Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Agenda 01-25-2016
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 2016 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Pieper at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Black, Dieringer, Mirsch, Wilson and Mayor Pieper. Councilmembers Absent: None. Others Present: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Terry Shea, Finance Director. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Kirt Behera, 12 Ringbit Road East. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road. Norm Miller, 4 Chesterfield Road. Howard Weinberg, Attorney. James Wald, 7 Quail Ridge Road South. Cathy Nichols, 14 Crest Road West. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West. Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive. William Hassoldt, 10 Pine Tree Lane. CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of January 11, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. 13. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. Financial Statement for the Month of October, November and December 2015. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. D. Allied Recycling Tonnage Report for November 2015. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. E. Correspondence from Republic Services confirming the following dates for the 2016 bi- annual clean up and shred events in the City of Rolling Hills: April 9 (greenwaste), April 16 (bulky items), April 30 (shred), September 10 (greenwaste), September 17 (bulky items) and September 24 (shred). RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. Councilmember Black moved that the City Council approve the items on the consent calendar as presented. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Mayor Pieper suggested taking New Business item 10A pertaining to the Quarterly Investment Report out of order. Hearing no objection, he so ordered. MATTERS FROM STAFF QUARTERLY SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015. V) Finance Director Shea presented the investment report for the quarter ending December 31, 2015. He noted that interest income is down slightly compared to the same quarter from FY 14/15. He further noted that the City funded its Other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB) liability using the CalPERS CERBT Strategy 1 and the ending balance is down slightly compared to the previous year with a balance of $490,000; but is up overall when compared to the starting balance of $325,000 when it was funded four years ago. In response to Councilmember Mirsch and Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer, Mr. Shea stated that staff will continue to monitor the fund and if necessary, the funds could be moved to a less aggressive investment strategy if the earnings continue to decline. Mr. Shea further reviewed the schedule of investments, the comparative interest data, the investment allocation summary and liquidity calculation. Following brief discussion, Councilmember Black moved that the City Council receive and file the quarterly investment report for the quarter ending December 31, 2015 as corrected. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer seconded the motion, which carried without objection. COMMISSION ITEMS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS WAIVE FULL READING AND INTRODUCE ON FIRST READING ORDINANCE NO. 346. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION, IN ZONING CASE NO. 881 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2015-03. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that the City Council held a public hearing on this ordinance at its January 11'" meeting and took public testimony which is summarized in the staff report. She stated that several correspondence have been received since the last meeting and are either attached to the staff report or in the case where it was received after the agenda packet was prepared, placed on the dais. She briefly reviewed the correspondence received and stated that also included with the staff report is a summary of all of the view cases prior to and after Measure B. She further stated that at the last meeting, the City Council proposed to go item by item over each of the proposed changes and a table including the proposed changes is included in the staff report to facilitate that activity. In response to Councilmember Black, Ms. Schwartz stated that there have been 21 view cases since 1988 and a total of 22 trees were ordered to be removed, one of which was a dead tree. Mayor Pieper commented that the objective of these ordinance amendments is to make the ordinance more clear and proved useful tools for the Committee on Trees and Views to use so that the Ordinance can be applied consistently. The City Council then proceeded to review the proposed amendments item by item. 17.12.220 "V" words, terms and phrases Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed amendment that adds to the definition that bathrooms, closets, garages and hallways are not considered viewing area and adds a definition for "view condor" as added to the ordinance by Measure B. Councilmember Black commented that he feels that there are some houses where the house is specifically designed to take advantage of views from bathroom and/or hallways and he feel those items should not be included in the list of exclusions. Discussion ensued concerning the number of "view locations" allowed. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer suggested that the City Council first consider the number of views that will be allowed and come back to this item after that discussion. 17.26.040(B) Eligibility Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer suggested that only two views be allowed where the second view is completely different and from an opposite direction than the first view. In response to Mayor Pieper, Ms. Schwartz stated that to date, there haven't been any applications seeking to restore multiple views. Discussion ensued concerning properties that have multiples views with homes designed to take advantage of those views. Councilmember Mirsch commented that there is a fairly high threshold to be eligible for view restoration and she feels if an applicant meets the criteria, they should be entitled to the view they had Minutes City Council Meeting 01-25-16 when they purchased their property and the number of views should not be limited. Mayor Pieper commented that the Committee on Trees and Views has never provided panoramic views and the City has always strived to have a balance between trees and views when applying the ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer further commented that the word "disjointed" is unclear. Councilmember Mirsch stated that she is in favor of the proposed language. Councilmember Wilson, Councilmember Black and Mayor Pieper concurred. 17.12.220 "V" words, terms and phrases Following discussion concerning the definition of "view", the City Council concurred to eliminate bathrooms and hallways from the list of exclusions. Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed definition of "view corridor" and stated that it is necessary to add this definition because Measure B added the term to the Ordinance but did not define it. Following discussion, the City Council concurred that the proposed definition is appropriate. 17.26.010 Intent and purpose. Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed changes that would delete the word "panoramic" and add the word "views" to clarify the intent and purpose to be consistent with Measure B. Following brief discussion, the City Council concurred. 17.26.040 Abatement of view impairment — Procedure Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed changes that add reference to the definition of "view impairment" in the introductory sentence; clarify the process and submittal requirement for mediation and for a hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views in Paragraph A; and add new Paragraph B to allow a property owner to file an application for view impairment even if there are trees/foliage on their property that contribute to the view impairment and that a person may file against multiple property owners for the same view. Discussion ensued concerning Paragraph B. She reviewed the additional proposed changes in Paragraph C to clarify the mediator's role and provisions for when an agreement is reached in arbitration; and in Paragraph D to clarify the public hearing process and provide a deadline by which an application for a public hearing has to be submitted after the mediator's notice that the mediation is finished and to add the term "without prejudice." Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer suggested removing the term "without prejudice". In response to Councilmember Black, Ms. Schwartz reviewed the application process and associated fees. Discussion ensued concerning the proposed 30 -day deadline for submitting an application after mediation has concluded. Councilmember Black suggested that the time should be 60 or 90 days rather than 30. Mayor Pieper commented that he feels an applicant should not be prohibited from reapplying and that the term "without prejudice" is appropriate. Following additional discussion ensued concerning the 30 day deadline the City Council decided to change the deadline to 60 days and to keep the term "without prejudice." 17.26.050(C) Conduct of Hearing Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed change that clarifies what happens during the public hearing proceedings and allows for additional information to be submitted. The City Council concurred with this change. Ms. Schwartz further reviewed the proposed change that provides the Committee on Trees and Views with the discretion to allocate the costs to the applicant or both parties, under certain circumstances when an expert opinion/report is necessary and adding provisions to provide for how such an opinion should be obtained. Councilmember Black expressed opposition to having the tree owner share in the cost for expert services because the process could be stalled if the payment is not received. Mayor Pieper also expressed opposition to shared cost stating that the applicant should bear the cost solely. Councilmember Mirsch concurred. Following discussion, the City Council concurred to eliminate the language that allows the Committee to allocate the cost for expert services to both parties. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer suggested adding language as shown in the document she distributed at the beginning of the meeting, to specify that any expert advice shall be provided by a consulting arborist who is a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists and the International Society of Arboriculture and sign a certification of performance. She further reviewed the proposed provisions for Minutes City Council Meeting 01-25-16 the certificate of performance. Maydr Pieper expressed concern that there may be multiple associations and how would the City confirm which is the appropriate association. Councilmember Black stated that he likes the proposed provision for the certificate of performance but he too, is not sure about which associations are appropriate. To provide further clarification, City Attorney Jenkins stated that the expert would be selected by the City and it is not necessary to have the requirements in the ordinance but rather direction could be given to staff as to the specifics with regard to the type of expert that should be hired and what should be included in the Scope of Work and Certification of Performance. Discussion ensued concerning the provision recommend by Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer. City Attomey Jenkins further clarified that the City does not place affirmative obligations upon City staff in City ordinances. Following discussion, the City Council concurred to direct staff to use the information provided by Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer when it is necessary to hire an expert. City Attorney Jenkins suggested, in the last paragraph where the issue of abandonment is addressed, to add a third provision that the application can also be considered abandoned if the complainant fails or refuses to provide supplemental information or fails or refuses to pay the cost of the expert services. Following discussion, the City Council concurred. 17.26.050(E) Action Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed change that deletes the phrase "and to restore the complainant's view" from the first sentence and adds language that if restorative action is precluded due to various limiting factors, the Committee shall make specific findings to that effect. City Attorney Jenkins clarified that the change to delete the phrase "and to restore the complainant's view" is suggested because the current language suggests an end result that may be no longer possible due to the provisions set forth by Measure B. He stated that the Committee's decision may abate the view impairment but in doing so, may not restore the view and as such, that language should be removed. The City Council concurred with those changes. With regard to the restorative actions listed, Councilmember Mirsch asked if the term "topping" should be removed from the list recognizing that is typically referred to as not a good practice. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer commented that she feels the term should be eliminated and language should be added that the restoration and type of pruning should be pursuant to the best management practices for tree pruning of the International Society of Arboriculture. Mayor Pieper commented that the ordinance should not prescribe how the tree is to be trimmed; and how the work is done is up to the arborist ultimately hired by the tree owner. Councilmember Black stated the he is not in favor or removing the term "topping." Following brief discussion the City Council decided to leave the term in the ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer was opposed. Discussion ensued concerning the various factors that may limit restorative action, including the privacy issue. Following discussion, the City Council concurred to include the proposed added language. 17.26.050(F) Environmental Review. Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed change which adds a new paragraph to specify that environmental review pursuant to CEQA requirements shall be conducted prior to adoption of a final decision and if the project is deemed not to be exempt from CEQA, the complainant shall bear the cost for the environmental review. In response to Councilmember Black regarding CEQA review, City Attorney Jenkins clarified that staff will determine what level of review is necessary and the City does not allow the property owner or tree owner to dictate the level of environmental review. The City Council concurred with the addition. 17.26.050(G) Finality of Decision. Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed change, which changes the finality of the decision to 30 days rather than 20 days so that is it consistent with other applications of the Zoning Ordinance. No objection was expressed. 17.26.060(A) Implementation of restorative action. Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed change, which clarifies that the complainant pays for the initial restorative action. No objection was expressed. Minutes City Council Meeting 01-25-16 17.26.060(B) implementation of restorative action. Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed change, which clarifies the date by which restorative action should be done and adds that if additional time is necessary, it must be done within one year. Following brief discussion, no objection was expressed. 17.26.060(C) Implementation of restorative action. Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed change, which adds a provision that the cost for subsequent maintenance may be allocated to both parties if the written findings justify such an allocation. Councilmember Mirsch commented that she feels that the cost for all subsequent maintenance should be borne by the tree owners. She further commented that it should not be subjective and she feels that there should be no provision for an alternative cost allocation. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer commented that she feels there should be a provision to allow for an alternative cost allocation. Mayor Pieper and Councilmember Black concurred with Councilmember Mirsch that there should be no provision for an alternative cost allocation. Following discussion, the City Council deleted the provision for an alternative cost allocation. 17.26.060(D) Implementation of restorative action. Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed change, which deletes the language in Paragraph D regarding the implementation method recognizing that these issues are addressed elsewhere in Section 17.26.060 and the language is vague and not applicable. Following brief discussion concerning hedges, no objection was expressed. 17.26.070 Enforcement Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer commented that many cities issue a decision in view matters, but enforcement of the decision is done by the parties so that the City has no liability. She suggested adding such a clause as Section 17.26.075. Mayor Pieper commented that this matter is part of the indemnification issue which will be discussed later. He further commented that he feels it is the City's responsibility to defend its ordinance. Discussion ensued concerning enforcement and indemnification. Councilmember Black commented that he is opposed to indemnification. Councilmember Mirsch commented that she would like for the City not to be in the tree and view business, but since views are part of the City's General Plan and there is an ordinance in place, the City should have enforcement powers. In response to Mayor Pieper regarding getting out of view matters, City Attorney Jenkins stated that without the existing ordinance, Measure B would not make sense. 17.26.080 Notification of subsequent owners. Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed change, which adds clarification that an informational covenant for both properties that would run with the land. She commented that the correspondence from Mr. Weinberg suggests that the covenant should only be recorded against the tree owner's property. City Attomey Jenkins explained the considerations where recording the covenant makes sense for both properties. Following brief discussion, no objection was expressed. 17.26.100 Indemnification (new provision) Following brief discussion and with Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer opposed, the City Council decided to remove the indemnification clause based on the discussion above. Following an explanation by City Attorney Jenkins regarding the procedure for introduction of the ordinance, Mayor Pieper called for public comment limited to two minutes per speaker. Kirt Behera, 12 Ringbit Road East addressed the City Council to express concern that current ordinance as amended by Measure B does not allow for restoration of a view that existed when a property was purchased. He further expressed concern that Measure B will cause the city to become a no view city. • ,. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road addressed the City Council to further explain the -changes he recommended in the correspondence he provided including striking the terms pruning and topping and Minutes City Council Meeting 01-25-16 thinning and replace with words that achieve the same objective ie: crown reduction, crown raising and lacing. Norm Miller, 4 Chesterfield Road addressed the City Council regarding Measure B. Mayor Pieper explained that Measure B will be discussed later. Mr. Miller further commented that the ordinance should include reference to consulting arborists as suggested by Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer. He further commented that mandatory arbitration should be required to reduce litigation. Howard Weinberg, Attorney addressed the City Council to suggest the following text changes: 17.26.080 change the word informational covenant to a memorandum of the ordinance; regarding the requirement for additional evidence, the applicant should not be forced to pay for additional evidence. James Wald, 7 Quail Ridge Road South addressed the City Council to ask for clarification as to whether or not the arborist hired by the City is allowed to do the work. He further suggested regarding arborists, that there be more research done as to what is the accepted organization and the public should be able to comment on it. He further suggested that the term topping should be removed from the ordinance and the City should require arbitration to reduce litigation. The City Council discussed the matters raised by the public. With regard to Mr. Weinberg's suggestions, City Attorney Jenkins suggested changing the word covenant to "instrument." Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer suggested using the word "document" instead. The City Council concurred to change the word covenant to document. Discussion ensued concerning Mr. Weinberg's suggestion regarding additional evidence. Following discussion, the City Council concurred to leave the language as proposed by City Attorney Jenkins earlier. Discussion ensued concerning the suggestion that the City require arbitration.' City Attomey Jenkins explained the issues associated with mandatory arbitration and enforcement means available to the City. He commented that he feels it is impractical and may not be doable legally. Following discussion, the City Council decided not to add mandatory arbitration. Following public testimony and discussion, Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council waive full reading and introduce on first reading Ordinance No. 346 amending Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code relating to View Preservation as amended above (shown in bold/italic). Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried with Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer opposed because it did not incorporate the changes she recommended. OPEN AGENDA - APPROXIMATELY 8:00 P.M. - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME Cathy Nichols, 14 Crest Road West addressed the City Council in opposition to the proposed ordinance pertaining to restrictions on medical marijuana in the City stating that she feels it takes away people's rights granted under the compassionate use act. Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West addressed the City Council regarding the proposed ordinance pertaining to medical marijuana stating that he uses some derivative of marijuana for his sheep. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West addressed the City Council in opposition to the proposed ordinance pertaining to restrictions on medical marijuana in the City. He expressed concern that ordinance was not given proper consideration by the Planning Commission because it was presented by the Assistant City Attorney as a matter that required urgent action. Norm Miller, 4 Chesterfield Road addressed the City Council regarding the need for microphones in the Council Chamber, regarding the proposed ordinance pertaining to medical marijuana and regarding how the City Council handles public comment specifically that feedback is not provided when a person provides comments. As an explanation regarding the proposed ordinance pertaining to medical marijuana, City Attorney Jenkins stated that proposed ordinance will be before the City Council next month. He provided the background and reasoning as to why the matter is being brought before the City Council: He stated that nothing in the proposed ordinance will affect the right of a Rolling Hills resident to posses marijuana for personal use; to drive to a dispensary to purchase medical marijuana and bring it into City; or from ordering marijuana online or by phone from a reputable source and having it delivered by US mail, FedEx, Minutes • City Council Meeting 01-25-16 UPS or another means. He further stated that the State legislature passed a bill stating that if cities do not act by March 1, certain regulatory authority would be vested in the State and the cities would lose any and all opportunity to regulate under their own police powers. He further explained that the author of the bill has since said that he did not intend to establish the March 1 deadline and there is a bill currently pending in the legislature that would eliminate the deadline. He stated that if the pending bill is passed and signed by the Governor, the City can take its time in considering this matter. He further provided a brief overview of the proposed ordinance as it relates to delivery and cultivation of medical marijuana. OLD BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1182 ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE 13 RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. Mayor Pieper suggested that this matter be further continued so that the item can be given proper consideration. Hearing no objection, consideration of this matter was continued to the next regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on February 8, 2016 beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber at Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. . , NEW BUSINESS None. MATTERS FROM STAFF WILLDAN ENGINEERING ANNUAL UPDATE. (ORAL REPORT) Planning Director Schwartz reported that since 2008, Willdan Engineering has provided building and safety services for 25 projects — 11 of which are complete and the remainder of which are in plan check or being constructed. She noted that Willdan provided services for multiple projects at three properties. RESIDENTIAL BURGLARY UPDATE. (ORAL REPORT) Regarding the status of adding an additional SAT Detective to the Regional Law Enforcement Contract, City Manager Cruz reported that the two other cities in the Regional Law Contract have approved the proposal and the objective is to have the additional detective in place in a month. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS Mayor Pieper suggested that the City Council test starting the meetings at an earlier time beginning in 'March. Following brief discussion, staff was directed to notify residents via the citywide newsletter that , beginning with the March 14'" City Council meeting, the start time will be moved to 7:00 p.m. In response to Councilmember Black regarding the water usage reductions imposed by the State, City Manager Cruz stated that the City has submitted several comment letters and is continuing to monitor the status of the issue. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS None. CLOSED SESSION None. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION None. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Pieper adjourned the meeting at 10:43 p.m. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, February 8, 2016 i, • Minutes City Council Meeting 01-25-16 beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, SPAtu) Heidi Luce City Clerk Approved, J " 'leper ayor Minutes City Council Meeting 01-25-16 RECEIVED The Weinberg Law Group Via Hand Delivery Heidi Luce City Clerk City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 JAN 2 5 2016 f Rolling Hills By Re: Resolution 11182 re Administrative Regulations Dear Ms. Luce: January 25, 2016 Tonight, January 25, 2016, at the City Council hearing, the Council will consider the adoption of Resolution 1182 rcgarding Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B for the City's View Ordinance. Attached to this letter are my suggested modifications to the resolution text to be considered by the City Council. C: City Council Yolanta Schwartz Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Sincerely, & acted Wehrle," The Weinberg Law Group 2550 Via Tejon 1 Suite 2B 1 Palos Verdes 1 CA 1 90274 1 310.363.7775 1 howard@weinbcrglaw.la 1 Attachment A City of Rolling Hills Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B Relating to View Preservation Chapter 1 Date of Property Acquisition Chapter 2 "Mature" versus "Maturing" Trees Chapter 3 Retroactivity of Measure B Chapter 1 DATE OF PROPERTY ACQUISITION Section 1001. Interpretation of the Date of Acquisition of Property. Measure B provides that a person may only apply to restore the view existing from the date that the current owner of the property actually acquired the property. In determining whether a transfer of property has resulted in an acquisition affecting the view that a person may apply to have restored, the City shall generally apply the rules applicable to reassessment of property taxes in the County of Los Angeles e,$ i Q- ± ti S mod:Pedir Y� is Resolv+io�n. The impacts of common transfers of property are illustrated below: A. The acquisition date of property acquired through inheritance shall be the date that the previous owner acquired the property, not the date of the transfer by inheritance. B. The acquisition date of property acquired from a third party through an arms - length purchase and sale shall be the date of the sale as evidenced by a deed. C. When property is placed into a revocable . the acquisition date of property shall not change. trust=bancs-irrevoriableAln-aequisition-dare-shall-b- ea. Resolution No.1182 Measure B Interpretation Chapter 2 "MATURE" VERSUS "MATURING" TREES Section 2001. Definition of "Mature" Trees The International Society of Arboriculture defines maturity by "mature height," which means the "maximum height that a plant is likely to reach if the conditions of the planting site are favorable." The Sunset Western Garden Book is a trusted reference guide on trees, plants and other vegetation present in the region and defines a plant species' "maturity" as the timeiat which a plant achieves a certain height range and displays other characteristics. The Sunset Western Garden Book provides maximum height ranges for species of plants typically involved in View Preservation cases in the City. %IP.iq hlyitA r 5 ?o% 0 11 -e - For purposes of the View Preservation Ordinance and Measure B, a plant is "mature" when it reachesdtit maximum height for the species specified in the Sunset Western Garden Book. _iweyer, arborists agree that plants that have been regularly cut may never reach their maximum potential height, and several alternative methodologies are recognized to determine the age of such frees. However, the alternative methodologies are complex and require reliance on a professional arborist. Further, the proponents of Measure B testified before the Planning Commission that the intent of Measure B was to exempt frees that have reached their full species height prior to acquisition of a complainant's property. Therefore, trees that show evidence of regular cutting and are therefore unlikely to reach their maximum potential height shall not be considered "mature" for purposesiof the View Preservation Ordinance and shall not exempt from restorative action. Section 2002. Definition of "Maturing" Trees Trees and other vegetation that are not "mature" as specified in these regulations are "maturing." Section 2003. Presumption that Trees were not "Mature" If evidence is presented, such as historical aerial photographs, showing that of the offending trees or vegetation subject to a complaint >: at or around the time that the complainant acquired the pmperty from which a view is claimed, the complainant shall be entitled to a presumption that the offending trees and vegetation ,pwere not "mature" at the date of acquisition and are therefore subject to restorative action Resolution No.1182 I Measure B Interpretation (one or� more- ( -t-k4} were no} p14n c, `� RECEIVED JAN 2 5 2016 Argument in favor of Measure "B" oil'ng Hills The View Ordinance does not define when the "view" in question existed. Measure surgically defines "view", and preserves the remainder of the 6 -page Ordinance which works well, i.e., requiring that neighbors first try to work things out, establishing a View Committee, and so forth. The current Ordinance has been interpreted to allow someone to buy a house with no view, priced accordingly, and then force neighbors to cut their trees in order to give the desired view. This is grossly unfair. It adds value to the complainant's property while reducing the value of the neighbor's property. Also, the City pays for most of the legal fees related to the complaint, and other costs such as surveys, expert witnesses, and photographs while the neighbor is responsible for their own legal fees and other expenses. Measure B will change the current ordinance to state that a resident is only entitled to the view that existed when that resident bought the house. Because the Ordinance now encourages an inherently unfair transfer of property values, It triggers expensive and unnecessary litigation that we all must pay for with our property taxes. There are currently four view -related lawsuits filed against the City, and more pending. Before circulating the petition, the proponents of the measure urged the City Council on several occasions to start a revision process. The process only began after more than 250 Rolling Hills voters signed the petition to qualify Measure B for the election ballot Let's pin down this small change that fairly defines a view as what an owner bought and paid for when they purchased their property. Please vote "YES" on Measure B lifetiarritectlfil i Norprdn LaCaaE; Lyi$i E. Gill Marcia Schoettle Marion Scharffenberger _ RECEIVED ,LL NOV 0 5 2012 City of Rolling Hills 8y harm mil J&r I/a6p4' The Weinberg Law Group RECEIVED Cit By Via Hand Delivery Heidi Luce City Clerk City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 JAN 2 5 2016 of Rolling H'ils r� (Y�fFTi�v January 25, 2016 Re: Ordinance 346 re View Preservation Law Dear Ms. Luce: Tonight, January 25, 2016, at the City Council hearing, the Council will consider the adoption of Ordinance 346 regarding amcndments to the City's View Preservation Law. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U. S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U. S. 374 (1994), established an important protection against the misuse of the power of land -use regulation. In those cases, the Supreme Court held that a unit of government may not condition the approval of a land -use permit on the owner's relinquishment of a portion of his property (or payment of a fee) unless there is a "nexus" and "rough proportionality" between the government's demand and the effects of the proposed land use. Recently, the Supreme Court issued their decision in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District (133 U.S. 2586 (2013)). In Koontz, the Supreme Court made clear that cities may not impose fees and costs on parties seeking land use entitlements, because those fees and costs violate the Nollan/Dolan test regarding improper takings by the government. The Court stated that a City may not create a "monetary obligation [that] burdened petitioner's ownership of a specific parcel of land." If the City tried to make an applicant pay, forever, to maintain the trees on a neighbor's land, the City would unconstitutionally require the applicant to bear a monetary obligation on his or her land, forever. The View Restoration Law was created to cause the applicant for a view to pay for the restoration of that view. Similarly, it requires that once the City establishes the maximum height and width of trees that must be maintained by the landowner with the offending trees, then that landowner must bear the burden of maintaining those trees. The Koontz case makes it clear that each view restoration decision by the City will be subject to the heightened scrutiny under Nollan/Dolan. There is a "nexus" and relationship between an applicant that wants to restore its 2550 Via Tejon 1 Suite 2B 1 Palos Verdes 1 CA 1 90274 1 310.363.7775 1 howard®wcinbcrglaw.la 1 Ms. Heidi Luce January 25, 2016 Page 2 view, and the requirement that the applicant pay the cost for the tree remediation work to re- establish that view. However, the City will not be able to establish a "nexus" between a successful view restoration case, and any requirement that the applicant pay some portion of the tree maintenance costs for their neighbor's trees. To the contrary, it would be unconstitutional for the City to try and require an applicant to pay any share of the neighbor's future vegetation maintenance costs. In effect, the City would be imposing a perpetual cost on the applicant to preserve the view to which it is entitled. Moreover, that charge by the City would only arise under a land use case where an applicant is seeking to have a view restored, because of the improper actions of the landowner with the trees. This is precisely the sort of improper fee that Nollan/Dolan prohibits. Attached to this letter are my suggested modifications to the Ordinance text to be considered by the City Council. Sincerely, /%uiam/ �eiide,7 The Weinberg Law Group C: City Council Yolanta Schwartz Michael Jenkins, City Attorney (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. E. Amend Section 17.26.060 of the RI-1MC to read as follows: 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. Arty 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 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 6 (J which the vegetation is growing, artless the t_ o d five cost allOmfia aolnrh slralrbr x accnmz aninrl t+3t_arrtter ve -cost allocation: The vegetation shall be maintained in accordance with the final decision so as not to allow for future view impairments. F. Amend Section 17.26.080 of the RHMC to read as follows: 17.26.080 Notification of subsequent owners. Within thirty days of the final decision of the Committee, or the City Council on appeal, an informational covenant shall be recorded against the title of the property on which the offending vegetation exists candtthercomplainangs-property, on a form provided by the City, which shall run with the land and be binding upon all successors in interest G. Add Section 17.26.100 of the RHMC to read as follows: 17.26.100 Indemnification. Complainants shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, attorneys and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, attorneys or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul a decision of the Committee or City Council on appeal restoring an impaired view or that otherwise challenges, or seeks damages resulting from, the issuance, defense, implementation, or enforcement of a view restoration order (collectively "action"). Nothing in this reimbursement obligation shall provide to the complainant any control over decisions made by the City in connection with an action. H. Add to list of Sections at the beginning of the Ordinance: 17.26.100 Indemnification PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK 2016. JEFF PIEPER, MAYOR x Rolling Hills, CA Code of Ordinances Page 1 of RECEIVED JAN 2 5 2016 Chapter 17.26 - VIEW PRESERVATION C(ty of Rolling Hills Sections: BVnl, 1Y1FfiT1Al(a o�� t 17.26.010 - Intent and purpose. COUNU(,ine nose 0/Ef`^,V066 The City recognizes the contribution of views to the overall character and beauty of the City. Panoramic 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 and abatement of view obstructions created by landscaping, while at the same time protecting natural vegetation from indiscriminate removal. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). 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 view is impaired by vegetation growing on property other than their own may seek abatement of the view impairment under the following procedure: A. Application Required. The complainant shall submit a complete application for abatement of view impairment 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 about:blank 01/25/2016 r Rolling I lilts, CA Code of Ordinances Page 2 of 4 prior to filing the complaint. A complaint 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 tp do so. B. 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. If agreement is reached through mediation, it shall be implemented in accordance with Section 17.26.060. C. Public Hearing. In the event mediation fails to achieve agreement, the matter shall he returned to the City Manager, who shall schedule the matter for a public hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views. (Ord. 292 §5, 2003; Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). 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. 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.A 6w (JAI +VW, [o n3uabe. (d*2ckJ 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. The Committee shall make specific written findings in support of the foregoing determinations. E. Action. If the Committee makes finding subsection (D)(3) of this section, it shall order such restorative action as is necessary to abate the view impairment and to restore the complainant's view, 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 Apux uarkto13.2,"6ps-F c. no-9ct witPrao+\c:es--/ca (��unl a -F Ike, (nax)rn Sc;e d of bo ri MI -0;6 about:blank Rolling 1 fills; CA Code of Ordinances Page 3 of 4 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 he 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. F. Finality of Decision. The Committee's decision shall be final twenty days after adoption of its written findings, unless it is appealed to the City Council pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.54. (Ord. 295 §7 (Exh. B (part)), 2004; Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993) (Ord. No. 333 (Measure B), 3-18-2013) 17.26.060 - Implementation of restorative action. A. 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 a 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 darnages 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 thirty days from receipt of the cash deposit. C. Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation in question shall be performed as prescribed by the Committee's final decision 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. A notice of the decision shall be recorded against the title of the property and shall run with the land, thereby giving notice of this obligation to all future owners. D. The implementation method provided for in this section may be modified by the parties or in any final decision if grounds exist to justify such a modification. In particular, the Committee may allocate the cost of restorative action as follows: 1. If the Committee finds that the tree or other vegetation constitutes a safety hazard to the complainant or his property, and is being maintained by the owner in disregard of the safety of others, the owner may be required to pay one hundred percent of the cost of correction; or 2. If the owner is maintaining a hedge fifteen feet or more in height, the Committee may allocate the cost of correction to the property owner,. provided that the owner of the land on which the hedge exists shall not be required to pay more than twenty-five percent of the cost of such correction. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). 17.26.070 - Enforcement. A. about:blank 01/25/2016 Rolling Hills, CA Code of Ordinances Page 4 of 4 Failure or refusal of any person to comojy with a final decision under this chapter or to comply with any provision of this chapter sha constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars or six months in County Jail, or both. failure•orrefcssahfiany person -to earn ply-wk,h-alinal-cleeision-E.ifieler-this-elapter-shall-fartlmr-constitute-a-pabtit-rruisance-which maybe-abated-in-aceorclesee-with-t pxoc-eelr-sr-e-eeaEaineel-ire-C-Kanter-BzB--- 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 attorneys 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. The owner on whose property the offending vegetation exists shall notify all successor owners of the final decision in any proceeding under this chapter, and such decision shall be binding upon all such successors in interest. Within thirty days of the final decision, an informational covenant shall be recorded against the title of the property on a.form provided by the City. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). 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." about:blank 01/25/2016 17.26.050 C (Additional language): Expert arboricultural advice shall be provided only by consulting arborists who are members in good standing of the American Society of Consulting Arborists and the International Society of Arboriculture and who sign a "Certification of Performance" as set forth in this Chapter. 17.26.075 —Liability (1) The City shall not be liable for any damages, injuries, costs or expenses which are the result of any agreements or determinations resulting from mediation, arbitration or litigation concerning view preservation claims or a view seeker's assertions pertaining to views granted or conferred herein; (2) Under no circumstances shall the City have any responsibility or liability to enforce or seek any redress, civil or criminal, for any decision that any person or entity makes concerning a view preservation claim. Enforcement of this chapter shall be only by the affected and interested private parties. CERTIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE I, Michael Crane, certify that: o I have personally inspected the tree(s) and the property referred to in this report and have stated my findings accurately. o I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. o The analysis, opinions, and conclusions stated herein are my own and are based on current scientific procedures and facts. o My analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices. o No one provided significant professional assistance to me, except as indicated within the report. o My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party not upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any subsequent events. I further certify that I am a member in good standing of the American Society of Consulting Arborists and the International Society of Arboriculture. I have been involved in the field of Horticulture in a full-time capacity for a period of more than 15 years. Signed: Registered Consulting Arborist #440; American Society of Consulting Arborist Board Certified Master Arborist #WE 6643B; International Society of Arboriculture Licensed California Agricultural Pest Control Adviser #AA08269 Date: I ASCA: About Us Page 1 of 1 V[Saa A UB I CAN 'OCIUTT 0) CONSULTING ARBORIST5 About 1 Membership : Educational Programs : Industry Resources I members Only What is a Consulting Arborist? : Cons About About ASCA Standards of Professional Practice Leadership News Industry Calendar Contact Us Settle for nothing less than the best when it comes to trees. The American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) is the industry's premier professional association focusing cololy on arboricultural consulting. Consulting Arborists arc authoritative experts on trees, consulting property owners, municipalities, attorneys, insurance professionals and others on tree disease, placement, preservation, and dispute resolution, as well as providing consulting and expert testimony in the legal, insurance, and environmental arenas. The role of the Consulting Arborist is to bring a comprehensive, objective viowpoint tt the diagnosis, appraisal, and evaluation of arboricultural issues. A higher degree of knowledge and stewardship. ASCA's more than 600 Consulting Arborists separate themselves from other arborists througl their commitment to the continual development of their knowledge and skills as industry leaders. To maintain membership status and ensure that their professional training keeps them current on arboricultural issues, ASCA members must meet strenuous continuing education requirements every two years. To that end; ASCA dolivorc the boot resources for skills development, career enhancement, idea sharing, and training in the profession. Our members are held to the highest standards c professional practice. In addition, we are the only source for achieving the industry's coveted Registered Consulting Arborist® (RCA) designation. Our efforts ensure that when an industry professional or property owner hires an ASCA member or RCA to consult on tree preservation, hazardous trees, appraisal, other tree health issues, or to serve as an expert witness, they're getting the most authoritative advice the industry has to offer. Copyright 2016 ASCA. All rights reserved. 1 9707 Key West Avenue, Suite 100, Rockville, MD 20850 1 (301) 947-0483 https://www.asca-consultants.org/about/index.cfm 01/25/2016 ASCA STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE MAY 2011 asaa AMERICAN SOCIETY of CONSULTING ARBORISTS FOREWORD ASCA Members agree to abide by the Standards of Professional Practice as a condition of membership in the American Society of Consulting Arborists. The Standards of Professional Practice provide guidance for members to govern their professional conduct. ASCA does not warrant that individual members will adhere to these Standards of Professional Practice in any instance, nor does ASCA hold itself out as having a responsibility to govern or review the business practices of members or the quality of related work, services, or goods provided by members. DEFINITIONS Arboricultural. Pertaining to the awareness, care, evaluation, identification, growing, maintenance, management, planting, selection, and treatment of trees and other woody plants. Arboricultural Consultant. An individual engaged in Arboricultural Consulting, also known as a Consulting Arborist. Arboricultural Consulting. The profession which involves the application of technical knowledge, analytical skills and professional judgment to arboricultural-related facts and circumstances. ASCA. The American Society of Consulting Arborists. ASCA's A Consultant's Guide to Writing Effective Reports. A book written and initially published by ASCA in 2004, including subsequent editions or revisions thereof. Consulting Arborist. An individual engaged in Arboricultural Consulting, also known as an Arboricultural Consultant. . Continuing Education Requirements, Continuing, periodic education required to maintain eligibility for membership in ASCA, as set forth in the ASCA Bylaws. 1. Ethical Principles. 1.1 Competence. Members shall strive to perform Arboricultural Consulting services with competence. A. Improvement. Members should continuously and assiduously strive to improve their qualifications and proficiency as Consulting Arborists. B. Minimum Continuing Education. Members shall satisfy ASCA's Continuing Education Requirements. C. Practice Areas. Members shall strive to attain and maintain competence in the particular areas in which they practice. This may involve study and experience beyond that required for admission to ASCA or to satisfy ASCA's Continuing Education Requirements. D. Roles. Members shall strive to attain and maintain competence in the particular roles in which they practice. This may involve study and experience beyond that required for admission to ASCA or to satisfy ASCA's Continuing Education Requirements. E. Assignments. Members shall undertake only those assignments that are reasonably within the member's range of technical competence, unless the member obtains competent assistance and so advises the client. 1.2 Due Care. Members shall strive to perform Arboricultural Consulting services with due care. Due care varies with each assignment, but may be generally defined as the level of care that would be required of a reasonably prudent professional under the same or similar circumstances. 1.3 Impartiality. Members shall strive to perform Arboricultural Consulting services with impartiality whenever they hold themselves out to be acting as disinterested, impartial and unbiased third parties. Members need not act with impartiality when acting in the role of an advocate. Members acting as advocates are not relieved of the duties of independence and objectivity. 1.4 Independence. Members shall strive to perform Arboricultural Consulting services with actual and apparent independence and shall avoid actual and apparent conflicts of interest unless disclosed to and waived by clients. A. Actual Independence. Members shall remain free of any actual influences on their ability to be objective when reaching conclusions, rendering opinions and providing recommendations. B. Independence in Appearance. Members shall be mindful of apparent or potential influences on their objectivity and shall exercise careful professional judgment in determining whether to disclose such influences and affirm their objectivity or to decline an assignment. 1.5 Integrity. Members shall strive to provide Arboricultural Consulting services with integrity, that is, with fairness and honesty. 1.6 Objectivity. Members shall strive to provide Arboricultural Consulting services with objectivity, that is, without bias or prejudice and based upon facts and reasonably informed assumptions. 2. General Practice Standards. 2.1 Assignments. A. Definition of Each Assignment. Members shall communicate clearly with clients and employers to define each assignment. The definition of the assignment should identify factors which include: i) the issue(s) to be resolved, and/or the problem(s) to be solved, and/or the question(s) to be answered; ii)the agreed upon level of thoroughness; iii) the scope of investigation or other work necessary to complete the assignment in a manner which is adequate and appropriate; iv) the type(s) of results (such as conclusions, explanations, observations, opinions, recommendations or specifications) desired; v) the agreed upon scope and limitations of any report and the intended purpose(s) and use(s) of any such report; and vi) the manner and/or amount of compensation to be provided to the member, provided that such compensation is lawful and clearly stated. B. Independent and Objective Character of the Results of Arboricultural Consulting Assignments. The results of members' Arboricultural Consulting assignments should always be objective, that is, based upon what the member perceives to be relevant facts and reasonable assumptions, and independent of the desires, needs or wishes of the client or employer and of the interests of the member. C. Methodology. Members shall base conclusions, opinions and recommendations on adequate and appropriate methodology (analyses, investigations, tests and other procedures). D. Adequate Data. Members shall base conclusions, opinions and recommendations on adequate data unless such data are not available or cannot reasonably be gathered or made available in the context of the assignment, in which case members shall disclose limitations on the adequacy of data and any resulting limitations on the accuracy or reliability of conclusions, opinions or recommendations. E. Verifiable - Justifiable Results. Results of assignments should generally be verifiable by other professionals using similar methodology. Because professionals can reach differing results, members shall be prepared to explain and justify their results in the face of divergent opinion. F. Record Keeping. Members shall maintain copies of their written reports and other records of their assignments for five years after the completion of the assignment, two years after the final disposition of a judicial or other dispute resolution proceeding in which the member has provided services, whichever period expires last, or for such longer period as is required by applicable law. 2.2 Reports and Presentation Standards. Members shall endeavor to report their conclusions, opinions and recommendations in a manner that makes them clear, unambiguous and usable. Members are encouraged to use A Consultant's Guide to Writing Effective Reports as a reference when preparing reports. A. Limiting Conditions. Members shall clearly disclose and explain in their reports any limitations on authority, competence, scope, data, methodology or results, as well as any limitations on the use or application of the report. B. Preliminary Reports. Members shall clearly identify reports which are intended to be preliminary or to present the results of preliminary investigations. C. Degrees of Certainty or Reliability. Members shall not misstate the degree of certainty of an opinion, if any. D. Originality and the Work of Others. Members shall not represent the work of others to be their own, whether by plagiarism, or by failing to obtain permission to use or to cite as a source the work of others. E. Professional Responsibility. Members shall accept professional responsibility for their own work and the conclusions, opinions or recommendations which they report based on that work. F. Divergent or Dissenting Opinions. Members should exercise careful professional judgment to determine whether disclosure of a divergent or dissenting opinion, conclusion or recommendation by a collaborator in an assignment is necessary for a client or employer to make an informed decision. 