Loading...
City Council Agenda 02-22-2016MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 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. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Shahla Hemmat, 62 Eastfield Drive. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road. James Wald, 7 Quail Ridge Road South. Howard Weinberg, Attorney. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive. Hal Light, Attorney. Kin Behera, 12 Ringbit Road East. Jeanne Saks, 33 Crest Road West. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of February 8, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. Financial Statement for the Month of January, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. D. Allied Recycling Tonnage Report for December, 2015 and January, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. Councilmember Black moved that the City Council approve the items on the consent calendar as presented. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. COMMISSION ITEMS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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 applicants, consideration of this matter was continued to an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on Monday, March 21, 2016 beginning at 6:00 p.m. for the purpose of conducting a site visit to 18 Portuguese Bend Road and 15 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. DRAFT ZONING CASE NO. 869, SUBDIVISION NO. 94, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72775 — A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING LOT TOTALING 7.05 ACRES GROSS INTO 2 PARCELS OF LAND AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 1: 3.70 GROSS ACRES, 3.0 NET ACRES; PARCEL 2: 3.34 GROSS ACRES, 2.67 NET ACRES. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT LOT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CREST ROAD EAST, KNOWN AS 23 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 32 -A -MS), PARCEL NO.: 7567-011-020 IN THE RA -S-2 ZONE, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL -SUBURBAN 2 -ACRE MINIMUM NET LOT AREA, TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY MR. JIM HYNES. PURSUANT TO CEQA REQUIREMENTS, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT WITH APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES AND THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. Application was withdrawn. The matter was not discussed and no action was taken. OLD BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1182 ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that this is a continued discussion regarding the adoption of administrative regulations interpreting Measure B related to View Preservation. She reviewed the correspondence received since the last meeting from Lynn Gill and Kirt Behera, as summarized in the staff report. She further reviewed the correspondence received today from Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer regarding acquisition date. She stated since the last meeting, staff has researched the various arborists associations including the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) as well as the various resources available regarding maturity of trees and it appears that the Sunset Western Garden Book is the most widely used reference book. She further stated that alter doing this research and speaking to two experts on the subject, staff has provided a definition for the City Council's consideration, which includes the concept that maturity is when a tree approaches its expected canopy height and width. She stated that the third part of the interpretation includes an interpretation regarding retroactivity. Discussion ensued concerning the proposed interpretation of "mature trees" as provided by staff — For purposes of RHMC Section 17.26.090(2) a tree will be considered mature when it has achieved 75% of its expected canopy height and width (spread.) "Expected canopy height and width" will be as set forth in the latest edition of Sunset Western Garden Book. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer's comments regarding the potential for litigation, City Attorney Jenkins stated that he resists the notion that everything the City Council does needs to be driven by considerations of litigation. He stated that the City Council should examine the evidence presented as well as the testimony received and come to a decision that is supported by the information received and a fair reading of Measure B. He further commented that the City Council should use some sort of reference like Sunset Western Garden Book in determining maturity. Mayor Pieper called for public comment on the matter of"maturity." Shahla Hemmat, 62 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council stating that this issue of maturity should not apply to all trees only those trees that are historic (specimen) trees. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road addressed the City Council to suggest that there is evidence to support using 75% of the tree height. James Wald, 7 Quail Ridge Road South addressed the City Council to suggest that an arborist should be used to determine maturity. Howard Weinberg, Attorney addressed the City Council in support of the proposed definition but suggested that the percentage be 85% and eliminating the reference to regular cutting and use prior cutting instead. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council to suggest that the reference to previously trimmed trees be eliminated completely. M inutes City Council Meeting 02-22-16 DRAFT Hal Light, Attorney addressed the City Council to also suggest that the reference to previously trimmed trees be eliminated completely. Further discussion ensued conceming the issue of maturity. Mayor Pieper suggested that the City Council come to a decision on the maturity issue so that the existing ordinance can be applied consistently and at the next regular election, place a measure on the ballot to repeal Measure B and clarify the ordinance to achieve the intent of Measure B which was "the view you bought is the view get." Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer expressed concern that the term "expected" height and width doesn't provide enough guidance and suggested that a consulting arborist certified by the ASCA be used to determine maturity. Councilmember Mirsch commented that in her opinion, it is reasonable to choose a percentage of the height and width and use the Sunset Western Garden Book as reference. Further discussion ensued concerning the definition of maturity. In response to Mayor Pieper, City Attorney Jenkins stated that the City Council needs a definition in light of the fact that many of the arborists consulted indicated that there is no standard definition whereas Measure B assumed that there was a standard definition. He further stated that there needs to be uniformity so that every case and every tree is judged on the basis of the same definition and the there is nothing in the definition that precludes the City from consulting an arborist if it feels one is necessary. Councilmember Wilson commented the he agrees there needs to be some objective criteria to use for determining maturity. Following discussion, Mayor Pieper moved the City Council approve the definition of "mature" in Chapter 2 Section 2001 as follows: "For purposes of RHMC Section 17.26.090(2) a tree will be considered mature when it has achieved 75% of its maximum canopy height and width (spread.) 'Maximum canopy height and width' will be as set forth in the latest edition of Sunset Western Garden Book" and to eliminate the reference to previously trimmed trees completely. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion. Following further discussion, the motion carried with Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer opposed because in her opinion, the definition is not based on arborists standards and Councilmember Black opposed. Recognizing that it was after 8:00 p.m., Mayor Pieper called for public comment on matters not on tonight's agenda. OPEN AGENDA - APPROXIMATELY 8:00 P.M. - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council to express concern that property owners are cutting down trees to create trees and majestic trees are being lost. OLD BUSINESS (CONTNUED2 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1182 ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. The City Council continued its discussion regarding administrative regulations interpreting Measure B. At the request of a member of the public, Mayor Pieper accepted public comment out of order. James Wald, 7 Quail Ridge Road South addressed the City Council to express his concern that the proposed definition of mature will not withstand judicious scrutiny. The City Council continued its discussion regarding administrative regulations interpreting Measure B relating to maturity. The City Council concurred to approve Section 2002 and Section 2003 as presented. Discussion ensued concerning the issue of "Date of Property Acquisition." Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer expressed concern that the proposed definition which includes the language that the acquisition date shall be the most recent dated title to the property was conveyed for "fair market value" does not provide adequate clarity and suggested an alternate definition as shown in the document she provided for consideration. Further discussion ensued concerning the definition of acquisition. Minutes City Council Meeting 02-22-16 DRAFT Mayor Pieper called for public comment. Kirt Behera, 12 Ringbit Road East addressed the City Council regarding corridor view and to further explain the correspondence he submitted. Jeanne Saks, 33 Crest Road West regarding acquisition date and maturity. Howard Weinberg, Attomcy addressed the City Council in support of the approach taken regarding the date of acquisition as drafted and suggested that instead of the term fair market value, the term valuable consideration should be used from a buycr to a seller. Hal Light, Attorney addressed the City Council regarding the issuc of maturity and to suggest that a consulting arborist be used determine maturity. Shahla Hemmat, 62 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council to suggest that the matter be further studied. Further discussion ensued concerning Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer's suggestion that language be added to the regulations to require that the City use a consulting arborist certified by the American Society of Consulting Arborists when an expert opinion is required. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer moved that the City Council include in the regulations that any arborist hired by the City to aid the Committee on Trees and Views in determinations made pursuant to the View Ordinance be a certified arborist from the American Society of Consulting Arborists. The motion was withdrawn and upon consensus of the City Council, staff was directed to add language regarding ASCA certification and check the certification of local arborists. Discussion ensued concerning the interpretation of the date of acquisition and Mr. Weinberg's suggested changes. Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council approve Section 1001 Interpretation of Date of Acquisition of Property as presented by staff. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried with Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer opposed. Staff was directed to retum with a revised Resolution to adopt the Regulations interpreting Measure B as amended. Consideration of this matter was continued to an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on Monday, March 14, 2016 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. NEW BUSINESS None. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE/INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE FOR A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR A LOS ANGELES COUNTY PHARMACEUTICALS AND SHARPS COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL STEWARDSHIP ORDINANCE. Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. City Manager Cruz stated that this matter was agendized for consideration of sending a letter in support of the proposed County ordinance for disposal stewardship of pharmaceuticals and sharps. He further stated that the draft ordinance has been provided for further consideration. Following discussion no action was taken. UPDATE ON THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA REGIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON FEBRURY 11, 2016. (ORAL REPORT) Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer provided an update on the discussion from the February 1 I, 2016 Palos Verdes Peninsula Regional Law Enforcement Committee meeting stating that the Committee agreed to hire an additional SAT detective to address the burglary issues and the Committee is discussing adding additional cameras to monitor vehicles coming in and out of the Peninsula. She further stated that the City Managers will be interviewing potential candidates to replace Captain Bolin who was recently promoted to Commander and will be leaving the Lomita Station. Minutes City Council Meeting 02-22-16 DRAFT OTHER MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL Senior Issues — Following discussion, Councilmember Mirsch offered to check with RHCA & Women's Club and report back to City Council w/recommendation for supporting the City's senior population to be agendized on a future agenda. Brush Clearance — Following discussion upon Councilmember Black's suggestion, the City Council directed staff to include a reminder in newsletter regarding the brush clearance deadline and dead tree ordinance. MATTERS FROM STAFF REPORT REGARDING PROCESS FOR REVIEWING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE (OVER -THE COUNTER) APPROVAL. Planning Director Schwartz presented the staff report and reviewed the process for reviewing development projects eligible for administrative (over-the-counter) approval. Following discussion, staff was directed to make some minor changes to the application to include space for applicant initials in key areas and adding a requirement for applicants to submit photographs to verify what currently exists on the property. OTHER MATTERS FROM STAFF City Manager Cruz reported that he will be attending the annual Sherrif 's Dept. Educational Seminar in Santa Clarita on Thursday and Friday and that it was indicated to him that the Sheriff's Dept. contract will going up by 2-3% and that the Liability Trust Fund surcharge will be increasing by 9%. CLOSED SESSION None. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Pieper adjourned the meeting at 10:41 p.m. to an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on Monday, March 14, 2016 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, QUO it la Heidi Luce City Clerk Approved, Jeff Pieper Mayor' Minutes City Council Meeting 02-22-16 Agenda Item No: 6-A Mtg. Date: 02/22/16 From Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer. Received after agenda packets were prepared. In determining whether a tree is "mature," an ASCA certified consulting arborist shall use the latest Sunset Western Garden Book as a reference and shall be guided by the following definition of a "mature tree": "A tree that has reached at least 75% of its final height and spread at a particular site" (Gilman p.457). Particularly in cases where a tree has been previously trimmed, the arborist shall also consider the age of the tree, by multiplying the tree's diameter at diameter breast height by its growth factor for the Rolling Hills area in determining whether such tree is "mature." All arborist opinions regarding the maturity of trees shall be provided in a report and shall be supported by substantial evidence based on factual data and accepted arboricultural principles that are predominantly relied on by arborists. "Current owner" shall be defined as the person or persons who, on the date of the view complaint filing and during its pendency, have the legal right to control all aspects of the property, as evidenced by title to the property based on the most current recorded deed. The "date of acquisition" of the property is defined as the date upon which such "current owner" obtained the legal right to control all aspects of the property. In cases where ownership of the property or title to the property is held by an entity such as a trust, limited liability corporation, general liability corporation, partnership or other entity, the "current owner" shall be the person or persons who have the majority control of or other legal right to control such entity. For example, in the case where title to the property is held by a revocable trust, the person(s) who are the grantor(s) of the trust, who retain the legal right to control the property in the trust, would be considered the "current owner" and the "date of acquisition" would be the date that such person(s) first obtained the right to control the property in whatever capacity. In the case of property as to which title is held by an irrevocable trust, the "current owner" is the person or persons who are the beneficiaries of such trust and the "date of acquisition" would be the date that such person(s) received the right to control all aspects of the property within that trust. In the case of property in which title is held by a corporation or partnership, the "current owner" is the person or persons who have the right to control all decisions of that corporation or partnership by reason of his or her majority share of the ownership of or other legal right of control over such entity; the "date of acquisition" would be the date that such person(s) received the right to control all aspects of the property as the "current owner" of the corporation or partnership. RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2016 City of Rolling Hills By Agenda Item No: 6-A Provide at the request of Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer Mtg. Date: 02/22/16 after the agenda packtes were prepared. Hall v. City of Rolling Hills Tentative decision on Petition for Writ of BS 136694 Mandate: granted Petitioner Howard H. Hall, individually and as Trustee of the Howard H. Hall Living Trust ("Hall") applies for a writ of administrative mandamus overturning the decision by Respondent City of Rolling Hills ("City") requiring Hall to remove five trees from his property. The court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply, and renders the following tentative decision. A. Statement of the Case Petitioner Hall commenced this proceeding on April 10, 2012. Hall seeks administrative mandamus overturning the City's March 12, 2012 decision which requires him to cut down five trees on his property.' Hall owns the real property located at 48 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills, California (the "Hall Property"). Real Party -in -Interest Oksana R. Bihun ("Bihun") is an individual residing in the City. Bihun is the owner of real property located at 49 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills, Califomia 90274 (the "Bihun Property"). On or about July 8, 2011, Bihun filed a view impairment complaint with the City (the "free Complaint") pursuant to the City's View Preservation Ordinance. After a mediation between Bihun and Hall, the Tree Committee noticed a public hearing on Bihun's Tree Complaint. On November 15, 2011, the Tree Committee took a field trip to the Bihun Property and the Hall Property. The Tree Committee held a public hearing on the Tree Complaint on December 20, 2011. In a resolution dated January 17, 2012, the Tree Committee decided that five trees on the Hall Property must be cut to the ground (the "Tree Committee Decision"). Hall alleges that the Tree Committee did not consider a less drastic remedy like pruning, trimming, or topping. The 'free Committee Decision stated that the five trees were to be cut to the ground, but any stump removal would be at Hall's expense. The Tree Committee Decision did not provide for any compensation to Hall for removal of the trees. The Tree Committee Decision permits Hall to seek a total of $2,000 in reimbursement for removal of the stumps and purchase/installation of five new trees. Hall alleges that the $2,000 is only a fraction of the true cost of replacement vegetation, and is also completely arbitrary. The Tree Committee Decision placed physical limitations on any replacement trees, including that any replacement trees have a mature height of 20 feet. Hall must also keep $250 on deposit with the City, which he forfeits if his replacement vegetation exceeds the height set forth in the Tree Committee Decision. The Tree Committee Decision further provides that if replacement trees are not planted 'Hall also seeks a ruling that the decision constitutes an unlawful "taking." The taking claim is beyond the scope of mandamus review. Hall admits that he has filed a separate damages lawsuit against the City for inverse condemnation. In this proceeding, the court's inquiry is limited to whether the City's decision was an abuse of its discretion. within a year, the entire replacement cost is to be bome by Hall, who must also bear the cost of future maintenance. The Tree Committee Decision also required that the Decision be recorded against title to the Hall Property and the Bihun Property. On or about February 3, 2012, Hall timely filed an appeal of the Tree Committee Decision to the City Council. The City Council noticed a public hearing on the appeal. On February 27, 2012, the City Council took a field trip to the Bihun Property and the Hall Property. During the field trip, the Mayor noted that the Bihun Property had a view obstruction and asked if any of the City Council members disagreed. None did. The City Council held a public hearing on the Tree Complaint on March 12, 2012. Hall requested a continuance to permit the parties to reach a resolution of the issues. The City Council denied the request for a continuance. On March 12, 2012, the City Council enacted Resolution No. 1118 (the "Decision"). Hall alleges that the City did not consider any remedies that were less drastic than complete removal of the five trees to ground level. The City Council also required that the Decision be recorded against title to the Hall Property and the Bihun Property. Under the Rolling Hills Municipal Code ("RHMC"), recording must occur no later than thirty days after enactment of the Decision, which is April 11, 2012. On or about March 21, 2012, Bihun gave a $2,750 check to Hall, which triggers a thirty -day period to cut the trees down. B. Standard of Review CCP section 1094.5 is the administrative mandamus provision which structures the procedure for judicial review of adjudicatory decisions rendered by administrative agencies. Topanga Ass'n for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, ("Thome) (1974) 11 Ca1.3d 506, 514-15. The pertinent issues under section 1094.5 are (1) whether the respondent has proceed without jurisdiction, (2) whether there was a fair trial, and (3) whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. CCP §1094.5(b). An abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. CCP §1094.5(c). The agency's decision at the hearing must be based on a preponderance of the evidence. Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Superior Court, (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 860, 862. The hearing officer is only required to issue findings that give enough explanation so that parties may determine whether, and upon what basis, to review the decision. Topanga, supra, 11 Ca1.3d at 514-15. Implicit in section 1094.5 is a requirement that the agency set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order. Topanga, 11 Ca1.3d at 15. Section 1094.5 does not in its face specify which cases are subject to independent review. Fukuda v. City of Angels, (1999) 20 Ca1.4th 805, 811. Instead, that issue was left to the courts. In cases reviewing decisions which affect a vested, fundamental right the trial court exercises independent judgment on the evidence. Bix y v. PiemQ, (1971) 4 Ca1.3d 130, 143. See CCP § 1094.5(c). Hall suggests that the independent judgment test may be appropriate because a landowner 2 making a taking claim has a right to de novo review from the administrative decision. Mot. at 9. However, a landowner does not have a vested right to maintain his or her landscaping in its present state. See Fchevarrieta v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 472, 481. Consequently, the substantial evidence test applies to review of the City's decision on all issues other than whether it constitutes an unconstitutional taking. "Substantial evidence" is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion (California Youth Authority v. State Personnel Board, (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 575, 585) or evidence of ponderable legal significance, which is reasonable in nature, credible and of solid value. ivlohilef v. Janovici (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 267, 305, n.28. The trial court considers all evidence in the administrative record, including evidence that detracts from evidence supporting the agency's decision. California Youth Authority, supra, 104 Ca1.App.4th at 585. An agency is presumed to have regularly performed its official duties (Ev. Code §664), and the petitioner seeking administrative mandamus therefore has the burden of proof. Steele v Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission, (1958) 166 Ca1.App.2d 129, 137- Afford v Piemo, (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 682, 691 ("[T]he burden of proof falls upon the party attacking the administrative decision to demonstrate wherein the proceedings were unfair, in excess of jurisdiction or showed prejudicial abuse of discretion). C. Governing 1.2w - View Prseservation Ordinance In 19932, the City enacted a series of ordinances (RHMC §17.26.010 et seq.3) providing procedures for the protection of views and the abatement of view obstructions created by maturing landscaping (collectively, the "View Preservation Ordinance" or the "Ordinance") The intent of the View Preservation Ordinance is to preserve a property's view by providing procedures to restore views that have been diminished by vegetation that has matured and grown to obstruct the previously existing view. "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." §17.26.010. The View Preservation Ordinance establishes a Committee on Trees and Views (the "Tree Committee" or the "Committee"), which is comprised of three members of the City ?The City asserts that the Ordinance was first passed in 1988. The versions in the administrative record are dated 1993. See AR 26-27, 80-82. 3A11 further code references are to the RHMC unless stated otherwise. 'Hall asks the court to judicially notice the Ordinance and the request is granted. Ev. Code §452(b). 3 Planning Commission. § 17.26.020. The Tree Committee is authorized to consult with experts and specialists as needed, for example arborists, but cannot incur any expense on behalf of the City without City Council approval. See id. The Tree Committee is vested with the authority to administer the provisions of the View Preservation Ordinance. § 17.26.020. The Ordinance authorizes the Committee to order any number of restorative actions as necessary to abate a complainant's view impairment, including but not limited to "removal, pruning, topping, thinning or similar alteration of the vegetation." § 17.26.050(E). The Ordinance limits this authority to prohibit restorative action that "would adversely affect the environment or would unreasonably detract from the privacy or enjoyment of the property on which the objectionable vegetation is located." Id. The Tree Committee is also authorized to impose conditions that are necessary to prevent future view impairment. W. Section 17.12.220 defines a "view" as "a view from a principal residence and any immediately adjoining patio or deck arca 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." The View Preservation Ordinance provides grievance procedures for a complaining property owner who believes that a property's view is impaired. §§ 17.26.040-17.26.060. The complainant must file an application for abatement of view impairment on a form provided by the City. §17.26.040(A). The City Manager refers the matter to a mediation between the complainant and the owner of the vegetation giving rise to the complaint. §17.26.040(B). If the mediation does not resolve the matter, the matter is set for a public hearing before the Tree Committee. The Tree Committee makes a decision on the application after a public hearing and is empowered to 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." § 17.26.050(E). The Tree Committee's decision is final unless that decision is appealed to the City Council within twenty days. §17.26.050(F). If a decision is appealed to the City Council, the City Council's decision on the application is final and conclusive. § 17.54.060(D). A property owner must comply with a final decision under the View Preservation Ordinance or be subject to criminal prosecution, including a fine and imprisonment. § 17.26.070(A). Failure to comply with a final decision also constitutes a public nuisance is subject to abatement by RHMC enforcement procedures. Ibid. Within 30 days of a final decision affecting vegetation on one's property, the property owner must also record an informational covenant on the title of his or her property. § 17.26.080. D. Statement of Facts° 'Hall asks the court to judicially notice a request for admissions and the responses in ±a1 v. Bihun, LASC BC482607. These documents are court records subject to judicial notice if relevant. See Ev. Code §452(d). However, as the City points out, they constitute extra -record evidence which is inadmissible under CCP section 1094.5. Similarly, the Declaration of Cy Carlberg, which appraises the value of the trees ordered removed and the cost of replacing such trees, and the Declaration of Jerry A. Britton. which 4 1. The Complaint On July 1 1, 2011, Real Party -in -Interest Bihun, owner of the Bihun Property, filed an application to abate a view impairment related to several trees located on the Hall Property, alleging that several trees blocked city and ocean views from Bihun's house and back yard, and requesting that the trees be cut down in order to restore her view. AR 1-2. The City evaluated the application and determined it to be complete on July 13, 2011. AR 19. Pursuant to section 17.26.040(B), the City Manager referred the matter to mediation. AR 20. Hall and Bihun engaged in private mediation. which was unsuccessful. AR 22. Shortly thereafter, Bihun requested a hearing before the Tree Committee. AR 24. 