çberlyrly Planning Commission Report

Transcription

1 çberlyrly City of Beverly Hills Planning Division 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA TEL. (310) FAX. (310) Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: Subject: Project Applicant: Recommendation: April 12, MAYTOR PLACE Trousdale View Restoration (PL ) Request for a View Restoration Permit by the View Owner at 1111 Maytor Place for the complete removal of six trees located on a neighbor s property at 1100 Maytor Place (Foliage Owner 1) and for the complete removal of three trees located on another neighbor s property at 1119 North Hillcrest Road (Foliage Owner 2). Pursuant to the provisions set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning Commission will also consider adoption of a Categorical Exemption for this project. Continued from the February 22, 2018 Planning Commission Hearing. Amy Rice, Marmol Radziner, on behalf of The Rollo Tomassi Trust, LLC, property owner That the Planning Commission: 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive testimony on the project; and 2. Adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving a View Restoration Permit. REPORT SUMMARY The request was previously scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing on February 22, At the February 22, 2018 hearing, the Planning Commission voted to continue the hearing on the item to April 12, Since the February 22, 2018 hearing, the applicant s representative notified staff that the private agreement between the View Owner and Foliage Owner 2 has been finalized for the removal of three trees on the property belonging to Foliage Owner 2. Consequently, the View Restoration request involving foliage belonging to Foliage Owner 2 has been withdrawn by the applicant. Additionally, the open code enforcement case regarding the non-conforming hedge located on the property of Foliage Owner I has been resolved. The Trousdale View Restoration Ordinance was adopted by the City Council on December 6, The intent of the Ordinance was to provide a regulatory framework through which property owners in Trousdale Estates could address the restoration of views that have been Attachment(s): A. Required Findings & Restorative Action Information B. Draft Resolution C. Application Materials D. 30-Day Public Notices to Foliage Owners E. Public Comments F. View Restoration Ordinance Report Author and Contact Information: Cynthia de Ia Torre, Associate Planner (310) cdelatorrebeverlyhills.org 13

2 çerly C Planning Commission Report 1111 Maytor Place April 12, 2018 Page 2 of 14 substantially disrupted by foliage growth on neighboring properties. A primary objective of the Ordinance is to encourage Trousdale Estates property owners to work directly with each other to reach a resolution of view restoration issues. However, if a view restoration solution cannot be reached between property owners after the exhaustion of the outreach and mediation steps outlined in the Ordinance, a property owner may apply for a View Restoration Permit. This case is the third View Restoration Permit application since adoption of the Ordinance in 2011 and the first to be scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing in the 2018 calendar year1. The Planning Commission may issue a View Restoration Permit to a View Owner with a protectable view2 where the protectable view from a viewing area3 is substantially disrupted by foliage. Through issuance of a View Restoration Permit, the Planning Commission may require restorative action on the Foliage Owner s property. In this particular case, the View Owner at 1111 Maytor Place requests the complete removal of six trees located on the property at 1100 Maytor Place (hereafter referred to as Foliage Owner ). This report provides context on the View Owner and Foliage Owner s properties, information on the required View Restoration procedures, and an analysis evaluating the level of disruption caused by the Foliage Owner s trees to the View Owner at 1111 Maytor Place. Staff s analysis concludes that the View Owner has a protectable view and has substantially complied with the View Restoration steps. Therefore, the recommendation in this report is for approval of a View Restoration Permit for the complete removal of Trees #3 and #4, and for the trimming and continued maintenance of Tree #2 to a maximum height of 15. BACKGROUND File Date 05/1 5/2017 Application Complete 9/20/2017 CEQA Determination Class I Categorical Exemption for modification and replacement of existing landscaping consistent with the City s View Restoration Ordinance, and Section 15061(b)(3) exemption, which states that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. CEQA Deadline 60 days from CEQA Determination Permit Streamlining Take action on project within 60 days of CEQA determination Applicant(s) View Owner Foliage Owner Prior PC Action Prior Council Action The Rollo Tomassi Trust, LLC The Rollow Tomassi Trust, LLC Connie Chein, Co Trust None None Pursuant to Section 4 of the City Council ordinance (Ordinance No ) that adopted the View Restoration program, the timit of View Restoration Permit hearings is 10 per calendar year. 2 Refer to definition on page 10 of this report. Refer to definition on page 10 of this report. 14

3 - Project LLS C Planning Commission Report 1111 Maytor Place April 12, 2018 Page 3 of 14 PROPERTY AND NEIGHBORHOOD SETTING Foliage Owner s Property Information Address 1100 Maytor Place APN Zoning District R-1 General Plan Single-Family Residential Low Density Existing Land Use(s) Single-Family Residential Lot Area Approximately 35,719 SF per the LA County Assessor Map. Year Built Originally built in 1961 Historic Resource N/A Protected Trees/Grove None of the trees requested for removal are considered protected because they are not located in a front yard or street-facing yard. Figure 1 Site Looking North Source: Virtual Beverly Hills GIS 15

4 LLS C Planning Commission Report 1111 Maytor Place April 12, 2018 Page 4 of 14 Neighborhood Character The subject property is located at a cul-de-sac on Maytor Place, north of Doheny Road in Trousdale Estates. The City of Beverly Hills annexed Trousdale Estates 596 single-family residential lots on July 26, Major grading, including removal of most existing foliage, was completed to create flat building pads. View preservation standards were included in many, if not all, of the Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions documents (CC&Rs), placed on the Trousdale tracts beginning in Although the CC&Rs expired in 2000, much of the content and intent of this document was incorporated by the City Council into the City s Zoning Code in The site at 1111 Maytor Place (View Owner s property) has an area of approximately 40,075 square feet. The site is developed with a one-story single-family residence designed by Master Architect, Harold Levitt that is currently undergoing a remodel. The remodel involves additions to the residence, including the construction of a subterranean basement. The height of the existing residence is approximately 12 -ll. The site at 1100 Maytor Place (Foliage Owner s property) is directly south of property, has an area of approximately 35,719 square feet, and is currently one-story single family residence, attached garage, and pool built in permits show that the residence was built with a height of 11. the View Owner s developed with a Original building LI. Figure Maytor Place (Foliage Owner) Site and Property Lines Source: Virtual Beverly Hills GIS 16

5 Planning Commission Report 1111 Maytor Place April 12, 2018 Page 5 of 14 VIEW RESTORATION PROCESS AND REQUEST Before a View Owner can seek remedies made available through a View Restoration Permit, the pro-application procedures below must be followed. Each step in the View Restoration process provides an opportunity for both the Foliage Owner and the View Owner to reach resolution on the matter, but prerequisites must be met before advancing through the process. To encourage early resolution of disputes, the process is set up so that Foliage Owners do not incur any cost if they participate in resolving the view restoration issue during the early steps of the process. However, Foliage Owners do incur costs if the matter requires review by the Planning Commission and a View Owner is granted a View Restoration Permit. The following table summarizes the required steps of the Trousdale View Restoration Ordinance and identifies both the View Owner and Foliage Owner s compliance with each required step: Table 1 - Trousdale View Restoration Process Summary STEP ONE Send signed letter 30 days for Foliage Compliance Original letter was Initial Neighbor on City form. Letter Owner to respond, with sent certified mail Outreach (BHMC should include offer unless 10-day Requirement on October 20, B) to meet with Foliage extension is Owner, requested requested. remedy, cost estimate of remedy, and offerto pay the cost. STEP TWO Send signed 30 days for Foliage Compliance Original mediation Mediation (BHMC mediation letter on Owner to respond, with letter was sent C) City form. Letter unless 10-day Requirement certified mail on (proof of Initial should include offer extension is November 21, Neighbor Outreach to meet with Foliage requested must have been Owner and a submitted prior to mediator, requested Mediation stage) remedy, cost estimate of remedy, and offer to pay the cost. STEP THREE The application N/A Compliance Application View Restoration should include, but with Submitted (See Permit (BHMC not be limited to, the Requirement Attachment C) ) following: proof of completion of the first two steps, a View Restoration Property Survey4; and_a_tree_survey5. i... If access to the foliage owner s property is necessary to complete the survey and the foliage owner does not grant access to his/her property for the purpose of conducting the survey, a view restoration property survey report shall be prepared using other information sources such as measurements taken from other properties, photographs taken from other properties, satellite photographs from commercially available sources, public record permit information for work performed on foliage owner s property, and other similar information sources. -Refer to the definition of a View Restoration Property Survey in BHMC

6 View Planning Commission Report 1111 Maytor Place April 12, 2018 Page 6 of 14 The View Owner received responses to both the Initial Neighbor Outreach and Mediation letters by the Foliage Owner s attorney, David Eu and Associates. The Foliage Owner declined to negotiate a view claim pursuant to View Restoration in either step. The applicant has met the requirements for filing a View Restoration application. Requested Entitlement. The entitlement requested is as follows View Restoration Permit: A request by a View Owner with a protectable view to remove or alter foliage located on a Foliage Owner s lot within 500 of the View Owner s property that substantially disrupts a protectable view. The View Owner is requesting the following six trees to be completely removed: Dli MAYTOR PLACE (VIEW OWNER) PROPERTY LINES PER ZIMAS CLUSTER OF C2-3) PINE TREES AT 1100 MAYTOR PLACE #4 [ MAYTOR PLACE PODOCARPUS TREE # MAYTOR PLACE (FOLIAGE OWNER #1) TIPU TREE #2 PROTECTED ViEW OF LOS ANGELES BASIN 1 Figure 3 Owner s Request CLU$TER OF (1-2) PINE TREES AT 1100 MAYTOR PLACE #3 GENERAL PLAN6 POLICIES The General Plan includes goals and policies intended to help guide development in the City. Some of the goals and polices applicable to the proposed project are provided below to help guide the Planning Commission in its deliberations. If a foliage owner does not grant access to his/her property for the purpose of conducting a tree survey, a tree survey report shall be prepared with as much of the above information as possible, using other information sources such as photographs taken from other properties, satellite photographs from commercially available sources, public record permit information for work performed on foliage owner s property, and other similar information sources. -Refer to the definition of Tree Survey in BHMC Available online at httd:// 18

7 Y Planning Commission Report 1111 Maytor Place April 12, 2018 Page 7 of 14 Policy LU 5.1 Neighborhood Conservation. Maintain the uses, densities, character, amenities, character, and quality of the City s residential neighborhoods, recognizing their contribution to the City s, identity, economic value and quality of life. Policy LU 6.1 Neighborhood Identity. Maintain the characteristics that distinguish the City s single-family neighborhoods from one another in such terms as topography, lot size, housing scale and form, and public streetscapes. Policy OS 6 Visual Resource Preservation. Maintenance and protection of significant visual resources and aesthetics that define the City. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections et seq.), and the City s Local CEQA guidelines. The project appears to qualify for a Class I Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section (Existing Facilities) of the Guidelines. Specifically, the request involves modification and replacement of existing landscaping consistent with the City s View Restoration Ordinance. Additionally, the project appears to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), which states that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the proposed project is exempt from further review under the provisions of CEQA. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION1 Type of Notice Required Period Actual Period Required Actual Notice Notice Date Date Newspaper Notice N/A N/A N/A N/A Mailed Notice 30 Days 36 Days 10/10/17 10/6/17 30-Day Notice to Foliage Owner(s) Prior to Hearing Property Posting N/A N/A N/A N/A Agenda Posting 72 Hours 7 Days 4/5/18 4/5/18 Website 72 Hours 7 Days 4/5/18 4/5/18 BHMC B. Special Notice Requirements 19

8 Planning Commission Report 1111 Maytor Place April 12, 2018 Page 8 of 14 Public Comment Notices of the Public Hearing were mailed to both Foliage Owners 30 days in advance of the November 9, 2017 Planning Commission hearing. At the November 9, 2017 hearing, the Planning Commission continued the item to the January 11, 2018 meeting. Since the January 11, 2018 meeting, the item has been continued two more times to dates certain (February 22, 2018 and April 12, 2018). Because the hearing on the item was continued to dates certain, additional mailed notices to the Foliage Owners were not required. Staff provided notice of the public hearing to interested parties who have requested information about this specific application and to parties who have requested information about Trousdale View Restoration Permits in general. The applicant has provided letters of support for the View Restoration request. The letters have been provided in Attachment E. David D. Fu, the attorney representing Foliage Owner, submitted a public comment letter on December 14, 2017 with a geotechnical report that evaluates the View Owner s request to remove the six trees on the Foliage Owner s property (Attachment E). The letter raises concerns regarding the findings related to whether the foliage can be found to substantially disrupt a protectable view, as well as the findings related to allowing foliage to substantially disrupt a protectable view. The geotechnical report raises concerns about slope destabilization and is discussed in more detail in the Analysis section below. ANALYSIS8 Project approval, conditional approval, or denial is based upon specific findings for the discretionary application requested by the applicant. The specific findings that must be made in order to approve the View Restoration Permit are included with this report in Attachment A, and may be used to guide the Planning Commission s deliberation of the request. Key issues related to the requested entitlement are discussed as follows: Definitions. The View Restoration Ordinance provides the following definitions to aid in the review of a View Restoration Permit: The provisions of the View Restoration Article shall not apply to foliage where the highest point of the foliage is below a safe harbor plane on a Foliage Owner s property. SAFE HARBOR PLANE: A plane defined by points at the edge of View Owner s level pad to points measured from grade at the edge of an adjacent downslope Foliage Owner s principal building area that is farthest from the edge of View Owner s level pad located in a line of sight of a protectable view. The points of the plane on Foliage Owner s property shall be at a height of one foot (1 ) above the height of the roof of the primary residential structure on Foliage Owner s property, not to exceed a maximum height of fifteen feet (15 ) as 8 The analysis provided in this section is based on draft findings prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Planning Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to modify the findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 20

