|Back To Agenda||Print Page|
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
DATE: APRIL 6, 2004
SUBJECT: VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT NO. 157 - APPEAL (APPELLANT/FOLIAGE OWNER: MR. YOSHIYA WATANABE, 15 AMBER SKY DRIVE, APPLICANT: MR. NAVEEN REDDY, 14 AMBER SKY DRIVE)
Staff Coordinator: John Alvarez, View Restoration Coordinator
Accept the withdrawal of the appeal, thereby letting the P.C. decision on VRP No. 157 be the final decision on the matter.
On December 11, 2003, the Planning Commission approved View Restoration Permit No. 157, thereby requiring foliage trimming and removal on three (3) properties to restore a view from the applicant’s property (Mr. Reddy at 14 Amber Sky Drive). One of the foliage owners, Mr. Yoshiya Watanabe, subsequently appealed the Commission’s decision with regards to the trimming requirements for his property (15 Amber Sky Drive) asserting that the Planning Commission decision should be overturned. The two other foliage owners were not party to the appeal and were not contesting the Commission’s decision.
City Council consideration of this View Restoration appeal was scheduled to occur at the Council’s March 2, 2004 meeting. However, after considering the appellant’s request to continue the hearing to a later date, the City Council continued the public hearing to the April 6, 2004 meeting.
After March 2, 2004, the appellant informed Staff that he would be trimming the trees that are subject to the view restoration permit. The appellant stated that he annually trims the subject trees but this year, on March 18, 2004, he would slightly reduce the height and heavily lace the trees. The appellant added that if he completes the trimming and if Staff verifies that the trimmed trees comply with the PC decision, then he would withdraw the appeal.
Upon completion of the trimming on March 18, 2004, Staff observed the subject trees from the viewing area at 17 Amber Sky Drive (applicant's property) and verified that the trees had been trimmed per the trimming requirements of the PC Resolution. In addition, the appellant is in concurrence with Staff’s determination. As a result, the appellant has now submitted a letter withdrawing his appeal (see attached). The appellant understands that by withdrawing the appeal, PC Resolution 2003-64, which includes annual maintenance provisions, remains enforce.
It should be noted that the PC Resolution states that five (5) Olive trees located on the appellant’s property (15 Amber Sky Drive) must be trimmed. After visiting the appellant’s property for the first time, Staff noted that there are only three (3) Olive trees. Staff will prepare a memo for the file noting this for future reference.
Director of Planning, Building
and Code Enforcement