2. The Tree Committee Hearing On November 15, 2011, the Committee conducted a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers. AR 58. Following a presentation by City staff(62-63), Hall and Bihun each addressed the Committee. AR 63-67, 68-73. The Chair continued the public hearing for a field visit of the properties. AR 73-74. The Tree Committee first visited the Bihun Property. It established a viewing area and determined that a view exists from the Bihun Property that is significantly impaired by trees on the Hall Property. AR 59, 78, 92. The Committee found the protected view is from the patio area at the northeast side of the Bihun house, immediately outside the living room area, from the standing perspective of an average height person. AR 193. See §17.26.050(D). The Tree Committee then visited the Hall Property and viewed the trees at that location. AR 60. The Committee adjoumed the meeting and continued the public hearing to a future date when it could discuss mitigation measures to restore the view. AR 59-60. Photographs depict the view from Bihun's residence. AR 56-57. The view includes the distant city lights and mountains. However, the trees at the Hall Property significantly obstruct the view. On December 20, 2011, the Tree Committee resumed the public hearing. Again, Hall and Bihun addressed the Committee. AR 94-102, 132-38. Hall argued untimely notice with respect to some of the trees at issue (AR 94-95), tree removal would depreciate his property's value (AR 95), the trees are beautiful and are enjoyed by "all of us" (AR 96), and Bihun acted with unclean hands by cutting down 300 feet of his trees and shrubbery without his consent (AR 96-101). concerns the lost market value of the Hall Property and increased market value of the Bihun Property from removal of the trees, are both inadmissible extra -record evidence. Hall argues that this evidence is relevant to his taking claim, but that claim is not before the court. See infra. Hall relies on Hensler v. City of Glendale ("Hensler) (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1, 15-16, which provides that a taking claim adequately presented at administrative hearing may be reviewed on mandamus, and the review is de novo. This reliance on Hensler is misplaced because nothing in that decision purports to obviate CCP section I 094.5(e). Hall does not show that his extra -record evidence should be admitted at the mandamus hearing because it was improperly excluded at the administrative hearing or did not exist at the time of that hearing and could not be presented in the exercise of due diligence. See CCP § I094.5(e). The City's objection to the extra -record evidence is sustained. 5 Bihun stated that the trees in question completely block her view from the living room, dining room and study, and the neighbors trim their trees. AR 132-33. The Committee discussed multiple options for abatement of the view, including "topping" the trees (AR 105), grouping the trees and addressing abatement separately for each group (AR 107), and removing and replacing the trees with foliage that would not grow into the view area (AR 112). City staff provided evidence regarding the advice and opinions of several landscape professionals and arborists on how best to remediate the situation and, more specifically, why "topping" pine trees would not work because their center needs to be intact and there is a real risk of losing the tree. AR 104-05. The Committee considered what amount Bihun would pay for replacement trees and decided on no more than $2,000. AR 122. At the hearing's end, the Committee directed staff to prepare a resolution making written findings and providing remediation of the view based on the Committees' deliberations. AR 140. 3. The Tree Committee Decision On January 17, 2012, the Tree Committee considered the resolution prepared by staff. AR 163-89. The resolution proposed removal of five trees and no action on three others. AR 164. It allowed $2,000 to replace the removed trees, and imposed a required on Hall to maintain a maximum tree height of 20 and width of 15 feet. AR 165. Bihun responded to Hall's unclean hands argument (AR 168-70), and argued that the three trees proposed for no action seriously impair the view from her bedroom window. AR 171-72. She opposed the resolution on the ground that it did not affect these three trees. AR 173. The Committee heard testimony from Bihun and, following discussion, approved the resolution unanimously (the "Tree Committee decision"). AR 187, 193-97. 4. The City Council Appeal Hall submitted a request for appeal. AR 222. On February 27, 2012, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and visited the two properties. AR 308. In the field, the Council viewed the trees from the perspective of Bihun's residence and from the Hall Property. Upon completion of the visit, the City Council continued the public hearing to resume at City Council chambers. Ibid. At the public hearing, additional testimony was taken from Hall, Bihun, and a neighbor. Bihun argued that the proposed $2,000 was more than sufficient to grind stumps, which is about $175-325 per stump, and to plant new trees at $280 per tree. AR 322. Upon discovering that one of the trees was ntismarked on a diagram, the Council decided to continue the public hearing to the next regular meeting of the City Council so that staff could verify the accuracy of the diagram. AR 335-39. The City Council received written testimony from Lynne Hersche ("Hersche"), a licensed broker. She opined that the trees, which are located on a hillside driveway and/or a City easement, away from the Hall Property residence which faces a City view and not the street, driveway, and trees. The trees in question provide neither privacy nor shade for the Hall Property residence and their removal would not diminish the Hall Property's value. AR 260. A second real estate professional attested that trees by themselves do not add value to a property. Rather, the quality of landscaping does. AR 261. The City Council also received a new series of aerial 6 photographs depicting the view obstruction. AR 376-78. 5. The City Council Resolution On March 12, 2012, the City Council heard additional testimony from Bihun and Hall. Bihun argued that the other three trees should be included in the order. AR 413. Hall argued that his trust actually owns the Hall Property and there are tenants on the Hall Property, neither of whom received notice. AR 414-15. He argued that the City would be liable for damages if it adopted the Tree Commission's resolution. AR 416. The City Council debated and voted against a motion to order tree trimming for the three trees outside the Commission's resolution. AR 425-28. The City Council voted unanimously to adopt Resolution No. 1118 (the "Resolution") requiring restorative action substantially similar to that called for in the Committee's resolution. AR 437. Among other provisions, the Resolution finds that Bihun's view is significantly impaired, and abatement is necessary to restore the view. Within 30 days, Album is directed to obtain three bids to remove five specified trees flush to the ground and provide a cash deposit in the amount of the lowest bid. AR 438. The tree removal must occur within 30 days of Bihun's cash deposit. Ibid. Bihun must reimburse Hall $2,000 to remove stumps and replace the trees within one year. AR 439. The replacement trees must not grow higher than 20 feet and wider than 15 feet. 1 . Hall must maintain any replacement trees. Ibid. The Resolution shall be recorded on the title of the two properties and run with the land. AR 440. Both property owners must deposit $250 with the City for future inspections. AR 438. E. Analysis Petitioner Hall contends that the Resolution lacks substantial evidence, the City Council's Resolution exceeded its authority under the Ordinance and violated state law, and the Resolution constitutes an unconstitutional taking without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. I. The Taking Issue Hall argues that the City's application of the View Preservation Ordinance in its Decision is an unconstitutional taking. Mot. at 11. Apparently disputing the order for tree removal as opposed to mere trimming, he contends that the City has taken his property for public use without just compensation. See Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A.. Inc , (2005) 544 U.S. 528, 536. Alternatively, the City has taken his property and given it directly to Bihun, which is unlawful even with payment of just compensation. See Miller v. McKenna (1944) 23 Cal.2d 774, 782-83. Hall notes that a Florida court has held that a public entity may not order the destruction of a healthy animal or tree that is not dangerous to others without compensating the owner. Mot. at 7. .See Dept of Agriculter & Consumer Services v. Bogorff, (Fla. 2010) 35 So.3d 84, 90. Hall relies on Hensler, supra, 8 Cal.41h at 1, in which the California Supreme Court held that a landowner cannot not assert an inverse condemnation action on the basis of a regulatory taking without first exhausting administrative and judicial remedies. The Hensler court first explained that a regulatory taking differs from a government occupation or damage to a property. The latter generally requires compensation under the Takings Clause. but where the government 7 merely regulates use of the property, compensation is required only if the regulation's purpose or economic impact on the owner show that the regulation unfairly singles out the property owner to bear a burden that the public as a whole should bear. Id. at 10 (citation omitted). This requires an individualized assessment of the impact of the regulation on the piece of property and its relation to a legitimate state interest. Ibid. (citation omitted). The Hensler court noted that the Takings Clause conditions the state's right to take private property for public use on the payment of just compensation, but it leaves to the state the procedures by which compensation may be sought. Id. at 13. In California, where property is damaged or physically occupied, the inverse condemnation action may be brought immediately because the irrevocable taking has occurred. Ibid. If the alleged taking is a regulatory one resulting from the application of zoning laws or regulations which limit development of real property, the landowner must afford the state the opportunity to rescind the regulation or exempt the property once it has been judicially determined that the regulation constitutes a taking. Ibid. The owner may make a facial or as applied challenge to the regulation. A facial challenge may be made through declaratory relief, and an as applied challenge may be made through administrative mandamus and may be joined with an inverse condemnation claim. Id. at 14-15. Damages from the taking may be sought in the administrative mandamus or inverse condemnation claims. Ibid. Compensation may be paid only if there has been a final determination of a taking and the public agency declines to rescind its action to avoid paying compensation for a permanent taking. Ibid. The property owner is entitled to a judicial determination of whether there has been a regulatory taking. Id. at 15. The Hensler court agreed with the appellate court in Healing v California Coastal Commission, (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1175,6 that an administrative agency is not competent to determine whether its own action is a taking and in many cases administrative mandamus is not an adequate forum to try a taking claim. Id. at 16. If the administrative hearing is not one in which the properly owner has a full and fair opportunity to present relevant evidence on the taking issue, at which witnesses testify under oath and are cross- examined, the administrative record in a mandamus proceeding will not be adequate to deternine whether a taking has occurred. Ibid. If, on the other hand, the administrative proceeding resulted in full litigation of the taking facts, the mandamus court may hear the taking issue, addressing additional issues of law. Ibid. The court's review of the evidence on the taking claim is de naovo. Ibid. Where the administrative hearing did not result in the development of relevant taking facts, the owner is assured a full and fair hearing by joining an inverse condemnation claim with the mandate proceeding. In the inverse condemnation proceeding, the owner may litigate both the taking claim and, if successful, assert a right to jury trial on inverse condemnation. Ibid. 'The appellate court in Healing held that administrative mandamus is not a substitute for trial before a court on the taking issues, which may consist of the legitimacy of the public interest, how much it is furthered by the regulatory action, the public benefit expected or obtained, the degree of impairment of the owner's property rights. Id. at 1174 (citation omitted). These things cannot be assessed without a proper factual record. which cannot be developed at the administrative proceeding in which a permit application is denied. Id. at 1174-75. 8 The facts necessary to Hall's taking claim were not presented at the Tree Committee or City Council hearings. None of the taking issues -- the legitimacy of' the public interest, how much it is furthered by the regulatory action, the public benefit expected or obtained -- were factually developed. Halls taking claim is based on the diminution of his property's value and the enhancement of the Bihun Property's value, yet he presented no evidence on these issues before the Tree Committee or the City Council.' (There was evidence from Hersche that removal of the trees would not diminish the Hall Property's value.) Moreover, there was no testimony subject to cross-examination at the hearings. Given the inadequacy of the factual record developed at the administrative hearing, the court cannot decide the taking claim on mandamus. Hall's remedy is as described in Hensler: he may litigate both the taking claim and inverse condemnation claim together. Hall has filed a separate inverse condemnation action. If he has not also alleged an unconstitutional taking in that action, he should seek leave to amend to do so.' 2. The Resolution Does Nottxceed the Authority Given By the Ordinance Hall argues that the City exceeded its authority under the Ordinance, which authorizes an order for the restoration of a property owner's view, but does not exist to give a complaining owner a better view than he or she had when purchasing their property. Mot. at 6-7. Hall contends that the Ordinance must be interpreted to avoid an unconstitutional taking, and a limitation to restoration of an owner's view at purchase is required. Mot. at 7. Although entitled "View Preservation[,]" the plain language of the Ordinance indicates that it is intended to protect and provide for a view where obstructed by landscaping, whether or not a particular property owner had the view at the time he or she acquired their property. This is because the language of the Ordinance consistently focuses on property, not property owners. Thus. the Ordinance's stated purpose is to protect the "[p]anoramic views...for many residential lots in the City." §17.26.010. Therefore, the Ordinance establishes procedures for the abatement of "view obstructions created by landscaping, while at the same time protecting natural vegetation from indiscriminate removal." ibid. The Ordinance defines "view" with reference to property, not to an owner or time. § 17.12.220. A "view impairment" is defined as a "significant interference with and obstruction of a view by landscaping...." §17.12.220. The Ordinance enables a person to seek abatement where that person owns "a residence from which view is impaired by vegetation" growing on a neighbor's property. § 17.26.040. Furthermore, the decision with respect to offending vegetation is binding on all subsequent owners. Within 30 days of a final decision affecting vegetation on one's property, the property owner must record an informational covenant on the title of his or her property. § 17.26.080. As a consequence, the view restoration benefits the obstructed property and runs with the land for the offending property. 'Hall admits as much in attempting to present extra -record evidence. 