, she requested the Commission allow her to wait until the tree dropped it's leaves in the winter before trimming the tree, as trimming it earlier could damage the tree. Ms. Hessick stated the Acacia tree is a large tree but does not impact the applicant's view. If it were topped it would kill the tree. The tree is near the end of it's predicted 30 year life span and she would like to consider some options on what to do with the tree. Bonnie Hoenisch commented that the Acacia tree had not been trimmed in 25 years and would like it topped to restore her view. She felt if the Liquid Amber and Eucalyptus were laced she would be satisfied, as well as topping the Hop Seed shrubs. She felt the only problem tree left unaddressed was the Acacia. Mary Julie Hessick responded that the Acacia does not block the applicant's view and has been trimmed several times over the years. Commissioner Long asked Staff what they were recommending in regards to the Acacia. Project Coordinator Ursu answered that Staff was recommending no action on the Acacia because Staff felt it did not create significant view impairment. Commissioner Marshall asked staff if they were allowed to make allowances in a trimming schedule if the tree risked being injured if it were cut too early in the season. Principal Planner Rojas responded that the Commission did have the authority to make adjustments to a trimming schedule if there was clear evidence that there was a preferable pruning period for a particular tree. Commissioner Boudreau asked the applicant if she was sure that thinning the Liquid Amber would be satisfactory, since once the Eucalyptus was trimmed it may block her view. Ms. Hoenisch replied that she really didn't have a problem with thinning the Liquid Amber as she can't see it very well. Commissioner Long moved to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Goern. Approved, (7-0). View Restoration Commission Minutes July 10,1997 Page 3 • • Commissioner Boudreau stated that she felt the Liquid Amber should be trimmed much more than the recommended 18 inches. She also felt that the lacing could wait until such time that it would not harm the tree. Chair R. Green noted that there did not seem to be a problem with the Liquid Amber and the amount to be trimmed, only when it should be laced and trimmed. Project Coordinator Ursu clarified that the current recommendation for the Liquid Amber was to trim it so it did not exceed 16 feet in diameter at any point and not reduce the height. To reduce the height of the tree would only restore a view of the sky, not the ocean view. Commissioner Boudreau felt that the Commission should recommend trimming it down as far as possible, without hurting the tree, to restore the applicant's view to the west. Principal Planner Rojas responded that Staff would need some specific height guidelines so the tree trimming company would know how far to top the tree. Commissioner Long stated that he felt the Commission could not write in a Resolution to trim a tree to a level that was safe for the tree. Commissioner A. Green responded that with this particular tree there were three choices: you could take the height of the tree down over 20 feet to restore the view; you could trim the top and bottom of the tree, effectively making an hour glass out of the tree; or you could lace and trim the tree to restore the view. Chair R. Green stated that the tree, having no leaves for a large portion of the year, presented an opportunity for the Commission to leave more of the tree and still give some view back through the lacing process. Commissioner Boudreau disagreed, stating that once the Eucalyptus was cleared away the Liquid Amber will block a significant portion of the applicant's view to the west and should be brought down to a lower height. The Commission then reviewed photographs taken from the applicant's property distributed by staff. After reviewing the photographs, Commissioner Boudreau suggested lowering the Liquid Amber 10 feet and lacing the tree. This would put the tree approximately 10 feet over the ridgeline of the foliage owner's house. Chair R. Green observed that the Liquid Amber would still be above the applicant's eye View Restoration Commission Minutes July 10,1997 Page 4 • . level, however lacing the tree would significantly improve her view. This would allow the tree to keep a vast majority of its foliage. Chair R. Green discussed the Acacia tree next, explaining that he felt that you had to stand at the extreme east side of the applicant's lot and look forward towards the ocean to gain a view if the tree were removed. From the patio area, if the eastern portion of the Acacia tree were removed, a large house in Palos Verdes Estates would block any view from the east and the palm trees and hedge in Palos Verdes Estates would block the view from the west. If the west side of the Acacia tree were removed he still didn't feel there would be a significant view restored. However, if the west side of the tree