Loading...
City Council Agenda 10-23-2017MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING • OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2017 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Black at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Councilmember's Present: Dieringer, Mirsch, Wilson, Pieper and Mayor Black. Councilmembers Absent: None. Others Present: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager. Michael Jenkins, City Attorney. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director Julia Stewart, Assistant Planner. Yvette Hall, Interim City Clerk. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive. Tina Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME None. CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. A. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Republic Services Recycling Tonnage Report for September 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. C. Brown Act Complaint filed by Lynn Gill. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council approve the items on the consent calendar as presented with one correction to the minutes. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried without objection. COMMISSION ITEMS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS SECOND READING, WAIVE FULL READING AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 354 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS TO AMEND THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.12.220 OF CHAPTER 17.12 (DEFINITIONS); AND TO REPEAL AND REPLACE CHAPTER 17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION) IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH AN ADVISORY PROCESS FOR THE RESTORATION OF VIEWS OBSTRUCTED BY VEGETATION, IN ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2017-01. Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz presented -1- for a second reading the View Preservation Ordinance. Planning Director Schwartz stated that a proposed view ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission to repeal the existing ordinance and introduce a new ordinance that recommended the City's role in the processing of view preservation cases be advisory and, other recommendations, was presented by staff at the September 25, 2017 City Council meeting. Planning Director Schwartz indicated that at that meeting the City Council asked staff to bring back the proposed ordinance with the modification that the City Council take a quasi-judicial position and be able to enforce view preservation cases that are ordered to be remediated. Planning Director Schwartz stated that at the October 9, 2017 City Council meeting, the City Council asked staff to bring back the ordinance establishing an advisory process for view preservation cases and include additional minor modifications to the proposed ordinance which were non -substantive. Planning Director Schwartz noted that correspondence was received from resident Lynn Gill, who expressed support to adopt the proposed ordinance that was recommended by the Planning Commission. Planning Director Schwartz stated that the process for remediation of cases would be advisory and not be enforceable by the City. She indicated that if parties in the dispute avail themselves of binding arbitration, then the City would reimburse them in an amount up to $5,000. Planning Director Schwartz stated that the definitions related to "viewing point" and "established view" allow multiple views from residences and that a view may also be established at the time the property was purchased or at any time thereafter. Planning Director Schwartz explained the mediation process and the factors that needed to be considered when a case is reviewed by the Committee on Trees and Views and the new definitions related to arboriculture. Mayor Black called for public comment. Marcia Schoettle, 24 EastfieldDrive, referenced an email that she received regarding trust and the City Council. Ms. Schoettle discussed the history of the original view ordinance, the residents' request to have the matter placed on the City Council agenda to be amended, and the adoption of Measure B. Ms. Schoettle stated that there were many Planning Commission meetings held to discuss and modify the view ordinance in which a final version was recommended to the City Council. She expressed support for the view ordinance that was originally proposed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Schoettle stated that she hoped the City Council would keep the Planning Commission's proposed ordinance that the residents believe will be adopted when they vote on Measure C. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West, expressed his dissatisfaction with the City Council's decision. He stated that Measure B has caused many disagreements between neighbors. Mr. Aichele discussed various ways that property rights are taken away. Mr. Aichele stated that residents who purchased property prior to the 1988 view ordinance had no expectation that they could not grow their trees. Mr. Aichele commented that he felt it was legalized stealing by the City when a resident is asked to remove trees from their property without compensation. Tina Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road, commented that she felt there was confusion among the residents over Measure C. Ms. Greenburg inquired if the City Council could amend the current ordinance at any time to adopt an advisory role and avoid litigation. In response to Ms. Greenberg's question, Mayor Black asked City Attorney Jenkins to respond. City Attorney Jenkins stated that Measure B was adopted to be a part of the previous view ordinance but the proposed new view ordinance was drafted as a complete replacement for the previous ordinance. City Attorney Jenkins opined that the City Council could adopt an advisory clause in the current ordinance; however, if such a clause is incorporated into the ordinance, then other portions of the ordinance would have to be changed as well. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road, commented that the proposed ordinance is an improvement over the original 1988 ordinance. Mr. Gill stated that if Measure C passes it will be straight forward and clear to implement the Planning Commission's documents. Mr. Gill asked the City Council to consider implementing the Planning Commission's proposed ordinance, preserve Measure B's protections, and do not immediately change from an advisory role back to a quasi-judicial role. Councilmember Pieper commented that he took an oath to provide the best service he can on behalf of the City even when there are differences among the residents. Councilmember Dieringer clarified Section 8 of the proposed ordinance relating to Measure C. She stated that if Measure C fails to be adopted at the November 7, 2017 Special Municipal Election, the proposed ordinance would be null and void. Councilmember Dieringer recommended that if, in the future, there are additional changes to the current ordinance that may be beneficial, the City Council should consider Minutes City Council Meeting 10-23-17 -2- adopting them. Mayor Black noted that his name should be changed from "Jim Black, M.D., Mayor" to "James Black, M.D., Mayor" on the official ordinance. Mayor Black stated he received a large amount of feedback from residents indicating their disappointment with the City Council's support of an advisory role as it relates to the view ordinance. Mayor Black indicated that he is opposed to the advisory role of the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Mirsch stated that the proposed ordinance that was brought forth by the Planning Commission after much compromise and discussion by the Ad Hoc Committee and the Planning Commission, and that this was the approach that was taken throughout the process. Councilmember Mirsch commented that she feels that the City Council has been responsive and supportive of the community's wishes as it relates to the proposed view preservation ordinance. Councilmember Mirsch read the following statement for the record: "I have been involved in the effort to revise the view ordinance since the inception over a year ago. I was one of the two Councilmembers on the original Ad Hoc Committee where both sides worked in good faith to develop principles and concepts for a possible improved ordinance. I encouraged Councilmembers to approve sending the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations to the Planning Commission for their consideration. This is something very near and dear to me, and along with others, I put in considerable time and effort and have never wavered from the support of that at any time. As everyone knows I disagree with the provision that changes the City's role to advisory, and I have not changed that belief. At our September meeting I was one of the four yes votes to accept the ordinance from the Planning Commission with the exception of the advisory process. At our next meeting on October 9th the motion was changed to reinstate the advisory position, I voted no. I did so because I had to see if there was still support for that position because two weeks ago there was support for that position, 4-1, we supported getting rid of the advisory so now it was changed. I needed to know where we stood and I do not know until the roll call is called where these votes are going to go. We do not discuss who is going to vote for what so I did that as a process to see where the vote was going to come out. As it turned out, I did not prevail in getting enough votes. That is the process. I followed it and that is the way is goes. Although I disagree with the advisory provision I still believe that even with that provision in place that the new ordinance is an improvement to what is existing and I support it wholeheartedly as witnessed by my yes vote at the September meeting. I have not, as alleged, changed my feelings or position on this at all, but my responsibility is to serve the community's best interest, not just my own position. I feel that adopting this new ordinance that has been developed over a year long process with multiple stakeholders is serving the best interest of the community." Following public comment and discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council waive full reading and adopt on second reading Ordinance No. 354 and to include the provision in Section 8 of the Ordinance related to Measure C stating that in the event that Measure C fails to be adopted by the electorate at the November 7, 2017 Special Municipal Election, this Ordinance shall be automatically null and void and of no force and effect. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion. Mayor Black called for a roll call vote on the aforementioned motion. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Dieringer, Mirsch, Pieper, and Wilson. NOES: Mayor Black. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. SECOND READING, WAIVE FULL READING AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 355 — AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 17.29 TO TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL MARIJUANA ACTIVITIES, ALLOW FOR THE DELIVERY OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA, AND TO REGULATE THE CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA FOR PERSONAL AND MEDICAL USE WITHIN THE CITY, IN ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2017-02. Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz presented a second reading of the proposed marijuana ordinance and summary of the staff report. Mayor Black called for public comment. Hearing none, he asked for comments from the City Council. In response to Councilmember Mirsch's question, Planning Director Schwartz clarified that the definition of "enclosed" is indoors or in an accessory structure. Minutes City Council Meeting 10-23-17 -3- In response to Mayor Pro Tem Wilson's question, Planning Director Schwartz stated that a green house would be considered an accessory structure and permitted. Mayor Black questioned California's rules and regulations pertaining to impaired driving and that there was no definition of altered or impaired driving. Mayor Black indicated that impaired driving would pose a threat to the safety of residents. Following public comment and discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council waive full reading and adopt on second reading Ordinance No. 355. Councilmember Dieringer seconded the motion. Mayor Black called for a roll call vote on the aforementioned motion. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Dieringer, Mirsch, Pieper, and Wilson. NOES: Mayor Black. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS None. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS Councilmember Dieringer provided the City Council with correspondence on Edison's Rule 20A Fund. Mayor Black requested that staff provide the following information on Edison's Rule 20A Fund: 1) Contact Edison to provide reading materials or schedule a presentation; 2) Research the City's current allocation balance; and 3) Contact the City of Irvine to determine how much funding they have and what they will charge the City. Councilmember Dieringer commented that she would be discussing a matter related to the Americans with Disabilities Act with City Manager Cruz. CLOSED SESSION None. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Black adjourned the meeting at 7:51 p.m. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, November 13, 2017 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, Interim City Clerk Approved, James C In , M.D. Mayor Minutes City Council Meeting 10-23-17 -4- AGENDA qce4 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2017 7:00 P.M. Next Resolution No. 1217 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME Next Ordinance No. 354 This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding the items on the consent calendar or items not listed on this agenda. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will take place on any items not on the agenda. . CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. A. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B Republic Services Recycling Tonnage Report for September 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. C Brown Act Complaint filed by Lynn Gill. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. 5. COMMISSION ITEMS. NONE. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. SECOND READING, WAIVE FULL READING AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 354 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS TO AMEND THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.12.220 OF. CHAPTER 17.12 (DEFINITIONS); AND TO REPEAL AND REPLACE CHAPTER 17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION) IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH AN ADVISORY PROCESS FOR THE RESTORATION OF VIEWS OBSTRUCTED BY Page 1 of 2 VEGETATION, IN ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2017-01. B. SECOND READING, WAIVE FULL READING AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO.355 — AN : ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 17.29 TO TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER TO PROHIBIT COMMERICAL MARIJUANA ACTIVITIES, ALLOW FOR THE DELIVERY OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA, AND TO REGULATE THE CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA FOR PERSONAL AND MEDICAL USE WITHIN THE CITY, IN ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2017- 02. 7. OLD BUSINESS NONE. 8. NEW BUSINESS NONE. 9. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS 10. MATTERS FROM STAFF 11. CLOSED SESSION NONE. 12. ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: Monday, November 13, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Public Comment is welcome on any item prior to City Council action on the item. Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for review in the City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the itemwill be considered. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting due to your disability, please contact the City Clerk at (310) 377-1521 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for your review of this agenda and attendance at this meeting. City Council Agenda 10/23/17 Page 2 of 2 Beatriz Dieringer From: Sent: To: Subject: Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: Beatriz Dieringer <ddabea@msn.com> Monday, October 23, 2017 6:02 PM Beatriz Dieringer Fwd: Rule 20 Undergrounding From: Haig Kartounian <Haig.Kartounian sce.com> Date: October 18, 2017 at 7:49:58 PM PDT To: "ddabea@msn.com" <ddabea@msn.com> Subject: Rule 20 Undergrounding Dear Councilmember, RECE11V ED OCT 23Z017 gycaylof Rollin Hills (01 It It was a pleasure to see you at the Contract Cities event. As promised, I would like to share information regarding Rule 20 Undergrounding options that are available to the City. I will be away from the office tomorrow and wanted to get back to you in a timely manner. Created by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in 1967, Tariff Rule 20 is the State's regulation that governs the undergrounding of electric facilities and power lines. There are three types of Rule 20 projects; A, B & C. Costs to underground electric equipment can vary from $1.5 to $3 million per mile for distribution (4-33 Kilovolt -kV) and significantly more for sub - transmission (66-161 kV) or transmission (220-500 kV) lines. Southern California Edison (SCE) recognizes the aesthetic value that customers and communities place on undergrounding projects and we're available to answer questions about undergrounding options. Rule 20A funds for undergrounding projects are paid for by all SCE ratepayers, not just those living in the location where the project takes place. SCE is only responsible for the undergrounding of electric lines and not cable ortelephone. Rule 20A funds are "allocated/credited" by SCE on an annual basis using a CPUC approved formula. If you're interested in knowing the current allocation balance for the City of Rolling Hills, please have the City Manager reach out to your Government Relations Manager, Connie Turner. Funding is collected through SCE rates after the undergrounding is completed/operational. "Allocations" do not represent actual dollars and cannot be used for any other city project. One year's allocations won't cover the full cost of a desired project. In order to begin a project, a city must gather a sizeable allocation amount. Since ratepayers contribute to the Rule 20A funds, the projects must be in the public interest and meet one or more of the following criteria: • Eliminate heavy concentration of overhead electric lines (two or more primary electric circuits on a pole). • _ Involve a street or road with a high volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic. • Include overhead facilities located within or pass through a civic, recreational, or scenic area. • Identified as an arterial or major collector road by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research Guidelines. • The project must be at least one block or 600 feet in length (whichever is less) and on both sides of the street. 1 Rule 20B projects are paid for by cities, local neighborhoods after special assessments, or developers pursuant to a development agreement. Credits (typically 20-25%) are given by SCE for the cost of new overhead facilities and removal of existing system(s). These subsidies are incurred by all SCE ratepayers across our service territory. These projects must meet the following criteria: • All affected property owners must agree in writing to make the improvements to receive underground electric service. • Municipalities must enact an underground utility ordinance that authorizes SCE to discontinue overhead service. • Applicants agree to install all underground structures (pads, ducts, conduits, etc.) in accordance with SCE's specifications and transfer ownership upon completion/inspection to SCE, or pay SCE to install these equipment. • Applicant must pay for the cost of installing the underground electrical equipment, including transformers and meters, less any credits. • The project must be at least one block or 600 feet in length (whichever is less) and on both sides of the street. Rule 20C projects represent those that do not meet the conditions for Rule 20A or 20B. Applicants agree to pay for the entire cost to install the underground infrastructure and remove the idled overhead lines subject to credit for the net salvage value and any depreciation of the removed overhead infrastructure. These projects are often spot projects and there are no minimum length requirements. Timing- depending on the complexity and size of the project, it typically takes 3 to 5 years to break ground on a Rule 20 project, including Rough Order of Magnitude -ROM, engineering, and permitting. Rule 20B projects can take longer depending upon the neighborhood petition process and voting. I hope that this information is helpful and please let me know if I can be of any assistance. Best regards, Haig Kartounian Government Relations Manager Southern California Edison 626-302-3418 Office 818-516-2013 Mobile Haig. Kartounian(c�sce.com 2 Beatriz Dieringer From: Beatriz Dieringer <ddabea@msn.com> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 6:02 PM To: Beatriz Dieringer Subject: Fwd: Rule 20 Undergrounding Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Haig Kartounian <Haig.Kartounian@sce.com> Date: October 18, 2017 at 7:49:58 PM PDT To: "ddabea@msn.com" <ddabea@msn.com> Subject: Rule 20 Undergrounding Dear Councilmember, RECEIVE OCT 232011 City of Rollin By ,/ Hills �i- It was a pleasure to see you at the Contract Cities event. As promised, I would like to share information regarding Rule 20 Undergrounding options that are available to the City. I will be away from the office tomorrow and wanted to get back to you in a timely manner. Created by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in 1967, Tariff Rule 20 is the State's regulation that governs the undergrounding of electric facilities and power lines. There are three types of Rule 20 projects; A, B & C. Costs to underground electric equipment can vary from $1.5 to $3 million per mile for distribution (4-33 Kilovolt -kV) and significantly more for sub - transmission (66-161 kV) or transmission (220-500 kV) lines. Southern California Edison (SCE) recognizes the aesthetic value that customers and communities place on undergrounding projects and we're available to answer questions about undergrounding options. Rule 20A funds for undergrounding projects are paid for by all SCE ratepayers, not just those living in the location where the project takes place. SCE is only responsible for the undergrounding of electric lines and not cable ortelephone. Rule 20A funds are "allocated/credited" by SCE on an annual basis using a CPUC approved formula. If you're interested in knowing the current allocation balance for the City of Rolling Hills, please have the City Manager reach out to your Government Relations Manager, Connie Turner. Funding is collected through SCE rates after the undergrounding is completed/operational. "Allocations" do not represent actual dollars and cannot be used for any other city project. One year's allocations won't cover the full cost of a desired project. In order to begin a project, a city must gather a sizeable allocation amount. Since ratepayers contribute to the Rule 20A funds, the projects must be in the public interest and meet one or more of the following criteria: • Eliminate heavy concentration of overhead electric lines (two or more primary electric circuits on a pole). • _ Involve a street or road with a high volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic. • Include overhead facilities located within or pass through a civic, recreational, or scenic area. • Identified as an arterial or major collector road by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research Guidelines. • The project must be at least one block or 600 feet in length (whichever is less) and on both sides of the street. 