Loading...
VRC MINS 19990107 • • APPROVED MARCH 4, 1999 VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 7, 1999 The meeting was called to order by Chair Kipper at 7:02 P.M. at Fred Hesse Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Vice Chair Sweetnam. Present: Commissioners Black, Drages, Green, Long, McBride, Mehlman, Mueller, Vice Chair Sweetnam, Chair Kipper Absent: Commissioner Cordova was excused Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement 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 McBride. Approved, (9-0). COMMUNICATIONS Project Coordinator Nelson began by congratulating the newly appointed View Restoration Chair, Marianne Kipper. She stated that after the distribution of correspondence, the Commission would need to select a new Vice Chair. Ms. Nelson reported that she had distributed a letter of late correspondence from Mr. MozafFari regarding View Restoration Permit No. 58. She also distributed an updated view restoration status log. Finally, she distributed page 2 of a staff report to City Council from Les Evans. SELECTION OF VICE CHAIR Commissioner Green nominated Vice Chair Sweetnam to continue as vice chair, seconded by Commissioner Black. Commissioner Mehlman nominated Commissioner McBride to serve as vice chair, seconded by Commissioner Drages. • 6 Vice Chair Sweetnam was elected vice chair by a roll call vote, (5-4)with Commissioners McBride, Mehlman, Drages, and Chair Kipper dissenting. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 1, 1998 Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to approve the minutes as presented,seconded by Commissioner McBride. Approved, (7-0-2)with Commissioners Green and Drages abstaining since they were absent from that meeting. CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 58: Mr. and Mrs. Hooshang Mozaffari, 30405 Avenida de Calma (EU) Project Coordinator Ursu presented the staff report. He summarized the trees involved on the Schweisberger and Lal properties and the staff recommendations for the trees. The Commission was polled as to who had visited the sites. Commissioner Green recused himself as he had not visited all three properties and had not reviewed the minutes from the previous public hearing. Commissioner Drages was recused as she was the next alternate in the order of rotation to be recused. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner McBride. There being no objection the public hearing was opened. Hooshang Mozaffari (applicant) 30405 Avenida de Calma began by stating that a view, when you have one, is very important to the house value as well as the enjoyment of the owners, which was why they were asking the Commission to restore their view. He stated that he and his wife agree with the staff recommendations presented in the staff report regarding the Schweisberger residence. However, concerning the Lal residence he felt partial trimming of the trees was not sufficient to fully restore his view. Trimming per staff recommendations would only partially restore his view. He commented that he has trimmed several of his own trees to help restore views from his neighbors' properties. He distributed photos for the commission to review showing how he had trimmed his own trees. Mr. Mozaffari commented that the Lal's had already trimmed and removed trees to help restore his view. However, he did not feel that trimming and removal had substantially modified their view. He stated that until recently he had been satisfied with the trimming done on the Lal property because the trees from the Schweisberger property blocked the view in front of the trees on the Lal property. Now, however, if the Schweisbergers were to trim the trees according to staff VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7,1999 PAGE 2 recommendations, the Lal's trees would continue to block the view and would have to be removed or trimmed to obtain a full view restoration. He further commented that there were no two-story houses in front of their home that blocked any part of their view. John Schweisberger(foliage owner) 30421 Avenida de Calma stated that his position had not changed substantially from the public hearing in August of 1998. He explained to the commission that he felt there was a difference between a lateral view versus a vertical view. He felt the viewpoint taken by the staff in making their findings refer to the impairment of roughly a lateral 25 percent of a horizontal view. He also pointed out that the applicant had, at the August meeting and again in the letter distributed at the beginning of this meeting, stated that the recommendations as put forth by staff would not fully restore the view and it made no sense to continue with this action in that event. Given that, Mr. Schweisberger felt the Commission did not have support for the recommendations made by the staff by either the foliage owner or the applicants and urged the Commission to reject the application. Dhyan Lal (foliage owner) 30420 Calle de Suenos stated that the Commissioners, after visiting their backyard, could see why they bought their house and why they felt so