grew any further to the west, then there may be a problem with view impairment in the future. Therefore, he felt that at the present time the Acacia tree was not causing significant view blockage. If the Acacia tree were to die, however, it should be replaced with vegetation that would not grow higher than 2 or 3 feet above the applicant's pad level. Commissioner Boudreau disagreed, stating that once the Acacia tree was brought down to a lower level a view of the coastline to the west would be provided. Chair R. Green felt that you had to consider where on the property you were standing to determine if a view exists and the Commission had to keep the primary viewing area in mind when making their decision. Commissioner Goern felt that the western half of the Acacia did block part of the applicant's view of the coastline. Commissioner Boudreau suggested removing limbs from the western side of the tree and leave the other part of the tree. This would open up a view for the applicant and still give shade and privacy to the foliage owner. Vice Chair Sweetnam summarized the findings. Reviewing the conditions of approval contained in Exhibit A of the Resolution he began by stating that wording related to the removal of the Hop Seed shrubs could be removed since the foliage owner and applicant did not want the shrubs removed. Therefore, the following paragraph that deals with replacement foliage could also be removed. Regarding the Acacia tree, a statement should be added that the limbs running west of the base of the tree be removed. In paragraph three the Eucalyptus tree was to be topped and the Liquid Amber was to be laced, its crown reduced so the branches do not extend more than 8 feet from the trunk, and topped to a height not to exceed 25 feet from the base of the tree. Lacing and trimming of the Liquid Amber tree shall occur no later than 90 days after October 15. View Restoration Commission Minutes July 10,1997 Page 5 0 • Commissioner A. Green moved to adopt View Restoration Commission Resolution 97-11 as amended, seconded by Commissioner Marshall. Adopted, (7-0). Principal Planner Rojas informed the applicant and foliage owner that the decision made by the Commission was effective as of this day. There is a 15 day appeal period in which the foliage owner or the applicant can file an appeal in writing to the City Council. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 31: Mr. Thomas Chan and Wai Sing Chow, 5345 Bayridge Road (EU) Chair R. Green opened the Public Hearing. Project Coordinator Ursu presented the staff report. He stated the applicant was requesting 4 trees on the foliage owner's property (1 Eucalyptus and 1 Pepper tree located near the driveway entrance of the foliage owner's property, and an additional Eucalyptus and a Pine tree located on the north facing slope behind the foliage owner's house) be trimmed. Commissioner Goern added that the pine tree was an Allepo pine. Thomas Chan (applicant) 5345 Bayridge Road began by stating that they did not want the Eucalyptus tree on the slope behind the foliage owner's house removed entirely, he felt topping it would be satisfactory in restoring their view. Project Coordinator Ursu clarified that staff was recommending topping the Eucalyptus tree. If the foliage owner would rather have the tree removed, he could do so at his own expense. Mr. Chan continued by stating that when he moved into his house a few years ago all of the trees had been topped. He felt that if it was acceptable to top all of the trees then, there should be no objection to doing so now. He further pointed out that they were not asking for their entire view to be restored, only their view to the east. He did not feel the foliage owner could choose to have a tree removed rather than topped because of the maintenance costs; the Commission should not consider that request. Finally, he objected to the staff recommendation to lace the Pine tree rather than top it. He felt the view could not be restored unless it were topped. View Restoration Commission Minutes July 10,1997 Page 6 • 40 Mr. Olson (foliage owner) 5383 Rolling Ridge Road, pointed out that he has trimmed several of his trees over the 26 years he has lived in his home. He stated that regarding the four trees in question tonight, he was in agreement to having them trimmed or laced. He informed the Commission that the Eucalyptus tree and Pepper tree at his driveway formed an arch over the roadway and requested that the arch be maintained when the trees are trimmed. The Eucalyptus tree on the slope was a wild tree, not planted, and continues to grow. It was his understanding that staff was going to recommend it be removed. He suggested that the tree be cut to the ground and be poisoned so it would not grow again. Mr. Olson further stated that he was very willing to have the Pine tree laced to any extent needed to restore the applicant's view. He was very concerned about topping the tree, as it has a nice Christmas tree shape to it. He stated