BISHOP v. HANES
Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One.
Filed October 27, 2011.
Relying on Echevarrieta v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 472 (Echevarrieta), the court expressly rejected defendants' claims that application of the amended View Ordinance to them was retroactive and violated their due process rights.
1. Permanent Injunction
On May 26, 2010, the court entered judgment for the plaintiffs, finding that "defendants' trees in their present condition violate Chapter 15.52 of the Oakland Municipal Code (Oakland View Ordinance), and constitute a nuisance," and issued a permanent mandatory injunction abating the nuisance. Defendants were ordered, at their own cost, to (1) retain the services of a licensed and certified arborist to remove the specified trees and vegetation which have grown into "the view corridor," as defined in the judgment, and chemically treat the stumps to prevent regrowth; and (2) retain the services of licensed professional to replace the trees and vegetation with native, non-flammable plants whose mature height would not encroach on the view corridor. The injunction further ordered that (3) no existing or future vegetation be allowed to grow into the view corridor, except as specifically provided; and that (4) plaintiffs, as the prevailing parties, recover their attorney's fees and all costs of litigation.
2. Attorney's Fees
Pursuant to section 15.52.070 of the View Ordinance,4 the court designated plaintiffs the prevailing party and awarded them reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The court judgment granted plaintiffs $202,144.17.