'The City asserts that the taking claim is not ripe because the Decision has not been implemented and the trees have not been removed. The court agrees with Hall that the City has made a final decision; implementation of that decision is unnecessary for the claim to be ripe. 9 Hence, the Ordinance consistently refers to the protection of views from a property that are infringed by the landscaping of another property without regard to when either owner acquired the property or how long the obstructed view has existed. The Ordinance's plain language provides for abatement -- including removal, pruning, topping, and thinning — where the view from a property is obstructed by a neighboring property's landscaping. See 17.26.040. There is no limitation on the abatement as to when the owner of the obstructed property acquired it. Hall points to nothing in the plain language of the Ordinance supporting his position that it is intended to restore a property owner's view, not creating a view which is obstructed by landscaping. Hall's broad argument that the Ordinance should be so limited is inadequate. See Mot. at 7; Reply at 3.9 As for Hall's argument that the Ordinance must be interpreted to impose a limitation to restore an owner's view, that is an issue the court need not decide. It is true that a court must resort to "every reasonable construction" in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality. ,Hooper v. California (1895) 155 U.S. 648, 657. This doctrine requires two plausible constructions for a statute. Assuming arguendo that such a limitation is plausible, the interpretation to avoid a taking is better left to the court addressing the taking claim.10 The City Council's Resolution provides for an abatement of an obstructed view from the Bihun Property, and did not exceed its authority under the plain language of the Ordinance. 3. The City Did Not Violate State Law Petitioner Hall argues that the Resolution conflicts with state easement law. He notes that a landowner in California has no natural right to air, light, or an unobstructed view. Posey v. Leavitt. (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1236, 1249-50. He acknowledges that an ordinance could require tree trimming to restore the pre-existing view of a property owner. Mot. at 6. However, easements for light and air can only be created by express grant or covenant. Mot. at 7. See Taliaferro v . Salyer, (1958) 162 Cal.App.2d 685, 690 (citation omitted). Civil Code section 804 ("section 804") provides that "a servitude can be created only by one who has a vested estate in the servient tenement." Hall concludes that a view easement may only be created by a property owner. Yet, the Ordinance creates an equitable servitude running with the land in violation of section 804. Mot. at 8. The City argues that Hall waived this argument by not presenting it to the Tree Committee or City Council. Opp. at 10. See Woods v. Superior Court, (1981) 28 Cal.3d 668, 680-81. There is an exception to the exhaustion requirement where a party claims that the agency lacks authority, statutory or otherwise, to resolve the underlying dispute. Soachella Valley 1°Hall does not cite to any facts which would bring him within the proposed limitation -- how long he has owned the Hall Property, how long Bihun has owned the Bihun Property, when the trees were planted (Hall merely guesses that they are 40 years old (AR 95)), and what the view from Bihun's Property was at the time of each party's purchase. 10 Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. Cal. Public EmploymentRelations Bd , (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072, 1081-82. The policy reason behind this exception is clear — it strains reason to ask a public agency to decide whether it has acted outside the scope of its authority. Hall did not waive this issue by failing to raise it earlier. In K}tcera v. Lizza, ("Klima") (1998) 59 Cal.App.4th 1141, the court considered a city ordinance that sought to preserve the right of property owners to views and sunlight, which existed at the time they purchased or occupied the property, from unreasonable obstruction by trees. W. at 1144. The ordinance set forth a procedure by which a property owner could obtain restoration of such views and sunlight. Jj2is]. The court noted that a land use ordinance is unconstitutional as exceeding municipal authority under the police power only if its provisions are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. at 1147. Under the concept of public welfare, a state may legitimately exercise its police powers to advance aesthetic values. Id. at 1148. The preservation of sunlight has been recognized for many years as a valid police power supporting height limitations on buildings, fences, and by analogy, trees. ibid. The ordinances goals are further supported by case law concerning the preservation of neighborhood character, since they prevent incremental tree growth which would alter preexisting vistas and receipt of light. Id. at 1149. The court held that the ordinance was directed toward preservation of view and sunlight, a valid police power, and the regulation of tree growth bore a reasonable relation to those goals. skid. The court also addressed whether the ordinance was preempted by state law on easements. Id. at 1151. The trial court accepted the argument that the ordinance created de facto easements for views and sunlight which conflicted with Civil Code section 801 et seq. concerning the creation of easements by a vested estate. The appellate court found these arguments "misdirected and to some extent premature." Id. at 1151. The arguments were premature because the ordinance had yet to be applied to the petitioner. jam. They were misdirected because the ordinance was permissive, not mandatory, with respect to whether the conditions of restoration should be recorded and run with the land. Id. at 1151-52. Additionally, the facial argument, which was ripe. was not well taken. The Kucera court noted that local governments may regulate many aspects of property affecting sunlight and views under Govt. Code section 65850 ("section 65850"), which "easily embrace [the city's] ordinance protecting views and sunlight against unreasonable obstruction by trees." !d• at 1152. The state law on easements was not intended to apply to easements incidentally created community wide by the ordinance at issue. 1d. at 1153. Hall distinguishes Kucera as a facial challenge to a view ordinance, not the as applied challenge that he is making. Mot. at 8. Moroever, the ordinance in Kucera was permissive on recording and running with the land. Hall points out that the Resolution requires that it shall be recorded and run with the land. He concludes that this creates a de facto easement on his property in favor of Bihun and her successors in conflict with state law. Mot. at 8. The court is unpersuaded. The Kucera court expressly noted that section 65850 permits local governments to enact a broad range of regulations affecting views and sunlight. 59 Cal.App.4th at 1152. Section 65850 permits a local government to regulate the use of land and residences (subdivision (a)), and the size and use of lots, yards, courts, and other open spaces. 11 (subdivision (c)(2)). Kucera found that both "easily embrace" an ordinance protecting views and sunlight against unreasonable obstruction by trees, showing that the general law on easements was not intended to preempt such ordinances. 1d. at 1152. That is exactly what the Ordinance and resulting Resolution do here. The Resolution orders 1-lall to remove five trees with Bihun to pay the cost of stump removal and replacement of the trees with trees which will not grow higher than 20 feet or wider than 15 feet. AR 439. In properly implemented, nothing in the Resolution distinguishes it from section 65850's general authorization of view protection ordinances. The fact that the Resolution must be recorded to protect the view from the Bihun Property in the future does not change this result. See also .Echevarrieta v. Citv of Rancho Palos Verdes, (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 472, 481 (ordinance limiting tree height and order for view restoration permit to require trimming of trees to restore neighbor's view was not a taking). The Resolution, which is the City's application of the Ordinance, did not violate state easement law. 4. The Findings on Remedy Are Not Supported Hall argues that the Resolution is not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, he argues that the findings that tree removal is "necessary," would not "adversely affect the environment," and would not "unreasonably detract from the enjoyment or privacy" of the Hall Property are unsupported. Mot. at 9-11. Preliminarily, the View Preservation Ordinance permits abatement action only where there is a finding that a "view exists" and "that [view] is significantly impaired." See § 17.26.050.E. The Resolution made both findings (AR 437-38), and the evidence supports a conclusion that the five trees in question significantly impair the view from the Bihun Property. Hall does not dispute this conclusion. The issue is the remedy for this view impairment. a. The Need for Findings on Tree Removal as a Remedy The City argues that the View Preservation Ordinance does not expressly require findings on the issue of remedy. Opp. at 12. However, as Hall points out (Reply at 6), the City chose to make such findings. More important, the Resolution must comply with Topanga by setting forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order. 11 Cal.3d at 515. The hearing officer is only required to issue findings that give enough explanation so that parties may determine whether, and upon what basis, to review the decision. 1d. at 514-15. Hence, the Resolution must bridge the analytic gap with findings and reasoning whether or not expressly required by the Ordinance. b. The "Necessary" Finding The View Preservation Ordinance provides for specific abatement action of "removal, pruning, topping, thinning, or similar alteration of the vegetation" that is "necessary to abate the view impairment and to restore the complainant's view." See § 17.26.050.E. This the abatement action ordered must be necessary to abate the view impairment. Compare Kucera .supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at 1145 (view ordinance created hierarchy designed to impose the least intrusive 12 remedy). The Resolution finds that tree removal is necessary (AR 438), and the City argues that the evidence "overwhelmingly supports the [Resolution]." Opp. at 12. However, the City's opposition only generally refers to the reports, Ordinance provisions, correspondence from the parties and neighbors, field trips, and testimony presented to the Tree Commission and City Council. Opp. at 13. Nowhere does the City mention any evidence that tree removal, as opposed to other less abatement, is necessary. The court has reviewed the record and found only the following on the "necessary" issue. The. Tree Committee discussed abatement options, including topping the trees (AR 105), grouping the trees and addressing abatement separately for each group (AR 107), and removing and replacing the trees with foliage that would not grow into the view area (AR 112). City staff verified that professional landscape professionals advised that you can thin, trim, or lace pine trees, but "it is not good to cut pine trees" because their center needs to be intact. AR 104-05. Such trees can be topped, but there is a real risk of losing the tree and a topped tree is ugly. AR 105. The risk of topping to the health of the trees, and the aesthetic impact of doing so, is not substantial evidence that their removal is pecessat ' to abate the view impairment. The trees belong to Hall. The view from the Bihun Property depends on the height and width of the trees; it does not depend on their removal. The Tree Committee may appropriately be concerned about the health of the trees, but only to the extent that an abatement order would affect Hall's property rights. That is, the Tree Committee has discretion under the Ordinance to order abatement of the offending vegetation, and to be concerned that a topping order would kill the trees. But the Ordinance is not an aesthetic ordinance that gives the Committee or City Council discretion to elect between two abatement remedies, both of which will abate the view impairment, based on aesthetics. Hall did state that the trees are fragile and will die if trimmed, based on unidentified proof "in your file." AR 95. Whatever its value, this statement is not a binding election of remedies. Based on the necessary finding, Hall should have the right to elect either remove the trees or top them, running the risk that they will die." The finding that tree removal is necessary to restore the Bihun Property's view is not supported by substantial evidence. c. The "Would Not Adversely Affect the Environment" Finding The View Preservation Ordinance does not permit abatement if it "would adversely affect the environment." § 17.26.050.13. The Resolution found that tree removal would not adversely affect the environment. AR "Hall also argues that the necessity finding is supported only by hearsay expert opinion. Mot. at 10. The administrative proceeding was not governed by the Administrative Procedures Act, which permits hearsay only to corroborate. Hall points to no authority in the RHMC that the City may not rely on hearsay. Indeed, the View Preservation Ordinance expressly provides that the Tree Committee may consult with "specialists such as landscape architects and arborists as required...." §17.26.020. 13 438. Hall argues that this finding is conclusory and unsupported. Mot. at 10. He is correct. Neither the Resolution nor the Tree Committee's decision provides any explanation in the finding as to why the tree removal would not adversely affect the environment. Consequently it violates Topanga. The City's opposition cite to any evidence that supports this finding, but that does not mean none was presented. The court cannot make this determination without knowing the City's reasoning. The finding that three removal would not adversely affect the environment may or may not be supported by substantial evidence, but is not supported by the analysis required under Topanga. d. The "Will Not Unreasonably Detract from the Enjoyment or Privacy" of the Hall Property Finding The View Preservation Ordinance does not permit an abatement action if it "would unreasonably detract from the privacy or enjoyment of the property on which the objectionable vegetation is located." §§17.26.050.E. The Resolution found that tree removal will not unreasonably detract from the enjoyment or privacy of the Hall Property. AR 438. Hall argues that this finding is unsupported by substantial evidence. Mot. at 1 1. Again, he is correct. The Resolution requires Bihun to pay for tree removal, and to reimburse Hall $2,000 to remove stumps and replace the trees within one year. AR 438-39. The Tree Committee considered what amount Bihun should pay for this task and decided on no more than $2,000. AR 122. Neither the Resolution nor the Committee decision explains how this figure was reached, a violation of Topanga. Nor is the finding supported by substantial evidence. The Resolution appropriately orders that Bihun should pay for the cost of tree removal, and to reimburse Hall if he grinds the stumps and replaces the trees. See Fsehevarrietn supra, 86 Cal.App.4th at 475 (ordinance limiting height required applicant for view restoration must pay costs of foliage trimmed or removed, and replacement foliage). However, there is not substantial evidence as to what that cost is. The $2,000 figure is a plug number created by the Tree Committee. AR 122. Bihun opined that $2,000 was more than enough because it would cost between $175 and $325 to remove stumps (unclear whether her quote was for all stumps or per stump) and about $280 "at Armstrong" to buy six to seven trees (unclear whether this price is for all trees or per tree). AR 322. She did not explain where these numbers came from, and her statements were ambiguous. Additionally, her estimates for replacement trees are highly dependent on the age of the tree. A young sapling will be far cheaper than a relatively large tree observing the height and width restrictions imposed by the City. There also is no evidence concerning the cost of planting. In sum, substantial evidence does not exist to support the $2,000 figure for stump grinding and tree replacement. Hall is most probably correct that this number is far below the amount required. The finding that tree removal will not unreasonably detract from the enjoyment or privacy of the Hall Property is not supported by substantial evidence. 