the tree had never been topped and he requested it not be done now. Mr. Chan responded that he still did not want to remove the Eucalyptus tree, only top it. Mr. Olson could do whatever he wanted to do with the tree once it was topped. Mr. Chan did not feel he should have to pay for the removal of the tree. He also stated that the Pine tree should be topped, and topping it would not harm the shape of the tree. Since privacy was not an issue with the trees the Commission should grant the request to top the four trees. Commissioner Marshall asked Staff, as a general rule, would it cost the same to have a tree cut to the ground as it would to have the tree topped or laced. Would it cost significantly less to have the tree topped rather than cut to the ground. Project Coordinator Ursu responded that it depended on the type of tree, the size of the tree, etc. He felt that in this case the Eucalyptus in question was not very large in diameter and it would probably cost more to top it than remove it. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. There being no objection, the Public Hearing was closed. Vice Chair Sweetnam began by stating that it had been his experience that it was generally cheaper to bring a tree down rather than top it or lace it. Therefore, he suggested the Resolution be worded in such a way as to say that once the bids are received for topping the tree, if the foliage owner can get a lesser bid to have the tree removed, it should be removed. Commissioner Goern addressed the Pine by stating she had talked to Begonia Farm and they had recommended that the tree be cut or trimmed in the Fall or Winter when it was not in its sap period. As far as topping the Pine, they had stated that it would be difficult to top without losing its shape, however topping the tree would not kill it. View Restoration Commission Minutes July 10,1997 Page 7 • I Lacing the tree would not hurt the tree. Commissioner A. Green requested the Commission review the pictures of the Pine, taken approximately 6 years ago. He pointed out that the tree was just beginning to encroach into the viewing area. He asked staff how high the ridgeline of the foliage owner's home was. Project Coordinator Ursu responded that the ridgeline was approximately 20 feet above the pad level. The tree is now about 45 feet tall, but is planted approximately 10 feet down slope from the pad. The Commissioners agreed that the Pepper tree and Eucalyptus at the driveway should be trimmed but should remain in the arch formation they are currently in. Reviewing Exhibit A of the Resolution, Chair R. Green summarized what the Commission had decided by stating the word "remove" was to be deleted from conditions regarding the Eucalyptus tree on the slope. The Commission had decided to top and trim the Pepper tree and Eucalyptus tree located near the driveway and the Pine tree located on the slope north of the house to a height not to exceed the highest ridgeline of the foliage owner's house. Vice Chair moved to adopt View Restoration Commission Resolution 97-12, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Goern. Approved, (7-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:55 P.M. there was a brief recess until 9:12 P.M. when the meeting reconvened. 3. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 40: Mr. and Mrs. Brian Mazen, 29929 Knoll View Drive (TN) Commissioner A. Green informed the Commission, that because he had extended conversations with the applicant he was going to recuse himself from this application. Chair R. Green opened the public hearing. Project Coordinator Nelson presented the staff report explaining there are 5 to 6 trees on the foliage owner's property, and described the types of trees. There is also a "wall" of foliage consisting of Acacia, Oleander, and Bougainvillaea blocking the applicant's view. View Restoration Commission Minutes July 10,1997 Page 8 0 0 Brian Mazen (applicant) 29929 Knoll View Drive, explained that he lives in the Miraleste Hills section of the City which was specifically designed to take advantage of the views of Los Angeles Harbor, Vincent Thomas Bridge, and city lights. He felt everyone in the neighborhood respected the views and kept their trees trimmed, with this one exception. He distributed a letter from a neighbor who also has an interest in seeing these trees cut, as his view is also blocked. He also distributed additional photographs for the Commission to view. He felt that his application was a text book case on why this ordinance was passed by the voters. He wants to have his view restored in the simplest manner possible. Jose Lechanga, 3545 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, an attorney representing the Leitners, made his first point by stating he did not feel his clients were being given due process. He agreed that they did receive the initial notice 30 days prior to the hearing, but he did not feel that the supplemental letter submitted to the City by the applicant, dated