1 Rule 20B projects are paid for by cities, local neighborhoods after special assessments, or developers pursuant to a development agreement. Credits (typically 20-25%) are given by SCE for the cost of new overhead facilities and removal of existing system(s). These subsidies are incurred by all SCE ratepayers across our service territory. These projects must meet the following criteria: • All affected property owners must agree in writing to make the improvements to receive underground electric service. • Municipalities must enact an underground utility ordinance that authorizes SCE to discontinue overhead service. • Applicants agree to install all underground structures (pads, ducts, conduits, etc.) in accordance with SCE's specifications and transfer ownership upon completion/inspection to SCE, or pay SCE to install these equipment. • Applicant must pay for the cost of installing the underground electrical equipment, including transformers and meters, less any credits. • The project must be at least one block or 600 feet in length (whichever is less) and on both sides of the street. Rule 20C projects represent those that do not meet the conditions for Rule 20A or 20B. Applicants agree to pay for the entire cost to install the underground infrastructure and remove the idled overhead lines subject to credit for the net salvage value and any depreciation of the removed overhead infrastructure. These projects are often spot projects and there are no minimum length requirements. Timing- depending on the complexity and size of the project, it typically takes 3 to 5 years to break ground on a Rule 20 project, including Rough Order of Magnitude -ROM, engineering, and permitting. Rule 20B projects can take longer depending upon the neighborhood petition process and voting. I hope that this information is helpful and please let me know if I can be of any assistance. Best regards, Haig Kartounian Government Relations Manager Southern California Edison 626-302-3418 Office 818-516-2013 Mobile Haig.Kartounian u(u�sce.com 2 10/23/2017 - CHECK RUN Agenda Item No: 4-A Mtg. Date: 10/23/17 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 CHECK CHECK PAYEE NO. DATE * EFT 11/01/2017 CALPERS 25054 10/23/2017 ANIMAL PEST MANAGEMENT 25055 10/23/2017 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO. 25056 10/23/2017 CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES ASSOCIATION 25057 10/23/2017 DAILY BREEZE 25058 10/23/2017 DAILY BREEZE 25059 10/23/2017 GOVT STAFFING SERVICES INC 25060 10/23/2017 JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP 25061 10/23/2017 LA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 25062 10/23/2017 OPUS BANK 25063 10/23/2017 PACIFIC COAST LANDSCAPE 25064 10/23/2017 PALOS VERDES PENINSULA 25065 10/23/2017 ROGERS, ANDERSON, MALODY & SCOTT, LLP 25066 10/23/2017 S.C. SIGNS & SUPPLIES LLC 25067 10/23/2017 THE GAS COMPANY 25068 10/23/2017 USCM 25069 . 10/23/2017 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS 25070 11/01/2017 DELTA DENTAL 25071 11/01/2017 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 25072 11/01/2017 VISION SERVICE PLAN - (CA) * PR LINK 10/13/2017 PR LINK - PAYROLL PROCESSING * PR LINK 10/13/2017 PR LINK - PAYROLL 21 & PR TAXES NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 DESCRIPTION HEALTH INSURANCE NOVEMBER 2017 COYOTE CONTROL 9/30/17 WATER SERVICE 8/25/17 - 9/26/17 CITY MANAGERS MEETING OCTOBER 5, 2017 P.V. NEWS LEGAL PUB SEPTEMBER 2017 LEGAL PUBLICATION SEPTEMBER 2017 STAFF SERVICES WEEK ENDING 10/1/17 ATTORNEY SERVICES SEPTEMBER2017 LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES SEPTEMBER 2017 ICMA CONFERENCE, OFFICE SUPPLIES; SEPTEMBER 2017 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE FOR OCTOBER 2017 ENVELOPES, COPIES OF ORDINANCE ACCOUNTING SERVICES SEPTEMBER 2017 STOP SIGNS & REFLECTIVE TAPE 9/25 GAS SERVICE 9/5/17 - 10/4/17 DEFERRED COMP 10/13/17 DEFERRED COMP 10/13/17 DENTAL INSURANCE NOVEMBER 2017 LIFE INSURANCE NOVEMBER 2017 VISION INSURANCE NOVEMBER 2017 PROCESSING FEE PAY PERIOD - SEPTEMBER 27, 2017 THROUGH OCTOBER 10, 2017 I, Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager of Rolling Hills, California certify that the above demands are accurate and there is available in the General Fund a balance of $88,523.46 or the payment of above items. - Ray_nond R C l City Man.:er lL * Previously Disbursed AMOUNT 7,248.85 3,500.00 - 773.26 39.00 770.40 264.95 4,965.00 12,430.80 30,091.44 2,551.75 565.00 883.09 7,133.33 520.53 17.04 802.00 182.00 459.71 126.34 59.21 51.45 15,088.31 $ 88,523.46 73,383.70 Printed on Recycled Paper CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTIAL ALLIED WASTE RECYCLE NOW REPORT Report Date: 2017 MONTH 2017 January February March April May June July August September October November December Year to Date Totals: RECYCLED (tons) 51.34 45.87 52.00 53.62 47.49 51.80 53.57 29.57 16.37 401.63 Average Monthly Totals: 2017 GREEN WASTE (tons) 83.67 66.88 75.56 155.40 98.65 114.43 103.23 122.15 138.59 958.56 C&D Recycled 29.80 C&D Disposed Disposal Diversion Tonnage 6.62 133.36 54.07% 6.37 2.13 115.88 50.24% 32.98 11.00 125.65 54.02% 61.17 11.21 129.57 65.74% 106.36 5.80 114.76 67.68% 58.65 7.33 125.18 62.92% 111.23 9.24 129.45 65.90% 56.96 8.97 162.15 54.94% 84.18 11.67 147.29 60.07% 0.00% 0.00% 547.70 73.97 0.00% 1,183.30 304.80 237.13 297.19 410.97 373.06 357.39 406.72 379.80 398.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.28% 44.63 106.51 60.86 8.22 131.48 60% MONTHLY TOTALS (tons) 3,165.16 351.68 RECEIVED OCT 17 2017 City of Rolling Hills By 6(4 toi Rallew9 qee4 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Consent Item No.: 4-C Mtg. Date: 10/23/17 TO: • THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ROLLING HILLS FROM: MICHAEL JENKINS, CITY ATTORNEY NATALIE C. KARPELES, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: BROWN ACT COMPLAINT FILED BY LYNN GILL DATE PUBLISHED: OCTOBER 23, 2017 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Email dated October 12, 2017 from Lynn Gill 2. Proposed letter to Mr. Gill Recommendation: Receive and file report; direct City Attorney to send letter pursuant to Government Code §54960.1 (c)(2) communicating the City Council's determination that no Brown Act violation occurred and therefore that the City Council will not take further action. Background: Lynn Gill sent an email to the City Manager dated October 12, 2017 alleging violations of the Brown Act. The Brown Act provides that any person may challenge an action taken by the City Council by filing a written demand to cure or correct the action alleged to have been taken in violation of the Brown Act. This report will address the substantive allegations contained in the email. The City takes every Brown Act allegation seriously, even when it would appear on its face to be without merit. The Brown Act dictates that the City Council determine within 30 days of receipt of a demand whether it will cure or correct the challenged action. If the City Council does not act within 30 days, it is deemed to have determined not to take any corrective action. Tonight's meeting is within the 30 day period for response. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54960.1(b), the Council must determine whether a violation occurred and if so, whether to cure the violation. A copy of the email is attached (Attachment 1). It asserts, in essence, that a majority of the City Council have been campaigning collaboratively for Measure C and that such actions violate the public meeting requirements of the Act (set forth in Government Code section 54952.2). Analysis: A. The Brown Act. The purpose of the Brown Act (which is found at Government Code Section 54950, et seq.) is to ensure that the deliberations of local governmental legislative bodies are conducted publicly and their actions are taken openly. The City Council is subject to the Brown Act. All City Council deliberations and actions must be made in public, and all meetings must be open, except for properly noticed "closed sessions" as allowed by the Brown Act. Under the Brown Act, a meeting is "any congregation of a majority of members of a legislative body at the same time and place to hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body or the local agency to which it pertains." In plain English, this means that a meeting is any gathering of a majority of City Councilmembers to hear or discuss any item of City business. As .a result, three Councilmembers may not get together outside of a properly convened meeting to discuss or to develop any ideas for the Council's activities or to otherwise discuss a matter that may come before the Council. A "meeting" need not occur all at one time as a "gathering" of a quorum of the body. Rather, it also includes communication among a majority of a legislative body regarding an item of city business outside of an actual gathering. It can occur in a serial fashion through a series of telephone calls, emails or other communications by which a quorum of the body's membership ultimately is involved. This is known as a "serial meeting." Serial meetings can occur directly among, councilmembers or through either one or more persons acting as intermediaries or through use of a technological device (such as a telephone answering machine, or e-mail or voice mail), even though a majority of members never gather in a room at the same time. If any interested person believes that a majority of the members of the City Council have met in violation of the Act, he or she may make a written demand on the City to cure or correct the violation. A written demand for a cure is a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit. Under Section 54960.1, the Council has thirty days to respond to the demand. B. Mr. Gill does not allege a Brown Act violation because the promotion of a ballot measure is not "City business." Because the email to which Mr. Gill was reacting was dated October 12, 2017, the October 12, 2017 demand is well within the ninety day period allowed by Section 54960.1(c) (1) and is therefore timely. The email implies a violation of Section 54952.2, which prohibits a majority of the members of a legislative body from using a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body outside of a public meeting.1 "As used in this chapter, 'meeting' means any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and location... to hear, discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body."2 "A lack of subject matter jurisdiction is 'an entire absence of power to hear or determine the case, an absence of authority over the subject matter or the parties." City of Lodi v. Randtron (2004) 118 Cal. App. 4th 337, 360; citing Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Ca1.2d 280, 288. The City Council's jurisdiction over any matters relative to Measure C has concluded - the Measure was placed on the November ballot and once the Council took that action, it lost jurisdiction over the matter. The disposition of Measure C is a matter for the voters to decide; there is nothing more the Council can do at this point as regards the measure. If there is no subject matter jurisdiction over the issue, then there is no meeting; and if there is no meeting, then there is no violation of the Brown Act - regardless of the number of Council members participating in the promotion of Measure C. The campaigns regarding Measure C are not a matter of City Council business; they are political campaigns outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council. Councilmembers may participate in those campaigns in their capacity as residents, no differently than any other resident may participate in a political campaign. When they do so, they are not functioning on City Council business. Hence, Mr. Gill's allegation is without merit. Conclusion: Based on the foregoing, the Mr. Gill's email is without merit. No violation of the Brown Act occurred and no cure is required. Accordingly, I recommend that the Council receive and file this report and direct me to send the letter attached to this staff report (Attachment 2) to Mr. Gill: 1 See Government Code section 54952.2(b)(1) 2 See Government Code section 54952.2(a); emphasis added Michael Jenkins From: Ray. Cruz <rcruz@cityofrh.net> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 8:25 PM To: Michael Jenkins Subject: Fwd: More Yes on C signs are coming FYI Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Lynn Gill <lynn.gili@cox.net> Date: October 12, 2017 at 8:00:12 PM PDT To: Lynn Gill.<1vnn.gill(n?cox.net>, Ray Cruz <rcruz@cityofrh.net> Cc: Richard Colyear <rcolvearl @aol.com>, Bea Dieringer <ddabea@msn:com> Subject: Re: More Yes on C signs are coming Dear Ray, In accordance with provisions of the Brown Act, this is intended to be a written demand that the City Council cure or correct the apparent violations of the Brown Act. • Violation of open meeting rules • Use of City property without authorization, i.e., e-mail lists • Representing their communications as coming from the City, by identifying themselves as Council Members and giving an address of 2 Portuguese Bend Road, which is City Hall Sincerely, Lynn Gill • 31 Chuckwagon Road From: Lynn Gill Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 5:30 PM To: Ray Cruz Cc: Richard Colyear ; Bea Dieringer Subject: Fw: More Yes on C signs are coming Hello Ray, We now have a Brown Act violation! More than 2 councilpersons collaborating outside of public meeting I suggest that you contact Michael Jenkins, City attorney immediately. He should tell them to cease and desist. You seem to have a run -away council. Sincerely, Lynn Gill 31 Chuckwagon Road JENKINS & HOGIN, LIP A LAW PARTNERSHIP MICHAEL jENICINS CHRISTI HOGIN JOHN C. COTTI GREGG KETTLES LAUREN LANGER TREVOR RuSIN NATALIE C. KARPELES PATRICK DONEGAN JANE F. ABzuG. Lynn Gill Dear Mr. Gill: MANHATTAN TOWERS 1230 ROSECRANS AVENUE, SUITE 110 MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90266 (310) 643-8448 • FAx(310) 643.8441 WWW.LOCALGOVLAW.COM WRITER'S EMAIL ADDRESS: KENKINs@LocALCovLAw.com LoCALGOVLA\VCOM October 24, 2017 Brown Act Complaint Against City of Rolling Hills The complaint that you delivered to Mr. Cruz on October 12, 2017 was considered by the City Council at its meeting of October 23, 2017. A copy of the staff report delivered to the City Council is attached to this letter. For the reasons set forth in the staff report, the Council has directed me to advise you that the Council has determined that the actions you challenge do not violate the Brown Act. Hence, the City Council will not take any action to cure or correct the challenged actions. Very truly yours, Michael Jenkins City Attorney City of Rolling Hills al Re (lief qe:(6 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 6-A Mtg. Date: 10/23/17 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR v/IJ NATALIE C. KARPELES, ASSISTANT CITY ATTO EY THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER P/g/e-- SUBJECT: SECOND READING, WAIVE FULL READING AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 354 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS TO AMEND THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.12.220 OF CHAPTER 17.12 (DEFINITIONS); AND TO REPEAL AND REPLACE CHAPTER 17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION) IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH AN ADVISORY PROCESS FOR THE RESTORATION OF VIEWS OBSTRUCTED BY VEGETATION, IN ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2017-01. DATE NOTICE PUBLISHED: SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 EXHIBITS: 1. ORDINANCE NO. 354 (with minor amendments, underlined) 2. CORRESPONDENCE (Received at or just prior to the 10/9/17 City Council meeting) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council take public testimony, waive full reading and adopt on second reading the ordinance or provide other direction to staff. CITY COUNCIL'S ACTION AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS Ordinance No. 354 was introduced for first reading at a public hearing at the City Council 9-25-17 meeting. The language of the ordinance was recommended by the Planning Commission and included provision for the City to take an Advisory role in view preservation cases. Following public input and discussion the City Council directed staff to make changes to the proposed ordinance, as four out of the five Councilmembers were not in favor of the City taking on an advisory role in the proceedings and resolution of view obstruction complaints. By a vote 4-1 it was so ordered to substitute all references to the process being "advisory" to what is currently in place, (if not for the moratorium), meaning that the City would take a quasi-judicial role in the processing and implementing, including the enforcement, of view obstruction complaint cases. The City Council held a public hearing at their October 10, 2017 meeting on the revised ordinance, and following public input and discussion, members of the City Council by a vote of 3-2 directed staff to bring back for a second reading the text of the Ordinance discussed at the September 25, 2017 meeting, where the City would assume an advisory role in processing view obstruction complaint cases and any outcome resulting from the view complaint would not be enforceable by the City. Staff was also directed to include in the Ordinance a few minor but relevant provisions recommended by Councilmember Dieringer at the previous meeting. They are underlined in the Ordinance and include: • Insertion of the word "significant" in three places; in definition of "View Impairment" where it describes impairment of the pre-existing view and when the CTV or City Council makes a finding that a view is diminished; consideration to be given whether the view is significantly diminished • Referencing Section 17.26.050 Considerations for applying the view preservation ordinance in two places, when describing what supporting evidence of the view obstruction must be considered • Adding a statement that if the CTV or City Council requires an arborist's testimony, such arborist shall be consulting or certified arborist. In addition, it has been brought to staff's attention that redundant subparagraph existed in Section 17.26.050A (current subparagraph 6 was written twice and relates to the factors to be considered whether the pre-existing view has been obstructed); therefore, staff deleted one of them. Included with this staff report is the ordinance provided to the Council at the September 25, 2017 meeting, as recommended by the Planning Commission, with the minor amended provisions (underlined). BACKGROUND At the November 28, 2016, City Council meeting, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to commence discussion and public hearings relative to a Zoning Code Amendment of the View Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 17.26), taking into consideration the draft ordinance prepared by Mr. Spencer Karpf and the concepts and ideas that were collaboratively developed between the City Council ad hoc committee members (Mirsch and Pieper), Planning Commission Chairman (Chelf), and several residents (who were the original proponents of Measure B in 2013) (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Ad Hoc Committee"). Following much compromise and discussion, the Ad Hoc Committee prepared a memo, dated November 2016, which outlines the major areas of agreement between the committee and the residents, as well as those issues which remain unresolved. Following the Ad Hoc Committee report to the City Council at their November 28, 2016 meeting, the City Council felt that the Ad Hoc Committee and residents attained sufficient ground for the Planning Commission to commence evaluation and formulation of a new view preservation ordinance. At the January 17, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission began its discussions regarding the potential revisions to the city's View Preservation Ordinance, taking into consideration the language of the City's original view preservation ordinance, the issues presented by the inclusion of Measure B, the memorandum from the Ad -Hoc Committee, various ordinances prepared by several residents, various other cities' ordinances, various information and materials presented by the public during the public hearing proceedings and public oral testimony. The Planning Commission held four public forums and two public hearings and on August 15, 2017 the Planning Commission considered the draft resolution and approved Resolution No. 2017-15B, recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance repealing the existing View Preservation Ordinance and adopt a new Ordinance. The Resolution included recommendation that the City's involvement in view preservation complaint cases be advisory and any outcome resulting from the view complaint not be enforceable by the City. DISCUSSION PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: 1. A. Dispute Resolution Process (17.26.040) The revised ordinance, includes provisions for a process, procedures and time line the complainant and the tree owner must follow to obtain a written advisement from the Committee on Trees and Views, (CTV) or City Council, if requested by the parties. Such advise would be memorialized in a form of a document but will not be enforceable by the City. The process includes a requirement for initial reconciliation, mediation, request for a hearing before the CTV and, upon request a hearing before the City Council. The CTV and Council would act in an advisory role. B. Binding arbitration At any time during the proceedings the parties could pursue the resolution of the case by binding arbitration. A binding arbitration award may be enforced by a court of law. This provision explains that if the parties were to avail themselves of this step prior to the case being reviewed by the City Council, (upon request by either of the parties) the City would reimburse the parties certain amount of the cost of the binding arbitration. Members of the City Council discussed a contribution of $5,000 total. Staff will prepare a Resolution for council's adoption to memorialize this step and the amount at a future meeting. The ordinance also provides for that at any stage of the dispute resolution process, the parties can provide the City with documents and the City will retain them at the request of the parties.' As stated, the parties may also elect to litigate at any stage of the dispute resolution process and Section 17.26.080 creates a private right of action for review and resolution of view impairment claims through the court. 