“MARLENE BREENE (incumbent)
”I have studied the view issues in great detail and have made a proposal that clarifies the process within legal guidelines. Unfortunately as PVHA is not a city with the power of ordinances and enforcement, we are limited in what we can accomplish for our members as an organization. The main role of PVHA in view disputes is to ‘interpret’, and ‘give opinion’. The CC&R’s do give some specific direction for trees over 20’ tall and matters of health, safety, and views.
This new document clarifies what is acceptable, gives description and outlines a process to resolve view and other vegetation issues. PVHA does have a responsibility to manage the green canopy. It was the intention of the original design for PVE to have trees and vegetation to complement architecture and frame our beautiful views.
Please visit the PVHA website for specifics on the proposal and send in your comments and suggestions so we may craft a document that truly serves the community.””

“GAYNE BRENNEMAN
”No, I would not have supported the view policy changes made in Resolution #185. The role of the PVHA is to protect and enhance property values. The changes made incorrectly reduced homeowner protections outlined in the original CC&Rs – “…“every man/woman, need not fear that a thoughtless or unsympathetic neighbor, would put in….as to be ruinous,…and ..hence, to promote and safeguard the attractiveness and desirability, of residential neighborhoods, and assure the maintenance of that bright, open, and sunshiny neighborhood, for each dwelling, with a maximum of light and air.” Additionally, I believe the Board did not provide adequate notice to homeowners for that emergency meeting. I will always pursue increased communication and notifications. The Board should clarify view dispute procedures and expectations. It is imperative that all parties understand the Board’s responsibilities and limitations.””

“DICK FAY (incumbent)
”First of all I was on the Board in April 2019 and argued against and voted NO on Resolution 185. I think PVHA’s role is to provide a framework and documentation for members to resolve view disputes. I think the PVHA should not limit the cases to adjoining or adjacent etc. I also think the PVHA should not be involved except to provide the framework and to document the process. If members can not resolve the dispute themselves, then they can hire a mediator or go to court and let the court decide. The cost of mediation and the court cases should be borne by the members involved, not the entire organization.””

“JOHN HARBISON
”I did not support the View Policy change that was adopted by the Board in April 2019. It was poorly conceived and created more problems than it addressed. In particular, I was opposed to the redefinition of scope to exclude across the street neighbors, as well as neighbors separated by a 20-foot alley/path lane right of way that is City owned; this removed roughly half the neighbors previously covered. I am encouraged by the revised and more thoughtful draft proposal developed by Marlene Breene in recent months, and while there are still things that need to be refined, the policy drafting is once again moving in a better direction.

In principle, I believe that both views and trees contribute to the beauty (and privacy) of our community, and in turn contribute to sustaining our property values. There needs to be a balance and going too far in either direction could be harmful to our property values. Finding that balance is tricky, and by the founding documents the PVHA should have a role in helping members to resolve tree/view disputes relating to vegetation on private property in PVE and Miraleste. It does not need to be an adjudicated process, but guidelines written by the PVHA would help in the mediation and ultimate resolution of disputes.””

“L. RIED SCHOTT
”The PVHA drastically changed their view policy recently to limit the ability of members to only resolve view issues with adjoining properties and not those across the street, or those separated from one another by a Path or strip of Parkland. I disagree with this policy and believe it should remain as it has for decades.
The PVHA no longer provides view mediation. From my personal experience with this process and in speaking to others, this service can be helpful in resolving view issues and needs to be reconsidered.””

“CHARLES TANG (incumbent)
”Disputes between neighbors regarding trees and views are often complex and unique. Trees that may not even be in a landscaping plan may block a neighbor’s ocean view. As such, creative solutions are needed in order to avoid litigation between neighbors. The PVHA can facilitate a resolution by instituting a moderated forum whereby affected parties can listen to the concerns of their neighbors and find mutually acceptable solutions. If I had been on the Board in April 2019, I would have held a number of community forums to listen to the community, solicit ideas for a fair and enforceable View policy, ensure that the policy making process is transparent, and assure that the proposed policy is well vetted before implementation.””