June 25, 1997, gave his clients the requisite 30 day notice. He also was not happy that the pictures distributed to the Commission were not first given to his clients for their review. He felt if the Leitners had known the true nature of the application they would have been able to submit to the Commission an extra report of the conditions that are underlying the property. He strongly felt that we were dealing with an Ordinance that was flawed, stating that the law says if you are going to impose a burden upon a land you must pay compensation for that burden, otherwise you do not have that right. He further was bothered by the fact that one of the Commissioners was a proponent for Proposition M and is one of the persons passing judgement on the case. He felt that Commissioner should recuse himself from the case. He also informed the Commission that his clients were very concerned with safety issues, as the slope was very steep and the roots could possibly be holding that slope up. Finally, he was concerned over the invasion of privacy that his clients would suffer. Brian Mazen responded that he did not feel that this was the time or place to deal with the constitutionality of the Ordinance. He addressed the issue of safety by stating that they were not asking for trees on the hillside to be removed, only topped and trimmed. He felt there was no privacy concerns as the foliage owner's home was well below their residence and there would still be quite a bit of dense brush to block any view he may have of their home. He was only requesting the removal of foliage from the fence up. Mr. Lechanga added that his clients did not feel that pine trees needed to be topped and should be left alone. The foliage owners agree to top and trim the wall of Acacia, Oleander, and Bougainvillaea but it should go only one foot above the fence line. He felt the Canary Island Pines should be left alone as they are beautiful trees. Tree number 5 (as identified in the Staff Report), they could agree to have trimmed but not topped. The Aleppo pine, they would agree to trim, but not top. He again felt the Commission had no right to order his clients to cut their trees because they would be View Restoration Commission Minutes July 10,1997 Page 9 denying his client's property rights without due process of law and without due compensation from the state. Commissioner Long asked Mr. Lechanga what, if any, information an expert study would provide. He wanted to know what specific prejudice was being claimed. Mr. Lechanga responded that the issue of safety was very important to his clients. Commissioner Long then stated that if they were concerned with the issue of slope stability as affected by the roots, and if the Commission did not order the removal of roots, the point would be irrelevant. Mr. Lechanga agreed that if the roots were not removed there should not be a safety issue. Commissioner Long asked if, in regards to property rights, he felt his clients had the right to maintain a nuisance. Mr. Lechanga answered that it would depend on how a nuisance is defined. Chair R. Green asked Mr. Lechanga if, in terms of the privacy issue, he could specifically identify what rooms or areas would be affected if the Acacia, Oleander, and Bougainvillaea foliage were trimmed to the fence line. Mr. Lechanga responded that everything would be visible from Mr. Mazen's lot. Commissioner Long asked Mr. Mazen if he could summarize for the Commission his suggestions on how the recommendations could be modified. Mr. Mazen responded that the first issue had to do with trees #1 and 2, the Canary Island Pines. He felt that the staff recommendation of heavily lacing the trees was too vague and preferred to have the trees topped or removed, in which case he would be willing to provide replacement trees. Regarding the Allepo Pine, he preferred to have it trimmed down to an elevation line level with a diagonal line drawn from the fence down to the Leitner's ridgeline. He also felt that if there were any trees not yet identified, as the foliage was very dense and tangled, they be included in the application and recommendations. Commissioner Boudreau moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Goern. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Boudreau felt the view should be restored and that privacy was not an View Restoration Commission Minutes July 10,1997 Page 10 0 • issue. She felt the simplest solution might be to take a straight line from somewhere on the property and trim all trees and foliage down to that level. Commissioner Long commented that by going to the property next to the Mazens you really get a sense of the scope of view that had been lost. It was not an occasional tree or two, it is a situation where all but a small percentage of the view has been completely obliterated. In terms of significance, there is no question that a significant portion of the view has been taken away. Commissioner Boudreau added that driving down Knoll View Drive