2. Definitions Prior to this endeavor, the definitions for "view," "view corridor" and "view impairment" were contained in Chapter 17.12 of the City Municipal Code; this Chapter contains all of the defined terms relied upon when applying the City's Zoning Ordinance. For clarity and consistency, and in order to assist persons unfamiliar with the City's Municipal Code (such as third -party mediators and arbitrators) in its application, all view - related definitions have been relocated to the new Chapter 17.26. The definition of "view corridor" is proposed to be deleted from the Municipal Code. New definitions have been added and include industry terms related to arboriculture. Where available, these definitions were taken from the online dictionary provided by the International Society of Arboriculture ("ISA");2 otherwise, definitions were crafted based on the Planning Commission's direction and the documents provided by Mr. Karpf, Mr. Lynn Gill, the Proponents of Measure 2017 and the Ad Hoc Committee.3 Additionally, pictures helping to illustrate these definitions have been incorporated into the draft resolution, where applicable. i. "Established View" The language of the City's current view preservation ordinance is silent as to what point in time a "view seeker" is required to establish the existence of a view. Measure B attempted to focus the inquiry of view preservation to those views which existed from the date the current owner "actually acquired the property." The Karpf Ordinance proposes utilizing this interpretation as the definition for "established view," adding that a view may also be established at any other specific point in time following purchase that the view seeker is first able to show that a view existed. 1 Under the City's existing ordinance, the City is only responsible for maintaining documents related to the view impairment complaint. Similarly, Measure 2017 proposes that the City maintain a casefile, however included in the casefile shall be the financial responsibility and indemnification agreement, the payment bond, any final agreements between the parties. The Karpf Ordinance, on the other hand, requires the City to maintain various other documents in connection with the view complaint casefile: (1) any documents submitted by the parties (including meet and confer requests, final agreements, etc.); (2) a "view database" prepared by the City which would maintain information regarding the views of Rolling Hills' properties; and (3) information from local Realtors, the Rolling Hills Community Association, and residents to determine whether properties are being bought or sold. z See definitions for "crown," "crown raising," "heading back," "lacing," and "pruning." 3 See the definition for "maintenance." The definitions for "crown reduction" and "topping" have been crafted utilizing the ISA definitions for these terms, as well as the language contained in Measure 2017. In contemplating the appropriate definitions for the view ordinance, the Planning Commission created a definition for "pre-existing view," as they felt "established" sounded too conclusory. The ordinance also specifies that one is not entitled to a view, which was created via natural disaster or illegal activity. ii. "View." The definition of "view" (currently located in Section 17.12.220) has been modified to allow a view to be observed from one or more viewing points and may be panoramic. iii. "View Impairment." When discussing the definition of "view impairment" the Planning Commission considered the application of the phrase "significant interference" when determining view impairment cases. Members of the Planning Commission who also serve on the City's Committee on Trees and Views explained that the phrase "significant interference" was too subjective and was therefore difficult to apply as part of a defined term. Councilmember Dieringer recommended that the definition be modified to include "significantly" when addressing the diminished view as follows: "View impairment" means any obstruction of a pre-existing view by vegetation on another property within the City that significantly diminishes that pre-existing view. iv. "Viewing Point." The current language of the Code explains that the scope of the protected view must be from a principal residence "and any immediately adjoining patio or deck area at the same elevation as the residence," but does not include views from either garages or closets, pool decks, patios balconies or accessory structures. Similarly, the Karpf Ordinance proposed that views from "garages, closets, basements, laundry rooms or other : similar minor rooms" be excluded. Lastly, Measure 2017 expands upon both the Karpf Ordinance and the RHMC's definition by proposing that viewing areas include the principal residence, as well as any exterior areas (as listed), regardless of proximity or elevation. Specifically, Measure 2017 includes views from the living, family, and dining rooms; kitchen; rooms with picture windows, sliding glass doors, or French doors; patios, balconies, decks, pool areas, guesthouses and gazebos. Based on the above, the Planning Commission created the definition of "viewing point" to include multiple panoramic views from "primary residences" and "accessory structures" (as well as pool decks and gazebos) at varying elevations; but specifically excluding views from minor rooms (i.e., garages or closets). 3. Principles and Intent (17.26.010) The Principles and Intent provision of the ordinance sets a tone for the ordinance by summarizing the importance of both views and trees iri the City and that both, the view seeker and the tree owners have certain right, duties and responsibilities. 4. Considerations for Applying the View Preservation Ordinance (Section 17.26.050). Proposed Section 17.26.050 lists factors to help the parties gather evidence and to help guide the mediator/arbitrator/CTV/City Council when sifting through said evidence. These factors are not mandatory - the parties are not required to provide this evidence - nor are they exhaustive or exclusive. In other words, these factors are unweighted, and if a party provides this evidence, it will be deemed relevant and must be considered by the mediator/arbitrator/CTV/City Council. This list is merely a tool to assist the parties in conceptualizing what information may be relevant and helpful to the mediator/arbitrator/CTV/City Council when considering the view complaint. 5. Restorative Action (17.26.060). Under the language of the City's current ordinance, if the CTV determines that a view exists and that said view is significantly impaired, it shall order such restorative action as is necessary to abate any present and/or future view impairment (including removal, pruning, topping, thinning, etc.). The purpose of. the CTV's order is not intended to create an unobstructed view for applicants, and is not meant to adversely affect the environment or detract from the privacy or enjoyment of the vegetation owner's property. This Section of the proposed ordinance implements the Ad Hoc Committee's suggestion, supported by the Planning Commission that a hierarchy of restorative action be implemented, starting with the least severe and graduating to the most severe; least severe being lacing and most severe -removal. This section also addresses the requirement for maintenance and that during this process it may be recommended which party should pay for initial remediation and maintenance. It also advises that "where restorative action may affect the health of a tree, such actions should be carried out in accordance with standards established by the International Society of Arboriculture for use in the state of California", and that where removal is necessary, replacement with appropriate special should be considered. 6. Litigation (17.26.070) A new Section is added to the Ordinance explaining the right of action of the view seeker and that the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs. During the Planning Commission hearings, several residents recommended that this language be included in the City's Ordinance. 7. The Committee on Trees and Views (17.26.080) and Removal of Previous Section related to "Desirable and Undesirable Trees." The language of Section 17.26.080 was taken from the existing Code and has been modified to provide that the CTV shall provide advisory opinions only. The language in this Chapter related to "desirable and undesirable trees" has been removed. The City is no longer enforcing the provisions of Chapter 17.26; therefore this provision was out of place. However, as part of the adoption of the ordinance, staff will be tasked to develop an informational brochure/flyer on the View Preservation Ordinance, which will be provided to the public. This information will include a guideline of acceptable and not acceptable trees. 8. Enforcement and Liability (17.26.090). In terms of enforcement, the language of the existing Code explains that the City will be responsible for enforcing any final decisions rendered by it in connection with a view impairment claim. This is due to the fact that the Code currently employs a quasi-judicial dispute resolution process where the City is responsible for hearing view impairment complaints, considering the weight of the evidence related thereto, and rendering a final decision. Due to the fact that the City will only be rendering advisory opinions, Section 17.26.090 explains that the City will not be responsible for enforcing any recommendations made by a mediator, arbitrator or otherwise. This Section also explains that the City shall not be liable for any recommendations made by a mediator, arbitrator or otherwise. Lastly, any failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter 17.26 is not a violation of the Municipal Code and will not be enforced by the City. 9. Miscellaneous Provisions. During the Planning Commission public hearing process, the Planning Commission also considered including in the City's ordinance the following provisions recommended by Mr. Karpf: A. That the City create, retain and keep an updated "view database" which would maintain information regarding the views from Rolling Hills' properties. After consideration of this recommendation, the Planning Commission determined that such a database would not feasible as it would take tremendous staff time to visit properties, determine the viewing points and take photographs, keep up with resident's additions and/or reconstruction of a property to re-establish the view, keep up with neighbors' trimming their trees, exposing a better view for the view residence, and other logistical issues. B. The creation of mechanisms by the City in order to determine when a property has been transferred or is in the process of being transferred in order to document any view issues. Staff explained to the Planning Commission that City is not a party to the sale or purchase of properties within the City. Therefore, unless a property owner or their agent approaches the City with an inquiry about development, etc., the City will not know when a property changes hands. However, the City has developed a flyer for new owners which recommends that they take pictures of their view and date them. In addition, following adoption of a new View Preservation Ordinance staff will prepare a brochure explaining the new provisions of the ordinance, and will provide it to local realtors, engineers/architects and developers. Based upon the measures used by staff already, the Planning Commission agreed that the proposed mechanisms were not necessary in the ordinance. C. Provisions which would allow the Planning Commission or the City Council to require a vegetation owner to remove offending vegetation as a condition of approval for new construction or additions over 1,000 square feet. Staff relayed to the Planning Commission that in a previous opinion on this topic, the City Attorney's office instructed the City that the Planning Commission or the City Council may only condition a development on factors relevant to that development. In other words, there has to be a "nexus" between the condition and the project. Ultimately, the Planning Commission did not instruct staff to include this provision in the ordinance. D. The establishment of educational programs by the City to provide residents, and members of the Real Estate community, with information regarding the rights and duties under the new view preservation ordinance. The Planning Commission determined that such language does not belong in the ordinance; however, upon adoption of a new ordinance, staff will develop an informational brochure similar to the flyer for new owners (discussed above under subheading B). 10. Retroactivity. Although not codified, it should be noted that the language of the proposed ordinance will not apply retroactively to decisions rendered by either the CTV or the City Council under Measure B or any prior iteration of the City's view preservation ordinance. Similarly, any view impairment disputes resolved by an agreement between the parties pursuant to the language of Measure B or any prior iteration of the City's view preservation ordinance are likewise unaffected by the language of the proposed ordinance - should it be adopted. With that said, parties will not be precluded from re -filing view impairment complaints under the language of the proposed ordinance for the same view; in this instance, any final resolutions or formal written agreements would have to be rescinded by request of the parties. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND NOTIFICATION Prior to the writing of this report, staff received several inquires about the ordinance to clarify the provisions. No written comments were received, except those attached, which were received at or just prior to the 10/9/17 City Council meeting. A public hearing Notice was published in the Peninsula News on September 14, 2017 and posted at City Hall. In addition, the City Council meeting agendas were included in latest City Newsletter. The agendas and staff reports were posted on the City's website and notification of this item was sent to those residents who signed up for automatic notifications of "Pending Ordinances" and other interested parties that requested it. The staff report and the agenda was also provided to the RHCA. ORDINANCE NO. 354 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS TO AMEND THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.12.220 OF CHAPTER 17.12 (DEFINITIONS); AND TO REPEAL AND REPLACE CHAPTER 17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION) IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH AN ADVISORY PROCESS FOR THE RESTORATION OF VIEWS OBSTRUCTED BY VEGETATION, IN ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2017-01. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does ordain as follows: Section 1. Rolling Hills Municipal Code ("RHMC") Chapter 17.26 governs the process by which a property owner whose views have become impaired by vegetation growing on another property may obtain abatement of the view impairment. Section 17.12.220 defines a view. Collectively, RHMC Chapter 17.26 and the definition of a view make up the City's "View Ordinance." The City has been engaged in a long-term effort to update the View Ordinance to clarify its provisions and address circumstances that have arisen in the Committee on Trees and Views' application of the View Ordinance. Section 2. In March 2013 the electorate of Rolling Hills voted to adopt Measure B in an effort to provide equitable application of the View Ordinance. However, the adoption of Measure B has led to practical difficulties in the application of Chapter 17.26 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (the City's view preservation ordinance) and the City Council appointed an Ad -Hoc Committee consisting of several Rolling Hills residents, two Councilmembers and Planning Commission Chairman to work collaboratively to develop concepts to be used to rewrite the view preservation ordinance in order to address the ambiguities and uncertainties that hamper its effective application and enforcement. Section 3. On November 20, 2016, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to commence discussions and public hearings relative to the concepts and ideas that were developed by the Ad -Hoc Committee and from January 17, 2017 to April 18, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public forums and accepted and considered all of the public testimony on this issue. Following the public forums, between June 2017 and August 2017 the Planning Commission held public hearings, at which specified changes to the view preservation ordinance were being considered. Notice of the public hearings was provided as required by law. Section 4. Chapter 17.50 of the RHMC sets forth procedures for amending the Zoning Ordinance. A public hearing before the Planning Commission is necessary before a recommendation for a Zoning Code amendment can be made to the City Council. After holding the public forums and public hearings, at which the Planning Commission received public comments and which were considered in concert with the recommendations of the Ad -Hoc Committee, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance to amend Section 17.12.220 of Chapter 17.12 (definitions); and to repeal and replace Chapter 17.26 (View Preservation) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code in order to establish an advisory process Ordinance No. 354 View Preservation (CC 10-23-17) for the restoration of views obstructed by vegetation, in Zoning Text Amendment No. 2017-01. Section 5. The City Council finds that this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the following sections of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3: (i) Section 15031(b)(3) (CEQA only applies to activities which have the potential for having a significant effect on the environment); (ii) Section 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378); and Section 15061(b)(3) (the proposed amendments will not in itself result in any environmental impacts nor will the amendmentresult in any changes in the physical conditions that exist in the City). • Section 6. After considering the information presented during public hearings on this matter, the City Council finds that the proposed Zoning Text amendments comply with the requirements of the City of Rolling Hills General Plan and State Planning and Zoning Laws (Government section 65000 et seq.) and will preserve the public health, safety and general welfare, while balancing property rights. Notice of the public hearings was provided as required by law. Section 7. The City Council hereby adopts an Ordinance amending Section 17.12.220 and repealing and replacing Chapter 17.26 of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, which is attached hereto as Attachment A. Section 8. In the event that Measure C, scheduled for the November 7, 2017 special Municipal election fails to be adopted by the electorate, this Ordinance shall be automatically null and void and of no force and effect. Section 9. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection,. sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences or clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 10. The ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its passage. Section 11. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 2017. JIM BLACK, M.D., MAYOR Ordinance No. 354 View Preservation (CC 10-23-17) 2 ATTEST: YVE 11E HALL, INTERIM CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) I certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 354 entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS TO AMEND THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.12.220 OF CHAPTER 17.12 (DEFINITIONS); AND TO REPEAL AND REPLACE CHAPTER 17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION) IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH AN ADVISORY PROCESS FOR THE RESTORATION OF VIEWS OBSTRUCTED BY VEGETATION, IN ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2017-01. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on , 2017 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. YVE1"l'E HALL, INTERIM CITY CLERK Ordinance No. 354 View Preservation (CC 10-23-17) 3 ATTACHMENT A Section 1. The list of alphabetical definitions of Section 17.12.220 ("V" words, terms and phrases) of Chapter 17.12 (Definitions) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rolling Hills Municipal . Code is hereby amended to remove the definitions for "View," "View Corridor," and "View Impairment." Section 2. Chapter 17.26 (View Preservation) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety, and replaced with the following language: Chapter 17.26 - VIEW PRESERVATION 17.26.010 Principles and intent. The City recognizes the contribution of views to the overall character and beauty of the City. Views of the Pacific Ocean, Catalina Island, City lights and Los Angeles Harbor are a special quality of property ownership for many residential lots in the City. The City also recognizes the desire of many of its residents and property owners for beautiful and plentiful landscaping, including trees; and to preserve the landscaping that existed on a property at the time the property was purchased. The City realizes that this desire may sometimes conflict with the preservation of views, and that disputes related to view obstruction are inevitable. Owners and residents should maintain trees on their property in a healthy condition for both safety reasons and for preservation of outward views. Before planting trees, owners and residents should consider view blockage. By this ordinance, the City establishes a process by which persons may seek to preserve and restore views which existed at any time since they purchased the property from unreasonable obstruction by the growth of vegetation. By this ordinance the City also establishes a list of factors to be considered in determining appropriate actions to restore views while preserving the rights of property owners by not unreasonably reducing privacy or shade or other benefits provided by vegetation on a property. When a view obstruction dispute arises, the parties should act reasonably to resolve the dispute through friendly communication, thoughtful negotiation, compromise. and other traditional means, such as discussions with the appropriate neighbors. Those disputes which are not resolved through such means shall follow the procedure established herein. 17.26.020 — Definitions. "Crown" means the upper part of a tree, measured from the lowest branch, including all the branches and foliage. "Crown raising" means the selective removal of lower limbs from a tree crown to provide clearance. 