2.3 Advertising, Promotion and Solicitation. A. Truthfulness. Members shall not make any deceptive, false or misleading claim, promise, representation or statement in verbal or written advertising, promotion or solicitation. B. Results Offered. Members shall not guarantee, imply, offer or represent that the results of an assignment can or will be tailored or adjusted to any particular conclusion other than one which represents a member's honest and objective opinion. 2.4 Confidentiality. Unless they have been specifically released from this duty by the party to whom it is owed, members shall not reveal information obtained in the conduct of providing Arboricultural Consulting services which they have agreed to maintain in confidence, or which the reasonably prudent member would recognize as likely, if disclosed, to adversely affect the interests of the client or employer. A. Extraordinary Exceptions. Members may reveal such information to the extent they believe necessary: i) To prevent an appreciable risk of significant harm to public safety or the property of others which cannot be reasonably prevented in any other manner. ii)To establish claims or defenses on behalf of such members. iii) To comply with applicable law or court orders. B. Specific Roles. Members acting in appraisal, arbitration/mediation or forensic expert roles should inquire to determine whether they have more stringent duties of confidentiality than those set forth herein. Members acting in specific roles shall fulfill any additional duties of confidentiality imposed upon them. 3. Duties to Clients and Employers. 3.1 In General. In their professional relationships with clients and employers, members have a duty to strive to comply with the Ethical Principles and General Practice Standards set forth herein. 4. Duties to ASCA. 4.1 Arboricultural Consulting Profession. Members shall regard Arboricultural Consulting as an honorable and necessary profession. 4.2 General Conduct. Members shall conduct themselves in a manner which enhances the standing of Arboricultural Consulting and ASCA and shall avoid practices and actions which discredit Arboricultural Consulting or ASCA. 4.3 Specific Conduct. Members shall strive to provide Arboricultural Consulting services in compliance with these Standards of Professional Practice and shall adhere to the Bylaws of ASCA. 4.4 Professional Courtesy. Members should strive to further the interests of ASCA by cooperating in the lawful exchange of information and experiences with other members. International Society of Arboriculture Page 1 of 2 ISA.International Society of Arboriculture Membership • SEARCH SITE join ISA tOrCheckout MIMEO About ISA • Find an Arborist • Newsroom • Job Bank - Contact Us • LOGIN Pwfassional Credentials • Education and Research • Events • Shop • Public Outreach LOGIN er CREATE AN ACCOUNT 0 Product Smyth New Products Products Apparel » Arbor Day Resources Books Brochures Childress Products Combos CDs D\'DS Exam Study Materials » Certified Arborist Afnuicipul Specialist i5ce Worker Aerial Lift Specialist Tree Worker Clim her Specialist Utility Specialist Board Certified blaster Arborist Spanish Products Standards and BM Ps Online CEU Quizzes » Online Courses CEU Opportunities Area of Practice Join ISA » Printable Order Ponn Store Home Page Best Management Practices - Tree Pruning, Second Edition By Edward Gilman and Sharon Lilly )tcaieWS Item A: P1314 Member Price: 59.95 Non-member Price: 511.95 Quantity: Cliciam 'maw am.crr•tur."i.. Add to Cart Email to a Friend ISA has developed a se rips of Best Managem end Practices (BMPs) for the purpose of interpreting tree cart standards and providing guidelines of practice for arborists, tree workers, and the people who employ their services. This BMP provides reasons why pruning is undertaken, explains pruning types and amounts, provides background on pruning cuts, resiews sampl e pruning specifications, and comments on timing of th ese operations. 11 also serves as a companion publication f or the American National Standard for Tree Care Operations —Tree Shrub and Other Wordu Plnnt Management— StandardPrnrtirea (Pr 'initial Topics in this BMP include: • Pruning Objectives • Pruning Methods (Types) • Bench Attachment • Pruning Cuts • How Much to Prune • When to Prune • Pruning Tools • Pruning Specifications • Glossary of Terms (©20o8, 37pp.) Purchase this BMP along with its corresponding Moo and save nowt BMP also available in Spanish RELATED PRODUCTS http://www.isa-arbor.com/store/product.aspx?ProductID=58 01/25/2016 RECEIVED 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 January 21, 2016 City Council City of Rolling Hills JAN 2 2 2016 City of Rolling Hills By SHOULD THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SPEND TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO RESOLVE VIEW DISPUTES AMONG PROPERTY OWNERS? Dear City Councilpersons: No, taxpayer dollars should not be used to resolve disputes between property owners in Rolling Hills. Resolution of property disputes is best left up to the view - seeker and tree/vegetation owner. If they can't reach an agreement, they can turn to arbitration or the courts —without Rolling Hills being dragged into the fray! Taxpayer dollars would be better used for such improvement projects as undergrounding of utilities, increased sheriff patrols, fire -fuel reduction, needs of seniors, city beautification and so forth. Factors to consider: 1) The City should remain scrupulously neutral in resolving view disputes. There is not a presumption that the view seeker is the wronged party. It is entirely possible that a view seeker could file a frivolous view resolution in an attempt to obtain a view that did not exist when they purchased their property. The tree/vegetation owner deserves equal protection under the law from an unscrupulous owner seeking to increase their property value at the expense of a neighbor's property value. • City attorney's only role should be solely to interpret the law and provide guidance to the view committee or city counsel • .View -seeker and/or tree owner should retain legal counsel, at their own expense, if they wish to be represented • View -seeker and/or tree owner should retain arborists or other experts if they desire, at their own expense • I suggest that the view committee go back to being a citizen committee separate from the Planning Commission. They have plenty of other things to do! 2) The view seeker is seldom financially less able to pursue a view dispute than is the tree/vegetation owners. That's the argument given for spending taxpayer dollars to help the view -seeker regain/create a view. In Rolling Hills, it would be rare for a property owner to be so destitute that they cannot afford legal and expert representation. In a recent view resolution case, Occhipinti and Fournier Page 1 1 C0MM..Nts RtCEtVLtt NS of 4'45.Pm oN ►4L5(IS vs. Sherman, my supposition is that the view -seekers were financially much better able to prosecute the view resolution action than was Sherman. They don't need the help of Rolling Hills taxpayers! 3) The City should not become a party to a dispute between property owners and participate financially in expensive litigation. It is very rare for a city to shoulder the financial risk of becoming a party to a view dispute. Most cities provide view resolution guidelines and definitions in an ordinance, and provide a view committee that acts as a facilitator or ombudsman to assist the view -seeker and tree owner on an advisory basis in resolving a dispute. If the parties cannot agree, they can then turn to arbitration or litigation —without the City being dragged into expensive litigation! The RH Planning Director provided an analysis of view ordinances in benchmark cities. I have summarized the results below, combined with a similar study I conducted a few years ago (attached). CITY PARTY TO DISPUTE NOT PARTY TO DISPUTE LIABILITY INDEMINIFICATION Berkeley X X Beverly Hills X X Laguna Beach X X Malibu X X Oakland X X Palo Alto X Tree Protection Ord. only Palos Verdes Estates X X Rancho Palos Verdes X Rolling Hills X Rolling Hills Estates X X Sausalito X Tiburon X X 4) Reimbursement of City's view remediation action costs- loserpays all Prior to adoption of Measure B, the view seeker could get, with the City's help, a view that did not exist when they purchased their property in Rolling Hills. It was entirely fitting that the view -seeker should reimburse the City for its expenses, as obtaining a view they never had could significantly improve their property value. After passage of Measure B, not so much! Now, the wronged party is likely to be a property owner who had a view when they purchased their property, and now needs City help to restore the view. The tree -owner could well be the recalcitrant party unwilling to be neighborly and restore his neighbor's view. Page 1 2 Of course, there is also the possibility of a view -seeker attempting to obtain a view that they did not have when they purchased their property, by filing a frivolous view remediation action. Requiring the losing party to pay all of the City's costs Closer pays all") would discourage such frivolous view applications, and would also encourage uncooperative property owners whose trees have grown to block a neighbor's view to work with their neighbor to restore a view, without getting the City involved. Most city tree/view ordinances also stipulate that the prevailing party of any civil action between a view seeker and tree/vegetation owner shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in the litigation. Sincerely, Lynn E. Gill Page 13 RECEIVED 01/24/2016 16:10 3103777288 ROLLING HIILS CITY 01/24/2016 04:O1PM 13105412817 SHERMAN RECEIVAE-/03 JAN 2 5 2016 FAX TO ROLLING HILLS CITY COUNCIL City of Rolling Hills By ATTENTION : PLEASE YOLANTA 310-377-7288 1-24-2016 FROM: MICHAEL & SANDRA SHERMAN 33 CREST ROAD EAST ROLLING HILLS, CA. 90274 3 PAGES Dear Yolanta, Please duplicate this letter and give each of the R.H. City Council members a copy of it to read et. al. at the meeting on Monday , January 25`", 2016 . It is very important that the public and the council know and understand what we have negatively experienced as residents of this city. Thank you. Sincerely, Michael arid Sandy Sherman Ktlt1VtU b1/Y4/281b lb:lb 3183///288 01/24/2016 04:01PM 13105412817 SHERMAN 2 - ROLLING HIILS CITY PAGE 02/03 33 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 January 22, 2016 City Council City of Rolling Hills Dear City Councilpersons: My wife and I have written this letter to explain the financial burdens that we had to experience in the past as well as the future regarding the cutting of our trees to enhance views demanded by our neighbors across Crest Road -- the Occhipiniti and Fournier( "0 & F" ) families. - Over a period of many months, our total legal defense fees exceeded more than $ 1 100,000.0 & F families joined forces and used the City and City's attorney at no expense to their families. They optionally hired an independent attorney to jointly represent the both of them , but did not have to. The View Committee studied the issues at hand , did field trips and determined that over 60 trees on our property should be trimmed and maintained —some annually and the rest biannually . And to paraphrase the committee's findings — that because the cutting of such trees and hedges was so extensive that the" future cost- burden was onerous", and should be shared between the Shermans and the "0 & F " families. The committee voted 2 tot on this issue. At least we felt that this would be more fair . However, they appealed this decision to the City Council and the council voted to overturn the committee's decision and now we have.to unfairly pay for ALL future costs of maintenance. This is totally unfair because every year value is lost from our property and 60+ trees are subject to disease from being cut at our expense. Also, our privacy and KtUt1VtU 01/Z4/ZU1b 1b:117 J1tlJ///Z6 01/24/2016 04:01PM 13105412817 SHERMAN 3 KULLINla M11L5 UIIY PAGE 03/03 enjoyment of our property are being diminished . Trees and park like environment are the very reasons we moved to Rolling Hills in 2007 from RPV. Now the neighbors across Crest Road from us, can not only claim the wonderful city light views they always had to the north, but can also claim ocean views to the south ---at our total expense. Their property values have been increased and ours decreased. I am a licensed real estate in agent in California and my colleagues have confirmed to me that each neighbor has probably had a $ 500,000 increase or more in the value of their properties because of the above • • decisions. In addition to the tremendous financial burden, there has been the burden of huge stress, and wasted time and energy in defending what is rightfully ours. To be honest, if we had known that we would be heavily involved in such an outrageous situation with the City of Rolling Hills and neighbors like " O & F" ,we would NEVER have purchased our home in Rolling Hills. In fact, a couple of our friends who were considering purchasing here have now decided that they do not wish to live in our community where innocent property owners can be victims of such injustice and discrimination. The Shermans have gained nothing . Where is the fairness of these decisions and policies of Rolling Hills 77777 Sincerely, Michael Sherman Sandy Sherman Monday, January 25, 2016 8:01:27 AM Pacific Standard Time Subject: input regarding proposed modifications to ordinance 346 Date: From: To: Saturday, January 23, 2016 10:11:51 AM Pacific Standard Time Laurence Bellagamba <bellagamba@me.com> Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net> 1. Recommend again that Rolling Hills should not have a view ordinance. 2. Pleas note 17.12.220 fails to define what the ordinance is trying to address. The word "view" is used to define "view". Perhaps the definition is: "View" means what the human eyes can see from a principal residence, but not including.... " RECEIVED JAN 2 5 2016 City of Rolling Hills By The definition of "view impairment" uses "a significant interference" in its definition without defining significant or interference. A possible relevant definition of significant from Webster's is "noticeably or measurably large amount". Perhaps the definition is: "View impairment" means there are obstructions which prevent more than 90% of a view that otherwise would exist." A view can be quantified. A view consists of degrees in the horizontal (left and right) and vertical (up and down). The unit of measure is called a steradian. An view obstruction prevents a fraction of potentially visible steradians from being seen. What fraction constitutes an impairment? The draft ordinance fails to define this. Rather, it calls for a mediator to attempt to reach an agreement between the parties, and failing that, for 3 other people to impose one. Certainly if the parties can agree to a remedy, that is as acceptable outcome. But no ordinance is necessary for the parties to utilize mediation. Imposing a decision from 3 people could easily be unacceptable to one party, and if upsetting enough, lead to a lawsuit against the City, which the rest of us don't need to pay to defend. An ordinance that can not define it's subject matter is not going to be useful or enforceable. 3. Recommend that 17.26.030 E be edited as recommended by the input received from Ms Gil on 19 Jan to incorporate modern and effective tree trimming procedures. 4. Recommend 17.26.060 C be deleted. Any future view impairment should be addressed per the ordinance. The seeker of the view should b responsible for cost to obtain it. That you very much for the well composed information package on the city's website. Sincerely, Larry and Julie Bellagamba 3 Flying Mane Road Page 1 of 1 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. I 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 22' day of January, 2016, I serve the within City Council Meeting - 01/25/2016 a copy of which is annexed hereto and made a part hereof, on the person, or persons, named below by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Rolling Hills, California addressed as follows: E -MAILED MAILED DropBox NONE RH Web site IistSery Interested parties DELIVERED City Attorney City Manager CouncilMembers City Council Dieringer, Pieper, Black, Mirsch and Wilson Also posted at City Hall, at www.Rolling-Hills.org and pdf's in DropBox. I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 22nd day of January, 2016 at Rolling Hills, California. Ewa Nikodem Administrative Assistant 8(4 el Zeal, g414 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377.7288 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 2016 7:30 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of January 11, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. Financial Statement for the Month of October, November and December 2015. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. D. Allied Recycling Tonnage Report for November 2015. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. E. Correspondence from Republic Services confirming the following dates for the 2016 bi- annual clean up and shred events in the City of Rolling Hills: April 9 (greenwaste), April 16 (bulky items), April 30 (shred), September 10 (greenwaste), September 17 (bulky items) and September 24 (shred). RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. 4. COMMISSION ITEMS NONE. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. WAIVE FULL READING AND INTRODUCE ON FIRST READING ORDINANCE NO. 346. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION, IN ZONING CASE NO. 881 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2015-03. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). Page 1 of 2 6. OLD BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1182 ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. 7. NEW BUSINESS NONE. 8. OPEN AGENDA - APPROXIMATELY 8:00 P.M. - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME 9. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS 10. MATTERS FROM STAFF A. QUARTERLY SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015. B. WILLDAN ENGINEERING ANNUAL UPDATE. (ORAL REPORT) C. RESIDENTIAL BURGLARY UPDATE. (ORAL REPORT) 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS NONE. 12. CLOSED SESSION NONE. 13. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION NONE. 14. ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: Monday, February 8, 2016 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Public Comment is welcome on any item prior to City Council action on the item. Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for review in the City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting due to your disability, please contact the Deputy City Clerk at (310) 377- 1521 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for your review of this agenda and attendance at this meeting. City Council Agenda 01/25/16 Page 2 of 2 • DRAFT Agenda Item No. 3-A Meeting Date: 01/25/16 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 2016 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Pieper at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Black, Dieringer, Mirsch, Wilson and Mayor Pieper. Councilmembers Absent: None. Others Present: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Terry Shea, Finance Director. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Wendy Starks, Associate Planner. William Hassoldt, 10 Pine Tree Lane. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road. Norm Miller, 4 Chesterfield Road. Howard Weinberg, Attorney. Roger Hawkins, 37 Crest Road West. Tina Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West. Tom Heinsheimer, 7 Johns Canyon Road. John Blazevich, 1 Buggy Whip Drive. Spencer Karpf, 8 Maverick Lane. Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West. John Nunn, 1 Crest Road West. V'Etta Virtue, 4 Maverick Lane. CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. A. Minutes — (1) Regular Meeting of November 9, 2015 and (2) Regular Meeting of November 23, 2015. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. Consideration of the City Council Approved Vendor List. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. D. Consideration of Fiscal Year 2016/2017 Budget Preparation Calendar. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. E. City Council Finance/Budget/Audit Committee meeting notes of December 17, 2015. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. Councilmember Black moved that the City Council approve the items on the consent calendar as presented. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Mayor Pieper suggested taking New Business items 7A and 7B pertaining to the Audit Report and consideration of opening a new checking account out of order. Hearing no objection, he so ordered. NEW BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF THE 2014-15 ANNUAL FINANCIAL AUDIT. Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Finance Director Shea presented the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) stating that the auditors have provided an independent report to the City Council along with the CAFR which provides an unmodified opinion which is the highest level of assurance that the auditors can give. He noted that there was a significant change in the report this year as required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) which mandated that City record its unfunded CalPERS pension liability (GASB 68). He further reviewed Statement of Net Positions noting that the net pension liability is shown at $421,924 as of June 30, 2014. Councilmember Black commented that the number reported is inaccurate because it is based on an inaccurate rate of return. Mr. Shea further stated that the City's total net position is $6.5 million and unrestricted of $4.8 million and then reviewed the Govemmental Fund balances as well as the statement of revenues and expenditures. Brief discussion ensued concerning the City's unfunded pension liability and the actual rate of return which is lower and would result in a higher liability. Following brief discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer moved that the City Council receive and file 2014- 15 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Councilmember Black seconded the motion, which carried without objection. CONSIDERATION OF OPENING AN INTEREST NOW CHECKING ACCOUNT WITH OPUS BANK. Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Finance Director Shea presented the staff report which recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to open a new checking account at Opus Bank in order to increase the City's investment. He stated that the City is currently involved in a Certificate of Deposit Account Registry (CDAR) through Malaga Bank but the rate of return has dropped from .65% to .25%. He stated that Opus Bank will guarantee the City a rate of .65% if $1,000,000 is invested for a 1 -year term. Mr. Shea further reviewed Opus Bank's collateralization. Minutes City Council Meeting 01-11-16 Following brief discussion concerning the collateralization and other investment options, Councilmember Black moved that the City Council authorize the City Manager to open an Interest Now Checking Account with Opus Bank and deposit $1,000,000 of the City's funds into the account. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection. COMMISSION ITEMS RESOLUTION NO. 2015-23. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN ADDITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A POOL EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE ON A PROPERTY WITH RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT CONDITION; GRADING FOR A GUEST PARKING AREA AND VARIANCES TO LOCATE THE EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE IN THE FRONT YARD AREA OF THE SITE, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT DISTURBANCE, AND TO LOCATE A PORTION OF A 3' HIGH RETAINING WALL WITHIN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 884 AT 13 OUTRIDER ROAD, (LOT 94-A-EF), ROLLING HILLS, CA, (HANG JA YOO). Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 884 at 13 Outrider Road to construct a parking area off an existing driveway, to add to an existing residence and to relocate the existing pool equipment to the front of the property. She reviewed the configuration of the lot and the existing structures on the property. She stated that this request, except for the variance, was brought before the Planning Commission because this property has condition that any further development be brought before the Planning Commission for review. She stated that the Planning Commission approved the applicant's request on a 5-0 vote with conditions that the area between the parking space and the roadway easement be planted to soften its appearance. Councilmember Black moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-23 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 884 at 13 Outrider Road. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-25. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO FILL IN AND CONVERT AN EXISTING CABANA TO A GUEST HOUSE AND TO CONSTRUCT A RAISED DECK AT 7 CREST ROAD EAST IN ZONING CASE NO. 891 (LOT 3 -FT), ROLLING HILLS, CA. (DOTY). Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 897 at 7 Crest Road East to convert an existing cabana and covered porch to a guesthouse. She stated that the applicant is also proposing to convert a raised planter to a raised deck which will be 3 ft. out of grade. She further reviewed the applicant's request for a 319 sq. ft. trellis with a lighted outdoor kitchen area and stated that the applicant also asked the Planning Commission to determine if the proposed lighting under the proposed trellis meets the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. She stated that the Zoning Ordinance specifically lists permitted lighting but has a provision that can, with a hearing, determine if lighting not specifically listed meets the intent of the Ordinance. She stated that the Planning Commission approved the applicant's request on a 5-0 vote and found the lights to Minutes City Council Meeting 01-11-16 be not obtrusive and to meet the intent of the Ordinance. Discussion ensued concerning the proposed lighting, with Councilmember Black suggesting that the City's ordinance should be based on lumens rather than wattage. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer, Planning Director Schwartz stated that if there are any complaints from neighbors about the lights, such complaints would be handled as a code enforcement item. Following brief discussion concerning the proposed lighting, Councilmember Black moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-25 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 891 at 7 Crest Road East. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, THE PUBLIC HEARING IN ZONING CASE NO. 880 WILL BE CONTINUED TO A DATE TO BE SELECTED AT THIS MEETING. ZONING CASE NO. 880 - REVISED. REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR A 280 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION OF WHICH 41 SQUARE FEET WOULD ENCROACH UP TO 5.2' INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND THE ROOF OVERHANG WOULD ENCROACH 3.8' INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK BEYOND THE MAXIMUM OF 5' ALLOWED, AND FOR A RETAINING WALL THAT WOULD BE 20' LONG, BETWEEN 3' TO 5' HIGH AND WHICH WOULD NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2.5' IN HEIGHT TO ENCROACH 10' INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 880 - REVISED, AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 78-RH), ROLLING HILLS, CA, (HASSOLDT). THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301, CLASS 1 EXEMPTION. At the request of the applicant, consideration of this item was continued to a regular meeting of the Rolling Hill City Council scheduled to be held on Monday, February 22, 2016 beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. AT THE REQUEST OF THE PARTIES, THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPEALS OF COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS RESOLUTION NO. 2015-03-CTV WILL BE CONTINUED TO A DATE TO BE SELECTED AT THIS MEETING. CONSIDERATION OF TWO APPEALS OF COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS RESOLUTION NO. 2015-03-CTV SETTING FORTH FINDINGS RELATING TO TRIMMING OF TREES AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD DUE TO VIEW IMPAIRMENT FROM 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD. At the request of the parties, consideration of this item was continued to an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on Monday, February 22, 2016 beginning at 7:00 a.m. for the purpose of conducting a site visit to 15 Portuguese Bend Road and 18 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, Califomia. Minutes City Council Meeting 01-11-16 Recognizing that it was 8:00 p.m., Mayor Pieper called for the open agenda. OPEN AGENDA - APPROXIMATELY 8:00 P.M. - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME None. PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED) CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE NO. 346. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION, IN ZONING CASE NO. 881 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2015-03. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). AND Mayor Pieper introduced the item and called for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that some correspondence was received since the dissemination of the agenda packet and copies of those documents have been placed on the dais and made available to the public. She stated that there is an error in the staff report on p. 6 where Mr. Schoettle is misquoted and shown at the wrong address. Planning Director Schwartz stated that there are two items related to view preservation on tonight's agenda — the first is a proposed Zoning Code Amendment and the second is interpretation of Measure B. She further stated that the proposed ordinance does not change the language of Measure B because it cannot be changed except for by a vote of the people. She reviewed the history behind the current View Preservation Ordinance noting that the Planning Commission held several public forums and was discussing amending the Ordinance in early 2012 but was directed to suspend that activity due to a proposed ballot measure set to be placed on the ballot in March 2013. She reviewed the provisions set forth by Measure B that was adopted by the voters in March 2013 and stated that following its adoption, it was determined that some of the provisions it set forth were ambiguous and needed definition. She further stated that because of these factors, in July 2014, the City Council appointed an ad hoc committee consisting of Mayor Pieper and Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer to review the Ordinance and discuss how Measure B should be interpreted. Following the ad hoc committee's discussion, recommendations for changes to the Ordinance were forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and public hearing. Ms. Schwartz stated that the proposed Ordinance mostly corrects typographical errors and defines and clarifies the Ordinance. She stated that during its deliberations about the ordinance amendments, the ad hoc committee agreed on most of the amendments but there were two items for which they did not come to agreement - the first being indemnification and the second being cost allocation of maintenance costs after initial remediation. Subsequently, the Planning Commission was directed to review and discuss the proposed amendments as well as the two items regarding indemnification and maintenance costs. Following several public hearings and lengthy deliberation, the Planning Commission agreed with the Ad Hoc Committee's proposed revisions to the Ordinance and determined that the ordinance should provide indemnification for the City and that the subsequent maintenance cost should be borne by the tree owner but the Ordinance should give the Committee on Trees and Views discretion to allocate the costs between the two parties if finding can be made to warrant such an arrangement as presented in the proposed Ordinance. She further stated that the staff report also includes a summary of the public testimony as well Minutes City Council Meeting 01-11-16 as the minutes from the Planning commission meetings where this item was discussed. She stated that the staff report contains the proposed ordinance as well as a table showing the existing ordinance compared to the proposed ordinance along with comments regarding the amendments. She further reviewed the items contained in the staff report including a matrix of other cities' ordinances. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer clarified that during the ad hoc committee's discussion regarding the ability of an applicant to have multiple views that it was her opinion that the number of views should be limited to two distinct view positions and not unlimited views. Planning Director Schwartz stated that the item Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer is referring to can be found on page 33 in Paragraph B and she read the language as proposed referring to multiple views. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer stated that it should be made clear that the recommendation is from the Planning Commission not the ad hoc committee. Mayor Pieper called for public comments relative to the proposed ordinance amendment. William Hassoldt, 10 Pine Tree Lane addressed the City Council stating that he is in favor of view corridors not views from every window. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road addressed the City Council suggesting that rather than amending/fixing the existing ordinance the City Council should adopt a new ordinance similar to the one adopted by the City of Rolling Hills Estates. He further stated that he drafted an ordinance based on the Rolling Hills Estates' ordinance and provided it for the Planning Commission and City Council's consideration. Norm Miller, 4 Chesterfield Road addressed the City Council stating that there is no way to satisfy all of the parties in view related disputes and it is not possible to define what the best "view corridor' is. Howard Weinberg, Attorney addressed the City Council to offer suggestions with regard to the proposed text of the ordinance as follows: in the definition of view corridor, include a threshold by adding language that provides that all of the view corridors in a restored view are not less than 70% or 75% of preexisting view breadth that existed before the action was taken; in Section C (circle page 35) and Section C (circle page 36) where automatic termination of an application takes place when certain events don't occur to add language that if such termination is to occur that it is without prejudice to the applicant to reapply; in Paragraph B (circle page 39) where it gives 90 days for the remediation to be done or if additional time is required by an expert at the earliest date recommended, to add an outside threshold date not later than 9 or 12 months; and in Paragraph C (circle page 39) to strike the added language that allows for an alternative cost allocation for ongoing maintenance. Roger Hawkins, 37 Crest Road West addressed the City Council to suggest that that the City Council should remain neutral and stay out of view disputes; leaving it to the residents to resolve view issues so that the City's litigation liability is reduced. Tina Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road addressed the City Council in agreement with Mr. Hawkins. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council in agreement with Mr. Hawkins. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West addressed the City Council also in agreement with Mr. Hawkins and stated that the City should stay out of the financial part of view issues. Minutes City Council Meeting 01-11-16 Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Pieper asked for comments from the City Council. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer suggested an amendment to the proposed ordinance on circle page 34 pertaining to the definition of "View Corridors" to change language so that it doesn't allow for "an unlimited number of views" but rather is limited to a maximum of two distinct views listed in the view provision if the views are from opposite directs such as north/south or east/west. Councilmember Black commented that he thought with the passage of Measure B the City's current ordinance was supplanted by Measure B. In response, City Attorney Jenkins stated that Measure B only affected a few distinct sections of the Ordinance and left the rest in tact. He further stated that if the intent was to repeal the rest of Ordinance then the language should have said so but since it did not the remainder of the Ordinance remains in effect. Discussion ensued concerning the issue of indemnification. Mayor Pieper commented that he does not feel the City should require indemnification because it is the City's role to protect its residents. Councilmember Black concurred stating that sometimes it is the role of City government to stand up for the little guy. He also stated that he feels the City should continue to have a view ordinance and not get out it as was suggested. Mayor Pieper concurred. Further discussion ensued concerning whether or not the City should have a view ordinance. Councilmember Mirsch commented that she feels that both trees and views are important and it is not a matter of one or the other. She further commented that the intent of the Ordinance is to balance both sides of the issue — trees and views — and it is incumbent upon the City Council to continue with a View Ordinance if both trees and views are an asset and value to the Community as stated in the General Plan. She further commented that she feels that if the City is going to have a View Ordinance that it is not right to ask someone who chooses to avail themselves of the Ordinance to indemnify the City. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer suggested that there is a third option where the City would make an adjudicatory decision but enforcement of the decision would be up to the parties. Discussion ensued concerning using such a process. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer further suggested that the City could also set up a fund where the residents could apply for assistance with legal costs associated with enforcement of the View Ordinance. Councilmember Black and Mayor Pieper commented that the City cannot use public funds for such a purpose. Mayor Pieper further commented that he feels it is necessary for the City to have a View Ordinance and he feels that the Ordinance is balanced and takes both trees and views into consideration and does not indiscriminately remove trees. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer stated that she feels there may be a better alternative and she feels that the City Council needs to be guardians of the public trust and protect the City's resources. Further discussion ensued concerning the indemnification issue and the legal process used for challenging the City's decision. In response to Councilmember Mirsch with regard the intent and purpose of the Ordinance as shown in Section17.26.010, City Attorney Jenkins clarified that canyons, vistas and hillsides may be considered views as defined in Section 17.12.220 which includes "a visually impressive scene or vista not located in the immediate vicinity of the residence." Councilmember Mirsch also commented with regard to allocation of maintenance costs that she feels there should be as few instances as possible where it is up to the Committee (or the City Council) to determine Minutes City Council Meeting 01-11-16 who should pay for the maintenance costs. She stated that she feels the people should know going into the process what the expected costs will be. She further stated that she feels that if it has been determined that the view seeker is entitled to a view and has paid for the initial remediation, then the tree owner should pay for the ongoing maintenance. Mayor Pieper asked for the City Council's comments with regard to Mr. Weinberg's suggested text changes stating that he feels the suggestions are reasonable. He stated that he feels it is reasonable in Section 17.26.060(B) to allow up to one year for the restorative action to be completed; and in Section 17.26.040(D) and 17.26.050(C) to add language such that the withdrawal referred to is done "without prejudice to the applicant to reapply." Discussion ensued concerning limiting the ability for the applicant to reapply. City Attorney Jenkins clarified that the intent was to deem an application withdrawn if the applicant is not actively pursuing the compliant after 180 days and it was never intended to imply that the applicant could not reapply. He further commented that he does not feel that adding the language "without prejudice to filing a subsequent application" is inconsistent with the intent. Following further discussion, the City Council concurred to add that language. Councilmember Black commented that he is not ready to vote on introduction of the ordinance. Following brief discussion the City Council decided that the best course of action in addressing the ordinance changes would be to go over each of the proposed changes point by point. Following discussion, the public hearing for deliberation on this mater and consideration of introduction of the Ordinance was continued to the next regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on Monday, January 25, 2016 beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California at which time, the City Council will review each of the proposed changes. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1182 ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. Mayor Pieper introduced the item for consideration and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that as part of the discussion pertaining to revisions to the View Ordinance, the City Council ad hoc committee also discussed and considered items relative to the interpretation of Measure B and suggested some language for the Planning Commission to review and discuss. She stated that the Planning Commission recommends adoption of this Resolution which provides an interpretation of Measure B so that it can be uniformly applied to all view cases before the Committee on Trees and Views. Ms. Schwartz further reviewed the items related to the interpretation of Measure B that were discussed by the ad hoc committee including, panoramic vs. corridor views; what constitutes acquisition of property; the definition of mature vs. maturing trees; what constitutes clear and convincing evidence; and retroactivity. She stated that the ad hoc committee in addressing the panoramic vs. view corridor issue, recommended that word panoramic be removed from the intent section of the Ordinance thus not needing interpretation. With regard to burden of proof, it was determined that the issue did not require any further definition or interpretation. The ad hoc committee also concurred that the previous cases decided by the Committee on Trees and Views or the City Council are not enforceable under the old ordinance and would need to come back to the Committee on Trees and Views under the provisions set forth in measure B. Minutes City Council Meeting 01-11-16 For the two remaining issues, acquisition of property and mature vs. maturing, the Planning Commission discussed those two matters at length and made the recommendations presented in the Resolution. She reviewed the recommendation for the question of acquisition of property as presented on page 6 of the staff report stating that an inheritance does not constitute a change in ownership but a sale of a property does. She further stated that there was lengthy discussion regarding properties that are place in trust and recommended that placement into a revocable trust is not an acquisition, but placement into an irrevocable trust or the change from revocable to irrevocable is an acquisition as is consistent with tax regulations. With regard to the definition of mature, the Planning Commission also discussed this matter at great length and after receiving four separate reports from arborist (during deliberation on a current case) that did not concur, ultimately decided the definition should use Sunset Western Garden Book as a reference using the highest height in the height range shown. She further stated that the Planning Commission also discussed trees that had been previously trimmed to maintain a view and determined that such trees should not be considered mature. She stated that the ad hoc committee in its discussion of this issue also agreed that the Sunset Western Garden Book should be used as a reference but did not concur as to which height to use. She further stated that in his correspondence, Mr. Gill suggests using 75% of the average height as shown in Sunset Western Garden Book. Mayor Pieper asked Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer to explain the documents that she provided that were placed on the dais and made.available to the public. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer stated that the documents include all of the material that was disseminated to the voters because legally the City would be bound by those material if the matter goes to court and any decision made in the interpretation should be consistent with those materials. I response to Mayor Pieper, City Attorney Jenkins stated that the reason these matters were examined was because there wasn't' anything in the election related materials that further explained the issues before the City Council. He further stated that the interpretation has to be reasonable and it has to be consistent with Measure B to the extent that Measure B is ambiguous or does not provide guidance. Mayor Pieper noted that several e-mail correspondence were received one of which was against the interpretation and 17 in concurrence with the interpretation. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer noted that the e - mails in favor appear all to be the same. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer, Planning Director Schwartz stated that the Planning Commission did not consult with an arborist to assist in determining the definition of mature; however, the Planning Commission did use the definition used by the International Society of Arboriculture. Mayor Pieper called for public comment. Tina Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road addressed the City Council stating that she does not feel that there is any evidence to support the notion that if a tree has been previously trimmed it is no longer considered a mature tree. She stated that the intent of Measure B was to ensure that a tree that was fully grown and already in the view could not be cut down. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road addressed the City Council stating that he submitted a letter with regard Minutes City Council Meeting 01-11-16 to the maturity issue. In summary of the letter, he stated that maturity should not defined as the top of the height range. He suggested instead using the 75% rule as explained in his letter. Tom Heinsheimer, 7 Johns Canyon Road addressed the City Council to express appreciation to all the people involved in this complicated process. He stated that because of Measure B, the City is no longer in a position to decide whether or not the City should be involved in view issues but instead, needs to resolve the ambiguities of Measure B. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council to express her opposition to the notion that if a tree has been previously trimmed it is no longer considered a mature tree. She stated that she does not feel the staff report accurately provide the history of the view related discussions in that it does not mention that in November 2011 a group of residents were concerned that new residents were purchasing houses that did not have a view and forcing their neighbors to cut their trees and asked to be heard but were not given the opportunity to be heard. She further expressed concern regarding a post card opposing Measure B that was sent to all residents by the Rolling Hills Community Association. John Blazevich, 1 Buggy Whip Drive addressed the City Council stating that views are about money and if someone wants a view then they should pay the money to purchase a property that has a view instead of purchasing a property without a view and forcing their neighbors to cut their trees. He suggested keeping Measure B simple. Spencer Karpf, 8 Maverick Lane addressed the City Council expressing his agreement with Mrs. Schoettle, Mr. Blazevich and Dr. Gill's comments. He stated that the City Council needs to continue to be responsive to the residents and expressed concern that lawsuits will arise if it is not. Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West addressed the City Council stating that he is the author of Measure B and leading up to the election when asked about the acquisition date, he told people the following: "If a title company is asked to identify the current owner of the complaining property, and asked to identify the recording date of the instrument establishing that ownership every inquiry will obtain the same recording date and eliminate any ambiguity." William Hassoldt, 10 Pine Tree Lane addressed the City Council and submitted a letter for the record regarding the definition of mature. He read the letter which, in summary stated that the proposed definition of maturity is inconsistent with the law and common sense and represents an effort to thwart the will of the voters. Howard Weinberg, Weinberg & Associates addressed the City Council on behalf of the Nuccions at 18 Portuguese Bend Road and submitted a letter for the record from Sharon Lily with the International Society of Arboriculture which addressed the maturity issue and in summary defines mature height as the maximum height the plant is likely to reach if the conditions of the planting site are favorable. He suggested that it is appropriate for the City Council to adopt the regulations as proposed by the Planning Commission. He further suggested some text changes to the regulations as follows: Section 1001 Paragraph A add except as modified in these regulations; Paragraph C remove the language "or the revocable trust became irrevocable"; and Section 2003 to change the word none in the first sentence to the word any. Minutes City Council Meeting 01-11-16 Mike Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council with regard to the definition of maturity and suggested that the City Council use the middle part of the curve as shown in the documents Dr. Gill provided. John Nunn, 1 Crest Road West addressed the City Council with regard to the definition of maturity stating that the maximum height should not be used given the City does not have ideal conditions for growing trees especially given the recent drought. He suggested instead using an average. He further expressed concern that the City and the Rolling Hills Community Association favor the creation of views versus someone who has trees and funds one neighbor over another if a lawsuit results. Norm Miller, 4 Chesterfield Road addressed the City Council stating that is was his understanding that Measure B was to supplant the ordinance. He stated that a person should get the view they came in with and views should not he created that did not exist when a property was purchased. He firther stated that it s illogical to tell someone they cannot have the view they purchased. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West addressed the City Council to express his opposition to the notion that if a tree has been previously trimmed it is nn longer considered a rnature. Tree. He further commented that the. definition of mature height should be at the minimum height or instead use age. Mr. Blazevich asked if there is a report available that provides the number of complaints that have been received. V'Etta Virtue., 4 Maverick Lane addressed the City Council regarding the definition of maturity to suggest that age or how long someone has had a tree should be used instead of height because given the planting conditions, many trees may not reach their potential height. She further suggested that specimen trees should be exempt. Mr. Karpf stated that there is place near Mendocino called Van Damme State Park where there is a forest of fully mature Douglas Fir type trees that are no taller than him because the hard pan is close to the surface. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Pieper closed the public hearing. In response to Mayor Pieper, City Attorney Jenkins stated that if the City is sued over its interpretation, the interpretation can be used while the lawsuit is pending. Mayor Pieper explained that as Measure B was written, it is difficult for the Committee on Trees and Views to apply so either the City Council needs to provide an interpretation or alternatively, place another measure on the ballot resolve the issue. Councilmember Mirsch suggested that even if another ballot measure is placed on the ballot, there still need to be some interpretation of Measure B in the meantime so that the City can apply the existing ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Dieriuger concurred with Councilmember Mirsch and staled that any interprelalion of Measure B should he done in such a way to discourage litigation and should rely on factual information Minutes City Council Meeting 01-11-16 -11- and as Measure B states the definition of mature/maturing should be based on the industry standards predominately accepted by arborists. She further stated that she contacted the National Arborist Association and was told that they use thc book An Illustrated Guild to Pruning (3'd Edition) by Edward F. Gillman as a reference and in that book mature is defined as when a tree reaches 75% of its maximum attainable height. She suggested that the City should contract with a consulting arborist certified by the Association of Consulting Arborist so that if the matter goes to court there is an expert opinion to rely on. With regard to using tax law as a basis for determining acquisition, Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer suggested that the matter needs further study and discussion. Brief discussion ensued concerning the matter related to acquisition with Councilmember Mirsch and Mayor Pieper concurring with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Councilmember Wilson expressed concern that the defining maturity is going to be a very difficult task because there are so many varying opinions. He commented that he is also concerned about the Planning Commission's recommendation trees that were previously trimmed are not considered mature. Councilmember Black commented that he sees the ambiguities and the difficulty defining and interpreting some if the issues, but he does not feel inclined to fix it and suggested that it be fixed by a ballot measure. Mayor Pieper commented that his interpretation of the way Measure B was positioned to the voters was that the view you bought is the view you get, which makes sense. But, in actuality, that is not true because of the provision which disallows panoramic views in favor of corridor views. Discussion ensued concerning the definition of mature and this issues surrounding deeming a tree that had been previously trimmed not mature. City Attorney Jenkins commented that the goal is not to hire someone to tell the City Council what the rules should be so that that person could testify in court. He sated that if there is a need for someone to testify in court the testimony should be that the rule the City Council adopted is a reasonable interpretation of the word mature based on existing literature. He stated that there is no one arborist that can give the one right answer; but rather from the variety of information received, the City Council's job is to review that information and choose one that is reasonable for implementing Measure B. Following further discussion, deliberation on this matter was continued to the next regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on Monday, January 25, 2016 beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED) DISCUSSION TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS IN CONCURRENCE WITH THE PERCENTAGES IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE PENINSULA REGIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT IN ORDER TO ADD ONE SURVEILLANCE AND APPREHENSION TEAM (SAT) DETECTIVE. Minutes City Council Meeting 01-11-16 C2) Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. City Manager Cruz presented the staff report which recommends that the City Council appropriate funding with the two other member cities of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Regional Law Enforcement Committee to add on additional Surveillance & Apprehension Team (SAT) Detective to the contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept. in order to combat the increase in burglaries Peninsula wide. He further reviewed the crime statistics as well as Ore cost distribution amongst the three cites for the additional SAT detective. Following brief discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer moved that the City Council appropriate $7,340 for an additional SAT Detective through FY 16/17 and thereafter $10,698 annually beginning in FY 17/18 fur the additional SAT Detective to be contracted with Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept. through the Palos Verdes Peninsula Regional Law Enforcement agreement. Councibnernber Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS DISCUSSION REGARDING MOVING THE START TIME OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS TO 6:30 P.M. (ORAL REPORT) Mayor Pieper suggested that City Council consider moving the start time of the City Council [reeling to 6:30 p.m. in instead of 7:30 p.m. so that the meetings conclude earlier. Following brief discussion and with Councilmember Black expressing concern that the meetings will just go longer not end any earlier, no action was taken. Mayor Pieper asked Councilmember Black to further consider this recommendation and if he is in favor, inform the City Manager so the matter can be agendized again. OTHER MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL Mayor Pieper suggested that the City look into acquiring assisted listening devices for residents that have difficulty hearing. Councilmember Black suggested that instead of wattage, lumens be used in the City's Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. Staff was directed to include that change with the next update to the Zoning Ordinance. Councilmember Mirsch asked for a report from the Fire Fuel Ad Hoc Committee regarding the status of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan. MATTERS FROM STAFF RESIDENTIAL BURGLARY UPDATE. (ORAL REPORT) City Manager Cruz reported that the supplemental burglary patrol has concluded. He further reported that according to the Sheriff's Dept., the two recent burglaries on Maverick Lane and Caballeros Road do not appear to be related to the previous burglaries in the Southfield area. Councilmember Mirsch reported that the Volunteers on Patrol Program continues to move forward with the next step being Sheriff's Dept. vehicle training/certification for the volunteers. Minutes City Council Meeting 01-11-16 PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS None. CLOSED SESSION Government Code §54957 Public Employee Performance Evaluation Title: City Manager Government Code §54957.6 Conference with Labor Negotiator City representative: Personnel Committee (Pieper and Dieringer) Unrepresented employee: City Manager The City Council recessed into closed session at 10:58 p.m. to discuss the matters listed above on the closed session agenda. The meeting returned to open session at 11:34 p.m. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION (ORAL REPORT). The meeting was called back to order in open session at 11:34 p.m. City Attorney Jenkins reported that the City Council met in closed session to discuss the item listed above and no reportable action was taken. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Pieper adjourned the meeting at 11:35 p.m. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, January 25, 2016 beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Luce City Clerk Approved, Jeff Pieper Mayor Minutes City Council Meeting 01-11-16 CHECK CHECK NO. DATE 24156 01/25/2016 24157 01/25/2016 24158 01/25/2016 24159 01252016 24160 01/25/2016 24161 01/25/2016 24162 01/25/2016 24163 02/01/2016 24164 02/012016 24165 02/012016 24166 02/012016 • PR LINK 1/8/2016 • PR LINK 1/8/2016 City oiled/my Jh/4 Agenda Item No: 3-B Mtg. Date: 01/25/16 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 3771521 FAX: (310) 3777288 1252016 - CHECK RUN PAYEE COX COMMUNICATIONS DAILY BREEZE LA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES MANERI SIGN CO., INC. USCM XEROX CORPORATION CALPERS HEALTHSMART BENEFIT SOLUTIONS METLIFE SBC SUN LIFE PR LINK- PAYROLL PROCESSING PR LINK - PAYROLL 26 & PR TAXES Total DESCRIPTION PHONE & INTERNET JAN 2016 ADVERTISING DEC 2015 LAW ENFORCEMENT SRV DEC 2015 MEMBERSHIP DUES 2016 PAINTED NEW POST 457 - PAY PERIOD 1/22/16 COPIER MAINT DEC 2015 HEALTH MS FEB 2016 VISION INS FEB 2016 DENTAL INS FEB 2016 LIFE INS FEB 2016 Processing Fee Pay Period - December 23, 2015 Through January 5, 2016 I, Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager of Rolling Hills California certify that the above demands are accurate and there is available in the General Fd a balance of 549,673.54 for the payment of 'terns. • Previously Disbursed AMOUNT 381.20 442.98 23,476.50 1,242.80 627.00 1,144.00 33.00 5,663.29 115.66 576.24 257.57 56.45 15,656.85 S 49,673.54 33.960]4 Cip Printed on Recycled Paper CITY OF ROLLING HILLS BALANCE SHEET October 31, 2015 MUNICIPAL GENERAL& DEPOSIT OPEB COPS@ COMMUN. SELF- REFUSE TRAFFIC TRANSIT UTILITY CAPITAL FUND FUND TRUST CLEEP FACILITIES INSUR COLLECT. SAFETY PROP A. C. M FUND & TDA ASSETS Cash & Cash Equivalents S 4,086,891 S 1,771 S 36,367 _ S 90,499 S 23,536 S 260,392 S 244,451 S (2,696) S 82,120 S 1,020.306 Cash & Cash Equivalents - Capital Project Fund 10,956 - - - - . - Poppy Trail Grading Bond - 305,000 - - - - Accounts Receivable 2,840 - 222,332 268,737 Prepaid Expense & Deposits 18 479 - - LIABILITIES TOTAL ASSETS S 4,119,166 S 306,771 S 36,367 5 90,499 S 23,536 5 482,724 5 513,188 S (2,696) 5 82,120 5 1,020,306 Accounts & Contra& Payable S 3,254 S - S - S - S - S S 251,994 S S S Available for OPEB - - 36,367 - - - Deposits 23,803 306,771 - - - - Deferred revenues 26,785 - - - - - TOTAL LIABILMES 53 842 306 771 36 367 251 994 FUND BALANCE Unassigned Fund Balance 4,065,324 90 499 23,536 482,724 261 194 (2,696) S 82 120 1 020 306 TOTAL UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE 4,065,324 90,499 23 536 482 724 261 194 (2,696) 82 120 1,020,306 DTAL UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE& LIABI.ITII S 4,II9,166 5 306,771 5 36,367 S 90,499 S 23,536 S 482,724 S 513,188 S (2,696) 5 82,120 5 1,020,306 COMPOSITION OF CASH Petty Cash S 1,500 OPUS Bank - Checking Account 20,434 OPUS Bank - Money Market 583,687 US Treasury Bills - Calif. Stale Local Agency Investment Fund 2,548,972 Malaga Bank - CDARS - CD's 2,700,000 S 5,854,593 Date /-/4-/6 Raymond R Cruz, City Manager BEGINNING LTD OF YEAR TOTAL TOTAL E 5,843,637 E 6,061,616 10,956 10,956 305,000 305,000 493,909 381,398 18479 27,797 S 6,671,981 S 6,786,767 S 255,248 S 128,965 36,367 - 330,574 331,574 26 785 6 340 648,974 466 879 6 023 007 6,319,888 6,023,007 6,319,888 E 6,671,981 6,786,767 RH bal_fy1516 1/12/2016 1:02 PM CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SUMMARY STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Actual Compared to Annual Budget July 1, 2015 to October 31, 2015 Fund GENERAL Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue CITIZENS' OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue COMMUNITY FACILITIES Revenues Expenditures Nct Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue MUNICIPAL SELF-INSURANCE Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers • Transfers in (out) Net Revenue REFUSE COLLECTION Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TRAFFIC SAFETY Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TRANSIT- PROPOSITION A, C & M Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue UTILITY FUND Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TOTAL ALL FUNDS Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue This Year Last Year This Year Better (Worse) Annual Budget & Adj. Remaining Budget $ 99,942 389,896 $ 112,854 386,696 $ (12,912) (3,200) 1,779,550 1,756,780 $ 1,679,608 1,366,884 (289,954) 8,000 (273,842) 6,400 (16,112) 1,600 22,770 (332,943) 312,724 (340,943) (281,954) (267,442) (14,512) (310,173) (28,219) 32,081 31,298 14,000 18,300 18,081.00 (12,998) 100,200 104,500 " 68,119 - 73,202 783 (4,300) 5,083 - (4,300) (5,083) 0 783 (4,300) 5,083 (4,300) (5,083) - - - - - 100 - 57,700 100 57,700 - - _ - (57,600) - 62,400 (57,600) 62,400.00 - - - 4,800 4,800 217 443 226 228,332 228,115.00 (217) (443) 226 (228,332) (228,115.00) (217) (443) 226 (228,332) (228,115.00) 256,708 271,442 251,993 264,515 (14,734) 771,800 12,522 755,980 515,092 503,987 4,715 6,927 (8,000) (6,400) (2,212) 15,820 (1,600) (24,000) 11,105 (16,000) (3,285) 527 (3,812) (8,180) (4,895) - - 2,696 1,070 - 50 (1,626) • 55,550 ' 50 52,854 (2,696) (1,070) - - (1,626) (55,500) - 55,500 (52,804) 55,500 (2,696) (1,070) (1,626) - 2,696 26,855 25,828 1,027 84,141 57,286 26,855 25,828 1,027 84,141 57,286 26,855 25,828 1,027 84,141 57,286 - - - 150,000 150,000.00 - - - - - - (150,000) 250,000 (150,000.00) 250,000.00 - _ - 100,000 100,000.00 415,586 676,100 424,124 671,024 (8,538) (5,077) 2,735,841 3,108,842 2,320,255 2,432,742 (260,514) (246,900) - (13,615) - (373,001) 10,957 (112,487) 10,957 $ (260,514) $ (246,900) $ (13,615) $ (383,958) $ (123,444) RH inc_fy1516 1/12/2016 12:59 PM CITY OF ROLLING HILLS BALANCE SHEET November 30, 2015 i. MUNICIPAL GENERAL & DEPOSIT *, OPER COPS & COMMON. SELF- REFUSE TRAFFIC TRANSIT UTILITY CAPITAL FUND FUND TRUST CLEEP FACILITIES INSUR. COLLECT. SAFETY PROP A C.M FUND a TDA ASSETS Cash & Cash Equivalents $ 4.035,914 S 1,771 S ` 36.367 S 105,398 S 23,536 S 260,392 S 247.781 S (29,098) 5 89,820 5 1.020,306 Cash & Cash Equivalents - Capital Project Fund 10,956 Poppy Trail Grading Bond 305,000 - - - Accounts Receivable 2,433 - - 222,332 327,689 - Prepaid Expense & Deposits 16,169 TOTAL ASSETS S 4,065,472 S 306,771 $ 36,367 S 105,398 S 1,3_,536 S 482,724 S 575,470 S (29,098) 5 89,820 S 1,020,306 LIABILITIES Accounts & Contract Payable S 9,669 5 - S - S - 5 - S - S 314.992 S - S - S Available for OPEB - 36,367 Deposits 23.803 306.771 Deferred revenues 26,785 - TOTAL LIABILITIES 60,257 306 771 36367 - 314 992 FUND BALANCE Unassigned Fund Balance 4,005,215 105.398 23.536 482,724 260,478 (29,098) 89.820 1.020 306 TOTAL UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE 4,005,215 105 398 23,536 482.724 260 478 (29,098) 89820 1,020,306 OTAL UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE& LIABILTI S 4,065,472 $ 306,771 5 36,367 5 105,398 S 23,536 5 482,724 S 575,470 5 (29,098) S 89,820 $ 1,020,306 COMPOSITION OF CASH Petry Cash S 1,500 OPUS Bank - Checking Account 27,438 OPUS Bank - Money Market 525,233 . US Treasury Bills Calif State local Agency Investment Fund 2,548,972 Malaga Bank - CDARS - CD's 2,700,000 S 5,803,143 MI TOTAL S 5,792,187 10,956 305,000 552,454 16 169 BEGINNING OF YEAR TOTAL S 6,061,616 10,956 305,000 381,398 27.797 S 6,676,766 S 6,786,767 S 324,661 S 128,965 36367 - 330,574 331,574 26,785 6 340 718 387 466,879 5,958.379 6 319 888 5,958,379 6,319,888 S 6,676,766 6 786 767 RH bal_fy1516 1/12/2016 1:10 PM CRY OF ROLLING HILLS SUMMARY STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Actual Compared to Annual Budget July I, 2015 to November 30, 2015 Fund GENERAL Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue CITIZENS' OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue COMMUNITY FACILITIES Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue MUNICIPAL SELF-INSURANCE Revenues Expenditurcs Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue REFUSE COLLECTION Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TRAFFIC SAFETY Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TRANSIT - PROPOSITION A, C, M & TDA Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue UTILITY FUND Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TOTAL ALL FUNDS Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue (Deficit) This Year Last Year This Year Better (Worse) Annual Budget & Adj. Remaining Budget $ 168,236 $ 158,523 $ 9,713 1,779,550 $ 1,611,314 520,300 492,014 (28,286.00) 1,756,780 1,236,480 (352,064) (333,491) (18,573.00) 22,770 374,834 10,000 6,400 3,600 (332,943) (342,943) (342,064) (327,091) (14,973.00) (310,173) 31,891 54,139 40,631 13,508.00 100,200 - 46,061 38,456 .'' 24,400 (14,056) 104,500 66,044 15,683 16,231 (548) • (4,300) (19,983) 0 15,683 16,231 (548) (4,300) (19,983) - - - 100 100 - - - 57,700 57,700 _ - - (57,600) (57,600) - - - 62,400 62,400.00 - - - 4,800 4,800 217 1,380 1,163 228,332 228,115.00 (217) (1,380) 1,163 (228,332) (228,115.00) (217) (1,380) 1,163 (228,332) (228,115.00) 320,992 280,161 40,831 771,800 450,808 314,992 264,515 (50,477) 755,980 440,988 6,000 15,646 (9,646) 15,820 9,820 (10,000) (6,400) (3,600) (24,000) (14,000) (4,000) 9,246 (13,246) (8,180) (4,180) - - - 50• 50 29,098 1,759 (27,339) '55,550 ' 26,452 (29,098) (1,759) (27,339) (55,500) (26,402) - - - 55,500 - 55,500 (29,098) (1,759) (27,339) - 29,098 34,556 33,114 1,442 84,141 49,585 34,556 33,114 1,442 84,141 49,585 34,556 33,114 1,442 84,141 49,585 - - - 150,000 150,000.00 - - - (150,000) (150,000.00) • - - 250,000 250,000.00 _ - - 100,000 100,000.00 577,923 512,429 65,494 2,735,841 2,157,918 903,063 784,068 (118,995) 3,108,842 2,205,779 (325,140) (271,639) (53,501) (373,001) (47,861) 10,957 10,957 $ (325,140) $ (271,639) $ (53,501) $ (383,958) $ (58,818) RH inc_fy1516 1 ' / 1/12/2016 1:13 PM CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS BALANCE SHEET December 31, 2015 MUNICIPAL GENERAL & DEPOSIT OPEB COPS & COMMUN. SELF- REFUSE TRAFFIC TRANSIT UTILITY CAPITAL FINE FUND TRUST CLEEP FACILITIES INSUR. COLLECT. SAFETY PROP A. C.M FUND & TDA ASSETS Cash & Cash Equivalents S 4,368,964 S 1,771 b $ 36,367 5 110,775 S 23,536 S 260,392 $ 175,220 S (32,362) $ 97,607 S 995,507 Cash & Cash Equivalents - Capital Project Fund 10,956 - - - - - - - Poppy Trail Grading Bond - 305,000 - - Accounts Receivable 2,326 - - 222,332 84,112 - - Prepaid Expense & Deposits 13,859 - - - TOTAL ASSETS S 4,396,105 S 306,771 S 36,367 S 110,775 $ 23,536 $ 482,724 5 259,332 S (32,362) S 97,607 $ 995,507 LIABILITIES Accounts & Contract Payable S - S - S - S Available for OPEB - - 36,367 Deposits 23,803 306,771 - . Deferred Revenues 26,785 Employees Benefits Payable 2,166 TOTAL LIABILITIES 52,754 306,771 36,367 FUND BALANCE Unassigned Fund Balance 4,343,351 - 110,775 23,536 482 724.47 259,332 (32,362) 97,607 995,507 TOTAL UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE 4,343,351 110 775 23 536 482 724 259 332 (32,362) 97 607 995,507 TOTAL UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE & LIABILITIES S 4,396,105 5 306,771 S 36,367 5 110,775 S 23,536 S 482,724 S 259,332 5 (32,362) 5 97,607 5 995,507 S S S S S COMPOSITION OF CASH Petty Cash 5 1,500 OPUS Bank - Checking Account OPUS Bank - Money Market US Treasury Bills Calif. State Local Agency Investment Fund 28,891 1,769,370 2,548,972 Malaga Bank - CARS - CD's 1,700,000 S 6 048 733 YTD TOTAL S 6,037,777 10,956 305,000 308,770 13 859 BEGINNING OF YEAR TOTAL S 6,061,616 10,956 305,000 381,398 27,797 S 6,676,362 S 6,786,767 S - 36,367 330,574 26,785 2 166 5 128,965 - 331,574 6,340 395 892 466 879 6,280,470 6,319,888 6 280 470 6 319 888 S 6,676,362 6,786,767 RH bal_fy1516 1/12/2016 3:20 PM CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SUMMARY STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Actual Compared to Annual Budget July 1, 2015 to December 1, 2015 Fund GENERAL Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue CITIZENS' OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue COMMUNITY FACILITIES Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue MUNICIPAL SELF-INSURANCE Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue REFUSE COLLECTION Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TRAFFIC SAFETY Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TRANSIT - PROPOSITION A, C, M & TDA Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue Underground Utility Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TOTAL ALL FUNDS Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue (Deficit) This Year Last Year This Year Better (Worse) ' Annual Budget & Adj. Remaining Budget $ 619,856 $ 555,498 $ 64,358 1,779,550 $ 1,159,694 635,782 609,391 (26,391.00) 1,756,780 1,120,998 (15,926) (53,893) 37,967.00 22,770 38,696 12,000 8,800 3,200 (332,943) (344,943) (3,926) (45,093) 41,167.00 (310,173) (306,247) • - 73,654 59,861 13,793.00 100,200 , 26,546 52,594 24,400 (28,194) 104,500 51,906 21,060 35,461 (14,401) (4,300) (25,360) 21,060 35,461 (14,401) (4,300) (25,360) - - - 100 100 - - - 57,700 57,700 . - - (57,600) (57,600) . - • 62,400 62,400.00 - - - 4,800 4,800 217 1,380 1,163 228,332 228,115 (217) (1,380) 1,163 (228,332) (228,115) (217) (1,380) 1,163 (228,332) (228,115) 384,843 408,221 (23,378) 771,800 386,957 377,990 390,231 12,241 755,980 377,990 6,853 17,990 (11,137) 15,820 8,967 (12,000) (8,800) (3,200) (24,000) (12,000) (5,147) 9,190 (14,337) (8,180) (3,033) - - - t: 50 �. 50 32,362 2,991 (29,371) .55,550' 23,188 (32,362) (2,991) (29,371) (55,500) (23,138) • - - 55,500 • 55,500 (32,362) (2,991) (29,371) - 32,362 42,342 41,229 1,113 84,141 41,799 42,342 41,229 1,113 84,141 41,799 • 42,342 41,229 1,113 84,141 41,799 24,799 - (24,799) 150,000 125,201 (24,799) (150,000) • (125,201) - - - 250,000 250,000.00 - - (24,799) 100,000 124,799 1,120,695 1,064,809 • 55,886 2,735,841 1,615,146 1,123,744 1,028,393 (95,351) 3,108,842 1,985,098 (3,049) 36,416 (39,465) (373,001) (369,952) - - - 10,957 10,957 $ (3,049) $ 36,416 $ (39,465) $ (383,958) $ (380,909) RH inc_fy15161/12/2016 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTIAL ALLIED WASTE RECYCLE NOW REPORT Report Date: MONTH 2015 RECYCLED (tons) GREEN WASTE (tons) C&D Recycled 5.83 C&D Disposed Disposal Diversion Tonnage % MONTHLY TOTALS (tons) 2.50 124.42 59.14% 310.65 January 70.78 107.12 297.97 February 74.45 118.20 4.38 1.88 99.07 66.12% March 70.78 120.67 15.32 6.56 114.27 63.11% 327.60 20.41 8.75 158.17 51.30% 342.77 April 70.69 84.76 135.06 8.30 3.56 146.71 61.42% 389.45 May 95.82 377.56 June 116.88 81.36 23.09 9.90 146.33 58.62% 56.36 24.15 206.89 54.38% 506.50 July 140.38 78.72 413.10 August 86.84 74.71 69.50 29.79 152.26 55.93% 334.29 September 94.23 74.72 - - 165.34 50.54% 76.57 15.27 6.55 135.85 56.14% 324.64 October 90.40 296.05 79.03 92.94 7.85 3.36 112.87 60.74% November 0.00 December - - - 0.00% 226.30 I 96.99 11,562.19 57.68% 3,920.58 Year to Date Totals: 990.27 1,044.83 90.02 94.98 20.57 8.82 142.02 0.58 356.42 Average Monthly Totals: 2015 RECEIVED DEC 222015 City of Rolling Hills By Agenda Item No: 3-E Mtg. Date: 01/25/16 REPUBLIC SERVICE January 19, 2016 City of Rolling Hills Attn: Raymond Cruz, City Manager 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hilis, CA 90274 RECEIVED JAN 2 0 2016 City of Rolling Hilis By IRE 2016 ANNUAL CLEAN-UP IN ROLLING IIILIS Dear Raymond, This letter is to confirm you that the 2016 Annual Spring Clean-up dates of April 9th (for Green Waste Collection) and April 16th (for Bulky Items Collection) AND for the Shred Event, April 30th (loam to 1pm) have been set As always, we are more than happy to provide this clean-up and shred service and look forward to servicing the residents of Rolling Hills If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Samuel A. Peiia Municipal Cities Liaison - Gardena Hauling Office Consolidated Disposal Service, LLC/Allied Waste, LLC Subsidiary of Republic Services, Inc Office (310) 436-7310 Cell (310) 722-1493 Cc: Jay Fowler, General Manager, Gardena Hauling Division Baltazar Oronoz, Operations Manager, Gardena Hauling Division Gerry Reyes, Route Supervisor, Gardena Hauling Division wre ' REPUBLIC dip SERVICES RECEIVED JAN 19 2015 City of Rolling Hills January 19, 2016 By City of Rolling Hills Attn: Raymond Cruz, City Manager 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 RE: 2016 ANNUAL CLEAN-UP IN ROLLING HILLS - FALL Dear Raymond, This letter is to confirm you that the 2016 Annual Fall Clean-up dates of September 10th (for Green Waste Collection) and September 17th (for Bulky Items Collection) AND for the Shred Event. September 24th (loam to 1pm) have been set. As always, we are more than happy to provide this clean-up and shred service and look forward to servicing the residents of Rolling Hills If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Sa= Samuel A. Pefia Municipal Cities Liaison - Gardena Hauling Office Consolidated Disposal Service, LLC/Allied Waste, LLC Subsidiary of Republic Services, Inc Office (310) 436-7310 Cell (310) 722-1493 Cc: Jay Fowler, General Manager, Gardena Hauling Division Baltazar Oronoz, Operations Manager, Gardena Hauling Division Gerry Reyes, Route Supervisor, Gardena Hauling Division INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 5A Mtg. Date: 01/25/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR v X� THROUGH: RAY CRUZ, CITY MANAGER 00 SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE NO. 346 OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING SECTION 17.12.220 AND CHAPTER 17.26 RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION OF TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE. ATTACHMENTS: A. Comparison table of the existing ordinance and proposed amendments B. Draft Ordinance No. 346 C. Summary of view impairment cases filed with the City D. Correspondence received since January 11, 2016 City Council meeting 1. It is recommended that the City Council waive full reading and introduce the proposed ordinance for first reading; continue the public hearing and take public testimony. Following public input and Council's discussion, it is recommended that the City Council direct staff to bring the ordinance, as amended, if necessary, for second reading and adoption. 2. The City Council held a public hearing in the matter of amendments to the View Preservation Ordinance at their January 11, 2016 meeting, and continued the hearing to tonight's meeting. 3. The City Council, following public input, suggested few amendments to the ordinance, which is reflected in the attached comparison table and includes: • 17.26.050 C and 17.26.040 D, add "without prejudice" • 17.26.060 B, add that implementation cannot be postponed more than a year Discussion on whether to include a provision to indemnify the City resulted in three of the Councilmembers wishing to exclude it, however no decision was made on this topic. In response to a resident inquiry, Councilmembers directed staff to prepare a summary of view impairment cases submitted to the City since the View Preservation Ordinance took effect (1988) and their resolve. 4. All of the documents and information provided to the City Council at the January 11, 2016 meeting continue to be relevant and are available at City Hall. Please refer to your January 11, 2016 packet. 5. During the hearing the residents testified as follows: • Not in favor of restoring/allowing more than one view • Prepare a brand new ordinance based on the one adopted by the City of Rolling Hills Estates • In favor of view corridors and not views from every window • Provide a better definition of view corridors, such as establish a threshold of restoration of 70-75% of the pre-existing view • Add a clause "without prejudice" in several places of the ordinance • Leave it to residents to handle the dispute • Require indemnification/don't require indemnification • Requiring Indemnification of the City causes a perception that the City is biased against one party and in favor of another. Perception in such cases is very important The City Council discussed the following: • No more than 2 views should be allowed and they should be well identified (north/south and east/west) • The City should have a View Preservation Ordinance • Indemnification of the City • Following the initial restorative action, the owners of the trees should be responsible for maintaining the trees at their cost The City Council agreed to review the proposed ordinance in detail at the January 25, 2016 meeting. Agenda Item No.: 5-A Mtg. Date: 01/25/16 ATTACHMENT "A" Chart of the existing ordinance and proposed amendments ORDINANCE COMPARISON CHART (NEW UNDERLINED) DEFINITIONS AND CHAPTER 17.26 VIEW PRESERVATION CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS 17.12.220 "V" words, terms and phrases. "View" means a view from a principal residence 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 impairment" means a significant interference with and obstruction of a view by landscaping, trees or any other planted vegetation. "View" means a view from a principal residence, but not including from bathrooms, Add that bathrooms, closets, garages, & hallways are not considered viewing areas Measure B introduced language that one is not eligible to a "panoramic" view but to a view corridor. This section defines view corridor. hallways, 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 impairment" means a significant interference with and obstruction of a view by landscaping, trees or any other planted vegetation. "View corridor" means a view from a designated viewing area broken into segments by vegetation. 17.26.010 Intent and purpose. The City recognizes the contribution of views to the overall character and beauty of the City. Panoramic 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 and abatement of 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 Delete the word "Panoramic" and add "of views" in the last sentence Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart -1- CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS view obstructions created by landscaping, while at the same time protecting natural vegetation from indiscriminate removal. views and abatement of view obstructions created by landscaping, while at the same time protecting natural vegetation from indiscriminate removal. 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. No change 17.26.030 Desirable and undesirable trees. • A. 