Loading...
2500 Planning - Resolution 2015-24 Interpreting Measure B View PreservationPC 11/17/2015 1'1EMS FROM STAFF Discussion of Administrative Interpretation Regulations of Measure B regarding Views and Trees. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the background and history of this discussion item. She stated that the Planning Commission previously discussed amendments to the View Ordinance and adopted a Resolution making changes to the Ordinance that will be reviewed and considered by the City Council in January. She further stated that the Planning Commission also previously discussed administrative regulations to interpret Measure B so that it can be applied consistently given that it cannot be changed except by a vote of people. She stated that discussion on that matter was continued in hopes that the Committee on Trees and Views would obtain useful information with regard to issue of mature vs. maturing during its deliberation on a previous view case. She stated that during the previous view case, the Comnttee on Trees and Views obtained four opinions with regard to that matter, but none provided a definitive answer. She stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the four arborists reports included in the staff report, discuss the matter and choose a methodology to use in making the determination as to whether a tree is mature or maturing. She further explained that one methodology that seems widely accepted by the arborists in determining maturity is tree height and Sunset Western Garden Book provides height ranges for many trees which the Planning Commission may wish to use that as a reference. She further stated that the City Council ad hoc committee that previously discussed this matter and referred it to the Planning Commission, agreed that Sunset Western Garden Book was a good reference but could not agree on what percentage of the maximum potential height should be used in making the determination regarding maturity. She further reviewed the options for determining tree maturity before the Planning Commission as presented in the staff report. Planning Director Schwartz stated that the other issue before the Planning Commission with regard to Measure B interpretation is what is considered acquisition of property for use in determining what view is protected. Assistant City Attorney Coates reviewed the options before the Planning Commission with regard to property acquisition based on the previous discussion by the ad hoc committee as well as the Planning Commission. She stated that the goal of these administrative regulations interpreting Measure B with regard to both mature and acquisition is to create some level of certainty for complainants and those subject to complaints so they know what type of evidence needs to be presented. With respect to acquisition of property, she stated that there are three common types of transfers to consider: inheritance; sales to third properties; and trusts, both revocable and irrevocable. She further explained with regard to trusts, that Property Tax Law treats a revocable trust as thought there is no acquisition but if a property is placed in an irrevocable trust, the transfer occurs thus there is an acquisition and staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt that interpretation for trusts. She further stated that the Planning Commission will need to discuss inheritance and trusts to determine which type of transactions will be considered a change in ownership as well as the definition of mature vs. maturing. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Tina Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road addressed the Planning Commission stating that she feels it is being overanalyzed. She stated that the intent of mature trees was to indicate that the tree had already grown to its full species height. She further explained that the intent was to have the evidence be the determining factor as to whether a view existed or not and that she feels inheritance should be like if a car is inherited. It should be valued at today's value not the original value. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the Planning Commission concurring with Mrs. Greenberg and stating that she also feels Measure B is being overanalyzed. Discussion ensued concerning the issue of change in ownership/acquisition of property. Chairman Chelf commented that he feels that the City should follow the County tax laws and interpret a transfer the way they do. Commissioner Cardenas expressed a similar sentiment but expressed concern that it could potentially be -retroactive over multiple generations. Further discussion ensued considering the inheritance issue specifically. Chairman Chelf pointed out that a party seeking view restoration would still be bound by the other restrictions of Measure B which include requirement to provide proof that the view existed and only being eligible for view corridors. Vice Chairman Gray expressed concern that Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 11-17-15 PC 11/17/2015 4111 • residents that had trees for many years could be forced to trim or remove them if inheritance doesn't qualify as.a change in ownership. He further stated that he feels that the clock (for a view) should start again when a property is inherited. Commissioner Kirkpatrick commented that he feels using the tax code as a guideline for change in ownership makes sense. Commissioner Cardenas commented that there is no perfect answer but there should be a strict guideline and the County tax code makes sense. Commissioner Smith' concurred. Following brief discussion the Planning Commission concurred that the guidelines set forth in the County tax should be used to make decisions with regard to acquisition of property, specifically regarding inheritance and trusts. Vice Chairman Gray noted for the record that he was not in favor of that recommendation. Discussion ensued concerning the matter related to mature vs. maturing. Chairman Chelf commented that the term "mature" has caused a great deal oftrouble in resolving the view cases since Measure B was adopted and it is very important to determine a concrete definition. He suggested using the maximum height as specified for the specific tree species in Sunset Western Garden Book as the standard to be applied to the Ordinance. Commissioner Cardenas commented that he agrees and doing so would set a specific, defensible guideline. He further commented regarding the definition of mature trees, that the arborist report from Kevin Eckert references the ISA "Glossary of Arboriculture Terms" which defines a mature tree relative to its "mature height," and he feels that such a definition should be incorporated into the guidelines. Commissioner Gray commented that he agrees, but feels that a caveat should be added that if during the period of a tree's life it has been altered for a view and may not have reach its full height, it should not be exempted from the ordinance as a mature tree. The Planning Commission concurred. Following further discussion, the Planning Commission concurred that the definition of mature for the purposes of the View Preservation Ordinance and Measure B is that a tree that has reached its mature height as defined as 100% of the maximum potential height as set forth in Sunset Western Garden Book per species and trees that show evidence of previous trimming should be exempt from qualifying as mature trees that would otherwise be exempt from restorative action. The Planning Commission also concurred that the definition of "mature height" from the ISA Glossary of Arboriculture terms should be incorporated into the guidelines for the interpretation of Measure B. Following further discussion, Commissioner Smith moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to finalize the Administrative Regulations as discussed and return the final draft to the Planning Commission for approval at its next meeting. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion which carried without objection. Upon Planning Commission approval, the Administrative Regulations will be forwarded to the City Council for approval and implementation. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 11-17-15 View Discussion Distribution List Measure B discussion First Jim Pamela Oksana Sue Jeanne Richard Lynn Clint John Ralph Kak Michael & Marcia Arun Rob Vukan Aaron Laura Matt Stephanie Raghu Speed and Melissa David and Kristin Scot Tom and Debi Ron Laura John and Abbby Howard Hal William Stephen Tina Last Aichele Reis Bihun Breiholz Saks Colyear Gill Patterson Nunn Black, Dr. McKinnie Schoettle Bhumitra Hammond Ruzic DeLaTorre Gregorio Seaburn Brandmeyer Mendu Fry Kudrave Goodman Thomas Navarro Hatch Douglass Weinberg Light Hassoldt Nuccion Greenberg e-mail jimaicheie@hotmail.com pamelareis@alumni.upenn.edu oksanabihun@aol.com sbreiholz@laol.com ieannecsaksOyahoo.com Rcolyearl@aol.com lynn.gill@cox.net clint@PruSouthBay.com John_Nunn@cox.net jrblackmd@gmail.com kakmck@cox.net mdsgardener@gmail.com Arun@arjay.net rhammond@greekbill.com vukanr@gmail.com adelatorre@jaunitasfoods.com Ijtg2000@me.com mseaburn@rentawheel.com mikeandstephb@hotmail.com raghumendu@ventureast.net speedsmithfry@gmail.com teamk@cox.net scott.goodman@mattel.com dksthomas@me.com navarroji@cox.net Iaurahatchmd@gmail.com id@traceww.com howard@weinberglaw.la hallight@hjllaw.com hassoldt@earthlink.net snuccion@yahoo.com mail 1 Crest Road West 24 Eastfield Drive 14 Portuguese Bend Rd 67 Eastfield Drive 66 Eastfiled Drive 18 Wideloop 15 Georgeff Rd 51 Crest Road East attorney attorney 10 Pine Tree Lane 18 Portuguse Bend Road 32 Portuguese Bend Road Public:View Preservation:CONTACTS INTERESTED PARTIES 2015:2015 INTERESTED PARTIES 11/24/15 List.xlsx RESOLUTION NO. 2015-24 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. In June 1988, the City adopted a View Preservation Ordinance. The ordinance established preservation of views as a primary value of the community and created a process by which a property owner could seek to abate an obstructed view. In November 2003, the ordinance was modified relative to the composition of the Committee. on Views and Trees, the body designated to consider view applications. Section 2. In March 2013, the residents of Rolling Hills passed Measure B to amend the View Preservation Ordinance. The principal effect of Measure B was to shift the protection of the ordinance from views that are capable of being enjoyed from a property to views that were actually enjoyed from a property when the property owner acquired the property. In particular, the initiative amended the ordinance as follows: • Only a view that existed when the current property owner "actually acquired" the property may be restored; • Abatement of view impairment is limited to obstructions caused by trees that were "maturing" at the date of acquisition and trees that were "mature" at the time of property acquisition are excluded from consideration; • Measure B specified that abatement of view impairment is intended to create "view corridors" and views through trees, and not unobstructed views; • Measure B specified that its provisions are to be applied retroactively. Section 3. Measure B contains various ambiguities that have resulted in uncertainty in its application in view obstruction cases submitted to the City's Committee on Trees and View for consideration. Measure B can only be amended by the voters; however, the City may adopt administrative regulations providing guidance and interpreting ambiguities in voter initiatives. Based on this authority, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to review, discuss and develop a policy interpreting Measure B. Section 4. The Planning Commission fmds that the attached Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B Relating to View Preservation clarify the initiative and recommends their adoption by the City Council. : Resolution No. 2015-24 1 Measure B Interpretaton PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15th DAY OF DECEMBER 2015. ATTEST: 404,t HEIDI LUCE, 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. Resolution No. 2015-24 2 Measure B Interpretaton • • Attachment A City of Rolling Hills Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B Relating to View Preservation Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Date of Property Acquisition "Mature" versus "Maturing" Trees Retroactivity of Measure B ' Chapter 1 DATE OF PROPERTY ACQUISITION Section 1001. Interpretation of the Date of Acquisition of Property. Measure B provides that a person may only apply to restore the view existing from the date that the current owner of the property actually acquired the property. In determining whether a transfer of property has resulted in an acquisition affecting the view that a person may apply to have restored, the City shall generally apply the rules applicable to reassessment of property taxes in the County of Los Angeles. The impacts of common transfers of property are illustrated below: A. The acquisition date of property acquired through inheritance shall be the date that the previous owner acquired the property, not the date of the transfer by inheritance. B. The acquisition date of property acquired from a third party through an arms - length purchase and sale shall be the date of the sale as evidenced by a deed. C. When property is placed into a revocable trust, the acquisition date of property shall not change. When property is placed into an irrevocable trust, or a revocable trust becomes irrevocable, the acquisition date shall be the date that the property was placed into the irrevocable trust or the revocable trust became irrevocable. Resolution No. 2015-24 3 Measure B Interpretaton • Chapter 2 "MATURE" VERSUS "MATURING" TREES Section 2001. Definition of "Mature" Trees The International Society of Arboriculture defines maturity by "mature height," which means the "maximum height that a plant is likely to reach if the conditions of the planting site are favorable." The Sunset Western Garden Book is a trusted reference guide on trees, plants and other vegetation present in the region and defines a plant species' "maturity" as the time at which a plant achieves a certain height range and displays other characteristics. The Sunset Western Garden Book provides maximum height ranges for species of plants typically involved in View Preservation cases in the City. For purposes of the View Preservation Ordinance and Measure B, a plant is "mature" when it reaches the maximum height for the species specified in the Sunset Western Garden Book. However, arborists agree that plants that have been regularly cut may never reach their maximum potential height, and several alternative methodologies are recognized .to determine the age of such trees. However, the alternative methodologies are complex and require reliance on a professional arborist. Further, the proponents of Measure B testified before the Planning Commission that the intent of Measure B was to exempt trees that have reached their full species height prior to acquisition of a complainant's property. Therefore, trees that show evidence of regular cutting and are therefore unlikely to reach their maximum potential height shall not be considered "mature" for purposes of the View Preservation Ordinance and shall not be exempt from restorative action. Section 2002. Definition of "Maturing" Trees Trees and other vegetation that are not "mature" as specified in these regulations are "maturing." Section 2003. Presumption that Trees were not "Mature" If evidence is presented, such as historical aerial photographs, showing that none of the offending trees or vegetation subject to a complaint was planted at or around the time that the complainant acquired the property from which a view is claimed, the complainant shall be entitled to a presumption that the offending trees and vegetation were not "mature" at the date of acquisition and are therefore subject to restorative action. Resolution No. 2015-24 4 Measure B Interpretaton Chapter 3 RETROACTIVITY OF MEASURE B Section 3001. Retroactive Application. Any resolution of the City of Rolling Hills adjudicating any complaint regarding view impairments adopted by the Committee on Trees and Views, or the City Council on appeal, prior to March 18, 2013, is hereby considered void and will not be enforced by the City. Resolution No. 