4 Ordinance No. 354 View Preservation (CC 10-23-17) "Crown reduction" means the method of reducing the height and/or spread of a tree crown by making appropriate pruning cuts. This definition also includes reducing the top, sides or individual limbs of a tree by means of removal of the longest portion of limbs to a lateral limb large enough to assume the tree's growth. • • •= • "Heading back" means cutting a shoot back to a -bud or cutting branches back to buds, stubs, or lateral branches not large enough to assume apical dominance. "Lacing" means the selective removal of live branches to provide light or air penetration Ordinance No. 354 View Preservation (CC 10-23-17) 5 through the tree or to lighten the weight of the remaining branches. Before and After Lacing "Maintenance" means pruning a tree with the primary objective of preserving or improving tree health and structure and enhancing aesthetics. "Pre -Existing View" means the view that existed at any time since the complainant's property was most recently purchased for fair market value through an arm's length purchase or sale, as evidenced by a deed. The pre-existing view cannot be the result of a natural disaster or illegal activities. "Pruning" removing branches (or occasionally roots) from a tree or other plant using approved practices, to achieve a specified objective. "Topping" means cutting back a tree to a predetermined crown by cutting back large diameter branches to stubs and/or truncating the main stem/trunk in order to limit or reduce tree size. "View" means a visually impressive scene or vista, such as the Pacific Ocean, off -shore islands, mountains, lights of the Los Angeles basin, the Palos Verdes Hills and canyons, the Los Angeles Harbor and/or Long Beach Harbor, and similar, as observed from a viewing point. A view may include structures or vegetation in the foreground or background of the view seeker's property. A "view" may be observed from one or more viewing point, and may be panoramic. Ordinance No. 354 View Preservation (CC 10-23-17) 6 "View impairment" means any obstruction of a pre-existing view by vegetation on another property within the City that significantly diminishes that pre-existing view. "Viewing point" means any view from the primary living area or active use area of a primary residence, excluding views from minor rooms, such as garages or closets, and also .includes views from accessory buildings or structures, including pool decks and gazebos, but excluding animal pens, aviaries, corrals, greenhouses, porte cocheres, riding rings, run-in sheds, sheds, stable/barns, free-standing storage rooms, and tack rooms. 17.26.030 - View impairment complaint considerations. Subject to other provisions of this Chapter, a property owner may initiate a view impairment complaint by way of the process set forth in section 17.26.040. A person shall not be precluded from filing a view impairment complaint on grounds that vegetation located on the complainant's property contributes to impairment of the requested view. A person who has obtaineda recommendation abating impairment of a view against a property shall not be precluded from filing a subsequent complaint to abate impairment of the same view by vegetation on another property. 17.26.040 - View Impairment Dispute Resolution Process. The complainant shall follow the process established by this Chapter in seeking preservation or restoration of a pre-existing view. A. Initial Reconciliation. 1. A complainant whose preexisting view is impaired shall first seek to informally resolve the impairment with the vegetation owner. The initial notification to the vegetation owner must be in writing, include a link to this Chapter and contain the following language: "Failure of the vegetation owner to respond to 'the written request for initial reconciliation within sixty (60) days from the date on the notification shall be deemed formal refusal by the vegetation owner to participate in the initial reconciliation." Additionally, any written notification to the vegetation owner must include any supporting evidence of the view obstruction, (as described by Section 17.26.050) and any requested remediation action. Remediation action may include an offer on behalf of the view seeker to perform continued maintenance, or to assist with replanting. 2. During the initial reconciliation, the parties may request assistance from a certified arborist. The City may provide a link to the International Society of Arboriculture to allow residents to search for a certified arborist. If the parties reach an agreement, the signed agreement may be submitted to the City; however, there is no need to file anything with the City once an agreement between the parties is reached. If initial reconciliation is refused, or if the parties do not agree as to the existence and nature of the complainant's obstruction and the appropriate restorative action, the Ordinance No. 354 View Preservation (CC 10-23-17) 7 complainant may proceed with mediation. B. Mediation. 1. If the initial reconciliation does not yield a resolution of the complaint, and the complainant wishes to further utilize the procedures under this Chapter, then the complainant must request, in writing, that the vegetation owner enter into mediation. The vegetation owner shall have sixty (60) days from the date of the request for mediation to accept or reject the request in writing. The vegetation owner's failure to respond within sixty (60) days will be deemed a formal refusal of mediation and the complainant may proceed to an advisory hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views. 2. The participants will have sixty (60) days from the date of the filling of acceptance of mediation to select a mediator. If they cannot agree on a mediator within sixty (60) days, they may jointly request that the City select. a mediator. Any mediator which is selected pursuant to this subsection shall be•provided with a link to a copy of this Chapter. 3. The mediator shall be guided by the provisions of this Chapter, including the evaluation criteria set forth in Section 17.26.050, and the hierarchy of restorative actions set forth in Section 17.26.060, respectively, in attempting to resolve the view impairment complaint. The mediator shall also consider the recommendations of any arborists or experts regarding landscape techniques and/or maintenance procedures. 4. The mediator's recommendation shall be advisory. Any agreement reached by the parties as a result of the mediation process described herein shall be reduced to writing and shall include steps for maintenance measures and any associated costs. The agreement shall be signed by all of the parties and may be submitted to the City. C. Advisory Opinion from the CTV. If the complainant is not satisfied by the recommendation of the mediator, the complainant may request a public hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views. 1. View Impairment Complaint - Required Information. A view impairment complaint must be on a form provided by the City and shall consist of, but not be limited to, the following: a. A description of the nature and extent of the view, as well as of the alleged obstruction. If multiple views are identified, each must be disjointed and observable from a separate viewing area. Evidence of the views and alleged obstructions must be pertinent and may include, but is not limited to, documentary evidence, (as described by Section 17.26.050), dated photographs, or written declarations. Evidence must include the date the property was purchased by the complaining party. b. A description of the type and location of all vegetation alleged to cause Ordinance No. 354 View Preservation (CC 10-23-17) 8 obstruction, the address of the property upon which the obstructing vegetation is located, and the present vegetation owner's name and address. c. Documentary evidence establishing that attempts at initial reconciliation (as described in Section 17.26.040(A)) and mediation (as described in Section 17.26.040(B)) have been made and have failed to resolve the dispute. d. The view impairment complaint fee in the amount established by resolution of the city council. 2. View Impairment Complaint - Processing. City staff will review the complaint. If staff determines that the complaint is incomplete, a letter will be mailed to the complainant stating what is needed to complete the complaint within sixty (60) days from the date of the letter. If the complaint is deemed complete, staff will process the complaint and prepare a notice pursuant to the requirements in Section 17.26.040(C) (4) (a) -(b), below. If the parties to a complaint voluntarily elect to resolve the issue privately at any time following the filing of the complaint, and notify the City of same, the City shall suspend the hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views until such time as the parties notify the City that they have resolved the issue (thereby eliminating the need for a hearing) or that they are unable to resolve the issue and wish to proceed with the hearing. 3. View Impairment Complaint - Withdrawal. A complaint shall be deemed withdrawn and all proceedings shall be terminated with respect thereto, without prejudice, if: a. The parties to a complaint notify the City that it has been voluntarily resolved; b. The complainant fails or refuses to provide supplemental information requested by the City; c. The complainant fails or refuses to pay the cost of the expert services; d. The complainant requests a delay of the proceedings for more than one hundred eighty (180) days (unless good cause exists for the delay); or e. The hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views is suspended by the parties to a complaint for more than one hundred eighty (180) days. 4. View Impairment Complaint - Review by Committee on Trees and Views. a. Notice Required. The City shall provide notice of the hearing a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. The hearing shall not proceed unless proof is shown that the vegetation owner received notice of the hearing as provided herein: i. Notice shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the ownerof the tree or other obstructing vegetation and to the complainant; ii. Notice shall be given by first class mail to all property owners within one thousand feet of the exterior boundary of the property on which Ordinance No. 354 View Preservation (CC 10-23-17) 9 the tree or other obstructing vegetation are located and to other persons who, in the Committee's judgment, might be affected. b. Content of Notice. The notice shall state the name of the complaining party or parties, the name of the property owner against whom the complaint is filed, a brief description of the tree(s) or other vegetation at issue, and the time and place of hearing. The notice shall invite written comments to be submitted prior to or at the hearing. c. Conduct of Hearing. The Committee shall adopt rules for the conduct of hearings. At the hearing, the Committee shall consider all written and oral testimony and evidence presented in connection with the complaint. If during the course of the proceedings it is. discovered that information submitted in a complaint is inaccurate or incomplete such that it could be misleading, or a significant change has occurred impacting either the pre- existing view or the obstruction, an applicant may be directed to amend the complaint or submit supplemental information. In the event the Committee requires expert advice in consideration of the matter, the cost of obtaining such. evidence shall be borne by the complainant, pursuant to written agreement with the City. The City shall select such expert and enter into an agreement only upon receipt of a payment for the selected service from the party. It the City determines that an arborist's testimony is required, said arborist shall either be a consulting or certified arborist. d. Findings. The Committee shall be guided by the provisions of this Chapter, including the evaluation criteria set forth in Section 17.26.050, and the hierarchy of restorative actions set forth in Section 17.26.060, respectively, in attempting to resolve the view impairment complaint. Based on the evidence received and considered, the Committee shall make any of the following findings and adopt an advisory resolution in support of the foregoing determination: i. That no view exists within the meaning of this chapter; ii. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter, but that the view is not significantly impaired; or iii. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter and that it is significantly impaired. The Committee shall make specific written findings in support of the foregoing determinations. e. Recommendation. If the Committee finds that a pre-existing view exists within the meaning of this chapter and that it is significantly impaired pursuant to the conditions outlined in Section 17.26.050, it shall recommend such restorative action as is necessary to abate the view impairment, pursuant to section 17.26.060 of this Chapter. The Committee may recommend conditions as are necessary to prevent future view impairments. f. As described in Section 17.26.060(B), the complainant may bear the cost of the initial restorative action, unless the parties agree to share the costs in Ordinance No. 354 View Preservation (CC 10-23-17) 10 some other manner. The City shall not be responsible for enforcement of the Committee's advisory resolution. g. Within sixty (60) days of the date of the advisory resolution, if either or both parties disagree with the advisory resolution and wish to pursue a review hearing before the City Council, the disagreeing party must notify the City in writing that they wish to proceed with a review hearing before the City Council. D. Review Hearing before the City Council. If either party is not satisfied by the recommendation of the CTV, said party may request a public hearing before the City Council to review the decision of the CTV. 1. Required Information. Requests for City Council review of a CTV decision must be in writing on a form provided by the . City and shall consist of, but not be limited to, those reasons why the party is seeking review of the CTV decision before the City Council, including any supporting evidence as described by Section 17.26.050. The request for review of a CTV decision before the City Council must also be accompanied by the view impairment review fee, in the amount established by resolution of the city council. 2. Processing. City staff will review the request. If staff determines that the request form is incomplete, a letter will be mailed to the requester stating what is needed to complete the request form within sixty (60) days from the date of the letter. If the request form is deemed complete, staff will process it and prepare a notice pursuant to the requirements in Section 17.26.040(C)(4)(a)-(b), below. If the parties voluntarily elect to resolve the issue privately at any time following the filing of the request form, and notify the City of same, the City shall suspend the hearing before the City Council until such time as the parties notify the City that they have resolved the issue (thereby eliminating the need for a hearing) or that they are unable to resolve the issue and wish to proceed with the hearing. 3. Withdrawal. A request shall be deemed withdrawn and all proceedings shall be terminated with respect thereto, without prejudice, if: a. The parties notify the City that it has been voluntarily resolved; b. The requester fails or refuses to provide supplemental information requested by the City; c. The requester fails or refuses to pay the cost of the expert services; d. The requester seeks a delay of the proceedings for more than one hundred eighty (180) days (unless good cause exists for the delay); or e. The hearing before the City Council is suspended by the parties to a complaint for more than one hundred eighty (180) days. 4. Review by City Council. a. Notice Required. The City shall provide notice of the hearing a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. The hearing shall not proceed Ordinance No. 354 View Preservation (CC 10-23-17) 11 unless proof is shown that the parties received notice of the hearing as provided herein: i. Notice shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the owner of the tree or other obstructing vegetation and to the view seeker; ii. Notice shall be given by first class mail to all property owners within one thousand feet of the exterior boundary of the property on which the tree or other obstructing vegetation are located and to other persons who, in the Council's judgment, might be affected. b. Content of Notice. The notice shall state the name of the requesting party or parties, the name of the_ property owner against whom the request is made, a brief description of the tree(s) or other vegetation at issue, and the time and place of hearing. The notice shall invite written comments to be submitted prior to or at the hearing. c. Conduct of Hearing. The Council shall adopt rules for the conduct of hearings. At the hearing, the Council shall consider all written and oral testimony and evidence presented in connection with the request for review. If during the course of the proceedings it is discovered that information submitted in the request is inaccurate or incomplete such that it could be misleading, or a significant change has occurred impacting either the pre-existing view or the obstruction, an applicant may be directed to amend the request or submit supplemental information. In the event the Council requires expert advice in consideration of the matter, the cost of obtaining such evidence shall be borne by the party requesting the review, pursuant to written agreement with the City. The City shall select such expert and enter into an agreement only upon receipt of a payment for the selected service from the party. d. Findings. The Council shall be guided by the provisions of this Chapter, including the evaluation criteria set forth in Section 17.26.050, and the hierarchy of restorative actions set forth in Section 17.26.060, respectively, in attempting to resolve the view impairment issue. The review hearing shall be conducted as a de novo hearing. The Council may act to uphold, overturn, or otherwise modify the CTV's original recommendation and shall make specific written findings in support of its determination. e. Recommendation. If the Council finds that a pre-existing view exists within the meaning of this chapter and that it is significantly impaired pursuant to the conditions outlined in Section 17.26.050, it shall recommend such restorative action as is necessary to abate the view impairment, pursuant to section 17.26.060 of this Chapter. The Council may recommend conditions as are necessary to prevent future view impairments. The City Council's recommendation is purely advisory and does not impose any obligation or requirement on the parties. f. If the parties agree with the Council's advisory resolution, they must Ordinance No. 354 View Preservation (CC 10-23-17) 12 notify the City in writing within fifteen (15) days of adoption. As described in Section 17.26.060(B), the party that requested the review before the City Council may bear the cost of the initial restorative action, unless the parties agree to share the costs in some other manner. The City shall not be responsible for enforcement of the Council's advisory resolution. Within sixty (60) days of the date of the advisory resolution, if either or both parties disagree with the advisory resolution and wish to pursue arbitration, the disagreeing party must notify the City in writing that they wish to proceed with arbitration. - E. Arbitration. If the vegetation owner does not participate in mediation or mediation is unsuccessful or if either or all of the parties disagree with an advisory opinion of the City, and the parties voluntarily pursue resolution by binding arbitration then City will reimburse a portion of the parties' arbitration costs pursuant to City Council resolution. The following provisions establish the procedures required of the parties prior to any City reimbursement related to arbitration. 1. The parties shall have sixty (60) days from delivery of the request for arbitration to either accept or decline binding arbitration. Failure to respond within sixty (60) days shall be deemed formal refusal of arbitration. If arbitration is accepted, the parties shall agree in writing to the selection of an individual arbitrator within sixty (60) days of such acceptance. If the parties are unable to agree on a specific arbitrator within sixty (60) days, they may jointly request that City staff randomly select an arbitrator. 2. The arbitrator shall be guided by the provisions of this chapter in attempting to resolve the view impairment complaint. The decision of the arbitrator shall be submitted to the parties in writing and shall include the arbitrator's findings with respect to Sections 17.26.050 and 17.26.060 of this Chapter. A copy of the arbitrator's report shall be filed with the City. Any decision of the arbitrator shall be enforceable pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1280, et seq. 3. The complainant and vegetation owner shall each pay fifty (50) percent of the costs of arbitration (unless the parties agree otherwise or allow the arbitrator discretion in allocating costs); at the conclusion of binding arbitration, the City shall reimburse the parties up to a uniform predetermined amount established by City Council resolution. 17.26.050 - Considerations for applying the view preservation ordinance. A. The following nonexclusive factors, for which the parties can prove by a preponderance of the evidence, are to be considered in determining whether a pre- existing view has been obstructed: 1. The viewing point(s) from which the view is observed; Ordinance No. 354 View Preservation (CC 10-23-17). 13 2. The extent of the view obstruction, both currently and at the maximum height the tree/vegetation is likely to reach (as described by the most current edition of the New Sunset Western Garden Book); 3. The quality of the view, including the existence of landmarks, vistas, or other unique view features; 4. The extent to which trees and/or vegetation have grown to obscure the enjoyment of the view from the claimant's property since the claimant acquired his/her property; 5. The extent to which the vegetation on the property preserves privacy (visual and auditory), wind screening, energy conservation, and/or climate control; 6. The extent to which the vegetation owner can establish the earliest known date when the complained of vegetation was planted or existed on the vegetation owner's real property; and 7. The degree to which the complainant diligently tried to protect and maintain their view through informal agreements with the vegetation owner or prior vegetation owner(s) and to initiate initial discussions with the current vegetation owner; and the degree to which the current vegetation owner has reasonably participated in initial discussions. B. The following applicable, nonexclusive factors, for which the parties can prove by a preponderance of the evidence, may be considered in determining the appropriate restorative action, if any is necessary: 1. The variety of tree, its projected rate of growth (as described by the most current edition of the New Sunset Western Garden Book) and maintenance requirements; 2. The aesthetic quality of the tree(s), including but not limited to species characteristics, size, growth, form and vigor; 3. Location with respect to overall appearance, design or use -of the tree on the vegetation owner's property, including, but not limited to blending, buffering, or reduction in the scale or mass of a structure; 4. Soil stability provided by the tree(s), considering soil structure, degree of slope and extent of the tree's root system; 5. The extent to which the vegetation owner can establish the earliest known date when the complained of vegetation was planted or existed on the vegetation owner's real property; 6. Privacy (visual and auditory) and wind screening provided by the tree(s) to the tree owner and to neighbors; 7. Energy conservation, shade and/or climate controlprovided by the trees; 8. Wildlife habitat provided by the trees; 17.26.060- Restorative Action. A. Restorative actions may include, but are not limited to, the following, in order of preference, assuming no countervailing health or safety interest(s) exist: 1. Lacing. Lacing is the most preferable pruning technique that removes excess Ordinance No. 354 View Preservation (CC 10-23-17) 14 foliage and can improve the structure of the tree. 2. Crown Raising. 