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. No change Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart -2- CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS 17.26.040 Abatement of view impairment — Procedure. Any person who owns or has lawful possession of a residence from which view is impaired by vegetation growing on property other than their own may seek abatement of the view impairment under the following procedure: A. Application Required. The complainant shall submit a complete application for abatement of view impairment 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 complaint. A complaint 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. Any person who owns or has lawful possession of a residence from which a view is impaired, pursuant to the definition of "view Include reference to the definition of a view impairment. A. Clarify the process and submittal requirements for mediation and if the mediation fails; clarify the process to apply to the Committee on Trees and Views (CTV). B. Add new Paragraph "B": A person may file an application for a view impairment even if there are trees/foliage on his/her property that contribute to the view impairment. A person may file against multiple tree owners to seek abatement of the same view. A person may 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 a 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 Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart - 3 - CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS the same view by vegetation on another pursue remedies simultaneously or separately for view abatement of more than one view, but the views must be disjointed and be from separate viewing areas 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. B. 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. If agreement is reached through mediation, it shall be implemented in accordance with Section 17.26.060. C. Public Hearing. In the event mediation fails to achieve agreement, the matter shall be returned to the City Manager, who shall schedule the matter for a public hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views. C. Mediation. Upon receipt and acceptance of an application as complete, the City Manager shall refer the matter to a mediator for a 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 C. Clarification of the mediator's role and that if an agreement is reached through mediation it shall be implemented per the terms of the agreement. D. The current language uses the word "shall", as if it was mandatory that the complaining party apply to CTV after mediation fails. The City Council Ad Hoc Committee considered and the Planning Commission concurred that a time period should be established for when the complainant may apply to 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. 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 30 days of the mediator's notification set forth in Section Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart -4- CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS 17.26.040(C), the City shall terminate, without the CTV after mediation fails. If one waits too long, the circumstances could change and trees could grow, which could change the scope of the application when it finally prejudice, all proceedings related to the application. reaches the CTV, without a time frame. 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. A. No Change B. No Change Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart - 5 - CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS 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. 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. I 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 C. This item clarifies that additional information may be submitted by the applicant and that the CTV could request more information; or that an amended application could be submitted. The Planning Commission discussed and voted to add a provision that if an expert opinion/report is requested by the CTV, that the members of the Committee could require either the complaining party, or under certain circumstances both parties to pay for such an opinion/report. Also added to this provision is the method by which such an opinion should be obtained; and that an application would be deemed withdrawn under certain conditions. 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 or both parties as determined by the Committee, 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 or parties. 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 the complainant requests a delay of the proceedings for more than one hundred eighty (180) 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 D. No Change Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart -6- CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS 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. The Committee shall make specific written findings in support of the foregoing determinations. E. Action. If the Committee makes finding subsection (D)(3) of this section, it shall order such restorative action as is necessary to abate the view impairment and to restore the complainant's view, 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. E. Action. If the Committee makes finding 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 preluded by the existence E. Deleted "and to restore the complainant's view" from first sentence. Language added that if restorative action is precluded due to environmental constraints, CTV shall make specific findings to that effect. of one or more such limiting factors, the Committee shall make specific written findings to that effect. F. Environmental Review. If the Committee F. Add new paragraph "F" specifying that environmental review pursuant to CEQA makes finding subsection (D)(3) of this section and orders restorative action, the proposed Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart -7- CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS F. Finality of Decision. The Committee's decision shall be final twenty days after adoption of its written findings, unless it is appealed to the City Council pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.54. order shall be reviewed by City staff to requirements shall be conducted prior to adoption of a final decision by CTV and that if the project is deemed not to be exempt from CEQA, the complainant shall bear reasonable cost of the environmental review including consultant fee. G. This provision in the current ordinance is confusing, since pursuant to the zoning ordinance, a decision of the final reviewing body is final upon adoption of a Resolution and is effective 30 -days later, unless an appeal has been filed. View cases are not automatically reviewed by the City Council, unless appealed. This clarification is necessary to be consistent with other provisions. 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. 17.26.060 Implementation of restorative action. A. 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 a cash deposit in the amount of the lowest bid. In order to qualify, the contractors must provide insurance A. The complainant shall bear the cost of the A. This is to clarify up front that the complainant is to pay for the initial restorative action. 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 a cash Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart -fl- CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS 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 thirty days from receipt of the cash deposit. C. Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation in question shall be performed as prescribed by the Committee's final decision 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. A notice of the decision shall be recorded against the title of the property and shall run with the land, thereby giving notice of this obligation to all future owners. 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 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, unless the Committee adopts a final decision providing an alternative cost allocation, which shall be accompanied by written findings justifying the alternative cost allocation. The vegetation shall be maintained in accordance with the final decision so as not to allow for future view impairments. Chapter 17.26 View Preservation - 9 - Comparison Chart B. Some species of trees cannot be remediated in certain months; therefore a 30 -day period is too restrictive. Both the Ad Hoc Committee and the PC reviewed this provision and agreed on this change. C. The City Council Ad Hoc Committee could not agree on who should pay for the maintenance of trees, following the initial restorative action; and deferred this item to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission recommends that the CTV have the ability to require the owner of the trees or both parties to maintain the trees, depending CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS on the circumstances. D. The implementation method provided for in D. To be deleted D. Paragraph D is deleted. this section may be modified by the parties or in Some of the provisions of this any final decision if grounds exist to justify such a paragraph are incorporated in modification. In particular, the Committee may the other paragraphs of Section allocate the cost of restorative action as follows: 17.26.060; and some of the 1. If the Committee finds that the tree or other language is very vague and does vegetation constitutes a safety hazard to the not belong or apply to the complainant or his property, and is being maintained by the owner in disregard of the safety of others, the owner may be required to pay one hundred percent of the cost of correction; or ordinance. 2. If the owner is maintaining a hedge fifteen feet or more in height, the Committee may allocate the cost of correction to the property owner, provided that the owner of the land on which the hedge exists shall not be required to pay more than twenty-five percent of the cost of such correction 17.26.070 Enforcement. A. No Change 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 Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart - 10 - CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS 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. 17.26.080 Notification of subsequent owners. The owner on whose property the offending vegetation exists shall notify all successor owners of the final decision in any proceeding under this chapter, and such decision shall be binding upon all such successors in interest. Within thirty days of the final decision, an informational covenant shall be recorded against the title of the property on a form provided by the City. Within thirty days of the final decision of the Clarifies that the City will record an informational covenant for both properties that would run with the land. Currently the covenant is recorded against the property on which the vegetation exists. Committee, or the City Council on appeal, an informational covenant 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. 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 ADDED BY MEASURE B. No Change. Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart - 11 - CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS 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. 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." MEASURE B No Change. INDEMNIFICATION -Not currently in the Ordinance 17.26.100 Indemnification New provision. The City Council Ad Hoc Committee couldn't agree whether a provision should be included in the ordinance regarding indemnification of the City, and deferred that decision to the Planning Commission. After lengthy discussion, public input and deliberation, the Planning Commission recommends that the complaining party indemnify the City. Complainants shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, attorneys and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, attorneys or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul a decision of the Committee or City Council on appeal restoring an impaired view or that otherwise challenges, or seeks damages resulting from, the issuance, defense, implementation, or enforcement of a view Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart - 12 - CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS restoration order (collectively "action"). At the 1/11/16 CC meeting three Nothing in this reimbursement obligation Councilmembers felt this shall provide to the complainant any provision should be excluded. control over decisions made by the City in connection with an action. Chapter 17.26 View Preservation - 13 - Comparison Chart Agenda Item No.: 5-A Mtg. Date: 01/25/16 ATTACHMENT "B" Draft Ordinance No. 346 ORDINANCE NO. 346 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING SECTION 17.12.220 AND CHAPTER 17.26 RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION OF TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does ordain as follows: Section 1. Rolling Hills Municipal Code ("RHMC") Chapter 17.26 governs the process by which a property owner whose scenic view has become impaired by vegetation growing on another property may obtain abatement of the view impairment. Section 17.12.220 defines a view. Collectively, RHMC Chapter 17.26 and the definition of a view make up the City's "View Ordinance." The City has been engaged in a long-term effort to update the View Ordinance to clarify its provisions and address circumstances that have arisen in the Committee on Trees and Views' application of the View Ordinance. Section 2. Chapter 17.50 of the RHMC sets forth procedures for amending the Zoning Ordinance. A public hearing before the Planning Commission is necessary before a recommendation for a Zoning Code amendment can be made to the City Council. After receiving presentations from staff at the February 17, 2015 and March 17, 2015 meetings, the Planning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing on April 21, 2015, which was continued to May 19, 2015, June 16, 2015, July 21, 2015 and August 16, 2015. Public comment was received at each continuance of the public hearing, which the Planning Commission considered in concert with the recommendations of the City Council's Ad Hoc Committee created to recommend changes to the View Ordinance, and reports from City staff. Notice of the public hearings was provided as required by law. Section 3. After considering all of the evidence in the record on this matter, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Section 17.12.220 and Chapter 17.26 of Title 17 (Zoning) of the RHMC. Section 4. Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code Section 21000 to Sect -ion 21177, State CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rolling Hills, staff analyzed the proposed amendments to the View Ordinance and concluded that the amendments are exempt from CEQA because they consist only of minor revisions and clarifications to the RHMC and will not have the effect of deleting or substantially changing any regulatory standards or findings. The proposed Ordinance is an action that does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the environment, but rather will clarify the process by which persons may ® apply for and obtain an order from the City to abate view impairments. Accordingly, the proposed Ordinance is exempt pursuant to the "common sense" exemption set forth in Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because there is no possibility that the Ordinance could have a significant effect on the environment. Furthermore, the proposed Ordinance does not constitute a "project" that requires environmental review (see specifically 14 CCR § 15378 (b)(2, 5)). Section 5. After considering the information presented during public hearings on this matter, the City Council finds that the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments comply with the requirements of the City of Rolling Hills General Plan ,and State Planning and Zoning Laws (Government section 65000 et seq.) and will preserve the public health, safety and general welfare, while balancing property rights. Notice of the public hearings was provided as required by law. Section 6. The City Council hereby adopts an Ordinance amending Section 17.12.220 and Chapter 17.26 of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code as follows: A. Amend Sect -ion 17.12.220 of the RHMC to amend the definition of "View" and add the definition of "View corridor" in alphabetical order to read as follows: "View" means a view from a principal residence, but not including from bathrooms, hallways, 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 impairment" means a significant interference with and obstruction of a view by landscaping, trees or any other planted vegetation. "View corridor" means a view from a designated viewing area broken into segments by vegetation. B. Amend Section 17.26.010 of the RHMC to read as follows: 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 2 SZ 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. C. Amend Section 17.26.040 of the RHMC to read as follows: 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 3 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. 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 30 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. D. Amend Section 17.26.050 of the RHMC to read as follows: 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 or both parties as determined by the Committee, 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 or parties. 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 the complainant requests a delay of the proceedings for more than one hundred eighty (180) 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 5 `✓ (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. E. Amend Section 17.26.060 of the RI-IMC to read as follows: 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 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 6 :Z which the vegetation is growing, unless the Committee adopts a final decision providing an alternative cost allocation, which shall be accompanied by written findings justifying the alternative cost allocation. The vegetation shall be maintained in accordance with the final decision so as not to allow for future view impairments. F. Amend Section 17.26.080 of the RHMC to read as follows: 17.26.080 Notification of subsequent owners. Within thirty days of the final decision of the Committee, or the City Council on appeal, an informational covenant 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. G. Add Section 17.26.100 of the RHMC to read as follows: 17.26.100 Indemnification. Complainants shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, attorneys and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, attorneys or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul a decision of the Committee or City Council on appeal restoring an impaired view or that otherwise challenges, or seeks damages resulting from, the issuance, defense, implementation, or enforcement of a view restoration order (collectively "action"). Nothing in this reimbursement obligation shall provide to the complainant any control over decisions made by the City in connection with an action. H. Add to list of Sections at the beginning of the Ordinance: 17. 26. 100 Indemnification PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK 2016. JEFF PIEPER, MAYOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) I certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 346 entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING SECTION 17.12.220 AND CHAPTER 17.26 RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION OF TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on 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 8C Agenda Item No.: 5-A Mtg. Date: 01/25/16 ATTACHMENT "C" Summary of view impairment cases filed with the City (::z3 SUMMARY OF VIEW PRESERVATION CASES: 1988-2013 (PRE MEASURE "B") Out of 11 cases*: 5 (4 and a portion of one) were resolved by mediation 7 (6 and a portion of one) were not resolved in mediation 2 withdrawn/resolved privately 4 were appealed to the City Council after CTV decision 2 lawsuits filed SUMMARY OF VIEW PRESERVATION CASES: 2013-2016 (POST MEASURE "B") Out of 10 cases: Out of 21 cases: 0 currently in mediation 5 were resolved in mediation 5 were not resolved in mediation 2 were appealed to the City Council after CTV decision 0 lawsuits filed TOTAL CASES SINCE 1988 0 currently in mediation 10 were resolved in mediation (plus portion of one) 12 were not resolved in mediation (plus portion of one) 2 were withdrawn 6 were appealed to the City Council after CTV decision 2 lawsuits filed *some cases involved multiple parties with different outcomes Agenda Item No.: 5-A Mtg. Date: 01/25/16 ATTACHMENT "D" Correspondence received since January 11, 2016 City Council meeting (31)3 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 January 18, 2016 City Council City of Rolling Hills, CA 90274 RESTORATIVE ACTIONS- REPLACE WITH ISA APPROVED PRUNING TECHNIQUES THAT ACCOMPLISH THE SAME REMEDIATION GOAL Dear Councilpersons: RECEIVED JAW 19 2016 City of Rolling Hills By There are view abatement actions specified in Section 1726.030 E. that are ambiguous and in some cases are actions not approved by arborists that may injure trees and make view obstructions worse. Other beneficial abatement actions are not listed. Fortunately, after the RH view ordinance was written nearly 30 years ago, pruning actions that are approved by arborists and give specific guidance about what the term means have been defined in arboriculture glossaries - Below, I propose that certain restorative actions be deleted and replaced with actions that are defined by ISA or other arborist associations and accomplish the same remediation goal. I show these deleted actions as lined -out, followed by an arborist approved actions. Other appropriate remediation actions are added. I have re -ordered the terms from least severe to most severe. Section 17.26.030 E. "The Committee.... shall order such restorative action as is necessary to abate the view impairment and to restore the complainant's view, including, but not limited to, -:mining, thinning lacing, topping, crown lifting, crown reduction, stand thinning, or removal or similar alteration of vegetation." Topping or heading back of a tree is expressly forbidden. • Pruning: The term "Pruning" is eliminated as it is a very general non-specific term. Dr. Gilman in An Illustrated Guide to Pruning requires almost 500 pages to define proper pruning techniques. Page 1 1 �35 • "Thinning" replaced by Lacing. Lacing means a method of pruning that selectively removes excess (primarily interior) limbs and foliage to improve the structure of the tree and to provide a view through the tree. No more that 30 percent of the foliage should be removed. 4 Before and After Lacing • Topping replaced by "Crown lifting" and "Crown reduction." Topping is the removal of the entire top of a tree's crown by cutting back large diameter branches to stubs and truncating the main stem/trunk. Topping damages and weakens trees, often results in explosive new growth, and topped trees appear disfigured and mutilated. Most cities have tree/view ordinances that forbid topping of trees (see attached "Don't Top Trees!"). wiAseSy Page 12 • Crown lifting. Means removing the lower branches of a tree so that a view can be experienced under the tree. • Crown reduction. Means a method of pruning that reduces a tree's height and or/spread. Crown reduction entails reduction of the top, sides or individual limbs by removal of leaders or the longest portions of limbs to a lateral limb large enough to assume the tree's growth. This arborist approved method of reducing the height and/or spread of a tree replaces "topping," which has many undesirable effects. Page 1 3 • Stand thinning. Means the selective removal of specific trees from a grove of trees. • "Heading back." This severe method of reducing the mass of a tree by cutting back major limbs to stubs is forbidden in tree/view ordinances in most cities. It causes explosive new growth, similar to topping, that results in a dense ball of vegetation. Heading back makes a tree look ugly and makes view impairment worse. I recommend that "topping" and "heading back" should be expressly forbidden in the view ordinance. Sincerely, Lynn E. Gill Page 1 4 WHY NOT TO TOP: 8 GOOD REASONS Don't Top Trees! I. Starvation: Topping removes so much of the tree's leafy crown that it dangerously reduces the tree's food -making ability. 2. Shock: By removing the protective cover of the tree's canopy, bark tissue is exposed to the direct rays of the sun. The resultant scalding can cause the tree's death. 3. Insects and Disease: The exposed ends of topped limbs are highly vulnerable to insect invasion or fungi spores decay. 4. Weak Limbs: New branches that grow from a stubbed limb are weakly attached and more liable to break from snow or ice weight. 5. Rapid New Growth: Instead of controlling the height and spread of the tree, topping has the opposite effect. New branches are more numerous and often grow higher than before. 6. Tree Death: Some tree species can't tolerate major branch loss and still survive. At best, they remain weak and disease -prone. 7. Ugliness: A topped tree is a disfigured tree. Even with new growth, it never regains the grace and character of its species. S. Cost: The true cost of topping is often hidden - lower property values, expense of removal, and replacement if the tree die JAN 1 9 2016 - • , from the TREE CITY USA City of Rolling Hills By he sight of topped trees is all loo common in communities and along the roadways of America - trunks with stubby limps standing naked in the landscape, trees stripped of all dignity and grace. Trees are often lopped because they grow into utility wires, interfere u;ith views or solar collectors, or simply grow so large that they worry the landowner But, as one arborist bas said, "Topping is the absolute worst thing you can do for the health of your tree." BULLETIN PROPER PRUNING - THE ALTERNATIVE TO TOPPING TOPPING YEAR 1 YEAR 3 YEAR 6 When a decision is made to reduce the size of an older tree, it can be topped, or it can be pruned properly. Although the speed and nature of re -growth will depend on species and local factors, any comparison between irresponsible topping and competent pruning will be dramatic. Qualified arborists use crown reduction to control height when necessary. Selected limbs are removed at their junction with the trunk or a limb at least one-third the diameter of the removed limb. YEAR 1: The topped tree is an ugly stub and a remnant of a once -lovely tree. If pruned properly, the tree's size is reduced but form and beauty are retained. YEAR 3: Vigorous sprouts have sprung out of the topped tree in large numbers and are growing with abnormal rapidity. The pruned tree adds growth, but it does so more slowly and distributes it more normally. YEAR 6: In a relatively short time, the topped tree is as tall - and far bushier and more dangerous - than it was to begin with. The properly pruned tree is safer, more beautiful, and its size is better controlled. + r Arbor Day Foundation' 100 Arbor Avenue • Nebraska City, NE 68410 RECEIVED 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 January 21, 2016 City Council City of Rolling Hills SHOULD THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SPEND TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO RESOLVE VIEW DISPUTES AMONG PROPERTY OWNERS? JAN 2 1 2016 City of Rolling Hills By Dear City Councilpersons: No, taxpayer dollars should not be used to resolve disputes between property owners in Rolling Hills. Resolution of property disputes is best left up to the view - seeker and tree/vegetation owner. If they can't reach an agreement, they can turn to arbitration or the courts —without Rolling Hills being dragged into the fray! Taxpayer dollars would be better used for such improvement projects as undergrounding of utilities, increased sheriff patrols, fire -fuel reduction, needs of seniors, city beautification and so forth. Factors to consider: 1) The City should remain scrupulously neutral in resolving view disputes. There is not a presumption that the view seeker is the wronged party. It is entirely possible that a view seeker could file a frivolous view resolution in an attempt to obtain a view that did not exist when they purchased their property. The tree/vegetation owner deserves equal protection under the law from an unscrupulous owner seeking to increase their property value at the expense of a neighbor's property value. • City attorney's only role should be solely to interpret the law and provide guidance to the view committee or city counsel • .View -seeker and/or tree owner should retain legal counsel, at their own expense, if they wish to be represented • View -seeker and/or tree owner should retain arborists or other experts if they desire, at their own expense • I suggest that the view committee go back to being a citizen committee separate from the Planning Commission. They have plenty of other things to do! 2) The view seeker is seldom financially less able to pursue a view dispute than is the tree/vegetation owners. That's the argument given for spending taxpayer dollars to help the view -seeker regain/create a view. In Rolling Hills, it would be rare for a property owner to be so destitute that they cannot afford legal and expert representation. In a recent view resolution case, Occhipinti and Fournier vs. Sherman, my supposition is that the view -seekers were financially much better able to prosecute the view resolution action than was Sherman. They don't need the help of Rolling Hills taxpayers! 