2015-24 Measure B Interpretaton 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2015-24 entitled: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 15, 2015 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cardenas, Kirkpatrick, Gray, Smith and Chairman Chelf. NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2015-24 6 Measure B Interpretaton RESOLUTION NO. 2015-24 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO. VIEW PRESERVATION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. In June 1988, the City adopted a View Preservation Ordinance The 'ordinance established preservation of views as a primary value of the community and created a process by which a property owner could seek to abate an obstructed view. In November 2003, the ordinance was modified relative to the composition of the Committee. on Views and Trees, the body designated to consider view applications.:, Section 2. In March 2013, the residents of Rolling Hills passed Measure B to amend the View Preservation Ordinance. The principal effect. of Measure B was to shift the protection of the ordinance from views that are capable of being enjoyed from a property to views that were actually enjoyed from a property when the property owner acquired the property. In particular, the initiative amended the ordinance as follows: • Only a view that existed when the current property owner "actually acquired" the property may be restored; Abatement of view impairment is limited to obstructions caused by trees that were "maturing" at the date of acquisition and trees that were "mature" at the time of property acquisition are excluded from consideration Measure B specified that abatement of view impairment is intended to create "view corridors" and views through trees, and not unobstructed views, Measure B specified that its provisions are to be applied retroactively. Section 3. Measure B contains various ambiguities thathave resulted in uncertainty. in its application in view obstruction cases submitted to the City's Committee on Trees and View for consideration. Measure B can only be amended by the voters however, the City may adopt administrative regulations providing guidance and interpreting ambiguities in voter initiatives. Based on this authority, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to review, discuss and develop a policy interpreting Measure B. Section 4. The Planning Commission fmds that the attached Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B Relating to View Preservation clarify the initiative and recommends their adoption by the City Council. Resolution No. 2015-24 Measure B Interpretaton PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15th DAY OF DECEMBER 2015. HEIDI LUCE, 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. Resolution No. 2015-24 Measure B Interpretaton Attachment A City of Rolling Hills Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B Relating to View Preservation Chapter 1 Date of Property Acquisition Chapter 2 "Mature" versus "Maturing" Trees Chapter 3 Retroactivity of Measure B ' Chapter 1 DATE OF PROPERTY ACQUISITION Section 1001. Interpretation of the Date of Acquisition of Property. Measure B provides that a person may only apply to restore the view existing from the date that the current owner of the property actually acquired the property. In determining whether a transfer of property has resulted in an acquisition affecting the view that a person may apply to have restored, the City shall generally apply the rules applicable to reassessment of property taxes in the County of Los Angeles. The impacts of common transfers of property are illustrated below: A. The acquisition date of property acquired through inheritance shall be the date that the previous owner acquired the property, not the date of the transfer by inheritance. B The acquisition date of property acquired from a third party through an arms - length purchase and sale shall be the date of the sale as evidenced by a deed. When property is placed into a revocable trust, the acquisition date of property shall not change. When property is placed into an irrevocable trust, or a revocable trust becomes irrevocable, the acquisition date shall be the date that the property was placed into the irrevocable trust or the revocable trust became irrevocable. Resolution No. 2015-24 3 Measure B Interpretaton Chapter 2 "MATURE" VERSUS "MATURING" TREES Section 2001. Definition of "Mature" Trees The International Society of Arboriculture defines maturity by "mature height," which means the "maximum height that a plant is likely to reach if the conditions of the planting site are favorable." The Sunset Western Garden Book is a trusted reference guide on trees, plants and other vegetation present in the region and defines a plant species' "maturity" as the time at which a plant achieves a certain height range and displays other characteristics. The Sunset Western Garden Book provides maximum height ranges for species of plants typically involved in View Preservation cases in the City. For purposes of the View Preservation Ordinance and Measure B, a plant is "mature" when it reaches the maximum height for the species specified in the Sunset Western Garden Book. However, arborists agree that plants that have been regularly cut may never reach their maximum potential height, and several alternative methodologies are recognized to determine the age of such trees: However, the alternative methodologies are complex and require reliance on a professional arborist. Further, the proponents of Measure B testified before the Planning Commission that the intent of Measure B was to exempt trees that have reached their full species height prior to acquisition of a complainant's property. Therefore, trees that show evidence of regular cutting and : are therefore unlikely to reach their maximum potential height shall not be considered "mature" for purposes of the View Preservation Ordinance and shall not be exempt from restorative action. Section 2002. Definition of "Maturing" Trees Trees and other vegetation that are not "mature" as specified in these regulations are "maturing." Section 2003.. Presumption that Trees were not "Mature" If evidence is presented, such as historical aerial photographs, showing that none of the offending trees or vegetation subject to a complaint was planted at or around the time that the complainant acquired the property from which a view is claimed, the complainant shall be entitled to a presumption that the offending trees and vegetation were not "mature" at the date of acquisition and are therefore subject to restorative action. Resolution No. 2015-24 Measure B Interpretaton 4 Chapter 3 RETROACTIVITY OF MEASURE B Section 3001. Retroactive Application. Any resolution of the City of Rolling Hills adjudicating any complaint regarding view impairments adopted by the Committee on Trees and Views, or the City Council on appeal, prior to March 18, 2013, is hereby considered void and will not be enforced by the City. Resolution No 2015-24 5 Measure B Interpretaton STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2015-24 entitled: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 15, 2015 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cardenas, Kirkpatrick, Gray, Smith and Chairman Chelf. NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. Ci[tifiC HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2015-24 6 Measure B Interpretaton RESOLUTION NO. 2015-24 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS; Section 1. In June 1988, the City adopted a View Preservation Ordinance. The ordinance established preservation of views as a primary value of the community and created a process by which a property owner could seek to abate an obstructed view. In November 2003, the ordinance was modified relative to the composition of the Committee on Views and Trees, the body designated to consider view applications. Section 2. In March 2013, the residents of Rolling Hills passed Measure B to amend the View Preservation Ordinance. The principal effect of Measure B was to shift the protection of the ordinance from views that are capable of being enjoyed from a property to views that were actually enjoyed from a property when the property owner acquired the property. In particular, the initiative amended the ordinance as follows: • Only a view that existed when the current property owner "actually acquired" the property may restored; • Abatement of view impairment is limited to obstructions caused by trees that were "maturing" at the date of acquisition and trees that were "mature" at the time of property acquisition are excluded from consideration; • Measure B specified that abatement of view impairment is intended to create "view corridors" and views through trees, and not unobstructed views; Measure B specified that its provisions are to be applied retroactively. Section 3. Measure B contains various ambiguities that have resulted in uncertainty in its application in view obstruction cases submitted to the City's Committee on Trees and View, for consideration. Measure B can only be amended by the voters; however, the City may adopt administrative regulations providing guidance and interpreting ambiguities in voter initiatives. Based on this authority, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to review, discuss and develop a policy interpreting Measure B. Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the attached Administrative Regulations. Interpreting Measure B Relating to View Preservation clarify the initiative and recommends' their adoption by the City Council. Resolution No. 2015-24 Measure B Interpretaton PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15th DAY OF DECEMBER 2015. ATTEST: 4116 HEIDI LUCE, 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. Resolution No. 2015-24 2 Measure B Interpretaton Attachment A Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 City of Rolling Hills Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B Relating to View Preservation Date of Property Acquisition "Mature" versus "Maturing" Trees Retroactivity of Measure B Chapter 1 DATE OF PROPERTY ACQUISITION Section 1001. Interpretation of the Date of Acquisition of Property. Measure B provides that a person may only apply to restore the view existing from the date that the current owner of the property actually acquired the property. In determining whether a transfer of property has resulted in an acquisition affecting the view that a person may apply to have restored, the City shall generally apply the rules applicable to reassessment of property taxes in the County of Los Angeles. The impacts of common transfers of property are illustrated below: A. The acquisition date of property acquired through inheritance shall be the date that the previous owner acquired the property, not the date of the transfer by inheritance. B. The acquisition date of property acquired from a third party through an arms length purchase and sale shall be the date of the sale as evidenced by a deed. C. When property is placed into a revocable trust, the acquisition date of property shall not change. When property is placed into an irrevocable trust, or a revocable trust becomes irrevocable, the acquisition date shall be the date that the property was placed into the irrevocable trust or the revocable trust became irrevocable. Resolution No. 2015-24 3 Measure B Interpretaton Chapter 2 "MATURE" VERSUS "MATURING" TREES Section 2001. Definition of "Mature" Trees The International Society of Arboriculture defines maturity by "mature height," which means the "maximum height that a plant is likely to reach if the conditions of the planting site are favorable." The Sunset Western Garden Book is a trusted reference guide on trees, plants and other vegetation present in the region and defines a plant species' "maturity" as the time at which a plant achieves a certain height range and displays other characteristics. The Sunset Western Garden Book provides maximum height ranges for species of plants typically involved in View Preservation cases in the City. For purposes of the View Preservation Ordinance and Measure B, a plant is "mature" when it reaches the maximum height for the species specified in the Sunset Western Garden Book. However, arborists agree that plants that have been regularly cut may never reach their maximum potential height, and several alternative methodologies are recognized to determine the age of such trees. However, the alternative methodologies are complex and require reliance on a professional arborist. Further, the proponents of Measure B testified before the Planning Commission that the intent of Measure B was to exempt trees that have reached their full species height prior to acquisition of a complainant's property. Therefore, trees that show evidence of regular cutting and are therefore unlikely to reach their maximum potential height shall not be considered "mature" for purposes of the View Preservation Ordinance and shall not be exempt from restorative action. Section 2002. Definition of "Maturing" Trees Trees and other vegetation that are not "mature" as specified in these regulations are "maturing." Section 2003. Presumption that Trees were not "Mature" If evidence is presented, such as historical aerial photographs, showing that none of the offending trees or vegetation subject to a complaint was planted at or around the time that the complainant acquired the property from which a view is claimed, the complainant. shall be entitled to a presumption that the offending trees and vegetation were not "mature" at the date of acquisition and are therefore subject to restorative action. Resolution No. 2015-24 4 Measure B Interpretaton Chapter 3 RETROACTIVITY OF MEASURE B Section 3001. Retroactive Application. Any resolution of the City of Rolling Hills adjudicating any complaint regarding view impairments adopted by the Committee on Trees and Views, or the City Council on appeal, prior to March 18, 2013, is hereby considered void and will not be enforced by the City. Resolution No. 2015=24 5 Measure B Interpretaton STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2015-24 entitled: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 15, 2015 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cardenas, Kirkpatrick, Gray, Smith and Chairman Chelf. NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2015-24 6 Measure B Interpretaton RESOLUTION NO. 2015-24 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. THE PLANNING. COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. In June 1988, the City adopted a View Preservation Ordinance. The ordinance established preservation of views as a primary value of the community and created a process by which a property owner could seek to abate an obstructed view. In November 2003, the ordinance was modified relative to the composition of the Committee on Views and Trees, the body designated to consider view applications. Section 2. In March 2013, the residents of Rolling Hills passed Measure B to amend the View Preservation Ordinance. The principal effect of Measure B was to shift the protection of the ordinance from views that are capable of being enjoyed from a property to views that were actually enjoyed from a property when the property owner acquired • the property. In particular, the initiative amended the ordinance as follows: Only a view that existed when the current property owner "actually acquired" the property may be restored; Abaternent of view impairment is limited to obstructions caused by trees that were "maturing at the date of acquisition and trees that were "mature" at the time of property acquisition are excluded from consideration; Measure B specified that abatement of view impairment is intended to create "view' corridors"' and views through trees, and not unobstructed views; Measure B specified that its provisions are to be applied retroactively. Section 3. Measure B contains various ambiguities that have resulted in uncertainty in its application in view obstruction cases submitted to the City's Committee on Trees and View for consideration. Measure B can only be amended by the voters; however, the City may adopt administrative regulations providing guidance and interpreting ambiguities in voter initiatives. Based on this authority, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to review, discuss and develop a policy interpreting Measure B. Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the attached Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B Relating to View Preservation clarify the initiative and recommends their adoption by the City Council. Resolution No. 2015-24 Measure B Interpretaton PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15th DAY OF DECEMBER 2015. CHEL ATTEST: 41.1)4/0(kkb HEIDI LUCE, 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. Resolution No. 2015-24 Measure B Interpretaton 2 Attachment A City of Rolling Hills Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B Relating to View Preservation Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Date of Property Acquisition "Mature" versus "Maturing" Trees Retroactivity of Measure B Chapter 1 DATE OF PROPERTY ACQUISITION Section 1001. Interpretation of the Date of Acquisition of Property. Measure B provides that a person may only apply to restore the view existing from the date that the current owner of the property actually acquired the property. In determining whether a transfer of property has resulted in an acquisition affecting the view that a person may apply to have restored, the City shall generally apply the rules applicable to reassessment of property taxes in the County of Los Angeles. The impacts of common transfers of property are illustrated below: A. The acquisition date of property acquired through inheritance shall be the date that the previous owner acquired the property, not the date of the transfer by inheritance. B. The acquisition date of property acquired from a third party through an arms - length purchase and sale shall be the date of the sale as evidenced by a deed. C. When property is placed into a revocable trust, the acquisition date of property shall not change. When property is placed into an irrevocable trust, or a revocable trust becomes irrevocable, the acquisition date shall be the date that the property was placed into the irrevocable trust or the revocable trust became irrevocable. Resolution No. 2015-24 3 Measure B Interpretaton Chapter 2' "MATURE" VERSUS "MATURING" TREES Section 2001. Definition of "Mature" Trees The International Society of Arboriculture defines maturity by "mature height," which means the "maximum height that a plant is likely to reach if the conditions of the planting site are favorable." The Sunset Western Garden Book is a trusted reference guide on trees, plants and other vegetation present in the region and defines a plant species' "maturity" as the time at which a plant achieves a certain height range and displays other characteristics. The Sunset Western Garden Book provides maximum height ranges for species of plants typically involved in View Preservation cases in the City.. For purposes of the View Preservation Ordinance and Measure B, a plant is "mature" when it reaches the maximum height for the species specified in the Sunset Western Garden Book. However, arborists agree that plants that have been regularly cut may never reach their maximum potential height, and several alternative methodologies are recognized .to determine the age of such trees. However, the alternative methodologies are complex and require reliance on a professional arborist. Further, the proponents of Measure B testified before the Planning Commission that the intent of Measure B was to exempt trees that have reached their full species height prior to acquisition of a complainant's property. Therefore, trees that show evidence of regular cutting and are therefore unlikely to reach their maximum potential height shall not be considered "mature" for purposes of the View Preservation Ordinance and shall not be exempt from restorative action. Section 2002. Definition of "Maturing" Trees Trees and other vegetation that are not "mature" as specified in these regulations are "maturing." Section 2003. Presumption that Trees were not "Mature" If evidence is presented, such as historical aerial photographs, showing that none of the offending trees or vegetation subject to a complaint was planted at or around the time that the complainant acquired the property from which a view is claimed, the complainant shall be entitled to a presumption that the offending trees and vegetation were not "mature" at the date of acquisition and are therefore subject to restorative action. Resolution No. 2015-24 Measure B Interpretaton 4 Chapter 3 RETROACTIVITY OF MEASURE B Section 3001. Retroactive Application. Any resolution of the City of Rolling Hills adjudicating any complaint regarding view impairments adopted by the Committee on Trees and Views, or the City Council on appeal, prior to March 18, 2013, is hereby considered void and will not be enforced by • the City. Resolution No. 2015-24 Measure B Interpretaton 5 Administrative Offices. STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2015-24 entitled: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 15, 2015 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cardenas, Kirkpatrick, Gray, Smith and Chairman Chelf. NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: *At HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2015-24 6 Measure B Interpretaton Friday, December 11, 2015 12:12 PM Subject: Fw: Planning Hearing Date: Friday, December 11, 2015 11:36 AM From: Lynn Gill <Iynn.gill@cox.net> To: "hluce@cityofrh.net" <hiuce@cityofrh.net> From: Lynn Gill <mailto:lynn.gill@cox.net> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 10:59 PM To: Ewa Rolling Hills, City of <mailto:enikodem@cityofrh.net> Cc: Richard Colyear <mailto:rcolyearl@aol.com> ; Marcia Schoettle <mailto:mdsgardener@gmaii.com> Subject: Fw: Planning Hearing Hello Ewa, Please put this in front of the Planning Commission;there are new folks on the commission that have not seen it, evidently. Sincerely, Lynn From: Lynn Gill <mailto:Iynn.gill@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 5:14 PM To: Jeff Pieper <mailto:jeff@pieper.com> Subject: Planning Hearing Hi Jeff, As half of the Ad -Hoc Committee, this may interest you. Best regards, Lynn Page 1 of 1 ••'ur F+ • rt 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 April 23, 2015 EXPANSION OF TIME -LIMITED COMMENTS- VIEW ORDINANCE HEARING Dear Planning Commissioners: This is to expand on the comments I provided at the public hearing April 21, 2015. Sorry I went over my allotted 3 minutes, but the issues are complicated! Page circle b .(3)- Measure B exempts trees that were "mature" at the time of acquisition of property, but does not define "mature." The wording of Measure B, passed by the voters, is " 'Mature' versus 'maturing' shall be defined by industry standards predominantly accepted by arborists." I interpret this to mean that if there is an industry standard widely accepted by arborists, the industry standard shall define "mature." There is such a standard, "Mature Tree- Trees that have reached at least 75 percent of their final height and spread." I provide as attachments three such identical citations, one from the Los Angeles City Department of Parks and Recreation Urban Forest Program and two others. DEC 11 205 City of Rolling Hills By. http://www.laparks.orgidos/forest/pdf/UrbanForestPropram.pdf. There are many other similar citations on city, state, and arborist web sites, all citing the 75% rule in defining mature trees, so this is the industry standard that should be used. Page circle b (3) recommends that the range of heights of trees in the Sunset Western Garden Book be used to define the mature height of a subject tree. The Commission is to decide whether the shortest, tallest, or average height should be applied. Shortest would favor the tree -owner, tallest the view -seeker, so a Solomon-esque compromise would appear to be to apply the average of the low and high values. Here's an example of how it would work: Eucalyptus Cinerea "Silver Dollar" (p. 338, 2001 edition)- a common RH tree Low height 20 feet High Height 55 feet L + H x 0.75 = height of a mature tree 2 (20 + 55) x 0.75 = at least 28 feet is the height of a mature Silver Dollar Eucalyptus. 2 As a reality check, I have four 15 years old Silver Dollars in front of my residence, all which have achieved at least 28 feet in height. I cut down a 50 year old Silver Dollar a. couple of years ago that was at least 50 feet in height. 11 Page • Page Circle b (1)- Should applicants be required to indemnify the City's costs? As Tina Greenberg testified, the view action in which she was involved cost her over $200,000 in legal fees, and the view -seeking applicant had no or minimal costs beyond the application fee as the City's attorney represented the view -seeking applicant and the City (RH taxpayers) picked up all outside legal costs, consulting arborists, CEQA, staff time, and the like. The deck is stacked against the tree -owner; and as Tina testified, there is little incentive for the applicant to negotiate a reasonable solution as they can take it to the limit since the property taxes of the other Rolling Hills owners are used to pick up the view -seekers tab. This is manifestly unfair. So, yes, the view -seeking applicant should pay the City's full costs of the view mitigation action, including legal, consulting, CEQA, staff time, etc. An example indemnification may be found at circle 47, City of Beverly Hills. Four of six view ordinances of other cities summarized at page circle 37 require such indemnification, as does RHCA in its Resolution 193. We should go with the majority. A better solution would be to limit the risk of legal, litigation and other costs of the applicant, tree -owner, and City. There are at least two not mutually exclusive ways that this could be accomplished: 1. City provides view dispute resolution guidelines and advisory services to assist view/tree adversaries to arrive at a reasonable solution, but the City does not act as a party to the dispute. An example of this approach may be found at page circle 80 Sec. 17.55.100 D, Advisory Opinion (Rolling Hills Estates), "the view seeker may request that the city's planning director assess and issue an advisory opinion on the view equity claim. The director may, but is not required to, assist the parties in resolving the view equity dispute. It is the intention that the advisory opinion be admissible as evidence in any [subsequent] civil action." At the time I was on the committee to develop the RHCA view resolution, I conducted a survey of view ordinances of about 50 cities including Rolling Hills. The vast majority took the approach of assisting the parties in a view dispute as an ombudsman, not as a party to the dispute. Typically, a body such as a view committee works with the view - seeker and tree -owner to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution, typically issuing a non- binding advisory opinion. If the parties cannot agree at this point, the parties may commence arbitration or legal remedies, and the City is out of it as a party until an order is issued. The rare exceptions in my survey were RPV and Rolling Hills which become parties to a view resolution dispute (I learned as a kid not to wade into a fight between two kids on the playground, or I was likely to become bloodied myself!). I recommend that we join the majority of California cities and provide view dispute resolution guidelines and advisory services, but the City should not subject itself to litigation by acting as a party in the dispute. 2 1 Page It would work something like this: a. Initial discussion between view -seeker and tree -owner. It is always best if neighbors can work things out among themselves. If this fails, the view -seeker provides documentation to the City showing attempts to resolve the issue with the tree -owner, and moves to step b. b. Application for view dispute resolution and payment of application fee c. Mediation. If either party refuses mediation, go directly to step e or f. Mediator apportions mediation costs as part of the agreement. If mediation agreement is accepted, go to step g. If not, go to step d. d. Assistance of Committee on Trees and Views. Committee works with the parties to resolve the view dispute, and issues a non -binding advisory opinion. Parties provide their own legal counsel if they wish to have counsel. If the parties accept the committee opinion in writing, go to step g. If not, go to step e. or f. e. Binding arbitration. If either party refuses binding arbitration, view -seeker may move to step f. If a binding arbitration order is issued, go to step g. f. Litigation. View seeker sues tree -owner and receives a court order. g. Implementation of restorative action. Upon receipt of a mediation agreement, acceptance of View Committee advisory opinion, binding arbitration order, or court order, guidelines are provided to implement restorative action, if actions are not otherwise specified in the agreements or orders. h. Enforcement. City may use its enforcement powers if necessary to enforce the mandated restorative action. 2. Draft and adopt a View Ordinance that will be viewed as fair by both view - seekers and tree -owners in Rolling Hills. There are some good model ordinances that have been well debated and lawyered that we could use as models. Trying to patch up the currently poorly drafted ordinance is like putting lipstick on a pig- when you are done, it's still a pig! I will elaborate on this in a separate letter. Regards, Lynn E. Gill 31 Chuckwagon Road 3 1 Page Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 441::19:21 PM Pacific Standard Time Subject: 12/15 Planning Commission meeting -discussion re: regulations interpreting Measure B (View Impairment) Date: Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 4:19:07 PM Pacific Standard Time From: Ewa Nikodem To: Ewa Nikodem BCC: jimaichele@hotmail.com, pamelareis@alumni.upenn.edu, oksanabihun@aol.com, sbreiholz@aol.com, jeannecsaks@yahoo.com, Rcolyearl@aol.com, lynn.gill@cox.net, clint@PruSouthBay.com, John_Nunn@cox.net, jrblackmd@gmail.com, kakmck@cox.net, mdsgardener@gmail.com, Arun@arjay.net, rhammond@greekbill.com, vukanr@gmail.com, adelatorre@jaunitasfoods.com, Ijtg2000@me.com, mseaburn@rentawheel.com, mikeandstephb@hotmail.com, raghumendu@ventureast.net, speedsmithfry@gmail.com, teamk@cox.net, scott.goodman@mattel.com, dksthomas@me.com, navarroji@cox.net, Iaurahatchmd@gmail.com, jd@traceww.com, howard@weinberglaw.la, Yolanta Schwartz Good Afternoon, The attached 12/15 Planning Commission meeting agenda and agenda item 6D (including proposed Resolution 2015-24) are for your information. The staff report is available on our website at http://roiling-hills.org/index.aspx?nid=140 and we will have copies of the attached staff report at the meeting. The meeting is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, 12/15 at 6:30 PM at Rolling Hills City Hall. BCC: Interested Parties Thank you, Ewa. Ewa Nikodem, Administrative Assistant City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310-377-1521 Fax: 310-377-7288 www.Rolling-Hills.org 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. ge't Ra 114to qe INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 6D Mtg. Date: 12/15/15 HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR SHAHIEDAH PALMER, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY RESOLUTION NO. 2015-24. