Loading...
Planning Commission Meeting 12-20-2016MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DECEMBER 20, 2016 CALL MEETING TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Chairman Chelf at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 20, 2016 in the City Council Chamber, at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Kirkpatrick, Seabum and Chairman Chelf. Commissioners Absent: Cardenas and Gray (excused). Others Present: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager. Natalie Karpeles, Assistant City Attorney. Julia Stewart, Assistant Planner. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering. Karl and Helen Frykman, 10 Crest Road West. Louie Tomaro, Tomaro Design Group. Jessica Farinacci, Tomaro Design Group. Alan McGregor, Landscape Architect. Martin \Vatcrs, 9 Upper Blackwaler Canyon Road. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road. Leah Mirsch, 4 Cinchring Road. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MINUTES AND ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 15, 2016, Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on November 15, 2016 as presented. Commissioner Seabum seconded the motion, which carried without objection. November 15, 2016, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on November 15, 2016 as presented. Commissioner Seabum seconded the motion, which carried without objection. RESIDENT REQUESTS REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION TO COMMENCE WORK IN ZONING CASE NO. 860, APPROVED IN 2014 AT 10 CREST ROAD WEST. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that the applicant in Zoning Case No. 860 at 10 Crest Road West is requesting a two-year time extension • Minutes - Planning Commission Regular Meeting 12-20-16 to commence construction on the stable and swimming pool. She stated that a Resolution granting the requested time extension has been prepared for the Planning Commission's consideration. Following brief discussion, Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution granting a two-year time extension to commence construction in Zoning Case No. 860 at 10 Crest Road West. Commissioner Seabum seconded the motion, which carried without objection. REQUEST FOR MINOR MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSALY APPROVED PROJECT IN ZONING CASE NO. 880 AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD. Commissioner Seabum recused himself from consideration of this case due to the proximity of his property to the subject property which resulted in there being no quorum present. Recognizing that the matter was shown on the published agenda, Chairman Chelf asked for public comment. Hearing none, consideration of this matter was tabled due to lack of a quorum and staff was directed to bring the matter back for discussion in January. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 2016-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A TRELLIS, A PORTION OF WHICH IS 2.5 -FEET MAXIMUM OUT OF GRADE AND A 2.5' HIGH WALL ON A PROPERTY WITH A RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT CONDITION IMPOSED THROUGH A PRIOR PROJECT IN ZONING CASE NO. 912 AT 3 CHUCKWAGON ROAD. (LOT 40-EF) ROLLING HILLS, CA, (LIU). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that at its last meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed development and directed staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request to construct a 228 sq. ft. trellis and an out of grade patio deck. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Hearing none, he asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Following brief discussion, Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2016-26 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 912 at 3 Chuckwagon Road. Commissioner Seabum seconded the motion, which carried without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING ZONING CASE NO. 913, Request for Variances and Site Plan Review to construct a 72 square foot, maximum 8 -foot tall chicken coop within the "front yard" of the subject property, to exceed the previously approved lot disturbance to 66.1%, and to relocate a pool equipment area necessitating an up to 4' tall enclosure wall on a property with a restricted development condition imposed through a prior project. The subject property is at 10 Crest Road W. (Lot 2 -CH) Rolling Hills, CA, (Frykman). The project has been determined to be categorically exempt (Class 3) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303. AND RESOLUTION NO. 2016-25. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF VARIANCES AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A CHICKEN COOP IN THE FRONT YARD, TO EXCEED THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED LOT DISTURBANCE AND TO RELOCATE A POOL EQUIPMENT AREA NECESSITATING AN UP TO 4' TALL ENCLOSURE WALL ON A PROPERTY WITH A RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT CONDITION IMPOSED THROUGH A PRIOR PROJECT, IN ZONING CASE NO. 913, AT 10 CREST ROAD W. (LOT 2 -CH) ROLLING HILLS, CA, (FRYKMAN). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request to construct a chicken coop in the front yard area and to relocate the pool equipment area/service yard to the side yard setback. She stated that the Planning Commission visited the site and reviewed the proposed development last month; and following discussion, suggested that the applicant revise the proposed pool equipment area/service yard. She reviewed the revised Minutes - Planning Commission Regular Meeting 12-20-16 proposal for the pool equipment area/service yard stating that the applicant reduced the wall height from 5 ft. to 4 ft.; moved it further away from the easement line and to the north; and modified the gate entry to be 10 fi. in total width as suggested by the Planning Commission. She stated that at its last meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request subject to the applicant's submission of satisfactory revised plans and staff has prepared the Resolution based on the revised proposal. She further reviewed the development standards stating that development standards did not change with the revisions. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission to further review the revised proposal. Karl Frykman, 10 Crest Road West addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the revisions. In response to Commissioner Kirkpatrick, he stated that there will be no cover on the pool equipment area/service yard but there will be planting around it. Following brief discussion, Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2016-25 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 913 at 10 Crest Road West. Commissioner Seabum seconded the motion, which carried without objection. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONING CASE NO. 914, Request for a Site Plan Review to construct new residence of 11,052 s.f. with a 1,446 square foot garage, 2,870 square feet covered porches and 6,620 square foot basement, 1,336 square foot swimming pool and grading of 24,900 cubic yards of dirt total, (which includes over -excavation and recompaction); and Conditional Use Permits for an 800 square foot guest house, 6,985 square foot tennis court and a 744 square foot stable including a loft and a corral. Also proposed are various walls, outdoor amenities and a new driveway. The subject property is located at 11 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road (Lot 99-B-RH) Rolling Hills, CA, (Author Homes, LLC). The project has been determined to be categorically exempt (Class 3) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Assistant Planner Stewart reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 914 at 11 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road. She stated that the applicant proposes to demolish the existing structures on the property and construct a new residence with attached garage, guesthouse, tennis court, pool, stable and corral. She reviewed the vicinity map and stated that one neighboring resident visited City Hall to express concern regarding the proximity of the stable and corral to his home. She further reviewed the plans for the proposed project; and in response to Commissioner Kirkpatrick, she stated that access to the stable is a decomposed granite access road off the motor court that goes along the edge of the property to the stable. She stated that the residence is proposed at approximately 11,000 sq. ft., with a 6,600 sq. ft. basement and attached garage and porte cochere. She further reviewed the proposed building pads stating that there are three building pads proposed — one for the residence; one for the tennis court and guesthouse; and one for the stable and corral. She stated that the applicant proposes a daylighting exit from the basement to a patio with stairs going down to the tennis court. She further stated that the applicant further proposes to construct terraced walls totaling 8 ft. in height around the patio along with another 8 ft. planter wall. She stated that if the Planning Commission is amenable to this configuration, the project will have to be re -noticed to show a variance being requested for the proposed walls because they exceed the maximum height allowed. She further reviewed the other element being proposed and stated that the residence at its highest point is proposed at 17 ft. 10.5 in. She further reviewed the proposed stable as well as -the drainage plan stating that the applicant proposes two cisterns one adjacent to the pool and one adjacent to the guesthouse where the drainage from the site will be collected and directed to a dissipater further down on the property. She reviewed the grading plan stating that the majority of the existing natural 2:1 slopes are proposed to remain. Discussion ensued concerning the basement, patio and proposed walls. Planning Director Schwartz stated that it is the design of the basement that dictates the need for the walls and that feature will ultimately have to be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. Ms. Schwartz further stated that the lot is 9 acres in size and all of the development standards are within the Zoning Code requirements with structural lot coverage at 6.7%, 10% total lot coverage and disturbance at 35.7%. Minutes - Planning Commission Regular Meeting 12-20-16 Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Martin Waters, 9 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road addressed the Planning Commission to express concern regarding the project specifically the proximity of the proposed stable to his house. He further suggested that wherever the stable is ultimately located that it be screened so that his property is not overlooked the by stable. He further noted that the area below the proposed stable is in disrepair with broken fences and overgrown landscaping. Louie Tomaro, Tomaro Design Group and Jessica Farinacci, Tomaro Design Group addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the proposed project and how the project has evolved compared to the previous project that was approved on this property. He stated that the project was designed to retain the existing topography and minimize the grading. They, presented images reflecting a 3-D sketch analysis of the propose project from various angles with and without the proposed landscaping. When reviewing the image of the proposed stable, Mr. Tomaro stated that they would be willing to look into ways to address Mr. Waters' concerns. Mr. Tomaro further noted that they also propose to shift the driveway and apron in order to maintain some of the existing large trees at the front of the property. In response to Commissioner Kirkpatrick regarding the garage, Mr. Tomaro stated that the garage is proposed as a six -car garage with three double car garage doors with a lift to a lower level where the vehicles are parked in tandem. Alan McGregor, Landscape Architect addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the proposed landscaping stating that the property owner plans to address the issue regarding the landscaping that was raised by Mr. Waters. He further reviewed the landscape screening around the tennis court area. Following staffs presentation and public testimony, the members of the Planning Commission determined that a site visit should be scheduled to provide the members of the Planning Commission with further understanding of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 914 at 11 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road. The public hearing was continued. SCHEDULE OF FIELD TRIPS The Planning Commission scheduled a field trip to the following property to be held on Tuesday, January 17, 2017 beginning at 7:30 a.m. 11 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road NEW BUSINESS REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING THE CITY COUNCIL'S DIRECTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION: (1) COMMENCE ITS CONSIDERATION OF CONCEPTS RESULTING FROM THE COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS OF AN AD HOC COMMITTEE OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND CITY RESIDENTS REGARDING THE CITY'S VIEW PRESERVATION ORDINANCE; AND (2) HOLD HEARINGS LEADING TO AN AMENDMENT OF THE VIEW PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, (CHAPTER 17.26 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE). Planning Director Schwartz presented the report providing the background and an overview of the City Council's direction regarding possible amendments to the City's View Preservation Ordinance. She stated that after several meetings of the ad hoc committee consisting of Councilmember Mirsch and Pieper along with* several residents including, Chairman Chelf, Spencer Karpf and the proponents of Measure B and the initiative petition currently being circulated (Measure 2017), the City Council directed staff to bring the matter to the Planning Commission to conduct public forums and public hearings in order to receive community input and to ultimately craft a new ordinance using the framework and concepts from the ad hoc committee as a starting point. She stated that the objective of the ad hoc committee meetings was to try to come to a consensus on direction for crafting a new ordinance that could be adopted that takes the concerns of both sides of the issue into account and would avoid the need to place a measure on the ballot that would result in another situation where the regulations can only be changed by another vote of the electorate. She stated that this presentation is just for informational purposes this evening since there are only three Commissioners present and staff will provide more details and analysis for the next meeting where the Planning Commission discusses this matter and more public input will be accepted at that time. Minutes - Planning Commission Regular Meeting 12-20-16 Chairman Chelf stated that the ad hoc committee meetings were very productive. He commented that a lot of good ideas were discussed and there was a lot of common ground regarding the concepts and ideas. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road addressed the Planning Commission stating that he is one of the proponents of Measure B and co -proponent of Measure 2017. He thanked the ad hoc committee and the • Planning Commission for their work and urged them to come up with a fair, implementable ordinance. Leah Mirscb, 4 Cinchring Road addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the thought process that the ad hoc committee went through during its meetings and stated that one overarching goal was do develop trust. She commended the participants from both sides of the issue on their willingness to compromise and commented that the proposed ordinance drafted by Mr: Karpf reflects the concepts where agreement was reached in principle but the wording is not necessarily the final wording. She further explained the concepts that drive the ordinance commenting that the ordinance provides rights for both sides, but those rights come with responsibilities. She reviewed the areas where consensus was reached stating that both sides agree that governing by initiative is not the best way to govern. She further noted that the committee did not come to agreement with regard to the City's participation in making a final decision. Brief discussion ensued concerning some of the overarching concepts. Mr. Gill further addressed the Planning Commission to urge the Planning Commission, when crafting a new ordinance to not have the City be the final deciding body in order to avoid litigation. Following brief discussion, the Planning Commission asked staff to bring this matter back to the Planning Commission in January for discussion at a public forum. ITEMS FROM STAFF TENNIS COURT AREA IMPROVEMENTS Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the proposed plans for the improvements to the City tennis court area. No action was taken. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION None. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the Commission, Chairman Chelf adjourned the meeting at 8:04 p.m. to an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be held on Tuesday, January 17, 2017 beginning at 7:30 a.m. for the purpose of conducting a site visit to 11 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, January 17, 2017 beginning at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, Approved, Br. d Chairman Minutes - Planning Commission Regular Meeting 12-20-16 lath Heidi Luce City Clerk «/J CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am a citizen of the United States. 1 am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within proceeding; my business address is 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. On the 15'" day of December 2016,1 serve the within Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Regular Meeting - 12/20/2016 E -MAILED MAILED DropBox DELIVERED Interested Asst. City Attorney City Manager RH Web site IistSery Parties Planning Commissioners Interested parties Also posted at City Hall at www.Rolling-Hills.org and PDF's in DropBox. 1 declare under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 15`" day of December, 2016 at Rolling Hills, California. Ewa Nikodem Administrative Assistant 84a Rada/9q INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 6:30 PM TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2016 ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD, ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MINUTES AND ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. November 15, 2016, Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission B. November 15, 2016, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission 6. RESIDENTS REQUESTS A. REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION TO COMMENCE WORK IN ZONING CASE NO. 860, APPROVED IN 2014 AT 10 CREST ROAD WEST. B. REQUEST FOR MINOR MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSALY APPROVED PROJECT IN ZONING CASE NO. 880 AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD. 7. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A TRELLIS, A PORTION OF WHICH IS 2.5 -FEET MAXIMUM OUT OF GRADE AND A 2.5' HIGH WALL ON A PROPERTY WITH A RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT CONDITION IMPOSED THROUGH A PRIOR PROJECT IN -1- ZONING CASE NO. 912 AT 3 CHUCKWAGON ROAD. (LOT 40-EF) ROLLING HILLS, CA, (LIU). 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING A. ZONING CASE NO. 913, Request for Variances and Site Plan Review to construct a 72 square foot, maximum 8 -foot tall chicken coop within the "front yard" of the subject property, to exceed the previously approved lot disturbance to 66.1%, and to relocate a pool equipment area necessitating an up to 4' tall enclosure wall on a property with a restricted development condition imposed through a prior project. The subject property is at 10 Crest Road W. (Lot 2 -CH) Rolling Hills, CA, (Frykman). The project has been determined to be categorically exempt (Class 3) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303. AND RESOLUTION NO. 2016-25. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF VARIANCES AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A CHICKEN COOP IN THE FRONT YARD, TO EXCEED THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED LOT DISTURBANCE AND TO RELOCATE A POOL EQUIPMENT AREA NECESSITATING AN UP TO 4' TALL ENCLOSURE WALL ON A PROPERTY WITH A RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT CONDITION IMPOSED THROUGH A PRIOR PROJECT, IN ZONING CASE NO. 913, AT 10 CREST ROAD W. (LOT 2 -CH) ROLLING HILLS, CA, (FRYKMAN). 9. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ZONING CASE NO. 914, Request for a Site Plan Review to construct new residence of 11,052 s.f. with a 1,446 square foot garage, 2,870 square feet covered porches and 6,620 square foot basement, 1,336 square foot swimming pool and grading of 24,900 cubic yards of dirt total, (which includes over -excavation and recompaction); and Conditional Use Permits for an 800 square foot guest house, 6,985 square foot tennis court and a 744 square foot stable including a loft and a corral. Also proposed are various walls, outdoor amenities and a new driveway. The subject property is located at 11 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road (Lot 99-B-RH) Rolling Hills, CA, (Author Homes, LLC). The project has been determined to be categorically exempt (Class 3) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303. 10. SCHEDULE OF FIELD TRIPS (Tanury 17, 2017) A. 11 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road -2- 11. NEW BUSINESS A. REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING THE CITY COUNCIL'S DIRECTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION: (1) COMMENCE ITS CONSIDERATION OF CONCEPTS RESULTING FROM THE COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS OF AN AD HOC COMMITTEE OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND CITY RESIDENTS REGARDING THE CITY'S VIEW PRESERVATION ORDINANCE; AND (2) HOLD HEARINGS LEADING TO AN AMENDMENT OF THE VIEW PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, (CHAPTER 17.26 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE). 12. ITEMS FROM STAFF A. TENNIS COURT AREA IMPROVEMENTS 13. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION 14. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting due to your disability, please contact the Cihy Clerk at (310) 377-1521 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for your review of this agenda and attendance at this meeting. Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for review in the City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered. -3- 9 Agenda Item No: 5A Mtg. Date: 12-20-16 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 2016 FIELD TRIP PRESENT: Chairman Chelf, Commissioners Cardenas, Gray, Kirkpatrick and Seaburn Raymond Cruz, City Manager Julia Stewart, Assistant Planner Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director Leah Minch, Resident Mr. and Mrs. Liu, property owners Rene Espina, Landscape Architect Helen Frykman, property owner Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering A. ZONING CASE NO. 912, Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a 228 square foot, 8 -foot tall covered seating area that is 2.5 -feet maximum above grade and a 2.5' high wall on a property with a restricted development condition imposed through a prior project. The subject property is at 3 Chuckwagon Road (Lot 40-EF) Rolling Hills, CA, (Liu). The project has been determined to be categorically exempt (Class 3) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's proposal for a new trellis, a portion of which would be up to 2.5' out of grade and two 2.5' each terraced retaining walls, as well as two on grade stairways leading from the house pad to the trellis area. She stated that 18 cubic yards of dirt will be graded and the walls will be screened with vegetation. Further, the development standards meet the code requirements and no variances are being requested. Everyone present viewed the project from the deck of the house. Rene Espina stated that the slopes between the home and the trellis and in front of the trellis would be landscaped. In response to Chairman Chelf, Ms. Schwartz stated that neighbors within 1,000 -foot radius were notified of the hearings and that no comments were received. Following a brief discussion, Chairman Chelf called for questions from the Commissioners. Hearing none, Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that staff prepare a Resolution of approval for Planning Commission consideration at the next meeting. Commissioner Cardenas seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was continued to the evening meeting of the Planning Commission beginning at 6:30 PM. B. ZONING CASE NO. 913, Request for Variances and Site Plan Review to construct a 72 square foot, maximum 8 -foot tall chicken coop within the "front yard" of the subject property, to exceed the previously approved lot disturbance to 66.1%, and to relocate a pool equipment area necessitating an up to 5' tall enclosure wall on a property with a restricted development condition imposed through a prior project. The subject property is at 10 Crest Road W. (Lot 2 -CH) Rolling Hills, CA, (Frykman). The project has been determined to be categorically exempt (Class 3) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's proposal including the request for a variance to exceed the previously approved lot disturbance and pointed out the previously approved area for the stable and corral in the front yard. Everyone present walked to the proposed chicken coop, which the applicant stated she started to construct after it was approved by the RHCA. She stated that she did not realize that City's approval was required. In response to Commissioner Kirkpatrick, Ms. Schwartz stated that the two short walls constructed on each side of the chicken coop do not require discretionary approval. All present then walked over to the area of the proposed pool equipment. Discussion ensued regarding the height of the walls, location of the pool equipment area in the hillside, proximity to the easement and inability to screen it with vegetation as well as the configuration of the opening to the pool equipment enclosure. The Commissioners made several suggestions and the applicant's engineer stated that she would study the suggestions and respond and/or bring new plan for the evening meeting. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was continued to the evening meeting of the Planning Commission beginning at 6:30 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director Approved: Date Brad Chelf, Chairman Date DRAFT Agenda Item No. 5-B Meeting Date: 12-20-16 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS NOVEMBER 15, 2016 CALL MEETING TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Chairman Chelf at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 15, 2016 in the City Council Chamber, at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Others Present: Cardenas, Gray, Kirkpatrick, Seabum and Chairman Chelf. None. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager. Natalie Karpeles, Assistant City Attorney. Julia Stewart, Assistant Planner. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Helen Frykman, 10 Crest Road West. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering. Leah Mirsch, 4 Cinchring Road. City Manager Cruz introduced Julia Stewart the City's new Assistant Planner. The Planning Commission welcomed Ms. Stewart. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MINUTES AND ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 18, 2016, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 11-15-16 0 DRAFT Commissioner Seaburn moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on October 18, 2016 as presented. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion, which carried without objection. REOUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION TO COMMENCE WORK IN ZONING CASE NO. 863, 8 CREST ROAD EAST. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the status of the project in Zoning Case No. 863 at 8 Crest Road East stating that the plans have been submitted for plan check but the applicant is not yet ready to commence construction and the applicant submitted a request for a 6 month time extension. She further stated that a draft Resolution granting the requested time extension has been prepared for the Planning Commission's consideration. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Hearing none, he asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Following brief discussion, Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution granting a six-month time extension to commence construction in Zoning Case No. 863 at 8 Crest Road East as presented. Commissioner Seaburn seconded the motion, which carried without objection. RESOLUTIONS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING ZONING CASE NO. 912, Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a 228 square foot, 8 -foot tall covered seating area that is 2.5 -feet maximum above grade and a 2.5' high wall on a property with a restricted development condition imposed through a prior project. The subject property is at 3 Chuckwagon Road. (Lot 40-EF) Rolling Hills, CA, (Liu). The project has been determined to be categorically exempt (Class 3) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request to construct covered seating area and walls in Zoning Case No 912 at 3 Chuckwagon Road. She stated that the applicant proposes a terraced area consisting of two 2 %I ft. walls with a 2 %I ft. planting area between the walls to support the out of grade construction of a 228 sq. ft. covered patio and trellis on the upper area. She stated that no other development standards are being exceeded and no variances are requested. Planning Director Schwartz further reported that the Planning Commission conducted a field trip to this property earlier in the day at which time, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 912 at 3 Chuckwagon Road for the Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 11-15-16 DRAFT Planning Commission's consideration at its December meeting unless the Planning Commission provides different direction this evening. Recognizing that this was a noticed public hearing, Chairman Chef called for public comment. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing. ZONING CASE NO. 913, Request for Variances and Site Plan Review to construct a 72 square foot, maximum 8 -foot tall chicken coop within the "front yard" of the subject property, to exceed the previously approved lot disturbance to 66.1%, and to relocate a pool equipment area necessitating an up to 5' tall enclosure wall on a property with a restricted development condition imposed through a prior project. The subject property is at 10 Crest Road W. (Lot 2 -CH) Rolling Hills, CA, (Frykman). The project has been determined to be categorically exempt (Class 3) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to construct a chicken coop in the front yard area of the property; and to relocate and enlarge the pool equipment for a previously approved pool. She stated that the applicant proposes to construct a 5 ft. tall wall to enclose the enlarged pool equipment area. She stated that the Planning Commission visited the site earlier in the day at which time, the Planning Commission made some suggestions with regard to the design of the pool equipment area to lessen its visibility and impact. She stated that the applicant is also requesting a variance to further exceed the maximum allowed disturbance. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Helen Frykman, 10 Crest Road West addressed the Planning Commission stating that they could reduce the height of the wall for the pool equipment area to 4 ft. and they could address the concern regarding visibility with landscape screening. Commissioner Kirkpatrick suggested moving the pool equipment area into the hillside so that it can be masked from the side yard. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission stating that the pool equipment could be moved back and the access area cold be moved to address the issues regarding the wall and visibility. Discussion ensued concerning options for addressing the concerns regarding the wall and visibility of the pool equipment area. Commissioner Kirkpatrick suggested putting a gate on the edge as viewed from the easement and adding landscape screening. Commissioner Seaburn concurred. Commissioner Cardenas commented that his preference would be to leave the pool equipment area where it was initially proposed but if it is moved he would prefer a 4 ft. wall over 5 ft. with access from one end or the other. Vice Chairman Gray concurred. Chairman Chelf also concurred that it would be preferable if it could be moved back and properly screened. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 11-15-16 DRAFT Further discussion ensued concerning options for addressing the concerns raised. Ms. Nicholson asked if the Planning Commission does not have any objections to the chicken coop, if that item could be approved while the issues regarding the pool equipment are addressed so that the applicant can move forward with the construction of the chicken coop. Planning Director Schwartz commented that if it is the Planning Commission's desire, the public hearing cold be left open and staff could be directed to work with the applicant to submit revised plans for the pool equipment area; and to prepare a resolution granting approval of the project as revised to address the concerns raised. Further discussion ensued concerning the suggested revisions. Following discussion, the Planning Commission concurred with the following suggestions with regard to the pool equipment area: wall not to exceed 4 ft.; entrance to be from the side not the front with a gate not to exceed 50% of the wall length; landscape screening to be provided; and moved back 1 ft. from the easement. Commissioner Cardenas moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request as amended per the Planning Commission's direction with regard to the pool equipment in Zoning Case No. 913 at 10 Crest Road West with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval. Commissioner Seaburn seconded the motion, which carried without objection. The public hearing was continued. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS None. SCHEDULE OF FIELD TRIPS None. ITEMS FROM STAFF Recap from joint meeting with the City Council. Planning Director Schwartz provided a recap of the discussion from the joint meeting and reviewed the action items that will be brought before the Planning Commission for discussion in 2017. Brief discussion ensued concerning the size of basements and stables. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION Vice Chairman Gray commented that this will likely be his last meeting. He stated that he has enjoyed serving on the Planning Commission and thanked the other Commissioners. Chairman Chelf thanked Vice Chairman Gray for his service and for his contributions to the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the Commission, Chairman Chelf adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be held on Tuesday, December 20, 2016 Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 11-15-16 DRAFT beginning at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Luce City Clerk Approved, Brad Chelf Chairman Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 11-15-16 TO: City o//Qo/Pn y _AS INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No: 6A Mtg. Date: 12-20-16 HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: ZONING CASE NO. 860 10 CREST ROAD WEST, (LOT 2 -CH) RA -S-1, 1.13 ACRES (EXCL. ROADWAY EASEMENT) MR. AND MRS. FRYKMAN BOLTON ENGINEERING BACKGROUND Attached is a request from Mr. and Mrs. Karl Frykman, property owners, requesting a two-year time extension for a previously approved request for Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variances for a new stable, corral, swimming pool, grading and to legalize several unpermitted miscellaneous structures on the lot in Zoning Case No. 860, approved by the Planning Commission on December 16, 2014, by Resolution No. 2014-21. Approvals are effective 30 -days after Planning Commission adoption of a resolution, (Jan. 2015). The applicants state that the extension is necessary to allow time to process the plans and get all the submittal information together. If the request for extension is approved as requested for two years, the approval will expire on January 16, 2019, unless work commenced prior or at that time. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider the request and adopt Resolution No. 2016-27 granting the extension. 0 C: Printed on Recycled Paper THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Friday, November 25, 2016 5:06:33 PM Pacific Standard Time Subject: Fwd: Extention of case 860 Date: Thursday, November 24, 2016 6:11:09 PM Pacific Standard Time From: helen frykman <hfrykman@aol.com> To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net> Dear Yolanta. We are requesting a 2 year extension in zoning case #860 to commense construction of stable, coral and swimming pool. The delay is due to a combination of regulations and our slowness in getting everything accomplished. Thank you, Helen and Karl Frykman Original Message From: Helen Frykman <hfrykman@aol.com> To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.neb Sent: Mon, Oct 10, 2016 6:50 pm Subject: Re: Extention of case 860 Thankyou Sent from my iPhone THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK o RESOLUTION NO. 2016-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A TIME EXTENSION TO COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT WHICH ENTAILS A SITE PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A SWIMMING POOL, STABLE, AND CORRAL, WHICH WOULD ENCROACH INTO SETBACKS AND EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 860, AT 10 CREST ROAD WEST, (LOT 2 -CH), ROLLING HILLS, CA, (FRYKMAN). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mrs. Helen Frykman, property owner, with respect to real property located at 10 Crest Road West requesting a 2 - year time extension to comply with the requirements of Resolution No. 2014-21 to commence construction of the project. Section 2. The Commission considered this item at a meeting on December 20, 2016 at which time information was presented indicating that additional time is needed to commence the project. Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the Planning Commission grants the request for time extension and does hereby amend Paragraph A, Section 9 of Resolution No. 2014-21, dated December 16, 2014 to read as follows: A. The Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan and Variances approvals shall expire within four years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.38.070 17.46.080 and 17.42.070. No additional extension shall be granted. Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions and conditions of Resolution No. 2014-21 shall continue to be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20th DAY OF DECEMBER 2016. BRAD CHELF, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-27 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A TIME EXTENSION TO COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT WHICH ENTAILS A SITE PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A SWIMMING POOL, STABLE, AND CORRAL, WHICH WOULD ENCROACH INTO SETBACKS AND EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 860, AT 10 CREST ROAD WEST, (LOT 2 - CH), ROLLING HILLS, CA, (FRYKMAN). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 20, 2016 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 HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK J Agenda Item No: 6-B Mtg. Date: 12%20/16 MEMORANDUM TO RECUSE TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Heidi Luce, City Clerk SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 880 -15 Portuguese Bend Road DATE: December 20, 2016 Due to the proximity of his property to the subject property, Commissioner Cardenas should recuse himself from the discussion regarding Zoning Case No. 880 at 15 Portuguese Bend Road. He may however, take a seat in the audience and participate as a resident. INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288. Agenda Item No.: 6-B Mtg. Date: 12-20-16 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR THROUGH: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: ATTACHMENTS: ZONING CASE NO. 880 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 78-RH) RA -S-1, 1.06 ACRES GROSS MR. AND MRS. HASSOLDT GARY WYNN, WYNN ENGINEERING ENGINEERS REQUEST, SITE PLAN AND PICTURE REQUEST AND BACKGROUND 1. The applicants request a modification to their previously approved project to allow them to extend the limits of a previously approved wall. The applicants propose to construct a not to exceed 3' high and 20' long retaining wall along a walkway, which is adjacent to the south side of the residence. 2. In September of 2015, the Planning Commission approved an addition to the residence at 15 Portuguese Bend Road and variances to encroach with a portion of the addition into the side setback and reduction from a required 4' wide walkway around the addition to a 2' wide walkway. 3. In October of 2015, the City Council took the project under jurisdiction and following many meetings and several revisions to the project approved the variance for the encroachment of the addition into the setback; but required a 4' -wide walkway and approved a retaining wall of up to 7' in height in the side setback to accommodate the 4' -wide walkway. ZC NO. 880 0 4. The approved wall ranges in size from 3' to almost 7' in height, (closest to the corner of the addition), and it wraps around the corner of the addition, to up to approximately 13 linear feet along the south side of the addition and approximately 18 linear feet along the west side of the addition. 5. The applicants requested to extend the wall along the side of the house for additional 20' along the 4' walkway to better define the walkway and to trim off the side of the slope to clean up the area. DISCUSSION 6. The City Council's resolution approving this project contains a condition, which prevents staff from approving any modification to the project and requires Planning Commission review and approval. It does not state that a new Site Plan Review is required. Therefore, this is not a discretionary review and does not require a public hearing notification. The Agenda, however, was mailed to the adjacent property owners for information. The condition in the City Council resolution states as follows: "N. Notwithstanding Section 17.38.065 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, there shall be no further modifications, changes or variations to the project approved by this resolution, or any further development on the property without Planning Commission review and approval". 7. Pursuant to Section 17.16.150 F of the Zoning Ordinance, administrative approval may be granted for up to 3' high walls located along walkways, driveways and staircases. Sections 17.46.070 (SPR) and 17.38.065 (Variance) Subsequent Modifications, contain provisions for modifications to discretionary projects. Per these sections, staff could determine if a request for modification to a discretionary project is "minor" or "major" and has the authority to approve minor modifications only. Staff thinks the proposed modification would fall under the "minor" modification. However in this case, the condition in the resolution of approval states that regardless of these provisions, Planning Commission review and approval is required for any modifications on the project and property. 8. It is therefore requested that the Planning Commission review the proposed extension of the wall and render a decision. ZC NO. 880 Wednesday, December 14, 20: 32:07 PM Pacific Standard Time Subject: FW: Hassoldt Revised Plan Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 11:54:38 AM Pacific Standard Time From: Gary Wynn <Gary@wynnengineering.com> To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net> CC: Bryan Birch <Bryanb@wynnengineering.com> Yolanta —We would like to extend the limits of the approved retaining wall to trim off the side yards at 15 Portuguese Bend Road. These extensions of the wall are less than three (3) feet in height and are shown in the attached plan. You indicated that this request needs to go to the Planning Commission for approval of these minor, less than 3' extensions of the approved retaining wall. Please calendar this item with the Planning Commission if it is required to obtain approval. !had always thought that after the retaining wall goes under 3 feet, that you really did not care about it from a land use stand point, since these types of walls are generally exempt from building permits. Thanks ! Gary Wynn, P.E. President Wynn Engineering, Inc. 27315 Valley Center Road, Valley Center, CA 92082 VALLEY CENTER I LOS ANGELES 1 MOBILE 760.749.8722 1 310.306.9728 1 760.802.7596 ga rvfawvn nenaineeri ng.com www.wynnenaineerina.com RECEIVED DEC 14 2016 City of Roiiing :-i I!s By Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this e-mail, including any accompanying documents, may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the designated recipient(s) named above. Unauthorized review, disclosure, copying, intercepting or distributing is not permitted. If this e-mail was received in error, please notify Wynn Engineering, Inc. at (760) 749-8722. From: Gary Wynn Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 2:12 PM To: 'Yolanta Schwartz' <vs(citvofrh.net> Subject: FW: Hassoldt Revised Plan Gary Wynn, P.E. President Wynn Engineering, Inc. 27315 Valley Center Road, Valley Center, CA 92082 VALLEY CENTER 1 LOS ANGELES 1 MOBILE 760.749.8722 1 310.306.9728 1 760.802.7596 earv@wynneneineerine.com www.wynneneineering.com Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this e-mail, including any accompanying documents, may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the designated recipient(s) named above. Unauthorized review, disclosure, copying, intercepting or distributing is not permitted. If this e-mail was received in error, please notify Wynn Engineering, Inc. at (760) 749-8722. From: Brian Renna Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 2:07 PM Page 1 of 2 1 \ Y� \\\ �1 ?�\\`\ �l I 1 \ \ I 1 \ \ 1 \\ \ I Dim n.. ®ul. 1 \ k \ \ \ \ I 1.\ \\ \ \\\ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ \X\‘ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\\ \ r \\\1 1\ \ \ 1 1 1 I nl / // p .nuarmt ,w.&Z _ __i_ \\\ 1 1\ \ I 11 I I I I I / ap / L—ai P.G.R.o A.o� 1\ 1 1 `w+— l i t 1 1 1 / / In 111 1 11 1 I I I I / / b IgkA is ' k l y t H i t f P T / MIA in 100 ME dry i I q0S CIeu�J‘= k Is l ea caw Iy I \ r it .041 4. \ —47°-a\\ VICINITY NAP °TIMER INFORMATION CONTACT INFORMATION PARCEL INFORMATION PROJECT INFORMATION p4 A li 100 MAU 000 .1.00 10001.01 011•101 10 PVC MI UPC 010 000) VAIT) 011000 • 0110 0010 01411 AJO 10111 001.10 01)1100t PVC AI MAC OM NW. NLIS Zit M70 010 n•MCII0010.01 ADOWIN IS POROJOr .0 1.0.0 10100 FLU. CA 10)114 A=170011 110) 4-01/ Pt000 0.JS 1St /Al 7• LOI APCP, 400 IC It 19.0 >114 001 riair 0110:001 P001.1 10 le citun arenne LC101 030 6401 1110010 IC 1.200.1 IIC 010111030 0:01 MST. VI n 100 O 100 001010001 61,001 O 91 Pt 110 00:01 0001.01.400 11/4 DC 11.01111100 LECIDO mi▪ cron VC 0001.1. 0.11.010 W10 CT LOT 0011 0710110) MLA GRAPHIC SCALE E TIMM .40 11-07-100 0011) 10-00 0S am P•1 Wednesday, December 14, 201 :2:07 PM Pacific Standard Time Subject: FW: Hassoldt Revised Plan Date: From: To: CC: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 11:54:38 AM Pacific Standard Time Gary Wynn <Gary@wynnengineering.com> Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net> Bryan Birch <Bryanb@wynnengineering.com> Yolanta —We would like to extend the limits of the approved retaining wall to trim off the side yards at 15 Portuguese Bend Road. These extensions of the wall are less than three (3) feet in height and are shown in the attached plan. You indicated that this request needs to go to the Planning Commission for approval of these minor, less than 3' extensions of the approved retaining wall. Please calendar this item with the Planning Commission if it is required to obtain approval. I had always thought that after the retaining wall goes under 3 feet, that you really did not care about it from a land use stand point, since these types of walls are generally exempt from building permits. Thanks! Gary Wynn, P.E. President Wynn Engineering, Inc. 27315 Valley Center Road, Valley Center, CA 92082 VALLEY CENTER 1 LOS ANGELES 1 MOBILE 760.749.8722 1 310.306.9728 1 760.802.7596 gary(wvnnengineering.com www.wynneneineerine.com RECEIVED DEC 14 2016 City of Roiling Hills By Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this e-mail, including any accompanying documents, may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the designated recipient(s) named above. Unauthorized review, disclosure, copying, intercepting or distributing is not permitted. If this e-mail was received in error, please notify Wynn Engineering, Inc. at (760) 749-8722. From: Gary Wynn Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 2:12 PM To: 'Yolanta Schwartz' <vsPcitvofrh.net> Subject: FW: Hassoldt Revised Plan Gary Wynn, P.E. President Wynn Engineering, Inc. 27315 Valley Center Road, Valley Center, CA 92082 VALLEY CENTER 1 LOS ANGELES 1 MOBILE 760.749.8722 1 310.306.9728 1760.802.7596 gary@wynneneineerine.com www.wynneneineerine.com Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this e-mail, including any accompanying documents, may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the designated recipient(s) named above. Unauthorized review, disclosure, copying, intercepting or distributing is not permitted. If this e-mail was received in error, please notify Wynn Engineering, Inc. at (760) 749-8722. From: Brian Renna Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 2:07 PM Page 1 of 2 alf,�atal9 qii,l INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 TO: FROM: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 7A Mtg. Date: 12-20-16 HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING/ LOT SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 912 3 CHUCKWAGON RD. (LOT 40-EF) RA -S-1 / 2.3 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. STEPHEN LIU COMPASS LANDSCAPING INC. NOVEMBER 3, 2016 REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Liu, owners of 3 Chuckwagon Road request a Site Plan Review for construction of a 228 square foot covered patio/deck that is to be 2.5 -feet maximum above grade. The structure is proposed to be located on a slope to the rear of the home and will be accessed by new on grade stairway that will be between the upper and lower slopes. An existing pathway also provides access to the deck area. Minimal grading of 18 cubic yards will be required to construct the patio and two terraced 2.5 - foot tall retaining walls, with planter in between, to screen the out of grade condition of the patio. New irrigation and plants will be installed on the slope between the house and patio. 2. The Planning Commission held public hearings on November 15, 2016, in the field and later that same day in Council Chambers and following the review and discussion of the project, directed staff to prepare a Resolution of approval. 3. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review and consider the attached Resolution No. 2016-26 for adoption. Other than the standard conditions of ZC NO. 912 3 Chuckwagon Rd. approval, the Planning Commission did not require any other conditions specific to this case be included. The previous approval for the property requires that the graded slopes be landscaped and that the pool and deck be screened. These conditions will be reviewed and inspected upon completion of the previously approved project (currently under construction). G RESOLUTION NO. 2016-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A TRELLIS, A PORTION OF WHICH IS 2.5 -FEET MAXIMUM OUT OF GRADE AND A 2.5' HIGH WALL ON A PROPERTY WITH A RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT CONDITION IMPOSED THROUGH A PRIOR PROJECT IN ZONING CASE NO. 912 AT 3 CHUCKWAGON ROAD. (LOT 40-EF) ROLLING HILLS, CA, (LIU). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Stephan Liu requesting approval of a Site Plan Review to construct an 8 -foot tall trellis above a 228 square foot out of grade deck and maximum 2.5 -foot tall walls around the deck perimeter on the property at 3 Chuckwagon Road. A majority of the deck floor area will be between 12"and 2.5' above adjacent grade. Two wooden staircases and an on - grade footpath providing access to the proposed trellis are also proposed. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on November 15, 2016 at a field trip and at an evening meeting on the same day. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the 'Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants and their representative were in attendance at the public hearings. At the public hearing the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution of approval for consideration at the December 20, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. Section 3. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303, Class 3 exemptions in that it is a small structure accessory to the existing residence. Section 4. The property is zoned RAS-1 and has a gross lot area of 2.3 acres. The net lot larea for development purposes is 85,412 square feet, or 1.96 acres. The property is located along a bend on Chuckwagon Road and has a frontage of approximately 500 feet. The property is irregular in shape in that it is long and narrow. Other that the existing building pad, the property is steep, sloping downward from front to rear. Building permits show that the residence with attached garage and decks were built in 1977. Section 5. In May 2013, the applicant was approved for a Site Plan Review permitting construction of a swimming pool, new above grade deck and reconstruction Reso. 2016-26 3 Chuckwagon Rd. of an existing deck, including future construction of a stable, corral and access, in Zoning Case No. 838 (Resolution No. 2013-07). The project is approved for a future construction of a stable, corral and access per Resolution 2013-07. Condition Q. of Resolution 2013-07 requires that any future modification of the project or additional development require Planning Commission review and approval. Notwithstanding the restricted development restriction imposed on the site, Municipal Code Section 17.46.020 requires a development plan to be submitted for Site Plan Review for decks with an out -of -grade condition of more than 12". Section 6. With respect to the Site Plan Review application for the 228 square foot deck, the majority of which will be above ground more than 12"and no more than 2.5', the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact pursuant to RHMC 17.46.010: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan and surrounding uses because the proposed project complies with the requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The trellis and deck/patio will be located to the rear of the residence and, other than in a small area where retaining walls require minimum grading to create a flat patio/deck surface, the property slopes will maintain their natural terrain. The maximum 2.5' tall walls will blend with the adjacent slope due to planting of native and water -wise vegetation (e.g. Catalina cherry) around the perimeter of the deck. In addition, the deck flagstone surface will be planted in between joints with a groundcover and a flowering vine will be attached to the trellis. The proposed trellis and seating area are relatively small in terms of area and height and these improvements amid the natural environment, are a common amenity enjoyed by property owners throughout the City. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot have been considered, and the construction will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed improvements will be constructed on a portion of the lot which is least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with plants and shrubs, is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the proposed project will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. More specifically, the plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot in that the new trellis and deck/patio will be located to the rear of the residence between native vegetation (toyon and lemonberry trees) and the terraced wall finish material will have a natural appearance also that blends with the native rocks on the site. In addition, the improvements being relatively small scale (228 square feet and .267% of the net lot area, will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped and significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space and the natural rolling hill terrain. Reso. 2016-26 3 Chuckwagon Rd. C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. The proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood, as it is on a large (2.3 acre) lot. The proposed trellis will be 70 -feet from the nearest (rear/north) property line. The lot coverage maximums set forth in the Zoning Code will not be exceeded. D. Natural drainage courses will not be affected by the project. Grading will be minimum (18 cubic yards) and will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow. The project is not located in a canyon or on existing slopes that exceed 25%. E. The project preserves much of the existing vegetation elsewhere on the lot and will introduce drought -tolerant native landscaping, which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and the landscaping will provide a buffer or transition area between private and public areas. A landscaping plan will be filed with the City. F. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed development will utilize the existing driveway and will not interfere with community trails. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review in Zoning Case No. 912 for a new 228 square foot seating patio almost entirely all of which will have a floor elevation more than 12 -inches but not exceeding 2.5 -feet in height above grade, and overhead trellis attached to the patio, subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this approval has not commenced within that time period, as required by Section 17.46.080 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections. B. If any condition of this resolution is violated, the entitlement granted by this resolution shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse and upon receipt of written notice from the City, all construction work being performed on the subject property shall immediately cease, other than work determined by the City Manager or his/her designee required to cure the violation. The suspension and stop work order will be lifted once the Applicant cures the violation to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee. In the event that the Applicant disputes the City Manager or his/her designee's determination that a violation exists or disputes how the violation must be cured, the Applicant may request a hearing before the City Council. The hearing shall be scheduled at the next regular meeting of the City Council Reso. 2016-26 3 Chuckwagon Rd. 3 for which the agenda has not yet been posted, the Applicant shall be provided written notice of the hearing. The stop work order shall remain in effect during the pendency of the hearing. The City Council shall make a determination as to whether a violation of this Resolution has occurred. If the Council determines that a violation has not occurred or has been cured by the time of the hearing, the Council will lift the suspension and the stop work order. If the Council determines that a violation has occurred and has not yet been cured, the Council shall provide the Applicant with a deadline to cure the violation; no construction work shall be performed on the property until and unless the violation is cured by the deadline, other than work designated by the Council to accomplish the cure. If the violation is not cured by the deadline, the Council may either extend the deadline at the Applicant's request or schedule a hearing for the revocation of the entitlements granted by this Resolution pursuant to Chapter 17.58 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC). C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, LA County Building Code and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The conditions of approval specified herein shall be printed on the construction plans submitted to the building department for plan check and permitting and shall be available at all time at the construction site. E. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformarice with the site plan on file dated October 28, 2016, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the approved development plan. All conditions of the Site Plan Review and Variance approvals shall be incorporated into the building permit working drawings and where applicable complied with prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. F. Prior to submittal of final working drawings to the Building and Safety Department for issuance of permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to City staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. G. Prior to obtaining a building permit a landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department that will provide screening of the trellis and the supporting retaining walls, so that the structure blends with the slope. H. If landscaping of 5,000 square foot area or greater is introduced or redeveloped, the landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Any plants introduced for this project shall not grow into a hedge but be offset. The landscaping plan shall utilize to the maximum extent Reso. 2016-26 3 Chuckwagon Rd. 4 feasible, plants that are native to the area and are consistent with the rural character of the community. I. A licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all respects with this Resolution approving this project and including conformance with all of the conditions set forth therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the person obtaining a building permit for this project shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith. J. A drainage plan, if required, shall be prepared and submitted to the City's Building Department for review and approval, and the project shall comply with their requirements. The applicants, at all times, shall maintain the drainage devices in good working condition and free of debris and vegetation. K. There shall be no grading for this project, however excavation for footings (18 cubic yards) is allowed. L. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 11,423 square feet, or 13.4% of the net lot area. Total lot coverage shall not exceed 19.9% or 16,965 square feet, as approved by this Site Plan Review. Building Pad coverage on the proposed 300 square foot pad created for the proposed deck/trellis shall not exceed 76%. M. Disturbance for structures, both existing and proposed including the future stable, corral and access shall not exceed 39.44% N. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Lighting Ordinance of the City of Rolling Hills, pertaining to outdoor lighting on said property, as well as all requirements pertaining to roofing and construction materials that are applicable to properties in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. O. During construction, the project shall conform to and implement all applicable requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors. P. During construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby unimproved roadway easement adjacent to subject site. There shall be no blocking of adjacent driveways or of the roadway easement for passage of pedestrians and equestrians. During construction a flagmen shall be present to direct traffic when it is anticipated that a lane may be impeded. During construction, to the maximum extent feasible, employees of the contractor shall be encouraged to car-pool to and from the City. Reso. 2016-26 3 Chuckwagon Rd. Q. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. R. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) requirements related to solid waste, drainage and storm water management. S. A minimum of 50% of the construction material spoils shall be recycled and diverted. The waste hauler shall provide appropriate documentation to the City for removal of construction material spoils. T. Perimeter easements and trails, if any, shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to fences -including construction fences, any hardscape, driveways, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, except as otherwise approved by the RHCA. U. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be found at: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/Iox/main.php?suite=safety&page=hazard definitions#FIRE. It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red flag warning conditions. Should a red flag warning be declared and if work is to be conducted on the property, the contractor shall have readily available fire distinguisher. V. Until the applicants execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this approval, the approvals shall not be effective. Such affidavit shall be recorded together with the resolution. W. The property on which the project is located shall contain an area of minimum of 1,000 square feet to provide an area meeting all standards for a stable (450 square feet) and corral (550 square feet) with access thereto. X. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modification to this project, including change in elevation of the proposed decks or additional development or grading on the property, shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission, except as permitted in Section 17.46.040C. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20th DAY OF December 2016. Reso. 2016-26 3 Chuckwagon Rd. 6 `✓ 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. Reso. 2016-26 3 Chuckwagon Rd. 7 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-26 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A TRELLIS, A PORTION OF WHICH IS 2.5 -FEET MAXIMUM OUT OF GRADE AND A 2.5' HIGH WALL ON A PROPERTY WITH A RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT CONDITION IMPOSED THROUGH A PRIOR PROJECT IN ZONING CASE NO. 912 AT 3 CHUCKWAGON ROAD. (LOT 40- EF) ROLLING HILLS, CA, (LIU). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 20, 2016 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 Reso. 2016-26 3 Chuckwagon Rd. 8 8 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 8A Mtg. Date: 12-20-16 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING/ LOT SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 913 10 CREST RD. E. (LOT 2 -CFI) RA -S-1 / 1.3 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. KARL FRYKMAN BOLTON ENGINEERING NOVEMBER 3, 2016 REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. Mr. and Mrs. Karl Frykman of 10 Crest Road East request Variances to construct a 72 square foot chicken coop and to exceed disturbance on the lot. The applicants also propose to relocate and slightly enlarge a pool equipment enclosure with a 4' high wall, requiring a Site Plan Review. The chicken coop is proposed to be within the "front yard" of the lot and with the new structures the lot disturbance will increase by 625 square feet and by 1.53% beyond the amount granted in a prior Variance request, and will be 66.1%. Also proposed are two short walls (not exceed 2' in height) in the area of the chicken coop to accomplish a flat area. 2. The Planning Commission held public hearings on November 15, 2016, in the field and later that same day in Council Chambers. At the field trip the location of the pool equipment area was discussed and the Planning Commission suggested that the applicants reconfigure the wall, access to the enclosure and the slope location of the pool equipment area. At the evening public hearing, following discussion, the Planning Commission directed staff to bring a Resolution of approval of the project subject to the applicants submitting a revised plan for the pool equipment incorporating the suggestions made by the Planning Commission. ZC NO. 913 10 Crest Rd. W. 3. The applicants submitted a revised plans calling for a 100 square foot pool equipment area tucked into the side yard slope with not to exceed 4' high retaining walls, located 1' from the easement line. The applicants propose to move the entire enclosure slightly to the north of the previous proposal to allow for a wider walkable area around it and the house, and a 4' wide planter surrounding the enclosure along the rear and sides. The access to the enclosure will be taken from the west side having a two, 5' wide doors. The front of the enclosure will be landscaped (not in easement). 4. Enclosed for Planning Commission's consideration is Resolution No. 2016-25 approving the project based on the revised plan allowing not to exceed 4' walls and requiring screening of the pool equipment area from the west side. 5. The previously approved project contains a condition that the Planning Commission shall review any further development on the property. Unless directed otherwise by the Planning Commission, this condition has been included in the proposed Resolution. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 6. The calculations submitted for the November meeting for the structural, total lot and building pad coverages and disturbance of the lot are not going to change. 7. The property is zoned RAS-1. The gross lot area is 1.3 acres. The net lot area for development purposes is 40,914 square feet, (.93 acres). The topography slopes gently up from Crest Rd. The existing home is at the rear of the lot, partially within the rear setback. 8. As a result of the entitlements granted by Resolution 2014-21, the site is currently approved for: 4,385 square foot residence, 750 square foot attached garage, 1,104 square foot pool (within the rear setback), 90 square foot pool equipment 735 square foot stable (within front yard), 234 square feet of porches, 227 square feet detached trellis, 195 square feet of attached trellis, 32 square feet of barbeque, a 192 square foot deck and a 90 square foot service yard. In addition, the 2014 approvals permitted a 2,700 square foot corral, within the front yard. 9. The structural coverage for the project including the proposed coop and pool equipment structure will be 18.7%, (20% max. permitted) with allowed deductions and 32.85% for combined structural/flatwork (35% max. permitted). The disturbed area will increase by 1.53% over the 2014 approved Variance to 27,046 square feet, or 66.1% (40% max. permitted). 10. The residential building pad for the property contains 11,050 square feet. With the proposed pool equipment structure, the total residential pad coverage will be 58.1%. With the proposed coop, the stable pad (1,371 square feet) will have 70.6% coverage. 11. When reviewing this application, the Planning Commission should consider whether the application meets the criteria for granting variances and site plan review.. The applicant's representative has stated that approval of the requested variances is justified due to the location of the home towards the rear of the lot, which results in an unusually deep front yard. 12. Minor new grading is proposed -10 cubic yards total. The coop will be located on a relatively flat area near the future stable, requiring minor new disturbance and the pool equipment structure, to be located near the residence adjacent to the side setback will also require minor additional disturbance. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance RESOLUTION NO. 2016-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF VARIANCES AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A CHICKEN COOP IN THE FRONT YARD, TO EXCEED THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED LOT DISTURBANCE AND TO RELOCATE A POOL EQUIPMENT AREA NECESSITATING AN UP TO 4' TALL ENCLOSURE WALL ON A PROPERTY WITH A RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT CONDITION IMPOSED THROUGH A PRIOR PROJECT, IN ZONING CASE NO. 913, AT 10 CREST ROAD W. (LOT 2 -CH) ROLLING HILLS, CA, (FRYICMAN). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by property owners Mr. and Mrs. Karl Frykman with respect to real property located 10 Crest Road West (Lot 2 -CH) Rolling Hills, CA requesting a SPR (Site Plan Review) and two Variances. The Site Plan Review request is to permit construction of a 100 square foot uncovered pool equipment enclosure consisting of a maximum 4 -foot tall block wall and 2 access gates, with incidental grading of a total of 10 -cubic yards. The Variances requested seek permission to: 1) construct a 72 -square foot chicken coop table in the "front yard" (area between the leading edge of the residence and front property line); and 2) increase the amount of disturbed area of the lot from 64.6% to 66.1% (40% maximum allowed) due to grading for the proposed pool equipment enclosure. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings on November 15, including a field trip, and on December 20, 2016 to consider the application. The applicants and neighbors within 1,000 -foot radius of subject property were notified of the public hearing in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff, and the Planning Commission reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. At its November 15th public hearing meeting, the Planning Commission expressed concern with the size, height of wall and location of the pool equipment enclosure. The applicant subsequently modified the application so that the enclosure design is as follows: 1) enclosure wall height of 4 -feet; 2) the gate opening width no more than 10 -feet in Length (5 -feet each door), with both doors attached to walls on both sides; 3) total gate width no more than 50% of the total length of wall in which the gate is .located; and, 4) the enclosure wall set back a minimum 1. -foot from the easement line, in order to provide room between the easement and enclosure wall for landscaping, sufficient to screen the appearance of the wall from the view of neighboring properties to the west. Reso. 2016-25 1 ( e ' 10 Crest Rd. West \�J Section 3. The property is developed with a 4,385 square foot residence, 750 square foot garage, 195 square foot attached trellis, 227 square foot detached trellis, service yard and 32 square foot barbecue (BBQ and detached trellis are non -permitted). A portion of the existing residence encroaches into the rear setback, approved in 1993. The site was approved in 2014 (Resolution PC 2014-21) for construction of a pool and spa in the rear setback and stable/coral in the front yard of the lot. The trellis and barbeque are required to be legalized. Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a "Class 3" project in that it is new construction of limited sized structures, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303. Section 5. Site Plan Review Findings - Pool Equipment Enclosure. The subject property has a "restricted development" condition currently imposed in Resolution No. 2014-21, pursuant to Section 17.46.040.C.1. With respect to the Site Plan Review application requesting construction of a pool equipment enclosure with incidental grading, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The approval herein of a Site Plan Review is consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and goals and policies of the General Plan because the proposed pool equipment enclosure is consistent with similar uses in the community, meets all the applicable code development standards and will be adequately sized and designed to be effectively visually screened from view of the adjoining property by landscaping and will be sufficiently separated from nearby structures used for habitation. The structure will be located approximately 75 feet from the rear property line and will be visually screened from Crest Road by a future stable and the existing residence. B. The subject lot is 1.13 acres in size and is sufficiently large to accommodate the proposed structure while maintaining considerable amount of open space. The project proposes total lot coverage of 32.85%, which conforms to the Zoning Code lot coverage limit of 35% (of net lot area). C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the equipment enclosure, as designed and in complying with code requirements, will blend with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and will not give the property an over -built look. The structure is proposed to be located in the rear of the lot and will be low scale (4 -foot tall for pool equipment enclosure and 8 -foot tall for chicken coop), thereby reducing their visibility. D. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent structures have been considered, and the project will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed pool equipment enclosure Reso. 2016-25 10 Crest Rd. West 2 ® is oriented away from all but one of the adjoining properties. The visibility to the property adjoining on the west will be lessened by the maintenance of vegetation to be planted between the side easement line and enclosure wall. Grading involving 10 cubic yards for the pool equipment structure is the maximum needed to construct the structure and the structure will be recessed as much as possible into the existing slope to allow for more effective screening. E. The development plan follows to the maximum extent practicable, the contours of the site to minimize grading and retain the natural drainage courses. The area being graded to accommodate the pool equipment enclosure will be landscaped and is minimal in size. F. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because there are no changes to the existing driveway nor will there be any encroachments on private easements or trails. Section 6. Variances. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Code permit approval of a variance in order to grant relief from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when, due to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property and not to other similar properties in the same zone, strict application of the Code would deny the property owner substantial property rights enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. With respect to the variances requested to exceed the amount of lot disturbance (66.1% requested; 40% permitted) and to construct a chicken coop within the "front yard", the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the subject property that do not apply generally to other property or class of use in the same zone in that, principally, the fact that the existing residence was constructed largely towards the rear of the lot, leaving the majority of the lot to be considered front yard. Being that a portion of the house is located in the rear setback, there is no location in the rear yard for the coop to be placed that is 35 -feet away from a structure (as required of public health regulations) and outside of setbacks. This constraint is also a factor in that additional disturbance is needed to locate both structures in the areas available for development. In addition, being that the applicant has gained prior approval for the barn and corral in the front yard (Reso. 2014-21), it is also logical that the coop, which is actually farther from Crest Road than the previously approved barn, could be located in the vicinity to the barn. Other than the coop location and lot disturbance exceedance, the project meets all codes. B. The requested Variances for front yard location and disturbance are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question in that swimming pools and associated equipment and chicken coops are Reso. 2016-25 3 ' t 10 Crest Rd. West `� amenities common to, and characteristic of the large estate sized properties that permit animal keeping and private recreational uses complimentary to the single family RA -S-1 Residential zone. C. The chicken coop and the pool equipment structures will not be injurious to neighbors. The coop will be located between the stable and the residence and away from Crest Road, will not encroach into any setbacks and will have a conforming distance (minimum 35 -feet) away from any residence. The pool equipment enclosure will be located on the west side of the existing residence, but not within the side yard setback. It will be recessed into the ground with the surrounding walls no higher than 4 -feet, with access on the west side via two (2) five-foot wide gates attached to walls on either side that are also 5 -feet in width, with a one -foot minimum planter in front of its west wall. The enclosure's location and design, particularly its low -scale height, and buffering landscaping are expected to mitigate any potential visual or other impacts to neighbors. D. The chicken coop and pool enclosure are compatible with the general plan and zoning ordinance in that, other than being in the front yard (coop) and causing a minor increase in disturbance, will comply with all standards as an accessory agricultural use, including location, size, height, distance from residential structures (min. 35 feet) and use, and both will be compatible with the city's land use goals for the RA -S-1 zone. E. The proposed accessory uses are consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities in that the project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. F. The variances do not grant special privileges to the applicant. To the contrary, absent a variance, the property owner would be deprived of the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity, especially due to the unusual location of the existing residence close to the property's rear, as opposed to front property line. This unique physical constraint makes it infeasible for the property owner to comply with Sections 17.16.070.B (disturbance limit) and 17.16.200 (conditions for accessory uses). Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Zoning Case No. 913, request for a Site Plan Review and Variances for a 72 square foot chicken coop in the front yard, minor grading and a 100 square foot pool enclosure, with not to exceed 4' retaining walls, subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan and Variances approvals shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.38.070 and 17.46.080, unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections.' Reso. 2016-25 4 10 Crest Rd. West B. If any condition of this resolution is violated, the entitlement granted by this resolution shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse and upon receipt of written notice from the City, all construction work being performed on the subject property shall immediately cease, other than work determined by the City Manager or his/her designee required to cure the violation. The suspension and stop work order will be lifted once the Applicant cures the violation to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee. In the event that the Applicant disputes the City Manager or his/ her designee's determination that a violation exists or disputes how the violation must be cured, the Applicant may request a hearing before •the City Council. The hearing shall be scheduled at the next regular meeting of the City Council for which the agenda has not yet been posted, the Applicant shall be provided written notice of the hearing. The stop work order shall remain in effect during the pendency of the hearing. The City Council shall make a determination as to whether a violation of this Resolution has occurred. If the Council determines that a violation has not occurred or has been cured by the time of the hearing, the Council will lift the suspension and the stop work order. If the Council determines that a violation has occurred and has not yet been cured, the Council shall provide the Applicant with a deadline to cure the violation; no construction work shall be performed on the property until and unless the violation is cured by the deadline, other than work designated by the Council to accomplish the cure. If the violation is not cured by the deadline, the Council may either extend the deadline at the Applicant's request or schedule a hearing for the revocation of the entitlements granted by this Resolution pursuant to Chapter 17.58 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC). C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, LA County Building Code and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The conditions of approval specified herein shall be printed on the construction plans submitted to the building department for plan check and permitting and shall be available at all time at the construction site. E. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file dated December 8, 2016, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the approved development plan. All conditions of the Site Plan Review and Variance approvals shall be incorporated into the building permit working drawings and where applicable complied with prior to issuance of a building permit. F. Prior to submittal of final working drawings to the Building and Safety Department for issuance of building permits, the plans for the project shall be Reso. 2016-25 5 10 Crest Rd. West �J submitted to City staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. G. A licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the person obtaining a building permit for this project shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith. H. Structural lot coverage of the lot shall not exceed 7,665 square feet or 18.73% of the net lot area with allowable deductions, in conformance with lot coverage limitations (20% maximum). The size of the structures shall be measured from the exterior surface of the outside walls. I. The total lot coverage proposed, including structures and flatwork, shall not exceed 13,441 square feet or 32.85%, of the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage limitations (35% max). J. Grading for this project shall not exceed 10 cubic yards total (cut and fill) the amount needed minimally to site the proposed structures. The disturbance of the lot shall not exceed 66.1%. K. A drainage plan, if required by the Building Department shall be prepared and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of a construction permit. Such plan shall be subject to County Code requirements. L. The proposed pool equipment enclosure shall be shielded on the west side by landscaping but not be located in the RHCA easement, unless permitted by the RHCA. A landscaping plan for the pool equipment area shall be submitted to the City prior to construction. Any plants introduced for this project shall not grow into a hedge but be offset. The landscaping plan shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and are consistent with the rural character of the community. M. Perimeter easements and trails, if any, including roadway easements shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to, driveways, fences including construction fences, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, except as otherwise approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. N. 50% of any construction materials must be recycled or diverted from landfills. The hauler of the materials shall obtain City's Construction and Demolition permit prior to start of work. Reso. 2016-25 6 10 Crest Rd. West O. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. P. During construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and, if ,necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby unimproved roadway easement adjacent to subject site. There shall be no blocking of adjacent driveways or of the roadway easement for passage of pedestrians and equestrians. During construction a flagmen shall be present to direct traffic when it is anticipated that a lane may be impeded. During construction, to the maximum extent feasible, employees of the contractor shall be encouraged to car-pool to and from the City. Q. The property owner shall at all times maintain the pool equipment within the proposed enclosure such that it does not create any undue noise disturbances br visual impacts to neighbors. Sound attenuating equipment shall be installed to dampen the sound. The pool equipment shall utilize the most quiet and technologically advanced equipment to dampen the sound. R. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) requirements related to solid waste, drainage and storm water drainage facilities management and the Low Impact Development Ordinance (LID), if applicable, of the City of Rolling Hills. S. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the property or this project, which would constitute additional grading or any structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission, except as permitted in Section 17.46.040C. T. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this permit pursuant to Zoning Ordinance, or the approval shall not be effective. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20th DAY OF DECEMBER 2016. BRAD CHELF, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK Reso. 2016-25 7 10 Crest Rd. West 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. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-25 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A CHICKEN COOP IN THE FRONT YARD AND TO INCREASE THE LOT DISTURBANCE AND A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A POOL EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE WITH MINOR GRADING ON A PROPERTY WITH A RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT CONDITION, IN ZONING CASE NO. 913 AT 10 CREST ROAD WEST, LOT 2 -CH, ROLLING HILLS, CA (FRYKMAN). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 20, 2016 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 Reso. 2016-25 8 10 Crest Rd. West INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 9A Mtg. Date: 12-20-16 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR JULIA STEWART, ASSISTANT PLANNER APPLICATION NO. ZONING CASE NO. 914 SITE LOCATION: 11 UPPER BLACKWATER CANYON ROAD (LOT 99-B-RH) ZONING AND SIZE: RA -S-2, 9.2 ACRES (EXCL. ROADWAY EASEMENT) APPLICANT: AUTHOR HOMES, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: JESSICA FARINACCI, TOMARO DESIGN GROUP PUBLISHED: DECEMBER 8, 2016 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The Project The applicant is proposing construction of a new residence, tennis court, guest house, stable and corral, new pool and spa with several outdoor amenities. This new construction will require the demolition of all existing structures on the subject property. Site Plan Review The applicant is requesting a Site Plan Review for construction of a 11,052 square foot residence with a total of 2,870 square feet of covered porches (including 195 square feet of covered porches at the guest house), a 1,446 square foot garage, a 6,620 square foot basement, a terraced set of walls at 3 feet and 5 feet resulting in an overall eight foot wall screening the basement egress and ingress to the exterior, up to an 8 foot wall located directly adjacent to the basement opening enclosing the patio on two sides, and a 115 square foot service yard. Also included in Site Plan Review will be a proposed 154 square foot Porte cochere, a 1,336 square foot swimming pool and spa, and exterior features including a water feature, barbeques and fire pits. O ZC NO.91411 Upper Blackwater Cyn. Rd. 1 Conditional Use Permit A Conditional Use Permit is requested for the construction of a 744 square foot total two-story stable with a 504 square foot ground floor and 240 square foot loft, a 1,491 square foot corral, a 6,985 square foot tennis court, and a 800 square foot guesthouse with 195 square feet of attached covered porches. Demolition The applicant proposes to demolish the existing home, garage, swimming pool, and stable and modify two existing building pads to accommodate the proposed construction for the primary residence, tennis court, and guest house and create one new building pad for the construction of a stable and corral. Zoning, Land Size and Existing Conditions The property is zoned RAS-2 and the lot area excluding the roadway easement is 9.2 acres. For development purposes the net lot area of the lot is 373,484 square feet, 8.57 acres. Records show that the existing 3,200 square foot house with 500 square foot garage was constructed in 1951; the swimming pool, cabana and the stable were constructed in 1957. Driveway and Motor Court The applicants will construct a new driveway approach slightly north of the existing curb cut. The Traffic Commission will review the new driveway approach at their January 26, 2017 meeting. The proposed new driveway and motor court will require a small amount of grading. The existing stable will be demolished and the area filed to become part of the residential building pad where the new garage and a portion of the driveway will be located. Access to the stable will be provided from the motor court area by a 10' wide D.G. path. Past Approval for the Property In 2014, approval was granted to the previous owners for grading of 5,385 cubic yards of cut and 4,137 cubic yards of fill and construction of 10,175 square foot residence with 1,566 square foot garage, 1,694 square feet of covered porches, including Porte Cochere, 8,900 square foot basement, 1,306 square foot swimming pool and other outdoor amenities. Approximately 704 cubic yards of dirt was proposed to be spread over the 19,000 square foot flat corral and stable area. The pad was to be raised by one foot. Approximately 1,248 cubic yards of dirt was to be left over and exported. Also, a Conditional Use Permit was granted for the construction of a 890 square foot single story stable with 750 square foot covered porch and over 16,600 square foot corral. The aforementioned approval expired and the property was sold. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE Grading and Stabilization The total combined grading for this project will consist of 24,900 cubic yards of cut and fill (including overexcavation and recompaction). A net of 1,542 cubic yards of dirt ZC No. 914 11 Upper Blackwater Cyn. Rd. 2 overall will be exported. The residential pad is proposed to be lowered by approximately two feet with a relatively small amount of grading (945 cubic yards excluding basement excavation and overexcavation). Two of the building pads will be stabilized with caissons. The applicants provided a soils and geology report that was prepared for the previously approved project, as well as prepared an updated soils and geology report for the currently proposed project where it was concluded that there is a landslide condition on some portions of the lot. The report determined that there are slope stability issues on about 2/3 of the area of the front of the lot. The applicants have two options in order to remediate the condition. One would be to conduct extensive remedial grading, which would include landslide area removals and replacement with engineered fill, keyway excavation, benching and installation of subdrain systems and intensive monitoring. The report states that this option is feasible but would result in extensive temporary excavations, complex phasing and stockpiling and in general much disturbance to the lot and residents. Option two, which the applicants chose to implement, is to construct caissons to stabilize the portions of the building pads that are to be developed along the residential and tennis court building pads. Once completed, Option 2 construction will meet the building code requirement for factor of stability for the building pads. A known "Geologic Hazard Line" exists on the lot and is shown on the plan. It represents the area with less than the required 1.5 factor of stability (safety) for development as is required by Code. The stabilization with caissons would correct this condition. Disturbance An additional 21,340 square feet of the lot is proposed to be disturbed or 5.71%, which includes both the residential building pad, tennis court and guest house pad, and the stable and corral area. Currently there are two building pads on the property, for a total of 112,150 square feet of existing disturbance. The existing disturbed area of the lot is 30.03%. The proposed project will result in 35.74% or 133,490 square feet of overall disturbed area. Height The finished roof height of the proposed residence will be 17feet 10 1/2 inches. The finished roof height of the proposed guest house is 11 feet 51/2 inches. The finished roof height of the proposed stable is 20 feet The basement will be approximately 10' in depth. Improved Basement The basement has been designed to daylight into a patio with an entertainment area. Stairs on either side of the walkout area would lead down to the tennis court patio. The basement egress and ingress design is subject to RHCA Architectural Committee review and approval. However, walls, would be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The finished design of the basement walkout has not been finalized yet and will be staked for the field trip. Once it is staked, the Architectural Committee members will also visit ZC No. 914 11 Upper Blackwater Cyn. Rd. 3 the site. As currently proposed, the basement is to be screened by two terraced walls, one three feet and the other five feet with a combined total of eight feet in height. . Basement Garage The proposed residence includes a six car garage at grade with a single car lift that lowers into the basement. The basement garage is proposed to accommodate six additional cars below ground. Driveway Surface The applicants propose to utilize an impervious surface for the entire driveway and parking areas, which is not considered or counted as hardscape. Drainage Storm water runoff will be collected from roof downspouts and inlets located in hardscape areas and routed through cisterns, located at the side of the swimming pool and side of the guest house, sized to comply with City's Low Impact Development requirements. Excess water and runoff from landscaped areas will be routed downhill in a northerly direction and discharged to a dissipator, discharging to a relatively flat location sited downhill of the development. Storm Water Management This application is subject to the General Permit requirements for storm water management, where the State requires that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan be submitted and a permit obtained, due to grading on one or more acres of land. This application is also subject to the City's Low Impact Development (LID) ordinance requirements for retention of water on site, and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance where the applicants must implement low water usage planting and devices and certify compliance. All of these requirements will be monitored at the plan check review process and during construction. Lot Coverage The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 25,277 square feet or 6.77% (20% max. permitted). The total lot coverage proposed (structural and flatwork) will be 37,337 square feet or 10.00% (35% max. permitted). The residential building pad is proposed at 48,380 square feet. The building pad coverage on the main residence pad is proposed at 15,803 square feet or 32.66%, which includes the residence, garage, swimming pool Sr spa, pool equipment, and service yard structures, but excludes the permissible deductions of portion of the attached porch and several of the miscellaneous outdoor amenities. The Tennis Court/Guest House building pad is proposed at 20,267 square feet. The building pad coverage on the Tennis Court/Guest house pad is proposed at 7,785 square feet or 38.41%, which includes the guest house, sports court, and attached covered porches of the accessory structures excluding the permissible deductions. ZC No. 914 11 Upper Blackwater Cyn. Rd. 4 The stable building pad is proposed at 2,152 square feet with a proposed lot coverage of 504 square feet and will have pad coverage of 23.4%. Walls A series of walls are proposed for this project. A 2.5 foot retaining wall is proposed to be located principally along the access road to the stable. Caissons and retaining walls are proposed to surround the residence and pool area with an average height of 2.48 feet. A four foot retaining wall will be located adjacent to the tennis court primarily between the recreational space and the residence. A three foot retaining wall is proposed to surround the corral. Two walls are subject to Site Plan Review. One wall is five feet in height and is being used to screen basement access, in front of which a 3' high planter wall is proposed for a combined total of eight feet. The other wall is eight feet at its highest point and is being used to enclose two sides of the patio adjacent to basement access. Both walls require discretionary approval. Pedestrian Access On grade walking paths are proposed to access the rear area of the property. There will be a minimum of a 5 foot wide walkway around all structures to comply with Fire Department requirements. Easternmost corner of the residence needs to be adjusted to meet the five foot walkway requirement. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TABLES A Conditional Use Permit is required for the stable, tennis court, and guest house. Stable Requirements The proposed stable will be two stories and contain 504 square feet with 240 square foot loft. The following requirements must be met for a stable: Pursuant to the zoning code requirements of section 17.18.060 the following is applicable to this request: REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED Not less than 6' wide roughened access Proposed 10' wide D.G. surface access from driveway. Stable, corral not to be located on slopes greater than 4:1 Located on area with a slope no greater thar 4:1 Not in front yard or side or front setback. May be located up to 25' in rear setback. Stable and corral comply Min. 35' from any residential structure Approx. 200' to residential structure -on subject property Building to be designed for rural and agriculture uses only, but may include storage of vehicles and household items Building is proposed to look like a stable and be used for a stable Size to include the entire footprint including Loft, if any 504 sq.ft. footprint; 240 sq. ft. Loft is _proposed for a total of 744 sq. ft. ZC No. 914 11 Upper Blackwater Cyn. Rd. 5 Minimum of 60% shall be maintained for agricultural uses Agricultural spaces include 2 stalls and agricultural uses measuring 612 sq.ft. or 82.3% Maximum of 40% not to exceed 800 s.f. may be maintained for a tack room Tack room of 132 sq.ft. or 17.7% of the structure Tack room may have sanitary and kitchenette amenities Proposed bathroom Tack room may have glazed openings No windows in tack room are proposed Entry doors to agricultural space to be min. 4'wide & 8' high; appearance of a stable door To comply with City's requirement. Loft is permitted 240 sq. ft. loft proposed Loft plate height may not exceed T Proposed loft plate height of 61/z feet Exterior area of stables may not to be paved Proposed gravel or D.G. Corral shall be fenced Proposed fenced corral Access not to exceed 25% Access proposed at 20-25% maximum gradc Corral to be contiguous to stable. Planning Commission may determine the size of a coral based on the size of the stable 1,491 s.f. corral contiguous to stable. Commercial uses or sleeping is not allowed Applicant is not proposing any commercial uses or sleeping in the stable Guest House Requirements An 800 square foot guest house is proposed. Section 17.16.210 (A)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for a guest house, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. These conditions, listed below, are intended to ensure that such structures are ancillary uses, do not eliminate an existing or future development for a stable and are not converted to other than permitted uses. REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED Shall not exceed eight hundred square feet An 800 square foot guest house is proposed. Shall not be located in the front yard or any setback. The guest house is not proposed to be in the front yard or any setback. A kitchenette and sanitary facility consisting of a shower, sink and toilet shall be permitted. Applicant proposes a kitchenette and shower and will be a condition of approval to meet the requirement No vehicular access or paved parking area shall be developed within fifty feet of the guest house. The driveway is more than fifty feet away. Occupancy of the guest house shall be limited This is a standard condition of ZC No. 914 11 Upper Blackwater Cyn. Rd. 6 to persons employed on the premises, the immediate family of the occupants of the main residence or by the temporary guests of the occupants of the main residence. No temporary guest may remain in occupancy for more than thirty days in any six-month period. approval. Renting of a guest house is prohibited. This is a standard condition of approval. Tennis Court Requirements Also proposed is a 6,985 square foot sports court with a 4' high maximum retaining wall along east side of the court. Section 17.16.210 (A)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for recreational game courts, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. These conditions, listed below, are intended to ensure that such structures: are ancillary recreational uses, do not eliminate an existing or future development for a stable, do not create visual or other impacts and blend in with the existing topography and landscape or views. Recreational Game Courts are defined as: tennis, racquetball and squash courts, and . any other fenced, enclosed, paved or hard -surfaced areas used for recreational purposes. They shall adhere to the following conditions: REQUIREMENTS: PROPOSED: A legally required and accessible stable and corral area shall be provided; Stable and corral are proposed to rear of the house A game court shall not be located in the front yard or any setback; Proposed project is not in setback or front yard. A game court shall not be located within fifty feet of any paved road or street easements; Proposed project is not located within fifty feet of any paved road or street easements. Retaining walls constructed for a game court shall not exceed four feet in height at any point along the wall; retaining walls shall not be exposed to the exterior; and if necessary to minimize the visual impact, the game court surface shall be inset or sunken below grade; A 4 foot high maximum retaining wall is proposed along the east side of the tennis court. The construction of a game court shall conform to the lot coverage limitations as set forth in Section 17.16.070; All development standards for coverage are within the permitted standards. A game court shall not be located on a slope that exceeds a 2:1 grade; Existing slope in court location does not exceed 2:1 gradient. A game court shall not be located on the Location of proposed court is not in a ZC No. 914 11 Upper Blackwater Cyn. Rd. CJ 7 side or bottom of a canyon or in the path of a natural drainage course; canyon or in a natural drainage course. The proposed court is partially on an existing knoll. When grading is required for a game court, cutting and filling shall be balanced on site and shall not exceed a total cut and fill of 750 cubic yards; Grading is proposed to be balanced for the court; the total grading for the game court will be less than 750 c.y. of dirt. When grading is required for a game court, cutting and filling shall be balanced on site and shall not exceed 10,000 square feet; Graded area for the proposed court does not exceed 10,000 sq.ft. at 6,985 square feet. The existing topography, flora and natural features of the site shall be retained to the greatest extent possible; This is a large lot and much of the lot will remain undisturbed. Drainage systems shall be incorporated into the game court and shall be approved by the City Engineer; Drainage for the court will be collected by a drain pipe along the west side of the court into a cistern and then overflow to the dissipater below the stable. A game court shall be adequately screened on all four sides; Conceptual plan showing screening must be submitted prior to approval of the project. Landscape screening shall include native or other drought -tolerant mature trees and shrubs, which shall be maintained in a healthy condition. The landscape screening shall not exceed the mature height determined by the Planning Commission or City Council Standard condition of approval to require that the applicant submit detailed plans and a bond or similar financial deposit for landscaping prior to obtaining grading permit. Landscaping shall not interfere with the viewscape of surrounding properties or easements pursuant to Chapter 17.26; Landscaping to be planted around court perimeter to be designed to screen the perimeter fencing. RHCA regulates height of sport court fences. Game court lighting shall not be permitted; Standard condition to be placed in resolution prohibiting lighting. Design and construction of a game court shall include methods to mitigate visual and noise impacts. Landscaping plan to be required buffering the development. Daytime use only will minimize noise. Utility Lines/ Septic Tank It will be a requirement that utility lines to the residence be placed underground and a new septic tank installed. ZC No. 914 11 Upper Blackwater Cyn. Rd. 8 General In the application, the ratio of the proposed development to the lot is minimal because the site is very large. All setbacks and coverages are well below the requirements and the Zoning and General Plan allow a single family residence on the lot. Rolling Hills Community Association Review Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date. Planning Commission Responsibilities When reviewing a development application, the Planning Commission must consider whether the proposed project meets the criteria for a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit, as attached below. Environmental Review The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Development Comparables ZC NO. 914 NEARBY PROPERTIES (For information onlvl Address House size in sq.ft. (built/add or remodel) Lot Area (excl. roadway easements) 5 Sagebrush 7,860 (1996)* 2.5 6 Sagebrush 5,846 (2010)* 2.3 1 Sagebrush 7,542 (2006)* 2.2 3 Appaloosa*** Approved: 8,990* 8.2 9 Upper Blackwater Cny. 4,489 (1978/88) 2.3 14 Upper Blackwater Cny. 5,831 (1990) 2.38 12 Upper Blackwater Cny. 7,614 (2002)* 4.08 11 Upper Blackwater Cny. Existing 3,200 Proposed 11,052 Previously approved 10,175 9.2 NOTE: The above do not include garages, basements and other accessory structures. SOURCES: Assessors' records * City records *** nearest property on a comparable lot ZC No. 914 11 Upper Blackwater Cyn. Rd. 9 Proiect Summ SITE PLAN REVIEW EXISTING PROPOSED RA -S- 2 ZONE SETBACKS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH GARAGE , STABLE, AND POOL. TO BE NEW RESIDENCE WITH ACCESSORY USES & STABLE Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from rear easement line DEMOLISHED STRUCTURES Residence Garage Pool Stable 3,200 sq.ft. 1,566 sq.ft 1,306 sq.ft. 890 sq.ft. Residence Garage Pool/Spa Stable Guest House Tennis Court Basement Service yard Porches Pool Equipment Outdoor kitchen Fire place Porte Cochere 11,052 sq.ft. 1,446 sq.ft. 1,336 sq. ft. 744 sq.ft. 800 sq. ft. 6,985 sq. ft. 6.620 sq. ft. 115 sq.ft 2,870 sq.ft 130 sq. ft. 100 sq.ft 52 sq.ft. 154 sq. ft. (Site Plan Review required for new residence and if size of structure increases by more than 999 s.f. in a 36 -month period). TOTAL EXISTING 6,962 sq.ft TOTAL PROPOSED 32,404 sq.ft STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE 0% (after demolition) 25,277 sq.ft. w/allowances or 6.77% of 373,484 sq.ft. net lot area (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 0% (after demolition) 37,337, sq.ft. w/allowances or 10.0% of 373,484 sq.ft. net lot area (35% maximum) BUILDING PADS (30% guideline) Will be demolished 32.66% of 48,380 sq.ft. residential Pad 38.41% on 20,267 sq.ft. sports court/guest house pad 23.42% on 2,152 sq. ft. stable pad Residence, pool, other miscl. structures Recreational Court/Guest House Stable GRADING N/A 13,221 c.y. cut and 11,679 c.y. fill to be balanced on site 1,542 c.y. exported from site Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof that is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft.) must be balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA 30.03% 35.74% or 133,490 sq.ft. of the net lot area (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT. N/A CUP required - 744 sq. ft. stable and 1,491 sq. ft. corral proposed & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS N/A 10 ft. wide D.G. pathway from driveway/motor court area ROADWAY ACCESS Existing driveway approach New driveway approach (north) VIEWS N/A Planning Commission review PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A Planning Commission review ZC No. 914 11 Upper Blackwater Cyn. Rd. 10 SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is. consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: 17.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit. The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use permit application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the project is consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and meets the I I ZC No. 914 11 Upper Blackwater Cyn. Rd. 11 provisions and intent of this title. In making such a determination, the hearing body shall find that the proposed use is in general accord with the following principles and standards: A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan; B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures; C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the use and buildings proposed; D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district; E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; F. That the proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this title. ZC No. 914 11 Upper Blackwater Cyn. Rd. �O2 12 (er, zeta, q`dei INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 12A Mtg. Date: 1W20/16 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: REPORT - IMPROVEMENTS TO THE TENNIS COURT AREA. DATE: December 20, 2016 BACKGROUND In the past, the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA), the City's insurer, expressed concern that the tennis court facilities, including the bathroom, are not handicap accessible. The tennis court lot is a City property that is leased to the Rolling Hills Community Association. The CJPIA's concerns were shared with the City Council, RHCA staff and Board of Directors. Although the City's priority was to make the facilities ADA compliant, the RHCA thought it would also be a good time to update and improve the entire area including the entertainment facilities. Staff from both agencies was directed to work with members of the Tennis Club and other groups in the City and over the last year have been developing a work plan for modifications to the facilities, including the bathroom for ADA compliance. RHCA engaged a landscape architect Deborah Richie-Bray to design an ADA compliant bathroom and pathways into the courts and the entertainment area from Portuguese Bend Road. LA County Building and Safety plan checker reviewed the plan for ADA code compliance and provided input. The plan was modified to meet ADA code requirements. The plan also included a very preliminary concept for remodeling and updating of the entertainment area for handicap accessibility. At its meeting on August 8, 2016 the City Council reviewed the preliminary plans and agreed to budget $186,980 towards the renovation of the facilities to comply with the ADA requirements, including 50% of the bathroom upgrade. The RHCA Board of Directors also met and approved the preliminary project and a similar budget amount. O Following several meetings with the Tennis Club representatives and direction from the Tennis Club liaisons, the City Council and the RHCA Board, staff was directed to seek proposals and plans for a larger and more attractive facility for the enjoyment of all residents of the City, that would allow community groups like the Tennis Club, Caballeros, Women's Club and Seniors Group to have a nice place to hold functions for 100 plus people. The RHCA engaged an architect, Anthony Inferrera to design the project. Mr. Inferrera prepared the plans and Ms. Deborah Ritchie -Bray updated the landscaping plan; both were reviewed. by the RHCA Architectural Committee on November 15, 2016. The RHCA Architectural Committee concurred with the design and materials to be used in the construction. During the review process, the immediate neighbors at 1 Acacia Lane were also informed and consulted of the proposed project. PROPOSAL The project consists of providing a handicap parking space along the front of the parcel, retrofitting the restroom in the guard shack for ADA compliance, re -grading the existing paths to the tennis courts and entertaining area to provide ADA compliant paths, providing various architectural elements above stairs to the tennis court and entertaining area, demolition of the existing covered patio area and construction of an 725 square foot covered patio with storage, an island with a sinks and range, cabinets, area for a refrigerator and ice maker and a 238 square foot trellis. A 174 square foot storage room is also proposed in the rear. Improved tennis seating areas throughout the site will be provided as well. Drainage will be improved throughout the parcel and new landscaping installed. The next step is to prepare structural plans, ascertain the requirements for a septic system, submit to the LA County Building and Safety Department for plan check review and issuance of building permits. The major elements of the proposed structures have been staked in the field and could be viewed individually. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 17.08.055 Exceptions for City Properties, improvements to City - owned properties and structures are exempt from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance; and therefore no discretionary review of the project is required. RECOMMENDATION It is requested that the Planning Commission review the plans and receive and file the report. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 11-A Mtg. Date: 1W20/16 HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT REGARDING CITY COUNCIL'S DIRECTION TO COMMENCE DISCUSION AND PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE AMENDMENT OF THE VIEW PRESERVATION ORDINANCE DATE: DECEMBER 20, 2016 Attached to this memo are the following documents for the Planning Commission information: • Current City of Rolling Hills View Preservation Ordinance and Definitions (p. 5-12) • City Council Resolution No. 1182 -Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B, Relating to View Preservation (p. 13-16) • Comments from City Council Ad Hoc Committee (p. 17-20) • Comments from Spencer Karpf, resident (p. 21-24) • Ordinance prepared by Spencer Karpf, resident (p. 25-52) DIRECTION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION: At the November 28, 2016, City Council meeting, members of the City Council directed the Planning Commission to commence discussion and public hearings relative to a Zoning Code Amendment of the View Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 17.26), taking into consideration the concepts and ideas that were collaboratively developed between the City Council ad hoc committee members, Planning Commission Chairman and several residents, who were the original proponents of Measure B in 2013; and also taking into consideration a draft ordinance prepared by Spencer Karpf and any other information or materials that could be introduced during the public discussion and public hearing proceedings. BACKGROUND: The City's first view preservation ordinance was adopted in June 1988, following consideration at nine meetings of the Planning Commission and five meetings of the City Council. 