9 Planning Commission Report 1111 Maytor Place April 12, 2018 Page 9 of 14 measured from grade... For the purposes of this definition, the height of the roof of the primary residential structure excludes chimneys, stair or elevator shafts, vent pipes, mechanical equipment, parapets, architectural features that extend above the primary roof elevation, antennas, and other rooftop equipment... For purposes of this definition, downslope and upslope properties separated by a public street shall be deemed to be adjacent. Safe Harbor Area PROPERTY LINE On, foot above height of roof PROPERTY LINE as measured from grade at Edge of Principal Building Area View Owner Protectable View (View of Los Angeles Area Basin) Owners D Foliage Edge ot level pad within this area would be esempt Figure 4 Prepared by th* Community Development Department The applicant has prepared a safe harbor exhibit for their request (included in Attachment C); however, a topographic survey has not been provided to confirm the elevations of both the View Owner s level pad and Foliage Owner l s level pad. Therefore, verification of the accuracy of the submitted safe harbor exhibit is not confirmed. Nevertheless, the exhibit has been provided for informational purposes. PROTECTABLE VIEW: Angeles area basin from Angeles area basin may other cities), ocean, and unobstructed panorama a protectable view shall the finished grade of the A protectable view may include any view of the Los a viewing area as defined [below]. The view of the Los include, but is not limited to, city lights (Beverly Hills and horizon. The term protectable view does not mean an of all or any of the above. For purposes of this section, be determined from a point thirty six inches (36 ) above viewing area. VIEWING AREA: An area from which a protectable view is assessed, located on the level pad that contains the primary residential structure. A viewing area shall be a room of the primary residential structure (excluding hallways, laundry rooms, closets and garages), or a patio, deck or landscaped area adjacent to the primary residential structure that does not extend beyond the level pad. There may be one or more viewing areas on a property. The reviewing authority shall establish the viewing area or areas as part of its finding that the View Owner has a protectable view. The reviewing authority may designate a location as a viewing area if, in the opinion of the reviewing authority, an average resident would often observe a protectable view from that area. 21

10 Planning Commission Report 1111 Maytor Place April 12, 2018 Page 10 of 14 Additionally, the View Restoration Ordinance provides the following criteria for determining whether or not a protectable view is substantially disrupted9: Foliage Position Within A Protectable View: Foliage located in the center of a protectable view is more likely to be found to substantially disrupt a view than foliage located on the protectable view s periphery. Foliage Size And Density: Foliage that by virtue of its size and density obstructs a large portion of a protectable view is more likely to be found to substantially disrupt the view than is foliage that obstructs only a small portion of the protectable view. Trees located in close proximity to each other and maintained in such a way as to collectively form an uninterrupted green barrier are more likely to be found to substantially disrupt a view than are individual trees. View Diminished By Other Factors: The extent to which the view has been or is diminished by other factors such that removal of the foliage at issue will not substantially restore the protectable view. Other factors that may be considered include, but are not limited to, permitted structures, and foliage that is not on a private property within five hundred feet (500 ) of the View Owner s property. In evaluating the request, staff conducted site visits to the View Owner s property. Staff also conducted a site visit to the Foliage Owner s property. Based upon the site visits and review of the Ordinance, an outdoor viewing area on the south side of the 1111 Maytor Place property, adjacent to the master bedroom, was identified. The viewing area is outlined on Figure 5 below. Staff s observations from this viewing area location inform the analysis and recommendation of this report. Views of the LA area horizon were observed from the outdoor patio area on the level pad adjacent to the primary residential structure ( viewing area ). Figure Maytor Place Viewing Area Circled in Blue* (aerial view) BHMC l.1.c. *general location is shown because the house is currently being remodeled 22

11 Planning Commission Report 1111 Maytor Place April 12, 2018 Page 11 ofj4 Protectable View And Disruption. The View Owner s removal request names a 25 -tall Podocarpus tree (Tree #1), a 20 -tall Tipu tree (Tree #2), as well as two Pine tree clusters (#3 and #4), approximately 30 in height, located behind the Tipu tree on the property belonging to the Foliage Owner (refer to Figure 7 below). The trees are located along the western side of the property in the rear yard. In applying the criteria for determining whether the trees substantially disrupt the protectable view from the View Owner s property (refer to page 10 above), the trees are not located in the center of the View Owner s protectable view, but Trees #2, #3, and #4 do appear to obstruct a large portion of the protectable view due to the uninterrupted green barrier that the trees appear to form. Based upon staff s field observations, the canopies of these trees collectively block the direct line of sight to the Los Angeles area basin located beyond the canopies of these trees from the defined viewing location, and, as such, are found to substantially disrupt the View Owner s protectable view. Tree #1, located in the Figure 6: Photo of View-Disrupting Trees foreground of the image above does not appear to contribute to the canopy formed by the other trees named in the View Restoration request due to its location toward the interior of the Foliage Owner s property. Due to the tree s location, it appears to block the slope on which the tree is 23

12 C Planning Commission Report 1111 Maytor Place April 12, 2018 Page 12 of 14 located, and not a view of the Los Angeles area basin. Consequently, staff recommends that only Trees #2, #3, and #4 be subject to restorative action. Figure 7: Photo of Protectable View Provided by Applicant Restorative Action. The applicant s representative has indicated that Pine trees (clusters #3 and #4) are not ideal candidates for pruning due to their growth habits, as well as being comprised of a single, primary trunk. Pine trees are also on the City s nuisance tree list10 because they meet the following criteria: grow rapidly and exceed a height of at maturity; cannot be topped off easily and repeatedly pruned to maintain appropriate heights; and are known fire hazards. 10 Nuisance trees are not recommended to be newly planted in Trousdale. Other nuisance trees include Eucalyptus, Italian Cypress, Ficus, Canary Island Date Palm, King Palm, and Queen Palm (View Restoration Guidelines). 24

13 LLS Planning Commission Report 1111 Maytor Place April 12, 2018 Page Due to the nature of these trees primary woody trunks, trimming them to a maximum height of 15 could result in a severe tree topping effect. Additionally, Pine trees are susceptible to bark beetle infestation, especially during warmer months. Consequently, repeated pruning would not be feasible since the pruning would have to be limited to winter months when bark beetles are less active. The View Restoration Ordinance allows for the complete removal of foliage when the reviewing authority finds that the trimming, culling, lacing, or reduction of the foliage is likely to kill the foliage, threaten the public health, safety, or public welfare, or will destroy the aesthetic value of the foliage that is to be pruned or reduced... Therefore, staff recommends removal of the trees as the appropriate course of action. The last tree that is subject to the View Owner s request is Tree #2, a Tipu tree (circled in light blue in Figure 6 above). The Tipu tree is located in front of the two clusters of Pine trees; its canopy contributes to the uninterrupted green barrier caused by the rest of the trees in this location. The Tipu tree s growth habit differs from that of the Pine trees in that the Tipu tree s branches create a canopy from different points. The applicant requests the removal of the Tipu tree due to its location and elevation, which may make it difficult to trim; however, because this type of tree can withstand trimming, staff recommends trimming to a maximum height of 15 as the appropriate restorative action. It is to be noted that cutting into the main truck on the Tipu tree should be avoided. Geotechnical Report. The Foliage Owner s representative, David D. Fu of David Eu & Associates, provided a geotechnical memo produced by Helfrich-Associates. The memo cites concerns regarding potential destabilization of the slope on which the Tipu and Pine trees are located if the trees are removed. As discussed above, these trees do appear to substantially disrupt the View Owner s protectable view. The municipal code allows for foliage to substantially disrupt a protectable view if the reviewing authority makes one or more of the following findings12: Despite the concerns raised in the geotechnical engineer s memo, the memo appears to be incomplete in that it only addresses removal of the trees and includes no discussion of potential stabilization measures or recommendations that could be implemented in response to removal of the trees. Moreover, the memo appears to suggest that the BHMC J.2 12 BHMC a. The foliage is important to the integrity of an existing landscape plan. b. Alteration of the foliage will unreasonably impact the privacy and security of the foliage owner. c. Alteration of the foliage will have a substantial adverse impact on stability of a hillside, drainage, or erosion control. d. Restoration of the protectable view would not substantially enhance a reasonable person s enjoyment of the view owner s property taken as a whole. 25

14 Planning Commission Report 1111 Maytor Place April 12, 2018 Page 14 of 14 trees would simply be removed without any consideration for replacement landscaping or other stabilization measures. Staff s experience working with slopes suggests that a number of potential stabilization measures likely exist, which could be implemented in order to promote surficial stability and reduce erosion from runoff. Examples of simple measures that could potentially be undertaken in conjunction with a revegetation plan include mulching, installation of jute mesh with groundcover, planting of new trees in compliance with the safe harbor plane that will develop new root structures, or installing erosion control blankets. Additional, more involved measures could include soil nailing or roughening/benching of the slope to reduce surficial instability. Ultimately, any recommended measures should be developed by a geotechnical engineer and based on the specific characteristics of the property. Accordingly, staff recommends requiring a more complete geotechnical assessment, inclusive of recommended measures for revegetation and surficial stability, to be prepared in conjunction with removal of the subject trees. NEXT STEPS It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing and adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving the View Restoration Permit. Alternatively, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions of approval. 2. Deny the project, or portions of the project, based on revised findings. 3. Direct staff or applicant as appropriate and continue the hearing to a date (un)certain, consistent with permit processing timelines, and at applicant s request or consent. Report Reviewed By: Ryr(9%hlich, AICP, City Planner / Assistant Director of CQrnunity Development I 26

15 Y Planning Commission Report 1111 Maytor Place April 12, 2018 Attachment A Required Findings & Restorative Action Information 27

16 10-8-f 06 I. Findings: 1. The reviewing authority may issue a view restoration permit to remove or after foliage on any lot that is all or partly within five hundred feet (500 ) of a view owner s property if it makes all of the following findings: a. The view owner has a protectable view. The reviewing authority shall determine the viewing area or areas in order to make this finding. b. The view owner has substantially complied with the initial neighbor outreach and mediation procedures of this article. c. The view owner s protectable view is substantially disrupted by foliage on foliage owner s property that is not exempt under section of this chapter. The following criteria shall be considered in determining whether or not a protectable view is substantially disrupted: (1) Foliage Position Within A Protectable View: Foliage located in the center of a protectable view is more likely to be found to substantially disrupt a view than foliage located on the protectable view s periphery. (2) Foliage Size And Density: Foliage that by virtue of its size and density obstructs a large portion of a protectable view is more likely to be found to substantially disrupt the view than is foliage that obstructs only a small portion of the protectable view. Trees located in close proximity to each other and maintained in such a way as to collectively form an uninterrupted green barrier are more likely to be found to substantially disrupt a view than are individual trees. (3) View Diminished By Other Factors: The extent to which the view has been or is diminished by other factors such that removal of the foliage at issue will not substantially restore the protectable view. Other factors that may be considered include, but are not limited to, permitted structures, and foliage that is not on a private property within five hundred feet (500 ) of the view owner s property. d. With respect to any tree protected pursuant to section of this title, removal of the tree will not: (1) Adversely affect the neighboring properties or the general welfare or safety of the surrounding area; or (2) Adversely affect the garden quality of the city. 2. The reviewing authority may allow foliage to substantially disrupt a protectable view if the reviewing authority makes one or more of the following findings: a. The foliage is important to the integrity of an existing landscape plan. 28

