1167 Sherman Fournier View.pdfRESOLUTION NO. 1167
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
IN AN APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TREES AND
VIEWS IN A VIEW IMPAIRMENT CASE FILED BY MR. AND MRS.
FOURNIER, 30 CREST ROAD EAST, AGAINST TREES LOCATED ON
PROPERTY OWNED BY MR. AND MRS. SHERMAN, 33 CREST ROAD EAST.
THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY MR. AND MRS. FOURNIER.
THE ROLLING HILLS CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND
ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. On February 28, 2013, a view impairment complaint ("Complaint") was
jointly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Fournier, property owners of 30 Crest Road East, and Mr. and
Mrs. Occhipinti, property owners of 34 Crest Road East, claiming that view impairment was
caused by trees located at 33 Crest Road East, owned by Mr. and Mrs. Sherman. The owners
and all future owners of 33 Crest Road East are collectively referred to in this Resolution as
"Owners of 33 Crest Road East."
Section 2. The Complaint was referred to a mediator to conduct mediation services
pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code 17.26.040, Paragraph B.
Section 3. After that mediation failed to achieve agreement, Mr. and Mrs. Fournier,
("Complainants") on March 11, 2014 separately from Mr. and Mrs. Occhipinti, applied to the
City of Rolling Hills Committee on Trees and Views ("Committee") for resolution of the
Complaint and requested a public hearing before the Committee.
Section 4. The Complainants requested that their view of the Pacific Ocean, coastline,
Catalina Island and off shore islands be restored to the time of their first picture of the view
from 30 Crest Road East, taken in 1996, three years after they acquired the property.
Section 5. A public hearing was properly noticed and advertised pursuant to Rolling
Hills Municipal Code Section 17.26.040, Paragraph C and 17.26.050, Paragraphs A and B. The
subject public hearing was conducted on April 14, 2014, August 19, 2014, and October 28, 2014
and included a field trip to 30 Crest Road East and 33 Crest Road East. Evidence was heard
and presented from all persons interested in the Complaint and from members of City staff.
Section 6. After thorough consideration of the evidence submitted, the Committee
adopted Resolution No. 2014.01-CTV on November 18, 2014, setting forth the following:
A. A view as defined in Section 17.12.220 "View" of the Municipal Code existed from 30
Crest Road East in 1996, three years after the Complainants acquired the property, from
specified Designated Viewing Areas as defined in Resolution No. 2014-01 CTV;
B. The Complainants provided clear and convincing evidence that the view from 30
Crest Road East is significantly impaired by 63 trees and a hedge located at 33 Crest Road East
as defined in Section 17.12.220 "View Impairment" of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code;
C. The restorative action delineated by the Committee is necessary to abate the view
impairment by creating view corridors and views through trees, will not adversely affect the
environment, and will not unreasonably detract from the enjoyment or privacy of the property
at 33 Crest Road East;
D. The restorative action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section
15304 (Minor Alterations of Land) and Section 15061(b) (3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines because only two trees will be removed: a
dead eucalyptus (Tree 39) and a live black pine (Tree 71);
E. The potential financial burden of maintaining 63 trees and a hedge to preserve the
Complainants' restored view provides sufficient grounds to justify a modification in the
allocation of maintenance costs pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.26.060,
Resolution No. 1167 -1-
Paragraph D, which provides that the Committee may modify the implementation of
restorative action if sufficient grounds exist; and
F. The Complainants shall contribute to the cost of subsequent maintenance of the
subject vegetation and an informational covenant shall be recorded against 30 Crest Road East
to notify future property owners of the obligation.
Section 7. Pursuant to Section 17.26.050, Paragraph F of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code, an appeal may be filed by any aggrieved party within twenty days of the decision. On
December 3, 2014, the owners of 30 Crest Road East filed an appeal of the Committee's
decision to the City Council, challenging the cost sharing requirement and related recordation
of an informational covenant against 30 Crest Road East ("Appeal").
Section 8. Pursuant to Section 17.54.015 and 27.54.060 of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code, the City Council, in response to the Appeal, is required to conduct a public hearing to
consider the record of this case, receive public testimony, and consider additional information
presented at the appeal hearing, before taking formal action on the Appeal.
