Chair Gannon:
Yes. Mr. Wank, your fabulous presentation please.
Garrett Wank:
Thank you. Good evening. Design Review Board and members of the public. Item 5.9 is a request for design review at 1813 Temple Hills Drive located in the R-1 zone. The property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling and has a design review-approved landscape plan. The project involves modifications to a previously approved landscape plan. Proposed changes to the approved planting plan, which have already been planted, include a range of ground cover shrubs and trees, as well as modifying the proposed height and widths of existing vegetation.
Staff has received concerns regarding consistency with design review-approved landscape plans, as well as view equity from the adjacent neighbor located at 1843 Temple Hills Drive, and staff recommends that the board conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 24-2113 approving design review 24-2113 and finding set action exempt from CEQA. However, staff also recommends that the board deliberate on the view equity and landscaping criteria, and consider additional conditions of approval to address the concerns of the adjacent neighbor at 1843 Temple Hills Drive. That will conclude my staff summary and I'm available for any questions.
Chair Gannon:
Thank you. Mr. Wank. Board, any questions to staff? No. Going around the room. Okay, you have five minutes for your presentation.
Steve Kawaratani:
Thank you Chair Gannon. Good evening Board Members, staff. My name is Steve Kawaratani and before I begin, I do want to say that I know Jim Campbell from Newport Beach and we're very lucky to have him coming in as a planning manager, and I also want to take the time to thank Wendy for being a great zoning administrator.
Let me begin. I'm here with my clients, Kavita and Matt, and could we queue up the first slide please, Garrett? So this project is a simple request. We're asking that two Ficustrees that were not on the original plan be approved. Those are depicted by the two lighter green circles at the top of the plan. And we're also asking that a Pittosporum Silver Sheen, which also was not on the original plan be approved. Could we go to the next slide please?
This is a topographic survey that was completed in 2012, and I want you to note that red line. That red line is a fence that was in existence when the survey was done. I also would like to bring your attention to the two yellow circles. Those are the two Ficus. Next slide please.
So this plan is the one that a prior board approved in 2012, and you'll note that red line is back there again.
You'll also note that there was a blank space there. The landscape architect looked at the survey, and thought that that was the property line. Because that's where the wooden fence was, so those plants were not included. Next slide please.
We are asking that the two Ficus be approved, and we're also asking that that other Ficus, which is currently limited to 20 feet, we'd like that all three trees, because they do not pose a view issue. We're asking that they be allowed to be 20 to 25 feet tall, and that they be pruned twice yearly. The reason why I am asking for this is that code enforcement has had to be summoned on multiple, multiple occasions, and at one episode that I was at, the code enforcement officer sanctioned my clients, and said that the trees were six inches too high, one leaf. So we need to put an end to this. I'm thinking that if you modify
the approval to 25 feet, we'll keep it between 20 and 23 feet, and we won't have to chop it down to 16 feet and then lose their privacy. So I'm asking you to indulge us on that, and then the remaining trees both upward and back around the corner will continue to be maintained at 20 feet to respect view concerns.
Next slide please.
This is a picture of the Silver Sheen. Not sure why code enforcement arbitrarily decided it could be at a specific height. It poses no view concerns to anyone, and we are asking that this tree be allowed to grow up to the bottom or the top of the lower eave. Next slide.
So again, this is what we are requesting. The two lighter green circles, there's a black circle to the left, that's the existing Ficus right now that's limited to 20 feet. We're asking that it be allowed to grow to 25 feet, no more, and that the two plants to the right be allowed to grow up to 25 feet. No more than that, and certainly we're going to keep it well below the 23 to make sure we don't run afoul of code enforcement again. And again, that darker green circle is the Pittosporum Silver Sheen, and we are requesting that it be allowed to be approximately 20 feet tall. Thank you.
Chair Gannon:
Does that conclude your comments? Your presentation? Okay. Would you guys like to speak? Vella:
Yes.
Chair Gannon:
Okay. You could also save it for your rebuttal if you like.
Vella:
I'll say it in rebuttal.
Chair Gannon:
Okay. At this time, any members of the public wish to speak on 1813 Temple Hills Drive, please come to the podium.