17 b. Alteration of the foliage will unreasonably impact the privacy and security of the foliage owner. c. Alteration of the foliage will have a substantial adverse impact on stability of a hillside, drainage, or erosion control. d. Restoration of the protectable view would not substantially enhance a reasonable person s enjoyment of the view owner s property taken as a whole. J. Restorative Action: The reviewing authority may, through issuance of a view restoration permit, require restorative action on foliage owner s property. All restorative action must be performed by a licensed and bonded tree or landscape service unless mutually agreed upon by the view owner and the foliage owner. Restorative action may include, but is not limited to, the following: 1. Trimming, culling, lacing, or reducing foliage to a height or width to be determined by the reviewing authority but not below the safe harbor plane. 2. Requiring the complete removal of the foliage when the reviewing authority finds that the trimming, culling, lacing, or reduction of the foliage is likely to kill the foliage, threaten the public health, safety, or public welfare, or will destroy the aesthetic value of the foliage that is to be pruned or reduced. Removal of a healthy tree not on a list of nuisance trees maintained by the city is to be avoided unless the reviewing authority determines such removal is necessary to avoid substantial disruption of a protected view. 3. Requiring replacement foliage when the reviewing authority finds that removal without replacement will cause a substantial adverse impact on one or more of: a) the public health, safety and welfare; b) the privacy of the property owner; c) shade provided to the dwelling or property; U) the energy efficiency of the dwelling; e) the stability of the hillside; f) the health or viability of the remaining landscaping; or g) the integrity of the landscape plan. 29

18 cjils Planning Commission Report 1111 Maytor Place April 12, 2018 Attachment B Draft Resolution 30

19 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNTNG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT FOR THE REMOVAL OF FOUR TREES AND THE TRIMMING AND CONTINUED MAINTENANCE OF ONE TREE TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 15 ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1100 MAYTOR PLACE (FOLIAGE OWNER) IN TROUSDALE ESTATES. determines as follows: The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves, and Section 1. Amy Rice of Marmol Radziner, on behalf of The Rollo Tomassi Trust, LLC, (the Applicant and View Owner ), has submitted an application for a View Restoration Permit for the complete removal of six trees on a neighbor s property located at 1100 Maytor Place ( Foliage Owner 1 ) and for the complete removal of three trees located on another neighbor s property at 1119 North Hillcrest Road ( Foliage Owner 2 ) in Trousdale Estates. Prior to the April 12, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, the Applicant s representative notified staff that a private agreement between the View Owner and Foliage Owner 2 had been finalized for the removal of three trees on the property belonging to Foliage Owner 2. Consequently, the Applicant withdrew the View Restoration request involving the foliage belonging to Foliage Owner 2. The remaining View Restoration request is for the removal of six trees belonging to Foliage Owner 1 (the Request ); Foliage Owner 1 is hereafter referred to as Foliage Owner ). The Request requires a View Restoration Permit for the View Owner to restore a protectable view that has been substantially disrupted by foliage located on the Foliage Owner s property. 31

20 Section 2. The Applicant requested that the following trees be completely removed: 1. A Podocarpus tree in the northwest area of the Foliage Owner s property ( Tree #1 ); 2. A Tipu tree located toward the south of the Foliage Owner s property ( Tree #2 ); 3. A cluster of 1-2 Pine trees located behind the Tipu tree toward the south of the Foliage Owner s property ( Tree #3 ); and 4. A cluster of 2-3 Pine trees to the west of Tree #3 toward the south of the Foliage Owner s property ( Tree #4 ) MAYTOR PLACE (VIEW OWNER> PROPERTY LINES PER ZIMAS CLUSTER OF (2-3) PINE TREES AT 1100 MAYTOR PLACE #4 MAYTOR PLACE -- PODOCARPUS TREE # MAYTOP PLACE (FOLIAGE OWNER #1) 7 - TIPU TREE #2 PROTECTED VIEW OF LOS ANGELES BASIN I CLUSTER OF (1-2) PINE TREES AT 1100 MAYTOR PLACE #3 View Owner s Request Section 3. The Request has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections et seq.), and the City s Local CEQA guidelines. The Planning Commission finds that the Request is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section (Existing Facilities) of the 2 32

21 CEQA Guidelines. Specifically, the Request involves modification and replacement of existing landscaping consistent with the City s View Restoration Ordinance. Additionally, the Request is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), which states that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The Request is, therefore, exempt from further review under the provisions of CEQA. Section 4. Notice of the Request and public hearing was originally mailed to both foliage Owners 30 days in advance of the November 9, 2017 Planning Commission hearing. At the November 9, 2017 hearing, the Planning Commission continued the item to the January 11, 2018 meeting. Following the January 11, 2018 meeting, the item was continued two more times to dates certain (february 22, 2018 and April 12, 2018). Because the hearing on the item was continued to dates certain, additional mailed notices to the Foliage Owners were not required. Staff provided notices of the public hearing to interested parties who have requested information about this specific application and to parties who have requested information about Trousdale View Restoration Permits in general. On April 12, 2018, after conducting a duly noticed site visit to both the View Owner s and Foliage Owner s properties, the Planning Commission considered the application at a duly noticed public hearing. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented at the meeting. Section 5. In reviewing the request for a View Restoration Permit, the Planning Commission considered whether it could make the following findings in support of the Request: a. The View Owner has a protectable view. The reviewing authority shall determine the viewing area or areas in order to make this finding; 33

22 b. The View Owner has substantially complied with the Initial Neighbor Outreach and Mediation procedures of this article; c. The View Owner s protectable view is substantially disrupted by foliage on foliage Owner s property that is not exempt under section of this chapter. The following criteria shall be considered in determining whether or not a protectable view is substantially disrupted: (1) Foliage Position Within a Protectable View: Foliage located in the center of a protectable view is more likely to be found to substantially disrupt a view than foliage located on the protectable view s periphery; (2) Foliage Size and Density: Foliage that by virtue of its size and density obstructs a large portion of a protectable view is more likely to be found to substantially disrupt the view than is foliage that obstructs only a small portion of the protectable view. Trees located in close proximity to each other and maintained in such a way as to collectively form an uninterrupted green barrier are more likely to be found to substantially disrupt a view than are individual trees. (3) View Diminished By Other Factors: The extent to which the view has been or is diminished by other factors such that removal of the foliage at issue will not substantially restore the protectable view. Other factors that may be considered include, but are not limited to, permitted structures, and foliage that is not on a private property within five hundred (500 ) of the View Owner s property. 4 34

23 d. With respect to any tree protected pursuant to section of this title, removal of the tree will not: (1) Adversely affect the neighboring properties or the general welfare or safety of the surrounding area; or (2) Adversely affect the garden quality of the City. The reviewing authority may allow foliage to substantially disrupt a protectable view if the reviewing authority makes one or more of the following findings: a. The foliage is important to the integrity of an existing landscape plan. b. Alteration of the foliage will unreasonably impact the privacy and security of the foliage owner. c. Alteration of the foliage will have a substantial adverse impact on stability of a hillside, drainage, or erosion control. d. Restoration of the protectable view would not substantially enhance a reasonable person s enjoyment of the View Owner s property taken as a whole. Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows with respect to the View Restoration Permit: 1. The View Owner has a protectable view of the Los Angeles Basin specifically, of the horizon as viewed from the level pad on which an outdoor patio, adjacent to the main residence that is currently being remodeled, is located. 2. The View Owner has substantially complied with the Initial Neighbor Outreach and Mediation procedures of the Trousdale Estates View 5 35

24 Restoration Article. The View Owner sent the Initial Neighbor Outreach letter on October 20, The View Owner sent the offer to mediate on November 21, The Foliage Owner did not accept the offer to mediate with the View Owner. 3. Based on the evidence in the City s files, including Staffs prior inspections of the properties, the staff report, and the site visit to both properties on April 12, 2018, the Planning Commission finds that foliage comprising a total of five trees substantially disrupts the View Owner s view when the trees have grown to a height greater than 15 : 1 Tipu tree located toward the south of the Foliage Owner s property ( Tree #2 ), which obstructs a large portion of the protectable view due to the uninterrupted green barrier that the tree forms collectively with Trees #3 and #4 (listed below); and A cluster of 1-2 Pine trees located behind the Tipu tree ( Tree #3 ) and a cluster of 2-3 Pine trees ( Tree #4 ) to the west of Tree #3. Both Tree #3 and Tree #4 are located toward the south of the Foliage Owner s property and both contribute to the uninterrupted green barrier which substantially disrupts the View Owner s protectable view. Section 7. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby grants the requested View Restoration Permit, subject to the following conditions: 6 36

25 1. This approval is for the removal of Trees #3 and #4 (a total of four trees), as well as the trimming and continued maintenance of Tree #2 to a maximum height of 15 ( Restorative Action ). Any minor changes to the Request, as determined by the Director of Community Development, shall be reviewed and approved by staff. Substantive changes, as determined by the Director of Community Development, shall be returned to the Planning Commission for review and approval. 2. The Foliage Owner at 1100 Maytor Place shall pay 100% of the cost of the Restorative Action. 3. The Foliage Owner shall pay for subsequent maintenance of Tree #2 consistent with the View Restoration permit. 4. Prior to removal of the subject trees, the Foliage Owner shall engage the services of a geotechnical engineer to assess any slopes with the potential to be impacted by removal of said trees. The geotechnical engineer shall prepare a report, inclusive of recommendations for revegetation, surficial stability, and erosion control in the areas of tree removal, and the Foliage Owner shall comply with the recommendations contained within the report. 5. Site access for City inspections to ensure compliance with the View Restoration Permit shall be granted by the Foliage Owner at 1100 Maytor Place within 15 days of a written request by the City of Beverly Hills. 6. The full cost of any City enforcement action related to this View Restoration Permit, including attorney s fees, shall be borne by the Foliage Owner at 1100 Maytor Place. 7 37

26 7. DECISION RUNS WITH LAND. Decisions regarding View Restoration applications shall be binding on all current and future owners of the View Owner s property and foliage Owner s property, and such decisions must be disclosed by each owner to subsequent owners of the property. 8. APPEAL. Decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council within fourteen (14) days of the Planning Commission action by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the City Clerk s office. An appeal fee is required. 9. RECORDATION. The resolution approving the View Restoration Permit shall be recorded against the Foliage Owner s property at 1100 Maytor Place along with a covenant, satisfactory in form and content to the City Attorney, accepting the conditions of approval set forth in this resolution. The covenant shall include a copy of the resolution as an exhibit. The Foliage Owner shall deliver the executed covenant to the Department of Community Development within 60 days of the Planning Commission decision. After the Foliage Owner delivers the covenant to the City, the View Owner shall provide the City with all fees necessary to record the document with the County Recorder. If the View Owner fails to deliver the fees within the required 60 days, this resolution approving the Project shall be null and void and of no further effect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director of Community Development may, upon a request by the View Owner, grant a waiver from the 60 day time limit if, at the time of the request, the Director determines that good cause has been demonstrated justifying the delay. 8 38

27 10. VIOLATION Of CONDITIONS AND VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT: The City of Beverly Hills shall take such action, as appropriate, to ensure initial compliance with the View Restoration permit. After an initial determination by the City that the Foliage Owner has complied with the View Restoration permit, any further dispute regarding the Foliage Owner s compliance with the View Restoration permit shall be resolved by a civil action initiated by the View Owner. 11. After a decision is rendered by the Planning Commission issuing a View Restoration permit, at any time before or after an initial determination of compliance with a View Restoration permit is made by the City, the View Owner may sue in Los Angeles Superior Court to enjoin violation of, or compel compliance with, the View Restoration permit. The prevailing party in any such civil action between the View Owner and the foliage Owner shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in the litigation. I/I I/I 9 39

28 Section 8. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of this resolution, and shall cause this resolution and his/her Certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the Planning Commission of the City. Adopted: April 12, 2018 Lori Greene Gordon Chair of the Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills, California Attest: Ryan Gohlich, AICP Secretary of the Planning Commission Approved as to form: Approved as to content: David M. Snow Assistant City Attorney Ryan Gohlich, AICP Assistant Director / City Planner Community Development Department 10 40

29 iierly Planning Commission Report 1111 Maytor Place April 12, 2018 Attachment C Application Materials 41

30 0-4, w U -J 0 0 H ii:: w z 0 w > w U -J a 0 H w w H D ah -J >- U) H w a0 N a w a zo H HuW (ñwu DW< Ui-a w za 0 H I 0 0 WU i-a ww H(9 w FCu, co w -J U U, 0 w zn -J 0 z LL 0 H I xwz Qr%. O>N I> w, >ID 42

31 U z 0 U > U -J 0 0 H U z U > U z 0 U -J 0 U U -J 0 0 H 0 0 I Z]EX <HW _J U 0U <U U.JW (nw< 0 w ẕj S >- H w S U S U ẕ J >- H U 0 0 I w zn -J 0 0 I z I I U 0 CN H I xwz <0 >CN co UHX ww L1 wu >0 43