Section 9. The Rolling Hills City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on January
12, 2015, at which testimony was received from the owners of 30 Crest Road East, 33 Crest
Road East, their respective attorneys, and members of the public.
Section 10. The Rolling Hills City Council hereby upholds the Appeal and finds as
follows:
A. Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.26.060, Paragraph C, provides as a
general rule that the cost and expense of subsequent maintenance of trees subject to an order
of the City restoring a view shall be borne by the owner of the obstructing vegetation.
Maintenance of vegetation is an ordinary responsibility of property ownership. During the
public hearing on the Appeal, Complainants/ Appellants provided an estimate from American
Arbor Care dated 12/16/14, showing that maintenance of the subject vegetation in compliance
with the Committee's decision is approximately $5,850 every two years and for the trees that
require annual maintenance $2,000 annually; a modest amount. Finally, no extraordinary or
unusual circumstances exist in this case to provide sufficient grounds to deviate from the
general rule. Therefore, the City Council hereby upholds the Appeal and reverses that portion
of the decision of the Committee that would require the owners of 30 Crest Road East to
contribute to the cost of subsequent maintenance of the subject vegetation. Additionally, an
informational covenant shall not be recorded against 30 Crest Road East. The Committee's
decision as reflected in Resolution No. 2014-01 CTV is otherwise unaffected by this Appeal;
however, its terms are restated herein for convenience of the parties.
B. Pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.26.060, Paragraph A, within
thirty (30) calendar days of adoption of this Resolution, the Complainants are hereby required
to obtain and present to the Owners of 33 Crest Road East, a minimum of three (3) bids from
licensed qualified contractors for the performance of the initial restorative action set forth in
this Resolution as well as a cash deposit in the amount of the lowest bid, sufficient to cover 100
percent of the Initial Restorative Action. In order to qualify, the contractors must provide
insurance which protects and indemnifies the City and the Complainants from damages
attributable to negligence or wrongful performance of the work. Any such insurance shall be
subject to the approval of the City.
C. Pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.26.060 B, the Owners of 33
Crest Road East may select any licensed and qualified contractor to perform the initial
Restorative Action (defined below) (as long as the insurance requirement of the above
paragraph is satisfied), but shall pay for any cost above the amount of the cash deposit. The
Initial Restorative Action shall be completed no later than March 9, 2015.
D. Subsequent maintenance of the subject vegetation shall be performed at the cost
and expense of the owners of 33 Crest Road East. All vegetation subject to the restorative
action described in this Resolution and any future planting, including replacement trees, shall
be maintained so that the view shown in the photograph to be taken by City staff or designee
Resolution No. 1167 -2-
following the Initial Restorative Action, as detailed below, is preserved. The trees shall be
maintained so as to not allow for future view impairments from the Designated Viewing Areas
of 30 Crest Road East. Tree maintenance shall be done in the winter months (December -
March) and shall be completed by March 9 of each year in which the work is to be done, as
specified in Paragraph G of this Section of this Resolution.
E. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the City issues a final decision requiring
restorative action affecting the vegetation located at 33 Crest Road East to restore the view of
the owners of 34 Crest Road East, the owners of 30 Crest Road East shall be entitled to receive
financial contribution toward the Initial Restorative Action from the owners of 34 Crest Road
East in such an amount and/or proportion as determined by the Committee or City Council
on appeal. However, the owners of 30 Crest Road East shall not be required to contribute to
the cost of subsequent maintenance of the vegetation at issue in this Appeal.
F. An informational covenant shall be recorded against the title of 33 Crest Road
East and shall run with the land, thereby giving notice of this decision to all future owners.