Rhett Schiffman:
Eric, do you have that slide deck? Okay. I am Rhett Schiffman. I am the immediate neighbor at 1843 Temple Hills Drive. I think you could tell from some of the earlier comments that this has been a longstanding, somewhat contentious issue over time. We originally filed a code enforcement complaint 22 months ago regarding overgrown vegetation at 1813 Temple Hills Drive that threatened our home during storms. The existing Ficuses that were limited to 20 feet were nearly 40 feet at the time, well above our roofs, and our roofs had solar panels so we had plenty of reason to worry. There were three violations found by code enforcement when they came, including creating a public nuisance, failing to comply with approved landscaping plans. Code enforcement observed dead plant debris that appeared to be nests for rodents, several trees that had overgrown their 20 feet height limit, including an evergreen ash.
There were nine trees not on the approved landscape plan, seven of which have since been removed. And then two illegal Ficuses planted by the Vellas after the landscape approval that were planted directly in a view corridor to the ocean and Catalina Island. These illegal Ficuses and the overgrown evergreen are the primary reasons for this DRB. The Vellas have received three citations, earned three citations for failing to
maintain vegetation in compliance with the initial notice, and then figured out that how to avoid further citations was to make sure you cut your trees after code enforcement had scheduled a visit to do a compliance check.
I do want to point out on the previous slide if I can, that this is in fact the view corridor. And to be aware that those blue circles are precisely where they placed the Ficuses where there was only ground cover beforehand. So that view is all gone from our lower level and very much impacted from our upper level.
Next slide please.
Just to orient you, the view on the left is from the upper deck and allows you to see what is visible, what could be visible to the right of the eucalyptus out in the distance. But this is a incredibly valuable important view, as it shows us Catalina Island and the ocean. On the right shows you where the two illegal Ficuses are. They are right here. So you can see how much of that view is blocked.
Chair Gannon:
In conclusion?
Rhett Schiffman:
Well, there's a whole lot, but let's go to the last slide.
Chair Gannon:
In conclusion, your three minutes is up.
Rhett Schiffman:
Yeah.
Chair Gannon:
Please summarize your concerns.
Rhett Schiffman:
Go to the last slide please.
Chair Gannon:
In conclusion.
Rhett Schiffman:
In conclusion, what I would like is for those two Ficuses to be limited by the height and the width as demonstrated here. So the Ficuses don't go beyond our upper deck. And I would like for the Pittosporums and the evergreen ash, which are limited to below our hedge now, because I believe they knew you'd be looking, they should be also maintained, not increased in size or width, but maintained at the size that they are now.
Chair Gannon:
Okay, thank you.
Rhett Schiffman:
Meaning 15 feet.
Chair Gannon:
Okay, thank you. I have a question. The plants that you consider, that you're calling illegal, didn't you plant those trees when the fence was...
Rhett Schiffman:
No, no, no.
Chair Gannon:
So the trees, once the fence was repositioned correctly, those trees, they inherited these trees that were there?
Rhett Schiffman:
No, that was, actually, unfortunately I didn't know this question was coming, but I do have photographs of their team planting thoseChair Gannon:
It's okay.
Rhett Schiffman:
... Ficuses.
Chair Gannon:
It's okay.
Rhett Schiffman:
Well, it's important.
Chair Gannon:
Well no, we have the plans of the pre-existing trees that were there prior.
Rhett Schiffman:
Well there were two pre-existing Ficuses, and then there were two new ones.
Chair Gannon:
This isn't open for discussion. Thank you.
Rhett Schiffman:
That they planted.
Chair Gannon:
Would your wife like to make comments? She has three minutes. Next speaker please.
Sherry Schiffman:
So my name is Sherry Schiffman. I live next door. I didn't prepare to speak today until I heard about this situation, because this situation has been on and on over five years. We tried to negotiate, discuss and work out with them about those trees. And this situation, this case is not about privacy, they said is the privacy. If you visit our property you can see from their front door, they just show the photo. From the street you can see their front door, front windows. From the down below Rim Rock Canyon, you can see there all the deck, and all the windows.
So face to our side is only one window of their living room, and we allowed them to let the tree, their ficus tree grow enough to protect their privacy. That is not only for them, it's also important for us too. So it's not about a privacy issue. I think 25 feet of the tree is taller than our property. So that's what I want to say. And definitely it affect our view. To them, I didn't see anything they lose. They may lose the corner of their very end of the upper deck, if you've been visiting the property, that's their privacy. So I don't think privacy is the issue at all. And we would like to work out with them to protect their privacy. So that's it.
Chair Gannon:
Thank you. That was well-spoken. Thank you, for not being prepared. Any other comments? Rhett Schiffman:
Well, I just have toChair Gannon:
No, sir, you're out of order. Next speaker, please. No, sirRhett Schiffman:
I do have to just show you.
Chair Gannon:
No sir, you canRhett Schiffman:
This is their people planting those Ficuses.