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. ATTACHMENT: RESOLUTION 2015-24. BACKGROUND For several months, the Planning Commission has considered recommendations for amending the City's View Preservation Ordinance ("Ordinance") and regulations interpreting Measure B to address ambiguities. Since Measure B was adopted by the voters, it can only be amended by popular vote. In September, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt various amendments to the View Preservation Ordinance, and at the November 17, 2015 meeting the Planning Commission voted to adopt regulations interpreting Measure B. These regulations must be adopted by a Resolution, which is attached. Both, the recommendation by the Planning Commission to amend the View Preservation Ordinance and the interpretation of Measure B will be placed as a public hearing item at a future City Council agenda. DISCUSSION At the November 17, 2015 meeting the Planning Commission reached a consensus on the interpretation of Measure B as follows: Definition of Maturity • Measure B exempts vegetation that was "mature" at the time of acquisition of property from restorative action, but does not define "mature." The Planning Commission agreed on the following interpretation of this item: a. For those trees that have not been previously cut or trimmed, maturity is to be defined as vegetation that has grown to the maximum height it is likely to reach as set forth in the Sunset Western Garden Book. (Definition of "mature height" is taken from ISA language). b. Trees that were previously cut or trimmed are unlikely to reach their maximum height and shall not be considered "mature" for the purposes of the View Preservation Ordinance. Acquisition of Property Measure B limits views eligible for restoration to those in existence when the current property owner actually acquired the property, but provides no information regarding when a property transfer results in a change of ownership. The Planning Commission agreed on the following interpretations regarding the most common types of property transfers: 1) Inheritance- the person inheriting the property may apply to restore a view from the date that the previous owner acquired the property. This would be consistent with standard property tax exemptions. 2) Sale to third party- Acquisition limiting the buyer's ability to restore a view to the date of the sale as evidenced by a deed. 3) Trusts- Placement into a revocable trust is not an acquisition, but an acquisition will occur when a revocable trust becomes irrevocable, when property is placed into an irrevocable trust, or when the trust assets are distributed to beneficiaries. This rule would be consistent with the property tax rules regarding change in ownership. Retroactivity of Measure B Measure B specified that its provisions apply retroactively "to the date Chapter 17.26 was first made an Ordinance to the City of Rolling Hills". This is vague and the Council Ad Hoc Committee agreed that this provision needs clarification that Measure B's retroactivity provision has the effect of invalidating all view restoration orders issued by the City prior to passage of Measure B, (March 18, 2013). At the very first meeting the Planning Commission reviewed the Council's Ad Hoc Committee recommendations, Commissioners agreed that this language should be clarified. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2015-24 recommending to the City Council to adopt administrative regulations interpreting Measure B. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-24 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. In June 1988, the City adopted a View Preservation Ordinance. The ordinance established preservation of views as a primary value of the community and created a process by which a property owner could seek to abate an obstructed view. In November 2003, the ordinance was modified relative to the composition of the Committee on Views and Trees, the body designated to consider view applications. Section 2. In March 2013, the residents of Rolling Hills passed Measure B to amend the View Preservation Ordinance. The principal effect of Measure B was to shift the protection of the ordinance from views that are capable of being enjoyed from a property to views that were actually enjoyed from a property when the property owner acquired the property. In particular, the initiative amended the ordinance as follows: • Only a view that existed when the current property owner "actually acquired" the property may be restored; • Abatement of view impairment is limited to obstructions caused by trees that were "maturing" at the date of acquisition and trees that were "mature" at the time of property acquisition are excluded from consideration; • Measure B specified that abatement of view impairment is intended to create "view corridors" and views through trees, and not unobstructed views; • Measure B specified that its provisions are to be applied retroactively. Section 3. Measure B contains various ambiguities that have resulted in uncertainty in its application in view obstruction cases submitted to the City's Committee on Trees and View for consideration. Measure B can only be amended by the voters; however, the City may adopt administrative regulations providing guidance and interpreting ambiguities in voter initiatives. Based on this authority, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to review, discuss and develop a policy interpreting Measure B. Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the attached Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B Relating to View Preservation clarify the initiative and recommends their adoption by the City Council. : PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15th DAY OF DECEMBER 2015. BRAD CHELF, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE, 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. Attachment A City of Rolling Hills Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B Relating to View Preservation Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Date of Property Acquisition "Mature" versus "Maturing" Trees Retroactivity of Measure B Chapter 1 DATE OF PROPERTY ACQUISITION Section 1001. Interpretation of the Date of Acquisition of Property. Measure B provides that a person may only apply to restore the view existing from the date that the current owner of the property actually acquired the property. In determining whether a transfer of property has resulted in an acquisition affecting the view that a person may apply to have restored, the City shall generally apply the rules applicable to reassessment of property taxes in the County of Los Angeles. The impacts of common transfers of property are illustrated below: A. The acquisition date of property acquired through inheritance shall be the date that the previous owner acquired the property, not the date of the transfer by inheritance. B. The acquisition date of property acquired from a third party through an arms - length purchase and sale shall be the date of the sale as evidenced by a deed. C. When property is placed into a revocable trust, the acquisition date of property shall not change. When property is placed into an irrevocable trust, or a revocable trust becomes irrevocable, the acquisition date shall be the date that the property was placed into the irrevocable trust or the revocable trust became irrevocable. Chapter 2 "MATURE" VERSUS "MATURING" TREES Section 2001. Definition of "Mature" Trees The International Society of Arboriculture defines maturity by "mature height," which means the "maximum height that a plant is likely to reach if the conditions of the planting site are favorable." The Sunset Western Garden Book is a trusted reference guide on trees, plants and other vegetation present in the region and defines a plant species' "maturity" as the time at which a plant achieves a certain height range and displays other characteristics. The Sunset Western Garden Book provides maximum height ranges for species of plants typically involved in View Preservation cases in the City. For purposes of the View Preservation Ordinance and Measure B, a plant is "mature" when it reaches the maximum height for the species specified in the Sunset Western Garden Book. However, arborists agree that plants that have been regularly cut may never reach their maximum potential height, and several alternative methodologies are recognized to determine the age of such trees. However, the alternative methodologies are complex and require reliance on a professional arborist. Further, the proponents of Measure B testified before the Planning Commission that the intent of Measure B was to exempt trees that have reached their full species height prior to acquisition of a complainant's property. Therefore, trees that show evidence of regular cutting and are therefore unlikely to reach their maximum potential height shall not be considered "mature" for purposes of the View Preservation Ordinance and shall not be exempt from restorative action. Section 2002. Definition of "Maturing" Trees Trees and other vegetation that are not "mature" as specified in these regulations are "maturing." Section 2003. Presumption that Trees were not "Mature" If evidence is presented, such as historical aerial photographs, showing that none of the offending trees or vegetation subject to a complaint was planted at or around the time that the complainant acquired the property from which a view is claimed, the complainant shall be entitled to a presumption that the offending trees and vegetation were not "mature" at the date of acquisition and are therefore subject to restorative action. Chapter 3 RETROACTIVITY OF MEASURE B Section 3001. Retroactive Application. Any resolution of the City of Rolling Hills adjudicating any complaint regarding view impairments adopted by the Committee on Trees and Views, or the City Council on appeal, prior to March 18, 2013, is hereby considered void and will not be enforced by. the City. STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2015-24 entitled: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 15, 2015 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. CITY CLERK (L Friday, November 13, 2015 at 3:58:13 PM Pacific Standard Time Subject: 11/17 Planning Commission meeting -discussion re trgulations interpreting Measure B (View Impairment) Date: Friday, November 13, 2015 at 3:50:16 PM Pacific Standard Time From: Ewa Nikodem To: Ewa Nikodem BCC: jimaichele@hotmail.com, pamelareis@alumni.upenn.edu, oksanabihun@aol.com, sbreiholz@aol.com, jeannecsaks@yahoo.com, Rcolyearl@aol.com, Iynn.gill@cox.net, clint@PruSouthBay.com, John_Nunn@cox.net, jrblackmd@gmail.com, kakmck@cox.net, mdsgardener@gmail.com, Arun@arjay.net, rhammond@greekbill.com, vukanr@gmail.com, adelatorre@jaunitasfoods.com, Ijtg2000@me.com,,mseaburn@rentawheel.com, mikeandstephb@hotmail.com, raghumendu@ventureast.net, speedsmithfry@gmail.com, , teamk@cox.net, scott.goodman@mattel.com, dksthomas@me.com, navarroji@cox.net, Iaurahatchmd@gmail.com, jd@traceww.com, howard@weinberglaw.la Good Afternoon, The attached 11/17 Planning Commission meeting agenda is for your information. At the meeting, the Planning Commission will discuss regulations interpreting Measure B to address ambiguities. The agenda item 10A staff report is too big to email. The staff report is available on our website at http: / /rolling- hills.org/index.aspx?nid=140 We will have copies of the staff report at the meeting. The meeting is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, 11/17 at 6:30 PM at Rolling Hills City Hall. Thank you, Ewa. Ewa Nikodem, Administrative Assistant City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310-377-1521 Fax: 310-377-7288 www.Rolling-Hills.org 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. Page 1 of 1 I Pace your community - connect to news, events and information you care about. View more information.., Sign In Ilt3OLLIANkLir 1 1 I L L V CALIFORNIA Search our site City Council City Council Agendas Committee on Trees & Views Agendas Planning Commission Agendas Traffic Commission Agendas NOTIFY ME I EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION CONTACT U5 City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ph. (310) 377-1521 Fax (310) 377-7288 7:30 am - 5:00 pm Mon -Fri Notify Me You are here: Home > Notify Me 1. Type your email address in the box and select Sign In. 2 If you want to receive text messages enter your phone number and select Savo. 3. To subscribe or unsubscribe click@ and/or 0 next to the lists to which you wish to subscribe/unsubscribe. Previous I Next » Available Lists Subscribe to this list I See all lists Sender Name: Sent By: Send Date: Email Subject: Pending Ordinances Ewa Nikodem 11/13/2015 3:45:00 PM Proposed Code Amendments - View Preservation ♦ Formatted HTML message On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 6:30 p.m., during its regular meeting, the Planning Commission will discuss administrative regulations interpreting Measure B relating to View Preservation. The meeting agenda and staff can now be found at http://roiling-hills.org/index.aspx?nid=140 *xxxx** This complimentary message is being sent to opt -in subscribers who might be interested in its content. If you do not wish to continue receiving these messages, please accept our apologies, and unsubscribe by visiting our website at: htto://www,rolling-hills.org/list.aso?mode=del Please note, we will not sell or give your e-mail address to any organization without your explicit permission. ♦ Plain text message On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 6:30 p.m., during Its regular meeting, the Planning Commission will discuss administrative regulations interpreting Measure B relating to View Preservation. The meeting agenda and staff can now be found at http://roiling-hills.org/index.aspx?nid=140 This complimentary message is being sent to opt -in subscribers who might be interested in its content. If you do not wish to continue receiving these messages, please accept our apologies, and unsubscribe by visiting our website at: http://www.rolling-hills.org/list.asp?mode=del [http://www.rolling-hills.org/list.asp?mode=delj Please note, we will not sell or give your e-mail address to any organization without your explicit permission. ♦ SMS message The 11/17 Planning Commission agenda and staff report re regulations interpreting Measure B can now be found at http://rolling-hills.org/index.aspx?nid=140 Your e-mail address will be kept confidential and it will not be sold, disclosed to others, or used for unsolicited mass mailings (spam). Please remember to set your spam blocker to allow mail from listserv@civicplus.com. Home 1 Email Page 1 Print Page 1 RSS 1 Accessibility 1 Copyright Notices 1 Disclaimer A Back to top ge4 Railew, gee,6 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 10A Mtg. Date: 11/17/15 HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR SHAHIEDAH COATES, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY DISCUSSION REGARDING REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B (VIEW IMPAIRMENT). NOVEMBER 13, 2015 ATTACHMENTS: A) DRAFT REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B B) HEIGHT RANGES OF SELECT TREES ACCORDING TO THE SUNSET WESTERN GARDEN BOOK C) ARBORIST REPORTS RECEIVED IN RECENT VIEW IMPAIRMENT CASE OBJECTIVE For several months, the Planning Commission has considered recommendations for amending the City's View Preservation Ordinance ("Ordinance") and regulations interpreting Measure B to address ambiguities. Since Measure B was adopted by the voters, it can only be amended by popular vote. The Planning Commission has adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt various amendments to the Ordinance. This item addresses the regulations interpreting Measure B. BACKGROUND For several months, the Planning Commission has deliberated recommendations to the City Council regarding the View Preservation Ordinance in the form of two items: 1) amendments to the Ordinance and 2) administrative regulations interpreting Measure B. On August 18, 2015, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending • that the City Council approve various amendments to the View Preservation Ordinance, many of which were based on recommendations proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee of the City Council. However, the Planning Commission had tabled its deliberation of the Measure B regulations until the Committee on Trees and Views ("Committee") resolved a pending case (Nuccion v. Hassoldt), which involved a question regarding maturity of the trees at issue. On October 7, 2015, the Committee adopted a resolution in the Nuccion v. Hassoldt view case finding that views from the Nuccion property located at 18 Portuguese Bend Road were impaired by trees located on the Hassoldt property at 15 Portuguese Bend Road and that restorative action should be taken with respect to nine of the trees at issue. The Hassoldts argued that the trees were exempt from restorative action under Measure B because they were mature when the Nuccions acquired their property in 2009. Arborist reports were submitted by both parties, reaching different conclusions regarding whether the trees were mature in 2009. The Committee determined that it lacked sufficient evidence to determine whether the trees were mature and directed City staff to retain an independent arborist to be paid for by the Complainants pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.26.050.C, to