Loading...
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