Chair Gannon:
Next comment please, or next speaker please.
Spencer Harrison:
My name is Spencer Harrison.
Chair Gannon:
Hello Spencer.
Spencer Harrison:
My wife Melanie and I are the owners of 1765 Temple Hills Drive. We are two doors down from the Reddys, three doors down from the Schiffmans. We are here in support of the Reddys position in this matter. The Reddys desire to preserve privacy between their property and the Schiffmans is entirely reasonable and entirely understandable, particularly given the history of the relationships among the people in this neighborhood. In my opinion, the Schiffmans have engaged in a pattern of unreasonable behavior, with repeated attempts to use the code enforcement process to get trees cut down. In my opinion, this needs to stop. In our case, this began eight years ago during our design review process for a remodel, the Schiffmans persuaded the Board that we should cut down five palm trees on the edge of our property. The asserted reason was to preserve their view of Catalina, even though their property has 180 degree unobstructed view of the ocean. The only way you could possibly see Catalina is to go out on the deck, peer right, and confronted a whole dozens of trees that block the view of Catalina.
Nevertheless, we agreed to chop down the five palm trees. Mr. Schiffman agreed to share the cost which he never did. Fast-forward to October of 2024, my understanding is that the Schiffmans have filed a complaint with code enforcement against us, claiming that we did not remove the five trees. They're seeking the removal of three additional palm trees on our property. I won't get into the details of this at this time because we may be back in front of you in short order, but in any event, acting on the complaint, code enforcement issued a notice of violation in November. Although they've now conceded that in fact we did cut down the five trees, because I showed them the stumps.
I don't know personally whether the Schiffmans have filed complaints with code of enforcement against other neighbors, other than the Reddys and ourselves, although they certainly told my wife and they told the DRB eight years ago that they intended to do so. This is harassment, it's unacceptable, and if the Schiffmans want a view of Catalina, they should purchase a property that actually has a view of Catalina.
Accordingly, we'd ask the Board to approve the Reddys reasonable request to keep the privacy and hopefully restore some semblance of peace in this neighborhood. Thank you very much.
Chair Gannon:
Thank you. Any other speakers?
Rhett Schiffman:
I feel like I should be able to respond toSpeaker 2:
No.
Chair Gannon:
You had three minutes. Our city attorney says no. Do we have question, or you get a three-minute rebuttal? Okay. No, there's no further speakers.
Vella Reddy:
Now I'll pass up a couple of...
Chair Gannon:
Yeah.
Vella Reddy:
Thank you for your time for hearing us out. I'm just going to rebut some of the points Mr. Schiffman made.
He said this dispute started 22 months ago. They sued us in 2010 about the Catalina view. And that property line that Steve mentioned, that was the purpose of the lawsuit. See, he had built the fence 15 to 20 feet inside the property line, and the part of our land that he appropriated had those trees, they existed at that time. And so that lawsuit was about controlling those trees and controlling the view, it was dismissed with prejudice on the eve of his deposition. Why was it dismissed with prejudice on the eve of his deposition? Why did he give up? Because it turns out that the previous owner and her son told us this, was approached by him while she was sick to sign a deed to hand the land over.
And when she didn't, sometime between her death and our purchase of that property, he unilaterally built the fence with those trees in that sliver of property. If you don't believe that those trees existed, look at the photos that he tried to submit to the judge when after the case was dismissed with prejudice, he tried to get the Catalina view and the judge told him, "No way, Jose." He talked about nine trees. And yeah, you know what those nine trees came up the first time I heard? He tried to make us a deal, get rid of those trees. I'll let you get a pass on those trees if you give me my Catalina view. And we told him you want a Catalina view, there's something called the View Preservation Committee. And if you want to try to get a lateral view on Catalina, go there. What did he do? He didn't go there. He came to you. He made more threats towards our tree, and we're not the only neighbors he's threatened. He's threatened all our neighbors. He is essentially trying to trade not harassing us for his view. And if you guys let him get away with this, it's not going to stop. He's going to keep harassing neighbor after neighbor after neighbor until he gets this ridiculous view. In terms of the privacy, it's very simple. We already cut this tree down and he already has a full view into our upper level.
And we did it because my response to us being out of compliance was to put all the trees in compliance.
And if this goes down, he will have access, he'll have a view towards our deck. So on substance, it's very simple. If he had a case, he'd go to the View Preservation Committee. He doesn't have a case, so he's just going to harass us until we give in. We're not willing to give in. You should not let him have his way. Thank you.