32 ZJZJZE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE I 7700 MAYTOR PLACE (FOLIAGE OWNER) 1771 MAYTOR PLACE I I (VIEW OWNER) I EEzzizzz - - I I I I SAFE HARBOR PLANE FOLIAGE WITHIN THIS AREA WOULD BE EXEMPT EDGE OF FLAT PAD 1 FOOT ABOVE ROOF 7711 MAYTOR VIEW PRESERVATION EXHIBIT 3 OF 4 DECEMBER 8, 2017 MARMOL RADZINER 44

33 GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH CURRENT VIEW FROM PRIMARY VIEWING AREA: OBSTRUCTED VIEW OF LA BASIN PRIMARY VIEW POST TREE REMOVAL: RESTORED VIEWS WITH AN APPROXIMATELY 45% INCREASE IN THE VIEW OF THE LA BASIN Jill MAYTOR VIEW PRESERVATION EXHIBIT 4 OF 4 DECEMBER 8, 2017 MARMOL RADZINER 45

34 CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS) STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ) ss INITIAL NEIGHBOR OUTREACH AFFIDAVIT Date 5/12/2017 Signe1 reach agreement. pursuant to the Trousdale View Restoration Ordinance but we were unable to Li I received a response from said owner who agreed to negotiate a view claim pursuant to the Trousdale View Restoration Ordinance Li I received no response to the notice from said owner 1100 Maytor Place Initial Neighbor Outreach to current Los Angeles County Tax 1100 Maytor Place Initial Neighbor Outreach to state: that on 10/20/2016 I Amy Rice I further certify that (check box that applies): LII I received a response from said owner who declined to negotiate a view claim I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. (ADDRESS). be mailed to the occupant of the property at Assessor s roll and also personally caused a Notice of (ADDRESS), as listed on the most be mailed to the owner of the property at (DATE), I personally caused a Notice of INAME), under penalty of perjury C 46

35 Los Angeles, CA Nebraska Avenue Marmol Radziner ($14,000) and we are making an offer to pay this cost to cover the work and materials requited debris created by the work. to effect the remedy identified above. This cost includes the removal of the trees and associated We believe a good faith estimate of the cost for this remedy is Fourteen Thousand Dollars We are seeking removal of these trees due to their size and the type of growth habit that these down to the height needed to restore the view. leader (single trunk) for the entire length of the tree, so it would not be possible to trim the trees it is not suitable for the species of trees. The natural growth habit of these species is a central species have. We believe that trimming these trees will not remedy the view disruption, and that We are seeking the following remedy to restore our client s view: trees to clarify their location. The view to the South and South-West is disrupted by the foliage. To the best of our knowledge, the foliage that is disrupting the view is comprised of a cluster of six trees that are located on the tree. They exist in a cluster near the bottom of the slope. We have included two images of the hillside on the West side of the property. The trees include five Pine trees and one Jacaranda been substantially disrupted by foliage growing on your properly. Our client at 1111 Maytor Place has a view of the Los Angeles area basin that we believe has View Restoration Guidelines which assist Trousdale property owners in understanding and searching View Restoration and selecting the first result. We have also enclosed a copy of the on View Restoration is available for viewing on the City s website, by you may call Cynthia de Ia Torre, Assistant Planner at (310) area basin that may be substantially disrupted by foliage on a neighbor s property. Information assists property owners in Trousdale Estates to restore and maintain views of the Los Angeles We are writing pursuant to the City of Beverly Hills Trousdale View Restoration Ordinance which using the Trousdale View Restoration Ordinance. If you have questions about this ordinance, Dear Sir or Madam, Subject: Request to Address View Blocked by Foliage 1100 Maytor Place Beverly Hills, CA Resident October 21, 20f 6 Initial Neighbor Outreach Notice Template C C Attachment 1 47

36 6222 or to discuss this request. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. The City requires a Trousdale property owner to attempt to reach a solution that is acceptable to each of us. We can be reached at We are offering to meet with you, at a time convenient for each of us, to discuss this matter and ncea@marmol-radziner.com Marmol Radziner Landscape Studio Director Amy Rice Regards, We look forward to working with you to resolve these issues. Estates. this early stage in the process will result in a quicker and less costly process for all Trousdale intended to provide information to foliage owners about the City s Trousdale View Restoration interested in pursuing the City s Trousdale View Restoration process to send this letter to neighbors who own foliage that may be blocking the property owner s view. This requirement is residents as the City implements the Ordinance to restore and maintain views in Trousdale Ordinance and to facilitate a dialogue between neighbors with the goal of assisting neighbors to resolve issues among themselves. Please understand that cooperation among neighbors at Page 2 of 2 C) Initial ghbor Outreach Notice 48

37 49

38 4. * - ç ;. Li ;.-w - r -J J% 4 S * p - d 1.frW - r 7 - )s..- WI 50

39 ci ci ci ci tan&t ci 7 U, U, ci ci H s:. m C C t1itw!ii.l!rltvitiw1.jj k Posirnerk cft34 State, ZJP+4 TotalPcetage&Fees $ [orpoboxno lloo Mkro P I siden1 (Endorsement Required) (Endorsement Required) $U. IJIj Restricted Delivery Pee Return Receipt Fee U. Certified Fee - e -- Pose J OO2 T L S E (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) CERTIFIED MAILr RECEIPT U.S. Postal Service 51

40 C. C UNITED I - Postage & Fees Paid USPS Permit No. G-1O STATE6SERVICE First-Class Mail 4j Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP 4 in this box MMOL \ 22to I.BA5A AvNE Lo ANcLES, kcii: AMY flce CA cjoo2s li,.i1isi,jjif,1iil1l1,lilliii,,1i,ii1i1ilii.,,1iiibii1,1,1,1i 52

41 C C SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION Complete items 1,2, and 3. Also complete item 4 If Restricted Delivery is desired. Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. S Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. ArtIcle Addressed to: SItrt uc MAyi-o PLAcE SEVPy HLc.S,QA 7i D Agent (.I C Addressee B. Rcelvedd NyyIDehverv. 0. Is delivery ares4differeit from fteml? C Yes If YES, entdeii*ry address below: C No hi III II II Ill IIiI ServIce Type 1iIfied Mall C Express Mall C Registered C Return Receipt for Merehandlse C Insured Mail C Resfficted Delivery? (Extra Fee) Q Yes 2. AitlUe Number (rransferfromsemce!abel) lool I O 000Lt I LF O1 3 PS Form February 2004 DomestIc Return ReceIpt M

42 November 14, 2016 By US. Certified Mail tel fax E. Huntington Drive, SuIte 205. Arcadia, CA HENRY WANG Attorneys at Law DAVID FU AND ASSOCIATES Very truly yours, me. Thank you. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Please direct all future communications regarding this matter to this office. This includes any further action you plan to take with the City. Proper notice and appointments should be directed to this our client s rights to the fullest extent under the Law. office. Failure to comply with this request will only delay your intended purpose and we will assert Ordinance, but we believe that you will not be successful in that regard. We intend to vigorously protect the privacy and property rights of cur älient. As such, we are notifying you to cease all client s property. communication attempts with our client and you and your representatives are not to trespass on my We are aware of your attempt to initiate action based on your interpretation of the View Restoration of your letter dated October 19, 2016 regarding your request to cut down foliage on the property of This office represents the resident of 1100 Maytor Place, Beverly Hills, CA We are in receipt our client. Dear Ms. Rice and Mr. Hoppus: Re: Our ClIent Resident of 1100 Maytor Place, Beverly Hills, CA liii Maytor Place Mark A. Hoppus Beverly Hills, CA Nebraska Avenue Los Angeles, CA Marmol Radziner Amy Rice DAVID FU ASSOCIATES 54

43 CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) MEDIATION AFFIDAVIT S), Date 5/12/2017 Sineq reach agreement. pursuant to the Trousdale View Restoration Ordinance but we were unable to D I received a response from said owner who agreed to negotiate a view claim pursuant to the Trousdale View Restoration Ordinance II I received a response from said owner who declined to negotiate a view claim Q I received no response to the notice from said owner occupant of the property at and also personally caused a Notice of as listed on the most owner of the property at DATE), I personally caused a Notice of (NAME), under penalty of perjury C, I Amy Rice I further certify that (check box that applies): I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct Maytor Place Mediation to be mailed to the current Los Angeles County Tax Assessor s roll 1100 Maytor Place Mediation to be mailed to the state: that on 11/21/

44 ( C Attachment 1 Mediation Notice Template Marmot Radziner Nebraska Avenue Los Angeles, CA November21, 2016 Resident 1100 Maytor Place Beverly Hills, CA Subject: Request for Mediation to Address View Blocked by Foliage Dear Sir or Madam, We wrote to you previously pursuant to the City of Beverly Hills Trousdale View Restoration Ordinance which assists property owners in Trousdale Estates to restore and maintain views of the Los Angeles area basin that may be substantially disrupted by foliage on a neighbor s property. Information on View Restoration is available for viewing on the City s website, by searching View Restoration and selecting the first result. If you have questions about this ordinance, you may call Cynthia de Ia Torre, Assistant Planner at (310) Our client at 1111 Maytor Place has a view of the Los Angeles area basin that we believe has been substantially disrupted by foliage growing on your property. The view to the South and South-West is disrupted by the foliage. To the best of our knowledge, the foliage that is disrupting the view is comprised of a cluster of six trees that are located on the hillside on the West side of the property. The trees include five Pine trees and one Jacaranda tree. They exist in a cluster near the bottom of the slope. We have included two images of the trees to clarify their location. We are seeking the following remedy to restore our client s view: We are seeking removal of these trees due to their size and the type of growth habit that these species have. We believe that trimming these trees will not remedy the view disruption, and that it is not suitable for the species of trees. The natural growth habit of these species is a central leader (single trunk) for the entire length of the tree, so it would not be possible to trim the trees down to the height needed to restore the view. We believe a good faith estimate of the cost for this remedy is Fourteen Thousand Dollars ($14,000) and we are making an offer to pay this cost to covet the work and materials requited to effect the remedy identified above. This cost includes the removal of the trees and associated debris created by the work. 56

45 acceptable to each of us, to discuss this matter and to attempt to reach a solution. We can be meet with you, at a time convenient for each of us, and with a third party, professional mediator requirements, we are now offering a mediation process to resolve this mailer. We would like to This letter follows up on our previous letter and, pursuant to the Trousdale View Restoration ricea@marmol-radziner.com Marmol Radziner Landscape Studio Director Amy Rice Regards, We look forward to working with you to resolve these issues. facilitate a dialogue between neighbors with the goal of assisting neighbors to resolve issues information to foliage owners about the City s Trousdale View Restoration Ordinance and to interested in pursuing the City s Trousdale View Restoration process to send the Initial Neighbor Outreach letter and to follow up with this Mediation Notice to neighbors who own foliage that the process will result in a quicker and less costly process for all Trousdale residents as the City Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. The City requires a Trousdale property owner may be blocking the property owner s view. These requirements are intended to provide among themselves. Please understand that cooperation among neighbors at this early stage in implements the Ordinance to restore and maintain views in Trousdale Estates. regulations. usually visits each property owner s property as part of the mediation process. As the View Owner, we will pay the cost of the mediation as required by the City s View Restoration reached at or ricea@marmol-radziner.com to set up the mediation. The mediator 57 Page2of2 (

46 4. b I 58

47 , I: 59

48 Lfl BEVRtYHflILtSr C 9i2 ci For delivery information visit our website at -n (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) CERTIFiED MAiL.. RECEIPT U.S. Postal Service- C C In a hurry? Sd fservlce kiosks offer (ARCADIA, CA 91006) USPS Tracking or call apply. You may also visit USPS.com Return 1 $2.70 Receipt Receipt Standard Message and Data rates may (2U$PS) to get the latest status. Text your tracking number to Change Total $14.30 (U5PS Return Receipt U) (ftjsps Certified Mail #) (BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210) Large Envelope (Domestic) Mail Fit-st-Class 1 (USPS Return Receipt 4) Return 1 (Expected Delivery Day) (fiu5ps Certified Mail #) ( ) ( ) (WeIght :0 Lb 1.50 Oz) ( ) ( ) Certified 1 Certified 1 (Wednesday 11/23/2016) (Weight:O Lb 1.50 Oz) (Doniesti C) (Wednesday 11/23/2016) Large Envel ope (Expected Delivery Day) Mail First-Class 1 Description Product Sale Final ($5.70) Cash $20.00 $1.15 $2.70 $3.30 $1.15 Qty Price $ / (800) _2 : U3PM CA LOS ANGELES SANTA MONICA BLVD WEST LOS ANGELES FINANCE ci ci a ci ci ci ci U, U, ci U, ci ci ci a ci ci ci ci u_i 60 PS Form Auqut 200 Frm tsvr r for ttlroporls [i8tè4a,i1l CA 9100(Q I L-!LTLfl L A...htJAht..._- (St To DA D u & ASSotA1E5?i; TOteiPOstB9S&Feee $ 11/21/2016 $1 jr DetFee. (Endorsement Required) $ij ;JU. RetumRecelptFee lit Certified Fø. $ii nfl :L.7 :i, Pobe 14 / j AReIf:cA :I JJ$ For delivery information visit our website at wwwuofls.com (Domestic Mail Only; No insi.irance Coverage Provided) CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT U.S. Postal Servicet: I S Form 3800 August 2006 See Reuero for notructroris ieyp.4 or P0 Box Bo M fry10r ftptle. 7üCAfli - [SdfltTO Tot&Postage&Peee$ Restricted Dei1vay Fee. I6 (Endorsement Required) $i3,ijf) (Endorsement Required) 2 Return Receipt Fee CeiilttedFee poj($ r Pos8tnark 002%