3. Crown Reduction. Crown reduction is preferable to tree removal, if it is determined that the impact of crown reduction does not destroy the visual proportions of the tree, adversely affect the tree's growth pattern or health, or otherwise constitute a detriment to the tree(s) in question. 4. Heading Back. Heading back is only to be permitted for trees specifically planted and maintained as a hedge, espalier, bonsai, or in pollard form and if restoration actions in sections (A) through (C) of this section will not accomplish the determined preservation action and the subsequent growth characteristics will not create a future obstruction of greater proportions. 5. 'Topping. Topping is only to be permitted for trees/vegetation species for which it is appropriate. 6. Removal. Removal may be considered when the above -mentioned restoration actions are judged to be ineffective and may be accompanied by replacement plantings or appropriate plant materials to restore the maximum benefits .lost due to vegetation removal. B. Restorative action shall include written conditions (including ongoing maintenance), directions, and a schedule by which the mandates must be completed, and may be made to run with the land and apply to successors in interest. The complainant may bear the cost of,the initial restorative action, unless the parties agree to share the costs in some other manner. Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation in question may be performed at the cost and expense of the owner of the property on which the vegetation is growing, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties or required pursuant to any final arbitration agreement or court order. The vegetation shall be maintained so as not to allow for future view impairments. C. In cases where restorative action may affect the health of a tree, such actions should be carried out in accordance with standards established by the International Society of Arboriculture for use in the state of California. Severe pruning (heading back and/or topping) should be avoided due to the damage such practice causes to the vegetation's form and health. Where . removal is required, replacement by appropriate species should be considered. 17.26.070 - Litigation. This section creates a private right of action for the view seeker against the vegetation owner under the provisions of this chapter. It is the intent of this chapter that the evaluation criteria set forth herein be utilized in adjudicating view equity claims in civil litigation. In the event of civil litigation, the plaintiff shall provide a copy of the complaint to the city. The prevailing party in any civil action brought pursuant to this chapter shall be Ordinance No. 354 View Preservation (CC 10-23-17) 15 entitled to recover its reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred in the litigation. 17.26.080 - Committee on trees and views. A Committee on Trees and Views is established for the purpose of administering advisory recommendations pursuant to section 17.26.040(C) of this chapter. The Committee shall be composed of three members of the Planning Commission appointed by the Commission annually at the same time as the Commission selects its officers, or whenever a vacancy occurs. Committee meetings shall be scheduled as adjourned or special meetings of the Commission. 17.26.090 - Enforcement and Liability. A. Under no circumstances shall the . City have any responsibility to enforce or seek any legal redress, civil or criminal, for any decision that any other person or entity makes concerning a view impairment complaint. 1.3. The issuance of mediation findings, an arbitration award, or a court decision shall not create any liability of the City with regard to the restorative actions to be performed. C. A failure to comply with the provisions of this Chapter is not a violation of this code, and the enforcement of this Chapter shall be only by the affected and interested private parties. Ordinance No. 354 View Preservation (CC 10-23-17) 16 Christine Greenberg ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 32 Portuguese Bend Rd. Agenda Item No: 6-C Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Mtg. Date: 10/09/17 Home phone: 310.541.6271 Rolling Hills, City Council City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Rd. Rolling Hills, CA 90274 10/07/2017 RE: View Complaint -Related litigation and expenses Dear Council Members, RECEVE OCT 0 9 2017 City of Rolling Hil a. By A,a_nd de.ct vececf 10 pi On 09/25/2017, the city council voted 4-1 to amend the view ordinance and replace the "Advisor Opinion" process with the prior view complaint process to use city tax dollars to pay for the litigation costs of individual residents. The reason given for this decision was that it would help residents that were at a financial disadvantage. While on the surface it appears compassionate, it has the opposite effect. It also opens the city up for unknown costs and unlimited future financial liabilities. There is no evidence to support that this is how this ordinance has been applied in the past, or will be applied in the future. In fact, the history shows quite the opposite effect. It is the tree owners that have been the victims of the city backing of the view seekers. By using the full force of the city's funds and resources, the tree owner is at a financial disadvantage because they have to pay for the full cost of their experts and legal representation. How can this be a level playing field when the city backs one resident/view seeker against another resident/tree owner? The claim of a level playing field does exactly the opposite. For example, my neighbors the Reis never had a view. This was a sub -division that was built at a lower elevation and behind my fully grown trees. Plus I had documented proof that the Reis never had a view. Because of the view ordinance, (prior to measure B) and with the full financial backing of the city, the city ordered 72 mature trees to be cut in half, destroying my property value. How can this be a level playing field when the city is paying for all the costs, including staff preparation, expert reports/testimony, complying with various legal/county/state laws and regulations), while I had to pay all the expenses to defend myself against which I believed to be a unlawful taking of my property. For Example, in my case the city paid for: 1). Staff preparation of 2- CEQA filings and 2- revisions; 2) City hired mediator; 3) City paid Arborist 2-3 site visits and report preparation ; 4) Bolton Engineering on site evaluation and reports; 5) 2 years of planning staff preparation and work on view ordinance ; 6) City Attorney and staff. How is it fair or compassionate .if the city pays all expenses for view seekers, while the tree owner has to pay all their own expenses associated with defending their property? This went on for two years because my neighbor, the Reis/view seeker had no incentive to settle because the city was paying for all their costs associated with the view ordinance. The cost to me and the city tax payers was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and this was before we went to court. I believe this could have been settled by mediation if the city had not been paying for all the costs. When the city pays there is a NO incentive to settle, because the view seeker knows they can hold out for the maximum benefit, because the city is paying and not the view seeker. Mayor Black stated that he looked at the costs of litigation for the past two cases, and determined that he was okay with legal costs to the city. What were the actual costs? I believe the last two cases he used were mine and Howard Hall's. This is faulty data, because both cases ended with the passage of voter approved measure "B". If those cases had continued through the legal system, the costs would have been considerably higher. I believe the City Council has a fiduciary responsibility to avoid exposing the city to potential litigation and open ended costs: Or to put it another way, not directly involve city residents in costly litigation that they will ultimately have to pay for. Beside the council's fiduciary responsibility to the residents/taxpayers, what is the amount of loss/cost to the city picking sides in this view ordinance? What costs can the city sustain before it impacts the city's ability to maintain services? I would encourage the City council to adopt the planning commission recommended plan, the "Advisor opinion model". I also am opposed to the inclusion of wording that allows any view that resulted from a neighbor trimming their tree, to be enforced. All views should be based on the view they originally purchased with their property. I believe that any council member who might financially benefit from any council approval of this or any ordinance, recuse themselves and not vote or take a position on the ordinance. I would also like to thank you for your interest and efforts in making this a better community. Having the city exposed to unlimited cost and litigation does not make Rolling Hills better. Your consideration is appreciated. Sincerely, g Christine Greenberg Monday, October 9, 2017 at 12:5R1 aciElkotri) Subject: View Preservation Ordinance - 2017 our comments Date: Monday, October 9, 2017 at 12:55:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time OCT 0 9 2017 From: Elliott Brunner «_ _ .> City of Rollin Hills To: Yvette Hall <yhall@cityofrh.net>, Ewa Nikodem <enikodem@cityofrh.netty t°161" � My name is Dr Elliott Brunner. I live at 26 Cinchring Rd with my wife, Dr Nourit Korzennik. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of my view. Most cities do not have a View Ordinance; those that do have Ordinances that define the role of their City Councils as strictly advisory. This is what your own Planning Commission recommended, which you disregarded. A rare exception is Rancho Palos Verdes. But their View Ordinance is much more restrictive than what you propose. It regulates one vantage point inside the view seeker's dwelling and limits the impact to one neighbor at no more than 1000 feet distance. Yet, they employ 2 full-time staff and spent $370,000- last year to adjudicate around 80 cases. Your new View Ordinance specifies any number of viewpoints from anywhere on the 'view seeker's' property for any distance at any point in time since the property was purchased. The amount of extra staff time and added personnel that will be required will be enormous. The potential cost to the City of Rolling Hills could easily bankrupt it. To the City Council: Please return to and adopt our own Planning Commissions proposal. To all Voters and Members of Rolling Hills: Vote No on Ballot Proposition C. Problems with proposed Ordinance: 1. By law any City Ordinance must provide for the general welfare of its inhabitants and not benefit solely a select few persons 2. There will be greatly increased financial exposure because of the City's role as a quasi-judicial dispute resolution process instead of an advisory role as recommendation by the Planning Commissions version of the resolution 3. Establishes increased inequality of 'view seekers' vs `vegetation owners' 4. The new ordinance creates the moral hazard wherein the litigation costs of 'view seekers' is borne by the city but not those of the 'vegetation owner' We support and endorse the following content, as expressed by Councilwoman Bea Dieringer and we urge the City Council to return to the Proposal of our Planning Commission (9/25/17 Exhibit 1) and adopt it instead of their current proposal: On 9/25/17 the Council voted 4-1 to disregard the views expressed by almost all the residents who spoke on this issue at the Planning Commission hearings, namely, that the City should not pay the litigation costs for the parties who elect to go to court after participating in the City's view complaint process. In so doing, the Council majority also ignored the recommendation of its own Planning Commission. The Council's proposed amendment, which is to be voted on at the Council meeting on 10/9/17, would change the process outlined in the Commission's recommended ordinance, which had been modeled after the ordinances of almost all cities with view ordinances. Under this model, the City would render an advisory opinion regarding the view complaint (and contribute some money toward the arbitration costs for those interested in binding arbitration), but would not incur any of the costs for litigation, since the parties would be responsible for their own litigation costs if either party was dissatisfied with the results of mediation, city view committee review, city council appeal and/or arbitration or wanted to obtain court enforcement of the City's advisory opinion. Instead of voting for this predominantly used model, the Council majority voted to go back to the system whereby the City not only pays for the costs of having our small staff investigate and prepare reports for these complaints but also pays for all the costs associated with enforcing whatever decision is reached. Consequently, the City would incur all the legal costs, without any mechanism for reimbursement, of filing an action in civil court to enforce its decisions and would also have to pay all the legal fees in defending its decisions in court if the decisions are challenged by a party. If a party prevails against the City, our tax dollars would also be used to pay these prevailing parties' expensive attorney's fees and costs in addition to the City's legal fees and costs. In addition to the above civil costs, the City would pay to enforce its decisions by prosecuting any noncomplying residents in criminal court for their "crimes" and for their creation of a "public nuisance." As you probably know, our City's resources are very limited. We only receive a small portion of the property taxes collected from residents and some service -related fees; these are our primary sources of revenue with which we fund all city services to our residents. The litigation costs from the proposed Council majority's amendment could cost the City tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars that we cannot afford to pay if we are to continue providing the City services that residents are accustomed to receiving. In addition to the above financial hardship, under the proposed new ordinance, the City would be required to expend additional resources and staff time to investigate these view complaints than they did under the previous longstanding ordinance, which limited a view complaint to one view point that was within or adjacent to one's residence. The proposed new ordinance permits a view complainant to request views from an unlimited number of viewpoints in or near their residence or accessory structures. Plus, complaints can be filed against an unlimited number of neighbors who have vegetation in any of the requested views. Moreover, the proposed new ordinance permits a view complainant to petition for a view based not only on the views they had when they first acquired their property, but also based on any views that they ever had during the entire ownership period. Consequently, Rolling Hills tree owners who had been kind enough to allow their neighboring view seeker to pay for the trimming of their trees to enhance the view seeker's view, can now be forced by the City to pay for providing the best view, (including a panoramic view), that the view seeker ever had and to pay for maintaining that view in perpetuity every two years. The City generally also records a condition on a tree owner's deed that provides notice to all subsequent buyers of the tree owner's property that these buyers would be required to pay for maintaining the view seeker's view. This condition can negatively affect the value of the tree owner's property and his ability to sell it with such a costly maintenance condition attached. This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here to report this email as spam. Monday, October 9, 2017 1:36 PM Subject: FW: VIEW question Date: Monday, October 9, 2017 1:36 PM From: Yvette Hall <yhall@cityofrh.net> ECE1VE From: < - , •I> Date: October 9, 2017 at 11:16:52 AM PDT To: <rcruz@cityofrh.net> Subject: VIEW question OCT 0 9 2017 City of Rolling Hills By Dear Ray Cruz, Because I may not be able to attend the meeting this evening, I want to let you know my views on the view question. My son and I agree that the Council adopt the unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission that the City NOT incur any legal liability nor have to pay the litigation and other enforcement costs of individual view complaint parties. Verna Balch 6 Hackamore Road 310-377-3288 Page 1 of 1 Monday, October 9, 2017 at 3:43:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: FW: URGENT MESSAGE Date: Monday, October 9, 2017 at 3:29:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Ray Cruz <rcruz@cityofrh.net> To: Yvette Hall <yhall@cityofrh.net> CC: Ewa Nikodem <enikodem@cityofrh.net> Please place on the dais. Raymond R. Cruz City Manager City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310 377-1521 F: 310-377-7288 RECEIVE OCT 0 9 2017 City of Rolling Hills By This is a transmission from the City of Rolling Hills. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The CITY OF ROLLING HILLS accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. From: " r_.> Date: Monday, October 9, 2017 at 12:12 PM To: Raymond Cruz <rcruz(cityofrh.net> Cc: Bea Dieringer <bdieringerPcityofrh.net> Subject: URGENT MESSAGE To Ray Cruz and the Rolling Hills City Council: I strongly urge that the Rolling Hills City Council adopt the unanimous recommendation of the Rolling Hills Planning Commission that the City NOT incur any legal liability nor have to pay the litigation and other enforcement costs of individual view complaint parties. Inez L. Foye 32 Caballeros Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (Resident since 9/1/1961) Monday, October 9, 2017 4:37 PM Subject: View Ordinance Date: Monday, October 9, 2017 4:20 PM From: Nancy < _ To: Yvette Hall <yhall@cityofrh.net> City of Rolling Hills Council, RECEIVE OCT 0 9 2017 City of Rolling Hills By We are sorry to not be able to attends tonight's meeting as we have another commitment. 1. We support the proposed new view ordinance. As homeowners who have lost our view up the coast to Malibu and the lower part of the Los Angeles basin, we are in support of people being able to retain or reinstate their views no matter who owns the property. Prospective owners will be encouraged to buy here as they know that their views will also be protected. 2. We are encouraging the City Council to adopt the "advisory opinion" so the City would not be held legally liable if someone sued the City pertaining to views. Thank you all for your gift of time and expertise in helping our City. Ralph and Nancy Schmoller 4 Middleridge Lane South Page 1 of 1 10-9-2017 We are the Shermans and we reside at 33 Crest Road East. Standing before you tonight feels like Groundhog Day and, as most of you know, we know what it is like to buy a "dream home" in Rolling Hills and suddenly be sued by two neighbors who make unreasonable, selfish demands with the sole motivation to obtain a view from about 40 years ago ( well before our house was even built) and about 20 years ago no matter what. Our question has always been , "Why didn't they complain decades ago?? We know what itis like to fight to preserve the removal of soil supporting trees, whose removal would geologically weaken and predispose our property to devastating landslides from rainfall. Our geologist confirmed this potential condition. We know what it is like to bear the burden of huge legal expenses to defend what should be rightfully ours and then be forced to pay for all future maintenance, instead of shared maintenance costs, just so that our neighbors will be satisfied with their acquired views. We continue to cooperate with our neighbors and cut our hedges and trees to the ridge line top of our house. It is an ongoing process at our expense. The legal expenses of defending our property in 2014and 2015 well exceeded $ 100,000 We know what it is like to have a recording on our property deed that will negatively affect the value of our home forever and our ability to sell it in the future, especially with a complainant able to " request views from an unlimited number of viewpoints in or near their residence and various accessory structures." , rather than just " one view point " as above. We know the stress, the agony, the frustration and although many of you may think that it can't possibly happen to you THINK AGAIN if the new ordinance passes . VOTE NOONC. You too may walk in our footsteps and we ALL will allbe walking in a city that will be on the verge of financial ruin and collapse . Michael Sherman RECEIVED Sandy Sherman) UCT 0 9 2017 CO of Roll ng tilts By CC October 9,2017 Rolling Hills City Councilpersons: I refer you to Exhibit F and page 75 of Planning Commission Document 2/21/2017 (attached). Of the 21 cities studied, 90% rejected view enforcement or accepting liability for litigation. 