it was very obvious that everyone on the street kept their trees trimmed down. The Leitner property had an unusually excessive amount of foliage on it compared to other properties in the neighborhood. Vice Chair Sweetnam felt that in the wall of Acacia, Oleander, and Bougainvillaea, the Pepper Trees should be included. Commissioner Long felt it was extremely important when reviewing the Resolution to be very specific as to the height the trees were to be trimmed. The Commission discussed what to use as a bench mark and how to measure the height of the trees in question, deciding that the trees should be cut to a level not to exceed 2 feet above the fence and at such angle that staff deems appropriate, putting them at a height not to exceed approximately 7 feet above the swale. This would leave the trees a little above the pad level, but would restore the view. Commissioner Long moved to direct staff to amend the Resolution for the consent Calendar of July 24, 1997 by adding language that described the height the trees should be cut to and the appropriate angle down slope. All trees that could be specifically identified are to be included as well as well as any others in the viewing plane. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. Approved, (7-0) 4. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO 41: Mr. Neil Watanabe, 30231 Cheret Place; Mr. and Mrs. Vincent Viskanta, 6377 Chartres Drive; Dr. Vivan Mah , 30246 Matisse Drive (EU) Commissioner Long recused himself from this application. Chair R. Green opened the public hearing View Restoration Commission Minutes July 10,1997 Page 11 0 • Project Coordinator Ursu presented the staff report. He stated the view was of the Pacific Ocean and Catalina Island. He explained the recommendations of the staff report regarding each of the foliage owners' properties. Mr. Neil Watanabe (applicant) 30231 Cheret Place began by stating he was also speaking on behalf of Dr. Mah and Mr. Viskanta, as they have come to agreement on certain points. He stated that all three homes were originally designed and built around the Ocean and Catalina Island views. He felt the views from all three homes were significantly blocked by foliage from the Philipson and Ebrahimi properties. Mr. Watanabe requested that recommendation regarding the Pine located at 6390 Chartres Drive, identified as an Aeriana Pine, be changed to require the pine be trimmed not to exceed the highest ridgeline. The second change he would like to see was regarding the trees located at 6364 Chartres Drive, site plan E3, 4, and 5 (Jacaranda trees). He requested the recommendation be amended to require the trimming lower than the ridgeline, where the tree branches and foliage protrude to the right of the home structure, to remove any obstruction of the ocean view. Mr. Watanabe then distributed pictures that were taken in 1973 from his home and Dr. Mah 's home, as well as pictures taken from both properties a few weeks ago. Mr. Vincent Viskanta (applicant) 6377 Chartres Drive explained how he had tried to reach an agreement with his neighbors regarding the trimming of the subject trees. He stated that he completely agreed with Mr. Watanabe's statements. He added that the only changes he had to the staff recommendations regarded item #1, the Canary Island Pine, to be topped to a height not to exceed the highest ridgeline. Also, item #1, the Eucalyptus, he felt Dr. Ebrahimi had commented that he would prefer to remove the Eucalyptus. Mr. Lloyd Philipson (foliage owner) 6364 Chartres Drive distributed photographs for the Commission to review. He began by stating Mr. Watanabe purchased his home with the Jacarandas in plain site and knew they would grow. He explained the view being discussed in regards to his property, was a limited strip of ocean over the roof of his house. He explained that because of the angle of Mr. Watanabe's house a tree could actually be taller than the ridgeline of the house and be below the line of site. Dr. Ebrahimi (foliage owner) 6390 Chartres Drive discussed he had tried to compromise with the applicants but felt it was best to come before the Commission to make it official. He stated he was concerned about the loss of his privacy. Regarding trees #1, 2, and 3, he partly agreed with Mr. Watanabe that the trees are the main problem for all of the applicants. Tree #1 (Canary Island Pine) provides privacy for them from the other house and he would like it to be trimmed as little as possible. Tree #2 (Eucalyptus) he preferred to have removed. Tree #3 (Eucalyptus) could be trimmed a few feet above the ridgeline and still provide Mr. Watanabe with a good view of the View Restoration Commission Minutes July 10,1997 Page 12 • ocean. The other nine trees are located in the front of their house and give them good protection and privacy. He felt they were not too high and did not cause any obstruction of Mr. Watanabe's view. He urged the Commission to be fair and just in their decision and consider some type