Loading...
VRC MINS 19990304 0 APPROVED 5/6/99 )1/ VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 4, 1999 The meeting was called to order by Chair Kipper at 7:03 P.M. at Fred Hesse Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Commissioner Green. Present: Commissioners Black, Cordova, Drages, Green, Long, Mehlman, Mueller, Vice Chair Sweetnam, and Chair Kipper. Commissioner McBride arrived at 7:20 P.M. Absent: None Also present were Project Coordinator Nelson, Project Coordinator Ursu, and Recording Secretary Peterson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Green stated that he would be required to leave the meeting at approximately 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Long suggested that since Commissioner Green would be leaving early it might be better to put staff and commission communications at the end of the agenda so that Commissioner Green would be able to participate in at least the first item of the public hearings. The Commissioners agreed with the suggestion. Commissioner Long moved to add to the end of the Agenda, Additional Communications, seconded by Commissioner Green. There being no objection, the agenda was approved as amended. COMMUNICATIONS Project Coordinator Nelson distributed several items of communication: 1) A copy of a letter from Commissioner McBride entitled "Position paper regarding view restoration and preservation ordinance"; 2) A copy of a letter from Commissioner Long expressing his views on the effectiveness of the view restoration ordinance process; 3) A copy of the minutes of the View Restoration Commission meeting of March 5, 1998 and April 2, 1998; 4) Late correspondence from the foliage owners for View Restoration Permit No. 66; 5) A copy of a letter from Mr. Dyda to the City Council; 6) A copy of the updated view application status log; and, • • 7) A copy of the Municipal Code Section 17.78.050 relating to the procedure for interpretation. Commissioner Sweetnam stated that Staff had incorrectly stated before the City Council that the View Restoration Commission vote on View Preservation Request No. 1 was unanimous. Staff then indicated that there was in fact a unanimous vote by the View Restoration Commission regarding the decision to discuss the definition of`benchmark', which addressed the question that the Council had raised. The Council's question was not referring to the vote specifically for View Preservation Request No. 1. Chair Kipper added that her comments at the City Council meeting were strictly in regard to the View Restoration Commission discussion on benchmark, not Mr. Dyda's appeal, and she did not have the opportunity to re-address the City Council if there was any misunderstanding. Chair Kipper briefly reported on the Mayor's Breakfast that she had attended that morning. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 4, 1999 Chair Kipper pointed out a sentence on page 5 of the minutes that didn't make sense. Vice Chair Sweetnam pointed out a typo on page 7 of the minutes. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. Approved, (7-0-3) with Commissioners Black, Long, and McBride abstaining as they were not at that meeting. CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. MINUTES OF JANUARY 7, 1999 Chair Kipper reminded the Commission that these minutes had been approved at the last meeting, pending Mr. Oliveri's comments and input regarding omissions in the minutes. Joe Oliveri, 6 Chaparral Lane, explained that he had made notes during the January 7, 1999 meeting and that Commissioner Long had stated he had concerns about certain Commissioners that were misconstruing facts, confusing the issues, and manipulating the system. He felt a statement to that effect should be included in the minutes. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 4,1999 PAGE 2 OF 14 0 0 Vice Chair Sweetnam asked Mr. Oliveri if he recalled at what point in the meeting that comment was made. Mr. Oliveri responded that he remembered when it happened, however in listening to the audio tape of the meeting the comments were missing from the tape. Commissioner Long recalled making a comment expressing his concern that there are Commissioners that seem in favor of a repeal of the Ordinance. He didn't recall anything else specifically that he had said or where in the conversation that occurred. Commissioner Mueller recalled the conversation but felt that it was made at a meeting prior to the January meeting. Commissioner Long did not feel it was necessary to include his comments in the minutes, especially since it was not on the audio tape. Commissioner Long moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. The minutes were approved, (9-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 50: Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Cangemi, 30130 Avenida Tranquila (EU) Commissioner Mueller moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Black. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Project Coordinator Ursu presented the staff report. He explained that this permit had previously been approved by the Commission, however one of the foliage owners, Mrs. Miao, was requesting the Commission make an interpretation of Condition No. 8 of the Resolution regarding height to which the Cypress Trees were to be trimmed. He stressed that this was not to be a new hearing on the application and discussion should be limited to interpretation of the one condition and what the Commission's intent was in regards to that condition. Chair Kipper questioned which Commissioners should be hearing this interpretation. Project Coordinator Ursu suggested that the Commissioners who had originally heard and voted on the application should participate, which would be Commissioners Mehlman, Long, Black, Mueller, Vice Chair Sweetnam, and Chair Kipper. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 4,1999 PAGE 3 OF 14 40 0 A roll call was taken to see which of the original Commissioners had revisited the site. All six of the Commissioners had revisited the site. Debrey Miao, 30127 Avenida Tranquila, stated after the View Restoration Commission meeting of April 2, 1998 she decided to remove the two Mellaluca trees and trim the other four trees according to the Resolution. She stated that after removing the Mellaluca trees the planter and part of the driveway were ruined. She also stated that removal of the Mellaluca trees gave Mr. Cangemi a clear view of the ocean. She explained that the trimming and removal was done on July 14, 1998 and a letter was sent to the City requesting payment to Travers Tree Service on July 23. She further stated that on August 31 Mr. Ursu had informed her that Mr. Cangemi refused to release the funds. She commented that she had numerous conversations with Mr. Ursu who insisted her trees be trimmed to the ridgeline. She requested clarification and interpretation from the View Restoration Commission of Item No. 8. She felt that if the Commission reads Condition No. 8 of the Resolution they would find it ambiguous and unclear. She remembered the City Arborist recommending the Cypress trees be trimmed back with not more than 20% of the crown removed. Her request to the Commission was to instruct Mr. Cangemi to reimburse the tree service for the removal and trimming of the trees, instruct Mr. Cangemi to reimburse for the replacement and planting costs of the two Melalucca trees, and refund to the Miaos the application fee for this hearing. She did not feel that there should be a limit on the cost an applicant must pay for a foliage owner's replacement tree. A neighbor must cut down an old, established tree for the benefit and enjoyment of another's view and increase cost of their property value. In response, the foliage owner receives an estimate of$60 for a 15 gallon replacement tree. She requested the Commission discuss this replacement cost issue. Steve Cangemi, 30130 Avenida Tranquila, felt there was no confusion as to what needed to be done. The Jacaranda tree was cut to the ridgeline of the house and questioned why was it so confusing that the other trees needed to be cut to that same height. He felt that was the ruling of the Commission and what was adopted. Now, a year later, the money is sitting in the escrow account but the work was not done to his satisfaction. He felt the appeal process was available to Mrs. Miao when the decision was made and that is when the issue should have been addressed. Mr. Cangemi also wondered what the procedure was when there are trees that pop up when the original trees in the application are removed. He stated that he now has two more trees that are blocking his view that became visible after the Melalucca trees were removed. In rebuttal, Mrs. Miao stated that the Commission needed to look at Condition No. 8 of the Resolution, as it contained conflicting information that must be clarified. If the Commission decided she must trim her trees to the roof line she needed clarification as to what was the roof line, as Mr. Cangemi's house sits VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 4,1999 PAGE 4 OF 14 0 0 higher than her house. Trimming the three Cypress trees to the roof line would ruin the trees, as it will mean trimming approximately 50% of the trees. In rebuttal, Mr. Cangemi stated that the roof line would be from his view plane, which would mean the trees would have to come down approximately another 10 percent, not 50 percent. He stated that Mrs. Miao has been on his porch and knows the view plane. Commissioner Long asked Mrs. Miao to explain the replacement process she went through for her two trees. Mrs. Miao explained that her Melalucca trees provided privacy from her neighbors so she called staff and requested the suggested replacement tree list. She stated that on the list was a 15 gallon Japanese Black Pine. The cost for the tree was $600, which she felt was too much. She decided to replace the trees with two palm trees which were not on the list. She stated that Mr. Cangemi had submitted an estimate for replacement of her trees with a 15 gallon tree that would cost approximately $60. Commissioner Black moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Long. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Long asked staff to add to a future agenda a discussion and possible guidelines regarding the procedures for determining replacement foliage and how bids are accepted. Commissioner Long then stated that in looking over the Resolution, it appeared that the Commission had specified two things that are incompatible. On one hand the Commission specified the trees be trimmed to the highest ridgeline of Mrs. Miao's roof and on the other hand the Commission specified that no more than 20% of the tree's crown be removed. In looking at the tree he did not think that both of those things could be achieved. Chair Kipper felt that when the Commission first heard this application, the Resolution had in place the condition to trim the trees to the highest ridgeline. When the Commission decided to incorporate the arborist's views, instead of substituting that paragraph, the arborist statement was added to the end of the paragraph. She remembered adopting the arborists recommendations. Vice Chair Sweetnam disagreed. He remembered the Commission stating the trees should be trimmed back to the roof line, however they were not to be chopped off even with the roof line. He recalled the Commission ordering the trees to be trimmed to maintain a conical shape, however they should not be trimmed more than 20% as that may kill the trees. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 4,1999 PAGE 5 OF 14 111 Commissioner Long felt that those two directions were not compatible. His recollection was that the order was to trim the trees to the ridge line but it was the Commission's understanding that this could be done with no more than 20% of the trees trimmed. Therefore, if Mrs. Miao had trimmed the trees 20% he felt she had complied with the order. Commission Mueller felt that the wording of the condition was clear. He stated that since the wording said the trees shall be trimmed to the ridgeline that takes precedence over the second sentence that says they should be. Chair Kipper asked staff if 20% of the tree had been removed. Project Coordinator Ursu answered that he would have to go back to the original staff report or review the pictures taken before the tree was trimmed to see what the original height of the trees was before he could answer that question. Vice Chair Sweetnam asked staff to read the arborist report. Project Coordinator Ursu read from the arborist report of March 23, 1998 which stated in the last paragraph that trees 4, 5, and 6 must be judiciously trimmed to maintain their natural conical form. They are a hearty variety and can withstand severe pruning. The arborist recommended tipping back and drop crotching the natural leaders with no more than 20% of the crown removed. Commissioner Long moved to specify that the 20% cutting should override the statement regarding cutting to the ridgeline and therefore continue the hearing pending staffs report on the amount of foliage that has been removed, seconded by Commissioner Mehlman. The motion did not pass (3-3) with Commissioner Black, Mueller, and Vice Chair Sweetnam dissenting. Commissioner Long moved to continue the hearing to the next scheduled meeting and have staff report to the Commission on the degree of removal that has taken place, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. The motion passed without objection. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:05 P.M. the Commission took a short recess until 8:15 P.M. at which time they reconvened. Commissioner Green was excused from the meeting at 8:05 P.M. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 4,1999 PAGE 6 OF 14 0 • NEW BUSINESS 4. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 66: Mr. and Mrs. James Sutherland, 28802 Crestridge Road; Mr. and Mrs. Leonard Freeland, 28809 Crestridge Road; Mr. and Mrs. Charles Unruh, 28812 Crestridge Road. (EU) Commissioner Black moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chair Sweetnam. There being no objection the public hearing was opened. Commissioner Long pointed out that staff had distributed a copy of a letter from the foliage owner requesting a continuance on the hearing. The Commission took several minutes to read the request. Chair Kipper asked staff for some clarification regarding the lawsuit mentioned in the letter. Project Coordinator Nelson responded that a previous foliage owner had filed a lawsuit, however the lawsuit had nothing to do with the constitutionality of the Ordinance, rather the specific merits of the particular case. Commissioner Long stated that he did not feel the Commission had the authority to grant a continuance based upon this request, and therefore recommended the Commission deny the request. There being no objection, the Commission agreed. The Commissioners were polled as to who had visited the sites. All Commissioners had visited the sites, therefore Commissioner Mehlman was recused as she was the next alternate in the rotation to be recused. Commissioner Long was also recused, as he was the Commissioner involved in the pre-application meeting. Project Coordinator Ursu presented the staff report. He reviewed the viewing areas from each of the three applicant's homes as well as the twelve trees on the foliage owner's property that had the potential to create a significant view impairment. He explained that the staff report had been prepared before the city arborist had visited the foliage owner's property, and after the foliage owner had voluntarily trimmed some trees. After the staff report was prepared, the arborist visited the site and recommended that no trimming should be done within two years, otherwise the trees were likely to die. As a result of the arborist's recommendation, staff recommendation with regards to Canary Island Pine No. 2 would be removal of the tree. Staff did not feel there was a significant view impairment from the Southerland property and therefore no trimming was to be done to benefit the view from the Southerland property. Mr. Ursu distributed photographs showing the views from the three applicant's properties. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 4,1999 PAGE 7 OF 14 • • Commissioner Black commented that when she was at the Unruh property they had commented that their primary view was not from the master bedroom, but from the living room and dining room. Leonard Freeland (applicant), 28809 Crestridge Road, distributed photographs of the property taken in 1965 showing no trees in the area. He explained that Mr. Emke had volunteered to have his trees laced, but Mr. Freeland had explained that if his view was not restored he would pursue the matter through the view restoration process. He commented that the Emkes' had laced their trees and the view had not been restored to his satisfaction. Mr. Freeland distributed pictures taken after the trees were recently laced. He pointed out that he could not see through the trees to Mt. Baldy, which is the view he desires. He asked the Commission to please restore his view of Mt. Baldy. Charles Unruh (applicant), 28812 Crestridge Road, apologized to the Commission for not being prepared, as he was unclear of the purpose of the meeting. He mistakenly thought the decision to cut the trees had been made and this meeting was being held to formalize that decision. He asked the Commission to consider restoring his view. Timothy Emke (foliage owner), 5224 Middlecrest Road, was speaking on behalf of his parents at this hearing. He began by stating that the applicants had filed for the view restoration permit before the Emkes had laced their trees. He felt that as soon as it was determined that the Southerlands view was not impaired their application should have been excluded from any reference in the report. He objected to the statement on page 5, paragraph 1 of the staff report. He stated that staff was never on their property prior to the lacing and had no basis to form an opinion on how much shade and privacy had been lost due to the lacing. He commented that any branches below view height that were removed were done so only because they were dead and would not have been removed otherwise. He further commented that on page 5 of the staff report it stated that several trees on the property were trimmed. He clarified that in fact, all of the trees listed in the application were trimmed. On page 6 of the staff report a reference was made to a photograph from 1960 showing no trees in the area. Mr. Emke disagreed. He stated that the photograph only showed that the trees had not yet grown above the ridgeline. Whether or not the trees existed, the photograph did not show. Mr. Emke stated that if the trees are further trimmed and die, which he believes they would, there would be an unreasonable loss of privacy and shade. Addressing the Conditions of Approval in the staff report, he felt it was unreasonable to replace a mature tree with a tree in a 24 inch box. Mr. Emke stated that Mr. Unruh had claimed his best view was from the patio and backyard lawn, yet the report stated that the best view was from the master bedroom. He felt it should be taken into account where Mr. Unruh felt his best view was from, not what staff determined. Mr. Emke concluded by stating he felt it was unreasonable to ask for a view that the applicant had 40 years ago. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 4,1999 PAGE 8 OF 14 0 0 Mrs. Unruh indicated that she would like to speak but had not filled out a speaker slip. The commission agreed to allow her to speak. Mrs. Unruh, 28812 Crestridge Road, stated that approximately 20 years ago she had contacted Mrs. Emke and told her that her trees were beginning to block their view and that at some point in the future they may be a problem . Vice Chair Sweetnam asked Mr. Emke if this was the first time they had laced the trees. Mr. Emke answered that there had been trimming or lacing done every three to five years. Commissioner Mueller pointed out that the staff report identifies the master bedroom on the Unruh property as the main viewing area and asked Mrs. Unruh for clarification as to where she felt the main viewing area was on her property. Mrs. Unruh responded that she felt the main view was from the kitchen, living room and family room. She commented that they did not spend much time in the master bedroom. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. There being no objection the public hearing was closed. Vice Chair Sweetnam felt that the Emkes were "victims" of the fire department passing out the Canary Island Pines some twenty years ago. He stated nobody realized the problems these trees would eventually cause. However, the City does now have a view restoration ordinance and the trees have grown into a viewing area and are causing a problem. He felt the trees should be removed, as trimming the trees would probably have to be done on a yearly basis and may be very expensive for the Emkes to maintain. Commissioner Cordova felt that there were trees on the Sutherland property that were growing in front of the pine trees and the Sutherland trees were blocking quite a bit of the view from the Freeland property