Rhett Schiffman:
View Preservation is notChair Gannon:
You're out of order. I will excuse you from this room if you do it again. I apologize. I'm sorry for speaking to you this way, but I feel like at this point, it's warranted. Okay. You have 30 more seconds. Do you have any roundabout conclusions?
Steve Kawaratani:
We don't want to turn this into a melodrama. My clients want to make sure that all neighbors have their reviews, but we're also seeking our privacy. And after meeting with the board, it became apparent to us, because code enforcement is being used as a cudgel in this case, that we need to have you modify the height on only those three trees we are requesting so we don't lose our privacy and we don't continue to have issues with code enforcement. All the other trees will remain at the specified height as approved by the Board. Thank you.
Chair Gannon:
Thank you. Board, do we have any questions for the applicant?
Khristine Thalman:
I have a quick question.
Chair Gannon:
Yes.
Khristine Thalman:
Just out of curiosity, did Mr. Schiffman ever approach you to ask you to cut the trees? Vella Reddy:
He approached me to swap property. He wanted that property, right? And I told him no.
Khristine Thalman:
But before the code enforcement came about, that's what I'm trying to get to.
Vella Reddy:
No. And he has approached us to cut the trees, and our response was, "We'll cut the trees to a height that'll preserve our privacy." Which is what you're looking at now. Yes.
Khristine Thalman:
And that was according to your landscape plan?
Vella Reddy:
Yes. According to the landscape plan.
Chair Gannon:
Mr. Weil.
Louis Weil:
Does the current height protect your privacy?
Kavita Reddy:
The current height you can see from, you've been to my house. I have no property in the upper level because of the tree being too low.
Louis Weil:
No privacy.
Kavita Reddy:
No privacy there. And then I'm not sure why they're entitled to a view of Catalina from a lower level. If everybody was entitled to a view from a lower level, there would be no trees in Laguna Beach. Us and the Harrison's, we would come to you and ask you to remove all the trees from below us. So if those lower level, their complaint seems to now be about the lower level, because they have their upper level view
back, then we would lose all our privacy because our decks, our bedroom deck and our barbecue deck are below that. And if I go out there and it's any lower than that, I can see them.
Vella Reddy:
We went over and set the level.
Louis Weil:
Thank you. That answered the question. I have a couple questions for Garrett. It came up through the public commentary that obviously this is a code enforcement. Do you have a rough history for where that's kind of back and forth from what you've analyzed in preparing this project? Garrett Wank:
Yes. So there were two code cases on this property. One opened in 2014, which was related to a fence that has since been closed. This code case was opened in 2023, January of 2023. It wasn't clear within the file itself how many compliance calls there have been, but based on the documentation, it looked like there have been at least 16 inspections for compliance.
Louis Weil:
Keep going.
Garrett Wank:
And the cases remained active while they pursue this modified plan.
Louis Weil:
Is the project deemed currently in compliance?
Garrett Wank:
I'd have to confirm with Ross, the code enforcement officer, but I believe there was an inspection fairly recently, but I'd have to take a look back and see how recent that was.
Louis Weil:
And then it also came up about view preservation. Is there a view preservation on file for the neighboring property? I think it's what, 1848?
Garrett Wank:
There was a view restoration process, a view restoration order, 22-0293 was processed in 2023. So not a view preservation but view restoration.
Louis Weil:
Okay. And then the Board's authority, and maybe this is a Patrick question. Obviously this is a modification for landscape. Do we have the authority to re-prescribe the landscape conditions? Garrett Wank:
You do.
Thomas Gibbs:
Correct, yes. So that would include putting restrictions on landscaping that's not being requested be modified by this application.
Louis Weil:
Or yeah, change it.
Is that what you're asking? Patrick, is that what you were answering? Attorney Patrick Donnegan:
Correct. I mean if those are the conditions that the Board needs to make the findings, yes, that is within your purview.
Chair Gannon:
So it creates a nexus for us to override the previous Board's conditions of approval for or height limit is what you're saying?
Attorney Patrick Donnegan:
Once again, if that is what the board requires to make the required findings, yes.
Chair Gannon:
Okay, thank you.
Louis Weil:
So for privacy, so the issue really is view and privacy balancing.
Garrett Wank:
Yeah.
Thomas Gibbs:
I have a question.
Chair Gannon:
Yep, you have a question, Mr. Gibbs.