49 Permit No. G-1O usps Postage & Fees Paid UNITED First-Class Mail jljfjjij)i1lfiijfj7jjjiiijifjjiljil1jijjijjflhiiiijilllijijeijjj AIrN AM P%C LoS AL5, CA 9OO2 6RAW.A AIEt1L( MARMOL RADiIr JER. Sender Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box C C. 61

50 Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, so that we can return the card to you. Print your name and address on the reverse Item 411 Restricted Delivery Is desired. B. R4lved by(pfinted Name) 1C. Date of Delivery x 11!1/ C Addressee ha c CAgent A Slgtqre C C CA qgoog, 205 L9q. KuNTubJE1ON t A.tV, DAVID AcociA-rS 1. MIcle Addressed to: A7TN I4Eig.Y 2. Micle Number C Insured Malt 0 RegIstered $ Cerlifled Mali Ill Ih fill D. lsdellveiy address different from item 1? Yes It YES, enter delivery address below: C No 3. Service Type 4. RestrIcted Delivery? (Extra Fee) C Yes sferfromservlce lab PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt M-1540: 50 C C.O.D. C Return Receipt for Merehandise C Express Mali or on the front If space permits. SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION

51 f DAVID FU()ASSOCIATES December 12, 2016 Amy Rice Marmol Radziner Nebraska Avenue Los Angeles, CA Re: Our Client Resident of 1100 Maytor Place, Beverly Hills, CA Dear Ms. Rice: This letter serve as a response to your letter dated November 21, We are not inclined to mediate this matter at this moment. Our contention is that you do not have the grounds to remove the foliage on my client s property. Our client remains steadfast in protecting her property and privacy rights, and as such, we will vigorously protect the rights of our client. We ask that you continue to direct all future communications to this office and refrain from communicating with my client. furthermore, as stated in our last letter, you and your representative are not to trespass on my client s property. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. Very truly yours, DAVID FU AND ASSOCIATES Attorneys at Law HENRY WANG tel fax E. Huntington Drive. Suite 205, ArcadIa, CA

52 Planning Commission Report 1111 Maytor Place April 12, 2018 Attachment D 30-Day Public Notices to Foliage Owners 64

53 çbevrlyrly Dear Resident (1100 Maytor Place ( Foliage Owner )): I am writing pursuant to the City of Beverly Hills Trousdale View Restoration Ordinance which assists property owners in Trousdale Estates in restoring and maintaining views of the Los Angeles area basin that may be substantially disrupted by foliage on a neighbor s property. The neighboring property owner at 1111 Maytor Place ( Applicant and View Owner ) has attempted the following remedies to address the foliage on your property that is blocking her views: 1. Initial Neighbor Outreach: A written request was sent to you via certified mail on October 20, Mediation Notice: A written request was sent to you via certified mail on November 21, After exhaustion of the aforementioned View Restoration procedures required prior to a public hearing (ccprehearing steps ), the View Owner is moving forward with the View Restoration Permit application that was filed in May 2017 for the Planning Commission to review her request for the complete removal of six trees located on your property at 1100 Maytor Place, as well as for the complete removal ofthree trees on another foliage Owner s property at 1119 North Hillcrest Road. Please be advised that if the Planning Commission finds that restorative action is required. the Commission may mandate the removal of said trees at your expense. The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hifis, at its REGULAR meeting on Thursday, November 9, 2017, wifi hold a public hearing beginning at 1:30 PM, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard to consider the View Restoration request from your neighbor at 1111 Maytor Place for the complete removal of six trees on your property located at 1100 Maytor Place. Meeting information is as follows: DATE: November 9, 2017 TIME: 1:30 PM, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard LOCATION: Commission Meeting Room 280A Beverly Hills City Hall 455 North Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA City of Beverly Hills 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, California p (310) f(310) BeverlyHills.org 65

54 The View Restoration Permit is being requested pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code : View Restoration Permit: After exhaustion of the prehearing steps set forth in section of this chapter, and upon application by a view owner in a form satisfactory to the director ofplanning and community development, the reviewing authority may issue a view restoration permit to a view owner with a protectable view as defined in this article where the protectable view from a viewing area is substantially disrupted by foliage as defined in this article and the reviewing authority makes all of the findings as set forth in this section. If there are any questions regarding this letter or the submitted application, please contact Cynthia de la Torre, Associate Planner in the Planning Division at (310) , or by at cdelatorre@beverlyhifls.org. Sincerely: Cynt6ja de la Torre, Associ e Planner Mailed: October 6,

55 Dear Resident (1119 North Hillcrest Road ( Foliage Owner )): I am writing pursuant to the City of Beverly Hifis Trousdale View Restoration Ordinance which assists property owners in Trousdale Estates in restoring and maintaining views of the Los Angeles area basin that may be substantially disrupted by foliage on a neighbor s property. The neighboring property owner at 1111 Maytor Place ( Applicant and View Owner ) has attempted the following remedies to address the foliage on your property that is blocking her views: 1. Initial Neighbor Outreach: A written request was sent to you via certified mail on November 18, Mediation Notice: A written request was sent to you via certified mail on December 19, After exhaustion of the aforementioned View Restoration procedures required prior to a public hearing ( prehearing steps ), the View Owner is moving forward with the View Restoration Permit application that was filed in May 2017 for the Planning Commission to review her request for the complete removal of three trees located on your property at 1119 North Hificrest Road, as well as for the complete removal of six trees on another foliage Owner s property at 1100 Maytor Place. Please be advised that if the Planning Commission finds that restorative action is required. the Commission may mandate the removal of said trees at your expense. The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills, at its REGULAR meeting on Thursday, November 9, 2017, will hold a public hearing beginning at 1:30 PM, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard to consider the View Restoration request from your neighbor at 1111 Maytor Place for the complete removal of three trees on your property located at 1119 North Hillcrest Road. Meeting information is as follows: DATE: November 9, 2017 TIME: 1:30 PM, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard LOCATION: Commission Meeting Room 280A Beverly Hills City Hall 455 North Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA City of Beverly Hills 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, California p (310) f(310) BeverlyHills.org 67

56 The View Restoration Permit is being requested pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code : View Restoration Permit: After exhaustion of the prehearing steps set forth in section of this chapter, and upon application by a view owner in a form satisfactory to the director of planning and community development, the reviewing authority may issue a view restoration permit to a view owner with a protectable view as defmed in this article where the protectable view from a viewing area is substantially disrupted by foliag& as defined in this article and the reviewing authority makes all of the findings as set forth in this section. If there are any questions regarding this letter or the submitted application, please contact Cynthia de Ia Torre, Associate Planner in the Planning Division at (310) , or by at cdelatorre@beverlyhifls.org. Sincerely: j14l kc& Cyr3ua de la Torre, Associe Planner Mailed: October 6,

57 Planning Commission Report 1111 Maytor Place April 12, 2018 Attachment E Public Comments 69

58 c,dirhms To Whom It May Concern, OCT /13/2017 Planning DiVielon Cpjyydonment My name is Jasmine Yadegar and I am a friend and neighbor of the Hoppus family here in Trousdale Estates. I am writing in support of the Hoppuses in regard to their view restoration application with the City of Beverly Hills. As long-time residents of Trousdale Estates, they are legally entitled to their view of the Los Angeles Basin. However, the trees located on the neighboring properties as outhned in their view restoration documents substantially obstruct their protected view. The trees that have been identified to be removed are located in close proximity to each other and in such a way that creates an obstruction of the view owner s primary view. The trees that have been identified for removal are not protected by the city, are not integral to a landscape plan, and their removal would not adversely affect the neighboring properties or the surrounding area s safety or welfare. In fact, the pine trees identified in the view restoration application are currently identified by the City of Beverly Hills as Nuisance Trees for the Trousdale Estates neighborhood, and are a known fire hazard. The Hoppuses have a view of the Los Angeles Basin and Beverly Hills from their master bedroom as well as a landscaped patio area directly outside their master bedroom. According to the View Restoration Ordinance Guidelines, a protectable view is a room of the primary residential structure... or a patio, deck or landscaped area adjacent to the primary residential structure that does not extend beyond the level pad. Both of these qualifications are met. Furthermore, some of the trees outlined in their view restoration application are well above the Safe Harbor Plane, meaning they have no special protection according to the Guidelines. Through the aforementioned statements, I express my full support of the Hoppus s View Restoration application and encourage the Planning Commission to uphold the standards set forth in the Trousdale View Restoration Ordinance. Sincerely, Jasmine and Saeed Yadegar 1125 Maytor Place Beverly Hills, CA

59 DAVID FU ASSOCIATES By U S. Mall & to cdelatorrebeverlyhitls.org December 14, 2017 Cynthia de Ia Torre Associate Planner Community Development Department City of Beverly Hills 455 N. Rexford Dr. Beverly Hills, CA Re: Our Client, Resident of 1100 Maytor Place, Beverly Hills, CA Trousdale Estates View Restoration Dear Cynthia: Thank you for this opportunity to present Dr. Connie Chein s opposition to the application by the View Owner at 1111 Maytor Place. As my office has previously communicated to you, we have retained a geosoil technician to examine and assess the impact that removal ofthe trees at issue in the View Owner s application would have on the landscape and the safety of the neighborhood. Please see attached the geosoil report from Heifrich-Associates. The results ofthe expert s examination and assessment create serious and grave concerns about the stability of the hillside and thus the safety of the residents. for the reasons explained below, we strongly urge the Reviewing Authority to decline the View Owner s application to remove any of the trees that the View Owner seeks to have removed through his application, including both the trees on the Chein Property (1100 Maytor Place) and the 1119 Hillcrest Property. Summary of Chein s Position The View Owner contends that foliage on our client s property located at 1100 Maytor Place and foliage on the adjacent neighbor s lot located at 1119 N. Hillcrest Road should be removed to restore a view of the Los Angeles Basin. Based on our geosoil expert s review and assessment of the affected area, and our personal visit to the site, it is our position that the trees at issue in the View Owner s application should not be removed because (1) removal of the trees as requested by the View Owner would have a substantial adverse impact on the stability ofthe hillside where the trees are located, creating grave concerns for potential mudslide and soil erosion and (2) there is no substantial disruption of the view owner s view of the Los Angeles Basin area, since (a) the View Owner s view of the basin is substantially disrupted by the hillside rather than foliage, (b) the trees sought to be removed are on the periphery of the View Owner s view ofthe Los Angeles Basin area, and (c) the frees at issue are not dense and only obstructs a small portion of any Protectable View. tel fax E. Huntington Drive, Suite 205. Arcadia, CA

60 Page 2 December 14, 2017 (a) The foliage is important to the integrity of an existing landscape plan. Owner. (b) Alteration of the foliage will unreasonably impact the privacy and security ofthe Foliage following findings: Additionally, BHMC (I)(2) provides that [tjhe Reviewing Authority may allow foliage to substantially disrupt a Protectable View if the Reviewing Authority makes one or more of the structures, and foliage that is not a private property within five hundred feet (500 ) of the View Owner s property. diminished by other factors such that removal ofthe foliage at issue will not substantially restore the Protectable View. Other factors that may be considered include, but are not limited to, permitted (c) View Diminished by Other Factors. The extent to which the view has been or is are more likely to be found to substantially disrupt a view than are individual trees. (b) Foliage Size and Density. foliage that by virtue of its size and density obstructs a large to each other and maintained in such a way as to collectively form an uninterrupted green barrier portion of a protectable view is more likely to be found to substantially disrupt the view than is foliage that obstructs only a small portion of the Protectable View. Trees located in close proximity View is more likely to be found to substantially disrupt a view than foliage located on the Protectable (a) Foliage Position within a Protectable View. Foliage located in the center ofa Protectable View s periphery. determining whether or not a Protectable View is substantially disrupted: further, BHMC section (I)(l)(c) provides the following as the criteria to be considered in Trousdale Estate View Restoration ordinance is to restore and preserve certain protected views from substantial disruption by the growth of privately owned trees, the view owner s right to restoration Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) section 10-s-I 01 provides that while the purpose of the and preservation of such views is not absolute. Indeed, the statute explicitly provides that [i]t is not restored or preserved. Moreover, the Trousdale View Restoration Guidelines advise that while the ordinance is intended to help restore views, the ordinance also acknowledges a balance between views and the importance of residential privacy and security, maintaining the garden quality of the the intent of this ordinance to create an expectation that any particular view or views would be City, insuring the safety and stability of the hillside, and trees and vegetation in the City as an integral part ofa sustainable environment. (View Restoration Guidelines, page 2)(emphasis added). The Trousdale Estates View Restoration Ordinance Community Development Department Cynthia de Ia Torre 72