and felt that if those trees were removed there might be a better perspective of the view. Commissioner Mueller sympathized with the Freelands claim that the view of Mt. Baldy was a significant landmark that was being blocked by the tree no. 2. Commissioner Black asked staff how much of trees 3 and 4 would have to be trimmed to get them down to the pad level. Project Coordinator Ursu answered that the trees were currently 70 to 75 feet in height and the Unruh pad level is 44 feet in height. He pointed out that based on VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 4,1999 PAGE 9 OF 14 what the city arborist reported, these trees should not be trimmed that much and that was why staff was recommending removal. Chair Kipper felt that the commission should reconsider the trees based on the amended viewing area on the Unruh property. Project Coordinator Ursu distributed photographs taken from each of the rooms and the patio area on the Unruh property. The commissioners took several minutes to review the photographs. Commissioner McBride stated that he felt the Emkes had spent time and money to trim their trees in an attempt to comply with their neighbor's wishes. However, he felt that the Emkes were brought before the Commission because of an issue of a view of Mt. Baldy. Commissioner McBride stated he had reviewed the ordinance and could not find anything that stated that Mt. Baldy was a protected view in the mountain area view. He realized that mountain areas were considered a far view, but in his opinion he did not feel a significant view was being impaired. Mountain areas are specifically outlined in the guidelines, but a single mountain is not singled out as a particular view. He stated the applicant was enjoying a view of city lights, mountain areas and his far view is being protected with the existing lacing of the trees. He felt if the Emkes were to remove their trees they would be left with a row of stumps. He felt if the Emkes continued to keep the trees laced the applicants could continue to have their view. Commissioner Mueller stated that the staff report recommended replacement trees for any trees removed. Further, when he was on the Unruh property he felt that in looking out of the kitchen window there was a tree right in the middle of his view. He felt he was looking at a tree, not the Los Angeles basin. Further, he felt that in looking in the neighborhood he felt the Emke property was unique in their tall trees. He did not feel that the tall trees in their yard was consistent with the neighborhood. He felt the commission had to consider that the Unruhs and Freelands bought their properties for the view and commission should help restore some portion of the lost view. Commissioner McBride responded that these trees were on a steep slope and if the stumps and roots of the trees were removed there would probably be some type of erosion problem. He questioned how the commission could responsibly require, as a portion of Exhibit A, not to leave stumps. Commissioner Black raised the point that the Emkes do not want to remove the trees and the city arborist said the trees should not be trimmed for two years. She wondered what the commission could possibly do with these trees right now. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 4,1999 PAGE 10 OF 14 0 0 Commissioner Mueller suggested the option of recommending trimming the trees, and if they die within the year, to replace the trees with some type of replacement foliage. Chair Kipper suggested considering one property at a time and consider the issue of significant view impairment. Vice Chair Sweetnam suggested that since there was some confusion as to what trees went where, trees should be identified by number in the Resolution as well as Exhibit A. Commissioner Mueller asked staff for clarification regarding tree No. 5. He questioned that since the tree had recently been laced to allow a view through it and the staff report said no work was necessary on this tree, if that meant the tree was in the view. Project Coordinator Ursu answered that the tree was in the view, however because of the trimming done to the tree, it does not contribute to the significant view impairment. He realized that in the future it may grow and create a significant view impairment. Vice Chair Sweetnam suggested that in this case Canary Island Pine No. 5 should be included in the Resolution and Exhibit A specifying that it doesn't need any work right now but it does have to be maintained at it's current level. Project Coordinator Ursu felt that the problem with doing that was one of the criteria for approving the application is that the tree creates a significant view impairment. He suggested that the Commission first decide what the primary viewing area should be for the residence before making a decision on the trees. Chair Kipper stated that the applicants had already stated that they did not think the master bedroom was a primary viewing area and their view was from the kitchen, family room, dining room, and patio. If the viewing area is changed, are the three Monterey Pine trees still causing a significant view impairment. The Commissioners spent several minutes reviewing the photographs. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved that Section 2 of the Resolution be amended to eliminate the master bedroom as the primary viewing area and replace that with kitchen, dining room, family room, and patio, seconded by Commissioner Black. The motion was approved, (7-0). Commissioner McBride moved to then consider each individual property in terms of significant view impairment, seconded by Commissioner Black. There being no objection it was so ordered. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 4,1999 PAGE 11 OF 14 0 0 Commissioner Mueller moved to specify that the applicants at 28809 Crestridge Road, the Freeland property have a view that is significantly impaired by Canary Island Pine No. 2, seconded by Commissioner Drages. Approved, (4-3) with Commissioner McBride, Vice Chair Sweetnam, and Chair Kipper dissenting. Commissioner Black moved that the applicants at 28812 Crestridge Road, the Unruhs, have a view that is not significantly impaired, seconded by Commissioner Drages. Approved, (5-2) with Commissioner Mueller and Vice Chair Sweetnam dissenting. Commissioner Black moved that the applicants at 28802 Crestridge Road, the Sutherlands, have a view that is not significantly impaired by foliage, seconded by Commissioner McBride. Approved, (6-1) with Vice Chair Sweetnam dissenting. Commissioner McBride moved to delete items 2, 3, and 4 from Exhibit A (Monterey Pine tree Nos. 3, 4, and 6), seconded by Commissioner Black. Approved, (5-2) with Commissioner Mueller and Vice Chair Sweetnam dissenting. Project Coordinator Ursu suggested that, given the arborist's recommendation to put off trimming for two years and that pine trees should be trimmed in the colder months of the year, the first notice be issued in November of 1999. That will be when the 90 day time period would commence. Commissioner McBride moved to adopt the Resolution as amended, seconded by Commissioner Black. Approved, (5-2) with Commissioner Mueller and Vice Chair Sweetnam dissenting. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 10:20 P.M. the Commission took a short recess until 10:30 at which time they reconvened. NEW BUSINESS 4. DISCUSSION ON THE PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Kipper explained that in the past staff presented their staff reports before the public hearing was opened. She had checked the guidelines and found that the public hearing should be opened prior to the staff giving their report. She stated that, unless a commissioner had an objection, she intended to follow the procedure as written in the guidelines. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 4,1999 PAGE 12 OF 14 • S There was no objection from the commission. Commissioner Long stated that since the commission was discussing compliance with the guidelines, he would like to briefly comment on some apparent confusion during the public hearing. He wanted to call the commission's attention to page 8 of the guidelines, prominent landmarks. He felt the wording in the guidelines stated that a far view included but was not limited to views that included the mountains. He felt that the example of Mt. Baldy was particularly a significant view and the wording in the guidelines "such as" means that the views listed in the guidelines were examples and not meant to be restrictive. ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATIONS Project Coordinator Nelson updated the commission on the City Council Ad-Hoc Committee. She stated the committee would be presenting to the City Council within the next few months some suggestions for changes to the Guidelines. Project Coordinator Nelson then updated the commission on the outcome of Mr. Dyda's appeal to City Council. A lengthy discussion followed on the appeal process to the City Council. A discussion also occurred regarding scheduling problems the commissioners were having for the pre-application meetings. Chair Kipper responded to a memo that Commissioner Black submitted in her absence at the February 4, 1999 meeting. Commissioner Mehlman also responded to Commissioner Black's memo. She also responded to comments made by Commissioner Long. She felt that she and Chair Kipper deserved an apology from both Commissioners Black and Long. Commissioner Long responded that comments made were not meant to be a personal attack on any commissioner but rather the voicing of some genuine concerns that members of the commission are not respecting the ordinance as it exists in the way in which it currently reads. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Vice Chair Sweetnam suggested a discussion on the problems of hidden trees. Project Coordinator Nelson commented that the commission had asked earlier in the meeting for a discussion on the replacement tree process. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 4,1999 PAGE 13 OF 14 9 e COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Captain Singh, 5714 Wildbriar Drive, thanked the commission and staff for the time and energy they expended on his view restoration case. He felt the commission acted as fairly as they could and made a decision to the best of their ability. He expressed his disappointment with the City Council and, in his opinion, their bias. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Black. The meeting was duly adjourned at 11:47 P.M. to Thursday, May 6, 1999 at Hesse Park. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 4,1999 PAGE 14 OF 14