make that determination. The City's independent arborist determined that all but two of the trees at issue were exempt from remediation because they were mature in 2009. However, the Committee considered historic photographs of the City, which showed no trees in the vicinity of the property and determined that only two of the trees at issue could have been mature in 2009. In future cases, the Committee and parties would benefit from a clear set of standards to assist in the determination of whether trees at issue are exempt from restorative action. In total, four arborist reports were provided to the Committee regarding the maturity of the eleven trees at issue in the Nuccion v. Hassoldt case, and each reached a different conclusion by using a different methodology consistent with industry standards, see Attachment C. The arborist reports indicated that periodic trimming or cutting of trees can significantly limit a tree's ability to reach its maximum height. Therefore, Measure B's requirement that maturity be "defined by industry standards predominantly accepted by arborists" is insufficient and creates considerable ambiguity. Measure B is also unclear regarding when a person acquires property (which is important because a person may only claim the view that actually existed when they acquired property) and how Measure B should be applied retroactively. During its previous deliberations on the Measure B regulations, the Planning Commission failed to reach a consensus regarding two items: when property is acquired and methodology for determining the maturity of trees. To aid the Planning Commission in reaching a consensus, staff makes the following recommendations: • Definition of Maturity Measure B exempts vegetation that was "mature" at the time of acquisition of property from restorative action, but does not define "mature." The Sunset Western Garden Book is an authoritative reference guide, which provides a range of typical heights of trees and other plants. Based on the arborist reports received during the Nuccion v. Hassoldt view case, it is recommended that the City use two standards for maturity, depending on whether evidence shows that a tree was previously trimmed or cut. For those trees that have not been previously cut or trimmed, it is recommended that maturity be defined as vegetation that has grown to 75% of its maximum height and width set forth in the Sunset Garden Book. For those trees that were previously cut or trimmed, it is recommended that maturity be defined in accordance with one of two methodologies used by the City's independent arborist: 1) Set a threshold age for maturity (i.e., 40 years). Measure the circumference of the tree 4.5 feet above the ground and multiply by 1. If the calculated age is over 40 years, the tree is mature. 2) Set a threshold age for maturity (i.e., 40 years). Multiply the diameter of the tree at 4.5 feet above the ground by the tree species' average growth factor. In previously submitted comments, Mr. Lynn Gill also recommended that "mature" trees be defined as trees that have reached at least 75% of their typical final height and spread, based on his review of other cities' ordinances and relevant literature. The Ad Hoc Committee members considered using similar standards, but could not agree on the percentage or height of growth at which a tree should be deemed "mature." Attachment B provides a table showing the Sunset Western Garden Book height range for trees common to Rolling Hills. Acquisition of Property Measure B limits views eligible for restoration to those in existence when the current property owner actually acquired the property, but provides no information regarding when a property transfer results in a change of ownership. Property in the City is most commonly transferred through inheritance, sale to a third party, or through a trust, and questions often arise regarding whether a certain kind of transfer constitutes a change of ownership limiting a new owner's ability to claim a view. It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the following interpretations regarding the most common types of property transfers: 1) Inheritance- No acquisition of property, meaning that the person inheriting the property may apply to restore a view from the date that the previous owner acquired the property. This would be consistent with standard property tax exemptions. • • 2) Sale to third party- Acquisition limiting the buyer's ability to restore a view to the date of the sale. 3) Trusts- Placement into a revocable trust is not an acquisition, but an acquisition will occur when a revocable trust becomes irrevocable, when property is placed into an irrevocable trust, or when the trust assets are distributed to beneficiaries. This rule would be consistent with the property tax rules regarding change in ownership. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the Planning Commission reconvene the discussion, receive public testimony, and reach a consensus regarding administrative regulations interpreting Measure B. • Attachment A City of Rolling Hills Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B Relating to View Preservation Chapter 1 General Description of View Preservation Ordinance and Measure B Chapter 2 Date of Property Acquisition Chapter 3 "Mature" versus "Maturing" Trees Chapter 4 Retroactivity of Measure B Chapter 1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF VIEW PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND MEASURE B Section 1001. General Description of View Preservation Ordinance and Measure B In June 1988, the City adopted a View Preservation Ordinance. The ordinance established preservation of views as a primary value of the community and created a process by which a property owner could seek to abate an obstructed view. In November 2003, the ordinance was modified relative to the composition of the Committee on Views and Trees, the body designated to consider view applications. In March 2013, the residents of Rolling Hills passed Measure B to amend the View Preservation Ordinance. The principal effect of Measure B was to shift the protection of the ordinance from views that are capable of being enjoyed from a property to views that were actually enjoyed from a property when the property owner acquired the property. In particular, the initiative amended the ordinance as follows: • Only a view that existed when the current property owner "actually acquired" the property may be restored; • Abatement of view impairment is limited to obstructions caused by trees that were "maturing" at the date of acquisition and trees that were "mature" at the time of property acquisition are excluded from consideration; • Measure B specified that abatement of view impairment is intended to create "view corridors" and views through trees, and not unobstructed views; • Measure B specified that its provisions are to be applied retroactively. Measure B contains various ambiguities that have resulted in uncertainty in its application. Because Measure B can only be amended by the voters, these regulations clarify the City's interpretation of the initiative. Section 1002. Applicability The provisions of these regulations are intended to be applicable to the administration and enforcement of the provisions of Chapter 17.26 of Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code amended by Measure B. City of Rolling Hills Regulations Interpreting Measure B Page 1 • • Chapter 2 DATE OF PROPERTY ACQUISITION [TBD] City of Rolling Hills Regulations Interpreting Measure B Page 2 Chapter 3 "MATURE" VERSUS "MATURING" TREES Section 3001. Definition of "Mature" Trees The Sunset Western Garden Book is a trusted reference guide on trees, plants and other vegetation present in the region and defines a plant species' "maturity" as the time at which a plant achieves a certain height range and displays other characteristics. For purposes of the View Preservation Ordinance and Measure B, a tree or other vegetation is "mature" when it reaches the `/lowest height of the "mature" height range for the species specified in the Sunset Western Garden Book. Section 3002. Definition of "Maturing" Trees Trees and other vegetation that are not "mature" as specified in these regulations are "maturing." Section 3003. Presumption that Trees were not "Mature" If evidence is presented, such as historical aerial photographs, showing that none of the offending trees or vegetation subject to a complaint was planted at or around the time that the complainant acquired the property from which a view is claimed, the complainant shall be entitled to a presumption that the offending trees and vegetation were not "mature" at the date of acquisition and are therefore subject to restorative action. 1D, City of Rolling Hills Regulations Interpreting Measure B Page 3 Chapter 4 RETROACTIVITY OF MEASURE B Section 4001. Retroactive Application. Any resolution of the City of Rolling Hills adjudicating any complaint regarding view impairments adopted by the Committee on Trees and Views, or the City Council on appeal, prior to March 18, 2013, is hereby considered void and will not be enforced by the City. cc31 City of Rolling Hills Regulations Interpreting Measure B Page 4 • • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • ATTACHMENT B 1 Attachment B HEIGHT RANGES OF SELECT TREES ACCORDING TO THE SUNSET WESTERN GARDEN BOOK Tree Type Growth Size Notes Height Width Brazilian Pepper (Schinus) 30' 30' Moderate growth California Pepper Cypress (Italian) 60' 5'-10' Eucalyptus (many varieties) 45'-150' 45'-105' Large with spreading crown Eucalyptus, red flowering gum 18'-45' 15'-60' Usually single trunk, round headed Melaleuca (Black Tea Tree) 18'-30' 12'-25' Fast growth Olive 25'-30' 25'-30' Slow growth Photinia (mostly used as hedge) 10'- 15' 10'-15' Moderate to fast growth Pine (Aleppo) 30'-60' 20'-40' Moderate to fast growth Pine (Canary Island) 50'-80' 20'-35' Fast growth Pine (Coulter) 30'-80' 20'-40' Moderate to fast growth Pine (Torrey) 40'-60' 30'-50' Fast growth Pittosporum (Victorian Box) 30'-40' 30'-40' Fast to 15'; slow to 30-40' Podocarpus (P.nagi) 15'-20' 6'-8' Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 70'-90' 15'-30' Fast early growth New Zealand Christmas Tree (Metrosideros, M. excelsus) 30' or more 30' Fast growing in sun & well drained soil Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) Shrub: Tree: 6'-10' 15'-25' Spread - almost as tall California Holly Can be broad & multitrunked Myoporum (several varieties) Shrub: Tree: 5'-9' 3'-20' 6'-12' 6'-25' Tough and fast growing. One variety -M. Laetum can grow up to 30'high; 20' spread Liquidambar 60' in gardens; much taller in wild 20-25' Moderate rate growth • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • Attachment C e Urecoxpir Certified Arborist Consulting RECE1 ED Report, SEP 0 2 2015 City of Rolling Hills By 15 Portuguese Bend Rd. Rolling Hills, Ca. 90274 Table of Content Scope of work p. 1 Tree List . p. 2-3 Determining the age of trees p. 4 Tree Description p. 5-6 Conclusion p. 7-9 Calculation p. 10-12 Tree Photos p. 13-37 Recommendation p. 38-39 Scope of Work The City of Rolling Hills seeks a licensed arborist trained by the International Society of Arboriculture to develop a report for presentation to Committee on Trees and Views. The report is to evaluate 11 trees on the property at 15 Portuguese Bend Road and advice the committee whether those trees were "Mature" or "Maturing in the year 2009, when the owners of 18 Portuguese Bend acquired the property. The eleven trees on the property of 15 Portuguese Bend Road have been identified as in the line of sight of and blocking the city light views. Per Exhibit B, the trees are numbered 1-9A. The report should be detailed to identify, tree by tree and the justification for identifying each tree as "Mature" or "Maturing. The final report is to be presented at an initial meeting attended with the Committee on Trees and views. 1 Tree List • # 2 Eucalyptus Camaldulensis # 3 Washingtonia Robusta # 3A Washingtonia Robusta # 4 Eucalyptus Rudis # 4A Olea Europaea # 5 Eucalyptus Camaldulensis # 6 Shinus Molle # 6A Shinus Molle # 7 Olea Europaea #9 Olea Europaea # 9A Olea Europaea 2 110 • Determining the age of trees Determining the age of tree involves several different methods. 1. If possible determine when the trees were planted. 2. Multiply the diameter by the growth factor : >Measure the trunk width at 4.5 feet off the ground. Calculate the diameter (circumference divided by 3.14 Pi) >Multiply the diameter and the tree species' average growth factor = estimate of age 3. Use of Increment Borer tool: this will take a small sample from the tree bark to the pith (tree centre). It's a way to count the tree's rings without cutting down the tree. 4. Felling the dead tree: by cutting the trunk you can count the growth ring to determine the age. This is method is used primarily for dying or dead trees. 5. Measure the circumference of the trunk at 4.5 feet off the ground and multiply by 1= estimate of age. In determining the age of the trees, the history of the initial planting of the trees was unavailable due to newer ownership of the property. Method 2 and 5 was the method I used to determine the age which involved the least amount of disturbance to the trees. (13 • Tree Descriptions Eucalyptus Camaldulensis / Red Gum Eucalyptus: 45' — 150' Height / 45' — 105' Spread Median Sized Leaves / Bark: Long, slender, lance shaped, pendulous, green leaves. Trunk is tan, mottled (smooth,white,cream and pale grey with yellow,pink or brown patches. Flowers/Fruit are white to pale yellow, small capsules. Eucalyptus Rudis / Flooded Gum Eucalyptus: 30'- 60' Height / 24'-40' Spread Median sized Leaves / Bark: Juvenile leaves are oval, Grey green to green leaves, 4"- 6", lance shaped leaves. Rough bark, persistent, dark gray brown, with fine fissuring which extends to the large branches. Flowers / Fruit: white flower clusters, small %" wide capsules with flat discs. Olea Europaea / Olive: 25'-30' Height / 25'-30' Spread Slow Growth Leaves / Bark: Willow like foliage is soft gray green. Trunk is smooth gray and branches become gnarled and picturesque in age. Schinus Molle / California Pepper: 25'- 40' Height / 25'-40' Spread Small to Median Sized Leaves / Bark: Trunks of old tree are heavy and fantastically gnarled, with knots and burls that often sprout leaves and small branches. Heavy green leaves with many narrow leaflets to 2" long, dropping 4- 1 Tree Descriptions 6inch clusters of tiny yellowish white summer flowers. Rosy berries in fall, winter Washingtonia Robusta / Mexican Fan Palm: up to 100' tall, 10' wide leaf stalk cluster,trunk is slightly curved or bent depending on wind conditions, slimmer than the W. Filifera. Head of bright green foliage is more compact, leaf stalks are shorter, with a red streak on the undersides. Source : Sunset Western Garden Book 2001 Edition 6 I Conclusion On July 16, 2015 a survey was conducted at 15 Portuguese Bend Rd. Rolling Hills Ca. to determine whether a list of trees provided by the City of Rolling Hills (Per Exhibit B) are protected under the Municipal Code Chapter 17.26 Amendment Measure B. Upon the verification of species, measuring and calculations of the trees, the conclusions are as followed. Trees #2, #3, #3A, #4, #5, #6, #6A, #9, #9A have been determined to have reached their "MATURE" life cycle stage. These trees are considered protected under the Municipal Code Chapter 17.26 / Amendment Measure B. Trees #2, #3, #3A, #4, #5, #6, #6A, #9, #9A show signs of "TOPPING" trim method prohibiting the tree's "NATURAL" height potential. Topping of tree branches cause a "WATERSPROUT" growth condition. Watersprouts are a condition of multipal, vigorous, epicormic growth sprouts competing for dominance. Watersprouts are normally weak attachments. Structural pruning is necessary to correct the problem. Trees #4A and #7 have been determined to have "NOT" reached their "MATURE" life cycle stage. These trees are "NOT" protected under the Municipal Code Chapter 17.26 / Amendment Measure B. Trees #4A and #7 show signs of previous felling cuts at ground level causing new watersprout / sucker growth. New growth has "NOT" reached their "MATURE" life cycle stage. 