Thomas Gibbs:
Garrett, I'm a little confused and there's probably an easy answer. Just look at, you don't have to put it up. Just look at staff report, page six. Let me know when you have it. It indicates that the proposed changes are different than what's being discussed. Am I missing something? Garrett Wank:
Yes. So these are items that I identified in a direct comparison between the design review approved landscape plan and the plan being presented now. So those are itemized changes. I'd be happy to pull up the landscape plan to show those clouded as well.
Thomas Gibbs:
Right? No one's talked about these. Why don't you put that page up so the board can see it. My question to you, Steve, is when you look at this, what are these other things and are there, are they impacting privacy or view or non-controversial? Why don't you put it up on the screen, Garrett, if you could. And maybe a better way of doing it is, Steve, explain what this stuff is. Because I don't understand this. And when I went to the site, well it's the list, and the plan's the next page, but it's not really a plan, it's a list.
When I went to the property, it was all about the two Ficus and the other, the canary or the, whatever, that Silver Sheen. So what's all this?
Steve Kawaratani:
I don't know what those are, and I'm slightly nearsighted. So can I come up? Thomas Gibbs:
Well, it's talking about the removal of 17 existing trees, nine Carolina Laurel cherry shrubs, two strawberry trees, and then the planting of six cast iron plants, three agave maintained and there's more.
Steve Kawaratani:
Okay. So I did compile that list. There were a number of plants, Garrett asked me to compare the approved plan to the plan that exists today. And those are the changes. Some of those plants didn't survive after the initial planning and they weren't replaced. So I just itemized what was no longer there.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay, that's the removal. And then the application is seeking the planting of all those other items, including Pittosporum and Silver Sheen. Is that because these items are already planted and you're just seeking approval of it?
Steve Kawaratani:
The Silver Sheen was already planted. The other plant did not survive. So our very astute code enforcement officer noted that the plants were different. That's why we're asking for approval. And again, the topographic survey clearly shows that those two ficus were in existence back in 2012 behind the fence that was illegally installed.
Thomas Gibbs:
I don't mean to cut you off. Okay. It has four eureka lemon trees maintained at 15 feet in height.
Steve Kawaratani:
Correct.
Thomas Gibbs:
And four weeping fig trees maintained at 20 feet in height. And it's talking about planting of those. So what's the story on those?
Steve Kawaratani:
They're in existence right now and so they were just, I did an inventory. Again, Tom, and the blanket approval before was nothing was to exceed 20 feet in height in that location. So I carefully noted that nothing would exceed that height.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. So let me kind of get to the bottom line here. This list is of things that already exist that weren't on the original landscaping plan that you're asking us to approve tonight. Is that right? Steve Kawaratani:
Yeah. Again, plants don't always survive. And so what occurs is that if plants are of similar form and size, generally the board will let it go. Garrett wanted an exact inventory what was there and I complied.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. Now on the list does not include the two Ficus trees for the planting of, it's not really in the staff report talking about the Ficus, it's in the plans that you submitted. Am I missing something there? Steve Kawaratani:
I'll have to ask Garrett because our request, if you look, say a modification to a previously approved plan.
So with my presentation today, the plants that are in code enforcement are the ones that I addressed.
The other plants were not in code enforcement. So specifically, two Ficus trees that were not planted by us, we're seeking permission to retain them and the Pittosporum Silver Sheen.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. Garrett, is there any reason why the Ficus aren't included on this staff report? Garrett Wank:
Yes, the weeping fig is the common name for the Ficus Benjamia.
Thomas Gibbs:
Oh.
Garrett Wank:
What'd he say?
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah that's the, which one?
Garrett Wank:
The Ficus Benjamina is theThomas Gibbs:
The weeping fig, the four, trees maintained at 20 feet in height. That's referring to the two Ficus that we've been talking about and the two next to it I assume, right?
Garrett Wank:
Correct.
Thomas Gibbs:
All right, that clears it up. I don't have any further questions.
Khristine Thalman:
If I can follow-up on your question. So the 17 existing trees not specified, that has nothing to do with the Ficus that's currently there?
Garrett Wank:
Right.
Khristine Thalman:
But we don't know which 17 existing tree, I mean is there a way to, if I may, are Thomas Gibbs:
Those already gone Chair?
Steve Kawaratani:
Yeah, if I'm basically the prior Board approved with a blanket height of 20 feet, that was the approval that nothing was to exceed 20 feet. So it really is largely immaterial. What is there now.
Louis Weil:
Got another question.
Chair Gannon:
Mr. Weil has the floor.