14 F. Co elusion The taking issue belongs in the inverse condemnation case. Absent a contrary interpretation required to avoid an unconstitutional taking, the City did not exceed its authority under plain language of the Ordinance. Nor is the Resolution preempted by state law on easements. The Resolution's findings for the remedy of tree removal, however, are not supported by substantial evidence and/or Tooanga reasoning. A writ will issue directing the City to set aside the portion of the Resolution imposing the remedy of tree removal. As the view impairment for the Bihun Property must be remedied, and as no evidence has been received on some of these issues, the City must conduct a new hearing solely on the remedy where the parties may present evidence. See Sanchez v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, (1977) 20 Cal.3d 55 (remand for additional hearing appropriate where no evidence taken on an issue). Petitioner Hall is ordered to prepare a proposed judgment and writ of mandate, serve them on the opposing parties for approval as to form, wait 10 days after service for any objections, meet and confer if there are objections, and then submit the proposed judgment and writ along with a declaration stating the existence/non-existence of any unresolved objections. An OSC re: judgment is set for January 15, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. 15 4t Agenda Item No: 6- Mtg. Date: 02/ 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Superior CFILED of CCalifomia CCourtty of Los Angeles JAN 15 2013 John A. Clarke, EJIecuvve Officer/perk BY�Deptrry NETT_ otarO SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES HOWARD H. HALL, an individual, as Trustee of the HOWARD H. HALL LIVING TRUST; Petitioner, vs. CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, a municipal corporation; CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CITY COUNCIL, a public legislative body; Respondents. OKSANA R. BIHUN, an individual; Real Party in Interest. CASE NO. BS 136694 Assigned to the Honorable James C. Chalfant prinfali JUDGMENT GRANTING WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE On December 4, 2012, the Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate filed by Petitioner Howard H. Hall (the "Petition") was heard regularly in Department 85of the above -entitled court, the Honorable James C. Chalfant, presiding. Kevin M. Yopp of Gilchrist & Rutter, PC appeared for Petitioner. Christi Hogin of Jenkins & Hogin, LLP appeared on behalf of Respondents City of Rolling Hills and City of Rolling Hills City Council (collectively, the "City"). Real Party Oksana R. Bihun did not make an appearance at the proceedings. The record of the administrative proceedings was received into evidence and examined by the Court. After considering the administrative record, the written submissions by the parties, the 1 JUDGMENT GRANTING WRIT OF ADMIN. MANDATE- BS136694 1 evidence submitted by the parties which was properly subject to judicial notice and the oral 2 argument of counsel, Mr. Hall's Petition is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the attached 3 decision of the Court, which is incorporated herein by reference. 4 IT IS ORDERED that: 5 1. A writ of administrative mandate shall issue from the Court remanding the 6 proceedings to the City Council and commanding the City Council to set aside the portion of 7 Resolution No. 1118 dated March 12, 2012 imposing the remedy of removal of Mr. Hall's five 8 trees and to conduct a new evidentiary hearing on the appropriate remedy, if any, for the Bihun 9 property view impairment. 10 2. The administrative record lodged in this action is ordered forthwith returned to 11 Petitioner, to be preserved without alternation until the Judgment herein is final, and to be 12 forwarded to the Court of Appeal in the event of an appeal. 13 3. Petitioner shall recover his reasonable costs of suit herein incurred in the amount of 14 5829.6!. 15 4. The Clerk shall enter this Judgment and shall enter the accompanying Writ of 16 Administrative Mandate. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 DATED: i/ I l 3 21 22 23 Submitted by, 24 JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP Attorneys for Defendants 25 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AND 26 ROLLING HILLS CITY COUNCIL 27 28 Los Angeles Superior Court Judge 2 JUDGMENT GRANTING WRIT OF ADMIN. MANDATE - BS136694 Agenda Item No: 6-A Mtg. Date: 02/22/16 RESOLUTION NO. 1141 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RESCINDING CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 1118 ADOPTED ON MARCH 12, 2012 SETTING FORTH FINDINGS RELATING TO THE REMOVAL OF TREES AT 48 SADDLEBACK ROAD DUE TO VIEW IMPAIRMENT FROM PROPERTY AT 49 SADDLEBACK ROAD. THE ROLLING HILLS CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A view impairment complaint ("Complaint") was filed by Oksana Bihun (Blinn), 49 Saddleback Road on July 8, 2011 pursuant to Chapter 17.26 of the Municipal Code claiming that a view impairment was caused by trees located at 48 Saddleback Road (Hall). Hall opposed the view complaint on numerous grounds. The Complaint was considered by the Committee on Trees and Views and the City Council and was resolved by the Council's adoption of Resolution No. 1118, ordering remedial action to restore the view, including the removal of five trees. Section 2 Hall filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled Hall v. City of Rolling Hills, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No B5136694 challenging the validity of the view ordinance and its application to the Bihun Complaint The court upheld the validity of the City's view impairment ordinance and the City Council's findings of view impairment, but held that the evidence before the Council was insufficient to impose the remedy of tree removal. The court issued a writ commanding the City to rescind and reconsider the remedy imposed in the case. ,Section 3. On February 25, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1138, setting aside the remedy ordered in Resolution No. 1118 and the City Attorney thereafter reported this action to the court in compliance with the writ The Council further scheduled a public hearing on April 8, 2013 in order that the City further comply with the writ of mandate by considering new evidence and reconsidering the remedy previously imposed. Section 4. On March 5, 2013, the electorate enacted Measure B, a ballot measure that amended Chapter 17.26 by (i) protecting only a view that existed when the current property • owner acquired ownership of the property, (ii) limiting the protection of the ordinance to views obstructed by "maturing" vegetation, thereby excluding views obstructed by trees that were "mature" at the time of property acquisition, (iii) requiring that the existence of a view to be demonstrated by "clear and convincing" evidence, and (iv) limiting restoration of views to "view corridors," rather than panoramic views. Measure B states that it has retroactive application to 1988, the date that the existing ordinance was adopted. Section 5. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 8, 2013 to further comply with the writ of mandate and to reconsider the remedy imposed in the original proceeding. However, the Council finds that since issuance of the writ the governing law has changed with respect to what constitutes a protected view and that it must now act in accordance with the law that is currently in effect As amended by Measure B, the view ordinance now only protects views that existed on the date that the property owner acquired the property. The ordinance now exempts trees that were "mature" at the time of property acquisition and requires clear and convincing evidence of the existence of a view. These issues were not addressed by the Committee on Trees and Views nor the City Council in the hearings that led to the adoption of Resolution No. 1118, and no evidence regarding these issues was presented or considered. The Council concludes that its original action, as memorialized in Resolution No. 1118, is no longer valid in light of the enactment of Measure B and further, that any determination of a remedy must be preceded by determination of a protected view based on the evidence required by Measure B. Section 6. Based on the foregoing, Resolution No. 1118 is hereby rescinded and the Complaint is hereby remanded to the Committee on Trees and Views for further consideration in light of the requirements of Measure B. Resolution No. 1141 1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Rolling Hills City Council this 8th day of April 2013. Fran1 E. Hill Mayor ATTEST: Ant, City Clerk Resolution No. 1141 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) SS The foregoing Resolution No. 1141 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RESCINDING CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 1118 ADOPTED ON MARCH 12, 2012 SETTING FORTH FINDINGS RELATING TO THE REMOVAL OF TREES AT 48 SADDLEBACK ROAD DUE TO VIEW IMPAIRMENT FROM PROPERTY AT 49 SADDLEBACK ROAD. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on April 8, 2013, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Pieper, Black, Lay, Dieringer and Mayor Hill. NOES: None. ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None. Resolution No. 1141 3 Subject: Additional Information for Agenda Item 6-A -Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 2:35 PM From: hluce@cityofrh.net <hluce@cityofrh.net> To: "Raymond R. Cruz" <rcruz@cityofrh.net> Honorable Mayor & City Council, Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer asked the the attached information be provided to the City Council for consideration regarding the Administrative Regulations interpreting Measure B. BCCC Heidi Heidi Luce, CMC City Clerk/Executive Assistant City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310-377-1521 Fax: 310-377-7288 www.Rolling-Hills.org This is a transmission from the City of Rolling Hills. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The CITY OF ROLLING HILLS accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am a citizen of the United States. 1 am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within proceeding; my business address is 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. On the 18" day of February, 2016, I serve the within ' City Council Meeting - 02/22/2016 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 listSery 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 18' day of February, 2016 at Rolling Hills, California. Ewa Nikodem Administrative Assistant tiff ail Raglet9 qeal INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSENT CALENDAR NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2016 7:30 P.M. 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 February 8, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. Financial Statement for the Month of January, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. D. Allied Recycling Tonnage Report for December, 2015 and January, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. 4. COMMISSION ITEMS NONE. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 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. Page I of 3 B. SINCE THE LAST MEETING, THE APPLICANT IN ZONING CASE NO. 869, SUBDIVISION NO. 94, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72775 WITHDREW THEIR APPLICATION. THIS MATTER WILL NOT BE DISCUSSED. ZONING CASE NO. 869, SUBDIVISION NO. 94, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72775 — A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING LOT TOTALING 7.05 ACRES GROSS INTO 2 PARCELS OF LAND AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 1: 3.70 GROSS ACRES, 3.0 NET ACRES; PARCEL 2: 3.34 GROSS ACRES, 2.67 NET ACRES. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT LOT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CREST ROAD EAST, KNOWN AS 23 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 32 -A -MS), PARCEL NO.: 7567-011-020 IN THE RA -S-2 ZONE, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL -SUBURBAN 2 -ACRE MINIMUM NET LOT AREA, TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY MR. JIM HYNES. PURSUANT TO CEQA REQUIREMENTS, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT WITH APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES AND THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. 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 A. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE/INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE FOR A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR A LOS ANGELES COUNTY PHARMACEUTICALS AND SHARPS COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL STEWARDSHIP ORDINANCE. B. UPDATE ON THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA REGIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON FEBRURY 11, 2016. (ORAL REPORT) 10. MATTERS FROM STAFF A. REPORT REGARDING PROCESS FOR REVIEWING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE (OVER -THE COUNTER) APPROVAL. City Council Agenda 02/22/16 Page 2 of 3 11. CLOSED SESSION NONE. 12. ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: Monday, March 14, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Public Comment is welcome on any item prior to City Council action on the item. Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for review in the City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the 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 02/22/16 Page 3 of 3 DRAFT Agenda Item No. 3-A Meeting Date: 02/22/16 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2016 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of R.olling 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: CONSENT CALENDAR Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Howard Weinberg, Attorney. Charlie Raine, 2 Pinto Road. Jim and Laurie Hynes, 23 Crest Road East. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road. Mike Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive. Kirt Behera, 12 Ringbit Road East. Matt Seabern, 14 Portuguese Bend Road. Laura Gregorio, 45 Eastfield Drive. Hal Light, Attomey. 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 he considered under Council Actions. A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of January 25, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council approve the items on the consent calendar as presented. Councilmember Black seconded the motion, which carried without objection. DRAFT COMMISSION ITEMS None. Recognizing that the applicant wasn't present and at the request of their attorney, Mayor Pieper stated that the public hearing pertaining to Zoning Case No. 869 would be moved to later in the meeting. Item 9A was taken out of order. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE/INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE FOR A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR A LOS ANGELES COUNTY PHARMACEUTICALS AND SHARPS COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL STEWARDSHIP ORDINANCE. City Manager Cruz stated that this matter was brought forward for the City Council's consideration at the request of Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer stated that she feels that the County adopting a pharmaceuticals and sharps collection and disposal stewardship ordinance that could be adopted by the City would make sense for Rolling Hills' residents and she feels the City should support this request. Discussion ensued concerning the purpose of the ordinance and the pharmaceutical manufacturer's involvement in the process. Councilmember Black stated that he is not opposed to the concept, but he would like to see the language of the ordinance before committing his support. Following discussion, staff was directed to provide the City Council with a copy of the draft ordinance for review at the next meeting. Consideration of this matter was continued to the next regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on Monday, February 22, 2016 beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber at Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONING CASE NO. 869. SUBDIVISION NO. 94, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72775 — A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING LOT TOTALING 7.05 ACRES GROSS INTO 2 PARCELS OF LAND AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 1: 3.70 GROSS ACRES, 3.0 NET ACRES; PARCEL 2: 3.34 GROSS ACRES, 2.67 NET ACRES. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT LOT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CREST ROAD EAST, KNOWN AS 23 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 32 -A -MS), PARCEL NO.: 7567-011-020 IN THE RA -S-2 ZONE, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL -SUBURBAN 2 -ACRE MINIMUM NET LOT AREA, TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY MR. JIM HYNES. PURSUANT TO CEQA REQUIREMENTS, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT WITH APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES AND THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz briefly Minutes City Council Meeting 02-08-16 DRAFT reviewed the applicant's request for a two -lot subdivision and stated that the City Council previously reviewed and discussed the request; visited the site; as well as reviewed the various environmental reports and correspondence from property owners located to the south of the project. She further reviewed the background on this case stating that after several discussions the City Council requested that the applicant provide further, independent information with regard to the hydrology on the site and its effect on the development of the two lots; and on the properties south of the development that are located in the Flying Triangle. Staff issued a Request for Proposal for the independent hydrology study, including the infiltration rate and a peer review of the previous reports received, to which two companies responded with proposals in the amount of approximately $30,000. She further reviewed the applicant's request for subdivision stating that iflwhen the lots are developed additional soils, geology and hydrology studies would have to be done specific to the proposed development. She stated that the studies done to date have been for feasibility and the City engineer has deemed the subdivision compliant with the subdivision act. She further stated that additional correspondence has been received which included a letter from the property owner below at 58 Portuguese Bend Road expressing concern about the project and a letter from the applicant objecting to the additional independent hydrology study. She further reviewed the options before the City Council which include to either approve or deny the subdivision based on the findings which are listed in the staff report or to continue with the request for additional hydrology information. Mayor Pieper called for public comment. Howard Weinberg, Attorney addressed the City Council stating that they do not feel that an additional hydrology study is necessary. He further reviewed the hydrology calculations originally provided and stated that the hydrologists both concluded that there will be no additional water coming off the surface of the property after the lots are developed. He asked the City Council to rescind the request for additional studies and approve the subdivision as approved by the Planning Commission and confirmed by the City Engineer. Charlie Raine, 2 Pinto Road addressed the City Council to express concern regarding the project and the effect any additional water from the lots will have on the properties below. Jim Hynes, 23 Crest Road East addressed the City Council stating that there will be no additional water coming off the lots as has been confirmed by their engineer and the City engineer. In response to Mayor Pieper, City Attorney Jenkins stated that if the applicant is unwilling to provide the additional information requested, the City Council should make a decision to either approve or deny the request. Discussion ensued concerning the need for the additional hydrology information. Councilmember Black commented that he is concerned about effect of the subdivision on the downhill neighbors given the soil stability issues and would not be in favor of approving the subdivision without the additional hydrology information requested. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer expressed concern that there was no Environmental Impact Report (EIR) conducted and she is not willing to risk people's safety. Following further discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer moved that the City Council direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial in Zoning Case No. 869 at 23 Crest Road East. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Minutes City Council Meeting 02-08-16 0 DRAFT OPEN AGENDA - APPROXIMATELY 8:00 P.M. - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME None. OLD BUSINESS SECOND READING, WAIVE FULL READING AND ADOPT 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 stating that this is consideration of an Ordinance amending the City's existing View Ordinance and does not relate to Measure B. He stated that the discussion regarding Measure B interpretation is a separate item on the agenda and will be discussed later. Mayor Pieper called for public comment. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road addressed the City Council to suggest that the language in the Ordinance regarding restorative actions be changed to eliminate the word "topping" and instead use words like "crown reduction" to be consistent with the language that the Committee on Trees & Views uses. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer, Planning Director Schwartz confirmed that the Committee on Trees and Views does not typically use the word "topping" in its resolutions. In response to Mayor Pieper, City Attomey Jenkins stated that if the City Council makes any changes other than to correct typographical errors, the Ordinance would have to be reintroduced for first reading. Following brief discussion, Councilmember Black moved that the City Council waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 346 amending Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code relating to View Preservation as presented. Mayor Pieper seconded the motion. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer commented that she feels that the language regarding restorative action should be changed as suggested by Dr. Gill. She further commented that she feels that the term informational "document" should be further explained. She commented that she also feels that binding arbitration should be offered to reduce litigation. Following discussion, the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 346 carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Black, Mirsch, Wilson and Mayor Pieper. NOES: Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Minutes City Council Meeting 02-08-16 DRAFT CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1182 ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. Mayor Pieper introduced the item stating that the City Council will review and discuss the information presented; and then open the item for public comment. He stated that the purpose of the Administrative Regulations is to provide definitions so that the Committee on Trees and Views can apply it evenly and consistently. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the background and previous discussion and testimony on this item. She stated that the matter was originally discussed by a City Council Ad Hoc Committee and then by the Planning Commission to provide clarity on the portions of Measure B that were not clearly defined when the measure was adopted by the voters. She stated that the three issues needing clarification were the terms "mature" vs. "maturing"; what constitutes "acquisition" of property and the term "retroactivity." She further reviewed the correspondence received since the City Council last discussed this matter, which offered several varying opinions as to the definition of "mature." She stated the Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer has also provided a memo expressing her opinion regarding the definition of mature and other matters related to the interpretation of Measure B. In response to Mayor Pieper as to how to best proceed, Planning Director Schwartz stated that the City Council may wish to refer to the Planning Commission's recommendations as included in the Resolution that is attached to the staff report and discuss each of the items. DATE OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the interpretation of "acquisition" of property as suggested by the Planning Commission. Mayor Pieper commented that he feels the "acquisition date" should be the last time money was conveyed for the ownership of the property. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer commented that she feels "acquisition date" should be the date when the current owner acquired property regardless of whether money changed hands or not and it became legally recordable as theirs. Discussion ensued concerning how the rule would be applied when a property is put into a "trust." Further discussion ensued concerning revocable vs. irrevocable trusts. City Attorney Jenkins commented that there are varying definitions of "acquire" which is what makes it difficult to interpret Measure B. He suggested that it may make more sense to view it from the point of view of the property not the people. He explained that the property comes with certain rights and the concept would be that there is a relationship between what was paid for the property and the rights that were held by the property at the time the money was transferred. He stated that it could be looked at as a property issue not a people issue whereby the last time the property was purchased in an arms length transaction where title was conveyed and consideration was paid for the full value of the property then the property was paid for with the attributes of that property at that time. He further explained that the other way to look at would be from a people perspective where whoever lives in the house, however they might have acquired it, they only get the view they had when they obtained the right to live in the house without regard to whether money changes hands or not. Minutes City Council Meeting 02-08-16 DRAFT Further discussion ensued concerning the different types of scenarios including trusts and irrevocable trust and how they affect acquisition. City Attorney Jenkins suggested that the City Council focus on what the outcome should be in certain hypothetical situations rather than the technical terminology. Further discussion ensued concerning types of property acquisition and the varying definition of acquire. Mayor Pieper called for public comment specifically regarding the matter of "acquisition." Mike Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council stating that he feels that acquisition should be when someone's name goes on title. Lynn Gill, 31 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council stating that he feels that acquisition should be when consideration is given and the property rights that were included with the purchase should he able. to be passed on to anyone who is a beneficiary of the trust. Kirt Behera, 12 Ringbit Road East stated that he concurs with Dr. Gill. Matt Seabem, 14 Portuguese Bend Road stated that he concurs with City Attorney Jenkins that the issue should be considered from a "property" perspective and that using the "people" perspective will cause problems. Howard Weiitbelg, Attorney (Nuccion) stated that he feels that ownership should be pegged to a monetary transaction and he believes the reference to property tax law should be removed. Mayor Pieper suggested again that the acquisition date should be when money changes hands. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer expressed concem that using that approach could create a dynasty through legal documents. City Attorney Jenkins stated that the City Council simply needs to determine what its approach to the matter is. He stated that if the City Council is looking to tie the view to the value of the property when it was last purchased, it is greatly simplified. He stated that looking at who lives there and when that person took control of the property is the other way to look at it and the City Council needs to make a decision as to the broad concept whether its should be viewed from a property or a person perspective. Following discussion, Councilmembers Black, Mirsch Wilson and Mayor Pieper indicated that they are in favor of viewing the matter from the "property" perspective and directed City Attorney Jenkins to draft language that conveys that sentiment for the City Council's consideration at Lite next meeting. "MATURE" VERSUS "MATURING" TREES Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the definitions of "mature" vs. "maturing" as suggested by the Planning Commission. She stated that that. the Planning Commission suggested using the International Society of Arboriculture's definition of "maturity height" as being the maximum height that a plant is likely to reach if the conditions of the planting site are favorable and referencing Sunset Western Garden Book as a reference for potential heights by species. She stated that the Planning Commission further recommended that a tree that had been previously cut should not be considered mature because it never reached its highest mature height. Minutes City Council Meeting 02-08-16 DRAFT Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer commented based on the correspondence from Ruben Green that she feels that height alone cannot be used to determine the maturity of a tree. She further stated that she feels that Measure B requires that the definition has to be based on industry standards predominantly used by arborists. She stated that she feels the City should ask for an independent opinion on what maturity means. Mayor Pieper called for public comment on the issue of maturity. Laura Gregorio, 45 Eastfield Drive/65 Saddleback Road addressed the City Council regarding the provision in Measure B that allows a property owner to restore the view they had when they purchased their property. Mike Schoettle addressed the City council stating that he does not feel that a tree that has been previously trimmed should be exempt from being considered mature. Lynn Gill stated that he feels that Sunset Western Garden Book is a good resource to use as a guide for determining maximum tree height but warned against using the maximum height. He suggested getting an opinion from a consulting arborist. Harold Light, Attorney (Hassoldt) addressed the City Council to further explain the declaration he submitted from Mr. Green's. He stated that he also does not feel a tree that has been previously trimmed should be exempt from being considered mature and that maximum height should not be used as the determining factor. Howard Weinberg, Attorney (Nuccion) addressed the City Council in support of using height as the determining factor, but suggested using a percentage of the maximum height rather than the absolute maximum height. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer commented that the language used to define "maturity" has to be consistent with Measure B and must be defined by industry standards predominantly accepted by arborists. She suggested obtaining an opinion from a Registered Consulting Arborist with regard to the definition of mature on a case -by -case basis. Councilmember Mirsch commented that she feels it is the City Council's responsibility to set a standard that can be used in each case and in doing so, the City is meeting its obligation by deliberating in good faith and coming to a conclusion that is simple and subject to as little interpretation as possible. In response to Mayor Pieper, City Attorney Jenkins commented that it seems clear that there is no single accepted industry standard of the definition of mature. He stated that he feels what is needed is uniformity — a uniform definition to apply to every case so that there is certainty as to what the word means in each case. He stated that the City Council's task is to come up with a uniform definition based on an industry standard that reasonably derives from industry standards. Mayor Pieper commented that he believes that the definition should be simple and easy to apply consistently. He further commented that he believes that whether or not a tree has been trimmed previously complicates the matter and should be eliminated. Minutes City Council Meeting 02-08-16 DRAFT Councilmember Black stated that he feels that there are scenarios where a mature tree should not be exempted from being trimmed; for example, if a tree had been trimmed to maintain a view but circumstances prevented the trimming the tree should not be allowed to grow into the view simply because it is a mature tree. With regard to maximum height, he suggested that using a percentage of the mature height, possibly 90% may be a better way to go. Councilmember Wilson commented that he feels, the definition needs to be simple but also objective and measurable. He stated that although the Sunset Western Garden Book might not be his favorite resource, it is what is available and suggested using a percentage of the maximum height. He further commented that he agrees that trees that have been trimmed should not be exempted. He suggested using 75-80% of the maximum height as the guideline. Discussion ensued concerning the tree height ranges shown in Sunset Western Garden Book. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer further expressed concern that Sunset Western Garden Book is not an industry standard used by arborists and using it will lead to litigation. In response to Councilmember Wilson, City Attorney Jenkins stated that what the City Council comes up with regarding the definition of maturity should be informed by the information received. He stated that the City Council has been provided with several pieces of information in the staff report, including the opinions from arborists and the public. He stated that if the City Council believes it needs more information, as Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer suggests, an expert could be hired to provide additional information. He further stated that if the City Council believes it has received enough information to make a decision, which reflects a consensus or merger of what constitutes an industry standard, such a decision would be sustainable. Further discussion ensued concerning the differing opinions on the definition of maturity, the height ranges listed in Sunset Western Garden Book and whether or not a mature tree that has been previously trimmed should be exempted from being trimmed to maintain a view. Following discussion, consideration of this matter was continued to the next regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on Monday, February 22, 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 THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS DISCUSSION REGARDING MOVING THE OPEN AGENDA ITEM ON THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TO EARLIER IN THE MEETING. (ORAL) Mayor Pieper commented that Councilmember Mirsch suggested, and he concurs that it would make sense to move the open agenda item on the City Council agenda to earlier in the meeting so that those wishing to speak don't have to wait until 8pm or later. Following discussion, staff was directed to place the "Open Agenda" item as the first item on the agenda after the roll call. Minutes City Council Meeting 02-08-16 DRAFT COYOTE CONTROL. (ORAL) Mayor Pieper commented that there seem to be many reports of coyote issues on the social networking web site, Rolling Hills Nextdoor. Following brief discussion, staff was directed to continue to monitor and address the coyote issues. MATTERS FROM STAFF UPDATE ON CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY WATER BUDGET ALLOCATIONS FOR NEW RESIDENTS. (ORAL) City Manager Cruz reported that Cal Water has come up with a process for more fairly assigning water budget numbers to new Rolling Hills' residents. Staff was directed to ask the RHCA to be sure that new residents are provided with Cal Water's contact information. 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 22, 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, Minutes City Council Meeting 02-08-16 DRAFT Jeff Pieper Mayor Minutes City Council Meeting 02-08-16 CHECK CHECK N� DATE 24194 02/222016 24195 02222016 24196 02222016 24197 02222016 24198 02222016 24199 02222016 24200 02222016 24201 02/22/2016 24202 02/22/2016 24203 02/22/2016 24204 02/22/2016 24205 02/22/2016 24206 02/22/2016 24207 02/22/2016 24208 02/22/2016 • PR LINK 2/5/2016 • PR LINK 2/5/2016 city 0pest, _AUL Agenda Item No: 3-B Mtg. Date: 02,/22/16 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 2/22/2016 - CHECK RUN RAYEE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COX COMMUNICATIONS DAILY BREEZE FIRST BANKCARD FIRST BANKCARD JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP JOHN L HUNTER & ASSOC., INC. LA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT MANCHESTER LOCK & SECURITY MANERJ SIGN CO., INC. NEOPOST USA INC PACIFIC COAST LANDSCAPE WILLDAN INC. XEROX CORPORATION LEAH MIRSCH PR LINK• PAYROLL PROCESSING PR LINK - PAYROLL 3 & PR TAYFS Total PESCRIPT1ON NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FM: (310) 3777288 MAINT ON RADAR UNIT PHONE & INTERNET JAN 2016 ADVERTISING JAN 2016 OFFICE SUPPLIES & LCC MEETING CM FOUND ATTORNEY SERVICES JAN 2016 STORM WATER REPORT LA ENFORCEMENT JAN 2016 FRONT DOOR TO CITY HALL LOCK REALIGN AND REMOVAL OF SIGNS TABS TO SEAL NEWSLE I i ER LANDSCAPE MAINT JAN 2016 BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEC 2015 COPIER MAINT JAN 2016 LCC HOTEL AND PARKING Processing Fee Pay Period - January 20, 2016 Through February 2, 2016 I, Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager of Rolling Hills, California certify that the above demands arc accurate and there is available in the General Fund a balance of $61,683.09 for the payment of R City Manager Rayrlond • Previously Disbursed AMOUNT 65.94 417.36 885.96 1,068.90 65.00 7.226.80 4,092.50 23,476.50 207.00 463.50 60.17 940.00 2,353.75 33.00 635.85 49.95 19.640.91 61,683.09 41.99123 Printed on Recycled Paper Corrected CITY OF ROLLING HILLS BALANCE SHEET January 31, 2016 ASSETS GENERAL& DEPOSIT OPEB COPS& CAPITAL FUND FUND TRUST CLEEP Cash & Cash Equivalents S 4,449,422 S 1,771 S 36,367 5 120,690 S Cash & Cash Equivalents • Capital Project Fund 10,956 Poppy Trail Grading Bond - 305,000 Accounts Receivable 7,590 Prepaid Expense & Deposits 11,549 COMMUN. FACILTES MUNICIPAL SELF- INSUR, REFUSE COLLECT. 23,536 $ 260,374 $ 250,235 S 222.332 71,206 TOTAL ASSETS 4,479,517 306,771 36,367 120,690 23,536 482,706 321,441 LIABILITIES Accounts & Contract Payable 6,600 Available for OPEB - 36,367 Deposits 23.803 306,771 Deferred Revenues 26,785 Employees Benefits Payable TOTAL LIABILITIES 57,188 306,771 36,367 FUND BALANCE Unassigned Fund Balance 4,422,329 - - 120,690 23,536 482 706 258,443 - 103,740 986,507 TOTAL UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE 4,422,329 120690 23,536 482.706 258 443 103,740 986,507 TOTAL UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE &LIABILTES 5 4,479,517 S 306,771 S 36,367 $ 120,690 5 23,536 5 482,706 5 321,441 S - S 103,740 5 986,507 62,998 TRAFFIC SAFETY TRANSIT UTILITY PROP A,C,M FUND & TDA S 103.740 5 986.507 62,998 103740 986,507 COMPOSITION OF CASH Petry Cash S 1,500 OPUS Bade - Checking Account 7.246 OPUS Bank - Money Market 983,520 OPUS Bank - Interest Checking 1,000,000 Calif. State Local Agency Investment Fund 2,551,332 Malaga Bank - CDARS - CD's 1,700,000 S 6,243,598 Date 1 Tc APe'q'`/��s/d�3y. ilia Raymond Cruz. City Manager YTD TOTAL $ 6.232.642 10,956 305,000 301,128 II 549 BEGINNING OF YEAR TOTAL f 6,061,616 10,956 305.000 381,398 27,797 6,861,275 $ 6,786,767 69,598 $ 128,965 36,367 330,574 331,574 26,785 6,340 463,324 466.879 6,397,951 6,319,888 6,397,951 6,319,888 5 6,861,275 6,786,767 RH bal_fy1516 2/9/2016 11:43 AM •rl CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SUMMARY STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Actual Compared to Annual Budget July 1, 2015 to January 31, 2016 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 Expenditurcs 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 This Year Last Year This Year Better (Worse) Annual Budget & Adj. Remaining Budget $ 829,936 $ 855,862 $ (25,926) 1,779,550 $ 949,614 735,434 786,766 51,332 1,756,780 1,021,346 94,502 69,096 25,406 22,770 (71,732) (19,455) 10,000 (29,455) (332,943) (313,488) 75,047 79,096 (4,0491. (310,173) (385,220) 91,914 75,923 15,991 ' 100,200 8,286 60,939 36,600 (24,339) 104,500 43,561 30,975 39,323 (8,348) (4,300) (35,275) 0 30,975 39,323 (8,348) (4,300) (35,275) - - - 100 100 - - - 57,700 57,700 • - - (57,600) (57,600) - - - 62,400 62,400 - - - 4,800 4,800 235 2,865 2,630 228,332 228,097 (235) (2,865) 2,630 (228,332) (228,097) (235) (2,865) 2,630 (228,332) (228,097) 448,952 474,813 (25,861) 771,800 322,848 440,988 453,089 12,101 755,980 314,992 7,964 21,724 (13,760) 15,820 7,856 (14,000) (10,000) (4,000) (24,000) (10,000) (6,036) 11,724 (17,760) (8,180) (2,144) - - - 50 50 33,455 4,163 (29,292) 55,550 22,095 (33,455) (4,163) (29,292) (55,500) (22,045) 33,455 - 33,455 55,500 22,045 • (4,163) 4,163 - 0 48,476 47,089 1,387 84,141 35,665 48,476 47,089 1,387 84,141 35,665 48,476 47,089 1,387 84,141 35,665 33,799 - (33,799) 150,000 116,201 (33,799) - (33,799) (150,000) (116,201) • - - 250,000 250,000 (33,799) - (33,799) 100,000 133,799 1,419,278 1,453,687 (34,409) 2,735,841 1,316,563 1,304,850 1,283,483 (21,3671_ 3,108,842 1,803,992 114,428 170,204 (55,776) (373,001) (487,429) 10,957 10 957 114,428 170,204 $ (55,776) $ (383,958) $ (498,386) CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTIAL ALLIED WASTE RECYCLE NOW REPORT Report Date: 2015 Data MONTH 2015 January February March April May June July August September October November December Year to Date Totals: RECYCLED (tons) 70.78 74.45 70.78 70.69 95.82 116.88 140.38 86.84 94.23 90.40 79.03 77.30 1,067.56 Average Monthly Totals: 2015 88.96 GREEN WASTE (tons) 107.12 118.20 120.67 84.76 135.06 81.36 78.72 74.71 74.72 76.57 92.94 99.50 1,144.33 95.36 C&D Recycled C&D Disposed Disposal Diversion Tonnage 5.83 2.50 124.42 59.14% 4.38 1.88 99.07 66.12% 15.32 6.56 114.27 63.11% 20.41 8.75 158.17 51.30% 8.30 3.56 146.71 61.42% 23.09 9.90 146.33 58.62% 56.36 24.15 206.89 54.38% 69.50 29.79 152.26 55.93% - - 165.34 50.54% 15.27 6.55 135.85 56.14% 7.85 3.36 112.87 60.74% 8.98 3.85 157.03 53.59% 235.28 19.61 100.84 1,719.22 310.65 297.97 327.60 342.77 389.45 377.56 506.50 413.10 334.29 324.64 296.05 346.66 57.35% 8.40 143.27 0.58 MONTHLY TOTALS (tons), 4,267.24 355.60 RECEIVED FEB 1 7 2016 City of Rolling Hills By e.7 siC CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTIAL ALLIED WASTE RECYCLE NOW REPORT Report Date: 2016 MONTH 2016 January February March April May June July August September October November December Year to Date Totals: RECYCLED (tons) 74.63 GREEN WASTE (tons) 83.74 C&D Recycled 4.33 C&D Disposed 1.85 Disposal Tonnage 151.42 14 Diversion 51.49% MONTHLY TOTALS (tons) 315.97 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 74.63 Average Monthly Totals: 2016 37.32 83.74 41.87 4.33 2.16 1.85 151.42 51.49% 0.93 75.71 0.26 315.97 157.99 RECEIVED FEB 1 7 2016 City of Rolling Hills By INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 TO: FROM: THRU: SUBJECT: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 6-A Mtg. Date: 02/22/16 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR f RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1182 TO ADOPT ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 2016 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, recommended by the Planning Commission, as amended by the City Council at the 2/8/16 meeting (pertaining to acquisition of property only) C. Correspondence received since February 8, 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 its January 11, 2016 and February 8, 2016 meetings, and continued deliberation on the matter. 3. All of the documents and information provided to the City Council for the January 11, and February 8 meetings continue to be relevant and are available at City Hall. Please refer to your previous packets. 4. Included with this staff report is correspondence received since the Council's meeting on February 8, 2016. • Mr. Lynn Gill recommends that "maturity" of trees should be defined as "A tree that has reached at least 75% of its typical height and spread at a particular site" and provided a list of agencies that use that definition. He states that it is inappropriate to use the maximum height of a tree as the interpretation for a mature tree. • Mr. Gill also submitted that using the Sunset Western Garden Book, as a source for finding out the height of trees is reasonable and appropriate. • Mr. and Mrs. Kirt Behera would like the City Council to add another item to the interpretation of Measure B, and that is to define and interpret "View Corridors and a View Through Trees". A definition of a view corridor was added to the zoning ordinance as follows: "View corridor" means a view from a designated viewing area broken into segments by vegetation". Further, the language from Measure B incorporated into the Ordinance states: "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". (Such order refers to when the CTV or City Council find that there is a view and a restorative action is called for). The Beheras feel that the zoning ordinance definition of view corridor is too vague and allows for too much discretion in interpretation. They suggest that the obstruction with trees within a view should be no more than 20% of each view length and that one should be able to have as many views as the house allows for, if it was purchased with those views. They also suggest that the owner of the trees causing the obstruction of view(s) should be responsible for the cost of the restorative action. 