Loading...
VRC MINS 19980402 w 0 0 APPROVED MAY 7 , 1998 r rn VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 2, 1998 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Long at 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Vice Chair Sweetnam. PRESENT: Commissioners Black, Drages, A. Green, R. Green, Kipper, Mehlman, Mueller, Vice Chair Sweetnam, Chair Long ABSENT: Commissioner McBride Also present were Acting Director Rojas, Project Coordinator Nelson, Project Coordinator Ursu, and Recording Secretary Peterson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Black. Approved without objection, (9-0). COMMUNICATIONS Acting Director Rojas distributed: 1) a copy of the city memo to the City Attorney regarding AB 3749, 2) correspondence regarding VRP No. 48, 3) correspondence regarding VRP No. 55 and, 4) a request for withdrawl of VRP No. 56. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 1998 VICE CHAIR SWEETNAM MOVED TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BLACK. APPROVED, (8-0-1) WITH COMMISSIONER R. GREEN ABSTAINING SINCE HE WAS ABSENT FROM THE MEETING. 2. MINUTES OF MARCH 5, 1998 VICE CHAIR SWEETNAM MOVED TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER R. GREEN. APPROVED (8-0-1) WITH COMMISSIONER KIPPER ABSTAINING SINCE SHE WAS ABSENT FROM THE MEETING. a . 0 0 CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 50: Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Cangemi (EU) The Commission was polled as to who had visited the site. Commissioner R. Green had not visited the site. Commissioner Kipper was not present for the original hearing but had since reviewed the minutes and visited the site. Therefore Commissioner Drages, who was the alternate Commissioner recused from the original hearing, and Commissioner R. Green were recused. Project Coordinator Ursu presented the staff report. He explained that the Commission had previously instructed staff to have the city arborist analyze the foliage owner's property, review staffs recommendations, and prepare a report. Staff distributed the city arborist's memorandum addressing the points requested by the Commission, and he reviewed the changes made to the Resolution as a result of the arborist's report. Chairman Long opened the public hearing. He also asked the applicant and foliage owner if five minutes for their presentations and three minutes for rebuttal was sufficient time. All agreed it was sufficient time. Steve Cangemi (applicant) 30130 Avenida Tranquila stated he agreed with the staff recommendations, as well as the arborist's findings. Margaret Walker (foliage owner) 30137 Avenida Tranquila began by stating she was disappointed she was not notified before the arborist visited the property. She stated she would have liked to have had the opportunity to talk to him while he was out at the property. In reviewing the report, Mrs. Walker was concerned that by removing branches as recommended by the arborist, the tree would not only look bad, it would most likely die. Mrs. Walker distributed pictures that were taken recently on her property. She explained that the Eucalyptus trees could be trimmed and maintained. She stated that there was no point in removing the Eucalyptus trees, as behind the trees were very large trees on a golf course that would block the Cangemi's view. Mrs. Miao (foliage owner) 30127 Avenida Tranquila stated she also did not have a chance to meet with the city arborist, and would have liked to. She stated she reviewed the staff report and did not agree with the statement in the report that privacy was not an issue because the property was behind a wall and there were shrubs that added to the privacy. Mrs. Miao disagreed with the statement because the shrubs are very low and did not do anything for her privacy. She agreed the Mellaluca trees did need to be VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 2, 1998 PAGE 2 41 4111 trimmed. She stated she did not object to having the first Mellaluca tree removed, but would not agree to the second one being removed. She would rather trim the second Mellaluca tree. Mr. Walter Barrows 7406 Stanley Park Road, Carpenteria stated he felt the most of the view over Mrs. Walker's property could be restored if the city street tree were removed. Mr. Cangemi (in rebuttal) stated that Mr. Barrows had never been on his property or in his home and therefore had no way of knowing that the removal of the street tree would help restore his view. He further stated that the trees on the golf course were quite a bit lower than Mrs. Walker's trees and would not obstruct his view. Mrs. Walker (in rebuttal) maintained that if the Eucalyptus trees were removed the trees on the golf course would obstruct Mr. Cangemi's view. Regarding the Ash trees, she stated that she was planning to prune, trim, and shape them before the winter weather. However, after receiving Mr. Cangemi's notification of his intent to file for a view restoration permit, she decided to wait and see what the Commission decided. Her biggest concern remained the Eucalyptus trees and her fear that implementation of staffs recommendation would kill the trees. Finally, she discussed the value of her trees and the landscaping around her home. She stated that landscaping