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. Until about 2011, the Ordinance did not bring about any opposition or controversy. In that period of time 8 -view obstruction complaint cases were submitted to the City for disposition. Some of them were resolved in mediation or by the Committee on Trees and View or City Council, upon appeal. Two cases were resolved privately. In 2012 two cases were filed with the City, which became controversial. Stemming from these cases, many residents in the community expressed a significant interest in views and trees relative to what constitutes a view, what action should be taken to restore a view; what trees should/could be trimmed or removed, how much view should be restored, the appropriate role of City government relative to determining a protected view, who should bear the cost of administering the view ordinance and who should be responsible for legal costs associated with adjudicating view disputes. While applying the view ordinance provisions in those two cases and being cognizant of resident's concerns, it became clear to the Planning Commission and the City Council that the City's View Preservation Ordinance needs updating and clarification. In June 2012 the City Council directed the Planning Commission to consider changes to the then existing view ordinance. The Planning Commission subsequently held 4 public forums where it received a significant amount of public input and, following several discussion meetings, compiled a list of concepts and proposed amendments to take to the City Council for conversation. The Planning Commission was set to hold public hearings following the City Council's concurrence with and input on the list of topics and concepts developed for amendments. However, this subject matter evolved into a community -wide dialogue that manifested itself into a ballot measure on the March 5, 2013 election, (Measure B). Following the passage of Measure B the Planning Commission suspended its review of the ordinance. Implementing provisions of Measure B became very difficult, as it did not provide definitions or procedures. For example, one of the most difficult issues was to interpret "Mature" trees. Under Measure B, only vegetation that was still "maturing" at the time a property owner acquired a property could be subject to remediation. The Measure did not define the words "mature" or "maturing" but left the definition to "industry standards predominantly accepted by arborists." As it was seen in the most recent view obstruction case complaint, the word "mature" does not have a universally accepted definition in the arborist community and does not necessarily mean "fully grown." Recognizing the difficulty in interpreting Measure B and wishing to incorporate some of the ideas that came out of the measure into the View Preservation Ordinance, in July 2014 the City Council created an Ad -Hoc Committee to develop recommendations for addressing possible modifications to the View Preservation Ordinance, including consideration of whether to propose a ballot measure for the March 2015 regular election to address ambiguities in the Ordinance created by Measure B or develop some other mechanism to interpret the measure. The Committee met with staff several times to discussed the ambiguities and problematic provisions in the ordinance, both those that resulted from Measure B and those that existed within the remainder of the ordinance, and the options available to improve the implementation of the ordinance in future view cases. The Committee recommended that the View Preservation Ordinance be strengthen and further clarified taking into consideration Measure B's intent, and that a written document be prepared to provide the Committee on Trees and Views and the City Council with an aid in interpreting Measure B, so that it could be applied uniformly to any new cases. Following Planning Commission and City Council public forums and public hearings, Ordinance No. 346 was adopted by the City Council on February 8, 2016, amending the View Preservation Ordinance. Also adopted by Resolution No. 1182, was "Administrative Guidelines" providing the City's official interpretation of provisions adopted by Measure B that were ambiguous and needed further definitions. During the proceedings and public hearings for the code amendment and interpretation of measure B, several residents, who were also the proponents of the original Measure B, made significant contribution towards the amendments, however some of their recommendations were not incorporated into the ordinance. Therefore, in mid -2016 the residents determined to develop a new initiative measure to be placed on the 2017 election ballot, (Measure 2017), and began circulating a petition in order to propose a wholesale rewrite of the View Preservation Ordinance. The governing body cannot amend language adopted by the electorate; the electorate could only amend it by another measure or by a repeal. However, an ordinance could be amended by the City Council, following public hearings. Generally, it is not sensible for cities to implement zoning regulations by language adopted by an initiative as it may not be amended in a timely manner should there be a need to amend certain provisions. For example, some amendments may necessitate from a change in State or County regulations or become necessary due to circumstances specific to the City. Learning of the proposed Measure 2017, members of the City Council held discussions with the proponents of the measure and created an Ad Hoc Committee on Trees and Views who were tasked to work collaboratively with the residents to recommend amendments to the view preservation ordinance in order to address the ambiguities and uncertainties that hamper its effective application and enforcement, and to develop a framework for an ordinance that would hopefully be acceptable to both, the City Council and the residents, and which could be adopted by the Council without a vote of the electorate. The City Council Ad Hoc Committee consisted of Councilmembers Mirsch and Pieper; Planning Commission Chairman Chelf was asked to join the effort as well. Member of the group in this effort, Spencer Karpf, prepared a sample ordinance, which is enclosed. Following several meetings, a concept of ideas was developed. Much compromise went into those discussions and agreement on several major issues was reached. The report from the Ad Hoc Committee, dated November 2016, which is attached, lists the major areas of agreement between the committee and the residents instrumental in this effort; and it also lists major unresolved issues. Following the Ad Hoc Committee report to the City Council at their November 28, 2016 meeting, members of the Council felt that sufficient common ground in concepts and ideas was reached by the committee and the residents for the Planning Commission to commence evaluation and formulation of an ordinance. The Planning Commission is not bound by the proposed language developed by Mr. Karpf or by the concepts agreed upon by the Ad Hoc Committee and the residents. Those should serve as a starting point for discussion and development of an ordinance that would establish workable, balanced and equitable procedures and one that would best serve the residents. It is important to note however, the effort that went into the concepts, the draft ordinance by a resident and the compromises reached between the committee members and the residents. NEXT STEPS Staff proposes to schedule a public forum on this topic at the January 17, 2017 Planning Commission meeting for the Commission and the public to start a discussion. If necessary, more than one such forum could be held. Subsequently, public hearings will be scheduled on a proposed ordinance. Once the Planning Commission develops language for an ordinance, a Resolution will be prepared for submission to the City Council recommending that they adopt the ordinance. Following Planning Commission recommendation, and prior to adoption of a finalized ordinance, the City Council will also hold public hearings. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive the information provided at tonight's meeting, briefly discuss it, and take public input from anyone wishing to address the Commission. ROLLING HILLS ZONING ORDINANCE -DEFINITIONS 17.12.220 "V" words, terms and phrases. "Variance" means permission, granted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, to depart from a literal provision of this title when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, strict application of title provisions deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning. Any variance granted will assure that the adjustment granted will not constitute a special privilege. "View" means a view from a principal residence, but not including from garages or closets, and any immediately adjoining patio or deck area at the same elevation as the residence which consists of a visually impressive scene or vista not located in the immediate vicinity of the residence, such as a scene of the Pacific Ocean, off -shore islands, city lights of the Los Angeles basin, the Palos Verdes Hills or Los Angeles Harbor. "View corridor" means a view from a designated viewing area broken into segments by vegetation. 'View impairment" means a significant interference with and obstruction of a view by landscaping, trees or any other planted vegetation. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). (Ord. No. 346, § 6A, 2-8-2016) VIEW PRESERVATION ORDINANCE (LATEST AMENDMENTS ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 346, FEBRUARY 8, 2016) Chapter 17.26 VIEW PRESERVATION Sections: 17.26.010 Intent and purpose. 17.26.020 Committee on trees and views. 17.26.030 Desirable and undesirable trees. 17.26.040 Abatement of view impairment —Procedure. 17.26.050 Hearing procedure and findings. 17.26.060 Implementation of restorative action. 17.26.070 Enforcement. 17.26.080 Notification of subsequent owners. 17.26.090 Preservation of views defined. 17.26.010 Intent and purpose. The City recognizes the contribution of views to the overall character and beauty of the City. Views of the Pacific Ocean, Catalina Island, City lights and Los Angeles Harbor are a special quality of property ownership for many residential lots in the City. These views have the potential to be diminished or eliminated by maturing landscaping located on private property. The purpose of this chapter is to protect this important community asset by establishing procedures for the protection of views and abatement of view obstructions created by landscaping, while at the same time protecting natural vegetation from indiscriminate removal. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). (Ord. No. 346, § 66, 2-8-2016) 17.26.020 Committee on trees and views. A Committee on Trees and Views is established for the purpose of administering the provisions of this chapter. The Committee shall be composed of three members of the Planning Commission appointed by the Commission annually at the same time as the Commission selects its officers, or whenever a vacancy occurs. Committee meetings shall be scheduled as adjourned or special meetings of the Commission. The Committee is authorized to consult with City officials and with specialists such as landscape architects and arborists as required, but shall not incur any expense on behalf of the City without prior approval of the City Council. (Ord. 292 §4, 2003: Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). 17.26.030 Desirable and undesirable trees. The Committee is authorized and directed to prepare lists of types of desirable and undesirable trees for planting within the City. The list shall be based upon tree size and shape, rate of growth, depth of roots, fall rate of leaves or bark or fruit or branches, and other factors related to safety, maintenance and appearance. The purpose of this provision is to make information available to property owners which may serve to avoid future occasion for permits, complaints, and other proceedings authorized by this chapter. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). 17.26.040 Abatement of view impairment —Procedure. Any person who owns or has lawful possession of a residence from which a view is impaired, pursuant to the definition of "view impairment" in Section 17.12.220 of this title, by vegetation growing on property other than their own may seek abatement of the view impairment under the following procedure: A. Mediation Application. The complainant shall submit a complete application for abatement of view impairment by mediation on a form provided by the City. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as provided for in Section 17.30.030 of this title. The complainant shall describe in the application what efforts have been made by the complainant to resolve the view impairment prior to filing the mediation application. An application shall not be accepted for filing unless the complainant can demonstrate that the owner of the view -impairing vegetation has been given notice of the impairment and a reasonable opportunity to abate it, but has refused to do so. B. Eligibility. A person shall not be precluded from filing an application for abatement of view impairment on grounds that vegetation located on the complainant's property contributes to impairment of the requested view. A person who has obtained an order abating impairment of a view against a property shall not be precluded from filing a subsequent application to abate impairment of the same view by vegetation on another property. An application may be filed to abate impairment of one or more distinct views listed in Section 17.12.220 "View;" however, if multiple views are identified, each must be disjointed and observable from a separate viewing area. C. Mediation. Upon receipt and acceptance of an application as complete, the City Manager shall refer the matter to a mediator for conduct of a mediation session to abate the view impairment. The mediator shall be responsible for notifying the property owner of the view -impairing vegetation of the application and for scheduling and managing the mediation process. At the conclusion of mediation, the mediator shall advise the City Manager as to whether the complaint has been resolved. Agreement reached through mediation shall be reflected in an executed contract and implemented in accordance with the terms of the agreement. CJ D. Public Hearing Application. In the event mediation fails to achieve agreement, the complainant may submit an application and accompanying fee as provided for in Section 17.30.030 of this title for a public hearing. Upon receipt and acceptance of an application for a public hearing as complete, the City Manager shall schedule the matter for a public hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views. If a complete application for a public hearing is not received within sixty days of the mediator's notification set forth in Section 17.26.040(C), the City shall terminate, without prejudice, all proceedings related to the application. (Ord. 292 §5, 2003; Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). (Ord. No. 346, § 6C, 2-8-2016) 17.26.050 Hearing procedure and findings. A. Notice Required. Public notice of the hearing shall be given a minimum of fifteen days prior to the hearing. The hearing shall not proceed unless proof is shown that the owner of the tree or other obstructing vegetation received notice of the hearing as provided herein: 1. Notice shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the owner of the tree or other obstructing vegetation and to the complainant; 2. Notice shall be given by first class mail to all property owners within one thousand feet of the exterior boundary of the property on which the tree or other obstructing vegetation are located and to other persons who, in the Committee's judgment, might be affected. B. Content of Notice. The notice shall state the name of the complaining party, the name of the property owner against whom the complaint is filed, the location of the tree or other vegetation, and the time and place of hearing. The notice shall invite written comments to be submitted prior to or at the hearing. C. Conduct of Hearing. The Committee shall adopt rules for the conduct of required hearings. At the hearing, the Committee shall consider all written and oral testimony and evidence presented in connection with the application. If during the course of the proceedings it is discovered that information submitted in an application is inaccurate or incomplete such that it could be misleading, or a significant change has occurred impacting either the view or the obstruction, an applicant may be directed to amend the application or submit supplemental information. In the event the Committee requires expert advice in consideration of the matter, the cost of obtaining such evidence shall be borne by the complainant, pursuant to written agreement with the City. The City shall select such expert and enter into an agreement only upon receipt of a payment for the selected service from the party. An application shall be deemed withdrawn and all proceedings shall be terminated with respect thereto, without prejudice, if the parties to a complaint notify the City that it has been voluntarily resolved, or if the complainant fails or refuses to provide supplemental information requested by the City or fails or refuses to pay the cost of the expert services, or the complainant requests a delay of the proceedings for more than one hundred eighty days unless good cause exists for the delay. D. Findings. Based on the evidence received and considered, the Committee may find any of the following: 1. That no view exists within the meaning of this chapter; 2. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter, but that the view is not significantly impaired; or 3. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter and that it is significantly impaired. 4. The Committee shall make specific written findings in support of the foregoing determinations. E. Action. If the Committee makes finding of subsection (D)(3) of this section, it shall order such restorative action as is necessary to abate the view impairment, including, but not limited to, removal, pruning, topping, thinning or similar alteration of the vegetation. Such order is not intended to create an unobstructed view for applicants. Instead it is intended to create view corridors and a view through trees. The Committee may impose conditions as are necessary to prevent future view impairments. In no event shall restorative action be required if such action would adversely affect the environment or would unreason -ably detract from the privacy or enjoyment of the property on which the objectionable vegetation is located. If restorative action is precluded by the existence of one or more such limiting factors, the Committee shall make specific written findings to that effect. F. Environmental Review. If the Committee makes finding of subsection (D)(3) of this section and orders restorative action, the proposed order shall be reviewed by City staff to determine the appropriate level of environmental review. If the action is determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), a resolution containing the Committee's written findings shall be presented for adoption at the Committee's next meeting. If the action is determined not to be exempt from CEQA, the complainant shall bear the City's reasonable costs of environmental review and CEQA compliance, including consultant fees. G. Finality of Decision. The Committee's decision shall be final on the date the Committee adopts a resolution setting forth its decision. The decision shall become effective thirty days after adoption of the resolution, unless an appeal has been filed to the City Council pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.54. For purposes of such an appeal, references to the Planning Commission in Chapter 17.54 shall be interpreted as inclusive of the Committee on Trees and Views. (Ord. 295 §7 (Exh. B (part)), 2004; Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993) (Ord. No. 333 (Measure B), 3-18-2013; Ord. No. 346, § 6D, 2-8-2016) 17.26.060 Implementation of restorative action. A. The complainant shall bear the cost of the initial restorative action. Within thirty days of a final decision ordering restorative action, the complainant shall obtain and present to the owner of the obstructing vegetation three bids from licensed and qualified contractors for performance of the work, as well as cash deposit in the amount of the lowest bid. In order to qualify, the contractors must provide insurance, which protects and indemnifies the City and the complainant from damages attributable to negligent or wrongful performance of the work. Any such insurance shall be subject to the approval of the City. B. The owner of the obstructing vegetation may select any licensed and qualified contractor to perform the restorative action (as long as the insurance requirements of subsection A of this section are satisfied), but shall be responsible for any cost above the amount of the cash deposit. The work shall be completed no more than ninety days from receipt of the cash deposit or if additional time is necessary due to weather or unique conditions of the vegetation, at the earliest date recommended by the contractor, but no later than one year, and shall be approved by the City Manager. C. Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation in question shall be performed at the cost and expense of the owner of the property on which the vegetation is growing. The vegetation shall be maintained in accordance with the final decision so as not to allow for future view impairments. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). (Ord. No. 346, § 6E, 2-8-2016) 17.26.070 Enforcement. A. Failure or refusal of any person to comply with a final decision under this chapter or to comply with any provision of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars or six months in County Jail, or both. Failure or refusal of any person to comply with a final decision under this chapter shall further constitute a public nuisance which may be abated in accordance with the procedure contained in Chapter 8.24. B. A final decision rendered under this chapter may be enforced civilly by way of action for injunctive or other appropriate relief, in which event the prevailing party may be awarded attorney's fees and costs as determined by the court. C. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the prosecution of any civil cause of action under the law by any person with respect to the matters covered herein. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). 17.26.080 Notification of subsequent owners. Within thirty days of the final decision of the Committee, or the City Council on appeal, a document shall be recorded against the title of the property on which the offending vegetation exists and the complainant's property, on a form provided by the City, which shall run with the land and be binding upon all successors in interest. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). (Ord. No. 346, § 6F, 2-8-2016) 17.26.090 Preservation of views defined. Notwithstanding any other provision of Chapter 17.26.010 to 17.26.080 inclusive, the following provision shall apply and supersede in priority any other provision. 1. A view is defined in Chapter [Section] 17.12.220 and only applies to that view existing from the date any current owner of a property in the City of Rolling actually acquired the property. 2. Chapter [Section] 17.26.010 provides that the intent of the Ordinance is to protect views from "maturing" vegetation. As such, in addition to the limitations otherwise set forth in Chapter 17.26, including but limited to this Section 17.26.090, 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. 3. The burden of proof to show that any view is impaired shall be upon the party claiming such impairment, and the standard shall be by "clear and convincing evidence". Evidence shall be weighted in the following order of priority: a. Photographs; b. Expert testimony; and lastly c. Other evidence. (Ord. No. 333 (Measure B), 3-18-2013) Editor's note— Ord. No. 333 (Measure B) which added the provisions set out herein, was adopted March 18, 2013, as a result of a vote of the electorate and thus cannot be changed except by another vote. Said ordinance states, "This Section 17.26.090 shall be effective retroactively to the date Chapter 17.26 was first made an Ordinance to the City of Rolling Hills." THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK RESOLUTION NO. 1182 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does hereby 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 condors" 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 in order to assure uniformity in the application of Measure B to fume view complaint cases Based on this authority and recommendation by the Planning Commission, the City Council reviewed, discussed and developed a policy interpreting Measure B. Section 4. The City Council finds that Attachment A titled City of Rolling Hills Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B Relating to View Preservation clarify the initiative and is hereby adopted: PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TM DAY OF MARCH, 2016. ATTEST: HEIDILUCE 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.1182 Measure B Interpretation STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1182 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on March 14, 2016 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mirsch, Wilson and Mayor Pieper. NOES: Councilmembers Black and Dieringer. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. ChM /0 HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK Resolution No.1182 2 t V y' Measure B Interpretation \ 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. The City interprets this provision to mean that the protectable view under the ordinance is the view possessed by the property on the date it was most recently purchased for fair market value. Hence, in determining the date on or after which the protectable view is established, the acquisition date shall be the most recent date title to the property was conveyed for fair market value (as evidenced by a deed) through an arms -length purchase and sale. Chapter 2 "MATURE" VERSUS "MATURING" TREES Section 2001. Definition of "Mature" Trees For purposes of RHMC Section 17.26.090 (2) a tree will be considered mature if at the time the party claiming view impairment acquired the property the tree had achieved 75% of its maximum canopy height and width (spread). Maximum canopy height and width will be as set forth in the latest edition of the Sunset Western Garden Book that contains the tree species under consideration. The Sunset Western Garden Book is a trusted reference guide on frees, plants and other vegetation present in the region and displays a plant species' height ranges and other characteristics. Should the Rolling Hills Committee on Trees and Views, City Council or any of the parties involved in a view complaint case require or wish to obtain an expert opinion on maturity of trees, such opinion shall be provided by a certified consulting arborist who is a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA). For the purpose of measuring the height of a free, the height shall be measured between the base of the tree and the tip of the highest branch on the tree. The base of the tree is the point of the tree where the pith (center) of the tree intersects the ground surface. The width (spread) of a tree canopy shall be measured across the canopy from the tip of the outermost branch at one end of the Inc to the tip of the outermost branch at the opposite side of the tree (from dripline to dripline). Section 2002. Definition of "Maturing" Trees Trees and other vegetation that are not "mature" as specified in these regulations are "maturing." 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.1182 Measure B Interpretation 3 63 a THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Rolling Hills City Council - Ad Hoc Committee On Trees and Views November, 2016 The ad hoc committee met several times in an effort to develop a balanced and equitable view resolution process that could be crafted into an ordinance acceptable to both the City Council and the authors of Measures B and "2017". It was our hope that if such a compromise could be reached it would allow for the unchallenged repeal of Measure B, remove the necessity of running a "Measure 2017", and avoid the divisiveness associated with those processes. The committee was able — with much compromise from both sides —to reach agreement on several major issues and concepts. The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of those major areas of agreement and see if the Council is willing to recommend that the work of the committee be referred to the Planning Commission for review and possible revisions to our Ordinance Chapter 17.26. Major Areas of Agreement Please note that throughout this document the terms "tree(s)" and "vegetation" will be interchangeable, as will "his", "hers" and "their(s)". Principles 1. Both trees (vegetation) and views and their benefits are valuable assets to individual property owners and to the city as a whole. 