strongly about not cutting their trees. He emphasized that his trees and foliage in his backyard were kept trimmed and well manicured. He agreed that the trees had grown more than usual lately because he had put off the usual trimming until the Commission had made it's decision. Mr. Lal pointed out the several trees that he already had removed to help restore the view for Mr. Mozaffari. He stated that an arborist had commented that if the trees were topped, they would die. If the trees die, the value of the property will be substantially reduced. He stated that every year he trims his trees and will continue to do so. Mr. Lal urged the Commission to look at all sides of the issue before making their decision. He concluded by stating that he did not want to loose any trees. Shirley Lal (foliage owner) 30420 Calle de Suenos reiterated what Mr. Lal had said about topping the trees. She was very concerned that the trees, especially the Monterey Pine, would die if topped. She stated that the Mozaffaris enjoyed a magnificent view. She felt that trimming and topping her trees would only enhance the MozafFari's significant view of the sky, not the ocean. She commented that they had already removed the largest tree from their backyard and consistently trimmed their trees every year to the satisfaction of the Mozaffaris. She further commented that the main reason for buying the house was because of the trees. Mr. Mozaffari (in rebuttal) commented that he did not disagree with the staff recommendations, rather they were very supportive of the recommendations. He reiterated that he would like a full view restoration rather than a partial restoration. Mr. Schweisberger(in rebuttal) stated that the trees in the Lal backyard not only created a beautiful atmosphere and ambiance for the Lals but also added to the VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7,1999 PAGE 3 1111 ambiance of their own backyard. He also stated that the trees Mr. Mozaffari cut in his backyard were in no way relevant to the views of the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Lal (in rebuttal) emphasized that he agreed with the comments made by Mr. Schweisberger. He again asked the Commission to consider his yard and trees and asked that his trees not be topped as they would most likely die. He felt that if his trees were topped he would consider that a violation of his rights. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Long. There being no objection the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Long asked Mr. Schweisberger if there was any portion of the recommendations made by staff that he was willing to accept, or if there was any modified version of the recommendations he would like to suggest. Mr. Schweisberger commented that he had already trimmed the mock pear tree substantially since the August hearing. He commented that he was willing to work with Mr. MozafFari in regards to the Acacia tree. However, the pine tree (tree#1)was special to his family and he was not willing to trim, top or remove that tree. Project Coordinator Ursu clarified for the Commission the differences in elevation between the three properties. Commissioner Mehlman asked Mrs. Lal about the palm tree in her yard. Mrs. Lal commented that she did not want to loose the tree. She stated that staff recommendation was to trim the dead fronds, which she was going to do anyway. Chair Kipper expressed concern that staff recommendation for the pines on the Lal property was essentially to top the trees, which would most likely kill the trees. Vice Chair Sweetnam commented that Allepo pines are not impacted by severe trimming, they just grow out more at the bottom. Chair Kipper asked staff if the trees on the Lal property were trimmed to the staff recommended level, what percentage of the tree would that be taking. Project Coordinator Ursu responded that three to five feet would be taken from the top of the trees and the trees were approximately 25 to 30 feet high. He further stated that he had not consulted with the city arborist, however according to several trimming standards, typically trimming a tree over 33 percent would cause damage or death. In this situation, less than 33 percent of the trees were recommended to be trimmed. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7,1999 PAGE 4 0 0 Commissioner McBride commented if tree 1 on the Schweisberger property were trimmed, it was difficult to see how this would enhance the significant view from the applicant's property. Commissioner McBride moved to adopt the staff recommendations with the amendment that tree#1 (Allepo pine)on the Schweisberger property was on the periphery of the view frame and did not create a significant view Impairment, therefore no work was required on that tree, seconded by Commissioner Mehlman. Vice Chair disagreed and felt the Allepo pine was well within the view frame. The motion failed by a vote of 3-4 with Commissioners Black, Long, Mueller, and Vice Chair Sweetnam dissenting. Commissioner Long moved to adopt the staff recommendations as presented, thereby adopting VRC Resolution 99-01, seconded by Commissioner Black. Approved, (4-3)with Commissioners McBride, Mehlman, and Chair Kipper dissenting. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:15 P.M. the Commission took a short recess until 8:25 P.M. at which time they reconvened. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. VIEW PRESERVATION PERMIT NO. 1 APPEAL: Mr. and Mrs. Ken Dyda 5615 Capeswood Drive (TN) The Commission was polled as to who had visited the site. Commissioners Green and Long had not visited the sites or reviewed the minutes, therefore they were recused from hearing this application. Project Coordinator Nelson presented the staff report. She explained that Mr. Dyda had appealed the decision of the September 17, 1998 View Restoration Commission meeting to the City Council. At the November 4, 1998 meeting the City Council felt there should be some equity between the original view restoration permit decision and the subsequent preservation determination with regards to the height levels of foliage on the property. As a result of that, the City Council remanded the item back to the View Restoration Commission for review. Staff presented three options to the View Restoration Commission in their staff report. The first two options are concurrent with the direction that City Council issued. Option 3 would be contrary to the direction given VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7,1999 PAGE 5 0 • by the City Council. Finally, she reminded the Commission that they were not dealing with the foliage in View Restoration Permit No. 17 and therefore should not consider the Peach tree, the Silver Dollar Eucalyptus, and the Pittisporum. Director Rojas explained that the View Restoration Commission now has the ability to reconsider it's original decision. He added that although the Commission was given specific direction by the City Council, notwithstanding this direction they could still choose to stand by their original decision. Director Rojas recommended that the View Restoration Commission abide by the City Council direction. Chair Kipper asked Mr. Rojas if the City Council members had actually seen the foliage at the property and were unhappy with the foliage height. Director Rojas answered that he was not sure which City Council members had visited the site but that in reviewing the appeal the City Council questioned why foliage related to the view preservation request would have to be cut and maintained at a different level from foliage related to the view restoration permit. The City Council felt to make things simple for everyone, particularly to the foliage owner, the foliage should be trimmed to one level. Vice Chair Sweetnam felt that the point at which the height measurements were to be taken needed to be clarified as there was confusion over it in the past. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to open the public hearing,seconded by Commissioner Black. There being no objection the public hearing was opened. Chair Kipper asked the applicant and foliage owner if 5 minutes was enough time to present their views. Mr. Dyda requested a few extra minutes. Chair Kipper granted 10 minutes to both the applicant and foliage owner for presentation and 3 minutes for rebuttal. Ken Dyda (applicant) 5715 Capeswood Drive began by clarifying where his property line was. He commented that in 1989 he purchased an additional strip of property from a neighbor, had it surveyed, and a header board was placed to show where his property line was. The fence and sprinkler system are inside that property line. He explained that at the November City Council meeting it was very clear to him that the City Council remanded his case back to the View Restoration Commission and asked the VRC to come back with some way to have the level of the trees trimmed for view preservation to coincide with the level of trees that are trimmed for view restoration. He questioned the process for the View Restoration Commission to make a redetermination to reach the conclusion identified by the City Council. He explained that View Restoration Permit 17 set the view frame boundaries and the trimming height VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7,1999 PAGE 6 requirements and those findings could not be changed. He further stated that the guidelines state that the view restoration view frame shall be used as a bench mark for view preservation. Therefore, the authority does exist to make a determination consistent with City Council direction. Captain Padam Singh 5714 Wildbriar Drive stated that Mr. Dyda enjoys a beautiful view of the ocean and the mountains just as he himself enjoys a view of his yard and trees. He did not want the View Restoration Commission to think view restoration and view preservation were the same. He stated that he has removed trees and maintained his yard in a beautiful manner. He did not understand how the View Restoration Commission could determine that the deck level at Mr. Dyda's property should be used as a criteria for determining Mr. Dyda's view. He commented that he was very concerned with his privacy. He stated that nobody from City