3) The City should not become a party to a dispute between property owners and participate financially in expensive litigation. It is very rare for a city to shoulder the financial risk of becoming a party to a view dispute. Most cities provide view resolution guidelines and definitions in an ordinance, and provide a view committee that acts as a facilitator or ombudsman to assist the view -seeker and tree owner on an advisory basis in resolving a dispute. If the parties cannot agree, they can then turn to arbitration or litigation —without the City being dragged into expensive litigation! The RH Planning Director provided an analysis of view ordinances in benchmark cities. I have summarized the results below, combined with a similar study I conducted a few years ago (attached). CITY PARTY TO DISPUTE NOT PARTY TO DISPUTE LIABILITY INDEMINIFICATION Berkeley X X Beverly Hills X X Laguna Beach X X Malibu X X Oakland X X Palo Alto X Tree Protection Ord. only Palos Verdes Estates X X Rancho Palos Verdes X Rolling Hills X Rolling Hills Estates X X Sausalito X Tiburon X X 4) Reimbursement of City's view remediation action costs- loser pays all Prior to adoption of Measure B, the view seeker could get, with the City's help, a view that did not exist when they purchased their property in Rolling Hills. It was entirely fitting that the view -seeker should reimburse the City for its expenses, as obtaining a view they never had could significantly improve their property value. After passage of Measure B, not so much! Now, the wronged party is likely to be a property owner who had a view when they purchased their property, and now needs City help to restore the view. The tree -owner could well be the recalcitrant party unwilling to be neighborly and restore his neighbor's view. Page 1 2 Of course, there is also the possibility of a view -seeker attempting to obtain a view that they did not have when they purchased their property, by filing a frivolous view remediation action. Requiring the losing party to pay all of the City's costs Closer pays all") would discourage such frivolous view applications, and would also encourage uncooperative property owners whose trees have grown to block a neighbor's view to work with their neighbor to restore a view, without getting the City involved. Sincerely, S Lynn E. Gill Page 13 COMPARISON OF TREE AND VIEW ORDINANCES OF OTHER CALIFORNIA CITIES WITH SIMILAR TERRAIN SUMMARY OF TREE AND VIEW ORDINANCES RECEIVED JAN 2 1 2016 City of Rolling Hills FROM 1-4nn Gill ISSUE ROLLING HILLS VIEW ORDINANCE _ OTHER CITY TREE AND VIEW ORDINANCES 1) View and/or tree • No comprehensive tree policy; only a View Policy • Of 8 other cities, all but Malibu have both comprehensive tree and view ordinances (view part of tree ordinance or policy? • Protects natural vegetation from indiscriminate removal policy) • Malibu regulates landscaping of new construction 2) What baseline date • Date the view -seeker purchased their property • 4 cities use the date when Complainant purchased his property is used to establish a • 1 city uses view at any time during ownership of Complainant view? • RPV, the most restrictive, uses dates when Complainants and Tree -Owner's lots were established 3) How is a view • View corridor concept from one or more views points • RPV and Tiburon- the one best view form a primary viewing area defined? • The ordinance allows multiple viewing points • RHE- Defines vistas and scenic corridors • Others- defines view character as to example vistas 4) Who enforces the • The City becomes a party to the dispute, and by use of its • All except RPV provide only definitions and guidelines, the City facilitates but does not become a covenants/ police power compels view remediation as determined by party to disputes, which are settled between Complainant and Tree Owner ordinances? the Board • RPV uses its police power to compel view remediation determined by View Restoration Commission • The City thereby subjects itself to litigation (RPV has about $300,000 per year litigation expenses) 5) View Remediation Process • Requires attempt to resolve dispute among Complainant view -seeker and Tree Owner • Most other cities define a process that Includes informal efforts between parties to resolve dispute, mediation, arbitration, and litigation as a last resort. In some cases, the City facilitates the process as • Application and mandatory mediation ombudsman • Dispute to View Committee, then the City Council • RPV- required attempts to resolve dispute among the parties, View Restoration Committee makes • Litigation among parties and Rolling Hills as last resort. Rolling Hills pays for the view -seeker's Legal costs recommendation for view remediation subject to appeal by the City Council, litigation among parties including the City as last resort 6) Criteria for View • Defines vistas (ocean, mountains,city lights, harbor, etc.) • All except RPV consider a variety of factors related to trees, in addition to view: privacy, shade, quality Remediation • Determination of view corridor(s) of tree, impact on tree -owners property value, soil stability, wildlife habitat, wind screening, etc. • RPV establishes primary viewing area and one best view. Requires replacement plantings for privacy, shade, health of remaining landscaping, integrity of landscape design 7) Tree Topping • Allowed, among other remedies • Topping prohibited by most cities. 4 other cities allow crown raising or reductions, , but actions may not destroy visual proportions or aesthetic value, or negatively affect the health of the tree 8) Fees • Cost above the application fee borne by the City • In 5 other cities, costs are borne entirely by the private parties in the dispute (the City is not a party to the dispute) • RPV is reimbursed by Complainant for all costs incurred by City (but they still have to collect from parties — Legal costs borne by the City run about $300,000 per year) Rev. January 20, 2016 COMPARISON OF TREE AND VIEW ORDINANCES OF OTHER CALIFORNIA CITIES WITH SIMILAR TERRAIN 9) Replacement • Replacement plantings could be required • RPV requires that Complainant pay full cost of replacement plantings plantings and • View Committee decides apportionment, if any • Berkeley requires Complainant to reimburse Tree Owner for the full value of the tree (typically Cost apportionment $15,000 and up) • In 5 other cities, costs are apportioned based on relative benefits and burdens of each, as agreed among the private parties, or as determined by mediation, arbitration, or litigation 10) Maintenance of • Tree owner pays for maintenance of cut -back trees or • 2 cities, Berkeley and Oakland, require Complainant to pay for maintenancebf cut -back trees or cut -back trees and plantings plantings plantings • View Committee/City Council could allocate otherwise among the parties • 3 cities; RHE, Sausalito, and Tiburon apportion the costs between Complainant and Tree Owner based on burdens and benefits of each; or as determined by agreement, mediation, or litigation • OnItRPV requires that the Tree Owner must pay, for maintenance of cut -back trees and plantings 10) Public Utility Tree • No pruning guidelines. Utilities consistently severely cut- • All other cities require compliance with pruning guidelines, Tree City USA standards, supervision by Trimming back and top trees. an arbodst, forester, or public works to preserve the Integrity of the tree and to hide poles and wires Rev. January 20, 2016 - 2 - COMPARISON OF TREE AND VIEW ORDINANCES OF OTHER CALIFORNIA CITIES WITH SIMILAR TERRAIN DETAIL OF TREE AND VIEW ORDINANCES POLICY ISSUE RANCHO PALOS VERDES ROLLING HILLS ESTATES PALOS VERDES ESTATES BERKELEY OAKLAND SAUSALITO TIBURON MALIBU 1) View and/or tree ordinance or policy? - 1989 Ballot Measure on View - "Public and Private Vegetation - Parklands Committee advises - Urban Forest Management - Tree Ordinance, Title 12, Chapter - Tree and View Preservation Tree Ordinance includes Chapter - Regulates landscaping for new Restoration Guidelines" - (I A) "Suggestions residents on designated trees, tree Program 12.36. Ordinance- Section 11.12 of 15 on restoration of views or construction - Guidelines and to Resolve a View management - Chapter 12.45 - Permits required Municipal Code sunlight - No general Procedures for Problem" procedures, right -of 'Solar Access to remove _ _ ordinance related to Restoration of Views - New Planting way trees, trimming or removal of City trees. and Views' protected trees views- recommends working out disputes Note: Guidelines for - Public Works . Guidelines - Tree Management Policy related to City - View Ordinance, Title 15, Chapter among neighbors Developing and Evaluating Tree manages - Recommended trees recognizing 15.52 - Code Enforcement Ordinances (which maintenance of street and parks Tree List importance of both trees and views Officer may become Involved if Zoning include view ordinances) are provided by American Planning Association and International City trees, issues permits for street trees planting and trimming - Pruning Guidelines - PVE has no view ordinance as such, except for Neighborhood Code and landscaping plan Is violated Management Compatibility Association Ordinance on new construction. Neighbors look at plans, including landscaping - Mews are considered by the Art Jury when approving plans, however, 'The Art Jury is NOT charged with the responsibility of maintaining the view from any site.' 2) What baseline date Date when Date when the Documentation View that existed View that existed View that existed Date of approved is used to establish a complainant's lot properly was showing when complainant when complainant when complainant landscaping plan of view? and the tree acquired by the view absence of view purchased their purchased their purchased their offending lot Rev. January 20, 2016 -3- COMPARISON OF TREE AND VIEW ORDINANCES OF OTHER CALIFORNIA CITIES WITH SIMILAR TERRAIN POLICY ISSUE RANCHO PALOS VERDES ROLLING HILLS ESTATES PALOS VERDES ESTATES BERKELEY OAKLAND SAUSALITO TIBURON MALIBU owner's lot were established obstructed neighbor, and the state of the view at that time obstruction at any time during tenure of current owner property property property 3) How is a view defined? Viewing area is where the one best and most important view is taken. Once established, the viewing area and view may -not be changed for any subsequent application of applicant Vistas and scenic corridors: LA Basin, mountains, ocean, bays, harbors, coastlines, canyon and other landforms. Existence and extent of view obstruction assessed. More than 10% of total view panorama must be obscured by vegetation to be considered impairment. 'It is recognized that both the abundance of mature trees and beautiful views contribute to the City's special character." Distant vista of skyllnes, bridges, distant cities, geologic features, hillside terrains and wooded canyons or ridges. Distant vista or panorama of bridges, distant cities, canyons, etc. that exsisted when the Claimant acquired his or her property . Defines example vistas such as San' Francisco Bay, bridges, geologic features, canyons, and ridges. Does not mean an unobstructed panorama Viewing area at primary living area (where view is observed most often) or active use area (most frequently occupied portion) View defined as to character Not defined 4) Who enforces the covenants/ ordinances? The City of RPV, through its View Restoration Commission Enforcement of the Guidelines is by the private parties involved Guidelines set forth a procedure for resolution of disputes - Palos Verdes Homes Association and Art Jury work to mediate view disputes. There is not a view ordinance as such Enforcement of - the Chapter is by the private parties Involved Chapter sets forth a procedure for resolution of disputes Enforcement of the Chapter Is by the private parties involved Chapter sets forth a procedure for resolution of disputes - Ordinance establishes rights and provides complaining owner with a process, and enables them to resolve through informal, mediation, arbitration, or litigation - Tree and View Committee acts as board of arbitration - Ordinance establishes rights and provides complaining owner with a process, and enables them to resolve through informal, mediation, arbitration, or litigation - Minimal support of Zoning Officer, owners resolve among themselves Rev. January 20, 2016 -4- COMPARISON OF TREE AND VIEW ORDINANCES OF OTHER CALIFORNIA CITIES WITH SIMILAR TERRAIN POLICY ISSUE RANCHO PALOS VERDES ROLLING HILLS ESTATES PALOS VERDES ESTATES BERKELEY OAKLAND SAUSALITO TIBURON MALIBU 5) View Remediation - Complaining Neighbors discuss - Complainant and - Initial attempts Claim procedure - Complaining - Informal Among parties, Process owner notifies tree view obstruction to tree owner attempt to at reconciliation in chapter 15.52 owner notifies tree remediation process not defined owner, attempts to attempt to find a resolve the view issue among the for private owner, attempts.to among owners resolve disputes mutually agreeable • If view Issue is not parties resolution of resolve - Mediation if - Complainant solution. resolved, it is referred - Mediation if disputes : - Claimant obtains accepted by tree applies to City to the Homes acceptable to report of a feasible owner - View Restoration Suggested Association. tree owner - Informal solution from an - Binding Committee consultation with - Homes Association - Tree claim - Arbitration Arborist arbitration if reviews and makes recommendation landscape architect, horticulturist, landscape contractor Ombudsman attempts to broker a resolution with the parties. preparation - Binding arbitration if - Litigation . - - - Mediation, if accepted by tree owner accepted by tree owner - Litigation among - Appeal to the - If agreement is not acceptable to _ - Binding the owners City Council City Hall staff can received, Homes tree owner arbitration by if - Town protected - Litigation among assist if invited In the Association - Litigation accepted by both from civil or complainant, tree assessment of view determines view among the parties. Trees and criminal liabilities owner and RPV obstruction and remediation remediation requirements - If tree owner does not comply with Association requirements, they cannot receive permits or receive other approvals from the private parties Views Committee is the board of arbitration - Litigation among the owners City or Association t, • -The Association requirements must be complied with before the tree owner can sell their property 6) Criteria for View - Establishment of View when T. Depends upon - Existence of - Native trees - Character of the - Extent of view Remediation a primary viewing area complainant's property was circumstances of each situation landmarks, vistas, or unique exempt from ordinance view - Extent to which obstruction - Aesthetic quality - Establishment of acquired features which - Existence of a view is diminished of tree (s) . one best view The Art Jury is NOT cannot be seen view - Benefits of the - Location with from primary Impact of proposed charged with the since acquisition - Extent view is plantings in respect to Rev. January 20, 2016 -5- COMPARISON OF TREE AND VIEW ORDINANCES OF OTHER CALIFORNIA CITIES WITH SIMILAR TERRAIN POLICY ISSUE RANCHO PALOS VERDES ROLLING HILLS ESTATES PALOS VERDES ESTATES BERKELEY OAKLAND SAUSALITO TIBURON MALIBU viewing area remediation on: - responsibility of of the property diminished by question (visual landscape design - Establishment of view when lot was created or view when ordinance was passed in 1989 Aesthetic impairment - Increased erosion - Decreased privacy - Slope instability - Decreased wind screening maintaining the view from any site - Effect of the tree on sunlight, hazards posed - Visual quality of tree - Location re tree; balanced against Benefits of the tree: - visual screening quality, landscaping purpose, privacy, wind screening, auditory, economic value - - Soil stability - Privacy (visual and auditory) - Energy conservation and climate control r Impact on privacy of tree owner - Property owner may take dated pictures of their view and file them with the City for proof of future view remediation actions - Replacement for: o Privacy o Shade o Energy- efficiency of structure o Health or viability of remaining landscaping o Integrity of landscape design landscaping - Soil stability - Visual, auditory and wind screening - Energy conservation/ climate control - Wildlife habitat - Economic value of tree . - Economic value of property as a result of the tree Native, rare or specimen tree - economic value - wildlife habitat - soil stability - energy conservation - visual quality Replacement planting paid by Complainant and enjoyment - Wildlife habitat - Undesirable tree definitions - Protected trees 7) Tree Topping Allowed, if thinning Topping not Allowed, topping Allowed, may not Allowed, but or crown raising are.not effective. recommended by the City but may not destroy the visual destroy visual proportions, or discouraged Topping may not kill the tree or _ allowed if trimming or proportions of the tree or adversely affect health or growth pattem destroy its aesthetic value - thinning not effective affect growth pattern or health (arborist's advice is required) Rev. January 20, 2016 -6- COMPARISON OF TREE AND VIEW ORDINANCES OF OTHER CALIFORNIA CITIES WITH SIMILAR TERRAIN POLICY ISSUE RANCHO PALOS VERDES ROLLING HILLS ESTATES PALOS VERDES ESTATES BERKELEY OAKLAND SAUSALITO TIBURON MALIBU or other detriment 8) Fees Actual costs associated with the remediation effort including consultants collected by the City, reported to be about $2000. However, in 1998 RPV incurred costs $300,000 greater than fees None to City (private resolution of disputes) None to City (private resolution of disputes) None to City (private resolution of disputes) None to City (private resolution of disputes) Actual costs incurred by complainant and tree owner for mediation, arbitration, litigation Actual costs incurred by complainant and tree owner for mediation, arbitration, litigation Actual costs incurred by complainant and tree owner for mediation, arbitration, litigation 9) Cost apportionment 1 - Commission determines and requires Complainant to pay for replacement trees or plantings to provide privacy, shade, integrity of landscaping - Complainant pays costs of initial remediation - Cost may be distributed based on the relative benefits the parties may derive - Complainant pays all costs of mediation - Both parties pay 50% of arbitration - Complainant pays 100% of both parties reasonable attorney fees if they lose -Complaining party pays for all restorative actions - Tree owner compensated for tree: fair market value, replacement value, or trunk formula, per - Complainant pays 100% of costs of restorative actions and replacement plantings - Tree owner bears all costs of removal if they receive an adverse judicial decision. As determined by agreement, mediation, arbitration, or litigation Future maintenance determined by agreement, mediation, arbitration, or litigation As determined by agreement, mediation, arbitration, or litigation Future maintenance determined by agreement, mediation, arbitration, or litigation Not defined Rev. January 20, 2016 COMPARISON OF TREE AND VIEW ORDINANCES .OF OTHER CALIFORNIA CITIES WITH SIMILAR TERRAIN POLICY ISSUE RANCHO PALOS VERDES ROLLING HILLS ESTATES PALOS VERDES ESTATES BERKELEY OAKLAND SAUSALITO . TIBURON MALIBU Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, Guide for Plant Appraisal - The Complainant Is responsible for future maintenance of trees 8 plantings 10) Maintenance of cut -back trees and plantings Tree Owner pays for future maintenance of cut -back tree or planting Vegetation owner pays for future maintenance Complainant (view -seeker) pays for future maintenance of cut -back tree or plantings Complainant (view. seeker).pays for future maintenance of cut -back tree or plantings Cost apportioned between Complainant and Tree'Owner based on burdens and benefits enjoyed by each Cost apportioned between Complainant and Tree Owner based on burdens and benefits enjoyed by each As determined by agreement, mediation, arbitration, or litigation 11) Tree Trimming by Public Utility and on City Owned land 8000 trees regutady maintained by Public Works. Permits and supervision of utility easement trimming by Public works Must comply with Standard Pruning Practices • Tree Trimming Standards for City Trees included in Tree Ordinance PVE maintains all street and park trees on a 3 year cycle Controlled by Urban Forest Management Program, and "Tree Pruning Guidelines,' International Association of Arbiculture. Covered under Tree Ordinance. Perm. its to remove a City tree or a protected tree All trimming must be done by a . certified Arborist - Pruning methods are defined by City in Tree and View Preservation Ordinance - Topping of trees not permitted • Work performed under daily supervision of an Arborist - Work performed by an Arborist or Certified Tree Worker Tree Ordinance covers Trimming Standards for City Trees In parklands and easements .. Rev. January 20, 2016 -8- 84 el Rdeatfi qiciej INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 6A Mtg. Date: 01/25/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR CV n w O U THROUGH: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1182 TO ADOPT ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION ATTACHMENTS: A. Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Ordinance, including Measure B language (underlined/ bold/ italics) B. Resolution No. 1182 of the City Council adopting administrative regulations interpreting Measure B, as recommended by the Planning Commission C. Correspondence received since January 11, 2016 BACKGROUND 1. It is recommended that the City Council continue deliberations on the proposed Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B. 2. The City Council held a public hearing in the matter of administrative regulations interpreting Measure B at their January 11, 2016 meeting, and continued the hearing to tonight's meeting. 3. All of the documents and information provided to the City Council at the January 11, 2016 meeting continue to be relevant and are available at City Hall. Please refer to your January 11, 2016 packet. 4. Included with this staff report is correspondence received since the Council's meeting on January 11, 2016. 5. During the meeting, generally, the residents testified as follows: 0 • The City Council should adopt Planning Commission's recommendations as a starting point. The Interpretations could be amended at any time if it is determined that they are not working • The Planning Commission's recommendation regarding maturity of trees is flawed and illegal • No industry evidence that when a tree is cut or pruned that it is not mature • Maturity should be defined as the maximum height that the plant can likely reach per the Sunset Western Garden Book • Maturity should be defined as 75% of the average of the trees lowest and highest range of growth per the Sunset Western Garden Book • Maturity should be defined as the average of the trees lowest and highest range of growth per the Sunset Western Garden Book • Maturity should be defined as the lowest height in the range per the Sunset Western Garden Book or the age of tree • Don't define/interpret minuscule provisions • The interpretation must be reasonable • Date of acquisition of property could be determined using information from a title company • Restudy the concept of ownership change when a revocable trust becomes irrevocable The City Council discussed the following issues: • City should hire an arborist certified by the American Society of Consulting Arborists, who can be expert witness to advise the City on what constitutes maturity of trees • Change of ownership - the definition of change in ownership set forth in the California Revenue & Taxation Code (R&T Code) may not be the best application for the interpretation of the measure 6. No decisions were made on any of the above issues and the City Council agreed to continue the discussion. Agenda Item No.: 6-A Mtg. Date: 01/25/16 ATTACHMENT "A" Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Ordinance, including Measure B language (underlined/bold/italics). THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1 Chapter 17.26 VIEW PRESERVATION (WITH MEASURE 8 LANGUAGE IN BOLD, ITALICS AND UNDERLINED) 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. Panoramic 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 and abatement of view obstructions created by landscaping, while at the same time protecting natural vegetation from indiscriminate removal. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). 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 view is impaired by vegetation growing on property other than their own may seek abatement of the view impairment under the following procedure: A. Application Required. The complainant shall submit a complete application for abatement of view impairment 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 complaint. A complaint 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. 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. If agreement is reached through mediation, it shall be implemented in accordance with Section 17.26.060. C. Public Hearing. In the event mediation fails to achieve agreement, the matter shall be returned to the City Manager, who shall schedule the matter for a public hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views. (Ord. 292 §5, 2003; Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). 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. 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. 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. The Committee shall make specific written findings in support of the foregoing determinations. E. Action. If the Committee makes finding subsection (D)(3) of this section, it shall order such restorative action as is necessary to abate the view impairment and to restore the complainant's view, 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. F. Finality of Decision. The Committee's decision shall be final twenty days after adoption of its written findings, unless it is appealed to the City Council pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.54. (Ord. 295 §7 (Exh. B (part)), 2004; Ord. 239 §1 l(part), 1993) (Ord. No. 333 (Measure B), 3-18-2013) 17.26.060 Implementation of restorative action. A. 