1 May 11, 2024
Hi, Garrett.
Thanks for meeting with me this past Friday and sharing the revised landscape plan for 1813 THD.
As we discussed, there are a few errors, omissions and misrepresentations still in this revised plan.
1. The two illegal Ficuses (in green circles, 1st image, below) are each represented as ~4-5ft on this plan (based on the size of the circles and the 1in to 8ft scale on the plan.) They are instead 15-20ft wide and massively block our views (2nd image, below). The green circles are also in the wrong location. The Ficuses are farther south (away from the street) than what is represented here and are directly in what used to be one of our best view corridors to Catalina Island on the originally approved landscape plan (3rd image, below). This plan, as drafted, would give the DRB a distorted and wholly inaccurate impression of the impact of these illegal trees on our pre-existing view corridor. The planting legend shows the intended mature height of these Ficuses to be limited to 20ft x15ft.
This plan does not accurately reflect this and is grossly misleading. If these illegal Ficuses are to stay, effectively permanently losing us this view corridor, forever, then we will insist that not only these Ficuses, but all the remaining trees in the backyard are limited to a height of 15ft (except as discussed, below) so that the remaining view corridors are never impacted again. Of note, the Evergreen Ash is also wrongly placed on the plan. It is instead ~5ft more into the marked view corridor (towards the left) and further reduces the view corridor from how it is depicted and was approved by the DRB (3rd image, below). Finally, if these Ficuses are to be legalized, the southern extent of the Ficuses must be limited to no farther south than this edge of our deck as depicted in the 2nd image, by the orange vertical line.
2 2. According to the changes in this plan, the Vellas are also seeking to increase the size (width) of the Evergreen Ash from what was ~10ft on the originally approved plan to 20ft, which it illegally already is. [Note that the maximum approved size of the Evergreen as digitally measured on the approved landscape plan by David Latham of Planning is 9’-8 ¾, 1st image, below.] As above, this would not be acceptable to us unless: 1) the final height of this extremely fast-growing tree is limited to 15ft, consistent with their most recently trimming (2nd image, below on the right), and as originally proposed by the Vellas and some DRB members at the original DRB Evergreen Ash - 5 � further away from the
rear property, into the view corridor than
depicted here
Exis�ng
Ficus
View Corridor - There is only ground cover
on the plan
Two unapproved ficuses exactly in the
view corridor
Current Plan�ngs In View Corridor: • Evergreen Incorrectly Located on the Plan. It is 5� further into the corridor; Branches Extends Well into the View Corridor • Exis�ng Ficus Now Extends Well into View Corridor
• 2 Illegal Ficuses Placed Directly in the View Corridor Illegal Ficuses
3 meeting (3rd image, below), and 2) the other proposed restrictions in this email are adopted. Also, 3) the increased width, from 10ft to 20ft, can only extend towards the street (uphill- to the right, 2nd image below) to blend into the illegal Ficuses to form a hedge, as it currently does, and not be allowed to extend southerly into our view corridor as it did previously (2nd image on the left), significantly blocking our views of Catalina; and 4) nor can any of its branches be permitted to exceed the 15 ft height limit of the illegal Ficuses at any time so that it is maintained as a well-manicured, sloped hedge as depicted in the 4th image, below. If this is not acceptable, then I will strongly contest the legalizing of the Ficuses, as their refusal to maintain this Evergreen, even within the existing limits, has been a constant nuisance and source of stress to us, necessitating 3 citations from Code Enforcement. This is no way the height limit of the Ash can or should remain at 20ft in this location while maintaining our view equity. They have proven this convincingly over the last 4 years of this dispute.
Evergreen Ash Hedge- Before and Now A�er Most
Recent Trimming Mandated by Code Enforcement
Massive overgrowth well beyond 10� wide limit and
extending southerly into view corridor to Catalina
View corridor to ocean and Catalina restored- Current
Uphill, towards the street, is to the right in these images Well-manicured
Evergreen
4 3. The Vellas are also seeking to increase the height of the Pittosporum in their front yard to the upper roof eave of ~18ft. We would accept this if: 1) the plan stipulates that they tree can’t exceed the roof eave, as this is less ambiguous and easier for me to monitor than a height measurement, and 2) if the Pittosporum in the backyard, next to the Evergreen Ash, and also in our view corridor farther to the south, is limited to 15ft, as mentioned above, rather than the 18ft the Vellas are requesting for all Pittosporum on the planting legend. There is no privacy and shade value to this tree in that corner of their property, but it creates another opportunity for the Vellas to willfully and spitefully obstruct our views, as they have done for years.
DRB Discussion- March 15, 2012
Landscape architect did say
no new trees in backyard
and exis�ng limited to 15 �
or remove completely
Southern extent
of Illegal Ficuses
to be removed
Evergreen Ash is already ~20ft
wide and extends to the right
behind the illegal ficuses to form
a privacy hedge with the illegal
5 4. Assuming they agree to the other restrictions, the two originally approved Ficuses can be allowed a 20ft maximum height limit, rather than 15ft as indicated on the plan, provided their width is not permitted to extend beyond the rear of their house (not including the decks). This severely impacted our views, previously (image, below), so regardless of the final height (15 or 20ft), these Ficuses cannot extend beyond the rear of their house.
Their width is currently well beyond the 15ft width and are also inaccurately represented on the revised plan.
Lastly, mostly for Ross, there is still an illegal tree (1st image, below) next to the property line (orange arrow) near the Evergreen Ash (turquoise arrow) that is not on this plan. It was one of several unapproved trees, planted after the DRB meeting, along the property line that were mostly removed after you determined them to be illegal (2nd image, below).
This one remains and needs to be removed as well.
6 Finally, I can’t help but point out that since their last submission, they managed to increase the size of Evergreen Ash on the plan from 10 to 20 feet, and yet somehow overlooked correcting the size of the two illegal Ficuses, the main focus of this Enforcement action, from the ridiculously inaccurate 5ft, to the proposed 15ft- let alone their actual size. This is a flagrant underrepresentation of these trees still showing them as 5+5 or 10ft wide vs. the proposed 15+15 or 30ft widein this very same location that has been under Code Enforcement action for well over a year. You can see from the photo on page 2, these Ficuses are a huge dense hedge and pretty hard to miss. Oops… I guess? I hope this is all clear and helps your review of the landscape plan. Feel free to contact me with any questions. If you feel that a visit is in order, that’s fine, too.
But I would be grateful if they were not further rewarded for their continued careless, if not deliberately shoddy work, with yet another extended delay.
Regards,
Rhett
313-516-6924