2. The objective of a proposed ordinance(s) is to establish a balanced and fair process to resolve situations when conflicts between view seekers and vegetation owners cannot be resolved by the individual parties. Concepts 1. Establishment of Rights for view seekers and vegetation owners, as well as the establishment of responsibilities for view seekers and vegetation owners to protect those rights. A) A view seeker is only entitled to the view that existed on the earliest of the original purchase date (defined pretty much as definitions developed in 2016 — arms length transaction, etc) or some later date on which he can establish the existence of the view. That view could include a view that existed by virtue of the vegetation owner's normal maintenance or by agreement between property owners - but not on the loss of vegetation due to destruction (ie fire, disease) B) A vegetation owner only has a right to his established vegetation as it existed on his original purchase date or any date subsequent for which he can establish the existence of established vegetation that did not impair a current property owner's view. C) A View seeker has the responsibility to protect their view by addressing view impairment issues with the vegetation owner in a timely manner and taking the appropriate steps specified in the ordinance to resolve. Failure to meet the duty to protect the view may result in diminishing their right(s) to the view. D) A vegetation owner has a duty to ensure that his vegetation does not grow into the view(s) of his neighbor(s). Owners are required to perform maintenance to their vegetation to maintain it in a healthy condition for both safety reasons and to ensure their vegetation does not grow into the views of their neighbors. 2. Establish the power of the city, through the planning commission , to address the issue of impairments to neighbor(s)'s view(s) by their vegetation as a condition of approval for new construction or additions over 1,000 sq ft. 3. Definitions and establishment of specific view restoration actions, in order of preference, starting with the least severe (ie lacing) and more severe (topping & removal) at the bottom. When considering the restoral action, if it is determined that a professional opinion is required to aid the CTV (or city, on appeal) those professionals will be either ISA certified master arborists or ASCA registered consulting arborists. 4. Establishment of Remedy Categories for view restoration. The categories allow for different levels of restoration depending on how much time has passed, or other circumstances, since the view was established and the view seeker's request to protect his view. This goes to item 1C, where the duty to protect the view may be diminished by delaying. Example: at Category 1 (shortest number of years between, maybe 3) the view seeker would be entitled to the highest remediation available. But if you waited until Category 3 (say category 1 plus xx years — maybe 10) or Category 4 (possibly 25 years) you would be entitled to a restoration that only allowed for some actions but' prohibiting others. The number of years for each category has not been determined — for the planning commission to decide. 5. Development of a list of types of desirable and undesirable trees for planting within the city. Factors to be considered include (but not limited to) tree size, rate of growth, depth of roots, and the likelihood (or unlikelihood) that the species may grow to interfere with views of a neighboring property owner. 6. Development of an Approved Arborist List that includes licensed local ISA certified master arborists or ASCA registered consulting arborists. Major Unresolved Issues 1.The role of the City in the dispute resolution process. The authors of Measure 2017 advocate that the role of CTV and City Council (upon appeal) should only be advisory; rulings from those bodies should not be binding, and the city should not allow itself to become a party in these disputes. They support the concept that these cases should be settled by means of Binding Arbitration or civil action, removing the City as a party to the dispute. Since the Civil code precludes the city from forcing mandatory binding arbitration, and based on previous decisions by the CTV, Planning Commission and City Council on this issue, we rejected that concept. We supported the current process that requires the City to act in a quasi-judicial role, hearing the facts, making findings, and upholding and enforcing our ordinances with binding rulings. In an effort to compromise on this issue we offered : At any time during the View Complaint process, if BOTH parties voluntarily agree, they may opt out of the City's View complaint process and participate in voluntary binding 2 f8 arbitration. The city would pay for the arbitration costs (not including personal attys, etc). We recommended a cap be placed on the amount the city would pay, and that the cap amount would be based on a graduated scale, with a higher amount allowed the earlier the case opts -out of the city process. The amounts have not been decided — Planning Commission to determine. I thought this offer had been acceptable to both sides, but their final Draft Ordinance submission contains some additional/differing language and provisions, creating some confusion. Therefore, for purposes of this document, the issue is being classified as "unresolved". 2. Also contained in 17.26.50 - 17.26.70 are requirements for city staff to establish view data bases, procedures for notification of pending property sales, and "educational" procedures for residents and realtors. We did not agree to those requirements at this time due to a lack of staff resources, but suggested these ideas could be explored further in future discussions. Summation There are many other areas, criterion, procedures, etc not covered here — this is just an overview of major issues.. Included in your packet is a Draft Ordinance and some notes prepared by Spencer Karpf that provide much more detail. We did not agree to accept the Draft as written - still a few issues, mostly administrative in nature, to be resolved. But in the interest of good faith and moving forward it was agreed that if the Council supports the major concepts and our recommendation to refer the matter to the Planning Commission for hearings and review, the Draft be submitted to the Commission for informational purposes in those processes. It would be a useful tool that supports the issues and compromises the ad hoc committee was trying to achieve, and possibly avoid re -inventing the wheel — or at least parts of the wheel. But it is understood that it is the Planning Commission's responsibility to develop policies and direct the City Attorney to craft ordinances supporting those policies. The ad hoc committee is not trying to mandate to the Commission or the Council how to find on our agreements. We are recommending that the agreements be reviewed by the Commission to determine if they serve our residents well by establishing workable, balanced and equitable procedures to resolve instances where rights of view seekers and vegetation owners may conflict. It is important to remember the purpose of the ad hoc committee and realize that these compromises and agreements were made — by both sides — to try to avoid 1) opposition to our Repeal Measure B effort, and 2) another ballot measure. If a final product produced by the city does not contain sufficient provisions to satisfy the authors of Measure 2017 (as agreed upon in the ad hoc meeting discussions) or if there is not an agreed -upon ordinance ready to be placed on the books should Measure B be repealed, they will most likely go forward with their organized opposition to the city's Repeal Measure B efforts, as well their petition to place "Measure 2017"on the ballot at the next possible election. Should that occur the city need not approve any proposed agreements — unless it is deemed by the Commission that any such agreement(s) remain in the best interest of the residents. Respectfully submitted by Leah Mirsch THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Comments from Spencer Karpf Chapter 17.26 - VIEW AND VEGETATI ON PRESERVATION In understanding this draft and modifying it, it is useful to understand the underlying approach taken. 1. We start by defining Rights and Duties (obligations) of View Seekers and Vegetation owners. 2. Based on what these are we instruct the decision makers (Committee on Trees and Views, City Council, Arbitrators) on what Findings of Fact they must make and what burden of proof they should apply in making those Findings.. 3. Based on these Findings of fact, we next determine what level and type of Remedy, if any, is to be made available to the View Seeker and what type, if any, of protection is appropriate to make available to the Vegetation Owner.; 4. And finally, based on an appropriate level of Remedy and protection, we determine implementation of preservation / restorative actions to be taken. In general, the draft document, which was written by someone with limited MS -Word skills, is in serious need of some corrections to its formatting and numbering. The author leaves that to others. "Commission" is a reference to the Planning Commission; "committee" is a reference to the ad hoc committee that produced the draft ordinance. "Measure 2017" is a reference to the initiative that is currently being circulated for appearance on the next election ballot that it qualifies for. Notes to Final Submission: For review by Planning Commission / City Council 1. Note to 17.26.000 Words Terms and Phrases: These definitions can be in this Chapter or in the Chapter that contains all the other definitions. Better here where the definitions can be limited to this Chapter so as not to create possible conflicts with definitions used more broadly throughout other ordinances. Add additional definitions of types of pruning along with pictures. These can be added by the view committee. Further NOTE: The entire document should be searched for unused definitions which are not used and should therefore be deleted ) 2. The issue of retroactivity of the ordinance has not been address. The committee believes that there are only two cases that create problems and they might be addressed with language specific to them such as "The following two cases can be resubmitted to be re -decided under the terms of this Chapter if so desired by the parties or the one who most suffered from the decision under the previous ordinance: a. List parties b. List parties 3. The committee considered the creation of a data base of information on views in Rolling Hills to be maintained by the City. The general feeling was that it would impose too Comments from Spencer Karpf much burden on City staff. However, if nominal, but significant information could be maintained it might benefit the processes of the new ordinance. This is something that could be looked at as an enhancement after the basic ordinance goes into effect. 4. Under definition of "View", a value was given to "panoramic" views and "view corridors". The Commission may want to determine the correct sweep of the horizon for each of these. 5. The definition of "View Corridor" should be consistent with the above. 6. Under section 17.26.40 the size of the approved arborist list should be established. 7. Throughout the Chapter there are references to the number of years a View Seeker fails to exercise his right to his view. These were set by the author but the Commission should review to see if they comport with its thinking. The occurrences are listed here : a. 17.26.080 (1) b. 17.26.160(C) c. 17.26.160(D) d. 17.26.160(E) e. 17.26.160(F) f. 17.26.160(G) 8. In 17.26.080 (9) there is a reference to a particular date. This is intended to be the date of enactment of the original Chapter 17.26. This was a suggestion by Leah that at the time the property was purchase, there were no view, rights. Then, the ordinance came into existence and there were view rights but the owner may have already lost his view and did not want to upset his neighbors, and may still not want to. But, in this case, because of all the changes in View rights, this owner somehow should be entitled to a little extra protection. If this is to be included perhaps it needs some language to explain it. 9. This is a general comment about 17.26.090 and the sections following it which seek to spell out the processes the View Seeker and Vegetation owner must / should follow. What the author has come up with as a compromise to the question of whether the actions of the City through the View Committee and the City Council are binding and enforceable or merely advisory. This was a sticking point in the negotiations of the committee (small "c"). I've attempted to achieve a middle ground solution by making it binding and enforceable so long as the decision of the City is not taken into Arbitration or the Court system but only advisory if the Council's decision is arbitrated or litigated, unless the Comments from Spencer Karpf Arbitration is binding by mutual agreement of the parties in which case the City can enforce the decision of by the Arbitrator(s). It could also be made enforceable if it there was non -binding arbitration that was accepted by both parties.. The author has arbitrarily put some timeframes into the language but there may be statutory considerations that would have to be dealt with by the City Attorney. 10. In various places in language having to do with findings of the View Committee or the City Council Measure 2017 contained language about the role and actions of the City Attorney who, presumably, would be present. That language was not included in this draft of Chapter 17.26 as the role and actions of the City Attorney at Commission and Council hearings and meetings is determined by California law. These meetings and • hearings are recorded and the recordings made available free to residents. The author thinks this sufficient to ensure proper behavior by the City Attorney. 11. In various places in the draft, mostly if not exclusively having to do with findings, Views are described as having been "Significantly Impaired". There is no definition provided tor this and for it to have meaning the Commission or Council will have to either provide a definition or provide different language which can be defined or does not require definition. Here are the occurrences — There may be others that the author has missed. a. 17.26.120 (3)(b) b. 17.26.150(2)(10) 12. Bearing in mind the overall approach of this ordinance as discussed at the beginning of this document, there may be additional findings of fact that need to be specified in 17.26.150(2) in order to support additions to the Remedies specified in 17.26.160. Certainly a Remedy has to be developed for a View Seeker who purchased 10 years or more prior to the implementation of the original 17.26 as detailed in 17.26.10(2)(9) ' 13. Section 17.26.210 might benefit from a discussion of what sorts of agreements between View Seekers and Vegetation Owners should be / must be recorded. These would be agreements that the Property Owners worked out themselves, resulted from Mediation, resulted from a ruling coming out of the Committee, the Council, Arbitration or Litigation. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK g Draft November 21, 2016 Page 1 Ordinance prepared by Spencer Karpf Chapter 17.26 - VIEW AND VEGETATION PRESERVATION Sections: 17.26.000 Words, Terms and Phrases 17.26.010 Intent and purpose. 17.26.020 Committee on Trees and Views. 17.26.030 Desirable and undesirable trees. 17.26.040 Development of an Approved Arborist List 17.26.050 REMOVED 17.26.060 Identification of Transferring or Recently Transferred Property; €gtification of Sellers, Buyers, Realtors and other potentially interested parties of otential view claims. 17.26.070 Education of Rolling Hills Owners and Realtors Serving Rolling H ll(Regarding this View and Vegetation Preservation Ordinance 17.26.080 Establishment of Rights and Duties of View Seekers d Vegetation Ouu.g s,Under this Chapter. �f `j 17.26.090 View and Vegetation Equity Process (VAVELR) 7\Overvi 17.26.110 View and Vegetation Equity Process — Invitkiendo oeet and Confer 17.26.110 View and Vegetation Equity Process — Mediation 17.26.120 View and Vegetation Equity Process— Committee on.rees and Views 17.26.130 View and Vegetation Equity Process'Appeal to Cit \c until 17.26.140 View and Vegetation Equity Prcees5—Arbitration ande'iittigation 17.26.150 Burden of Proof; Additional Speci c Fin i,js of Fac 17.26.160 Remedy Categories and View Restoration Criteria 17.26.170 Allocation of Costs" of�r V�'w and Vegetation Equity Process 17.26.180 Costs of Im lewa ationcof Preservaton / Restorative. actions ^ 17.26.190 Enforcement` 17.26.200 Unauthoriz d resttoor ive'aetio s prohibited 17.26.210 Notification of subsequent Property Owners 17.26.220 Sever,ability4 ado?Y4q and publication 17.26.000 Words, Terms and Phrases Solely for the urp sees of t issfehhdapter, the meaning and construction of the following words, terms and phrases shall apply IA t$ 4ent that there is any conflict between how a word, term or phrase is here defined and how it i e fined in Chapter 17.12, Definitions, the definitions set forth below shall apply. "Child or Children" means a natural child, adopted child and step -child. "Committee" means the Committee on Trees and Views established by this Chapter. "Complaint" or "View Complaint" means an invocation of the rights of a View Seeker against a Vegetation Owner under this Chapter's View and Vegetation Equity Process. Page 1 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 2 "Complainant" means the View Seeker invoking this Chapter's View and Vegetation Equity Process to restore a View that she considers to be impaired by the Vegetation of a Vegetation Owner. "Crown" means the rounded structure of branches that make up the top of a tree. "Crown lifting" means removing the lower branches of.a tree so that a vie can be experienced under the tree. "Crown reduction" eans'` ` a method of pru���in' that reduces a tree's height and/or spread. Crown reduction means r dua ng th t p; ssides or¢rndividual limbs of a tree by means of removal of leaders or the to yet of4ion of limb to a lateral limb large enough to assume the tree's growth. Page 2 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 3 "Council" means the Rolling Hill City Council. s 0� "Damage" means to endanger the heath or vigor oof`a4ee or vegetation, including, but not limited to, girdling, severe pruning (toppin orhe ding back), interfering with the water supply, applying chemicals, or regrading around .he base of the trunk so as to disrupt the feeder root zone of the tree or vegeta'fjan. "Decision -making committee to which a gove body. a-gvernmenial agency such as city council, a /agency hgas:d legated authority, an arbitrator or a judicial 'tablished View' "Q e'ans a view, as defined in this section, from a View Seeker's Real Propertyhat existed on the�date the property was most recently Purchased for fair market value through an�r t s -length Putt lase or sale (as evidenced by a deed) or at any other specific point in time since th``at�d;Th.ds an Established View can be as of any date subsequent to a Property —45 Owner's purchasi (of he property. . "Established View Date" is the date that the View Seeker claims he had an Established View" that has now been impaired and which he seeks to have restored. It may be the Original Purchase Date or some later date for which the Property Owner is able to establish by a "preponderance of the evidence", as that phrase is commonly understood by the California legal system, the nature of his Established View that has become impaired. Page 3 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 4 "Established Vegetation" means Vegetation, as defined in this section that "existed" on a Vegetation Owner's Real Property. As of the most recent Original Purchase Date or on any other specific date since that Original Purchase Date. "Established Vegetation Date" is the date that a Vegetation Owner claims she had Established Vegetation which she is entitled to retain in whole or in part against the View Complaint of a View Seeker her Vegetation creates View Impairment(s). It may be the Original Purchase Date or some later date for which the Vegetation Owner is able to establish that her Vegetation existed. "Existed" within the above context means Vegetation that is was .I• te. in the ground and was of a certain height and spread as of an Original Purchase Datebo, subsequent to it. other .ecificdate "Grandchild" shall include grandchildren and great :d dchildre .. The singular includes the plural in all cases "Heading back / Head Back" means th-.reduction of the .masslbja tree by cutting back major limbs and/or the trunk. Fidir means a fence or boundary formed by closely growing Vegetation, usually bushes or shrubs. "His / He "Her / i' . The use of the pronoun "His" is always intended to mean "His / Her" and the use of the pronoun ' ers' is ways intended to mean "Hers / His". Similarly with him and her, he and she, etc. "Lacing" means pruning trees in a manner that selectively removes excess (primarily interior) limbs and foliage to improve the structure of a tree and to provide a view through a tree. Page 4 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 5 Before and After Lacing "Maintenance" means pruning a tree with the primary,eh ctive of preserving or improving tree health and structure, enhancing aesthetics and Por Opening up the View(s) of neighboring properties.. "Original Purchase Date" shall can 97/8atte�on which the Real Property was transferred between pa ti\y 'r/market-value in an arms -length Sale (as evid aced. by a de d). A transfer between Spouses, Domestic Par ents an Children, or Parents and Grandchildren shall h!is,,Origina,VPurchase Date. The Original Purchase Da`Ge sha�d'Goririn.u{e o be the date of the last transfer that took place`s, 'a result of a market -value, arms -length sale (as evide.mced'by a de d rraarty ties" mean either or both the View Seeker or the Vege tio'k Owner th t are participants in a View and Vegetation Equity Process as deec,ribed in 17.26.90, et. seq. "Person` n's any individual, individual, corporation, partnership, firm or other legal entity. "Property Owner" means a Person or Persons who have legal ownership of Real Property within the City of Rolling Hills. "Pruning" means the removal of plant material from a tree or vegetation. Page 5 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 6 "Purchase or Purchased" means the transfer of "Real Property" as a result of a market - value, arms -length sale (as evidenced by a deed transferring the Real Property between parties). Transfers between spouses or legally recognized domestic partners shall not be treated as a "Purchase" nor shall transfers between parent(s) and Children or Grandchildren, nor shall transfers to and from a trust or similar instrument between spouses, domestic partners, or parents and Children or Grandchildren. In the case of any of these transfers, regardless of their nature, the "Original Purchase Date" shall remain the date when the Real Property was transferred as a result of a market - value, arms -length sale (as evidenced by a deed) "Real Property" means rights or interests of ownership of land a II appurtenances to the land including buildings, fixtures, Vegetation and improvements tecjupon, planted or affixed to the land. "Sale / Sold" means the transfer of a parcel or parce E Real Property o a�nia.rket-value in an arms -length transaction as evidenced by a deed. �/ "Spouse" shall include both partners through marr� gee%a d legally recognized domestic partners. "Staff" means management and staff menibF er ofithe City of Rolling Hills. v per.. o _ "Stand Thinning" means the selective re`movaj j.specific trees from a group of trees. "Topping" means t emoval`5f the entir top or a significant portion of the top of a tree's 9e% . crown by cutting back lar ed_ iameter ranghes.to st (s and/or truncating the main stem/trunk. o..4101(1Si "Tree" means any perennial vegetation with a woody main -stem or trunk (sometimes multiple trunks) ordinarily growing to a considerable height, and usually developing branches at some distance from the ground. References herein to "tree" shall include the plural. Page 6 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 7 "Vegetation Owner" means any Property Owner in the City of Rolling Hills, or authorized agent of such Property Owner, who owns Real Property in Rolling Hills on which Vegetation is located. "Vegetation" means all types of plants including, bushes, hedges and shrubs, vines, grasses and trees. "View" means a vision from a Viewing Point of a visually imprevNcene or vista such as the Pacific Ocean, off -shore islands, mountains, lights of the Los Angers basin, Palos Verdes hills and canyons, the Los Angeles harbor and/or Long Beach harbors, similar. A vie ay be panoramic, which is an extensive largely unobstructed view spbning at least 120 d' kc, s of the compass or a View Corridor comprising less than 100 and •ocre than 20,,degrees of the compass. A view may include structures or Established Vegetation in thheegforregr$Adrorbackground of the fter Property Owner that provides visual perspective. "View," includes both the singular and the plural. "View Complaint" or "Complaint" means n.i.Ovocation of the SJgh"tsof a View Seeker against a Vegetation Owner under this Chapter's Vie wand {Vegetation Equity Process "View Corridor" means a View spanning I degrees of the compass. The View may or may buildings or Vegetation. "View Impairment" €ns any ob`t�r ction of property within the City of R Yling, h-di h�es that Established View. degrees of the compass but more than 20 ain some impairments that may be either "View Seeke " means a such Property,O es,whoalleges within the of Rolling`HiIls is i m Established View by Vegetation on another operty Owner in the City of Rolling Hills, or authorized agent of aftVegetation located on a Vegetation Owner's property pY fi r i n g such owner's Established View. Vie in Point" is g,, cation within a principal residence, or Guest House, but not including garages, closet, basemefits, laundry rooms or other similar minor rooms, plus from any immediately adjpin agpattiio or deck area at the same elevation or within 10 feet of the elevation as the residence whiicch,h'a's a "View" as defined in this section. 17.26.010 - Intent and purpose. The City of Rolling Hills enjoys both beautiful views and an abundance of trees and other Vegetation, and values both as contributing equally to the unique character of the City, enhancing the quality of life of the residents, and increasing the value of Real Property within the City. Page 7 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 8 Views of the Pacific Ocean, off -shore islands, lights of the Los Angeles basin and surrounding communities, the Palos Verdes hills or canyons, the Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors and so forth are a special quality of Real Property ownership for many residential lots in the city. Views contributetheGt/sambiance,uniquenature,andpropertyvaluesof those pmperoesthat indude Views. Vegetation produces significant psychological and tangible benefits for both residents and the broader community. Vegetation, particularly Trees, provide shade, reduce energy costs, provide privacy, visual screens and buffers between properties, modify temperatures, screen winds, stabilize soil, replenish oxygen to the atmosphere, remove pollutants from the air, mitigate soil erosion, and prove wildlife habitat. Vegetation contributes to the ambiance, unique nature] hd'property values of the Real Property that it is found on. The rights of View Seekers to their stablished View and t rights of Vegeta Owners to their Established Vegetation, both as created and dejn''eid by this Chapter, )n3 40°+t' come into conflict. Views have the potential to be impaired*brVegetatippgrowing on other properties within the City. It can also be the case that View kekers,�J?attempting to regain ,_their Established View, can only do so by diminishing the rights of'V`egetation Owners to their Established Vegetation. The purpose of this Chapter 17.26 is to: t. Encourage residents of the City to ind' pendepfly'resolve conflicts between themselves ei �. 1 as.View Seekers and Vegetation Owne wi out the necessity of involving the City by providing a clear ordip,a cfi a that definestherights and duties of each Party to a dispute in a manner that is fhdeer andpble to bo 2. Establish the rig lfts?and dut'ees.of-a. wpperfgOwner (View Seeker) in the City of Rolling Hills to preserve a d /ao tore`an s'tablished View, as defined in this Chapter; 3. Establish the rights duties of a Property Owner (Vegetation Owner) in the City of ' Rollin,g� ills;to preserve.ann$d*maintain Established Vegetation as defined in this Chapter; 4. To ttl'extent-possible, Ave the inhererit conflict between an Established View and jablished Vegetation by establishing procedures for the protection or restoration of an Esttaablished View \an" /or abatement of View Impairment created by Vegetation, while at the • a time proter. ir2g Established Vegetation.; 5. Pre`ceQ Real P (ray rights of Vegetation Owners by not unreasonably reducing privacy, shade,oiihsJ)ihty, and so forth provided by Vegetation on their property; 6. Resolve..0i licts between View Seekers and Vegetation Owners in a manner that balances the rights of each while applying Remedies to View Impairment that results in the least possible Damage to Vegetation: 7. Establish that Owners are required to perform Maintenance to the Vegetation on their property so as to maintain their Vegetation in a healthy condition both for safety reasons and to ensure that their Vegetation does not grow into the Views of their neighbors; s. Establish that Property Owners have a.responsibility to select Vegetation for their property that is not likely to obstruct the Views of other Property Owners as it matures. The City of Page 8 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 9 Rolling Hills maintains lists of Vegetation species that are appropriate to achieve this purpose; 9. Establish that Property Owners with an Established View are responsible for taking timely action to preserve their View(s) when the Vegetation of other Property Owners begins to obstruct them; to. Establish procedures for a View Seeker to seek restoration of an Established View that has been impaired by a Vegetation Owner's Vegetation; 11. Establish a view data base that maintains information regarding the Views of Rolling Hills properties. 