Tree #
1
2-3
6
7
8
9-16
G. The Initial Restorative Action shall consist of the following:
Tree Type Action Maintenance
Eucalyptus Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years
Olive Tree Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years
Eucalyptus Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years
Canary Island Pine
Brazilian Pepper
Photinia
17 Pittosporum
18 BrazilianPepper
19 Pittosporum
20-23 Eucalyptus
24-27 Eucalyptus
30 Canary Island Pine
31
Pittosporum
33
Canary Island Pine
39
Eucalyptus
44
Pittosporum
51
Redwood
60-63
Canary Island Pine
66-70
Melaleuca
71
Black Pine
72
Pittosporum
73-78
Melaleuca
82-85
Melaleuca
86
Podocarpus
101
Brazilian Pepper
102
Olive Tree
103-110
Brazilian Pepper
111
Photinia (Hedge)
Lace Every two years
Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years
Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years
Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years
Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years
Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years
Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years
Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years
Lace Every two years
Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years
Lace Every two years
Remove
Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years
Height reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years
Lace Every two years
Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years
Remove, including stump & roots
Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years
Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years
Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years
Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Every two years
Crown reduction to ridgeline of house Annually
Maintain height to ridgeline of house Annually
Maintain height at ridgeline of house Annually
Maintain height at ridgeline of house Annually
H. The actions described above shall be accomplished per ISA industry standards
and best arborist practices, and the following definitions shall apply:
Crown Reduction: Height reduction to specified height by removing selective branches,
deadwood, stems and foliage to reduce the height and spread of a tree.
Resolution No. 1167 -3-
Lace: Thin out thick areas of the canopy to expose the structure of dominant branches, clean
out the crown, shaping and balancing the tree.
Ridgeline of house: The higher of the two ridgelines at 33 Crest Road East, as perceived from
the Designated Viewing Areas at 30 Crest Road East.
Section 11. Upon conclusion of the Initial Restorative Action, the Complainant shall
contact the City to schedule a site visit during which City staff shall visit 30 Crest Road East
and take a photograph from the Designated Viewing Areas to be attached as Exhibit for
the purposes of establishing the level of restorative action for future maintenance.
Section 12. No restorative action shall be required for the remainder of the trees on the
property at 33 Crest Road East not listed in the Initial Restorative Action in this Resolution.
However, trees on the property and not included in this Resolution shall be maintained at
their current configuration unless a subsequent decision of the City requires alternative action
to abate impairment of a view from another property caused by additional trees located at 33
Crest Road East. Any new growth that extends into the views established by this Resolution
shall be removed at the same time as the maintenance is conducted for the other trees, at the
sole expense of the Owners of 33 Crest Road East.
Section 13. The parties by mutual agreement, if they so desire, may modify the
implementation action in this Resolution, as set forth in Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section
17.26.060, Paragraph D. Any such mutual agreement shall be recorded, but shall not be
enforced by the City.
Section 14. In the event that any party requests inspection of implementation of CTV
Resolution 2014-01 on grounds that the restorative action or maintenance is not compliant with
that Resolution, the City may be required to incur substantial costs in investigating the
complaint. Therefore, the City shall be entitled to recover its costs from the non-compliant
party, for activities including, but not limited to, hiring independent consultants.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by Members of the City Council this 26th day of
January 2015.
B. Allen Lay
Mayor
ATTEST:
4id
Heidi Luce
City Clerk
Resolution No. 1167 -4-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES } SS
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS }
The foregoing Resolution No. 1167 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
IN AN APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TREES AND
VIEWS IN A VIEW IMPAIRMENT CASE FILED BY MR. AND MRS.
FOURNIER, 30 CREST ROAD EAST, AGAINST TREES LOCATED ON
PROPERTY OWNED BY MR. AND MRS. SHERMAN, 33 CREST ROAD EAST.
THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY MR. AND MRS. FOURNIER
was approved and adopted at a meeting of the City Council on January 26, 2015, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmember Black, Mayor Pro Tem Pieper and Mayor Lay.
NOES: Councilmembers Dieringer and Hill.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
c#adt in
Heidi Luce
City Clerk
Resolution No. 1167 -5-
EXHIBIT C
Picture on page 7 -Taken from Mr. Fournier's office (right of entrance)
Picture on page 8 -Taken from the dining room
Picture on page 9 -Taken from the dining room
Picture on page 10 -Taken from the library
Picture on page 11 -Taken from the library
Picture on page 12 -Taken from Mrs. Fournier's office (left of entrance)
Resolution No. 1167 -6-
T �
it I
im
A;,.'
a£ y' ' — i _moi � - — ''r•1r
s
szi
� i■ ���jj4Z
r _
A -
•k
�-
_ Ss
k r`
r