Louis Weil:
Garrett, on the plans, I only see on the existing older plan, I only saw two markings for heights. Was there a specific condition that blanketed the whole landscape plan? Because the notations that I saw are just existing in the rear yard, maintained at 20 feet or less. And then the existing hedge up at the front in the right-of-way be maintained at 15 feet. Those are the only two notations. So was there a 20-foot blanket across the whole property?
Garrett Wank:
So there was a condition of approval included that the Brazilian pepper hedge be maintained at 15 feet and specified that all of the remaining 16 trees in the rear yard be at 20 feet or less.
Louis Weil:
Rear yard.
Garrett Wank:
Mm-hmm.
Louis Weil:
Okay. The eucalyptus, those were gone. I didn't see those. Okay, so the rear yard and then the front rightof-way. Okay, thank you for clarification.
Thomas Gibbs:
Let me ask Garrett, have you confirmed that the application that's being sought here is for approval of trees that are existing but are not on the original approved plans? Garrett Wank:
Yes. Yes. For ground cover shrubs and trees that are in existence now, but were not included on the original planting plan.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. So it's a little broader, but I think that answers my primary question so that we can evaluate privacy and view equity. Thanks.
Chair Gannon:
Okay. Does that conclude our questions? The public hearing is now closed. We will go into board comments. Mr. Weil, would you like to have the floor?
Louis Weil:
Yeah. Obviously these code enforcement cases are always difficult, right? There's a lot of issues, a lot of heartache, a lot of conflict between neighbors. And so I view the Board's trying to, whatever's there or what's in front of us is how do we make the process go better going forward for considerations for view and privacy, which are the two matters in front of us today. I think if we get carried away with every planting on this size of lot, it'll be a very lengthy conversation. But for me it's really about these zones that are creating privacy or view corridors. And so Garrett, if you can pull up the landscape plan for me, the plantings on the side yard that are lower on the portion need to be maintained closer to that 20 feet because it does open up that view. But I think when I went there looking at the house from the neighboring house, the privacy component of that 20 feet, it obliterates the privacy of the neighbor and there really is no view to be obtained because you're just looking at the house, and/or pieces of the deck.
And I think there's room that balances this equation of view and privacy. It's not going to maintain the entire view for one perspective at any one cutting, but I think our job is to make this better. So for me, the view line, which was kind of articulated is really how do we kind of maintain an element of privacy between the edge of the corner of the house and the edge of the corner of that deck that's on this plan back at an angle that maintains a line for me where those Ficus are for them to be lower. But for the first one in greens to be kind of the start of lower, but the ones further back can go up to that 25 feet and provide more privacy. Because for me, it only blocked the elements of the house. And I think when I was standing on the deck, I'm looking right into that living room window or I'm looking right at that deck.
There was no view to be achieved by seeing those things. So I'm amenable to letting elements of this program go higher and I'd like to see the board put in our deliberation depending on how everybody else sees this, maybe zones get less, get carried away with what the trees are, but zones of where those men's
and Max's should be. As this goes forward, maybe Garrett can help us draw some squares on the plan to give that element. As far as the silver sheen in the front yard, why that was ever being noted for 18 feet or 20 feet seemed odd to me since the notations were really specific to the front and the rear, that tree could go all the way up to the roof line For my concern, it has no merit for being a code enforcement issue.
Chair Gannon:
Does that conclude your comments?
Louis Weil:
Yeah, but I'd like to hear how the rest of the Board goes and then just try to work on just a collaborative determination of where everyone's kind of seeing it so we make a clean finding going forward. Because I think it's in the interest of all parties that we have it pretty well scripted, but also giving the flexibility for the reality of trees to grow and be cut and maintained and grow and be cut and maintained.
Chair Gannon:
I concur. Mr. Gibbs?
Thomas Gibbs:
I agree with board member Weil, but I think the zones are kind of built in because the backyard gradually goes down. So height, making height limits on those Ficus will do the graduation. In fact, I think they're somewhat, I divided it between and I'm happy to talk. I think that the goal there is the same as I have. I think the lower level view equity is achieved. I think the privacy concerns are significant with respect to Mr. Schiffman's, lower level, the upper level. Again, he's got an expansive view.
I think view equity is probably very closely achieve, but balancing which we do with view equity, I think that the view issue, and it's really hard to tell because the trees. When it was terrible weather when I was there, but I think that a height limitation at the upper level deck of three feet above, and I was thinking this when I was on his deck, three feet, no higher than three feet above the deck. I was thinking at the deck, but I don't think that the view that you need it at the deck to achieve his view of Catalina. I think if it goes up three feet makes it simple, say no higher than three feet above his deck with respect to any trees along that side, which would be the, I think the four Ficus trees. I think that could be a more simple resolution. And when I was up there, that's what I was thinking, but I'm very interested since I'm not a plant guy.