7 • • Conclusion In determining the age of the trees my best educated guess using methods 2 and 5 are as followed. Keep in mind that the climatic and environmental conditions factor into the development of the trees and therefore some though planted in the same time period may result in size differentials. Tree #2 : Eucalyptus Camaldulensis was 86 years old in 2009 Tree #3 : Washingtonia Robusta was 44.25 years old in 2009 Tree #3A : Washingtonia Robusta was 44.3 years old in 2009 Tree #4 :Eucalyptus Rudis was 120 years old in 2009 Tree #4A : Olea Europaea was 17 years old in 2009 Tree #5 : Eucalyptus Camaldulensis was 46.75 years old in 2009 Tree #6 : Schinus Molle was 30 years old in 2009 Tree #6A : Schinus Molle was 28 years old in 2009 Tree #7 :Olea Europaea was 15 years old in 2009 Tree #9 :Olea Europaea was 141 years old in 2009 Tree # 9A :Olea Europaea was 115 years old in 2009 8 • r Conclusion Although trees 2,#3,#3A,#4,#5,#6,#6A,#9,#9A have reached their mature state they will benefit from corrective crown restoration trimming techniques to remove watersprout condition and provide the structural integrity of the trees and prevent weak branch attachment from detaching causing safety concerns. These techniques are described in the recommendation portion of this report. Trees #4A and #7 that are "NOT" protected under the Municipal Code Chapter 17.26/ Amendment Measure B and are still maturing would also benefit from the crown restoration trimming technique if there is a desire to keep them or remove altogether if necessary. 9 Tree Calculations # 2 Eucalyptus Camaldulensis; Current estimated height 60' Circumference: 115" Calculation #1: 115"C x 1= 115 yrs. minus 5 yrs. = 110 yrs Calculation #2: 115"C divided by 3.14 = 36.5" D x 2.5 Growth Factor = 91.5 yrs. Minus 5 yrs. = 86 yrs. # 3 Washingtonia Robusta; Current estimated height 50'-55' Circumference : 62" Calculation #1: 62"C x 1= 62 yrs. minus 5 yrs. = 57 yrs. Calculation #2: 62"C divided by 3.14 = 19.7"D x 2.5 Growth Factor=49.25 yrs. Minus 5 yrs. = 44.25 yrs. # 3A Washingtonia Robusta; Current estimated height. 50'-55' Circumference: 65" Calculation #1: 65"Cx 1= 65 yrs. minus 5 yrs. = 60 yrs. Calculation #2 : 65"C divided by 3.14 = 19.7"D x 2.5 Growth Factor = 49.3 yrs. Minus 5 yrs.= 44.3 yrs. # 4 Eucalyptus Rudis;.Current estimated height 30'-35' Circumference: 158" Calculation #1: 158"C x 1= 158yrs. minus 5 yrs. = 153 yrs. Calculation #2: 158"C divided by 3.14 = 50.3"D x 2.5 Growth Factor = 125 yrs. Minus 5 yrs. = 120 yrs. 10 i Tree Calculations #4A Olea Europaea; Current estimated height 17'-20' Circumference : 24" C Multiple Trunks / Water Spouts Calculation #1: 24"C x1 = 24 yrs. minus 5 yrs. = 20 yrs. Calculation # 2: 24"C divided by 3.14 = 7.6"D x 3 Growth Factor = 22.9 yrs . Minus 5 yrs. = 17 yrs. #5 Eucalyptus Camaldulensis; Current estimated height 60'-65' Circumference : 65" Calculation #1: 65"C x 1= 65 yrs. Calculation #2: 65"C divided by 3.14 = 20.7"D x 2.5 Growth Factor = 51.75 yrs. Minus 5 yrs. = 46.75 yrs. # 6 Schinus Molle; Current estimated height 20'-25' Circumference : 45" Calculation #1: 45"C x 1= 45 yrs. Minus 5 yrs. = 40 yrs. Calculation #2: 45"C divided by 3.14 = 14.3"D x 2.5 Growth Factor = 35.75 yrs. Minus 5 yrs. = 30 yrs. # 6A Schinus Molle; Current estimated height 15' Circumference : 42" Calculation #1: 42"C x 1= 42 yrs Minus 5 yrs. = 37 yrs. Calculation # 2: 42"C divided by 3.14 = 13.37"D X 2.5 Growth Factor = 33.4 yrs. Minus 5 yrs. = 28.4 yrs. 11 1110 Tree Calculations #7 Olea Europaea; Current estimated height 25' Circumference: 21" Calculation# 1: 21"C x 1= 21 yrs. Calculation #2: 21"C divided by 3.14 = 6.68"D x 3 Growth Factor = 20.04 yrs. Minus 5 yrs. = 15 yrs. 9 Olea Europaea; Current estimated height 50' Circumference: 153" Calculation #1: 153"C x 1 = 153 yrs. Minus 5 yrs. = 148 yrs. Calculation #2: 153"C divided by 3.14 = 48.7"D x 3 Growth Factor = 146.1 yrs. Minus 5 yrs. = 141.1 yrs. #9A Olea Europaea; Current estimated height 50' Circumference: 126" Calculation #1: 126"C x 1 = 126 yrs. Minus 5 yrs = 121 yrs. Calculation #2: 126"C divided by 3.14 = 40.1"D x 3 Growth Factor = 120.3 yrs. Minus 5 yrs. = 115.3 yrs. 12 Tree #2 Eucalyptus Camaldulensis ( Red Gum) along roadway easement -front 13 -204- Tree # 2 Eucalyptus Camaldulensis (Red Gum) along roadway easement -front 14 Eucalyptus Camaldulensis ( Red Gum ) show signs of "Topping" cuts Trees # 3 & 3A Washingtonia Robusta - Along N/E side of property 16 Eucalyptus Rudis (Flooded Gum) S/W corner of lot • Tree #4 Eucalyptus Rudis ( Flooded Gum ) —S/W corner of lot 18 • • Tree # 4A Olea Europaea (Olive) SW of Property 20 Olea Europaea (Olive) SW of Property / volunteer growth Olea Europaea (Olive) SW of Property / volunteer growth Tree # 5 Eucalyptus Camaldulensis (Red Gum) N. of garage 23 • • Tree # 6 Schinus Molle ( California Pepper — Along front roadway 28 Tree # 6A Schinus Molle ( California Pepper) Inside fence along roadway 29 Schinus Molle ( California Pepper) Along Front Lot Olea Europaea ( Olive) Along front S/E corner • Tree#7 Olea Europaea ( Olive) Along front S/E corner 32 • S Tree #9 Olea Europaea ( Olive) N. Lawn area L03- 33 S Tree # 9A Olea Europaea ( Olive ) S Lawn area S 36 • Tree # 9A Olea Europaea ( Olive) S. Lawn area 37 Recommendation Trees #2, #3, #3A, #4, #5, #6, #6A, #9, #9A require trimming to ISA Standards. Using crown thinning, vista pruning, crown reduction and crown restoration will insure the integrity of tree structure. These trees have been previously topped and have sprouted vigorous waterspout limbs. Crown restoration will improve their structure and appearance. Crown restoration consists of the selective removal of some watersprouts, stubs and dead branches to improve a tree's structure and form. Choose one to three sprouts from the ends of damaged branches to become permanent branches and to form a more natural appearing crown. Selected vigorous sprouts may need to be subordinated to control length growth and ensure adequate attachment for size of sprout. In some cases heading cuts are used to initiate new shoot development from a damaged branch as an alternative to removing the branch altogether. Restoration usually requires several pruning's over a number of years. Trees #4A and #7 could be removed is so desired or would also benefit as well from crown restoration trimming techniques Source; International Society of Arboriculture / Arborist Certification Study Guide 38 CD. Aw br avynmog AJMthrankgout Alb$ Thinning- out, ens par law Tnyping one year late Thinning out is also known as selective cutting or drop-crotching. It involves complete removal of a branch back to the main stem, or to another lateral branch, or to the point of origin. With thinning out, the overall general shape of the tree is kept. Pruning wounds are closer to the stem and heal more rapidly. In addition, stimulation of new growth is distributed over many growing points. Topping is a more severe type of pruning and consists of cutting the top of a tree in a "flat -top" or "snowball -cone" shape. With topping, effects will be far more negative. Numerous new shoots will develop rapidly, producing many fast-growing, succulent sprouts. The tree will appear bushy, and the new shoots will generally form more structurally weak junctures with the main branch of the limb. Branches will tend to angle up very closely to the tree trunk, producing weak crotches. 39 • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • William and Judith Hassoldt Residence 15 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, Calfornia Consulting Arborist Report 6/16/15 By JUL 06 2015. City of Rolling Hills By Dane S. Shota Certified Arborist, #WE 3436A B.S. Ornamental Horticulture California Polytechnic University, Pomona, California DRE Lic. #01782475 16835 Algonquin Street # 172, Huntington Beach, OA 92649-3825 Office (714) 377-1181, Arbordane@yahoo.com 1 (DS • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Objective 3 Limitations 3 Definition of Mature Trees Inventory of Mature trees 3 4 Comments 4 Pruning Information on Mature Trees 5 Pictures of the Mature Trees 6 Job site and owners contact information 24 Consulted on Jobs 25 Consulting Arborist Resume 26 (s3 • • Objective: I met with William and Judith Hassoldt on 6/11/15 to discuss the trees that would have been mature at their home in Rolling Hills prior to 2009. A lot of the trees that are mature were planted in 1937. Limitations This recommendation does not constitute a complete risk assessment or warranty against continued decline or failure. Definition of Mature Trees -Recently planted trees & saplings; not fully established. (Generally capable of being transplanted or easily replaced.) -Young: Establishing; usually with good vigor, but as yet of limited significance in the landscape. -Early-Mature; established; normally vigorous & increasing in height. Of increasing landscape significance. -Mature; Fully established trees around the middle half of their usual life -expectancy; generally retaining good vigor and achieving full height but their crowns still spreading. -Late-mature: Fully established trees, retaining moderate vigor but with growth slowing. -Old: Fully mature trees in last quarter of their usual life - expectancy; vigor declining. -Ancient: Very old; low vigor; liable to decline. May include. important Veteran Trees. 3 Inventory of Mature trees at the site: HT'X WD'X DIAMETER " 1. Olea europea, Olive 40'X30'X9", 16", 13", 10", 8" 2. Olea europea, Olive 45'X40'X 14", 14", 14", 12" 3. Pittosporum undulatum, 20'X25'X6", 6", 6", 4", 4" 4. Eucalyptus sp. 70'X40'X34" 5. Washingtonia robusta 60' 6. Washingtonia robusta 50' 7. Laurus nobilis, Bay Laurel 20'X15' 8. Laurus nobilis, Bay Laurel 20'X15' 9. Schinus molle, California Pepper 50'X40' 10.Pinus 60'X30'X18" 11.Yucca 10'X8'X18", 9", 5", 3", 5", 4", 6", 8", 9" 12.Eucalyptus 15'X30'X16" 13. Pittosporum undulatum 20'X15'X6",9" 14. Pittosporum undulatum25'X20'X17", 16" 15. Pittosporum undulatum 20'X15'X9" 16. Pittosporum undulatum 20'X15'X11" 17. Pinus canariensis, Canary Island Pine 50'X20'X20" 18. Pittosporum undulatum 30'X20'X13", 8", 13" 19. Eucalyptus 60'X40'X19" 20. Eucalyptus 50'X25'X13" Comments: Most of the trees inventoried had been pruned thereby the present height of the trees have been manipulated. • Pruning Information on Mature Trees http://www.treesaregood.com/treecaref resources/Pruning_MatureTrees.pdf - On palm trees, no green palm fronds are to be pruned off as they are still part of the photosynthesis process. - Mature trees are not as vigorous as young trees and cannot take too much stress. One of the stresses is too much pruning at one time. - The auxins (hormones) to heal wounds are in the smaller branches so large pruning wounds are not recommended. Pruning techniques will be followed from Structural Pruning, A Guide for the Green Industry 2013. No more than 15 percent of the foliage is to be pruned at one time. Pruning is to be supervised by a Certified Arborist. Any work is to abide by the current ANSI specifications. It is recommended that any removal or pruning of trees check with the City if a permit is necessary before starting the pruning project. If there is any stump grinding that is going to be done below ground Dig Alert is to be notified. An ISA Certified Arborist Utility Specialist is needed where trees are near or touching electrical lines. 5 1. Olea europea, Olive 40'X30'X9", 16", 13", 10", 8" Mature Tree. • 5. Washingtonia robusta 60' 6. Washingtonia robusta 60' Mature Trees. Only Dead Fronds are to be pruned off. Partially green fronds will be left on. 10 Cq3 7. Laurus nobilis, Bay Laurel 20'X15' 8. Laurus nobilis, Bay Laurel 20'X15' 9. Schinus molle, California Pepper 50'X40' Mature Tree. 11.Yucca10'X8'X18",9",5",3",5",4",6",8",9" • 15. Pittosporum undulatum 20'X15'X9" 18 (-43, 17. Pinus canariensis, Canary Island Pine 50'X20'X20" Previously topped. 18. Pittosporum undulatum 30'X20'X13", 8", 13" Trees 19 and 20 are considered separate trees for they have their own basil flare to the roots. • SITE LOCATION AND CONTACT INFORMATION Owner: William and Judith Hassoldt, ANZA LLC Job location: 15 Portuguese Bend road, Roliling Hills, CA 90274 Parcel 7569-014-007 Cell (310) 567-3141, Home (310) 377-4114 24 -qc38 • Specializing in establishing trees, Soil Science, monitoring soil moisture, troubleshooting, and tree appraisals/inventories. DANE S. SHOTA CERTIFIED ARBORIST HAS CONSULTED ON: ARMAGEDDON - A TOUCHTONE RELEASE BERTH 93 - PORT OF LOS ANGELES BOEING - LONG BEACH CABRILLO BEACH - SAN PEDRO DALE VS. L.A. CITY DEFENCE FUEL REGION WEST- REMEDIATION OF MTBE IN SAN PEDRO ECHO PARK LAKE - LOS ANGELES HUNTINGTON BEACH -PYTOREMEDIATION GORDON GIBSON CONSTRUCTION -SANTA MONICA GUASTI WINERY - ONTARIO LA. CITY HALL L.A. CITY VS. LA. COUNTY LITTLE CO. OF MARY HOSPITAL- TORRANCE LOYOLA MARYMOUNT COLLEGE - WESTCHESTER LOEWS BEACH HOTEL -SANTA MONICA NORWALK TANK FARM-REMEDIATION OF MTBE & 1,2 DCA TOXICITY PALOS VERDES HOA PASADENA TOURNAMENT OF ROSES CORPORATE BUILDING - PASADENA PEGASUS SCHOOL- HUNTINGTON BEACH PORT'S 0' CALL- SAN PEDRO RONALD REAGAN FEDERAL BUILDING -SANTA ANA SAMS CLUB- FOUNTAIN VALLEY ST. REGIS MONARCH BAY -DANA POINT STUART LITTLE -THE MOVIE THE WATERFRONT BEACH RESORT- A HILTON HOTEL HUNTINGTON BEACH TOYOTA TRUCK BED DIVISION - DOWNEY TRI-POINTE HOMES WALT DISNEY CONCERT HALL- LA WAYFARERS CHAPEL - PALOS VERDES WESTFIELD SHOPPING CENTER-CANOGA PARK FriD 25 • • Dane S. Shota PROFILE 16835 Algonquin Street #172 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-3825 Office: (714) 377-1181 arbordane@yahoo.com http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dane-s-shota/22/a66/912 Result -oriented individual with over 28 years of professional experience in project management covering the landscape and agribusiness industries. Consultant for nursery, landscape, and tree orchard industries. Introduce unique approaches to project management and problem -solving which includes incorporating macroeconomic forces, business excellence, and financial modeling to bring measureable results to projects and processes. ■ Facilitates complex decision -making processes • Continuous improvement ■ Agribusiness and operations excellence • B.S. Omamental Horticulture, Business Minor • Licensed Real Estate Agent • Horticulturist/Certified Arborist CAREER • Leadership experience ■ Solution -oriented project management a Cognitive agility ▪ Social agility ■ Knowledge of real estate business ■ Consultant for plant/soil health Highly motivated individual Dane S. Shota & Associates — 2003 to present President, Owner, and CEO — Huntington Beach, CA Speaker for other Arborists for "Ground up Approach" dealing with moisture sensors and lab testing Guest speaker for Cal Poly Pomona's students and PAPA for "Trouble Shooting in the Landscape" and BioLife Complex Oversee and troubleshoot the work of landscape contractors and landscape architects Landscape Architect soil specifications Use of cutting edge soil technology to transition from synthetic fertilizer to organic fertilizer - Able to get organic fertilizers to work by getting the soil sustainably healthy Transform subsoil into soil plants will flourish Turn plants around that could not grow well with recommendations from the soil lab into soil that plants will flourish Biolife Complex expert Soil Permaculture expert Overlook and monitor the transplantation of large specimen trees Care for trees with moisture sensors Pre and post landscape construction, planting, planning, and repair Tree inventory and appraisals 26 • • Tree selection for site development Installation of tree nursery irrigation Phytoremediation with the use of trees - Turn plants healthy in the nursery where plants will not respond from fertilizer applications Buying and selling of nurseries. Nursery stock cost estimations Previous plant broker for commercial and government jobs. Orange County Nursery - 1983 to 2003 Senior Sales Representative / Consulting Arborist — Moorpark, CA #1 Sales Representative in southern California Instructed nurseries and landscape contractors about the growth and development of trees, troubleshooting and landscape problems Advisor on product lines grown in the nursery Marketing specialist with goal of increasing product sales; Expanded new sales territories bringing in new clients Worked trade shows and attended trade dinner meetings as guest speaker and music performer Corey's Nursery — 1982-1983 Foliage Plants Sales Representative — Claremont, CA Opened up central coast sales territory - Brought in corporate sales accounts - Sold out inventory Monrovia Nursery Company Inc. — 1982 Intern - Azusa, CA - Worked all aspects of nursery from propagation, distribution, and sales - Learned to successfully communicate with workers in Spanish EDUCATION B.S. Ornamental Horticulture, Business minor, California State Polytechnic University Pomona, 1983 PROFESSIONAL LICENSES, COMMITTEES AND SKILLS Conversational Spanish -language skills Knowledge of Excel and MS Office, Power point, and Acrobat Certified Arborist #WE3436A, Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Entrepreneurial: Established business, Dane S. Shota & Associates Real Estate licensee #01782475 Commercial//Residential Member of the Commercial Alliance of Orange County 27 • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • ARBOR GLOBAL Aiboiicutufe & Vegetation Management Conslfing • Report of: Kevin K. Eckert, Consulting Arborist ISA Board Certified Master Arborist WE-1785BU In the matter of: To: August 28, 2015 Mature Tree Definition: View Preservation, Chapter 17.26.090 Nuccion of 18 Portuguese Bend Road vs. Hassoldt at 15 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California Howard Weinberg The Weinberg Law Group 2550 Via Tejon, Suite 2B Palos Verdes, CA 90274 1.0 Introduction This report and all opinions expressed are based on my review of documents, photographs and my professional education, training and experience in the field of arboriculture and vegetation management. I possess over 35 years of experience as a practicing arborist on projects throughout the United States, including California, around the Pacific Rim and in Asia, primarily Hong Kong and China. I teach arboriculture part time at the University of Hawaii and Hong Kong University. In just the past 10 years, I have provided extensive opinions and testimony as an expert witness in 31 lawsuits in 10 States, including California, and 2 countries. Most importantly for the purposes of this opinion, I have served on the Development and Review Team of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) "Glossary of Arboriculture Tenors". The ISA is considered the international authority on arboricultu al issues and practices. More information on my qualifications and experience can be found within my CV, attached. The docuunents and material that I have reviewed include: 1. Code of Ordinances, Rolling Hills, California: Title 17 Zoning; View Preservation, Sections 17.26.10 through 17.26.090. 2. Draft Resolution NO. 2015-03 CTV, Consideration of a Resolution of the Rolling Hills Committee on Trees and Views Declaring a Significant View Impairment to 18 Portuguese Bend Road Caused by Specific Trees Located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road and Setting Forth Restorative Action to Abate the Impairment. To: Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Rolling Hills Committee on Trees and Views; From: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director; Tlnu: Raymond B. Cruz, City Manager. With attachments CTV Resolution: CTV Resolution No. 2015-03 with Exhibits. Agenda Item No. 5A, Mtg. Date 5/14/15. 1 Arbor Global PO Sox 1343, Kailua, Hawaii 96734 Tel: 808-2544161, Fax: 808-254-4082, Email: keckert(iarborgiobal.com, Website: www.arborglobai.com 3. Letter to View Impairment Committee, City of Rolling Hills, from Diana and Steve Nuccion, 18 Portuguese Bend Road, dated January 30, 2015. Included 16 photograph attachments and American Arbor Care Proposal, dated January 15, 2014, to trim, lace, shape, crown reduce, balance and/or remove 12 trees. 4. Staff Report: Consideration of View Impairment Complaint Regarding Trees at the Following Location: 15 Portuguese Bend Road; Property Owner: Mr. and Mrs. Hassoldt; Complainant: Dr. and Mrs. Nuccion, 18 Portuguese Bend Road. To: Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Rolling Hills Committee on Trees and Views; From: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director; Thru: Raymond B. Cruz, City Manager. Date: Notice Published: January 29, 2015. Attachments: Correspondence from Dr. Nuccion; Correspondence from Mr. Howard Weinberg, The Weinberg Law Group 5. Live Video link between Mr. Weinberg's iPhone, showing a real-time video panorama from the Nuccion property over and across the Hassoldt property, showing me all of the trees that are under consideration in this case. 6. Report: Certified Arborist Reporting, David De La Torre, 15 Portuguese Bend Rd., Rolling Hills, Ca. 90274. 7. Resume: David De La Torre, 6672 Luciento Dr., Huntington Beach, CA 92647 2.0 Case Background On April 24, 2014, Stephen and Diana Nuccion filed a View Impairment Complaint with the City of Rolling Hills (City), Committee on Trees and Views (Committee). The Nuccion complaint asks for remediation measures that will mitigate a view obstruction created by vegetation located on the property of Mr. and Mrs. William Hassoldt at 15 Portuguese Bend Road (Hassoldt Property). The Nuccions allege that 11 trees on the Hassoldt Property interfere with the protected view from the Nuccion property, in violation of the City ordinance protecting the Nuccion's view from obstruction. Code of Ordinances, Title 17, Zoning, View Preservation, Section 17.26.090, item 2. "...provides that the intent of the Ordinance is to protect views from "maturing" vegetation..., any vegetation which is already mature at the time any party claiming a view impairment actually acquired the property shall be exempt from Chapter 17.26. "Mature" versus "Maturing" shall be defined by industry standards predominantly accepted by arborists." The City established the Committee to protect and abate view obstructions created by landscaping and protect natural vegetation from indiscriminate removal. In a decision at their April 21, 2015 meeting, the Committee made findings and concluded that the 11 trees on the Hassoldt Property are in violation of the Ordinance and thus are subject to remediation actions to restore the view to the Nuccion property. However, the Hassoldts have claimed that some of the 11 trees were "Mature" in 2009 when the Nuccions acquired their property and thus are exempt from the application of the view ordinance. In a decision at their May 14, 2015 meeting, the 2 Arbor Global PO Box 1343, Kailua, Hawaii 96734 Tel: 808-254-4161, Fax: 808-254-4082, Email: keckert(a�arborglobal.com, Website: www.arborglobal.com • • Committee agreed to obtain a third party, expert opinion regarding whether any of the 11 trees were "Mature" in 2009. Howard Weinberg, counsel for the Nuccions, contacted Kevin Eckert of Arbor Global to provide an expert opinion on tree maturity. This report provides that opinion. 3.0 Definition of Mature Tree The professional definition of a mature tree focuses on the scientific condition of the species and the individual, subject tree. The industry standards predominantly accepted by arborists determine a tree is fully mature when it reaches its maximum height. The ISA "Glossary of Arboriculture Terms", which is considered the authority within the arboricultural industry, defines a mature tree relative to its "mature height". The "mature height" of a tree is defined as the "maximum height that a plant is likely to reach if the conditions of the planting site are favorable." One should note that I have served on the Development and Review Team of the ISA, which is the body that publishes the "Glossary of Arboriculture Terms" and thus I have an intimate and first-hand knowledge of the terms and definitions in that document. Within the industry, tree "maturity" is viewed according to one of two perspectives. The perspective from which one considers "maturity" depends upon the goal of its application: either (a) Early, functional maturity or (b) Total maturity as defined by maximum mature height. Trees reach early, functional maturity when they achieve their natural, mature form and begin to flower and fruit. This stage is considered early maturity and is generally applied for trees in which flowering, fruiting or form are the primary functional goals. For example, a lemon tree may begin to flower and. bear fruit when it is only three feet tall and with a trunk circumference of only one inch. Thus, such a lemon tree could achieve "functional maturity" when it is quite immature for all other purposes. However, the primary and accepted definition of the full level of maturity of a particular tree is when that tree reaches its tallest potential height. This definition is the industry standard predominantly accepted by arborists in matters relating to mature tree height, tree age, crown spread, trunk diameter or root extension and is the definition provided in the ISA Glossary. Maturity as defined by tree height and age is regulated by two primary factors: Genetic potential and environmental conditions. Each tree species is programed with a genetic code that provides for a maximum potential mature height and age based on that species' requirements within its evolutionary environment and its defense strategy. This genetic code developed over eons to enable a particular species to survive, thrive, and successfully procreate within the natural environmental conditions where it evolved. Some tree species, such as giant sequoia, possess the genetic potential to survive many hundreds of years and grow over 200 feet tall. Other tree species had no need for exceptional age or heights and their genetic code retained shorter lifespans and/or a small potential stature. In my example of the lemon tree above, the mature tree height and age for a lemon tree can be as little as 20 feet tall and 30 years. In summary, the total mature height and age to which any tree will finally achieve is first a maximum set by their genetic potential, and then likely reduced by the environmental conditions in which the 3 Arbor Global PO Box 1343, Kailua, Hawaii 96734 Tel: 808-254-4161, Fax: 808-254-4082, Email: keckertCa�arborglobai.com, Website: www.arborglobal.com particular 'tree is growing. Trees will only reach their genetic potential if the resources and environmental conditions are adequate to support that growth. The primary limiting factors are generally water, nutrients, access to sunlight, severe weather conditions and pruning. • Water is arguably the biggest limiting factor. Water, as with animals and humans, is the life- blood of plants. Water transports the energy, nutrients, compounds and hormones throughout the tree required to activate and regulate their growth, reproduction and defense systems. Without adequate water, a potentially large tree will not grow large. • Nutrients, including the 20 essential elements required for trees to grow and function, are a second limiting factor to tree growth and maturity. In order to increase in size and function in a vigorous state, just as with humans, trees require a level of nutrients that will adequately support their size. • Trees that cannot access sunlight may be stunted for years and may eventually die while still short and young. • Severe weather conditions often regulate the ultimate mature size of trees. Tree species that possess the water and nutrients required to reach their maximum potential height sometimes experience catastrophic failures of their tops and branches when exposed to severe conditions, usually high winds, ice or snow loads. Regular exposures to these conditions can maintain otherwise tall trees in a much reduced height condition. • Finally, pruning is a significant regulator of tree height in developed sites. As with severe weather conditions, regular crown reduction pruning can significantly reduce and maintain the height and form of a tree. 4.0 Determination of Full Mature Height An individual tree has reached its full mature height when, without pruning or adverse environmental conditions on that site, it shows signs of senescence and retrenching. "Senescence" is defined as when the tree's height growth stops and the tree begins to naturally decline due to old age. "Retrenching" is the characteristic symptom of senescence that can be seen when a tree top begins to thin and die back and more branches develop within its lower crown. The generation of more branches and foliage density lower in the mature crown of the tree causes it to appear that the tree is forming a second, smaller crown within the larger, original, mature tree crown. During retrenching, tree trunk girth will continue to increase, although at a slower rate, but height will decrease. Given genetic potential combined with environmental restrictions, it is difficult for anyone to provide a truly accurate estimate of the full mature height and age that a specific tree will achieve without observing another individual of that same species on a comparable site where that individual has reached its full mature height and age. However, with years of observations of many species in various conditions, experienced arborists can generally provide a likely range of maximum height and age that should reasonably define full maturity of most trees within particular site conditions. 5.0 Findings and Conclusions: Tree Maturity for 11 Particular Trees in 2009 that are located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road. Conclusion: None of the 11 subject trees at 15 Portuguese Bend Road were "mature" (according to Chapter 17.26) in 2009. Even today, all 11 of the subject trees at 15 Portuguese Bend Road continue to be "maturing" trees according to Chapter 17.26 and the ISA definition. I have reviewed all of the photographs dated 2010 and 2011 that are part of the case file and I have also reviewed the live video feed from the Nuccion property to consider the status of all 11 of the 4 Arbor Global PO Box 1343, Kailua, Hawaii 96734 Tel: 808-254-4161, Fax: 808-254-4082, Email: keckert@arborglobal.com, Website: www.arborglobal.com (?L) subject trees. This series of photographs showed comparable views from various vantage points on the property at 18 Portuguese Road when looking over 15 Portuguese Road during 2010 — 2011. Photographs from 2015 that are also part of the case file and my review of the live video feed show those same trees at the present time. These photos showed significant tree growth and visual obstructions from tree crowns at the present time as compared to 2010 - 2011. This growth difference is based on comparisons with references within the photographs and videos that showed size scale objects (utility poles, house) and growth form and characteristics of the subject trees. The subject tree species that are obstructing the views have been identified by International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist Brandon Gill, ISA Certified Arborist William McKinley and ISA Certified Arborist David De La Torre as: • Red gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) • Flooded gum (Eucalyptus rudis) • California pepper (Schinus molle) • Olive (Olea europaea) • Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta) Mature heights for these species are generally as follows: • Red gum eucalyptus: Over 130 feet tall in its natural environment' (Australia) and frequently observed over 60 feet tall in California. A red ,um in San Luis Obispo is registered as a California Big Tree and measured 111 feet tall. • Flooded gum: Can reach heights of 65 feet tall in its natural environment3 (Australia). A flooded gum in Fresno is registered as a California Big Tree and measured 71 feet ta11.4 • California pepper: 50 feet tall in its natural environments (South America) and has been found over 50 feet tall in California. A California pepper tree in San Juan Capistrano is registered as a California Big Tree and measured 57 feet tall. • Olive: 50 feet tall in its natural environment (Mediterranean and Africa), but only found up to 35 feet tall in California. An olive tree in Sacramento Capital Park is registered as a California Big Tree and measured 34 feet tall.$ • Mexican fan palm: 100 feet tall in its natural environment9 (Mexico). No California Big Tree of this species has been recorded, but they have been observed over 70 feet tall. The form of growth of the red gum, flooded gum and California pepper show vigorous top growth. Mexican fan palm characteristically continues height growth throughout its life -span. There are no signs of senescence or retrenching in any of the 11 subject trees. 