50% put in specific liability protection clauses for their city. A third of these cities did not even have a view ordinance. Yet 4 out of 5 of you stated that you want to enforce the proposed view ordinance and pay for litigation and staff time in support of the view complainant. You liked the provisions which will make taxpayers pay for litigation and staff time for each complainant homeowner against multiple residents, both near and far; and let that same homeowner return multiple times with more taxpayer funded view complaints, either; 1) to cut others trees when the complainant finds the view is still impaired or 2) to begin the process over and over again to get a view from multiple other locations on the same property. You propose to saddle our tiny community with the liabilities and hatred that will result from a few people on the City Council supporting a few individuals financially to destroy their neighbors property values, privacy, and enjoyment based on family and friends testimony that 20 to 40 years ago they had a view, over photos that show the opposite is true. With 685 homes and no commercial businesses, we are little more than an incorporated housing development. But you want us to assume liabilities and costs that economically prosperous/large cities like Beverly Hills, Berkeley, Brentwood, Malibu, Oakland and Santa Barbara will not even consider. Even the Planning Commission, after months of serious study, unanimously concluded that this is a very bad idea. You are asking us to assume these unreasonable financial risks at a time when we are facing multiple threats such as aging infrastructure (eg asbestos in our water pipes), a major earthquake, or landslides on tree stripped hillsides from typhoon level rainfall created by rising ocean temperatures (currently being forecast by climate scientists). We need a financially responsible City Council. You talked about a moral responsibility to enforce this ordinance. What about your moral responsibility to protect us from bankruptcy! And to protect this beautiful city that you were elected to govern, not to destroy. This proposed ordinance is deeply flawed. You should drop consideration of it. If you do not, please modify this ordinance to, for instance: 1) require irrefutable proof, not mere testimony, that the view sought existed when the property owner purchased the property; 2) balance restoration of a view with consideration of the harm associated with stripping significant vegetation and privacy from another's property, eg view corridors only, leaving trees that provide shade to reduce the increasing heat in our homes and yards; 3) do not enforce the ordinance, involve city staff, or pay litigation or processing costs; 4) incorporate a liability protection clause; 5) Avoid any action that encourages one neighbor to instigate a lawsuit against another; 6) Do not allow a homeowner to file a view complaint with the City for multiple locations on the property; 7) Do not allow a purchaser to ask for a view that occurred after purchase for reasons such as wind, storms, diseased tree cutting, fire, etc. Sincerely, Cathy Nichols RECEIVED 14 Crest Rd W, Rolling Hills, CO 2O'L 2017 City of Rollina Hills By Roa'Li-cam '�-`� JAN 0 6 2017 City of Rolling Hills By 02 7 3 ID /1 l7 19 l9 CITIES WITH VIEWS VIEW ORDINANCES Advisory v. Quasi -Judicial Release of City from Liability v. Liable for Litigation CITY ADVISORY + LIABILITY PROTECTION CLAUSE QUASI-3UDICIAL + LIABILE FOR LITIGATION NO VIEW ORDINANCE Berkeley X Beverly Hills X X Belvedere No Clause Brentwood X Carmel -By -The -Sea X Corte Madera X Et Cerrito X Hidden Hills X LaCanada-Flintridge X Laguna Beach X Malibu X Oakland X Orinda X Palos Verdes Estates X Rancho Palos Verdes Ballot Measure Rolling Hills Estates X San Juan Capistrano X San Luis Obispo X Santa Barbara X Sausalito ' X Tiburon X TOTALS 12 2 8 1 l P+,i g e Planning Commission DATE: OCTOBER 9, 2017 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROCESSING VIEW PRESERVATION CASES This is in response to Councilmember Dieringer's and Mayor Black's request for information regarding: 1. Staff's time and City's cost for processing view preservation cases in the past few years; 2. Request for an estimate of attorney's fees in the two cases that were pursued through the court system. 1. As was reported to members of the City Council last week, staff estimated that the processing of a typical view case (including mediation, CTV and City Council, on appeal) may take between 100 to 250 hours of staff's time, depending on the complexity of the case, number of trees involved and other factors. It is estimated that the cost of processing a case for 100 hours of staffs time would be $7,705 and in the most lengthy case of 250 hours - $19,263 This assumes 60% of the hours spent by the Planning Director 15% of the hours spent by the City Clerk and Administrative Assistant, each and 10% spent by the City Manger 2. City has incurred $55,227 in attorney's fees in the two lawsuits brought under the view ordinance; (these were the only lawsuits brought since 1988, when the first View Preservation Ordinance became effective). teest a/Rd/a/9 qiceea INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 TO: FROM: THRU: SUBJECT: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 6-B Mtg. Date: 10/23/17 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR NATALIE C. KARPELES, ASSISTANT CITY ATTO NEY RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER i SECOND READING, WAIVE FULL READING AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 355 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 17.29 TO TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL MARIJUANA ACTIVITIES, ALLOW FOR THE DELIVERY OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA, AND TO REGULATE THE CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA FOR PERSONAL AND MEDICAL USE WITHIN THE CITY, IN ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2017-02. DATE NOTICE PUBLISHED: SEPTEMBER 28, 2017 ATTACHMENTS: A. ORDINANCE NO. 355 B. STRIKED-THRU ORDINANCE NO. 355 FROM 10/9/17 CC MEETING (removing outdoor cultivation) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council take public testimony, waive full reading and adopt on second reading the ordinance or provide other direction to staff. CITY COUNCIL'S ACTION AT THE OCTOBER 9, 2017 MEETING Ordinance No. 355 was introduced for first reading at a public hearing at the City Council 10-9-17 meeting. The language of the ordinance was recommended by the Planning Commission and included allowance for outdoor cultivation of marijuana for medical and personal purpose. Following public testimony and discussion, members of the City Council directed staff to delete all references to outdoor cultivation and allow indoor cultivation only. Ordinance No. 355, for City Council's consideration would allow cultivation of up to 6 marijuana plants, indoors only in a residence or in an accessory structure. BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS ACTION BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL In 2015, the California legislature adopted the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA) to comprehensively regulate medical marijuana. The MMRSA recognized and preserved local control to regulate or ban medical cannabis cultivation, delivery, dispensing, and distribution. However, it also contained language that required medical marijuana cultivation and delivery services to be expressly prohibited by local ordinance, if the City wished to do so, or the State's regulations would become effective in March 2016. Therefore, if the City wished to ban certain marijuana activities, there was an urgency to adopt such an ordinance. In January 2016 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council amend the Municipal Code allowing delivery of medical marijuana, with certain conditions, and prohibiting cultivation of medical marijuana for personal use. However, following testimonies from residents, members of the Planning Commission expressed concern with prohibition of all cultivation, but felt that this provision could be amended at a future date. Just prior to March 1, 2016, the Governor signed a bill removing the urgency. Given that the urgency to adopt an ordinance by a March date no longer existed, when the City Council heard the matter, staff provided the City Council with. two versions of the ordinance, one banning cultivation and one, (addressing the Commission's concern), allowing cultivation (indoor and outdoor) of small quantities for medicinal uses. In March 2016, the City Council introduced the ordinances and selected the ordinance allowing cultivation for discussion and public input (with one dissenting vote). Ultimately, the Council moved to table consideration of the Ordinance, as it became evident that a Proposition (Proposition 64) would qualify for a ballot in the November 2016 Statewide Election, which included provisions for allowing marijuana activities for any personal use. On November 8, 2016, California voters passed Proposition 64 the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA). The AUMA establishes a comprehensive system to legalize, control, and regulate the cultivation, processing, manufacture, distribution, testing, and sale of nonmedical cannabis, including cannabis products. As of November 9, 2016, adults 21 years of age or older are allowed to smoke or. ingest cannabis or cannabis products; possess, process, transport, purchase, obtain, or give away to persons 21 years of age or older up to 28.5 grams of un-concentrated recreational cannabis and up to 8 grams of concentrated cannabis; and possess, plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, or process up to six (6) living marijuana plants per residence for personal use. The AUMA divides state licensing and enforcement into three agencies: (1) the Department of Consumer Affairs, which will issue licenses for the transportation, storage, distribution and sale of cannabis; (2) the Department of Food and Agriculture, which will be responsible for issuing cannabis cultivation licenses; and (3) the Department of Public Health, which will issue licenses for cannabis manufacturers and testing laboratories. Each of these state licensing authorities is tasked with creating regulations governing their respective areas of responsibility, and will begin issuing licenses for these activities by January 1, 2018. In June 2017, the Governor signed SB 94 (the Medicinal and Adult -Use. Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) to consolidate the provisions providing for the licensure and regulation of commercial medicinal cannabis activity and commercial recreational cannabis activity under a single regulatory scheme. The MAUCRSA allows cities to retain local control over commercial marijuana activities including the ability to ban them - and creates a more streamlined system for state licensing agencies to work with local governments to ensure that licensees are operating in compliance with local laws (including building and fire safety standards, and any local amendments thereto). However, one notable lingering difference remains: while recreational cannabis can only be purchased and used by persons 21 years of age or older, medical cannabis remains available for patients 18 years of age or older. The licensing regulations for all of the various cannabis activities authorized under the MAUCRSA are still being developed by the state and will be adopted through emergency rulemaking processes later this year. While the language of the City's code currently by default prohibits medical and nonmedical marijuana uses; such blanket prohibitions are now preempted by state law furthermore, the AUMA contains provisions which encourage express marijuana regulations despite the fact that the City prohibits uses not listed in its zoning code. Lastly, the state licensing regulations are still being drafted; it is unclear, at this time, whether the state will require some proof of compliance with local laws before a state license is issued. Therefore, the City must have an ordinance in place before January 1, 2018, detailing exactly which cannabis activities are (or are not) permitted in the City; otherwise the state may issue a license for marijuana activities in the City that the City may not want.2 1 Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (the City's Zoning Ordinance) lists specifically_ permitted uses within the City's various zones. As marijuana uses are not permitted by right or with a conditional use permit, they are prohibited. 2 While the City may wait to enact its ordinance, doing so increases the chance that state licenses may be issued for commercial cannabis activities within the City; if state licenses have been issued for activities later prohibited by the City's ordinance, it will be exceedingly difficult to terminate these licensed operations quickly Given the new law, it is desirable to adopt an ordinance that is in compliance with State Law, but also one that is relevant to the City of Rolling Hills. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the use of marijuana at their September 19, 2017 meeting and adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance related to this topic. Their recommendation included provision for allowing outdoor and indoor cultivation of up to 6 plants, and was based on the City Council's discussion in 2016, at which time four out of the five Councilmembers favored outdoor cultivation. The cultivation would be limited to 6 plants, cumulative. However, at the October 9, 2017 City Council meeting, Councilmembers concluded to disallow outdoor cultivation and requested that staff prepare an ordinance excluding it. PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT The following is a summary of the proposed amendments: A. Section 17.08.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) will be amended to prohibit commercial marijuana activities by adding subparagraph B. This section will read as follows: 17.08.050 - Zoning compliance required. A. Except as provided in this title, no building shall be erected, reconstructed or structurally altered, nor shall any building or land be used for any purpose except as specifically provided for and allowed by this title. Any use or structure not specifically permitted by this title shall be prohibited. B. The commercial cultivation, dispensation, and mobile dispensing of marijuana are expressly prohibited in all zones of the City (per Section 17.16.020 B and Chapter 17.29). Accordingly, the City shall not issue any permit, license, or other entitlement for the commercial cultivation, dispensation, and mobile dispensing of marijuana. B. Section 17.16.020(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code will be amended by adding subparagraphs 3 and 4 to read as follows: 17.16.020 — Permitted and prohibited uses. A. Uses permitted in the RA -S zone as primary uses include: 1. Single-family residences; 2. Tree, bush or field crops provided there is no retail sale from the premises and provided the activity does not cause undue traffic not normally associated with residential use. B. The following uses are prohibited in the RA -S zone: 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to offer or make available for rent or to rent (by way of a rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral or written) for compensation a residential dwelling or a room in a dwelling for occupancy of less than thirty days. 2. It shall be unlawful for any person to occupy a residential dwelling or a room in a dwelling for less than thirty days pursuant to a rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral or written, for compensation. 3. Dispensing of Cannabis and non -medicinal Cannabis delivery by any mobile marijuana dispensary (as those terms are defined in section 17.29.020). 4. Commercial cannabis activities, (as those terms are defined in section 17.29.020). Notwithstanding the foregoing, this section does not apply to the delivery of medical marijuana to qualified patients or their Primary Caregivers, as those terms are defined in section 17.29.020). C. A new Chapter, Chapter 17.29 will be added to the RH Municipal Code Section 17.29.010 Purpose. The AUMA and MAUCRSA require a state license to engage in commercial cannabis activity. Neither the AUMA nor MAUCRSA prevent cities from adopting and enforcing local ordinances regulating or completely prohibiting commercial cannabis activities. If operation of a commercial cannabis activity would violate local ordinance, the AUMA prohibits the state from issuing such a license. In order to ensure that the state departments responsible for licensure are clear on the City's prohibitions and to prevent the inadvertent issuance of commercial cannabis licenses, section 17.29.010 expressly states that the purpose of the City's ordinance is to prohibit all commercial cannabis activities within the City. However, it is also intended to apply reasonable regulations to personal indoor cultivation as authorized under state law and to allow delivery of medical marijuana to individuals in the city that may be unable to travel .to locations outside the city to obtain the marijuana. Section 17.29.020 Definitions. The definitions in the proposed resolution have been taken from the Acts, the AUMA and the MAUCRSA in order to foster clarity and consistency between the City and the state. In so doing, there should be no confusion as to which state -licensed activities the City is prohibiting, regulating or permitting such that the state will not inadvertently license an activity which is prohibited by the City. Section 17.29.030 Prohibited uses and activities. The AUMA and MAUCRSA. create a comprehensive regulatory structure in which every cannabis business is overseen by a specialized state agency known as the Bureau of Marijuana Control, housed in the California Department of Consumer Affairs. The Department of Consumer Affairs is responsible for licensing and overseeing cannabis retailers, distributors, and microbusinesses. The Department of Food and Agriculture will license and oversee cannabis cultivation, ensuring it is environmentally safe. The Department of Public Health will license and oversee manufacturing and testing, ensuring consumers receive a safe product. In order to promote clarity and ensure that each state agency is aware of the City's position on commercial marijuana uses, this section expressly prohibits commercial cannabis activities in all zones within the City for which a state license would be required. This section explains that delivery of nonmedical marijuana is prohibited within the City; but delivery of medical marijuana is permitted. The prohibition is for marijuana activities for both, profit and non-profit. Section 17.29.040 Exceptions to listed prohibited uses/activities. Under the AUMA generally, individuals 21 years of age or older are allowed to (1) smoke or ingest marijuana or marijuana products; (2) possess, process, transport, purchase, obtain, or give away to persons 21 years of age or older up to 28.5 grams of un-concentrated recreational marijuana and up to 8 grams of concentrated marijuana;3 and (3) possess, plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, or process up to six (6) living marijuana plants per residence for personal use, without a state license.4 This section exempts those uses which are permitted under state law and explains that marijuana cultivation for personal use - while allowed - will be regulated in section 17.29.050. Secondly, while the AUMA allows cities to ban deliveries within their territorial limits, the Planning Commission and City Council during the 2016 ordinance review have indicated that deliveries of medical marijuana should be available to qualified patients residing in the City. Section 17.29.040 expressly exempts from the City's prohibitions the delivery of medical marijuana - while expressly prohibiting the delivery of recreational marijuana. 3 Any person possessing an amount over these limits may be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor. 4 Health& Safety Code §§ 11362.1(a) & 11362.2(a) Section 17.29.050 Conditions regarding personal cultivation. Local governments may regulate or ban all personal and commercial outdoor cultivation.5 The proposed ordinance allows indoor cultivation and reasonably restricts the cultivation of no more than six marijuana plants, total, in a residence or fully - enclosed accessory structure. No more than 100 sq.ft. of the area of the structure where the cultivation takes place may be used for the cultivation. If in accessory structure, said use may only be located in the rear yard, and the cultivation may take place all in one location. Reasonable restrictions proposed by this section include requirements that cultivation activities be obscured from view; comply with electricity, ventilation and security requirements; and do not contribute to nuisance conditions such as odor, light, noxious gases, vibration or other impacts. Section 17.29.060 Public nuisance. Any violation of chapter 17.29 shall be deemed a public nuisance and may be abated pursuant to Chapter 8.24 of the RHMC. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND NOTIFICATION Prior to the writing of this report, staff received two inquires about the ordinance to clarify the provisions. A notice of this public hearing was published in the Peninsula News on September 28, 2017 and posted at City Hall. In addition, the City Council meeting agendas were included in latest City Newsletter. The agendas and staff reports were posted on the City's website and notification of this item was sent to those residents who signed up for automatic notifications of "Pending Ordinances". The staff report and the agenda was also provided to the RHCA. 5 The AUMA includes language that any ordinance that bans personal outdoor cultivation could be repealed upon the California Attorney General's determination that nonmedical use of cannabis is lawful under federal law. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ORDINANCE NO. 355 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 17.29 TO TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL (MEDICAL AND NON -MEDICAL) MARIJUANA ACTIVITIES, ALLOW FOR THE DELIVERY OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA, AND TO REGULATE THE CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA FOR PERSONAL AND MEDICAL USE WITHIN THE CITY, IN ZONING CODE AMENDMNET NO. 2017-02. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does ordain as follows: Section 1. Commercial marijuana activities, including commercial cultivation, can adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the public. Section 2. Rolling Hills Municipal Code ("RHMC") Section 17.08.050 provides that uses not specifically permitted in the RHMC are prohibited. Section 17.16.020 provides a list of permitted uses and prohibited uses. Commercial uses are not specifically permitted; therefore, they are prohibited. However, the City has determined that recent developments in State Law regarding the regulation of marijuana make it necessary to clarify that uses such as the commercial cultivation and dispensing of marijuana are expressly banned in the City of Rolling Hills, while other activities such as delivery of medical marijuana to patients and indoor personal cultivation are permitted. Section 3. The City Council does hereby find as follows: A. On October 9, 2015, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 243, Assembly Bill 266, and Senate Bill 643 into law, which was collectively known as the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA). The MMRSA established a state licensing scheme for commercial medical cannabis uses, while protecting local control by requiring that all such businesses have a local license or permit to operate in addition to a state license. The MMRSA allowed the City to completely prohibit commercial medical cannabis activities. B. On November 8, 2016, California voters approved the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA). The AUMA added Division 10 to the California Business and Professions Code, sections 26000, et seq., which grants state agencies the authority to create, issue, renew, discipline, suspend, or revoke licenses for cannabis businesses. The AUMA. provides that the state shall begin issuing licenses to cannabis businesses under Division 10 of the California Business and Professions Code by January 1, 2018. California Business and Professions Code section 26055(e) provides that a state licensing authority shall not approve an application for a state license for commercial non -medical cannabis activity if approval of the state license will violate the provisions of any local ordinance. C. On June 27, 2017, the Governor signed into law Senate Bill 94, which created a single regulatory scheme for both medical and nonmedical cannabis known as the Medicinal and Adult -Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA). SB 94 created one regulatory structure for medical and nonmedical cannabis use and commercial cannabis activities. The MAUCRSA retains the provisions in the MMRSA and the AUMA that granted local jurisdictions control over whether commercial cannabis activity could occur in a particular jurisdiction. Specifically, California Business Ordinance No. 355 and Professions Code section 26200 provides that the MAUCRSA shall not be interpreted to supersede or limit the authority of a local jurisdiction to adopt and enforce local ordinances that completely prohibit the establishment or operation of one or more businesses licensed under the state, within that local jurisdiction. Furthermore, the MAUCRSA provides that a state licensing authority shall not approve an application for a state license for a business to engage in commercial cannabis activity if approval of the state license will violate the provisions of any local ordinance or regulation. The AUMA and MAUCRSA require that a state licensing authority begin issuing licenses to marijuana businesses beginning January 1, 2018. D. Commercial marijuana activities can adversely affect the health, safety, and well-being of City residents. E. The Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC) does not currently expressly and separately regulate the commercial marijuana activities within the City. In order to ensure full local control over regulation of commercial marijuana activities in the City is preserved, the AUMA and MAUCRSA encourage the City to adopt an ordinance expressly regulating commercial marijuana activities, if the City wishes to do so. F. The Zoning Ordinance text amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan because the proposed ordinance is in the public interest and there are community benefits resulting from the regulation of marijuana. Section 4. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the environmental impacts of the action be assessed. This project was assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); the State CEQA Guidelines (the Guidelines), and the environmental regulations of the City. The Planning Commission hereby finds that under Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that the provisions contained herein would not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. No possibility exists that the proposed zone text amendment would have a significant effect on the environment. This ordinance prohibits uses that are currently not allowed in the City but due changes in state law, is expected to proliferate throughout the state in areas where local agencies permit the uses. So this ordinance clarifies an existing ban to cover new cannabis related activities and uses that are now permitted through recent changes in state law. This ordinance continues the status quo and will not result in changes to the environment. To the extent that state law allows personal cultivation of cannabis limited to six plants, this ordinance imposes reasonable restrictions to make sure the activity is done in a safe manner and complies with Titles 8, 15 and 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. As a result, this ordinance will not result in changes to the environment. Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills hereby adopts Ordinance No. 355, Zoning Text Amendment No. 2017-02, as follows: Section 6. Section 17.08.050 of Chapter 17.08 of Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 17.08.050 - Zoning compliance required. A. Except as provided in this title, no building shall be erected, reconstructed or structurally altered, nor shall any building or land be used for any purpose except Ordinance No. 355 2 as specifically provided for and allowed by this title. Any use or structure not specifically permitted by this title shall be prohibited. B. The commercial cultivation, dispensation, and mobile dispensing of marijuana are expressly prohibited in all zones of the City (as set out in Section 17.16.020 B and Chapter 17.29). Accordingly, the City shall not issue any permit, license, or other entitlement for the commercial cultivation, dispensation, and mobile dispensing of marijuana. Section 7. Section 17.16.020(B) of Chapter 17.16 of Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is amended by adding new subparagraphs 3 and 4 to read as follows: 17.16.020 — Permitted and prohibited uses. B. The following uses are prohibited in the RA -S zone: 3. Dispensing of Cannabis and non -medicinal Cannabis delivery by any mobile marijuana dispensary (as those terms are defined in section 17.29.020). 4. Commercial cannabis activity, (as those terms are defined in section 17.29.020). Notwithstanding the foregoing, this section does not apply to the delivery of medical marijuana to Qualified Patients or their Primary Caregivers, (as those terms are defined in section 17.29.020). Section 8. Anew Chapter 17.29, "Marijuana Prohibitions and Regulations" is added to Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code to read as follows: Title 17 Chapter 17.29 Marijuana Prohibitions and Regulations Sections: 17.29.010 Purpose. 17.29.020 Defmitions. 17.29.030 Prohibited uses and activities. 17.29.040 Exceptions. 17.29.050 Personal Marijuana Cultivation — conditions. 17.29.060 Public nuisance. Section 17.29.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to expressly prohibit the establishment of commercial cannabis uses in the City. The City Council fords that prohibitions on commercial cannabis activity are necessary for the preservation and protection of the public health, safety and welfare of the City. The prohibition of such uses is within the authority conferred upon the City Council by state law and is an exercise of its police powers to enact and enforce regulations for the public health, safety and welfare of the City. This Chapter is also intended to apply reasonable regulations to personal indoor cultivation as authorized under state law and to allow delivery of medical marijuana to individuals in the city that may be unable Ordinance No. 355 3 to travel to locations outside the city to obtain the marijuana. Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted to conflict with state law, including without limitation the Compassionate Use Act, the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) and the MAUCRSA, as may be amended. Section 17.29.020 Definitions. As used in this chapter: Cannabis, or Marijuana, shall mean all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa Linnaeus, Cannabis indica, or Cannabis ruderalis, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin, whether crude or purified, extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin. "Cannabis/Marijuana" also means the separated resin, whether crude or purified, obtained from cannabis. "Cannabis/Marijuana" also includes cannabis that is used for medical, non -medical, or other purposes. However, "Cannabis/Marijuana" does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination. "Cannabis/Marijuana" also does not include industrial hemp, as defined in California Health and Safety Code section 11018.5. Cannabis Accessories means any equipment, products or materials of any kind which are intended for use, or designated for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, smoking, vaporizing, or containing cannabis, or for ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing cannabis or cannabis products into the human body. Cannabis Product means cannabis that has undergone a process whereby the plant material has been transformed into a concentrate, including, but not limited to, concentrated cannabis, or an edible or topical product containing cannabis or concentrated cannabis and other ingredients. Commercial Cannabis Activity means cultivation, manufacture, processing, storing, laboratory testing, packaging, labeling, transporting, distribution, or sale of cannabis or a cannabis product for medical, non -medical, or any other purpose and includes the activities of any business licensed by the State or other government entity under Division 10 of the California Business and Professions Code, or any provision of State law that regulates the licensing of cannabis businesses. Concentrated Cannabis means manufactured cannabis that . has undergone a process to concentrate one or more active cannabinoids, thereby increasing the product's potency. Resin from granular trichomes from a cannabis plant is a concentrate. Cultivation means any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing, grading, or trimming of cannabis. Delivery means the commercial transfer of cannabis or cannabis products to a customer. "Delivery" also includes the use by a retailer of any technology platform owned and controlled by the retailer. The term "delivery" does not include the distribution of cannabis from a mobile Ordinance No. 355 4 marijuana dispensary. Detached accessory structure shall mean a building completely detached from a residence that complies with the California Building Code and has a complete roof enclosure supported by connecting walls extending from the ground to the roof, a foundation, slab or equivalent base to which the floor is secured by bolts or similar attachments, is secure against unauthorized entry, and is accessible only through one or more lockable doors. Director means the Planning Director or his/her designee. Distribution means the procurement, sale, and 'transport of cannabis and cannabis products between entities licensed under Division 10 of the California Business and Professions Code, as they may be amended from time to time. Manufacture means to compound, blend, extract, infuse, or otherwise make or prepare a cannabis product. MAUCRSA means the Medicinal and Adult -Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act as codified in Division 10 of the Business and Professions Code, as the same may be amended from time to time. Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries means any dispensary, cooperative, association, club, business, collective, operator, or provider that does not have a fixed storefront and which operates solely as a mobile retail outlet which transports or delivers, or arranges the transportation or delivery, of cannabis to a person. Person means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, corporation, limited liability company, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, syndicate, or any other group or combination acting as a unit, and the plural as well as the singular. Personal Marijuana Cultivation means Cultivation of six or fewer live Cannabis plants within a single private residence or fully enclosed accessory structure in accordance with Health & Safety Code § 11362.2. Primary Caregiver shall have the same defmition as Health and Safety Code section 11362.7, as may be amended and which means a Person who takes care of a Qualified Patient, as defined below. Private Residence means a house or other similar dwelling that is lawfully used as a residence. Qualified Patient shall have the same definition as Health and Safety Code section 11362.7, as may be amended, and which means a Person who is entitled to the protections of Health and Safety Code section 11362.5. For the purposes of this Article, Qualified Patient shall include a Person with an identification card, as that term is defined by Health and Safety Code section 11362.7 et seq. Ordinance No. 355 5 Section 17.29.030 Prohibited uses and activities. A. Commercial cannabis activity, whether or not for profit, is prohibited in all zones, specific plan areas, and overlay zones of the City. No person shall establish, operate, maintain, conduct, allow, or engage in commercial cannabis activity anywhere within the City. A property owner shall not rent, lease, or otherwise permit any person or business that engages in commercial cannabis activity to occupy real property in the City. A property owner shall not allow any person or business to establish, operate, maintain, conduct, or engage in commercial cannabis activity on any real property owned or controlled by that property owner that is located in the City. Subsection A, above, shall prohibit all activities for which a State license is required pursuant to the MAUCRSA, as the same may be amended from time to time. Accordingly, the City shall not issue any permit, license or other entitlement for any activity for which a State license is required under the MAUCRSA, as the same may be amended from time to time. The City shall also not issue any local license for any activity for which a state license is required under the MAUCRSA to a non-profit entity pursuant to California Business and Professions Code section 26070.5. D. To the extent not already prohibited by Subsection A, above, all deliveries of cannabis or cannabis products for non -medicinal purposes, to or from any location are expressly prohibited. No 'person shall conduct or perform any delivery of any cannabis or cannabis products for a non -medical purpose, which delivery either originates or terminates within the City. This subsection shall not prohibit any person from transporting cannabis through the jurisdictional limits of the City for delivery or distribution to a person located outside the City, where such transport does not involve delivery or distribution within the jurisdictional limits of the City. This subsection shall also not prohibit a delivery of cannabis or cannabis products for medicinal purposes as set forth in Section 17.29.040.A. Section 17.29.040 Exceptions. A. Notwithstanding Section 17.29.030, above, the delivery of medical cannabis to Qualified Patients with valid identification cards or a verifiable written recommendation from a physician for medical cannabis, and Primary Caregivers with a valid identification card, is permitted from a dispensary (licensed under the MAUCRSA) with a fixed location operating outside of the City or a Primary Caregiver cultivating within the boundaries of the City. This exception does not include deliveries made by mobile marijuana dispensaries, as the term is defined in Section 17.29.020. B. To the extent that the following activities are permitted by State law, nothing in this Chapter shall prohibit a person 21 years of age or older from: 1. Possessing, processing, purchasing, transporting, obtaining or giving away to persons 21 years of age or older, without compensation whatsoever, not more than 28.5 grams of cannabis not in the form of concentrated cannabis; 2 Possessing, processing, purchasing, transporting, obtaining or giving away to persons 21 years of age or older, without compensation whatsoever, up to 8 grams of cannabis in the form of concentrated cannabis; Ordinance No. 355 3. Smoking or ingesting cannabis or cannabis products except as prohibited by California Health and Safety Code section 11362.3; 4. Possessing, transporting, purchasing, obtaining, using, manufacturing, or giving away cannabis accessories to persons 21 years of age or older without compensation whatsoever; or 5 Engaging in the personal indoor cultivation of six or fewer live cannabis plants pursuant to the requirements outlined in Section 17.29.050 of this Chapter. C. Any commercial cannabis activity that the City is required by state law to permit within its jurisdiction shall not be prohibited by the provisions of this Chapter. D. A Qualified Patient or Primary Caregiver, who cultivates, possesses, stores, manufactures, or transports cannabis exclusively for his or her personal medical use, or the personal use of the Caregiver's Qualified Patient, but who does not provide, donate, sell, or distribute cannabis to any other person is not thereby engaged in Commercial Cannabis Activity. Nothing in this Chapter shall be interpreted to prohibit a Qualified Patient or Primary Caregiver from using, possessing, purchasing, obtaining, cultivating or receiving delivery of cannabis for medicinal purposes as allowed under state law. Section 17.29.050 Personal Marijuana Cultivation — conditions. Non-commercial cultivation of small amounts of marijuana for personal use is only permitted in the Residential Agriculture -Suburban (RA -S) zones when all of the following conditions and standards are met: A. Generally. 1. Property. Personal Marijuana Cultivation is permitted only on parcels developed with a residential unit. A person engaging in Personal Marijuana cultivation shall not participate in marijuana cultivation in more than one location within the City. Marijuana cultivation activities may only occur within a residential unit, garage or fully -enclosed. lockable detached accessory structure. If in the garage, adequate space shall be provided in the garage for the required number of parking spaces, pursuant to Section 17.16.160(B) of the Zoning Ordinance. The cultivation area shall be contiguous (all located in one area). 2. Visibility. • There shall be no exterior evidence 'of or visibility of marijuana cultivation from any street, public easement, designated trail or neighboring property. 3. Security. Any structure used for personal marijuana cultivation shall be secured with locks to prevent unauthorized entry and/or theft and shall remain secure at all times. 4. Code Compliance. The personal Marijuana cultivation area shall not adversely affect the health or safety of the nearby residents by creating dust, glare, excessive light, heat, noise, noxious gases, odors, smoke, traffic, vibration, or other impacts, and shall not be hazardous due to the use of storage of materials, processes, products or waste. The cultivation site shall be in full compliance with the City building code, electrical code, mechanical code, plumbing code, fire code, zoning code and any other applicable requirement found in Title 8, Title 15 and Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. 5. Number of plants. Cultivation shall not exceed a total of six (6) living marijuana plants of any size per parcel. The maximum number of plants shall be limited regardless of the number of Qualified Patients or Primary Caregivers residing on the property. 6. Cultivation area. Marijuana cultivation may only occur within an area totaling no larger than 100 square feet per parcel. 7. Electricity use. The collective draw from all electrical appliances at the Personal Ordinance No. 355 7 marijuana cultivation site shall not exceed the maximum rating of the approved electrical panel for the primary legal residence .at the marijuana cultivation site. Gas products (including, without limitation, CO2, butane, propane, and natural gas) or generators shall not be used for the cultivation of marijuana. Any lighting fixture used for indoor marijuana cultivation shall not exceed the rated wattage and capacity of the circuit breaker and shall be shielded so as to completely confine light and glare to the interior of the private residence or fully -enclosed detached accessory structure. 8. Ventilation. Any indoor location used for personal marijuana cultivation must have a ventilation and filtration system installed that shall prevent marijuana plant odors from exiting the interior of the structure and shall comply with all applicable building code regulations. Personal Marijuana cultivation shall not create humidity or mold within the private residence or fully -enclosed detached accessory structure in violation of Title 8 or 15 of this Code. 9. Residential structure. The residential unit on the parcel where Personal Marijuana Cultivation occurs shall, at all times, maintain a kitchen, bathroom, and primary bedroom(s) for their intended purpose, and shall not be used for marijuana cultivation where such cultivation will prevent their primary use for cooking of meals, sleeping, and bathing. The property where Personal Marijuana Cultivation occurs shall be occupied. 10. Accessory structure. A fully -enclosed detached accessory structure, as defined herein, shall be located within the rear yard area of any legal parcel or premises. The structure shall meet the minimum setback requirements and conditions for accessory structures, as set by the City's Zoning Code and shall be secured as required in A3 above. The building official shall consult with the Director in consideration of any building permit application seeking a building permit for the construction or alteration of any detached accessory structure to be used for personal marijuana cultivation. B. The City Manager and his/her designee is hereby authorized to promulgate and enforce administrative regulations in the implementation and enforcement of this chapter. Section 17.29.060 Public Nuisance. A. A violation of this Chapter or noncompliance with any of the requirements of this Chapter shall be subject to any criminal or civil enforcement remedies available under the law and the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, no conduct which is protected from criminal liability pursuant to state law shall be made criminal_by this Chapter. B. Any person violating any provision or failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of this Chapter is declared to be a public nuisance and may be abated by the City pursuant to Chapter 8.24 of this Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23rd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017. JAMES BLACK, M.D., MAYOR ATTEST: YVETTE HALL INTERIM CITY CLERK Ordinance No. 355 8 Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. Ordinance No. 355 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 355 entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 17.29 TO TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL (MEDICAL AND NON -MEDICAL) MARIJUANA ACTIVITIES, ALLOW FOR THE DELIVERY OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA, AND TO REGULATE THE CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA FOR PERSONAL AND MEDICAL USE WITHIN THE CITY, IN ZONING CODE AMENDMNET NO. 2017-02. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on October 23, 2017 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. YVETTE HALL INTERIM CITY CLERK Ordinance No. 355 10 ORDINANCE NO. 355 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 17.29 TO TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL (MEDICAL AND NON -MEDICAL) MARIJUANA ACTIVITIES, ALLOW FOR THE DELIVERY OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA, AND TO REGULATE THE CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA FOR PERSONAL AND MEDICAL USE WITHIN THE CITY, IN ZONING CODE AMENDMNET NO. 2017-02. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does ordain as follows: Section 1. Commercial marijuana activities, including commercial cultivation, can adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the public. Section 2. Rolling Hills Municipal Code ("RHMC") Section 17.08.050 provides that uses not specifically permitted in the RHMC are prohibited. Section 17.16.020 provides a list of permitted uses and prohibited uses. Commercial uses are not specifically permitted; therefore, they are prohibited. However, the City has determined that recent developments in State Law regarding the regulation of marijuana make it necessary to clarify that uses such as the commercial cultivation and dispensing of marijuana are expressly banned in the City of Rolling Hills, while other activities such as delivery of medical marijuana to patients, out -deer —personal —cultivation and indoor personal cultivation are permitted. Section 3. The City Council does hereby find as follows: A. On October 9, 2015, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 243, Assembly Bill 266, and Senate Bill 643 into law, which was collectively known as the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA). The MMRSA established a state licensing scheme for commercial medical cannabis uses, while protecting local control by requiring that all such businesses have a local license or permit to operate in addition to a state license. The MMRSA allowed the City to completely prohibit commercial medical cannabis activities. - B. On November 8, 2016, California voters approved the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA). The AUMA added Division 10 to the California Business and Professions Code, sections 26000, et seq., which grants state agencies the authority to create, issue, renew, discipline, suspend, or revoke licenses for cannabis businesses. The AUMA provides that the state shall begin issuing licenses to cannabis businesses under Division 10 of the California Business and Professions Code by January 1, 2018. California Business and Professions Code section 26055(e) provides that a state licensing authority shall not approve an application for astate license for commercial non -medical cannabis activity if approval of the state license will violate the provisions of any local ordinance. C. On June 27, 2017, the Governor signed into law Senate Bill 94, which created a single regulatory scheme for both medical and nonmedical cannabis known as the Medicinal and Adult -Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA). SB 94 created one regulatory structure for medical and nonmedical cannabis use and commercial cannabis activities. The MAUCRSA retains the provisions in the MMRSA and the AUMA that granted local jurisdictions control over whether Ordinance No. 355 commercial cannabis activity could occur in a particular jurisdiction. Specifically, California Business and Professions Code section 26200 provides that the MAUCRSA shall not be interpreted to supersede or limit the authority of a local jurisdiction to adopt and enforce local ordinances that completely prohibit the establishment or operation of one or more businesses licensed under the state, within that local jurisdiction. Furthermore, the MAUCRSA provides that a state licensing authority shall not approve an application for a state license for a business to engage in commercial cannabis activity if approval of the state license will violate the provisions of any local ordinance or regulation. The AUMA and MAUCRSA require that a state licensing authority begin issuing licenses to marijuana businesses beginning January 1, 2018. D. Commercial marijuana activities can adversely affect the health, safety, and well-being of City residents. E. The Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC) does not currently expressly and separately regulate the commercial marijuana activities within the City. In order to ensure full local control over regulation of commercial marijuana activities in the City is preserved, the AUMA and MAUCRSA encourage the City to adopt an ordinance expressly regulating commercial marijuana activities, if the City wishes to do so. F. The Zoning Ordinance text amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan because the proposed ordinance is in the public interest and there are community benefits resulting from the regulation of marijuana. Section 4. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the environmental impacts of the action be assessed. This project was assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines (the Guidelines), and the environmental regulations of the City. The Planning Commission hereby finds that under Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that the provisions contained herein would not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. No possibility exists that the proposed zone text amendment would have a significant effect on the environment. This ordinance prohibits uses that are currently not allowed in the City but due changes in state law, is expected to proliferate throughout the state in areas where local agencies permit the uses. So this ordinance clarifies an existing ban to cover new cannabis related activities and uses that are now permitted through recent changes in state law. This ordinance continues the status quo and will not result in changes to the environment. To the extent thatstate law allows personal cultivation of cannabis limited to six plants, this ordinance imposes reasonable restrictions to make sure the activity is done in a safe manner and complies with Titles 8, 15 and 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. As a result, this . ordinance will not result in changes to the environment. Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the . City Council of the City of Rolling Hills hereby adopts Ordinance No. 355, Zoning Text Amendment No. 2017-02, as follows: Section 6. Section 17.08.050 of Chapter 17.08 of Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 17.08.050 - Zoning compliance required. A. Except as provided in this title, no building shall be erected, reconstructed or Ordinance No. 355 2 structurally altered, nor shall any building or land be used for any purpose except as specifically provided for and allowed by this title. Any use or structure not specifically permitted by this title shall be prohibited. B. The commercial cultivation, dispensation, and mobile dispensing of marijuana are expressly prohibited in all zones of the City (as set out in Section 17.16.020 B and Chapter 17.29). Accordingly, the City shall not issue any permit, license, or other entitlement for the commercial cultivation, dispensation, and mobile dispensing of marijuana. Section 7. Section 17.16.020(B) of Chapter 17.16 of Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is amended by adding new subparagraphs 3 and 4 to read as follows: 17.16.020 — Permitted and prohibited uses. B. The following uses are prohibited in the RA -S zone: 3. Dispensing of Cannabis and non -medicinal Cannabis delivery by any mobile. marijuana dispensary (as those terms are defined in section 17.29.020). 4. Commercial cannabis activity, (as those terms are defined in section 17.29.020). Notwithstanding the foregoing, this section does not apply to the delivery of medical marijuana to Qualified Patients or their Primary Caregivers, (as those terms are defined in section 17.29.020). Section 8. A new Chapter 17.29, "Marijuana Prohibitions and Regulations" is added to Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code to read as follows: Title 17 Chapter 17.29 Marijuana Prohibitions and Regulations Sections: 17.29.010 Purpose. 17.29.020 Definitions. 17.29.030 Prohibited uses and activities. 17.29.040 Exceptions. 17.29.050 Personal Marijuana Cultivation — conditions. 17.29.060 Public nuisance. Section 17.29.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to expressly prohibit the establishment of commercial cannabis uses in the City. The City Council finds that prohibitions on commercial cannabis activity are necessary for the preservation and protection of the public health, safety and welfare of the City. The prohibition of such uses is within the authority conferred upon the City Council by state law and is an exercise of its police powers to enact and enforce regulations for the public health, safety and welfare of the City. This Chapter is also intended to apply reasonable regulations to personal indoor or outdoor cultivation as Ordinance No. 355 3 authorized under state law and to allow delivery of medical marijuana to individuals in the city that may be unable to travel to locations outside the city to obtain the marijuana. Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted to conflict with state . law, including without limitation the Compassionate Use Act, the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) and the MAUCRSA, as may be, amended. Section 17.29.020 Definitions. As used in this chapter: Cannabis, or Marijuana, shall mean all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa Linnaeus, Cannabis indica, or Cannabis ruderalis, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin, whether crude or purified, extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin. "Cannabis/Marijuana" also means the separated resin, whether crude or purified, obtained from cannabis. "Cannabis/Marijuana" also includes cannabis that is used for medical, non -medical, or other purposes. However, "Cannabis/Marijuana does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination. "Cannabis/Marijuana" also does not include industrial hemp, as defined in California Health and Safety Code section 11018.5. Cannabis Accessories means any equipment, products or materials of any kind which are intended for use, or designated for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, smoking, vaporizing, or containing cannabis, or for ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing cannabis or cannabis products into the human body. Cannabis Product means cannabis that has undergone a process whereby the plant material has been transformed into a concentrate, including,but not limited to, concentrated cannabis, or an edible or topical product containing cannabis or concentrated cannabis and other ingredients. Commercial Cannabis Activity means cultivation, manufacture, processing, storing, laboratory testing, packaging, labeling, transporting, distribution, or sale of cannabis or a cannabis product for medical, non -medical, or any other purpose and includes the activities of any business licensed by the State or other government entity. under Division 10 of the California Business and Professions Code, or any provision of State law that regulates the licensing of cannabis businesses. Concentrated Cannabis means manufactured cannabis that has undergone a process to concentrate one or more active cannabinoids, thereby increasing the product's potency. Resin from granular trichomes from a cannabis plant is a concentrate. Cultivation means any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing, grading, or trimming of cannabis. Delivery means the commercial transfer of cannabis or cannabis products to a customer. Ordinance No. 355 "Delivery" also includes the use by a retailer of any technology platform owned and controlled by the retailer. The term "delivery" does not include the distribution of cannabis from a mobile marijuana dispensary. Detached accessory structure shall mean a building completely detached from a residence that complies with the California Building Code and has a complete roof enclosure supported by connecting walls extending from the ground to the roof, a foundation, slab or equivalent base to which the floor is secured by bolts or similar attachments, is secure against unauthorized entry, and is accessible only through one or more lockable doors. Director means the Planning Director or his/her designee. Distribution means the procurement, sale, and transport of cannabis and cannabis products between entities licensed under Division 10 of the California Business and Professions Code, as they may be amended from time to time. Manufacture means to compound, blend, extract, infuse, or otherwise make or prepare a cannabis product. MAUCRSA means the Medicinal and Adult -Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act as codified in Division 10 of the Business and Professions Code, as the same may be amended from time to time. Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries means any dispensary, cooperative, association, club, business, collective, operator, or provider that does not have a fixed storefront and which operates solely as a mobile retail outlet which transports or delivers, or arranges the transportation or delivery, of cannabis to a person. Person means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, corporation, limited liability company, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, syndicate, or any other group or combination acting as a unit, and the plural as well as the singular. Personal Marijuana Cultivation means Cultivation of six or fewer live Cannabis plants within a single private residence or fully enclosed accessory structure or small outdoor area in accordance with Health & Safety Code § 11362.2. Primary Caregiver shall have the same definition as Health and Safety Code section 11362.7, as may be amended and which means a Person who takes care of a Qualified Patient, as. defined below. Private Residence means a house or other similar dwelling that is lawfully used as a residence. Qualified Patient shall have the same defmition as Health and Safety Code section 11362.7, as may be amended, and which means a Person who is entitled to the protections of Health and Safety Code section 11362.5. For the purposes of this Article, Qualified Patient shall include a Person with an identification card, as that term is defined by Health and Safety Code section 11362.7 et seq. Ordinance No. 355 5 Section 17.29.030 Prohibited uses and activities. A. Commercial cannabis activity, whether or not for profit, is prohibited in all zones, specific plan areas, and overlay zones of the City. No person shall establish, operate, maintain, conduct, allow, or engage in commercial cannabis activity anywhere within the City. B. A property owner shall not rent, lease, or otherwise permit any person or business that engages in commercial cannabis activity to occupy real property in the City. A property owner shall not allow any person or business to establish, operate, maintain, conduct, or engage in commercial cannabis activity on any real property owned or controlled by that property owner that is located in the City. Subsection A, above, shall prohibit all activities for which a State license is required pursuant to the MAUCRSA, as the same may be amended from time to time. Accordingly, the City shall not issue any permit, license or other entitlement for any activity for which a State license is required under the MAUCRSA, as the same may be amended from time to time. The City shall also not issue any local license for any activity for which a state license is required under the MAUCRSA to a non-profit entity pursuant to California Business and Professions Code section 26070.5. D. To the extent not already prohibited by Subsection A, above, all deliveries of cannabis or cannabis products for non -medicinal purposes, to or from any location are expressly prohibited. No person shall conduct or perform any delivery of any cannabis or cannabis products for a non -medical purpose, which delivery either originates or terminates within the City. This subsection shall not prohibit any person from transporting cannabis through the jurisdictional limits of the City for delivery or distribution to a person located outside the City, where such transport does not involve delivery or distribution within the jurisdictional limits of the City. This subsection shall also not prohibit a delivery of cannabis or cannabis products for medicinal purposes as set forth in Section 17.29.040.A. Section 17.29.040 Exceptions. A. Notwithstanding Section 17.29.030, above, the delivery of medical cannabis to Qualified Patients with valid identification cards or a verifiable written recommendation from a physician for medical cannabis, and Primary Caregivers with a valid identification card, is permitted from a dispensary (licensed under the MAUCRSA) with a fixed location operating outside of the City or a Primary Caregiver cultivating within the boundaries of the City. This exception does not include deliveries made by mobile marijuana dispensaries, as the term is defined in Section 17.29.020. .B. To the extent that the following activities are permitted by State law, nothing in this Chapter shall prohibit a person 21 years of age or older from: 1. Possessing, processing, purchasing, transporting, obtaining or giving away to persons 21 years of age or older, without compensation whatsoever, not more than 28.5 grams of cannabis not in the form of concentrated cannabis; 2. Possessing, processing, purchasing, transporting, obtaining or giving away to persons 21 years of age or older, without compensation whatsoever, up to 8 grams of cannabis in the form of concentrated cannabis; Ordinance No. 355 6 3 Smoking or ingesting cannabis or cannabis products except as prohibited by California Health and Safety Code section 11362.3; 4 Possessing, transporting, purchasing, obtaining, using, manufacturing, or giving away cannabis accessories to persons 21 years of age or older without compensation whatsoever; or 5. Engaging in the personal indoor cultivation , indoor or outdoor, of six or fewer live cannabis plants pursuant to the requirements outlined in Section 17.29.050 of this Chapter. C. Any commercial cannabis activity that the City is required by state law to permit within its jurisdiction shall not be prohibited by the provisions of this Chapter. D. A Qualified Patient or Primary Caregiver, who cultivates, possesses, - stores, manufactures, or transports cannabis exclusively for his or her personal medical use, or the personal use of the Caregiver's Qualified Patient, but who does not provide, donate, sell, or distribute cannabis to any other person is not thereby engaged in Commercial Cannabis Activity. Nothing in this Chapter shall be interpreted to prohibit a Qualified Patient or Primary Caregiver from using, possessing, purchasing, obtaining, cultivating or receiving delivery of cannabis for medicinal purposes as allowed under state law. Section 17.29.050 Personal Marijuana Cultivation — conditions. Non-commercial cultivation of small amounts of marijuana for personal use is only permitted in the Residential Agriculture -Suburban (RA -S) zones when all of the following conditions and standards are met: A. Generally. 1. Property. Personal Marijuana Cultivation is permitted only on parcels developed with a residential unit. A person engaging in Personal Marijuana cultivation shall not participate in marijuana cultivation in more than one location within the City. Marijuana cultivation activities may only occur within a residential unit, garage or fully -enclosed. lockable detached accessory structure. or fully fenced and lockable outdoor area. If in the garage, adequate space shall be provided in the garage for the required number of parking spaces, pursuant to Section 17.16.160(B) of the Zoning Ordinance. The cultivation area shall be contiguous (all located in one area of the structure). - 2. Visibility. There shall be no exterior evidence of or visibility of marijuana cultivation from any street, public easement, designated trail or neighboring property. 3. Security. Any structure or outdoor area used for personal marijuana cultivation shall be secured with locks to prevent unauthorized entry and/or theft and shall remain secure at all times. 4. Code Compliance. The personal Marijuana cultivation area shall not adversely affect the health or safety of the nearby residents by creating dust, glare, excessive light, heat, noise, noxious gases, odors, smoke, traffic, vibration, or other impacts, and shall not be hazardous :due to the use of storage of materials, processes, products or waste. The cultivation site shall be in full compliance with the City building code, electrical code, mechanical code, plumbing code, fire code, zoning code and any other applicable requirement found in Title 8, Title 15 and Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. 5. Number of plants. Cultivation (indeer-Or-eutdeer) shall not exceed a cumulative total of six (6) living marijuana plants of any size per parcel. The maximum number of plants shall be limited regardless of the number of Qualified Patients or Primary Caregivers residing on the property_ 6. Cultivation area. Marijuana cultivation may only occur within an cumulative area totaling no larger than 100 square feet per parcel. Ordinance No. 355 7 7. Electricity use. The collective draw from all electrical appliances at the Personal marijuana cultivation site shall not exceed the maximum rating of the approved electrical panel for the primary legal residence at the marijuana cultivation site. Gas products (including, without limitation, CO2, butane, propane, and natural gas) or generators shall not be used for the cultivation of marijuana. Any lighting fixture used for indoor marijuana cultivation shall not exceed the rated wattage and capacity of the circuit breaker and shall be shielded so as to completely confine light and glare to the interior of the private residence or fully -enclosed detached accessory structure. 8. Ventilation. Any indoor location used for personal marijuana cultivation must have a ventilation and filtration system installed that shall prevent marijuana plant odors from exiting the interior of the structure and shall comply with all applicable building code regulations. Personal Marijuana cultivation shall not create humidity or mold within the private residence or fully -enclosed detached accessory structure in violation of Title 8 or 15 of this Code. 9. Residential structure. The residential unit on the parcel where Personal Marijuana Cultivation occurs shall, at all times, maintain a kitchen, bathroom, and primary bedroom(s) for their intended purpose, and shall not be used for marijuana cultivation where such cultivation will prevent their primary use for cooking of meals, sleeping, and bathing. The property where Personal Marijuana Cultivation occurs shall be occupied. 10. Accessory structure. A fully -enclosed detached accessory structure, as defined herein, shall be located within the rear yard area of any legal parcel or premises. The structure shall meet the minimum setback requirements and conditions for accessory structures, as set by. the City's Zoning Code and shall be secured as required in A3 above. The building official shall consult with the Director in consideration of any building permit application seeking a building permit for the construction or alteration of any detached accessory structure to be used for personal marijuana cultivation. 11. Outdoor cultivation. Area used for outdoors marijuana cultivation shall be located within the rear yard area of any legal parcel and shall be fully enclosed by a 5 foot -high solid lockable Additionally, lighting for outdoor cultivation shall not be permitted, except as permitted pursuant to 8.32 of this Codc as applicable. B. The City Manager and his/her designee is hereby authorized to promulgate and enforce administrative regulations in the implementation and enforcement of this chapter. Section 17.29.060 Public Nuisance. A. A violation of this Chapter or noncompliance with any of the requirements of this Chapter shall be subject to any criminal or civil enforcement remedies available under the law and the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, no conduct which is protected from criminal liability pursuant to state law shall be made criminal by this Chapter. B. Any person violating any provision or failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of this Chapter is declared to be a public nuisance and may be abated by the City pursuant to Chapter 8.24 of this Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017. Ordinance No. 355 8 JAMES BLACK, M.D., MAYOR ATTEST: YVETTE HALL INTERIM CITY CLERK Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. Ordinance No. 355 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ ). I certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 355 entitled: AN ORDINANCE . OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 17.29 TO TITLE 1.7 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL (MEDICAL AND NON -MEDICAL) MARIJUANA ACTIVITIES, ALLOW FOR THE DELIVERY OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA, AND TO REGULATE THE CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA FOR PERSONAL AND MEDICAL USE WITHIN THE CITY, IN ZONING CODE AMENDMNET NO. 2017-02. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on October , 2017 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. YVETTE HALL INTERIM CITY CLERK Ordinance No. 355 10