61 Page 3 Los Angeles Basin area. not form a green barrier which substantially interrupts the View Owner s periphery view of the Moreover, the trees alleged to be causing the substantial interference are predominantly pine trees, which are regularly pruned with relatively thin and scanty bases and branches. Therefore, they do Owner s view ofthe Los Angeles Basin area would only very slightly or marginally be improved by the removal of these important and mature trees. The View Owner s view of the Los Angeles Basin area is already substantially disrupted by the hillside to the right ofthe View Owner s property, creating a frame around the view. Thus, the View II. The trees do not substantially interfere with the View Owner s Protected View to gratify the desires of the View Owner. slope and hillside even if the trees were at the center ofthe Protected View. Given that the trees in question are at the extreme frames ofthe view, as discussed below, there is no adequate basis for the City to force Dr. Chein or the other foliage Owner to be exposed to this substantial danger simply It would be completely improvident to forcibly remove these trees at the risk of destabilizing the The geosoil expert s conclusion supports the finding that the foliage on our client s property located Hillcrest Road is important to the integrity of the local landscape and alteration of the foliage will have a substantial adverse impact on the stability of the hillside and erosion control. at 1110 Maytor Place and the foliage on the adjacent foliage owner s property located at 1119 N. mudslide and soil erosion and concluded that removal of these trees would cause the surface soils for surface instability. The expert also indicated that the roots of the pine and tipu trees on our to be more susceptible to surface erosion and downslope movement. could be affected by removal ofthe trees, which will de-stabilize the slopes, increasing the potential client s property and the adjacent foliage owner s property strengthen the soil and help prevent Mr. Heifrich, a geosoil expert, opined that the trees and the slope conditions on our clients property I. The removal of the trees could cause mudslides and soil erosion Application of the View Restoration Ordinance to the Circumstances person s enjoyment of the view owner s property taken as a whole. (Emphasis added). (d) Restoration of the Protectable View would not substantially enhance a reasonable (c)alteration of the foliage will have a substantial adverse impact on stability of a hillside, drainage, or erosion control. December 14, 2017 Cynthia de Ia Torre Community Development Department 73

62 Page 4 December 14, 2017 Enclosure: Heiftich-Associates Report DDF/jzm DAVID D. FU Attorneys at Law DAVID FU AND ASSOCIATES Very truly yours, interference of a protected view is removed, we will not be responsible for any harm caused by the removal of these trees and will hold all parties responsible for the resulting damages sustained or Given the potential for mudslide and soil erosion, if the foliage alleged to be causing substantial liability incurred by our client. Thus, when balancing the interests of the View Owner s peripheral view of the Los Angeles Basin area that is not substantially interrupted by the relatively thin and Reviewing Authority should exercise prudent caution and deny the application to remove the trees. spare pine trees at the very margin ofhis view, and the safety and stability of the neighborhood, the While we can understand and appreciate the View Owner s desire for an unfettered view ofthe Los create immense liability in the event that a mudslide or further soil erosion occurs. Thus, we have Angeles Basin area, the removal ofthe trees at issue would not restore a substantial view of the Los Angeles Basin area. Further, removal of the frees could substantially damage the landscape, and grave concerns about the removal of the trees from our client s property, as well as the trees on the adjacent foliage owner s property located at 1119 North Hillcrest Road near the southern property line of our client s property. Conclusion destabilization of the hillside. Thus, there is no reasonable basis to force Dr. Chein to remove these trees which are important to the safety of Dr. Chein s property and the downhill neighbors who would also be threatened by Cynthia de la Torre Community Development Department 74

63 December 9, KrIstin Court, Redlands, CA Fax providing reinforcement of the soils and weathered bedrock. Some of the trees show signs of long-term surface siope movement that has occurred. the hill, and it appears that rains have dislodged surface soils and weathered rock in the past. The tree roots and other ground cover have strengthened the surface conditions by vertical). Evidence of surface movement of soils was observed throughout the bottom of The ground surface slopes around the client s property are steeper than 15:1 (horizontal: OBSERVATIONS property, as shown on the attached sketches. the Los Angeies Basin. These trees are growing on slopes to the west and south of the Maytor) and the downhill property (1119 North Hlghcrest Road) Interfere with his view of The owner of 11±1 Maytor Place has alleged that trees on the client s property (1100 INTRODUCTION November 7, 2017 to observe and document conditions. conditions on the west side of our client s property. A visit was made to the property on The following report presents my observations and assessment of trees and slope Project No Maytor Place and 1119 North Hillcrest Road Stop. and Tree Conditions SUBJEC1 PRELIMINARY ENGiNEERING ASSESSMENT david@davldfuesq.com Attorneys at Law David D. Fu David Fu and Associates ENGINEERiNG AND CONSTRUC11ON CONSULTING HELFRICH-ASSOC1ATES 75

64 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT 1110 Maytor Place and 1119 North Hillcrest Road Page No,. 2 Trees on the slope showing signs of slope movement (curved trunks) Steep hillside and retaining wall at bottom of slope KristIn Court, Redlands, CA Fax www. 76

65 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT 1110 Maytor Place and North Hillcrest Road Page No.3 Mature trees on the slope with root systems that stabilize the upper soils It Shallow bedrock on slope surface, friable and subject to surface erosion KristIn Court, Redlands, CA Fax

66 surface instability. If the trees on 1110 Maytor and 1119 North Hillcrest Road are The mature pine and tipu trees on the slopes above and below 1110 Maytor Place have a view from 1111 Maytor Place) will de-stabillze the slopes, Increasing the potential for beneficial stabilizing effect on the slopes. Removing these trees (to provide the desired CONCLUSIONS Enclosed: 1111 Maytor View Presentation (3 sheets) California Licenses C40046, GE389 Steven C. HeifrIch, PE., G.E. Heifrich-Associates, Inc. Very truly yours, questions. client s property (from the uphill slope) and undermining of the south part of the client s property (caused by movement of the descending slope on 1119 North Hillcrest Road). This deteriorated slope condition will Increase the likelihood of slope movement onto the surface erosion and downslope movement, particularly during the winter rainy months. removed, the roots will deteriorate, causing the surface soils to be more susceptible to PRELIMINARY ENGiNEERING ASSESSMENT ±110 Maytor Place and 1119 North HWcrezt Road Page No.4 I appreciate the opportunity to assist you in this matter. Ptease call If you have any KrIstin Court, Redlands, CA Fax

67 0 wẕj w 0 0 a w za w-4 I-Ow u,wu DW< -ilxj U CNOD ww tnwu DW- UI-I U ZI NO LLrw-uJ I-U) Ow0 0I-I Ui z N J 0 U C I I WI.. Wc..i 79

68 >4 LU I LU CD z LU > w z 0 I I 0 WU)W ZEEX I-w LLJ 0-i W D <LU lcd ws< IL.IW <QL -J IL U 0 Ui ẕ J >- I Ui I U 0 lxai LI. 0 LU z Lii z N -I 0 x IL I-. x xwz 0 I Wc 80

69 LU U,- _IW o-z LU ẕ J >- LU LU-. IW 20 <(9 w ẕi oo -U- I- >- I w a 0 a- Q 0- rx I.,,. UJW IXZ U -J _1 I F- 00 LU z,- I LU a 0 I a- U c < LU < -Jo > o - U- < LU 0 (90 c u. wu, ZEE 0-i LL-1 <0 U7LL I. a LU LU x w J U zn 0 -j 0 x z c) U0C, I z 0I WI U, Ui 81

70 1110 Maytor Place, LLC December 20, 2017 To Whom It May Concern, My name is Todd Jerry and I am the manager of the 1110 Maytor Place, LLC, the owner of the property at 1110 Maytor Place. This letter is to express my support of the Hoppus family in their application for a view restoration permit with the City of Beverly Hills. As a developer with a vested interest in the quality and atmosphere of the neighborhood, I feel that it is important that all residents of the Trousdale Estates be entitled to their view of the city of Beverly Hills and larger LA basin, including of course the Hoppus family. The trees marked in their application for removal are a group of tall pines that substantially block their view of both downtown Beverly Hills and Century City, which are critical landmarks to the overall quality of the view. I am also aware that pine trees are listed on the city s guidelines as nuisance trees because of their height and nature as fire hazards, which are further reasons that warrant their removal. The protectable views of the Trousdale Estates are a highly attractive asset of the neighborhood, and it is critical to uphold the View Restoration Ordinance when a case meets all the required criteria. I feel that the Hoppus application is such a case. I am of the understanding that they meticulously followed the proper processes, making all attempts to reach out to the foliage owner and arrive at an agreement through mediation and that the owner of the trees declined to engage in this process with them. I fully support the Hoppus family in their application for a View Restoration permit as the next step, and I hope that the Planning Commission will uphold the standards outlined by the View Restoration Ordinance and move to restore the Hoppus family s view. Sincerely, Todd Jerry 82

71 çerly Planning Commission Report 1111 Maytor Place April 12, 2018 Attachment F View Restoration Ordinance 83

72 B07$5-0009\ v6.doc 84 1 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS HEREBY to this determination are on file with the City s Community Development Department, 455 N. A notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration was published on January 3, 2011, and the to the meeting of November 15, 2011, for introduction. Evidence, both written and oral, was ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: ORDiNANCE NO ORDiNANCE Of THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS AMENDING THE BEVERLY HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT A VIEW RESTORATION PROGRAM FOR THE TROUSDALE ESTATES AREA OF THE CITY public hearing on November 3, 2011, and, at the conclusion of the hearing, continued the matter presented during the hearing. Section 1. The City Council considered this Ordinance at a duly noticed Section 2. An initial study of the potential environmental impact of this ordinance was prepared. The initial study concluded that the ordinance would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts; thus a negative declaration is the appropriate document to adopt in order to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). proposed negative declaration and initial study were made available for a 20-day public review period from January 6, 2011, through January 27, No public comments on the proposed negative declaration or initial study were submitted during the comment period. Based on the information in the records regarding this ordinance, the City Council finds that there is no evidence suggesting that the ordinance may result in significant adverse impacts on the environment, and hereby adopts the negative declaration for this ordinance. The records related Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, California, The custodian of records,is the Director of Community Development.

73 -2- Chapter 8. VIEW RESTORATION. Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) regarding View Restoration as follows: Section 3. City Council hereby adds a new Chapter $ to Title 10 to the B07$5-0009\ v6.doc 85 upon which is located foliage that is subject to an action filed pursuant to this Article and which reference one or more owners of the same property. property is within five hundred feet (500 ) of a view owner s property. Foliage owner shall (E) FOLIAGE OWNER: An owner of real property in Trousdale Estates Code, are included in the definition of foliage. plants. Trees and hedges, including hedges that otherwise meet the standards of the Zoning (D) FOLIAGE: The aggregate of leaves, branches and trunks of one or more grading, or excavating within the drip line of the tree. action may be taken by, but is not limited to, cutting, topping, girdling, poisoning, trenching, (C) DAMAGE: Any action which may cause death or significant injury to a tree, or which places the tree in a hazardous condition or an irreversible state of decline. Such Director of Community Development or his/her designee, to a view owner who requests such an opinion and pays a fee as set by the City Council. (B) CITY ADVISORY OPINION: A non-binding opinion rendered by the by the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA). Society of Arboticulture (ISA), or an individual who is currently listed as a Consulting Arborist (A) ARBORIST: An individual certified as an arborist by the International article shall govern the construction of this chapter: Unless the context otherwise requires, the definitions set forth in this DEFINITIONS. that any particular view or views would be restored or preserved. emphasis on early neighbor resolution of view restoration issues. It is also the intent of this ordinance to educate residents to consider the potential to block neighbors views before planting foliage and in maintaining foliage. It is not the intent of this ordinance to create an expectation acknowledging the importance of trees and vegetation in the City as an integral part of a sustainable environment. It is the further intent to establish a process by which residential property owners in Trousdale Estates may seek to restore and preserve certain views, with an trees, vegetation, or a combination thereof while providing for residential privacy and security; restore and preserve certain views from substantial disruption by the growth of privately owned maintaining the garden quality of the City; insuring the safety and stability of the hillsides; and, PURPOSE AND INTENT. The intent of this ordinance is to Article 1. Trousdale Estates View Restoration