around a home is worth about one fourth the value of the home. She did not feel that replacing her trees with a 15 gallon or 24 inch box tree would compensate for the removal of the trees. Mrs. Miao (in rebuttal) felt that trimming the trees down to the highest ridgeline was not a reasonable recommendation, as it would make her property look very ugly. Vice Chair Sweetnam asked Mrs. Miao if trimming the Cypress trees down to the ridgeline would still leave them to the height of the wall or a little above it. Mrs. Miao responded that trimming the Cypress as recommended would be trimming approximately two thirds of the green. The trees would remain slightly above the wall. However, trimming the trees that low would mean she would completely loose her privacy around the pool area, as her neighbor's house is above hers. Commissioner Kipper asked Mrs. Miao if any of the three Cypress trees were left, would that retain her privacy. Mrs. Miao responded that removing even one tree would leave a large gap and her privacy would be lost. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 2, 1998 PAGE 3 • 0 Commissioner R. Green moved to close the public hearing. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Chair Long asked staff if there was any geologic concern regarding the Walker property. Project Coordinator Ursu responded that he had talked to the city geologist regarding the application. He explained to the geologist that there was a slope with possible fill and trees on it. The city geologist indicated that the removal of some of the foliage on the trees would actually take some of the weight off of the fill slope, making it less likely to slip. Commissioner Kipper asked staff about the street tree and, even though it is under a separate application, would there be any information on the status of the tree for the Commission to consider. Project Coordinator Ursu responded that it was policy to hold action on the city tree permit application until the decision has been rendered on the view restoration permit application. He stated that, at this point, the city tree blocks a view of the Ash trees. Chair Long suggested that the Commission review the revised draft Resolution and Exhibit A provided by staff. Commissioner A. Green felt that, since there was expert opinion in writing from the city arborist regarding each tree and how they should be treated, that wording should be incorporated somehow into Exhibit A. Chair Long agreed. He suggested that the wording for the recommendation of the first Ash tree remain the same in Exhibit A with the addition of language stating the removal of the foliage shall be accomplished by removing horizontal branches three inches or less in diameter. Regarding Ash tree number 2, Chair Long suggested adding to Exhibit A the language from the memo from the city arborist. Commissioner Kipper commented on the Jacaranda trees on the Miao property. She felt that clearly the Cypress trees were a problem, but did not feel a great deal would be accomplished by trimming the Jacaranda. She felt the ridgeline of the house was already above the tree. Commissioner A. Green pointed out that the city arborist concurred with the staff recommendation regarding the Jacaranda. The city arborist also stated that the tree VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 2, 1998 PAGE 4 IP 0 was young enough that trimming would not have to be drastic. The Commission generally agreed that trimming of the Jacaranda would be very minor. Chair Long had a concern on the Mellaluca tree (number 2). Commissioner A. Green pointed out that Mrs. Miao indicated that she would not object to the removal of this one tree. Commissioner Mehlman expressed concern regarding the Walker property that following staff recommendations for the trees would not leave trees that looked attractive in any way. She agreed with Mrs. Walker that the trees on the golf course would indeed continue to block the Cangemi view once the Eucalyptus trees were removed. She did not feel the Eucalyptus should be removed. Commissioner Black moved to accept the staff recommendations and adopt VRC Resolution 98-02 with the addendum of the City Arborist's report in each paragraph and include language regarding trees 3 and 4 on the Walker property stating the trees are clinically dead at this time, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. Approved, (5-2-2) with Commissioners Kipper and Mehlman dissenting and Commissioners R. Green and Drages recused. 4. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 48: Mr. Nick Papadakis, 3228 Parkhurst Drive (TN) The Commission was polled as to who had visited the site. All Commissioners had visited the site, therefore the two alternates, Commissioners Mehlman and Mueller, were recused. Acting Director Rojas reported that a letter had been handed out to the Commission that was written by the applicant to the City Council. The letter expressed concern about a site visit performed by Commissioner Kipper and comments that Commissioner Kipper made during that visit. Chair Long felt Commissioner Kipper should have a chance to respond to the letter. Commissioner Kipper apologized to Mr. Papadakis if he misunderstood any comments that she may have made while doing her site visit and assured the Commission that she had visited the property with the full intention of looking at the applicant's view and applying Proposition M and the View Restoration guidelines. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 2, 1998 PAGE 5 Commissioner Black and Chair Long felt that if serious questions arise regarding a Commissioner's objectivity, that Commissioner may want to consider recusing themselves. However, it is up to the Commissioner to determine if they feel they can be objective or not. Project Coordinator Nelson presented the staff report. She began by informing the Commission that she had attended a meeting between members of the school district, the Principal of Mira Catalina School, and Mr. Papadakis which was unsuccessful in reaching an agreement. She reviewed the fifteen trees that staff considered significantly blocked the applicant's view. Chair Long opened the public hearing Chair Long asked the applicant and foliage owner if speaking time of five minutes for presentation and three minutes for rebuttal was sufficient time. Both parties agreed it was sufficient time. Mr. Nick Papadakis (applicant) 3228 Parkhurst Drive distributed photographs for the Commission to review. He began by stating he felt staff had done a wonderful job in listening to his requests and balancing them with the needs and requests of the school. He felt they had provided for a view opening, where now there was a very significant view impact. He stated that if the Commission were to follow staffs recommendations, he would have, at best, 50% of his view restored. He did not consider that adequate view restoration. He distributed to the Commission recommendations he believed would result in an adequate restoration of his view, and that he would like the Commission to consider. He requested the removal of approximately 10 to 11 trees (3 or 4 more than staffs recommendation). He commented that he was very sensitive to the needs of the school and wanted nothing more than what he felt he was entitled to under the law. Mr. Welch (representing the Palos Verdes Unified School District (foliage owner) distributed a letter to Commission stating the school district's position. He stated the school used the trees as part of the education of the children. He stated the school understood the importance of being good neighbors and felt the school had worked hard to come to an agreement with the applicant. However, the district felt it must take the position that the education of the children must override their desire to accommodate the wishes of some of the neighbors. The school district was requesting the city exempt them from having to respond or comply with the application for the following reasons: 1) the foliage plays an important role in the education experience and learning environment of the children, 2) as drafted, the code requires that after the initial trimming and removal of view blocking foliage, the owner of the property is VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 2, 1998 PAGE 6 0 obligates to bear the cost of maintaining the required view. The district felt with the economic uncertainties of the future it would be very difficult to guarantee whatever that cost would be in each budget, and 3) the trees are used to lower the temperatures in the classrooms and prevent erosion. Mr. Ted Gibbs 3242 Parkhurst Drive stated he lived up the hill from Mr. Papadakis and his backyard overlooks the Mira Catalina School. He stated when he moved into his home in 1979 he had a 100% unobstructed view of the entire Catalina Island area. Since that time his view has been obstructed 50 - 60%. He has negotiated with the school district and his current view is obstructed 30 - 40%. He wanted to explain to the Commission that Mr. Papadakis' application did not only affect him, but six other properties on the street. Mr. Byron Walker 3225 Parkhurst Drive, which is directly across the street from Mr. Papadakis. He stated he moved into his house in 1986 and since that time he has lost a substantial amount of his view. He felt Mr. Papadakis was being more than reasonable in his requests. Mr. Papadakis (in rebuttal) stated that there were more than 100 tall trees on the Mira Catalina campus. The staff report was asking for the removal of less than 7% of the trees. He did not see how that would impact the educational process of the school. He stated that the trees being removed would be replaced, and the students would then be given the opportunity to study the growth cycle of the new trees. Mr. Welch (in rebuttal) stated the district had removed 26 trees from the campus over the past few years. He distributed a diagram showing the areas that trees had already been removed from. Commissioner A. Green asked Mr. Welch if he knew why the 26 trees had been removed. Mr. Welch responded that he was not sure of the reason, but perhaps the principal of the school knew. Mr. Mirsky, the principal of the school, stated he had been at the school for approximately 15 years, and the trees had been removed because the arborist and maintenance people felt they were either unhealthy or too near the classrooms. Chair Long asked the principal if he felt it was correct that there were approximately 100 trees on the property, and if he knew what the budget was for tree maintenance at the school. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 2, 1998 PAGE 7 4110 Mr. Mirsky responded that he was not sure how many trees were on the site, he felt at least 75. He also stated that he did not know the district budget for the maintenance of the trees. Vice Chair Sweetnam asked Mr. Mirsky about the large pine trees between the classrooms (trees 9, 10, and 11). He stated he felt they were very tall and wondered if the district thought they might be a danger to the students, as the branches or trees may possible fall. Mr. Mirsky responded that they had an arborist at the school and he never indicated that the trees were a problem. Commissioner A. Green asked Mr. Papadakis, if the Commission allowed for every tree removal and replacement that he was requesting, was he prepared to pay for the replacement of the trees. Mr. Papadakis responded that he was prepared to bear the expense for the removal and replacement of all of the trees he was requesting be removed. Commissioner A. Green moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner R. Green asked staff if the sixteen foot high restriction applied to the school in the same way it applied to private residences. Acting Director Rojas responded that the code limits all structures to 16 feet in height, whether they are commercial or residential. Commissioner Kipper asked staff if the pad height of Mr. Papadakis' lot was higher than the ridgeline of the school. Project Coordinator Nelson responded that yes it was higher. Commissioner Kipper then asked staff if it was within the purview of the Commission to exempt the school district from Proposition M, as the school district was requesting. Acting Director Rojas responded that it was not within the Commission's purview. Commissioner Black stated that the trees were all very beautiful, but she did not feel that many of them, especially the pines, provided shade. She suggested the school consider removal of these pines and select replacement trees that provide shade and are low maintenance. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 2, 1998 PAGE 8 e . , 0 0 Chair Long reviewed Mr. Papadakis' letter and commented that Mr. Papadakis wished the removal of Canary Island Pines 9, 10, and 11, which staff proposed to heavily lace. He commented that lacing would be heavy, and possibly the Commission should offer removal with heavy lacing as an alternative. Commissioner A. Green commented that the Commission should offer a one to one replacement of the trees. The Commission agreed. Commissioner Kipper suggested that, with the applicant's approval, the trees may be removed and replaced in phases, rather than all at once. Commissioner A. Green felt there were only three trees (6, 7, and 8) that provided any amount of shade to the students, as there were benches under these trees. He felt the other trees were in locations that the children did not use. Commissioner Drages commented that, depending on how it was presented to the students, this could be a true learning experience for them. They would be able to see new trees planted and watch more closely how they grow. Commissioner R. Green felt that Canary Island Pines 9, 10, and 11, because of their location, probably provided shade to the classrooms in the afternoon. In reviewing Exhibit A, Chair Long felt there was no change to No. 1. On No. 2 and 3 the proposal of the applicant was to remove 2 and 3, which was consistent with staffs recommendation. Regarding the Canary Island Pines, the staff recommended removing 1 and 3. The applicant was requesting removal of 3 and 4. Commissioner A. Green felt the desire of the applicant was to create a corridor, while staff was trying to balance the area. Chair Long pointed out there was no mention of replacement trees for these two trees. He suggested the removal of Canary Island Pines 3 and 4 with replacement of two 24 inch box trees. Commissioner R. Green commented that Canary Island Pines 6, 7, and 8 be removed and replaced with three trees. Chair Long addressed Canary Island Pines 9, 10, and 11. The applicant had proposed to have these trees removed and replaced. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 2, 1998 PAGE 9 . , 0 0 Commissioner Black agreed these three trees should be removed and replaced wiry, three 24 inch box trees. Commissioner R. Green was concerned with the height of the tree stated in paragraph 5. He felt that the wording should be modified to read 5 feet above the ridgeline rather than two feet. Commissioner Black pointed out that the Commission may want to specify when the removal of the trees would be done, as she did not feel it should be done while school was in session. To summarize, Chair Long stated that Exhibit A of the Resolution be modified as follows: Paragraphs 1 and 2 would be unchanged. Paragraph 2 would be amended to add at the end "whichever is higher." Paragraph 3 would delete the reference to Canary Island Pine No. 1 and substitute a reference to Canary Island Pine No. 4. A sentence should be added that would specify the removal of trees 3 and 4 with the consent of the owner, and replace with two mature 24 inch box trees. At the end of