Council had visited his property. He felt that the City Council was more willing to listen to Mr. Dyda because he was at one time a member of the City Council and was their friend. He stated he was not their friend. He further stated that he had not trimmed his trees and would not until the issue was settled. He stated Mr. Dyda has an unobstructed view and wondered how much more he had to give up. He asked the commission to make an unbiased decision regarding this matter. He asked that the issue be decided and finished tonight. Jon Echevarrieta 30327 Ganado Drive commented that he was speaking out of respect for the Singhs. He told the Commission that he felt their conduct in representing this hideous ordinance was biased, uncivil, and ludicrous. He said that in reading the voters ballot for Proposition M there was a statement that equity would be provided for all sides. He did not feel that had been accomplished in their decisions in the past. In closing, he felt that Mr. Singh's property had already been destroyed, why not leave Mr. Singh alone. Mr. Dyda (in rebuttal) stated that Mr. Singh was aware of what the requirements of View Restoration Permit No. 17 were many years ago. He further stated that many years ago Mr. Singh brought him an estimate of the costs of trimming trees in his yard. At that time, Mr. Dyda stated he made him an offer that was four times what he felt the trimming would cost, and Mr. Singh turned him down. He further stated that the trees on Mr. Singh's property were not trimmed well and looked bad. He stated that when he bought his property there were three elements on his property tax bill: land value, improvement value, and the value of view. He also indicated that the value of the view has since been removed. Therefore, he felt that he has been paying for his view and has been taxed accordingly. Mr. Singh (in rebuttal) stated he has spent in excess of$75,000 to build walls on his property and to trim his trees. He stated that he and his family love the trees in their yard. He commented that he had already removed 5 to 7 trees from his property that were under 50 feet tall. Before removing those trees Mr. Dyda's view was obscured from the deck. He felt Mr. Dyda was being unreasonable in asking for more view to be VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7,1999 PAGE 7 0 • restored, which he will be willing to do, however he does not want Mr. Dyda or the City to be vindictive in their decision. Vice Chair Sweetnam moved to close the public hearing,seconded by Commissioner McBride. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Black began by stating that after reviewing the three options in the staff report, she felt that option 2 was the closest to what the City Council was asking the Commission to do. Further, if the Commission decided to discuss interpretation of the Guidelines, then Commissioners Green and Long should be part of the discussion. Vice Chair Sweetnam felt that Options 1 and 2 should be combined in such a way to say that the trees on the property should be brought down to a level as specified in View Restoration Permit No. 17. Director Rojas clarified that the intent option 1 of the staff report was to deal with this case by itself and re-evaluate the previous decision and make that decision match the VRP 17 foliage, and not deal with the interpretation of the guidelines for other cases. He stated that option 2 of the staff report was intended to have an agreement by the Commission on a formal interpretation of how the reference in the Guidelines to the word "benchmark"was to be interpreted by the View Restoration Commission, but not to modify or amend the guidelines themselves. Commissioner Mehlman stated that she was out at the Dyda property and felt he had a beautiful view. She did not understand why the height of the trees in the preservation and restoration decisions had to match. Commissioner Black responded that it was what the City Council had recommended they look at. Chair Kipper stated that if the City Council wanted everything to be cut to the same level then it was within the City Council's power to make that decision. However, since the City council did not make that decision, but remanded the decision back to the View Restoration Commission, then her interpretation was that the City Council wanted the View Restoration Commission to decide if a distinction should be made. Commissioner McBride agreed with Chair Kipper and pointed out Section VIIIA 1-a in the Guidelines that stated that the height shall be used as a benchmark by city staff for making a determination of significant view impairment. He further stated that the previous vote of the Commission in this matter was based on using the benchmark for VRP 17 to determine that there was not a significant view impairment. Therefore a specific height that the trees needed to be trimmed to was determined according to that benchmark. He felt they would be voting tonight specifically on whether they had a made a legal and appropriate determination on significant view impairment of the VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7,1999 