12. Establish mechanisms for determining when a property has been t is erred or is in the process of being transferred; establish the power of City, throug)a fh oSQlanning Commission and the City Council, to require the removal of Vegetation thattierfgre with the Views of neighbors as a condition of approval for new construction o� dditions oaf ov,er 1000 square feet. 13. Establish educational programs that provide residenxtwhether potential Vie eekers or potential Vegetation Owners, and members of th4e Real Estat .l mrnunity, with information regarding the rights and duties of residents unde thisCha to . �..r/ 14. Establish the City's authority to require a VegetationkOwane to take remedial action, as described herein, to restore an Established View of a ViewSeekerthat has been impaired by the Vegetation of a Vegetation Owner' 17.26.020 - Committee on Trees and Views. A Committee on Trees and Views ("the Cbmmtiffeejf.is established for the purpose of administering the provisions of this chapter. Thom ,mittee sh tlabe composed of three members of the Planning m Commission appointed by the 22,911111 sibn annual) at the same time as the Commission selects its officers, or whenever a vacancy" ccurs ommittee r ee`)ings shall be scheduled as adjourned or special meetings of the Commission. The C f m e.'s,mitte arthorized to consult with City officials and with specialists such as landscape carchit ct,s-and-aEborists as required, but shall not incur any expense on behalf of the City without prior approva of the City Council. (Ord. 292 §4, 290...c7.4%.0 23 §11 pgrs.j)1993). 17.26.030. °D sirable and Undesirable trees. The Comr`ilff e is authorzvd and directed to prepare lists of types of desirable and undesirable trees for planting withr tk th eCity(frhe list shall be based upon tree size and shape, rate of growth, depth of roots, fall rate of le yes' bark or fruit or branches, and other factors related to safety, maintenance and appearance, and the likelihood (or unlikelihood) that the species may grow to interfere with Views of Property Owners The purpose of this provision is to make information available to Property Owners which may serve to avoid future occasion for permits, complaints, and other proceedings authorized by this chapter. (Ord. 239 § 11(part), 1993). 17.26.040 — Development of Approved Arborist List Page 9 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 10 The Committee is authorized and directed to develop and maintain a list of approved, licensed local ISA certified master arborists or ACA registered consulting arborists who are familiar with the vegetation appropriate to and / or to be found in the Palos Verdes Peninsula who will be deemed qualified to provide expert testimony in View Impairment complaint cases. The list shall contain between three and six arborists and shall be reviewed each year to ensure that is kept current with the correct numbers of arborist who are currently practicing. 17.26.050 — Views of Rolling Hills Data Base City Staff is authorized and directed to develop a data base of the clews of Rolling Hills Properties that obtained on various dates. In particular, whenever theFr.Wetrr ahhange in ownership or potential change in ownership, City staff should photograph the ws o`t the*transferring or recently transferred property. Staff should also develop other soourcs of infoomvon on Views as they existed within. the City as of a particular date. Such sofJ,tr"ees might induct th)se that are available via mapping services on the internet and similar. he City hall establish a schedule for Staff to inventory all Real Properties within the City o=establish5V nature of their Views that might be considered significant, if any. The purpose �t is4ew Data Base is to serve as ___ =evidence,of the,existence-of EstablishedNiews=as-of particu1hi c1ates to -aid -in -the resolution of View Complaints. As part of the education process described b 1'7k6.060 Property Owners will be encouraged to take pictures of their Views and,rV'egetat9ahen'they Purchase their property or take title to is as a result of a transference that oes t�affect their Original Purchase Date and periodically thereafter. Property o , ne;s my p\ idea copy of these pictures to City Staff to become part of the City's Data as -e. 'a° 17.26.060 — Identification Sellers, Buyers, Realtors an rut or ecently Transferred Property; Notification of %potentially interested parties of potential view claims. City sta th,is.dir cte,to develop mechanisms for identifying transferring properties. Such mechanisms ad utiliz the informaf on that is available from local Realtors, the Rolling Hills Conununi Afr&ssociation, d quiries made of the City itself by potential sellers or buyers. City personnel directed to use this information that identifies potentially transferring properties to conduct an in Lion of the such properties and surrounding properties whose View(s) may be effected by Ve taiio i the/such property and then advise both the potential seller and the Owners of such potential! VVie affected properties of potential View Claims. City staff may use the expert services of arborists included on the City maintained list in conducting this research. 17.26.70 — Education of Rolling Hills Owners and Realtors Serving Rolling Hills Regarding this View and Vegetation Preservation Ordinance City staff is authorized and directed to develop educational materials and policies intended to raise the awareness of Property Owners and members of the Realtor community that serves Rolling Hills of the nature of the rights and duties created by the this Chapter and the Page 10 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 11 responsibility of Property Owners as sellers to disclose View and Vegetation issues that affect their property. These educational materials should stress the importance of View Seekers and Vegetation Owners recording any agreements that they reach that they would like preserved for future Property Owners. 17.26.086- : Establishment of Rights and Duties of View Seekers and Vegetation Owners under this Chapter. 1. It is here established that if a View Seeker exercises her right to preser ',her views by :� notifications(s) to the Vegetation Owner or the filing of a View Com lainf; �hin XXX years of the onset of any View Impairment, so long as there has not be a se)' `ofth` Real 9,1 Property whose Vegetation impairs the View(s) within this XXX years perioW then the View Seeker can be entitled to a Remedy as defined Sectioja3.26.160 of thisGhapter. 2. A View Seeker is entitled to the View that they had o rea'rliest o�fffh Original Purchase Date or some later date on which he can establish thee'xistend Established View(s). 3. A View Seeker may elect to be entitled to an Established V e4t"i t existed by virtue of an agreement with another or other Prope (Owner(s) or as a res IV t' f the outcome of a, a �y View Complaint, so long as that agreem n or a teome has been recorded against all 0 - properties of the View Seeker(s) and Veg tatio O e . s nvi olved; o� 4. A View Seeker may not, however, have a rigFit�oa greater View than those described in 1, 2, and 3 based on the loss Vf'` getation of other Owners due to destruction (fire, flood, etc.) or disease or the le st le Vegetation rk n'? nOwner elects not to replace the Vegetation so lost. rwise, Ue�getation Owne iti r who suffered the loss is entitled to replant and allow he egeta +onto'attain-t, eheight, girth and density that it possessed - t; before the destruction o'r,disease claimed it; 5. A View eekertis`never entitle td rester View(s) than the View(s) that existed on the most 4'd t Origina't P chase Cate unless such greater View(s) are created by agreement wian - other or other O ners. A View Seeker is not entitled to a greater view based on the' of Vegetation of other Property Owners due to fire or disease or the like; 6. A Vie '`See as a duty to take reasonable steps to protect her View(s) either by . notifyin WProperty Owners who's Vegetation grows to impair her View(s) by or taking action under this Chapter to project her View(s). 7. A View Seeker's rights to a View may be diminished as a result of her not meeting her duty to protect her View(s) or if necessary to achieve a balance with a Vegetation Owner's rights to the preservation of his Vegetation. 8. If a View Seeker does not meet her duty to protect her View(s) prior to the sale of a property to a new Owner which property has Vegetation that impairs her View(s), Page 11 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 12 then her rights to her View(s) may be diminished or lost. 9. A View Seeker whose Original Purchase Date predates January 1,1983 (this is intended to be approximately 10 years prior to the implementation of the original Chapter 17.26) may have limited rights under Section 17.26.160 to restoration of his View(s) despite not having taken steps to protect his View(s) as prescribed herein. 10. A Vegetation Owner has a basic right, subject to a balancing of rights, to his Established Vegetation as it existed on his Original Purchase Date of tb,e4;Freal Property or on any date subsequent for which she can establish the existence6?Established Vegetation that did not Impair a current Property Owner's View s); 11. A Vegetation Owner has no basic entitlement to have his Vegetation imps?,the View(s) of another Property Owner beyond the impairryr nt that was pre'e°And caused by her Vegetation as of the Original Purchase‘Date of the complaininWiew Seeker, provided, however, that the Vegetation 0 ner's righ,t�sf her Vegetation may be increased by the failure of the View Seeker to "x'f¢ise tlisrights to his Views: 12. A Vegetation Owner has a duty to ensure that his Vegeta`tion does not grow into the View(s) of his neighbors and also has a -duty to select Vegetation species that are appropriate (i.e. not undesirable) to hi's the View(s) of other Property Owners. ° 13. A Vegetation Owner's rights to his Vegectati Pmay be reasonably diminished if necessary to achieve aalance with a View Seeker's rights to her View(s), if he selects 'am. Vegetation that is u tlR3ira te, as detaile _,ot� lists maintained by the City, or if he does not meet his obf ation to errs • e that his v' getation does not grow into the View(s) of other Property ' ers ' }' 14. A Vegetatio Owner 's'righ'ts to his Vegetation may be reasonably diminished if \.� nece s�o'achi ve a baol 'rice with a View Seeker's rights to her View(s). 17.26.090 —Vieww and Vegetal n Equity Process ("VAVEP") - Overview Any View Seeke �vh6{afleges that her Real Property suffers "View Impairment(s) by Vegetation growing on Real Property otheralian their own may seek abatement of the alleged View Impairment(s) by following the process established by this Chapter in seeking assistance from the city for preservation or restoration his Established View(s); 1. A -View Seeker applicant must complete the Meet and Confer process described in Section 17.26.100. if that initial discussion process does not result in an agreement between the Parties then the View Seeker may file a View Complaint with the city and request mediation, as described in Section 17.26.110. Page 12 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 13 2. If the Vegetation Owner refuses to participate in mediation or if mediation is unsuccessful in resolving the Complaint, the View Seeker may pursue resolution by requesting a hearing before t he Committee o n Trees and Views a s described in Sec. 17.26.120 3. If the ruling of the Committee on Trees and Views is not accepted by either Party, either or both Parties may appeal the ruling to the City Council for a resolution as set forth in Section 17.26.140 4. If the ruling of the City Council on appeal is not accepted by either Party, they may pursue resolution via binding arbitration, as se. prth in Section 17.26.140. 17.26.100 -View and Vegetation Equity Process - Invitation tow�Meet and Confer\ A View Seeker, who believes that Vegetaflan on Property Owner's Real Property is causing an Impairment of his alleged Establish,,View must notify the Vegetation Owner in writing of suchcoricerns. The written notif'I ationn (an " pVitation" to meet and confer) shall request personal discussions to enable thelievu,Seeker and Vegetation Owner to attempt to .reach a mutually -agreeable solution5OThe invitation shall reference this Chapter and its availability on the City's websiteand include a hardcopy which is available from the City. The iew�SSeekermust provreacopy ofthis invitation to the City. Initiation of an invitation to meet and coffer muyb'e'.dope by the View Seeker as a condition of his right to file a View Complaint s� taid below. The invitation shall contai .an offer for t e Vegetation Owner to examine the alleged View Impairment from the Viewi Point( i) on the Vest Seeker's Property. The invitation shall include a general state; nt of the, remediati n that the View Seeker desires as well eek r can determine would restore his alleged as themajor specific . . , - .1"$.}.iew ,_ 1+9 views. arl The invitation shoul uggest to the Vegetation Owner that they examine the situation togeitter on �the Vegetation Owner's Property. The invitation should also contain ev6nce (i.e�..c.pies oo hotos, etc.) that the View Seeker believes establis s positio-� concerning his Views. o Fa`iJure*of the Vegetation Owner to respond to the written request for initial discussion within thiiiyays fromJt a date of delivery shall be deemed formal refusalby the Vegetation Owner to part iptatsAnthe initial discussion. If the invitation to meet and confer is refused by the Vegetation Owner, or if the parties cannot come to an agreement about what actions are to be taken to remediate the Impairment(s) to the View Seeker's alleged Established Views within 90 days of the mailing of the invitation, then,the View Seeker may proceed with the subsequent View Complaint procedure outlined below in Sections 17.26.110 through 17.26.145. If the Parties are able to reach agreement as to what remediation / restoration actions are to be taken that agreement should be reduced to a writing which is then filed both with Page 13 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 14 the City and recorded against the Parties' properties. Such an agreement should contain all the important elements of the remediation / restoration actions to be taken immediately as well as details about how the View Seeker's Views are tb be protected going forward. Such elements may include: 1. The generalities and major specifics as to the actions to be taken; 2. Which specific Vegetation shall be remedied, 3. What specific remediation is requested for each tree and oth-r vegetation, including diagrams or marked -up photographs, 4. What replacement plantings are required, S. Who pays for what remediation and replacement, 6. Who pays for future maintenance, and how admini tered, 7. Other pertinent details of the remediation. The City shall bear the cost of having the agreement drafted the City's choosing. 17.26.110 — View and Vegetation Equity Process — Mediation If the Parties are not able to reach agr "e'ment-as described through meeting and conferring as described above in Section 17.26.100, the View 'Seeker ( o,�nplainant") may file a View Complaint as described below: ��A 3� the City Attoiney or other attorney of A. The Complainant shall ssuub 4a omplete�ap lication for abatement of View Impairment on a form provided by thef_i . Th ",application shall be accompanied by a fee as provided for in Section 17.30.030 of4f?is title. T e gommplainalj shall describe in the View Impairment application what efforts have b� en, ade he=,Complainant to resolve the View Impairment prior to filing the application. This scripUon mu- s'tndIGde whether the Parties have met and conferred (or just conferred) and if n 4 rtvhat' steps the Complainant took in an attempt to do so. An applicatio shalhnot be arpted for filing unless the Complainant can demonstrate that the Vegetatio Owner o the viev 4 9airing Vegetation has been given notice of the impairment and a reas opportunely to abate it, and that he and the Vegetation Owner have met and co (erred as describ d1n 17.26.100 but that either the Vegetation Owner refused to Meet and rifer or refused to aa��b��a,te the alleged View impairment. ComplairLst1" hall describe in detail the nature of the Views that are claimed to be f the impairment(s), and both general and specific requests for remediation / restora iQ5J In addition, t#ie,Complaint shall indicate and document the Original Purchase Date of the View Seeker's Real Property and the date of her Established View. C. Evidence offered in support of the View Seeker's complaint should accompany the application. D. Eligibility. A person shall not be precluded from filing an application for abatement of View Impairment on grounds that vegetation located on the Complainant's property contributes to impairment of the requested view. A person who has obtained an order abating impairment of a view against a Vegetation Owner shall not be precluded from filing a subsequent application to abate impairment of the same view by Vegetation of another Vegetation Owner. An application may be filed to abate impairment of one or more distinct Views listed in described in Section 38 Page 14 The following process shall apply: Draft November 21, 2016 Page 15 17.26.000 "View;" however, if multiple Views are identified, each must be disjointed and observable from a separate Viewing Point. E. Upon receipt and acceptance of an application as complete, the City Manager shall refer the matter to a mediator for conduct of a mediation session to abate the View Impairment as described below in Section 17.26.110. The mediator shall be responsible for notifying the Property Owner of the view -impairing Vegetation of the application and for scheduling and managing the mediation process. At the conclusion of mediation, the mediator shall advise the City Manager as to whether the Compla9nas been resolved. Agreement reached through mediation shall be reflected in an .executed contrp6j,and implemented in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Public Hearing Application. In the event mediation fails o'' "aleve agreement, the Complainant may submit an application and accompanying fee as prodded for Section 17.30.030 of this title for a public hearing. Upon receipt and acceptance of an pp'lication for "Atic hearing as complete, the City Manager shall schedule the matter for a public eo ng before the Co mittee on Trees and Views as described below in 17.26.120 If a complete appliotfon for a public hearingusinot received within sixty days of the mediator's notification set forth in Septfgn 17.26.040(C), the City shall terminate, without prejudice, all proceedings related to the application. vF 17.27.120 — View and Vegetation Equity Process -Committee on Tree`i„a, d Views r 1) Public Hearing. The matter shall be retu"r,nedf the Citykvlanager, who shallschedule the matter for a public hearing before tie C�6 mittee on Trees and Views. (Ord. 292 §5, 2003; Ord. 239 §11(pa 4,�T993. Public nbtik of the hearing shall be given a minimum of fifteen days prior t� e1 wing. The hea ,ing shall not proceed unless proof is shown that the owner of'tthe tree of'othe obstrucying vegetation (Vegetation Owner) has s.�., t o. received notice o ,th2 hea4ng as.provid' d herein: a) Notice shall bfe given y certified mail, return receipt requested, to the owner of the Real P o ert on` ' p y Wis .the tree or vegetation allegedly impairing an alleged establis ed"view are`locatid (Vegetation Owner), and to he complaihant (V et Seeker); ii) Notice shell,;be given by first class mail to all Property Owners within five hundred feet of the exterior boundary of the property an which the tree or vegetat nhllegedly impairing an Established View is located, and to other passhithoiin the Committee's judgment, might be affected. iii) ^Where there is more than one Real Property with Vegetation that impairs a vie of View Seeker, the Committee will deal with all of those properties, to the extent possible, in a consolidated 'manner to arrive at a comprehensive' recommendation. b) Content of Notice. The notice shall state the name of the complaining party (View Seeker), the name of the Property Owner against whom the complaint is filed (Vegetation Owner), the location of the tree(s) or other vegetation, and the time and place of hearing. The notice shall invite written comments to be submitted prior to orat the hearing. 2) Conduct of Hearing. The Committee shall adopt rules for the conduct of required Page 15 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 16 hearings. At the hearing, the Committee shall consider all written and oral testimony and evidence presented in connection with the application. The Committee shall be guided by the provisions of this chapter, including the Burden of Proof and Additional Specific Findings of Fact set for in Section 17,26.160, the Remedy Categories and View Restoration Criteria set forth in 17.26.170 and the Establishment of Rights and Duties of View Seekers and Vegetation Owners set forth in 17.26.080, respectively, in attempting to resolve the View Complaint. a) Arborists. The Committee may at its discretion retain a panel of three ISA certified master arborists or ASCA registered consulting arborists�or combination thereof, from the list maintained by the City. O,i�rrs� is to be chosen by the View Seeker, one by the Vegetation Owner and on�/f6ythe two so chosen to provide expert advice to the Committee. Nothing corfam'bd,in-this 1. \;c' ,subsection shall preclude the Parties from selecting a lrtional arbo ists to provide evidence on their respective behalves. tiNkebt b) Other Professionals. Whether or not the Committee elects to use theksievices of arborists as described above in (a), it maYhtain pro�s,Sionals such as surveyors, landscapers, tree Maintenance lcpm"paniee�, Iant nurseries, and so forth to provide expert opinions and cost esti ate4 to the Committee. c) The View Seeker and Vegetation Owner may attti�es,,ii�gown discretion and their own expense appoint authorize -agents, and/or re`t�in)legal counsel, arborists, surveyors and other professio als o provide expert testimony. 3) Findings. Based on the evidence recei e anst d /ors contained in Sec. 17.26.150 and 17.26.160 the Committee shall make ohelo or of the following general findings of fact: a) That there ar this Chapters, b) That there are stab if hed View St -as of a particular date within the meaning of this chapter, but that one of the Established View(s) are Significantly Impaired; �`r. i '� c) T4:, here are Estab ikfied, View(s) as of a particular date within the meaning of this C' hapt and one or'tinore of these Established View(s) are Significantly Impaired, That the Vege a ion impairing Established View(s) is Established Vegetation "s bject to pr tection under this Chapter. e) j t e ppetation impairing Established View(s) is not subject to protection un er,thivChapter. of a particular date within the meaning of 4. Additional Specific Findings: the Committee shall make written findings in support of the foregoing determinations and shall, if it makes a finding of (3)(c), with or without a finding of (3)(d), it shall make further specific findings of fact as are appropriate from the list in Section 1726.160 as well as others it deems necessary to support its detailed Actions, as discussed below in €., including, but not limited to the following: 5. Selection of Appropriate Remedy or Remedies. If the Committee makes finding of subsection (3)(c) with or without a finding of (3)(d) it shall order such remedial action(s) as are appropriate to its findings necessary to abate the View Seeker's View Impairment Page 16 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 17 while factoring in the Vegetation Owner's rights based the Remedies delineated in Section 17.26.160. The specific Remedy or Remedies chosen by the Committee should relate to both the general and the specific facts found by the Committee as described above. Specific Actions to be taken by the Vegetation Owner: Based on the Remedy or Remedies identified as appropriate by the Committee, the Committee shall delineate the specific restorative actions to be taken by the Vegetation Owner to correct some or all' of the impairments to the View Seeker's View all as described in 17.26.160. 7. Environmental Review. If the Committee makes finding of subs tion (D)(3) of this section and orders restorative action, the proposed order shall be�eviewed by City staff to determine the appropriate level of environmental review. If Qftaction is determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality ct1 (CEQA"), a resolution containing the Committee's written findings shall be f'senteth f%r, adoption at the Committee's next meeting. If the action is determined noi'to be exee�m,ptJ. om CEQA, the complainant shall bear the City's reasonable costs "f environments) 4evIew and CEQA compliance, including consultant fees. 8. Finality of Decision. The Committee's decis entail be fin I on the date the Committee adopts a resolution setting forth its decision. The \decisi n shall become effective ninety days after adoption of the resolution, unless an ppea$has been filed to the City Council pursuant to the provisions of Chapter17.54_Foepu,'`rposes=of=such an appeal;=references'-- — — - —to—the- Planning Commission in Chapter 17.54 shallbe�{nterpreted as inclusive of the Committee on Trees and Views If no Parties elect to appeal to the Ci 20.C&eih=within the time provided, than the Committee's.decision will be deemed\4Kpave been accepted by all Parties and may be enforced by the City.. ursuant to ?he provisions of Section 17.26.170, 17.26.180, and 17.26.190. c 17.27.130 View and Vegetation If either Par is dissatisfied w o to the City Co eil The follow my Process - Appeal to the City Council the ruling of the Committee they may appeal said ruling process shall a 1) Pubyic,Hearingfp a matter shall be returned to the City Manager, who shall schedule the matter` or aioublic hearing before the City Council. Public notice of the hearing shall be ri given a minimum of thirty days prior to the hearing. The hearing shall not proceed unless proof is shown that both the View Seeker and all Vegetation Owners have received notice of the hearing as provided herein: a) Notice shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, to all PartiestotheView Complaint and Page 17 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 18 i) Notice shall be given by first class mail to all Property Owners within five hundred feet of the exterior boundary of the property on which the tree or vegetation allegedly impairing an Established View is located, and to other persons who, in the City Manager's judgment, might be affected. ii) Where there is more than one Vegetation Owner with Vegetation that impairs a view of View Seeker, the Council will deal with all of those properties, to the extent possible, and to the extent that they were all dealt with in the decision of the Committee. b) Content of Notice. The notice shall state the names of the all P �to the Complaint and shall include a copy of the ruling of the Com jttee The notice shall invite written comments to be submitted prior to orat thyhari 2) The Appeal to the City Council for a hearing shall beett.€ated as a hearin&-ae novo. if 3) Conduct of Hearing. The Council shall adopt rules) 1 the/ and > of required hearings. At the hearing, the Committee shall consider all wetten and,,,p�al testimony and evidence presented in connection with the application. The C'ou` teil'��fiall be guided by the provisions of this chapter, -=including the Burden of c oo^knd Additional Specific Findings of Fact set for in Section 17.26.160, the Remed 'Categories and View Restoration Criteria set forth in 17` 6; 0 anid;t$he Establishment of Rights and Duties of View Seekers and Vegetattion Ow er4s`set,forth in 17.26.080, respectively, in attempting to resolve the View Cor ?lain . 2 a) Arborists. The Council shall recei\e'te�?vidence presented by the arborists selected by the Co mittee under17.26.120(2)(A) Nothing contained in this subsection shall9ecludge the Partie from selecting additional arborists provide evidence on their resp c Jive behalvee b)' Other Profe "sibnals. hether ornot the Council elects to use the services of it arborists as d ib� d above eiin°(-), it may retain professionals such as surveyors, landscapers, tree.�Vfaaintenance companies, plant nurseries, and so forth to p V pert opmi d cost estimates to the Council and may evidence provided y di OthNi),rofessionals used by the Committee as described in 7.26.120(2 A)? `)\he View See er and Vegetation Owner may at their own discretion and their. own expens 1II111 ppoint authorized agents, and/or retain legal counsel, arborists, 0-ur*veyors other professionals to provide expert testimony. 4) Findings`.jBased on the evidence received and factors contained in Sec. 17.26.150 and 17.26.160 the Committee shall make one or more of the following general findings of fact: a) That there are no Established View(s) as of a particular date within the meaning of this Chapter; b) That there are Established View(s) as of a particular date within the meaning of this chapter, but that none of the Established View(s) are Significantly Impaired; ' c) That there are Established View(s) as of a particular date within the meaning of Page 18 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 19 this Chapter and one or more of these Established View(s) are Significantly Impaired, d) That the Vegetation impairing Established View(s) is Established Vegetation subject to protection under this Chapter. e) That the Vegetation impairing Established View(s) is not subject to protection under this Chapter. 