paragraph 3 the phrase, "whichever is higher" should be added. Paragraph 4 would be amended to delete the reference to Canary Island Pine No. 4 and add a reference to Canary Island Pine No. 1 in it's place. Paragraph 5 would be amended to specify a point 5 feet above the highest ridgeline of the office building, rather than 2 feet. Paragraph 7 would be amended to indicate removal of Canary Island Pines 9, 10, and 11 with consent of the foliage owner, and replace with three mature 24 inch box trees or heavily lace. Paragraph 9 would be replaced with the standard language regarding grinding out of the stumps. An additional condition should be added to specify that any trimming be done in the winter months while school is not in session. Finally, an additional condition should be added regarding the selection of replacement trees to be subject to review of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. Commissioner R. Green moved to accept the staff recommendations, as amended, thereby adopting VRC Resolution 98-03, seconded by Commissioner A. Green. Adopted, (7-0-2) with Commissioners Mueller and Mehlman recused. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 9:30 P.M. the Commission took a short recess until 9:45 P.M. at which time they reconvened. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 2, 1998 PAGE 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 56: Mr. and Mrs. John Cigliano, 4301 Via Frascoti. (EU) Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to accept the withdraw) of the application, seconded by Commissioner Black. Approved, (9-0) 6. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 55: Mr. and Mrs. Walter Marshall, 28817 Cedarbluff Drive (EU) The Commission was polled as to who had visited the site. All Commissioners had visited the site, therefore alternate Commissioners Mehlman and Drages were recused. Acting Director Rojas related a verbal communication to the Commission that he had with the applicant regarding a site visit by one of the Commissioners. The applicant had stated he was uncomfortable with comments made by the Commissioner during the site visit. Mr. Rojas reported he had spoken to the Commissioner and the matter was now cleared up. Vice Chair Sweetnam reported the foliage owner had discussed the case with him at great length during the site visit, and that he had advised the foliage owner to attend this meeting to discuss the points with the Commission during the hearing. Chair Long reported that the foliage owner had discussed with him slope failure that had occurred as well as many concerns regarding his privacy through his master bedroom window. He reported that he had also discussed with the applicant the issue of slope failure, and Mr. Marshall had indicated to him that he was not aware of any problems in the area due to slope failure. Commissioner Black noted that she had a similar discussion with the foliage owner, adding that Mr. Manson had stated that he and his wife both had very severe heart conditions and would not be able to attend tonight's meeting. Project Coordinator Ursu presented the staff report. He stated there were two trees, a Pittosporum and a Silver Dollar Eucalyptus tree as well as a Myoporum hedge that were blocking the applicant's view. He stated that staff did not feel privacy was an issue, unless one were to stand at the very edge of the applicant's property at the rear yard. Chair Long asked staff if any portion of the foliage owner's slope was fill, as the foliage VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 2, 1998 PAGE 11 owner had stated during the site visit that the slope had failed and was fill. Project Coordinator Ursu responded that staff had not consulted the city geologist. In reviewing the geologic report that was attached to the staff report, Chair Long concluded that it appeared the foliage owner's property was a cut slope rather than a fill slope. Commissioner Mueller asked staff for clarification on how much higher the foliage owner's property was above the applicant's property. Project Coordinator Ursu answered that peak of the roof of the foliage owner's house was approximately two feet above the applicant's pad level. Chair Long opened the public hearing Chair Long then asked the applicant if five minutes for presentation and three minutes for rebuttal would be enough speaking time. The applicant, Mr. Marshall, responded that he would combine his presentation and rebuttal into one and seven minutes should be sufficient. Chair Long agreed. Walter Marshall (applicant) 28817 Cedarbluff Drive distributed to the Commission written notes on what he would be discussing. He explained his house was built 34 years ago, at the same time Mr. Manson's house was built. He stated in all that time the slope has been very stable and never slid. He stated that the front part of his lot is approximately one foot lower than the back part of the lot. This could be significant in measuring certain things and it may be more accurate to take measurements from Mr. Manson's lot. Mr. Marshall stated he was not asking for any foliage to be removed. He stated the shrub grows approximately four feet per year. He agreed with the staff recommendation that the hedge be trimmed to 36 inches