of compromise. Mr. Watanabe reviewed the history of contact and correspondence he had with the Philipsons regarding the view problem. He concluded that he felt that all of the requirements of the view restoration process had been completed as outlined in the ordinance. The staff had reviewed and investigated the sites and come to a conclusion and recommendation. The findings are within the guidelines of the view restoration ordinance. He therefore urged the Commission to approve the application. Mr. Viskanta reviewed the history of his contact and correspondence with the Philipsons regarding the view. He indicated that the trees on Mr. Philipson's property were not as much problem for them as the trees on Dr. Ebrahimi's property. The foliage on Dr. Ebrihimi's property prevents them from seeing Catalina Island. He did not see how cutting the foliage to the level of the Ebrihimi's highest ridgeline would infringe on their privacy. Mr. Philipson stressed that trimming his trees would only give the Watanabes a restored view of the sky. He also requested the applicants cover the cost of any damage to existing plants that are not part of the view restoration application by the tree trimmers who enter his property. He indicated that an acceptable compromise might be to trim his trees to approximately 18 feet. One or two trees may not be below the ridgeline, but the others would be there. Dr. Ebrahimi again said he felt the trees at the rear of his house probably needed some trimming, however the trees at the front of his house should not be trimmed. They added privacy to his home and trimming them may damage them. He too asked that the Commission come up with some type of compromise. Chair R. Green asked staff what the policy was on the handling of damage to other foliage on a property by the tree trimmers. Project Coordinator Ursu responded that tree services companies the City accepts bids from must be licensed and bonded to cover that type of damage. Commissioner Boudreau verified with Dr. Ebrahimi that he would not mind removing Eucalyptus Tree #2. Dr. Ebrahimi responded that was correct. He stated that tree #1, they would prefer to have trimmed, not topped. Tree #3, he felt could be topped approximately 2 feet above the ridgeline and the branches trimmed. He also expressed concern over the pine tree View Restoration Commission Minutes July 10,1997 Page 13 0 • (tree#11). He was concerned if the tree were trimmed it would leave a "telephone pole" in the front yard. If that were the case he would prefer to have the tree removed. Chair R. Green asked if he would like to have a replacement tree for the pine. Dr. Ebrahimi responded that he would prefer not to have the pine cut, but if it were cut he would like a replacement tree. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to close the public hearing, second by Commissioner Boudreau. Approved, (7-0). Commissioner Goern suggested starting with the Philipson property as it would be less complicated. She felt the Viskantas did not have a significant view over the Philipson property. She did feel the Jacaranda blocked the Watanabe view and the trees should be trimmed. Chair R. Green agreed that the only significant view lost by the Watanabes was due to the Jacaranda trees. He felt the most logical way to determine the height the trees should be trimmed to was, rather than try to take a line flat across with the ridgeline of the residence, to use a diagonal line across the street to the ridgeline of the Philipson property. That would save a couple of feet on the Jacarandas. Project Coordinator Ursu stated that he had considered that when making his recommendation and didn't feel that it made enough difference in the height of the trees. Commissioner Boudreau agreed with staff recommendation concerning the trees on the Philipson property. Chair R. Green felt the 65 foot Eucalyptus and the Canary Island pine should be topped to the highest ridgeline. Commissioner A. Green commented on the Cypress on Dr. Ebrahimi's property (#10). He felt almost all of the foliage was well above the overhang of the roof and wondered if the tree were topped to the ridgeline, if the foliage would return. He was concerned since the tree and branches were so close to the foliage owner's windows and there was a concern for a loss of privacy from the street. Reviewing Exhibit A of the Resolution, Chair R. Green summarized what the Commission had decided so far by stating that Conditions 1 and 2a were fine, adding that the one pine tree would have the option to be removed and replaced. View Restoration Commission Minutes July 10,1997 Page 14 0 0 Vice Chair Sweetnam felt that tree 10 (Cypress) should have the same option of removal and replacement. Chair R. Green stated that in Exhibit A Condition 2c should state "top the Eucalyptus tree to the highest ridgeline of the roof and top the Canary Island pine to the highest ridgeline of the roof." Project Coordinator Ursu suggested to the Commission that if