Louis Weil:
Tom, I'm questioning. The deck or the railing height?
Thomas Gibbs:
The railing, yes.
Louis Weil:
Above the railing above the floor or the deck. Oh, that's what you're talking? Okay.
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah. So the floor of the deck here, here's the railing.
Khristine Thalman:
Which deck?
Thomas Gibbs:
The upper level deck.
Khristine Thalman:
Of whose, Mr. Schiffman?
Thomas Gibbs:
Of Mr. Schiffman.
Khristine Thalman:
Okay.
Thomas Gibbs:
In other words, I don't know the history of the code enforcement. I saw his pictures. I have no reason to disbelieve Mr. Schiffman's pictures, but I think he's got a view equity interest to not have those trees go higher than say three feet above the floor of the deck. And that's where I would cap the height. And then everything else, again, I wouldn't worry about the first floor. Not a primary area. He's got plenty of expansive view. I wouldn't worry about that. But the upper level deck, give it to three feet. That protects the privacy of the applicant, and I think accommodates the view equity interest of Mr. Schiffman.
MJ Coveny:
I'll kind of riff off of that. Thank you board member. I think that we need to give you guys some serious parameters unfortunately, but that's fine. We'll do that. I don't think there's a view equity issue, but I think there can be some cleanup in order to suffice. Hopefully making everybody get along a little better and kind of put to bed this painful experience. Because I can feel the vibe, and it's not great. So the spa on the lower level, there's a railing to the right of that. The area that's in front of the spa should be maintained to the height of that railing. So in front of the spa itself, there's a low hedge, which I believe is Mr. Schiffman's hedge.
If we could just chop off that little piece that's popping over there. This area right here? No, no. Just the area to that railing. So you've got the spa, you've got a railing. So right here, clean. So clean spa view, everything where the railing is, here, this is your lower deck. You have a lower deck railing, I assume it's 36 to 42 inches high. The Ficus can extend above the railing top, four feet.
And then the upper deck railing top, you can extend four feet. So that basically gives you privacy. Because you got a seven-foot person would have to peek over that railing. Does that make sense? Steve, you're looking around like you're freaking out.
Chair Gannon:
It doesn't make sense to me. Can you explain that again. It sounds like you're complicating it.
MJ Coveny:
No, it's not. It's super simple. It's a step-up basically. You have a spa, which right now has a hedge, which I believe is Mr. Schiffman's. on your picture right here. Hold on. Yes, that's just the Ficus. It just pops out.
This little bit just pops out. It's literally just a little chip. Steve, you're not looking at me. You're looking around for help.
Steve Kawaratani:
Are you opening the public hearing?
MJ Coveny:
No, no, I'm just saying that this doesn't seem that difficult to me. Did you guys stand on this deck? It's like there's just a little chunk that needs to go away, and then you have a railing. And that railing can have three feet above it the hedge.
Louis Weil:
I think I understand what you're talking about. So let’s… MJ Coveny:
I think we need to give them parameters. Why aren't we just going to, let's go around the horn and then have discussions.
Louis Weil:
Yeah, let's finish this and then we'll talk about those zones of where the heights.
Chair Gannon:
Ms. Coveny has the floor.
Thomas Gibbs:
Maybe the zone idea might work better.
Chair Gannon:
Ms. Coveny, does that conclude your comments?
Chair Gannon:
Again, Ms. Thalman, you have the floor.
Khristine Thalman:
I'm lost.
Louis Weil:
We need you.
Khristine Thalman:
I'm lost. Well, tonight I was ready to approve the plan as presented tonight. I think hopefully it would address some of the issues that have gone on for a few years here with code enforcement. And it seems there's some 16 inspections that almost sounds like harassment a little bit. But based on what you've presented today and the list that Garrett has put together in the staff report, the removal and the clarification of that, I can support what you've put forward today, with those clarifications. And to MJ's point, I understand Mr. Schiffman was looking at from his lower level to remove that Ficus area. It's an L.
I gave it to Louis, but nobody seems to understand this.
Louis Weil:
This L?
Khristine Thalman:
Yeah. That's what MJ is requesting. I don't have a problem with that as long as the Reddys don't have a problem with that. But I think this needs to stop. I mean it's one of these issues where we have to, we're an arbitrating board for the most part, and I think we have to have clear definition as far as what needs to be removed, what needs to be planted as stated in the staff report and go on from there. I don't know if that helps or not.