and cut every six months. He further stated that he did not feel privacy was an issue, as he could not see into Mr. Manson's house. Commissioner R. Green asked Mr. Marshall what the height of his two fences were. Mr. Marshall answered that one fence was approximately four feet high and the other was approximately six feet high. Commissioner Mueller moved to close the public hearing, seconded by VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 2, 1998 PAGE 12 Commissioner Black. There being no objection the public hearing was closed. Chair Long stated that the foliage owner seemed to agree with all of the staff recommendations except the issue of the height of the hedge. Mr. Manson wanted the height of the hedge to be 54 inches as opposed to 36 inches recommended by staff. He felt he needed the 54 inches to protect the privacy of the bedroom. He also stated that he felt trimming the hedge to 36 inches would kill the hedge. Mr. Long stated that the arborist had stated that trimming the hedge to 36 inches would not kill the hedge. As far as privacy, Mr. Long stated he did not see any privacy issue whatsoever. Commissioner Mueller noted that window coverings could be used to protect the privacy, as well as shrubbery close to the house or an awning. He also wondered if there were some sort of compromise regarding the height of the hedge. Chair Long felt that 36 inches might already be considered a compromise because of the rate of growth of the hedge. He stated that the hedge will start at 36 inches but will grow into the view a little bit, but in six months it will be trimmed again and he will have view again. Commissioner A. Green pointed out the language in Item 2 of Exhibit A stated measurement would be taken at the base of the slope to a height not to exceed 3 feet above the level of the applicant's building pad. He felt Mr. Marshall would prefer not drawing the line at the building pad, but drawing it at the foliage owner's lot since the building pad was quite a distance from the hedge. Chair Long suggested the line be drawn one foot above the ridgeline of the foliage owner's house. Project Coordinator Ursu suggested, for easier and more accurate measurements, the measurement be taken from the base of the plants rather than a benchmark that is 30 feet over. Chair Long suggested modifying Item 2 to say trim the Myoporum hedge planted at the top of the slope and the Myoporum trees planted on the base of the slope to a height not to exceed 3 1/2 feet above the base of the plants. Commissioner R. Green suggested using the applicant's building pad as a point of reference. Vice Chair Sweetnam suggested using 3 feet above the level of the ground at the lot line. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 2, 1998 PAGE 13 111 The Commission agreed with Vice Chair Sweetnam's recommendation. Commissioner Black moved to accept the staff recommendations and adopt VRC Resolution 98-04, seconded by Commissioner R. Green. Approved, (7-0-2) with Commissioners Mehlman and Drages recused. NEW BUSINESS 7. MEDIATION CONFERENCE GUIDELINES (AG) Commissioner A. Green reported that he had distributed to the Commissioners a copy of a document entitled Alternative Dispute Resolution. The document states that the mediator must control the mediation. The paper goes on to explain the process of mediation. He went on to discuss the mediation process. A lengthy discussion followed between the Commissioners on the mediation process. The Commissioners felt that some type of guidelines for the mediation process should be prepared by staff as well as a handout to the participants of the process explaining what was about to happen. Ken Dyda 5715 Capeswood Drive commented that the City needed to set itself apart from the mediation process. He felt staff should be part of the process only to answer questions and provide facts. He felt it was inappropriate for staff to comment on the validity of statements made by either party in the mediation. 8. DISCUSSION OF PRECISION OF VRP COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION (EU/TN) Acting Director Rojas explained to the Commission that staff has been encountering some problems verifying the compliance of view restoration permits. Staff may feel the view is restored or in substantial compliance even if there is some foliage higher than recommended by the Commission. A discussion followed regarding substantial compliance and the difficulty in measuring the height of foliage in the field. Staff informed the Commission that the judgements as to enforcement are to be made by staff with consultation of City Council and City Attorney. Ken Dyda 5715 Capeswood Drive discussed what he felt was substantial compliance versus what the staff felt was substantial compliance. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 2, 1998 PAGE 14 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Commissioner Mueller requested some type of a replacement foliage list. Project Coordinator Nelson answered that she could have that list for the Commission at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Black. The meeting was duly adjourned at 11:35 P.M. to Thursday, May 6, 1998 at 7:00 P.M. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 2, 1998 PAGE 15