74 -3- Professional forester (RPF). (F) FORESTER: An individual licensed in California as a Registered (G) HEDGE: The term Hedge shall have the same meaning as set forth in BHMC residence. (K) PROTECTED VIEW: A protectable view that has been determined by the reviewing authority to merit restoration \ v6.doc 86 shall be deemed to be adjacent. For purposes of this definition, downslope and upsiope properties separated by a public street For the purposes of this defmition, the height of the roof of the primary residential structure excludes chimneys, stair or elevator shafts, vent pipes, mechanical equipment, parapets, architectural features that extend above the primary roof elevation, antennae, and other rooftop equipment. If the roof height varies, the height of the roof of the primary residential structure shall be the highest point of the roof of the primary structure. lot, then the maximum height of fifteen (15) feet from grade shall apply. property shall be at a height of one (1) foot above the height of the roof of the primary residential measured from grade. (See illustration in Section ) If the downslope property is foliage owner s principal building area that is farthest from the edge of view owner s level pad located in a line of sight of a protectable view. The points of the plane on foliage owner s undeveloped, or if the upslope property s view is over the driveway or pole portion of a flag structure on foliage owner s property, not to exceed a maximum height of fifteen (15) feet as view owner s level pad to points measured from grade at the edge of an adjacent downslope (N) SAFE HARBOR PLANE: A plane defined by points at the edge of (M) SAFE HARBOR AREA: The area below a safe harbor plane. that would result in the restoration or preservation of a protected view. (L) RESTORATIVE ACTION: Any specific steps taken affecting foliage point thirty-six inches (36 ) above the finished grade of the viewing area. or any of the above. For purposes of this section, a protectable view shall be determined from a ocean, and horizon. The term protectable view does not mean an unobstructed panorama of all the Los Angeles area basin from a viewing area as defined in this section. The view of the Los Angeles area basin may include but is not limited to city lights (Beverly Hills and other cities), (J) PROTECTABLE VIEW: A protectable view may include any view of (I) PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE: The main structure or building on a site zoned for residential use and used or occupied as a private one-family State of California. (H) LANDSCAPE ARCifiTECT: A landscape architect registered by the

75 If a view owner s level pad is less than one (1) foot above the height of the roof of the primary residential structure on foliage owner s property, then the safe harbor plane shall be defined as a plane above the foliage owner s level pad at a height of one (1) foot above the height of the roof of the primary residential structure on foliage owne?s property. (0) TREE: A woody perennial plant, consisting usually of a single elongated main stem or trunk and many branches. (P) TREE SURVEY: A tree survey includes the following information for frees alleged to impair a view and all frees within the vicinity of the alleged view-impairing trees as determined by a Landscape Architect, Arborist, or Forester: common name; (1) Species of each tree, based on scientific name, and the (2) Tree identifying number and location recorded on a map; (3) Physical measurements of the tree such as height and circumference: (tree circumference shall be measured on the primary trunk at a height of four feet, six inches (4-6 ) above natural grade; (4) Age of the tree; tree; (5) Report of overall health and structural condition of the (6) Life expectancy and suitability for preservation; (7) Potential restorative actions to address trees alleged to disrupt a view, impact of such restorative actions on trees, and long-term maintenance activities to prevent future potential view disruption; and, (2) Tree management recommendations. The survey shall be signed or stamped by a registered Landscape Architect, Arbotist or Forester. If a foliage owner does not grant access to his/her property for the purpose of conducting a free survey, a tree survey report shall be prepared with as much of the above information as possible, using other information sources such as photographs taken from other properties, satellite photographs from commercially available sources, public record permit information for work performed on foliage owner s property, and other similar information sources. (Q) VIEW OWNER: Any owner or owners of real property in Trousdale Estates that has a protectable view and who alleges that the growth of foliage located on a -4- BO785-OOO914O3O57v6.doc 87

76 survey, of view owner s site and foliage owner s site that may include calculation of the safe -5- If access to the foliage owner s property is necessary to complete the survey and the foliage property within five hundred feet (500 ) of their property is causing substantial disruption of a protectable view. View owner shall include one or more owners of the same property. Guidelines for implementation of the ordinance prepared by the Community Development Department, adopted by the Planning Commission, and made available to the public. (R) VIEW RESTORATION GUIDELINES: (5) VIEW RESTORATION PROPERTY SURVEY: A survey completed by a certified professional, such as an ALTA (American Land Title Association) restoration property survey report shall be prepared using other information sources such as measurements taken from other properties, photographs taken from other properties, satellite harbor plane as defined in this Article and any other information or calculations as may be of assistance to a reviewing authority pursuant to this section. photographs from commercially available sources, public record permit information for work performed on foliage owner s property, and other similar information sources. View Owner has a Protectable View. The Reviewing Authority may designate a location as a Viewing Area if, in the opinion of the Reviewing Authority, an average resident would often observe a Protectable View from that area. owner does not grant access to his/her property for the purpose of conducting the survey, a view BO785-OOO9I4O3O57v6.doc 88 maintained in accordance with all other requirements of this Code, including landscape maintenance standards EXEMPTION. The provisions of this article shall not apply to foliage where the highest point of the foliage is below a safe harbor plane as defined in this Article. The exemption applies to foliage on foliage owner s property. Foliage shall be does not extend beyond the level pad. There may be one or more viewing areas on a property. The Reviewing Authority shall establish the Viewing Area or Areas as part of its fmding that the garages), or a patio, deck or landscaped area adjacent to the primary residential structure that (T) VIEWING AREA: An area from which a protectable view is assessed, located on the level pad that contains the primary residential structure. A viewing area shall be a room of the primary residential structure (excluding hallways, laundry rooms, closets and

77 -6- t I Safe Harbor Area by each foliage owner shall be voluntary, but each foliage owner shall have no more than thirty (30) days from service of written request to respond to the view owner, unless foliage owner (2) Agreement to participate in the Initial Neighbor Outreach disruption of the view owner s protectable view by foliage on foliage owner s property (the representative shall offer to meet with each foliage owner. The Initial Neighbor Outreach Article, the view owner shall notify each foliage owner in writing of concerns regarding Initial Neighbor Outreach ). This Initial Neighbor Outreach shall be on a form provided by the estimate of the cost of the remedy, and an offer to pay that amount. notification shall clearly identify the remedy sought by view owner and include a good faith City in the View Restoration Guidelines on file in the City, shall be signed by the view owner, and shall include a signed statement from view owner that view owner or the view owner s (1) If a view owner wishes to pursue remedies available in the (B) Initial Neighbor Outreach. any Foliage Owner who is a party to the binding arbitration decision. binding arbitration decision shall be precluded from applying for a View Restoration Permit as to Decision. Nothing in this ordinance is intended to preclude interested parties from agreeing to resolve the dispute or disputes through binding arbitration, in which case compliance with the procedures set forth in this Section shall not be required. View Owners who are subject to a (A) Parties Option to Enter Binding Arbitration; Effect of Arbitration owner to pursue remedies available in this Article. More than one view owner may pursue remedies simultaneously with one or more foliage owners as determined by the parties involved. The procedures set forth below shall be followed in order for a view procedures in this Article will be augmented by the View Restoration Guidelines PROCEDURES. Except for violations of Section , complaints received by the City regarding foliage blocking views in Trousdale Estates shall be addressed through the View Restoration Permit pre-application procedures in this Article. The Protectable View (View of Los Angeles Area Basin) PROPERTY UNE One foot above height of roof as measured from grade at Edge of Principal Building Area Foliage Owners SEdge of level pad PROPERTY LINE I j 1 View Owner Foliage within this area would be exempt Prepared by the CommunIty Development Department B \ v6.doc 89

78 requests a ten (10) business days extension in writing or the response period is otherwise extended by mutual agreement of the view owner and the foliage owner. failure to respond shall be considered rejection by the foliage owner. The Initial Neighbor Outreach should be followed by discussions between view owner and each foliage owner to attempt to reach a mutually agreeable solution. (3) if the view owner and a foliage owner are unable to resolve the matter, or if a foliage owner fails to respond to the Initial Neighbor Outreach, the view owner may proceed with a mediation process. To participate in the City-sponsored mediation process, the view owner shall submit to the City proof of the Initial Neighbor Outreach in the form of a certified letter and mailing receipt. If a foliage owner did not respond to the Initial Neighbor Outreach, then the view owner shall also provide an affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury, indicating the non-response of foliage owner. (4) If, pursuant to an agreement between the view owner and a foliage owner, the view owner or foliage owner may damage or remove, or cause to be damaged or removed, any protected tree as defined in Section of this Code, a tree removal permit must first be obtained in accordance with the requirements of Section (C) Mediation. (1) if the parties are unable to reach agreement through the Initial Neighbor Outreach process and the view owner wishes to pursue remedies available in this Article, then, as a prerequisite, the view owner shall notify each foliage owner of an offer to mediate. The notice shall be on a form provided by the City in the View Restoration Guidelines, shall be signed by view owner, and shall include a signed statement from the view owner that the view owner or the view owner s representative shall offer to meet with each potential foliage owner and a mediator. The notice shall clearly identify the remedy sought by the view owner and include a good faith estimate of the cost of the remedy. (2) Acceptance of mediation by each foliage owner shall be voluntary, but each foliage owner shall have no more than thirty (30) days from service of a written request for mediation to accept or reject the offer of mediation, unless the foliage owner requests a ten (10) business days extension in writing or the response period is otherwise extended by mutual agreement of the foliage owner and the view owner. Failure to respond shall be considered rejection. Each mediation session may involve one or more view owners and one or more foliage owners at the discretion of the parties involved. (3) The view owner and each foliage owner shall comply with requirements in the View Restoration Guidelines regarding submittal of information to the mediator. (4) The mediator shall not have the power to issue binding orders for restorative action but shall strive to enable the parties to resolve their dispute at this stage. if an agreement is reached between the parties as a result of mediation, the mediator will encourage the participants to prepare, and can assist in the preparation of, a private agreement for the parties to sign. -7- B \ v6.doc 90

79 (5) If the view owner and a foliage owner are unable to resolve the matter, or if a foliage owner fails to respond to the mediation notice or to participate in the mediation process as prescribed in the View Restoration Guidelines, then the view owner may proceed to file for a View Restoration Permit. (6) If, pursuant to an agreement between the view owner and a foliage owner, the view owner or foliage owner may damage or remove, or cause to be damaged or removed, any protected tree as defined in Section of this Code, a tree removal permit must first be obtained in accordance with the requirements of Section (D) City Advisory Opinion. A view owner may request a non-binding advisory opinion at any time prior to the view owner filing an application for a view restoration permit in accordance with the requirements of Section If the view owner wishes to pursue the process set forth in Section , the view owner must wait twelve (12) months from receipt of the City Advisory Opinion to file a view restoration permit application CONTINUATION OF PROCESS AFTER AGREEMENT. If the view owner and a foliage owner enter into a private agreement as a result of Initial Neighbor Outreach or mediation before the filing of a View Restoration Permit application, and that agreement is not adhered to by parties to the agreement, the parties may pursue civil litigation; however, if the view owner wishes to pursue remedies available in this Article, then the view owner may continue with the pre-application process at the step after the step at which the agreement was entered into, provided that less than two (2) years have passed since the date of the private agreement. If the view owner wishes to pursue remedies available in this Article and more than two (2) years have passed since the date of the private agreement, then the view owner shall begin view restoration procedures with the Initial Neighbor Outreach VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT. (A) View Restoration Permit: After exhaustion of the pre-hearing steps set forth in Section , and upon application by a view owner in a form satisfactory to the Director of Planning and Community Development, the reviewing authority may issue a View Restoration Permit to a view owner with a protectable view as defined in this section where the protectable view from a viewing area is substantially disrupted by foliage as defined in the Article and the reviewing authority makes all of the fmdings as set forth in this section. (B) Reviewing Authority: The reviewing authority for a View Restoration Permit application shall be the Planning Commission. If a View Restoration Permit application includes review of a protected tree or trees as defined in Section of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, then the reviewing authority may order the removal of the tree or trees pursuant to Section as part of the restorative action required by a View Restoration Permit. -8- B U4O3O57v6.doc 91