Chair Gannon:
Hold on. I need to make my comments. Yeah, I'm ready to move forward with, because like board member Gibbs said, the downhill slope, a significant amount that it will alleviate if you cap it at 25 feet, those Ficus trees, the hillside, the steep hillside will take care of itself and provide privacy and protect views. So I can approve this project this evening.
Thomas Gibbs:
I want to say something.
Chair Gannon:
Make a comment, yes.
Thomas Gibbs:
Because I think this is going to give us a majority on it. The only thing I thinking of was a tweak, which was with respect to the upper deck. I've looked at the picture here when I was there, it was cloudy. I really couldn't tell. Looking at it, the side view from the upper deck to me is, from looking at this, I think it's adequately protected by the height proposed in the application. And I don't see any other way of working this. And as much as I tried to understand MJ's views, I don't see any value in putting any kind of height restriction impacting the lower level. With respect to the upper level, I think few equity's been achieved.
I could support the project tonight.
Chair Gannon:
Mr. Weil, please make a motion. Wait, are we still commenting?
Louis Weil:
I mean one of the things they were recommending at the beginning was to have maintain heights and stuff, flexibility and maybe some more height than what's there now in elements of that side yard. And I think I was under the impression that certain elements of that side yard don't have an impact. So if the Board will entertain, I'll try to maybe work with staff to draw a couple of these grids over the plan to just get alignment if I can have a couple of minutes.
Thomas Gibbs:
I think he's already done it in that, and I may have a question Chair for Mr. Kawaratani. As I understand it, you're asking that the height limitations proposed in the application are the height limitations that you're agreeing to. Is that right?
Steve Kawaratani:
What we are requesting after I met with a couple of your colleagues, because of all these conditions we've been facing, we're asking that solely the three Ficus, the two plus the one adjacent be allowed to grow to 25 feet. As board member Weil pointed out, those have no impact to the complainants.
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah, I don't want argument. We've done argument. We got Steve Kawaratani:
It right.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. And you're talking about trimming just those, there's four Ficus, right? Or three? Steve Kawaratani:
There's three.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. Trimming those three Ficus twice a year.
Steve Kawaratani:
Twice a year. And maintaining less than 25, but no less than 20. Everything else will remain as the prior board approved?
Thomas Gibbs:
No. Or as provided for in the application that I've just talked about.
Steve Kawaratani:
Correct.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay.
Steve Kawaratani:
We'll accept that.
Thomas Gibbs:
I think that will create the zones by virtue, naturally of the slope in the applicant's backyard. I think we get too complicated, Louis, although I'm happy to hear what you have to propose, but trying to do zones given the much lower heights for the other trees. And we're just talking about the three Ficus to go 20 to 25.
Louis Weil:
So yeah, maintainment of 20 and max of 25.
Thomas Gibbs:
I'm good with that. Max 25. And then all the other trees that are on the property are limited either in the original application, or in this application as set forth in staff report page six.
Louis Weil:
That makes sense. I'm good with that if you want to make that motion.
Chair Gannon:
I'm good with that too.
Thomas Gibbs:
Well before we done MJ, okay, let me make the motion. I may need my glasses on this one. Okay. I move that the Board adopt Resolution 25-2113, approving Design Review 24-2113 for modifications to a previously approved landscape plan and finding set action exempt from sequel under 15304 with a couple of changes. The height restrictions provided for in the application as described on page six of the staff report are part of the motion. The change would be that as to the three Ficus, sometimes known as weeping fig trees, will have a minimum height of 20 feet and a maximum height of 25 feet. And those three Ficus will be maintained as a condition of approval twice a year. Can we agree upon months? Would it be like, I don't know when the month, I'd like to get months.
Steve Kawaratani:
Why don't we say the lusty month of spring, which would be April or May, and then six months after that in the fall.
Thomas Gibbs:
Well, let's be more specific. April and then May, June, July...
Steve Kawaratani:
October.
Thomas Gibbs:
October. Is that right? Of each year. So that's my motion.
Khristine Thalman:
I'll second it if it's clear to staff.
Garrett Wank:
That is clear.
Wendy Jung:
Board member Coveney?
MJ Coveney:
Yes.
Wendy Jung:
Board member Gibbs?
Thomas Gibbs:
Yes.
Wendy Jung:
Board member Weill?
Louis Weil:
Yes.
Wendy Jung:
Chair proton Thalman?
Khristine Thalman:
Yes.
Wendy Jung:
And Chair Gannon?
Chair Gannon:
Yes. Thank you. Motion passes.