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 a 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 thirty days from receipt of the cash deposit. C. Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation in question shall be performed as prescribed by the Committee's final decision 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. A notice of the decision shall be recorded against the title of the property and shall run with the land, thereby giving notice of this obligation to all future owners. D. The implementation method provided for in this section may be modified by the parties or in any final decision if grounds exist to justify such a modification. In particular, the Committee may allocate the cost of restorative action as follows: 1. If the Committee finds that the tree or other vegetation constitutes a safety hazard to the complainant or his property, and is being maintained by the owner in disregard of the safety of others, the owner may be required to pay one hundred percent of the cost of correction; or 2. If the owner is maintaining a hedge fifteen feet or more in height, the Committee may allocate the cost of correction to the property owner, provided that the owner of the land on which the hedge exists shall not be required to pay more than twenty-five percent of the cost of such correction. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). 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. The owner on whose property the offending vegetation exists shall notify all successor owners of the final decision in any proceeding under this chapter, and such decision shall be binding upon all such successors in interest. Within thirty days of the final decision, an informational covenant shall be recorded against the title of the property on a form provided by the City. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). 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." co THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Agenda Item No.: 6-A Mtg. Date: 01/25/16 ATTACHMENT "B" Resolution No. 1182 of the City Council adopting administrative regulations interpreting Measure B, as recommended by the Planning Commission 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 corridors" and views through trees, and not unobstructed views; • Measure B specified that its provisions are to be applied retroactively. Section 3. Measure B contains various ambiguities that have resulted in uncertainty in its application in view obstruction cases submitted to the City's Committee on Trees and View for consideration. Measure B can only be amended by the voters; however, the City may adopt administrative regulations providing guidance and interpreting ambiguities in voter initiatives. Based on this authority 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: Resolution No.1182 Measure B Interpretation 1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS _ DAY OF 2016. JEFF PIEPER, MAYOR 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. Resolution No.1182 Measure B Interpretation 2 Attachment A City of Rolling Hills Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B Relating to View Preservation Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Date of Property Acquisition "Mature" versus "Maturing" Trees Retroactivity of Measure B Chapter 1 DATE OF PROPERTY ACQUISITION Section 1001. Interpretation of the Date of Acquisition of Property. Measure B provides that a person may only apply to restore the view existing from the date that the current owner of the property actually acquired the property. In determining whether a transfer of property has resulted in an acquisition affecting the view that a person may apply to have restored, the City shall generally apply the rules applicable to reassessment of property taxes in the County of Los Angeles. The impacts of common transfers of property are illustrated below: A. The acquisition date of property acquired through inheritance shall be the date that the previous owner acquired the property, not the date of the transfer by inheritance. B. The acquisition date of property acquired from a third party through an arms - length purchase and sale shall be the date of the sale as evidenced by a deed. C. When property is placed into a revocable trust, the acquisition date of property shall not change. When property is placed into an irrevocable trust, or a revocable trust becomes irrevocable, the acquisition date shall be the date that the property was placed into the irrevocable trust or the revocable trust became irrevocable. Resolution No.1 182 Measure B interpretation Chapter 2 "MATURE" VERSUS "MATURING" TREES Section 2001. -Definition of "Mature" Trees The International Society of Arboriculture defines maturity by "mature height," which means the "maximum height that a plant is likely to reach if the conditions of the planting site are favorable." The Sunset Western Garden Book is a trusted reference guide on trees, plants and other vegetation present in the region and defines a plant species'. "maturity" as the time at which a plant achieves a certain height range and displays other characteristics. The Sunset Western Garden Book provides maximum height ranges for species of plants typically involved in View Preservation cases in the City. For purposes of the View Preservation Ordinance and Measure B, a plant is "mature" when it reaches the maximum height for the species specified in the Sunset Western Garden Book. However, arborists agree that plants that have been regularly cut may never reach their maximum potential height, and several alternative methodologies are "recognized to determine the age of such trees. However, the alternative methodologies are complex and require reliance on a professional arborist. Further, the proponents of Measure B testified before the Planning Commission that the intent of Measure B was to exempt trees that have reached their full species height prior to acquisition of a complainant's property. Therefore, trees that show evidence of regular cutting and are therefore unlikely to reach their maximum potential height shall not be considered "mature" for purposes of the View Preservation Ordinance and shall not be exempt from restorative action. Section 2002. Definition of "Maturing" Trees Trees and other vegetation that are not "mature" as specified in these regulations are "maturing." Section 2003. Presumption that Trees were not "Mature" If evidence is presented, such as historical aerial photographs, showing that none of the offending trees or vegetation subject to a complaint was planted at or around the time that the complainant acquired the property from which a view is claimed, the complainant shall be entitled to a presumption that the offending trees and vegetation were not "mature" at the date of acquisition and are therefore subject to restorative action. Resolution No.1 182 Measure B interpretation 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 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ) §§ 1 certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1182 entitled: 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 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. Resolution No.1 182 Measure B Interpretation CITY CLERK yg 6 Agenda Item No.: 6-A Mtg. Date: 01/25/16 ATTACHMENT "C" Correspondence received since January 11, 2016 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK foo RECEIVED Tuesday, January 12, 2016 3:47 PM Subject: View Ordinance Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 1:48 PM From: Paul Mayhack <paul.mayhack@yahoo.com> Reply -To: Paul Mayhack <paul.mayhack@yahoo.com> To: "hluce@cityofrh.net" <hluce@cityofrh.net> Dear Rolling Hills City Council, JAM t 2 2016 City of Rolling Hills By Our family supports the proposed changes to the View Ordinance as well as the Planning Commission's interpretation of Measure B. We feel that it is a balanced and reasonable approach to the issue of tree preservation and homeowner's right to a view. Thank You, The Mayhack Family 52 Eastfield Drive Page 1 of 1 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 January 18, 2016 City Council City of Rolling Hills, CA 90274 DEFINITION OF "MATURE TREE" Dear Councilpersons: RECEt VED. JAW 1 9 2016 City of Rolling Hills By Kudos to Councilperson Bea Dieringer for identifying the primary source of the definition of "mature tree" predominately accepted by arborists! I have found it cited many times by cities and other government agencies and arborist associations, but did not know the original source. It can be found in An Illustrated Guide to Pruning, Third Edition, by Edward F. Gilman (Glossary, page 457.) "Mature tree: A tree that has reached at least 75% of its final height and spread at a particular site, but is not declining due to old age; contrast with overmature tree." I corresponded with Dr. Gilman, who told me that the definition was in widespread use by arborists in the 1980's when he began his career in arboriculture, and he first committed it to writing and included the definition in his many published works, including the Illustrated Guide which was first published in 2002. 75% is used because a mature tree will continue to grow when it reaches maturity. That fact, and the fact that heights of mature trees of a species at a site will vary due to microclimates, weather cycles, soil conditions, water availability (next to lawn, bottom of a slope), shade of other trees, etc. means that heights of mature trees of a species at a particular site will be normally distributed. I have proposed that to determine what is a "mature tree" in a view remediation case, the most likely (mean or average) height be calculated from the range of mature tree heights (lowest mature tree height to highest mature tree height) for a species as listed in Sunset Western Garden Book (Planning Commission also recommended using this source). Lowest mature height + highest mature height x 0.75 = calculated mature 2 tree height Page 1 1 I believe that the gist of the Council discussion at the January 11, 2015 public hearing was NOTto simply use the extreme top end of the mature tree height range to determine what a mature tree is. I wrote a longish letter. dated 12-26-2015 explaining why that calculation would be statistically invalid. , Continuing council discussion was whether to multiply the highest extreme of the height range by 75%, or to use the average height as I have proposed. Since using the 'average height results in the most likely determination of mature height, it would be perceived by most people as fair and reasonable. One councilperson suggested that the council adopt the former definition, which is to multiply the highest extreme of the height range of mature trees by 75%, and then wait to have the matter judicially determined. In my opinion, that's exactly what would happen, as the definition would not be viewed by most people as a fair determination. However, since all trees within the range of lowest mature height to highest mature height for a species are, by definition, "mature," odds are that the court would find that the lowest height of a mature tree in the height range should be used to determine what is a "mature tree" for view remediation purposes. I encourage the council to use the average height of a mature tree times 75% to determine what is a "mature tree" in view remediation case. It's a fair compromise. Sincerely, Lynn E. Gill Page 1 2 ABOUT THE AUTHOR 1)r. Gilman received his I'h.I). from lutget. Ilnhe'sit\ in 15►ttn in forest plant pathology and is un the LindIh as pitiless()) in the I n\ ironnrental I fortiruhure Department pal tunent at the I )niversit\ ul Florida in Gainesville. Ile has assembled a unique urban tree teaching program !Or helping municipalities. contractors, arl)urists, educators. grouters, landscapers. anti others design and implement program% for promoting better tree health in cities. Ile conducts educational programs in tree selection. ntns- en production, and urban tree management nationwide for a large \:trier\ of audiences. Since 1Y9(1, he has received the (;unslugson Award in _'(►01 fur his extension education programs and hooks from the American Societs for Ilorticul(ural Science. Mk' Iron► the Florida \ursen and Growers \ssociation for hi% contribution to the glowers, one from the Florida I irhan Fore•an Council for his educational efforts in tnhan ture.tn and arboriculture, the Authors Citation .\ ward in 1999 trout the International Suciet\ of Aihuricultute (IS.\), the IS:\ Educators .\wt•atd in '_'(0)3, and the IS:\ research award in 2007 fot sustained excellence in research, publishing, and teaching thud\ information on tree rare. Di. Gilman is a Florida chapter IS \ past -president. Ile has published more than 9h scientific. peer -reviewed journal articles in his in years in academia and industn. I Iis research emphasizes tree pruning. nursen production. tree anchorage, and establishment techniques. Ile has published inure than I7aU technical articles in newsletters and trade nrtgaYines and annually presents research results to colleagues at professional meetings across the I States and in man\ other countries. Ile is the author ut six hooks and maintains a complete trt'hsite on urban trees. I)r. Gilman et►jtns life in (;aines�illt•. I lot ida. where he and his Witt' huts\ ha\e raised tttu daughters. Samantha and \leg.ur. GLOSSARY - c) large -maturing tree .\ tree that grim. to a height or spread greater than about -Itt or':,1) feet. large wound .\ wound that can lead to defects and wood J\sfunction it the parent stem. latent bud .\ suppressed or dormant bud that grows rnttugli each strati to remain in the hark, anel that k rapahle of forming a shoot: also known as an el,irurmir• hurl. lateral branch A stem arising from an older anti larger stem. lateral priming (cut) Syr redru th'n (rrthn e). leader A stein that dominate. a portion of the crown In virtue 111 suppressed I.urral hr.utchrs. leader -training process the pruning technique that leads to de%elopment id one leader. lowest permanent limb .1 he Inttest stallolel limb that gill remain ill) the tree for a long time. lumen I he eat in in the renter ill a cell defined In the t ell wall. main branch One of the several largest limps on the tree. tier alsn serr/Jirlrl branch (limp). maJar limb See seriJJoltl l o'uut'h mallet I Iartdhtld hanuoeriike tool with a et path ital head used to drive a chisel into \\nod. matching trees .\ set nl tree•s of the same species or rullivar %vith like sines and shapes. mature tree •\ tree that has reached at least of its linal height and spread at :t pat site, but is not deelininu due to old age: contrast with orrnnururr Uer. A. r 6(4 el Resat gal INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 CORRECTED> NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No: 10-A Mtg. Date: 01/25/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: TERRY SHEA, FINANCE DIRECTOR THRU: RAYMOND R CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: QUARTERLY SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015. DATE: JANUARY 25, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS DASH BOARD REPORT CARD INVESTMENT ALLOCATIONS SUMMARY REPORT BY QUARTER Attached you will find the City's quarterly investment report for review. Pursuant to the City Council's direction, it is agendized under "Matters from Staff" in order that it receives an appropriate level of review by the City Council. Below are Cash and Yield comparative data from the second quarter as of December 31, 2015 to the first quarter as of September 30, 2015 FY 2015/16 and YID Interest Income comparative data from the second quarter as of December 31, 2015 to second quarter as of December 31, 2014. The portfolio has been diversified by investment instrument and maturity between Money Market, Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), and FDIC insured Certificates of Deposits. Also below are the Ca1PERS California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) Strategy 1 Other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB) Irrevocable Trust results for the second quarter as of December 31, 2015 and Fiscal Year to Date FY 2015/2016. -1- / Cash & Yield Comparative Data 2nd Quarter FY 2015/2016 to 1St Quarter FY 2015/2016: 2nd Quarter 1st Quarter I FY 2015/16 FY 2015/16 829,552 $ 188,790 102,649 (72,258) $ 5,932,201 r$ 116,532 0.329% Active Deposits Inactive Deposits Total Cash Portfolio Yield at Cost $ 6,018,342 $ 30,391 $ 6,048,733 0.360% Variance 0.031% YTD Interest Income Comparative Data 2nd Quarter FY 2015/2016 to 2nd Quarter FY 2014/2015: 2nd Quarter 2nd Quarter FY 2015/16 FY 2014/15 Annual Interest - Budget $ 14,000 $ 13,550 Total YTD Interest Earned 6,371 6,928 Over (Under) Budget $ (7,629) $ (6,622) % of Annual Budget 45.51% 51.13% Ca1PERS CERBT Strategy 1 OPEB Irrevocable Trust results for the second quarter as of December 31, 2015 and Fiscal Year to Date FY 2015/2016. Beginning Balance Contribution Investment Earnings Administrative Expense Ending Balance 2nd Quarter FY 2015/16 $ 478,737 Fiscal YTD FY 2015/16 $ 508,571 11,370 (18,358) (106) (212) $ 490,001 $ 490,001 We are pleased to answer any questions you may have. TS:RC:hl Investment Report cover memo.doc -2- ear al Sea, qeiggi INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310)377-1521 FAX (310)377-7288 Agenda Item No: 10-A Mtg. Date: 01/25/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: TERRY SHEA, FINANCE DIRECTOR THRU: RAYMOND R CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: QUARTERLY SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015. DATE: JANUARY 25, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS DASH BOARD REPORT CARD INVESTMENT ALLOCATIONS SUMMARY REPORT BY QUARTER Attached you will find the City's quarterly investment report for review. Pursuant to the City Council's direction, it is agendized under "Matters froth Staff" in order that it receives an appropriate level of review by the City Council. Below are Cash and Yield comparative data from the second quarter as of December 31, 2015 to the first quarter as of September 30, 2015 FY 2015/16 and YTD Interest Income comparative data from the second quarter as of December 31, 2015 to second quarter as of December 31, 2014. The portfolio has been diversified by investment instrument and maturity between Money Market, Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), and FDIC insured Certificates of Deposits. Also below are the Ca1PERS California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) Strategy 1 Other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB) Irrevocable Trust results for the second quarter as of December 31, 2015 and Fiscal Year to Date FY 2015/2016. Cash & Yield Comparative Data 2nd Quarter FY 2015/2016 to 1st Quarter FY 2015/2016: Active Deposits Inactive Deposits Total Cash Portfolio Yield at Cost 2nd Quarter 1st Quarter FY 2015/16 FY 2015/16 $ 6,018,342 $ 5,829,552 $ 188,790 30,391 102,649 $ 6,048,733 0.360% Variance (72,258) $ 5,932,201 r$ 0.329% 116,532 0.031% YTD Interest Income Comparative Data 2nd Quarter FY 2015/2016 to 2nd Quarter FY 2014/2015: Annual Interest - Budget Total YTD Interest Earned Over (Under) Budget % of Annual Budget 2nd Quarter 2nd Quarter FY 2015/16 FY 2014/15 $ 13,550 $ 13,550 6,928 6,928 $ (6,622) $ (6,622) 51.13% 51.13% Ca1PERS CERBT Strategy 1 OPEB Irrevocable Trust results for the second quarter as of December 31, 2015 and Fiscal Year to Date FY 2015/2016. Beginning Balance Contribution Investment Earnings Administrative Expense Ending Balance 2nd Quarter Fiscal YTD FY 2015/16 FY 2015/16 $ 478,737 $ 508,571 11,370 (106) $ 490,001 $ (18,358) (212) 490,001 We are pleased to answer any questions you may have. TS:RC:h1 Investment Report cover menno.doc CHECKING Y. of Total PETTY CASH Money Market LAW Malaga Bank - CDARS Malaga Bank - CDARS Malaga Bank - CDARS Malaga Bank - CDARS Malaga Bank - CDARS Malaga Bank - CDARS Malaga Bank - CDARS Malaga Bank -CDs CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS as of December 31, 2015 INVESTMENT INSTITUTION ACTIVE DEPOSITS OPUS V. of Total STATE TREASURY %ofToal BCB Community Iberiabank Legacy Texas Bank Prosperity Bank Amarillo National Bank BOKF, National Association Legacy Texas Bank CDARS - CD'S V. of Total Malaga Bank ' of Total ACTIVE DEPOSITS TOTALS INACTIVE DEPOSITS OPUS N/A %ofToal INACTIVE DEPOSITS TOTALS GRAND TOTAL CASH PAR VALUE BOOK VALUE PRICE (a1 COST FAIR VALUE ACCRUED (MARKET JNTERESf/ PURCHASE MATURITY VALUE) DISCOUNT YIELD DATE DATE 5 1,769,369.74 S 1,769,369.74 S 1,769,369.74 S 2,548,972.35 S 2,548,972.35 $ 2,548,972.35 42.35% 4235% 243,500.00 238,685.57 24,314.43 243,500.00 243,500.00 242,314.43 219,185.57 $1,455,000.00 5245,000.00 243,500.00 243,500.00 238,685.57 238,685.57 24,314.43 24,314.43 243,500.00 243,500.00 243,500.00 243,500.00 242,314.43 242,314.43 219,185.57 219,185.57 51,455,000.00 24,18% 1245,000.00 4.07% $1,455,000.00 24.18% 5245,000.00 4.07% 56,018,342.09 S6,018,342.09 56,018,342.09 128,891.25 $1,500.00 528,891.25 95.06% 51,500.00 4.94% S30,391.25 S30,391.25 $6,048,733.34 NOTES: (1) Investment portfolio is in compliance with investment policy established by City Council. (2) The City has the ability to meet all expenditure requirements for the next six months. (3) LAIF fair market value is only provided in June of each year. 528,891.25 95.06% 51,500.00 4.94% 530,391.25 P dBy: Date Apps By: 1,1-i-16 Teny Shea, Fi .y'e Director '!mond'. Cruz, City Man a 0.150% 0.400% 0,350% 0.350% 0350% 0350% 0350% 0350% 0350% 03/19/15 03/17/16 03/19/15 03/17/16 03/19/15 03/17/16 03/19/15 03/17/16 03/19/15 03/17/16 03/19/15 03/17/16 03/19/15 03/17/16 0350% 0.450% 09/15/15 09/13/16 0360% CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DASH BOARD REPORT CARD as of December 31, 2015 JUNE JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2015-16 FY 2015-16 FY 2015-16 FY 2015-16 FY 2015-16 I. CASH FLOW ACTIVE DEPOSITS Book Value Price ® Cost OPUS Bank - Money Market S 505,808 S 494,883 S 527,319 S 575,914 S 582,630 S 583,687 5 525.233 S 1,769,370 LAIR 2,697,897 2,545,123 2,546,922 2,546,922 2,546,922 2.548,972 2,548.972 2,548,972 Malaga Bank CDARS - CDS 2.455,000 2,455,000 2,455,000 2,455.000 2,455,000 2,455.000 s 2,455,000 1.455.000 Malaga Bank - CDS 245.000 245,000 245.000 245.000 245,000 245,000 245.000 245,000 ACTIVE DEPOSITS TOTALS S 5,903.705 S 5.740.005 8 5,774,240 S 5.822,836 S 5,829,552 5 5,832,659 S 5,774,206 S 6018,342 INACTIVE DEPOSITS Opus Bank - Checking S 38,706 S 330,109 S 217,047 S 157,657 S 101,149 S 20,433 $ 27.437 S 28,891 Petty Cash 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 INACTIVE DEPOSITS TOTALS S 40,206 5 331,609 S 218.547 S 159.157 5 102.649 5 21.933 S 28,937 5 30,391 GRAND TOTAL CASH S 5943,911 S 6,071,614 S 5,992,787 S 5981,993 S 5,932,201 S 54854,592 S 5,803143 S 6048,733 NISP -SO, Active Deposits" From Previous Month $ (16.436) $ (651,003) S 34,235 S 48,595 S 6.716 S 3,108 S (58,454) $ 244,136 II. LIQUIDITY CALCULATION Liquidity S 4,909,534 S 4,653,502 S 4,653,502 S 4,653,502 S 4,653,502 S 4,653,502 5 4,653,502 S 4,653,502 Average Cash Balance S 5,298,739 S 5,508,178 S 5,499,665 S 5,590,329 S 5,624,643 S 5,660,466 S 5,694 465 S 5,729,568 Emergency Reserve Per Policy S 696,300 S 696.300 S 788.873 5 788,873 S 788,873 S 788,873 S 788,873 S 788,873 Six Month Cash Reserve S 886.076 S 1,386.378 S 1.206,718 S 1,128,082 S 1,186,769 $ 1,199.110 S 1,212,461 S 1,212461 Available Reserve for Longer Term Investment 5 5.017,629 S 4,353,628 S 4,567,522 S 4,694,754 S 4,642,783 S 4,633,550 S 4,561745 S 4,805,881 III. PORTFOLIO DIVERSIFICATION DIVERSIFICATION BY INSTRUMENT Monty Market 8.57% 8.625. 9.13% 9.87/. 9.99% 10.01% 9.10% 29.40% LAIR 45.70% 44.34% 44.11% 43.74% 43.69% 43.70% 44.14% 42.35% Treasury Bills 0.00% 0.0D% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Certificates of Deposit 45.73% 47.04% 46.76% 46.37/. 46.32% 46.27/. 46.76% 28.25% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.03% 100.00/. 100.00% DIVERSIFICATION BY MAURITY Less Than 90 Days 90 Days - 13 Weeks Six Months - 26 Weeks One Year- 52 Weeks IV. PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE MEASURES Yield at Cost Month 54.27/. 52.96% 53.24% 53.63% 4.15% 0.00.. 46.76% 21.38% 41.58% 47.04% 0.00% 24.99% 0.00/. 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00/. 100.E 100.00% 53.68% 70.85/. 70.56% 71.75% 21.36% 24.95/. 25.20% 24.18% 24.96% 4.20% 4.24% 4.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 % 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.03% 0.281% 0.314% 0.323% 0.326% 0.329% 0.337/. 0.347% 0.360% BENCHMARKS 6 Month CD 0.23 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.27 1 Year CD 0.90 1.02 1.04 1.07 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.12 90 Day T -Bill 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.13 0.23 2 Year Treasury 0.45 0.69 0.67 0.70 0.71 0.64 0.88 0.98 10 Year Treasury 2.60 2.36 2.32 2.17 2.17 2.07 2.26 2.24 Annual Interest Budget S 14,010 S 13,550 5 14,000 S 14,000 $ 14,000 S , 14,000 S 14000 5 14,000 4 Money Market 5 1.247 S 615 S 83 5 152 S 1,174 S 1,246 $ 1,376 S 1,510 Malaga Bank CDARS -CD'S 8,938 8.011 730 1,460 2,342 , 3,048 3,754 3,768 LAIR 3,153 4,956 - - 1,097 1,097 1,093 63) LAIF Mark to Market (Net) (4 - - - - - Tolal VTD Interest Earned S 12,875 S 13,582 S 813 $ 1,612 S 3,516 S 5,387 S 6,223 S 6,371 Over/(Under) Annual Budget S (1.135) S 32 S (13.187) S (12,388) S (10,484) S (8,613) $ (7,777) S (7,629) % of Annual Budget 91.905. 100.24% 5.81% 11.51% 25.11% 38.48% 44.45% 45.51% 0 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS LIQUIDITY CALCULATION BASED ON FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016 ACTUAL/CASH BUDGET FORECAST as of December 31, 2015 Month July August Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June OPUS $ 744,366 $ 733,571 683,779 604,120 552,670 1,798,261 373,884 233,830 (c) 56,653 540,540 399,317 80,306 _ (1) $ 6,801,296 (2) $ Average $ 566,775 $ Notes: MONTHLY CASH BALANCES T -Bill (2) $ LAIF $ 2,546,922 2,546,922 2,546,922 2,548,972 2,548,972 2,548,972 2,543,491 2,543,491 2,543,491 2,545,123 2,545,123 2,545,123 30,553 524 2,546,127 Lowest Balance Highest Expense (a) $ 5,300,144 (b) $ 703,295 (d) Liquidity Calculation (2) $ MALAGA - CD's CDARS - CD's g 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 1,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 (a) 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 31,400,000 Total Cash By Month $ 5,991,288 5,980,493 5,930,701 5,853,092 5,801,642 6,047,233 5,617,375 5,477,321 5,300,144 5,785,663 5,644,440 5,325 429 $-,820 (e) $ 2,616,667 (e) $ (e) Average Monthly Cash Balance Less 40% Emergency Reserve Available Investment Liquidity 5,729,568 Lowest Deposits (c) $ 56,653 (d) (1) Actual/Forecast Cash Budget FY 2014/15 (2) Monthly Bank Reconciliations (3) Per Investment Policy FY 13/14 General Fund Audited Revenue $1,972,182 X 40% $788,873 (4) Six Month Cash Reserve based on FY 14/15 Actual/Forecasted Annual Expenditures divided by two. Average Cash Balance (b) _ $ 5,729,568 0) $ Expenditures By Month $ 144,505 98,215 117,375 137,744 142,472 460,313 160,518 108,591 114,430 132,174 105,292 703,295 2,424,922 $ 202,077 Six Month Liquidity Cash Reserve $ 4,653,502 (4) $ 1,212 461 (d) $ 4,653,502 (e) $ 5,729,568 - (3) (788.873 $ 4,653,502 $ 4,940 695 INVESTMENT ALLOCATIONS SUMMARY as of December 31, 2015 Investment Type Book Value Less Than 90-180 181-360 One Two Three Price r(t� Cost 90 Days Days Days Year Years Years Money Market 29.40% $ 1,769,370 $ 1,769,370 $ $ LAIF 42.35% 2,548,972 2,548,972 CD'S 28.25% 1,700,000 - 1,455,000 245,000 Total Active Deposits 100.00% $ 6,018,342 $ 4,318,342 $ 1,455,000 $ 245,000 $ $ - $ - Cash Six Month Active Cash Reserve Cash Liquidity Deposits Reserve Per Policy Reserve Liquidity FY 15/16 Cash Budget $ 4,653,502 $ 6,018,342 $ 1,364,840 $ 788,873 $ 1,212,461 Maturity Investment Allocation Less Than 90 Days 71.75% 90 Days - 13 Weeks 24.18% Six Months - 26 Weeks 4.07% One Year - 52 Weeks 0.00% Two Years - 104 Weeks 0% Three Years - 156 Weeks 0% I00.00%