they determined there was not a significant view over the Philipson property from the Viskanti property, there were a couple of changes that needed to be made to the Resolution, and pointed out where. Vice Chair Sweetnam replied that he didn't know what difference it made, since the Jacaranda trees were going to be trimmed anyway, and the end result would be the same. Project Coordinator Ursu clarified whether the Commission was determining that the small sliver of view of the ocean, above the Philipson's ridgeline, was being significantly impaired and in need of restoring. Chair R. Green did not feel comfortable with the precedent being set if the view was determined to be significant. Any view of the ocean is not a significant view. When you look at the entire scope of the view, that little ribbon cannot be argued as being significant. Therefore, he cannot find that the Jacaranda significantly impairs that view. Commissioner Boudreau felt they had to look at the application as a whole. There are three applicants and all three applicants' views have to be protected. Chair R. Green responded that each property should be looked at individually as to whether or not a view was being blocked. Vice Chair Sweetnam commented that the "permit" was going to be issued to the three applicants as one permit. The Commission was going to issue one permit to the three applicants. Project Coordinator Rojas added that the Commission was approving one permit for three applicants, but they had to be able to make the appropriate findings for all of the foliage involved. There will be cases where they will not be able to make the significant view impairment findings for all the foliage for each particular applicant, what is important is that they make the significant view impairment findings for the foliage from any one of the applicants. View Restoration Commission Minutes July 10,1997 Page 15 0 II Chair R. Green explained that there was no question the Jacarandas are blocking a view from the Watanabe property. His problem was he could not make a finding that the Jacarandas blocked a view from the Viskanti property, there is no view from that property. He therefore could not include that property in his findings. Vice Chair Sweetnam made a motion that the Viskantis had a view over the Philipson property that was being significantly impaired and should be included in the Resolution, second by Commissioner Boudreau. The motion passed (4-3) with Commissioners Marshall, A. Green, and Chair R. Green dissenting. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to adopt the Resolution, as amended, second by Commissioner Boudreau. The motion passed (5-2) with Commissioner A. Green and Chair R. Green dissenting. NEW BUSINESS Principal Planner pointed out that the V.R.C. Guidelines state that new business after 11:00 P.M. be continued to the next meeting, unless the Chairman or Commission feels otherwise. The Commission agreed to continue the item to the July 24, 1997 meeting. Chair R. Green informed the Commission that if they did not have a chance to view the video of the July 1, 1997 City Council meeting at which the appeal of V.R.P. No. 29 was heard, they should do so. Principal Planner Rojas mentioned they could get a copy of the tape from Rick Otto in the City Manager's office. Principal Planner also asked the Commission if it was necessary for them to receive their staff report packets 30 days prior to a meeting. He noted that the Code only requires that notice be given 30 days to the applicants and foliage owners. He wondered if receiving the staff reports two weeks prior to a View Restoration Commission meeting would give the Commissioners ample time to visit the sites. The Commissioners agreed that would be acceptable. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Project Coordinator Nelson briefly explained to the Commission that the appeal of View Restoration Commission Minutes July 10,1997 Page 16 V.R.P. 29 was heard by the City Council on July 1, 1997. She explained that the item had been remanded back to the View Restoration Commission for reconsideration and was tentatively scheduled for the September 4, 1997 meeting. Chair R. Green felt that was even more reason for all of the Commissioners to try to view the City Council tape. Commissioner Goern wondered if it were possible to watch the tape at one of the VRC meetings. Principal Planner Rojas noted that the August 7, 1997 meeting has only one item scheduled and that may be a good meeting to view the tape. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Beverly Rhodes, 26829 Hyte Road, discussed with the Commission the procedures that would be followed in implementing the view restoration decisions as far as code enforcement and what direction the City Council might take. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. The meeting was duly adjourned at 11:40 P.M. to Thursday, July 24, 1997 at Hesse Park, 7:00 P.M. View Restoration Commission Minutes July 10,1997 Page 17