4. Additional Specific Findings: the Council shall make written findings in support of the foregoing determinations and shall, if it makes a finding of (3)(c), with rywithout a finding of (3)(d), it shall make further specific findings of fact as are appropri 1 „from the list in Section 1726.160 as well as others it deems necessary to support its det, ile'dActions, as discussed • below in €., including, but not limited to the following: 5. Selection of Appropriate Remedy or Remedies. If Lie Commit eemakes finding of subsection (3)(c) with or without a finding of (3)(d) it6hall order such remedial action(s) as are appropriate to its findings necessary to ab#(e4e View Seeker's i°e�v Impairment while factoring in the Vegetation Owner's rights/based the Remedies delineated in Section 17.26.160. The specific Remedy oaf R;medie � tosen by the Council should relate to both the general and the specific fa is gour dr the Committee as described above. 8 6. Specific Actions to be taken by the Vegetation wner: Based on the Remedy or Remedies identified as approprojd?by4he Council, t o°Committee shall delineate the specific restorative actions to be‘taltenQbsj etegeettationbwner to correct some or all of the impairments to the View See �er-s View fa all as described in 17.26.160. 7. Environmental Review. If the Cot ncil 5 es finding f subsection (D)(3) of this section and orders restorative action, the \p d,e�poosed order shall be reviewed by City staff to determine the appjop i to e* evel of eravi(onmental review. If the action is determined to be exempt from the alifd? ia) Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), a resolution containing the Committee`fswritten fiid gs sha\,be presented for adoption at the Council's next meeting. If t e action i determipedgiot to be exempt from CEQA, the complainant shall bear the CI t ' ireasgnabile ostsrof environmental review and CEQA compliance, including consultant fees. 5) 8. aFinal� lit of'Decisio'h ThsCouncil's decision shall be final on the date the Council adopts as reso -ionksetting forth its decision. The decision shall become effective ninety tits/after adopti n yf the resolution unless a Party files a request that the matter be arbitrated or elec sr litigate the matter. )'°, Any Party tooth Complaint, if dissatisfied with the resolution of the Council, may initiate Atitrattr n as described below or may file a complaint with a Los Angeles County Court having jurisdiction. If no Parties to the View Complaint elect initiate Arbitration or file a Iega action within the time provided, than the Council's decision will be deemed to have been accepted by all Parties and may be enforced by the City pursuant to the provisions of Section 17.26.170, 17.26.180, and 17.26.190. 17.27.140 — View and Vegetation Equity Process - Arbitration and Litigation Arbitration Page 19 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 20 If the proceedings under Sections 17.26.090, et. seq. fail to achieve a resolution of the Complaint, any dissatisfied Party may deliver by certified mail to the other Parties, a request to participate in an arbitration process. Said other Parties shall have thirty days from delivery of the request for arbitration to either accept or decline arbitration. Failure to respond within thirty days shall be deemed formal refusal of arbitration. If arbitration is accepted, within thirty days of such acceptance the parties shall agree in writing to the selection of an arbitrator, who shall be chosen from a list provided by the city of qualified and professionally trained arbitrators, including but not limited tojmembers of the American Arbitration Association. If the parties are unable to agree4 a specific arbitrator within thirty days, City staff shall randomly select an arbitratokOrm the list maintained by the city. In addition, either party may petition a courJ6 ent jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be guided by the provisions of thj.- hapter, in partstul gections 17.26.080, 17.26.090, 17.26.150 and 17.26,160 in atte�� mg to resolve the View Complaint, and shall submit a complete written decisio�tfto the VietSeekerand the Vegetation Owner(s). Such written decision shall contairAti, dfgs of fact, Remedies selected and restorative actions to be taken as set forth in`thisChapter. The Parties will be strongly encouraged to submit the rryatter to Binding Arbitration and should they do so, the City shall bear portio'n>of the costs aadescribed in 17.26.170. If one or more Parties decline participation i Bind b% then the Parties shall bear the responsibility for all costs of Arbitration. If the Parties have submitted the mati<ento" Binding Arbitration, any decision of the arbitrator shall be enforceable pl'P cant to theyovisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1285 e 4epq. Whether Binding r a. pie Ar itrator shall submit two copies o f the decision to the city clerk If the rtie a have elect d to arbitrate but it is non -binding arbitration, then the decisio tea Arbi to shall become final unless a Party elects to litigateby filing a cony ant in a court o co petent jurisdiction within XXX days. If no such election is made wit eettime frame /r a ired, then the decision of the Arbitrator shall be considered final an may be enfofced by the City pursuant to??? (this Chapter or the Code of Civil " Procedure s apprr ! �' O If the Parties elect to Arbitrate, whether binding or not or if any Party elects to litigate by filing an action in a court of competent jurisdiction following a resolution or ruling by the City Council, then rulings and resolutions by either the Committee on Trees and Views or the City Council shall not be binding on any Party, and shall be of no force and effect but rather shall be considered to be only advisory in nature. Litigation Page 20 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 21 Any party to a View complaint may elect to file a complain with a court of competent jurisdiction following a ruling or resolution by the City Council or following non- binding Arbitration. If any of the Parties elect to so litigate rulings and resolutions by the Committee on Trees and Views or the City Council shall not be binding on any Party, and shall be of no force and effect but rather shall be considered to be merely advisory in nature. 17.26.150 Burden of Proof; Additional Specific Findings of Fact 1. Burden of Proof The burden of proof to show that a View on a View Seekers Real Froperty is an,E��st'ablished View, that Vegetation upon the Vegetation Owner's Real Property is Establis1 d hgetetpn, that an Established View existed on a particular date, that Vegetation existed as of a particular to and that View(s) of a View Seeker are impaired as well as all other significant Findings of Fact, as listed below, made by the Committee in its ruling, the City Council on appeal, ofmthe,Binding Arbitratidgrovided for in this Chapter shall be by "a preponderance of the evidelje In akmg"a,fi dmg of fact regarding these or other matters the Committee should weigh the evidb°nce in the own... o der of priority: A. Information maintained in the Views of Rolling'Biilis Data Base described in 17.26.050 and C u maintained by the City. B. Dated photographic pests, negatives, slides, or digital images [California Evidence Code Section 1500.6(a)], including aerial and other view images to be found online; C. Deed or other legal ir7��rtr��grits',;"` yg D. Locations of Vegetation ow on site plans of the Real Property; E. Expert testimo' ny; especially habof arborists on the list maintained by the city; F. Docu e'en; and o er. aterialeintained by RHCA, e.g. Minutes of Directors Meetings. G. Testa ony of RHCA Waft; Testimony of neighbors and former residents; and lastly H. O erevidence. 2. Additional Specific Findings of Fact Following are the additional findings of fact that may be made by the Committee, the Council or an Arbitrator in support of adopting a specific Remedy Category or Categories to address a View Impairment. t. The most recent Original Purchase Date that the View Seeker's Real Property was conveyed to him for fair market value in an arms -length transaction (as evidenced by a deed); What the View(s) were on that date; z. Whether this date pre -date xxxxx, the date of the City's original View Ordinance. 3. The most recent Original Purchase Date that the Vegetation Owner's Real Property Page 21 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 22 11. was conveyed to her for fair market value in an arms -length transaction (as evidenced by a deed); 4. What Vegetation was on the property on that date determined in (3), what was its nature, height and girth, and how much, if at all, did it interfere with the View(s) of other Property Owners. 5. The extent to which the View Seeker exercised his right to preserve his View by notification(s) to the Vegetation Owner or the filing of a View Complaint. 6. The most recent date the Vegetatioh Owner's Real Property was conveyed for fair market value in an arms -length transaction (as evidenced by a deed). 7. The extent to which the Vegetation Owner elected to landscape wi5hegetation P. selected from lists of appropriate Vegetation, especially trees, av liable from the City. 8. The viewing point(s) on the View Seeker's Real Property.from is i he`aJleged Established View(s) are claimed to be impaired; 9. The significance of the alleged Established View from the -View Seeker's prop ory, including the existence of landmarks, vistas, or otheyupique features of an Established View, 10. The extent to which specific Vegetation, particula j ,,trees"on the Vegetation Owner's Real Property impair the Establ��ishCd View, The extent to which the Established View has been'or`s?iminished by a legal fig.. building structure that is consistent with ci y regulations,yar�d vegetation within the silhouette of such a structureVe to ionmay,grow up to the height of the roof ridge for a privacy shield and -4 to sh d,the vi into a pool or patio and certain other private areas within ReaJpQroperty 17.26.160 Remedy Categoy —agd View Rest qration Criteria Remedy Categories A Decision -making Body shall se-eet one or more of the following Remedy Categories as appropriate to the restoration of - paired Vie (s) of a View Seeker depending on its general and specific findings of jactlas described above; A) Rem Gategor j0 Level 0 means that based on the findings of the Decision -making Body View See ris ot entitled to any Remedy other than Hedge trimming (see below) either because of a failure to establish the existence of a View to which he is entitled or because the rights of the Vegetation Owner takes precedence over his rights. 6) Remedy Category 1: Level 1 means the remedy available to a View Seeker to restore an Established View that was lost in whole or in part as a result of his failure to exercise his rights to protect his View where property containing the View obstructing Vegetation has now been sold to a new Vegetation Owner or because the View Seeker failed to exercise his rights for a period in excess of 10 years, all as set forth in Section 17.26.030 of this Chapter. The remedies available to the View Seeker are to compel pruning of the View obstructing Vegetation so as to Page 22 Draft November 21, 2016 Page '23 achieve partial View restoration through Crown Lifting, Crown Reduction, Lacing and similar reductions in tree size and height that will not damage or endanger the tree(s) and The Vegetation Owner may not be compelled to top trees or remove them. C) Remedy Category 2: Level 2 means the remedy available to a View Seeker to restore an Established View that was lost in whole or in part as a result of his failure to exercise his rights to protect his View where property containing the View obstructing Vegetation has now been sold to a new Vegetation Owner or because the View Seeker failed to exerc,ir�se�c is rights for a period in excess of 10 years, all as set forth in Section 17.26.030 of this C,�2pt The remedies available to the View Seeker are 1) To compel pruning of the View obs 6ccting Vegetation so as to achieve partial View restoration through Crown Lifting, Crown R ctign pacing and similar reductions in tree size and height that will not damage or endange the tr e(') a , l 2)be Reductions in the height of hedges that are above the ridge,li��e of the principal essrd4nce on the Vegetation Owner's property subject to the criteria setlforth in the Hedge Re eiiy, below.. The Vegetation Owner may not be compelled to top tr es or remo Ahem. D)- Remedy -Category 3'=means the -remedy avaiI° ble o=a-View Seekerrto=restore an — Established View that was lost in whole or in art as a result o is failure to exercise his rights to protect his View for a period in excess o 6{yearstut not in exce�ss�of 10 years, all as set forth in Section 17.26.030 of this Chapter. The recediesvailab eto,,the View Seeker are 1) To compel pruning of the View obstructing Vegetation sce s to ehieve as much View restoration as possible through Crown Lifting, Crown Red��ctio acing and similar reductions in tree size CtS and height that will not damage o° endanger theAree(s); 2) Reductions in the height of hedges ig that are above the ridgelin,e gp the incipal rest e ce on the Vegetation Owner's property subject to the criteria se�ttorth in t ' elHedge Remedy, below.; 3) Strand thinning; and 4) Limited individual tree topping (sW i\e7e4p rniitted,by the nature of the species). If the Vegetation Owner purchased his prope ..tyncluring more than two years prior to the origination of the View Complaint, The,remedies available to the View Seeker are all that will restore his View to the es most receq- � �taYe on�i icha Vegetation Owner purchased her property in an arm -length sale (as evid.wped by a deed or/the date which a View Seeker can establish the View that they had, whichever is later "Remedy Category 4: Level 4 means the remedy available to a View Seeker to restore an Estab is 'View that was lost in whole or in part and the View Seeker has acted within three to six years to protect his rights to his View. The remedies available to the View Seeker are 1) To compel pruning of the View obstructing Vegetation so as to achieve as much View restoration as possible through Crown Lifting, Crown Reduction, Lacing and similar reductions in tree size and height that will not damage or endanger the tree(s); 2) Reductions in the height of hedges that are above the ridgeline of the principal residence on the Vegetation Owner's property subject to the criteria set forth in the Hedge Remedy, below.; 3) Strand thinning; and 4) Very limited individual tree removal and / or topping (where permitted by the nature of the species). If the Vegetation Owner purchased his property during more Page 23 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 24 than two years prior to the origination of the View Complaint, The remedies available to the View Seeker are all that will restore his View to the most recent date on which a Vegetation Owner purchased her property in an arm -length sale (as evidenced by a deed) or the date which a View Seeker can establish the View that they had, whichever is later E) "Remedy Category 5: Level 5: means the remedy available to a View Seeker to restore an Established View that was lost in whole or in part and the View Seeker has acted within one to three years to protect his rights to his View. The remedies available to the View Seeker are 1) To compel pruning of the View obstructing Vegetation so as to achieve as� uel view restoration as possible through Crown Lifting, Crown Reduction, Lacing and similar reductions in tree size and height that will not damage or endanger the tree(s); 2) Reductions in th hrtg t.of hedges that are qe.�4� r above the ridgeline of the principal residence on the Vegetation Ow r s prop rtyksubject to the at criteria set forth in the Hedge Remedy, below.; 3) Strand thinning;.an 4) Mode�te`y limited individual tree removal and / or topping (where permitted by mature of the spetje)}5) The creation of one or more View Corridors not to exceed the Vievythe View.Seeker had as'of their Original Purchase date or some later date for which they n'establis '?View existed whichever is � N. � later. If the Vegetation Owner purchased his property duri tmo e3, an two years prior to the ____—origination of the View-Complaint,--the-remedies available -to -thh Vieel. Seeker -are -all that will- - restore his View to the most recent date on which a Vegetation Ov1�.'neer purchased her property in an arm -length sale (as evidenced by a deed) o Abe. oat which a Vie,,bv.S eker can establish the View ao' F) "Remedy Category 6: Level 6c -means remy:1y available to a View Seeker to restore an Established View that was lost in wholIe�or part and the View Seeker has acted within i edits one year to protect his rights to his iew. The re edam available to the View Seeker are 1) To compel pruning of the View ob tfFuc-ti g egetatioo .so as to achieve as much View restoration as possible through Crown Lift! ,Crown Reduction, L'ci g Qg� � e�g and similar reductions in tree size and height that will not damag o dange tree.(s); 2) Reductions in the height of hedges that are above the ridgeline of the prmcipa sidence-on.the Vegetation Owner's property subject to the criteria set forth in the Hedge R y, below.; 3) Strand thinning; and 4) Moderately limited individual tree re,%oval and / or to , -mg (where permitted by the nature of the species); 5) The creation of on o"�more •iew' Corrido Vnot to exceed the View the View Seeker had as of their �✓ `tom Original Pu ase date or so{tl e)later date for which they can establish a View existed whichever is Wt. later. If heWegetation Ow r purchased his property during the year that the View Seeker failed to act than t ew Seeker'semedy may be limited to the View they had on the date of the Vegetation 0 ner&s,purcha;e. that they had, whichever is later. G) Remedy Category 7: This is to be a category for creating corridors where they are warranted by the circumstances. G) Hedge Remedy: This is to be a category specifically for hedges which is not dependent on any finding of fact in favor of either the View Seeker or the Vegetation owner. It is thought that hedges may always, or virtually always, be trimmed down to a certain level to provide a View for a View Seeker without adversely affecting the Vegetation Owner. It could, however, still be limited by considerations having to do with the Vegetation Owner's privacy. Page 24 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 25 In general, a View Seeker is always entitled to require a Vegetation Owner to top their Hedge so that it not exceed the sightline of a six-foot tall person standing at a View Point on the View Seeker' Property to the highest point of the ridgeline a down sloop Vegetation Owner's property. However, this shall be limited by a Vegetation Owner's right to privacy in their backyard and further limited by a right of the down sloop Vegetation Owner's right to be free of light cast by the View Seeker's Principal Residence or Guest House. (This needs some further definition as to how this works.) View Restoration Criteria If there is finding by the Committee that a View Impairment of a Established View by a Vegetation Owner's Vegetation exists, then, after selectingyyftIt <aappropriate Remedy Category or Categories, the following shall be considered determ mg the actual appropriate preservation or restorative actions to be taken. 1. Mitigating factors. The following non-rankedf'(ctors shall be consideredin determining appropriate actions to preserv�E,'or restore9 Established View, while at the same time accommodating Real< roppty/rights of Vegetation a Owners: (a) Visual screening or privacy, and soJna3buffering between properties, provided b(4 g-etation, i 04-..._, 0.7:',.. (b) Shade, energy gonserva. ionand/,orrcclimate control (c) Soil stability, as dlle1te�rmined ,solizzp,mposition, degree of slope and extent of the tree's/v etati45 root system when a Vegetation is proposed to be removed, ° Y) el 2. Hazards pos `-y sp tree(s)l or egetation including, but not limited to disease, fire.flange_ r ol.Rhe doggerel falling limbs or trees, 3. Environmental Review. In n� eve�hall preservation/restoration action be req iced -if such actictn\ould adversely affect the environment. Any proposed gyeement riorder b decision -making body shall be reviewed by city staff to determine an rllequired environmental review. If the remediation action is determined b ° ,�y staff not to be exempt from the California Environmental uality� Act (OESA), A), city staff shall arrange for a CEQA environmental review to `eterfnin o -Q compliance and/or conditions. Costs of environmental review shall be) paid initially by the View Seeker, provided, however, that the ultimate CI responsibility for such costs may subsequently be modified by mutual agreement of the parties or by order of a decision -making body. The intent in effecting preservation or restoration of Established Views is to comply as much as is reasonably possible with Vegetable Maintenance and pruning standards of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), so that such actions, in the opinion of an ISA certified Page 25 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 26 master arborist or ASCA registered consulting arborist, would not destroy the visual proportions of the Vegetation, adversely affect the Vegetation's growth pattern or health, or the Vegetation in question itself. Specific View preservation and restoration actions may include, but are not limited to the following, stated in descending order of preference: 1. Lacing. Lacing removes excess foliage and can improve the structure of the tree. Views can be provided through laced trees, 2. Crown Raising. Crown raising may be utilized to provide a view der the crown of a tree, 3. Crown Reduction. Crown reduction may be used to redu`se th tiheight and/or spread of a Vegetation, _ (� Stand Thinning. The removal of some of the total n ber of trees frorra grove of trees may be used, to thin out the grove in order to [tide a view through the g ove, 4. Heading Back Heading Back generally damage rand weakk�,e?9trees, and makes them susceptible to disease. Headed back trees appca 'disfi 7rired and mutilated. For this reason Heading Back of trees is generally limited"fror�5 ,vegetation specifically planted and maintained as a hedge, espalier or in pollard`f �rm. 5. Topping as a may or may no gbe1.a considered 1 'edial action if it is appropriate for the specie of`tre Some spec if topped properly, do not suffer permanent dama 'e)aand m y`betopped repeatedly. Others; however, may be severely insured t the point that they will die. s 1/ Similarly, some trees may top ed—n a manner which is esthetically pleasing while others may not. T. aspects of various species are important to �'ns d rtbefore s leeting topping as a remedial action. 6. Vegetation R@ri oval. R mto�vaI of vegetation ation may be considered when the above reservations cT ns p� fudged'` ineffective, and which may be accompanied by required repla.ement plantings of appropriate Vegetation to mitigate the level Vs;:.'.. of Real -Property benefits lost due to Vegetation removal. 17.26.17 a Allocation o costs for View and Vegetation Equity Process Costs incurrec"in�he Vie -and Vegetation Equity Process described in 17.26.090 shall be allocated between B.yties to a View Complaint and the City as follows: A) Meet and Confer: Each party to bear their own costs. B) Mediation. The View Seeker is to be responsible for the fees described in 17.26.110 C) Complaint Evaluation and Ruling by Committee on Trees and Views. Each Party to be responsible for its own legal expenses, including the introduction of expert testimony. City to be responsible for all other expenses including investigations and expert testimony by arborists used in the process as described in 17.26.120 - D) Appeal of Ruling by Committee on Trees and Views to the City Council. Each Party to be responsible for its own legal expenses, including the introduction of expert testimony. City Page 26 • Draft November 21, 2016 Page 27 to be responsible for all other expenses including investigations and expert testimony by arborists used in the process as described in 17.26.120 E) Arbitration. Each Party to be responsible for its own legal expenses and other costs of the Arbitration. F) However, the above notwithstanding, if the Parties agree to Binding Arbitration, the City shall contribute to the costs of the Arbitration as follows. The City will be responsible for arbitration fees (e.g. arbitration association, room rental, and similar) as well as the fee(s) of the arbitrator(s) and the costs of the experts described in 17.26.120(2), provided however, that the City's contribution to the cost of Binding Arbitration shall be cappgdJat $$$$$ with any costs in excess of this being borne by the Parties. 17.26.180 -. Costs of Implementation of Preservation / Restorative Actions v A. For View Complaints found to have been brought within two 2) years of the imps! ent of the Established View(s) so long as the Real Property of the Vefetation Owner has not been Sold prior to the bringing of the Complaint by the View Seeker, the Vegetation 01wper shall bear the cost of initial restorative action. ___B n= all cases _excepLas=delineated-in=(A);=above;-the -Compleinzant�-shall bearthe=cost -of 'the initial restorative action. Within thirty days of a final' decision ordering'estaative action, the Complainant shall obtain and present to the owner of a obstructing vegeta ip three bids from licensed and qualified contractors for performance of the 'iojf as,wwell'as.cash deposit in. the amount of the lowest bid. In order to qualify, the contractors must`ptevide instyanoe, hich protects and indemnifies the City and the Complainant from damages attgbutablefto rail -gent or wrongful performance of the work. Any such insurance shall be subject to th`e agP„e al of the City. 'B. The Vegetation Owner may select arty licenseii� aQd qualified contractor to perform the restorative action(as long as the insu "' l ��ee reqqu�uiemenis o subsection B of this section are satisfied), but shall be responsible for any cost above tli& amount of tttll e cash deposit. The work shall be completed no more than ninety dayskro?n recel$f tthe off cash deposit or if additional time is necessary due to weather or unique conditions of_e,vegetafionVat the earliest date recommended by the contractor, but no later than one year, arydrshallbe approved by the City Manager. C. Subsequent jvlain n nce of thhee Vegetation in question shall be performed at the cost and expense of the Vege(�" Lion Own@@r (and subsequent Vegetation Owners of the Real Property). The Vegetation shall be p°aintained on`a regular basis in accordance with the final decision .so as not to allow for futurtew Impairment(s32. 17.26.190-l=nfo ement. A. A "Final Decif 'or QA's ere defined as 1) an Agreement accepted in writing by both Parties and is filed with the City; 2 A,jinding by the Committee that neither Party appeals to the Council within the time allowed for appear; 3) a ruling on appeal to the Council that is accepted by the Parties; 4) the results of binding arbitration of the View Complaint. b. Failure or refusal of any person to comply with a final decision under this chapter or to comply with any provision of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars or six months in County Jail, or both. Failure or refusal of any person to comply with a final decision under this chapter shall further constitute a public nuisance which may be abated in accordance with the procedure contained in Chapter 8.24. Page 27 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 28 B. A final decision rendered under this chapter may be enforced civilly by way of action for injunctive or other appropriate relief, in which event the prevailing party may be awarded attorney's fees and costs as determined by the court. 17.26.200 Unauthorized restorative actions prohibited. Except as otherwise authorized by law or by a "Final Decision" as defined above in 17.26.190(A) shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars or six months in County Jail, or both to remove, destroy or alter the Vegetation on Real Property owned by another person unless there is a written agreement with the operty Owner on whose property the Vegetation exists. Nothing herein shall precl /earperson injured d,r by the removal, destruction or alteration of such Vegetation from seekin l atever civil remedies are legal available for such injury. 17.26.210 - Notification of subsequent Property Owners. It is not the intent or purpose of this chapter for the city o ereate either a covenant running with the land or an equitable servitude (for example, sefbient or license). However, the city will keep a record of agreements and decisions reached pursuant to this chapter as part of the data base provided for in 17.26.050 and will pahose agreemen�ntta ;and / or decisions to all "C -..-%1V4 an Realtors, Agents, prospective sellers and prosyctrv y ss and'othc�eer transferees that it is able to identify as provided for in 17.26.060. • t' A L This section does not preclude recording o�f th/agreements or decisions if that is agreed to by the parties or mandated by a D ei"sibn-making Bod;` 17.26.220 — Severability, adopad p i t�o ,pub. on 1. If any section; subsectin;sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Chapter 17.26 ...ate 4 - and„refatedtd hmtions in • ha ter 17.12 is to any extent found by the decision of any co/Of comps ent�jurisdic ion to be illegal, otherwise invalid, incapable of being enforced or uncon�ytitutional, such section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or bortion shall be efccauded to the extent of such invalidity or unenforceability; all other to sh,;e�reof,sha I remain in full force and effect; and, to the extent permitted and possii le,itheialid or unenforceable term shall be deemed replaced by a term that is valid andte rceable and that comes closest to expressing the intention of such invalid or unenforceable term. 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Chapter 17.26 and related amendments to Chapter 17.12 Definitions, and shall cause the same to be published in accordance with law. Page 28