PAGE 8 0 0 foliage not subject to VRP No. 17. Therefore, he felt option 3 of the staff report was the appropriate action for the Commission to take. Vice Chair Sweetnam felt that anything the Commission did in regards to interpretation of Section VIII-A-1-a of the Guidelines should be done by the entire Commission. He suggested the Commission separate the two and consider option 1 or option 3 now for this case and then, when Commissioners Green and Long have returned, discuss what, if anything, should be done regarding interpreting Section VIII A-1-a of the Guidelines (option 2). Chair Kipper stated that she had been to Mr. Dyda's property that day and sat down in the house, outside, and walked to the edge of the property. She did not see any significant view impairment at all and was puzzled as to why anything else needed to be cut. She felt that the work that had been done had restored his view and she believed that cutting anything further would only expose roof tops and would be sure to kill anything left. Commissioner McBride felt that the Commission had already voted on option 1 at the previous hearing, option 2 would require the entire Commission to participate, and felt that option 3, which was to stand by their previous decision, was the best option to adopt. Director Rojas added that if the Commission chose option 3 that perhaps some type of rational for the decision be included for the City Council. Commissioner McBride moved to adopt staff option 3 of the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Drages. Commissioner Black suggested tabling the matter in this particular case until the full Commission had re-evaluated and made a determination regarding interpretation of the Guidelines. Vice Chair Sweetnam added that there would be no amendment to the Guidelines, only an interpretation of the term "benchmark". Director Rojas agreed that tabling the item until all of the Commissioners had discussed the interpretation of the word benchmark was a good idea. Once that interpretation was made and agreed upon by the Commission, they could then make a decision on this particular case. In reviewing the guidelines, the Commission could also choose to make a recommendation to the City Council to amend the Guidelines. Commissioner Mueller added before there could be a vote on the motion he felt a discussion was needed with all Commissioners present on the interpretation of the word benchmark. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7,1999 PAGE 9 • Ili Director Rojas clarified by stating that the City Council did not direct the Commission to make a decision on one of the three options listed in the staff report. They directed the Commission to find equity between preservation and restoration trimming heights. Staff came up with the three options identified in the staff report to help the Commission achieve what the City Council wanted. Commissioner McBride called the motion and asked for a roll call vote. Commissioner McBride moved to adopt staff option 3 of the staff report which re- enforced the decision of the Commission at it's last meeting, seconded by Commissioner Drages. Adopted, (4-3)with Commissioners Black, Mueller, and Vice Chair Sweetnam dissenting and Commissioners Long and Green recused. Commissioner Long asked staff if a reconsideration of a hearing item could be made at a future meeting. Director Rojas answered that in checking the Guidelines a motion for reconsideration of a matter could be made by any member who voted with the prevailing majority on the matter. He added that if the Commission would like to have a discussion at this meeting regarding the interpretation of the Guidelines, they could have a vote to add the item to the agenda. Mr. Singh stated that the City Council remanded this item back to the Commission for a decision. He felt that whatever was decided tonight was a final decision. Commissioner Long objected and questioned whether the public hearing had been reopened. He felt it was out of order for Mr. Singh to be speaking at the podium. Mr. Singh was being allowed to speak without time limits. Chair Kipper answered that she thought Mr. Singh had a question regarding the appeal process and since this was a very unusual situation she felt Mr. Singh should have the opportunity to question the process. Commissioner Long moved to impose the Guidelines and instruct the Chair to proceed as though the public hearing was closed, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. There being no objection, Mr. Singh was asked to take his seat. Commissioner Long moved to add to the agenda a discussion of option 2 of the staff report for View Preservation Permit No. 1 to this evenings agenda, seconded by Commissioner Green. There being no objection, the item was added to the agenda. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7,1999 PAGE 10 • • NEW BUSINESS 4. PRE-APPLICATION MEETING SCHEDULE (TN) Project Coordinator Nelson discussed the difficulty staff was having in scheduling pre- application meetings and the difficulty in scheduling Commissioners to attend these meetings. Staff and the Commission discussed the changes proposed in the staff report. Commissioner Long suggested approving the proposals in the staff report and place on the agenda of a future meeting a concept of seeking a modification of the Guidelines to deal with the situation of Commissioners failing to participate in the pre-application meetings. Project Coordinator Nelson summarized by stating that the current rotation of the Commissioners would continue, a rotation would be developed for back-up Commissioners, and using that rotation call the Commissioners with given time slots and days to see what days they would be available to serve. 5. DISCUSSION OF FORMATION OF CITY COUNCIL VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE (JR) Director Rojas briefly discussed the problems with the high costs of implementing the City's view restoration and view preservation processes and that a City Council ad-hoc committee had been formed to develop recommendations for possible amendments to the view restoration ordinance to try to make view preservation and view restoration more consistent and reduce some of the costs of implementing the Ordinance. The Commission had a lengthy discussion on different options available to help alleviate the problem. Chair Kipper suggested trying to schedule a meeting with the ad-hoc committee so the Commission could express their opinion on the process. The Commission discussed possible dates for a meeting and agreed to invite the ad hoc committee to it's next meeting which was agreed to be on Thursday, January 21. The Commission also agreed that if the ad hoc committee could not appear on January 21, 1999 that they be requested to attend the earliest possible meeting including, if necessary, a special meeting on January 28, 1999. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7,1999 PAGE 11 • 0 6. INTERPRETATION OF SECTION VIIIA 1-a OF THE VIEW RESTORATION GUIDELINES Director Rojas clarified that, per the Brown Act, by putting this item on the agenda tonight the View Restoration Commission was determining that there was a need to take immediate action and the need for action came to the attention of the city after the agenda was posted. The Commission agreed with Director Rojas. Vice Chair Sweetnam began the discussion by stating that the word "benchmark" seemed to be the problem in the discussion. His understanding of the word was as a basic engineering term where it was a place marked where measurements are started from. He did not feel it was something that could be changed and represented a fixed point from which to start a measurement. Commissioner McBride agreed that it was a starting point. However, a starting point for determining significant view impairment and not a point from which all measurements must be taken. Commissioner Long disagreed with Vice Chair Sweetnam's interpretation. He felt that a benchmark was not a refined engineering term but rather a starting place for the measurement and that the Commission must assess significant view impairment, taking into account the benchmark of the restoration permit. He believed that there would be some circumstances where the decision will differ and therefore he would not favor the adoption of an interpretation that would automatically assure that the height would necessarily be the same on preservation as restoration. The benchmark would be the starting point. However, as Commissioner McBride indicated, the Commission would then need to assess the significant view impairment from the established benchmark. Commissioner Mehlman did not understand the rational of saying that the restoration and preservation heights had to be the same. She felt they were two different circumstances and should be considered separately. She felt that they should only be looking at view impairment. Commissioner Green indicated that he did not quite understand where the City Council direction came from and asked staff if they could give the Commission some type of context so the Commission could get a feel for what the City Council was looking for. He agreed with Commissioner Long and felt that cutting everything "even"would advocate a position that may be harsher for the foliage owner than may be warranted given the circumstances, and he did not believe that was what the City Council intended. Director Rojas responded that there were two main issues that the City Council was asking the Commission to address because they seem to be unequal. The first being, VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7,1999 PAGE 12 0 0 why there are two levels that foliage on the same property could be cut to just because different processes are used. The City Council felt that for simplicity for the foliage owner, you would want to have foliage that has to be trimmed cut to the same level under the same trimming cycle. The other issue was how the View Restoration Commission could make one decision on a property for view restoration and staff make a different decision for the same property for a view preservation permit. Chair Kipper pointed out that even if you cut things to different