1 Australian Native Plants Society 2 https://selectree.calpoly.edu/tree-detail/eucalyptus-camaldulensis 3 https://florabase.dpaw.wa.gov.au/browse/profile/5763 4 https://selectree.calpoly.edu/tree-detail/eucalyptus-rudis 5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schinus_molle 6 http://californiabigtrees.calpoly.edu/images.lasso?KeyValue=133 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive $ http://californiabigtrees.calpoly.edu/images.lasso?KeyValue=120 9 https://selectree.calpoly.edu/tree-detail/washingtonia-robusta 5 Arbor Global PO Box 1343, Kailua, Hawaii 96734 Tel: 808-254-4161, Fax: 808-254-4082, Email: keckert@arborglobai.com, Website: www.arborglobai.com I • 6.0 Findings and Conclusions: Arborist Report - David De La Torre Conclusion: The Report submitted by David De La Torre, ISA Certified Arborist WE -3819A, incorrectly concludes that trees 2, 3, 3A, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 9A have reached their "mature or maturing" life cycle stage. Photographic evidence clearly demonstrates that none of these trees can be greater than approximately 70 years old in 2009 and were likely younger than that age. All of the subject trees must be considered to be maturing and have not yet reached their mature or maximum mature height now or in 2009. Mr. De La Torre does not provide a determination of the mature tree height of the 11 subject trees in conformance with any "industry standards predominantly accepted by arborists" that defines or determines maturity using tree height. Mr. De La Torre conducted an investigation and submitted a report entitled "Report, Certified Arborist Reporting, David De La Torre, 15 Portuguese Bend Rd., Rolling Hills, Ca. 90274" stamped as received by the City of Rolling Hills on August 18, 2015. The goal of this investigation was stated within Mr. De La Torre's Report as "...to evaluate 11 trees on the property at 15 Portuguese Bend Road and advise the Committee whether these trees were "mature" or "maturing" in 2009, when the owners of 18 Portuguese Bend Road acquired the property." Mr. De La Torre determined to use an age -based approach to determine maturity. Age of the subject trees does not define when a tree reaches full maturity according to the accepted industry standard. Industry standards accepted by arborists use mature height measurement to determine a fully mature tree. Age does not provide a determination of full maturity given the multitude of variables that regulate tree age and height. Mature trees can reach full mature height and then live for many more years in a state of senescence where height and function declines. For this reason, maximum tree height, as defined within the ISA definition, is the measure of full maturity for a tree that is "predominantly accepted by arborists." Mr. De La Torre identifies five methods to determine the age of trees. Methods 1, 3 and 4 are recognized and generally accepted as the primary, accurate methods to measure tree age. Method 2, which is one of the methods chosen by Mr. De La Torre for the 11 subject trees, can be a reasonably applicable method when growth factors for the species on a specific site are accurately calculated. I see no information providing the origin of the growth factors multipliers that were used and therefore question these conclusions as valid methodology to accurately determine the subject trees' ages. In fact, most published growth factors are for forest grown trees, which possess smaller diameters than landscape tress such as the subject trees. Method 5, which is the other method of choice by Mr. De La Torre for the 11 subject trees, is not an accurate method to assess tree ages. Tree growth characteristics and rates of different tree species on different sites are highly variable and a single, static multiplier cannot accurately provide this metric. For example, palm trees establish their diameter early in their life before they establish height growth. Palm trunk widths undergo very little diameter change as the tree ages. This system is virtually useless to estimate the age of palm species. This method would find slow -growing, small diameter trees, such as olive, to be consistently younger while fast-growing, large diameter trees, such as many species of eucalyptus, would incorrectly be found to be older than their true age. Under any circumstance, the calculation of age does not provide a determination of maturity as defined by the ISA and accepted by arborists: Mr. De La Torre failed to pursue a very direct and easy method to help narrow the range of tree ages by searching for historical photographs of the area within city archives. Mrs. Nuccion was able to find a photograph in the City records that is reported to show Portuguese Bend Road in 1937. No trees are present in the photograph. Based on this photograph, it is reasonable to conclude that no trees on this site are over 75 years old and Mr. De La Torre's age estimates are significantly in error. 6 Arbor Global PO Box 1343, Kailua, Hawaii 96734 Tel: 808-254-4161, Fax: 808-254-4082, Email: keckert11 arborolobal.com, Website: www.arborglobal.com Portuguese Bend Road in 1937 Mr. De La Torre has provided heights for each of the 11 subject trees within his report. No methodology to measure these heights is described, so I have no basis to trust their accuracy. All of the heights, with the exception of olive trees 9 and 9A are well below the published maximum tree heights found for these species in California. This finding, combined with Mr. De La Torre's observation that these trees possess multiple epicormic sprouts where topping cuts have been made, should find that these trees are not mature according to ISA's industry accepted definition using tree height. Olive trees 9 and 9A are recorded as 50 feet tall, which does not appear reasonable or accurate according to my review of the site photographs and knowledge of this specie in California. Validation of satisfactory methodology to measure these heights should be required prior to acceptance of height measurements. As stated within the ISA "Glossary of Arboriculture Terms", these trees will reach their "mature height" when they attain the "maximum height" that they are "likely to reach if the conditions of the planting site are favorable." Evidence shows that these trees have increased in height since 2009. As clearly observed by myself and Mr. De La Torre, the subject trees have not reached their mature height and the 11 subject trees continue to show signs of continuing growth, with no signs of senescence or retrenching. This can only cause a qualified arborist to conclude that these trees had not yet reached their mature height in 2009 and continue to increase their height now and in the foreseeable future. 7 Arbor Global PO Box 1343, Kailua, Hawaii 96734 Tel: 808-254-4161, Fax: 808-254-4082, Email: keckert@arborglobal.com, Website: www.arboralobal.com (T 7.0 Recommendation The 11 subject trees should be pruned and maintained at or below the height observed in 2009. All pruning should be conducted in conformance with the most current version of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Pruning Standard. Pruning should be conducted according to the procedures described as crown reduction and crown restoration. Crown thinning or "lacing" are not recommended techniques for this particular project. Crown thinning or "lacing" are primarily designed to open the interior of the crown for light and air penetration. These techniques will not reasonably correct the visual obstructions of these trees and may increase the risk of failure of weakly attached branches that have sprouted due to the incorrect topping cuts previously conducted on many of these trees. To best address this and future conflicts relating to view plane obstructions by trees, I recommend that the Committee consider defining mature tree height in conformance with the ISA's professional definition as the "maximum height that a plant is likely to reach if the conditions of the planting site are favorable." This definition can be further clarified by providing that, with the exception of palm trees that do not stop increasing height, the subject tree has reached its full mature height when, without pruning or adverse environmental conditions on that site, it shows signs of irreversible senescence and retrenching. For any questions or further information about this assessment or report, please contact me at keckert@arborglobal.com or telephone 808-254-4161. Respectfully submitted, Kevin K. Eckert 8 Arbor Global PO Box 1343, Kailua, Hawaii 96734 Tel: 808-254-4161, Fax: 808-254-4082, Email: keckerta( arborglobai.com, Website: www.arborglobal.com McKinley & Associates (818) 240-1358 June 17, 2015 Ms. Diana Nuccion 18 Portoguese Bend Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Ms. Nuccion: Recently you contacted me regarding concerns over the growth of your neighbor's trees and how they were impacting your view. 1 was asked to inspect the trees and provide my observations and .recommendations. The following letter summarizes my findings: Background At our meeting on Monday, June 15, 2015 at approximately 4:30 p.m. you directed me to the back yard of the property at 18 Portoguese Bend, Rolling Hills. I was guided to the pool deck/patio area where you pointed out the various trees which were obscuring and blocking your view looking to the north. I was told that there has been an ongoing dispute over the neighbor not trimming and maintaining the trees at the property at 15 Portoguese Bend immediately to the north of your property. You explained that the City has a view ordinance which requires the trees to be trimmed and lowered to allow for view. 1 was told that there is one exemption where trees which are determined to be mature are exempt from this trimming requirement. You told me that the new neighbors at 15 Portoguese Bend acquired the property in 2012 and that prior to that time the trees on that property had been properly pruned, lowered and maintained. I was instructed to prepare a brief letter documenting my observations and recommendations. Observations The subject property is in a private gated hillside community. Despite the highly developed appearance of the area there are still remnants of native shrubs and trees in the ravines and adjacent natural areas. The subject property is very clean and well maintained including the trees and the landscape. While standing on the pool deck and patio of the subject property 1 was directed to view the neighboring area on the northwest side. I could see Eucalyptus, Olive and Victorian Box Pittosporum trees growing along the neighbor's property on the west side. These trees were overgrown and clearly had not been trimmed and maintained in years. Looking further to the northwest I could see a large Eucalyptus tree, possibly a Red Gum, near a utility pole I was told that this tree encroached inside the area which is mandated to be cleared by the local utility and fire department. Victorian Box Pittosporum trees growing on the northwest side varied in health. Several trees had yellow, sparse foliage indicating stress. Looking north I noted that there Arborists and Environmental Consultants • • McKinley & Associates (818) 240-1358 Observations -Continued were 2 large Olive trees. One grows near the neighbor's chimney and one appears to be growing over and near the neighbor's roof. Both appear to be in violation of vegetation clearance requirements set by the fire department. While looking northeast 1 was able to observe 2 large Mexican Fan Palms cast of the Olive trees. The crowns were full of dead, dry fronds and infructescenses. The California Pepper viewed in the northeast area was overgrown and very dense. I was only able to view the trees frotn the deck and from the easement area between the properties and the street. 1 did not enter the neighbor's property at any time. Based upon what 1 was able to observe the neighbor's trees were still actively growing and therefore in my professional opinion they were still maturing and had not reached the mature stage. The growth that I was able to observe since the last time the trees were trimmed extended as much as 15 to 20 feet beyond the previous pruning cuts. The trees are clearly not being maintained and are not only blocking views of the surrounding area from the subject property but they are in some cases so overgrown that they impact nearby utility wires and pose a potential fire hazard. Recommendation After inspecting the trees I would recommend that the trees be trimmed and lowered to where they had been previously pruned to back prior to 2012. If possible crown reduction should be performed whereby side lateral branches become the new top of the tree rather than simple topping. The lowering of the crowns will not cause the trees to die if the trees are trimmed in the late fall or early winter and if they are kept properly watered and hydrated. The Mexican Fan Pattns need to have the crowns cleaned and the dead fronds and infructescenses removed so that they do not attract rats and vermin and do not pose a potential fire hazard. All tree work should be performed under the supervision of an I.S.A. Certified Arborist and should attempt to follow ANSI A-300 Pruning Standards. Suanmary/Conclusion In summary, the trees growing on the neighboring property at 15 Portoguese Bend generally appear to be maturing trees and thus they are still subject to the City view ordinance requirements. These trees have not been pruned and maintained since the property was last purchased in 2012 and they are clearly overgrown and have not been maintained. There are fire code and utility clearance code issues which must be addressed through pruning of the trees. All tree work should be performed under the supervision of an I.S.A. Certified Arborist and should attempt to follow ANSI A-300 Pruning Standards. If the trees are pruned in the late fall or early winter and are kept well watered and hydrated then they should continue to grow and thrive. Arborists and Environmental Consultants • McKinley & Associates (818) 240-1358 Limitations Information contained in this letter covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection.. The inspection was limited to visual examination of accessible items. Arboriculture is not an exact science. Observations and opinions expressed here are based upon the latest university and scientific information available. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the trees or property in question may not arise in the future. Thank you for the opportunity to serve you and your environmental and horticultural needs. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at on my business cell phone at (818) 426-2432 or you may call my office phone at (818) 240-1358 and leave a message. Yours truly, William R. McKinley, Consulting Arborist American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborist #WE -4578A International Society of Arboriculture Arborists and Environmental Consultants From: "McKinley, William" <WMcKinley@GlendaleCA.GOV> Date: June 29, 2015 at 2:12:15 PM PDT To: Stephen Nuccion <snuccion@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: 18 Portuguese Bend Road Hi Stephen! I am swamped. I cannot write any more reports at the moment. It may be 2 months before I can catch up. To answer your question, different Cities have different sizes for trees defined as mature and or protected based upon some level of maturity. Trees basically continue to grow and expand until they reach their peak. That peak will vary based upon species, site conditions and water availability. Generally speaking most Cities start considering trees as approaching maturity when they reach between 8 and 12 inches in diameter at D.B.H. (Diameter Breast Height or Diameter as measured 4.5 feet above the ground). The trees were obviously still growing in 2009 and they continue to demonstrate that they are growing and have vigor today. Since they are still growing they continue to be maturing and have not reached their peak or zenith. I would say for this reason they are not yet fully mature. I will not be available anytime soon for any hearings. My schedule is just too full. I hope this explanation is sufficient to forward to this board of review. Best Wishes! William R. McKinley, Consulting Arborist ill. McKinley & Associates American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborist #WE -4578A International Society of Arboriculture