80 (C) Application: Application for a View Restoration Permit shall be in writing on a form prescribed by the Director of Community Development and shall include but not be limited to the following information: (1) Proof that view owner has attempted or completed the following procedures as required in this section: Initial Neighbor Outreach; and, Mediation. estimate of cost. (2) Identification of the specific remedy sought by view owner and an (3) A view restoration property survey documenting that the subject foliage is on foliage owner s property, that the foliage owner s property is within five hundred feet (500 ) of view owner s property, and the foliage is above the safe harbor plane. (4) A Tree survey. If an applicant does not submit the necessary information and the application remains incomplete for six (6) months after the City, in writing, deems the application incomplete, the Director of Community Development shall deny the application without prejudice, and shall provide notice to the applicant of that determination. Once a complete application has been received, the City shall send a formal notice of the application to the foliage owner including a copy of the application, a copy of the View Restoration Guidelines and a request for an invitation to staff and the reviewing authority to visit foliage owner s property with foliage owner s authorization. (D) Verification of Information: All applicants for a View Restoration Permit shall submit an affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury, that the information provided in the application and other submitted documents is complete, true, and accurate based on the applicants knowledge and reasonable investigation. (E) Public Hearing Notice: The reviewing authority shall hold a public hearing concerning each application for a View Restoration Permit. Notice of any hearing held pursuant to this section shall be mailed at least thirty (30) days prior to such hearing by United States mail, postage paid to the applicant and all -9- B U4O3O57v6.doc 92

81 owners and residential occupants of property within five hundred feet (500 ) of the view owner s and foliage owner s properties, as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. (F) Public Hearing: The Director of Community Development or the reviewing authority may, at its discretion, require the review or additional review of any view restoration case by a qualified soils engineer, landscape architect, arborist, or other appropriate professional, based on the specific conditions of foliage owner s property. Foliage owner authorization shall be required prior to accessing the foliage owner s property. If foliage owner does not permit access to foliage owner s property, the reviewing authority shall review the case using other information as may be available, including information provided by the view owner. (G) Restrictions and Conditions: In approving a View Restoration Permit, the reviewing authority may impose such restrictions or conditions, including restorative action, as it deems necessary or proper to restore a Protected View; protect the foliage owner s reasonable enjoyment of its property; protect the public health, safety and welfare; or any combination thereof. (H) Appeals; Effective Date: Any decision of the Planning Commission made pursuant to this section may be appealed to the City Council by view owner or foliage owner pursuant to the provisions set forth in Title 1, Chapter 4, Article 1 of this Code. The appeal period shall commence at the date of mailing of the Notice of Decision. Any decision of the Planning Commission made pursuant to this section takes effect fourteen (14) days from the issuance of a notice of decision unless an appeal is filed. If appealed, then the effective day is the date on which the City Council acts. (1) Findings: (1) The reviewing authority may issue a View Restoration Permit to remove or alter foliage on any lot that is all or partly within five hundred feet (500 ) of a View Owner s property if it makes all of the following findings: (a) The View Owner has a Protectable View. The Reviewing Authority shall determine the Viewing Area or Areas in order to make this fmding. (b) The View Owner has substantially complied with the Initial Neighbor Outreach and mediation procedures of this Article. (c) The View Owner s Protectable View is substantially disrupted by foliage on Foliage Owner s property that is not exempt under Section The following criteria shall be considered in determining whether or not a Protectable View is substantially disrupted: $5-0009\ v6.doc 93

82 (1) Foliage Position within a Protectable View. Foliage located in the center of a Protectable View is more likely to be found to substantially disrupt a view than foliage located on the Protectable View s periphery. (ii) Foliage Size and Density. Foliage that by virtue of its size and density obstructs a large portion of a protectable view is more likely to be found to substantially disrupt the view than is foliage that obstructs only a small portion of the Protectable View. Trees located in close proximity to each other and maintained in such a way as to collectively form an uninterrupted green barrier are more likely to be found to substantially disrupt a view than are individual trees. (iii) View Diminished by Other Factors. The extent to which the view has been or is diminished by other factors such that removal of the foliage at issue will not substantially restore the Protectable View. Other factors that may be considered include, but are not limited to, permitted structures, and foliage that is not on a private property within five hundred feet (500 ) of the View Owner s property. (d) With respect to any tree protected pursuant to Section , removal of the tree will not: (1) Adversely affect the neighboring properties or the general welfare or safety of the surrounding area; or, (ii) Adversely affect the garden quality of the City. (2) The Reviewing Authority may allow foliage to substantially disrupt a Protectable View if the Reviewing Authority makes one or more of the following findings: landscape plan. (a) The foliage is important to the integrity of an existing (b) Alteration of the foliage will unreasonably impact the privacy and security of the Foliage Owner. (c) Alteration of the foliage will have a substantial adverse impact on stability of a hillside, drainage, or erosion control. (d) Restoration of the Protectable View would not substantially enhance a reasonable person s enjoyment of the view owner s property taken as a whole. (J) Restorative Action: The Reviewing Authority may, through issuance of a View Restoration Permit, require restorative action on foliage owner s property. All restorative action must be performed by a licensed and bonded tree or landscape service unless mutually agreed upon by the view owner and the foliage owner. Restorative action may include, but is not limited to the following: 11 BO7$5-OOO9I4O3O57v6.doc 94

83 -12- trees maintained by the City is to be avoided unless the reviewing authority determines such removal is necessary to avoid substantial disruption of a protected view. application; (1) Trimming, culling, lacing, or reducing foliage to a height or width to be determined by the reviewing authority but not below the safe harbor plane. BO785-OOO9I4O3O57v6.doc 95 or annul the Entitlements that may be granted by the City through issuance of a View Restoration to pay as a result of such Action. City may, at its sole and absolute discretion (1) participate in Permit, and for any and all costs incurred in enforcing the View Restoration Permit, except for the defense of such Action undertaken by View Owner, or (2) retain separate counsel whose attorneys fees and costs shall be paid by View Owner. Such participation in the defense of such those costs of enforcement as the City may recover from a foliage owner. Indemnitor shall reimburse the city for any court costs and attorney s fees that the City may be required by a court View owner shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its Action ) against the city or its agents, officers, attorneys or employees to attack, set aside, void agents, officers, attorneys and employees from any claim, action or proceeding (collectively (L) Indemnification: The failure of the person addressed to receive a copy of the decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of any decision. listed on a current Tax Assessor s roll and to the occupant of the Foliage Owner s property if the Foliage Owner s address is different than the property on which the foliage is located. (ii) Each foliage owner that is named on the application, as (i) The view owner, using the mailing address set forth in the following persons: of the decision to be mailed through the United States mail, postage prepaid, to each of the decision by the reviewing authority, the Director of Community Development shall cause a copy (2) Notice of Decision: Within five (5) days after the issuance of a authority shall be set forth in writing. (1) Written Decision Required: The action taken by the reviewing (K) Notice of Decision: f) the health or viability of the remaining landscaping; or g) the integrity of the landscape plan. the public health, safety and welfare; li) the privacy of the property owner; c) shade provided to the dwelling or property; d) the energy efficiency of the dwelling; e) the stability of the hillside; that removal without replacement will cause a substantial adverse impact on one or more of: a) (3) Requiring replacement foliage when the reviewing authority finds authority fmds that the trimming, culling, lacing, or reduction of the foliage is likely to kill the foliage, threaten the public health, safety, or public welfare, or will destroy the aesthetic value of the foliage that is to be pruned or reduced. Removal of a healthy tree not on a list of nuisance (2) Requiring the complete removal of the foliage when the reviewing

84 Action or the retention of separate counsel by the City shall not relieve View Owner s obligations under this provision. The City shall promptly notify the View Owner of any such Action. View owner shall indemnify the City against any and all claims resulting from the issuance, defense, implementation, or enforcement of the View Restoration Permit DECISIONS INTENDED TO RUN WITH THE LAND; DISCLOSURE. Decisions regarding view restoration shall be binding on all current and future owners of view owner s property and foliage owner s property, and such decisions must be disclosed by each owner to subsequent owners of the property PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION; SUBSEQUENT ENFORCEMENT BY VIEW OWNER AND ATTORNEY S FEES. The City shall take such action, as appropriate, to ensure initial compliance with a view restoration permit. After an initial determination by the City that a foliage Owner has complied with a View Restoration Permit, any further dispute regarding the Foliage Owner s compliance with the View Restoration Permit shall be resolved by a civil action initiated by the View Owner. At any time, before or after an initial determination of compliance with a View Restoration Permit by the City, any View Owner may sue in Los Angeles superior court to enjoin violation of, or compel compliance with, a View Restoration Permit. The prevailing party in any such civil action between a View Owner and a Foliage Owner shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in the litigation LANDSCAPE STANDARDS. The View Restoration Guidelines shall include landscape standards that include a list of nuisance trees that should not be planted in hillside view areas APPORTIONMENT OF COSTS. It is the intent that procedural fees referenced in this section shall reflect the actual cost of administrative activities required of the City to implement this Ordinance. Additional clarification of fees and costs may be included in the View Restoration Guidelines. (A) Initial Neighbor Outreach: (1) Procedural Costs. Any costs associated with obtaining information, mailing the required notice, or preparing an agreement shall be home by the view owner. The view owner shall pay the cost of a view restoration property survey or tree survey if such a survey is completed. B07$5-0009\ v6.doc

85 (2) Restorative Action. The cost of restorative action agreed upon by the view owner and the foliage owner shall be borne by the view owner unless otherwise agreed to by the foliage owner. (3) Maintenance Costs. The cost of subsequent maintenance of foliage on the foliage owner s property shall be allocated as agreed upon by the parties. (B) Mediation: (1) Procedural Costs. Any costs associated with obtaining information, mailing the required notice, or preparing an agreement shall be borne by the view owner. The view owner shall pay the cost of a view restoration property survey or tree survey if such a survey is completed. (2) Restorative Action. The cost of restorative action agreed upon by the view owner and the foliage owner shall be borne by the view owner unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. (3) Maintenance Costs. The cost of subsequent maintenance of foliage on the foliage owner s property shall be allocated as agreed upon by the parties. (C) View Restoration Permit with Public Hearing: (1) Procedural Costs. View owner shall bear the cost of application fees and other application costs including the view restoration property survey and tree survey and the cost of any other information requested by the reviewing authority. (2) Restorative Action. (a) The foliage owner shall pay one hundred percent (100%) of the cost of restorative action if the foliage owner did not participate in mediation and the reviewing authority finds restorative action is required. (b) The view owner and foliage owner shall each pay fifty percent (50%) of the cost of restorative action if the foliage owner participated in mediation and the reviewing authority finds restorative action is required. (3) Maintenance After Initial Restorative Action. The foliage owner shall pay for subsequent maintenance of the foliage consistent with the View Restoration Permit. (D) Appeal to City Council (1) Procedural Costs. Appellant shall bear the costs of the appeal application including the appeal fee, public notice cost, and any other application costs B07$5-0009\ v6.doc 97

86 action pursuant to a decision by the Planning Commission. owner shall pay for subsequent maintenance of the foliage consistent with the View Restoration Permit. an appeal to the City Council shall be apportioned in the same way as the cost of restorative Section 4. To limit any fiscal impact of the Trousdale Estates View Section 6. The City Council hereby adds a new paragraph D. to Section Restoration Program, the City shall conduct no more than ten (10) View Restoration Permit hearings per calendar year. The City may establish a means of accepting applications for View hearing. Arborist and Tree set forth in Section of Chapter 3 of Title 10 of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code to read as follows, with all other definitions listed in Section Restoration Permit hearings that ensures all property owners equal opportunity to receive a remaining without amendment: American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA). portion of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held 2904 of Chapter 3 of Title 10 of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code to read as follows, with all issued by the City in accordance with the provisions of Section of D. The removal of a protected tree pursuant to a View Restoration Permit other portions of Section remaining without amendment: (2) Restorative Action. The cost of restorative action resulting from (3) Maintenance After Initial Restorative Action. The foliage B \ v6.doc Section 7. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or the City s Municipal Code. trunk and many branches. TREE: A woody perennial plant, consisting usually of a single elongated main stem or Arboricukure (ISA), or an individual who is currently listed as a Consulting Arborist by the ARBORJ$T$: An individual certified as an arborist by the International Society of Section 5. The City Council hereby amends the defmitions of the terms 98

87 to be invalid or unconstitutional by the fmal decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. Section 8. The City Council hereby fmds on the basis of the whole record before it, including the initial study and any comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that this proposed ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment and that the negative declaration prepared in connection with this ordinance represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City and the City Council. Therefore, the City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration and approves this Ordinance, and authorizes the Mayor to execute the Ordinance on behalf of the City. The documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located in the City s Community Development Department. The custodian of records is the Director of Community Development. Section 9. Trial Period. A report regarding the implementation of this ordinance shall be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council within 12 months of the effective date of the ordinance. Section 10. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage in accordance with Section of the Government Code, shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and his certification, together with proof of publication, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City. B \ v6.doc

88 -17- Dfrector of Community Development /AN HEALc KEENE AICP ATT,T: Mayor14f the City of Beverly Hills, Adopted: December 6, 2011 / Section 11. This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at California Effective: January 6, 2012 City Attorney &m APPROVED A 0 fo (SEAL) B ARRYARUCKER LAFRNCE S. WIENER City Cle&J BY1thN/kPE 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage. B07$5-0009\ v6.doc 100