heights it doesn't mean they can't be trimmed during the same trimming cycle. She did not understand the argument for trimming them all to the same height so that you could cut them all at the same time. She went on to say that there were instances where every tree on a property was not ordered cut to the same height. Further, if during view restoration a significant view is exposed and some of the foliage not included in the application frames that view, why should the foliage that frames the view be trimmed to the same level as the trees that were blocking the view. Commissioner Long agreed and indicated that requiring foliage that was not subject to a specific view restoration permit to be removed or lowered just because it was there, and with no regard for whether it created a significant view impairment or not, was not what he believed was intended when the Guidelines were adopted. He stated that was not fair. He commented it was simplistic, but taking simplicity so far that it would relegate staff duties to merely taking a yard stick out and cutting everything to the specified point on that stick. He commented that things are just not that simple. Commissioner McBride understood how the City Council might not understand all of the factors involved in making the decisions. He commented that View Restoration Commissioners spend a lot of time visiting the properties involved and are involved in the public hearings. The City Council, however, only hears an abbreviated version during the appeal process and many times may have not visited the properties involved. Chair Kipper stated that she believed that the City Council was looking for fairness and not simplicity and that if trimming the foliage to two different heights was an option that was fairer to the foliage owner and restored the view, then why cut things down even more. Commissioner Long stated that he would like to let the City Council know that view restoration commissioners have seen the complexities that occur on different properties and he can see a number of situations where cutting the foliage down to one level could produce some very bizarre results. He used the example that the Commission very often will order different things for different foliage, depending on what type of foliage is in the view. Sometimes the Commission will order lacing, trimming, or a combination of both. If a rigid, fixed point is assigned as a benchmark, how will the Commission deal with a situation where lacing is the only thing required for view impairing trees in a view restoration permit, and later a different type of tree grows into the view plane and the VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7,1999 PAGE 13 0 0 view owner files for view preservation. Applying the fixed point rule, the Commission could only order lacing of those new trees because that is what the permit dictated. Vice Chair Sweetnam stated that when issuing a view restoration permit, the view area is defined and when you then apply for view preservation you should not significantly change that view area. There should not be different view areas for view restoration and view preservation. Commissioner Long agreed, stating a viewing plane is defined and that is the benchmark from which to work. However, that would not mean that if any twig, no matter how small, grew into that viewing plane it shall automatically be cut down. That example would then take away from the determination of whether the foliage in the view was significant or not. Commissioner Long moved to open the public hearing,seconded by Commissioner McBride. There being no objection,the public hearing was opened. Ken Dyda 5715 Capeswood Drive agreed with staff that the City Council concern was two-fold. He added that another concern of the City Council was that once you have established a view restoration permit, to negate that with view preservation later on was something they did not feel was appropriate. He also agreed with many of the comments made by the Commission. He stressed that the City Council specifically limited their decision not to all view preservation permits. He commented that the City Council said in their motion, to specifically consider the situation in this particular case. Captain Singh 5714 Wildbriar Drive stressed that view restoration and preservation are separate issues and should be treated as such. He also agreed that a benchmark is a starting point, not an exact measurement point. Commissioner Long moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Green. There being no objection, the public hearing was closed. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Long thanked staff and the View Restoration Commission for making his term as Chair of the Commission much easier. He also thanked the City Council for the opportunity to serve as Chair and wished the new Chair good luck. Commissioner Black moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Green. The meeting was duly adjourned at 11:03 P.M. to Thursday, January 21, 1999. NAGROURPLANNING\VRCVNIN0107. VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7,1999 PAGE 14