5. At the February 8, 2016 meeting, the City Council rejected the Planning Commission's recommendation, and came to an agreement on how to interpret the provision in Measure B on what constitutes "acquisition of property". Measure B states that "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". Based on the discussion and direction to staff, the City Attorney prepared the following: Section 1001. Interpretation of the Date of Acquisition of Property. Measure B provides that a person may only apply to restore the view existing from the date that the current owner of the property actually acquired the property. The City interprets this provision to mean that the protectable view under the ordinance is the view possessed by the property on the date it was most recently purchased for fair market value. Hence, in determining the date on or after which the protectable view is established, the acquisition date shall be the most recent date title to the property was conveyed for fair market value (as evidenced by a deed) through an arms -length purchase and sale. 6. Regarding interpretation of what constitutes "mature" trees, which is the next topic the City Council will discuss at tonight's meeting, Measure B states: "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". City Council discussed this matter at length and took public testimony but has not come to a conclusion. Mayor Pro-Tem Dieringer previously recommended that the interpretation the City applies to mature trees must adhere to that defined "by industry standards predominantly accepted by arborists". She suggested that should the CTV or City Council require an expert opinion to aid in their decision making, an arborist who is a member of American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) and who is a Registered Consulting Arborist (RCA) be consulted. According to staffs' research ASCA is considered by the arboriculture industry to be a more esteemed organization than the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). Members of ASCA must also be members of ISA (but not vice versa) and require more training and more continuing education hours than members of ISA. Members of ASCA focus on honing skills as consultants, legalities and serving as expert witnesses in legal cases. ISA certified arborist must have at least 3 years experience in tree care or a 2 -year degree in arboriculture and 2 years experience or similar combination; whereas ASCA member has to have five years of industry experience and 4 -year degree in arboriculture or a related field and 240 or more approved continuing education units or have BCMA (ISA Board Certified Master Arborist status). A Registered Consulting Arborist is an individual who has an ASCA membership, graduated from ASCA Consulting Academy and has 420 of approved continuing education units. As shown, a Consulting Arborist and Registered Consulting Arborist require more education and experience than a Certified Arborist. Therefore, per Mayor Pro-Tem recommendation, once an interpretation of "mature" trees is finalized by the City Council, language could be added to Resolution No. 1182 that whenever the City (CTV or City Council) would like to engage an expert in the arboriculture field, that person must be a member of ASCA. 7. Another item subject to interpretation from Measure B is whether the cases decided on by the City prior to passage of Measure B are exempt from Measure B. Measure B 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." The City Attorney opined that, based on this provision, any case reviewed and ruled on by the City prior to the passage of Measure B is void and not enforceable by the City. If the parties subject to pre -Measure B ruling wish to restore their view, they need to submit an application to the City based on the new requirements. The Planning Commission concurred with this interpretation and recommended that the City Council adopt it, (Chapter 3 of Resolution No. 1182). THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK co- Agenda Item No.: 6-A Mtg. Date: 02/22/16 ATTACHMENT "A" Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Ordinance, including Measure B language (underlined/bold/italics). THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Chapter 17.26 VIEW PRESERVATION (WITH MEASURE B 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 §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 damages attributable to negligent or wrongful performance of the work. Any such insurance shall be subject to the approval of the City. 8. 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." THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Agenda Item No.: 6-A Mtg. Date: 02/22/16 ATTACHMENT "B" Resolution No. 1182 of the City Council adopting administrative regulations interpreting Measure B, recommended by the Planning Commission, as amended by the City Council at the 2/8/16 meeting (pertaining to acquisition of property only). 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 1 Measure B Interpretation 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 2 Measure B Interpretation Attachment A City of Rolling Hills Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B Relating to View Preservation Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Date of Property Acquisition "Mature" versus "Maturing" Trees Retroactivity of Measure B Chapter 1 DATE OF PROPERTY ACQUISITION Section 1001. Interpretation of the Date of Acquisition of Property. M 2.._c B provides t of a person may only apply to restore ♦he view existing f om the da a tha♦ the a ent o of the p pelt. eetually a red the p perty I.. deter. thin.. . .het6er a trans f r of property 6es resulted in an acquisition aff eting the view that a e -restored, tho City shall g rally a ply the rule.. a ..livable to reassessmeet-ef-pfepeFty4axes-in-the-County-of-basaugeles, Tl.e : sots of ev......v., transf rs efpropery v e illustrated balsa.. A The aequisitien date ofpropeay acquired through inheritvnve shall be the date ifdleFiumee- 13 The v sition date efpreperty v ..ed from a t ird party t rough C. shall^ -^acv ange When p pert y is placed into v cable t......« v sable Section 1001. Interpretation of the Date of Acquisition of Property. Measure B provides that a person may only apply to restore the view existing from the date that the current owner of the property actually acquired the property. The City interprets this provision to mean that the protectable view under the ordinance is the view possessed by the property on the date it was most recently purchased for fair market value. Hence, in determining the date on or after which the protectable view is established, the acquisition date shall be Resolution No.1182 Measure B Interpretation the most recent date title to the property was conveyed for fair market value (as evidenced by a deed) through an arms -length purchase and sale. Resolution No.1182 Measure B Interpretation 4 18 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.1182 5 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 6 Measure B Interpretation a STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ) §§ I 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.1182 Measure B Interpretation CITY CLERK THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Agenda Item No.: 6-A Mtg. Date: 02/22/16 ATTACHMENT "C" Correspondence received since February 8, 2016 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK From: Lynn Gill <Iynn.gill@cox.net> Date: Friday, February 12, 2016 11:50 AM To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net> Subject: Testimony for next view hearing Hello Yolanta, RECEIVED FEB 12 2016 City of Roiling Hills By Please include the attached in the next packet for the City Council view hearing. Best regards, Lynn February 12, 2016 [TESTIMONY OF LYNN E. GILL] RECEIVED FEB 12 2016 City of Rolling Hills By SHOULD THE 75% RULE OR SOME OTHER PERCENTAGE BE APPLIED? Mature Tree- A tree that has reached at least 75% of its typical height and spread at a particular site INCIDENCES OF THE 75% RULE Gilman, Illustrated Guide to Pruning https://books.google.com/books/about/An Illustrated Guide to Pruninq.html?id=qXq-oWDB8dgC City of Los Angeles http://www.laparks.org/dos/forest/pdf/Definition.pdf County of Los Angeles httpJ/file.lacountygov/dpr/cros1 184720.pdf Colorado State University http://www.ext.colostate.edu/mq/Gardennotes/615.html City of Vancouver, WA http://www.cityofvancouver.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/public works/page/1341/street t ree manual.pdf City of Fort Collins, CO http_//www.fcgov.com/forestry/pdf/tree-standards-3-31-10.pdf Idaho Tree Preservation http://idahotreepreservation.com/terms-and-definitions/ INCIDENCES OF SOME OTHER PERCENTAGE (LIKE 80%) - ZERO IS USING THE TOP OF THE RANGE HEIGHT FOR A SPECIES REASONABLE? Declaration of Reuben M. Green (circle 39)- Using this definition for a "mature tree," only 353 trees in California would qualify as mature trees (Official Registry of California Big Trees). There would be no mature trees in Rolling Hills. Gill Letter dated December 28, 2015 (circle 52)- Using this definition, no trees in Rolling Hills would be considered mature. Using the top of the range for defining a "mature tree" is an inappropriate measure. [TESTIMONY OF LYNN E. GILL] CAN THE SUNSET WESTERN GARDEN BOOK BE CITED AS AUTHORITATIVE? GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND SOCIETES THAT REFERENCE THE SUNSET WESTERN GARDEN BOOK (Cursory half hour search): Alameda County, CA Alliance for Community Trees City of Bandon, OR City of Bonney Lake, WA City of Folsom, CA City of Los Angeles, CA City of Hayward, CA City of Pasadena, CA City of Portland, OR City of San Francisco, CA City of San Juan Capistrano, CA City of Tiburon, CA County of Riverside, CA County of Snohomish, WA Friends of the Urban Forest Journal of Arboriculture Tree People University of California University of Oregon Subject: Requesting A DEFINITION of VIEW CORRIDOR in more SPECIFIC TERMS in Measure B interpretation Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 11:53 AM From: Kirt Behera <Kbehera@aol.com> To: <mayor_citycouncil@cityofrh.net> Cc: "hluce@cityofrh.net" <hluce@cityofrh.net>, Kirt Behera <Kbehera@aol.com> From Kirt and Mamata Behera RECEIVED 12 Ringbit Road East City of Rolling Hills FEB 1 7 2016 To City of Rolling Hills Honorable Mayor and City Council By City of Rolling Hills Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: We would like to express our concern on the current Definition of the View Corridor and the Action to achieve it. It is flawed in that it leaves to different interpretations and hence different actions by different group of View Committees and members. Measure B requires "Create View Corridors and a View Through Trees" in a combination to create a View not by View Corridors alone. View corridors implies clear openings between trees and view through trees means view through a given tree(s) after restore -active actions like crowning, lacing etc. 1. My proposed DEFINITION within the scope of Measure B: "View Corridors and a View Through Trees" means a View(s) from a designated viewing area(s) broken into segments by Maturing vegetations within each View such that the View continues through the vegetations with minimum obstructions. The Maturing vegetations will be no more than 20% of each view length excluding the Matured vegetations as acquired at the time of purchase. The designated viewing areas and the number of views will be as deemed by the View Owner. The number of views will be as many as based upon the configuration of a house and without overlaps. 2. ACTIONS: The goal of any actions will be to provide for as much view as possible since the View owner has paid for it but the limitations of the Measure B provisions - Exemption of Matured trees and Obstructed views by Maturing trees etc. Proposed Process: a. The View Owner will determine - the viewing areas, number of Views with From.. and To and without overlaps. Each view will be observed using a ruler at arms length and view coverage. This will provide the View Length of each view and length of clear and obstructed view as adjusted for the the matured trees at the time of purchase and after restoration. b. Within Each View length , the Restored View Length = View Length Tess Matured Trees - Restored Maturing Trees such that the Maturing Trees do not exceed 20% of the View Length less the Matured Trees. c. All maturing trees beside other actions will be laced to allow for the view continuation like city lights, ocean water etc., through these trees. 3.Conclusions: This approach clearly defines how to achieve Measure B provisions with a simple and measurable tool and at the same time provide as much view as possible to the view owner. This will eliminate various arguments regarding how much to restore, how many corridors etc. 4. The initial costs should be borne by the owner who let his trees grow into the views that the View Owner has paid for. It is not fair to penalize the View Owner for loosing part of the view he paid for. If view ordinances are not designed to maintain the views in as much as possible within Measure B limitations - Rolling Hills will loose its most critical assets - the Great Views and hence Billions of Dollars of property values! Thank you Sincerely Kirt and Mamata Behera 310-529-2022 Cell Agenda Item No: 9-A Mtg. Date: 02/22/16 Subject: Urgent Request for a Letter of Support for the Los Angeles County Pharmaceuticals and Sharps Collection and Disposal Stewardship Ordinance Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 4:25 PM From: Taskforce <taskforce@dpw.lacounty.gov> Cc: Dan Lafferty <DLAFF@dpw.lacounty.gov>, Carlos Ruiz <CARUIZ@dpw.lacounty.gov>, Bahman Hajialiakbar <BHAJI@dpw.lacounty.gov>, "mikemohajer@yahoo.com" <mikemohajer@yahoo.com> Priority: Highest LOS ANGELES COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE/ INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE TO: All City Mayors, City Council Members, and City Managers, in Los Angeles County Please see the attached correspondence dated February 2, 2016, from the Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/Integrated Waste Management Task Force regarding the Urgent Request for a letter of Support for the Los Angeles County Pharmaceuticals and Sharps Collection and Disposal Stewardship Ordinance. Please disregard the previous email and letter on this subject which inadvertently included an incorrect attachment. We apologize for any inconvenience or confusion this may have caused. If you have any questions regarding the subject matter, please contact Mr. Mike Mohajer of the Task Force at MikeMohajer@yahoo.com <mailto:MikeMohajer@yahoo.com> or at (909) 592-1147. For questions regarding the Task Force, please contact Ms. Kristin Keating at (626) 458-2505 or kkeating@dpw.lacounty.gov<mailto:kkeating@dpw.lacounty.gov> . OP2AINFNCE IwC✓✓uOEp - SEE P. 13_9.1 0 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK GAIL FARBER, CHAIR MARGARET CLARK, VICE - CHAIR February 2, 2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE/ INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE 900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE, ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331 P.O. BOX 1460, ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460 www.lacountyiswmff.org TO: All City Mayors, City Council Members, and City Managers, in Los Angeles County URGENT REQUEST FOR A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY PHARMACEUTICALS AND SHARPS COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL STEWARDSHIP ORDINANCE The Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/Integrated Waste Management Task Force strongly urges your City's support for the Los Angeles County Pharmaceuticals and Sharps Collection and Disposal Stewardship Ordinance (Ordinance). The Ordinance was drafted at the direction of the County Board of Supervisors following an investigation of its feasibility, in light of the 2014 decision by the United States Supreme Court not to hear an appeal from the Pharmaceutical industry to oppose a similar ordinance adopted by Alameda County. Several other counties and jurisdictions in the State have followed Alameda's example in adopting similar ordinances. If enacted, the Ordinance would require the development of stewardship plans to address the pressing need for the safe collection and disposal of unwanted/unused pharmaceuticals and sharps waste generated by residents. The Ordinance would also provide for participation by your City by adopting the requirements of the Ordinance into your City's municipal code (through a resolution). The Ordinance would establish a sustainably financed program designed to accommodate the needs of residents to safely dispose of discarded/unwanted sharps and pharmaceuticals in a manner that protects the environment as well as the health and safety of the public. It would also serve to effectively prevent these items from being abused/misused while reducing unnecessary injuries resulting from contact with improperly disposed. sharps, as well as the contraction and spread of harmful diseases. The Ordinance would also ensure that producers and manufacturers assume a reasonably shared responsibility, in cost and otherwise, for safe and proper disposal at end of their products' useful life. The County has conducted multiple stakeholder meetings which included representatives from the manufacturers of these products, retailers, pharmacies, environmental organizations, consumer advocacy groups, waste hauling industry, and others in order to develop the most effective Ordinance. The Task Force has forwarded a letter in support of the Ordinance to the Board of Supervisors. Enclosed for your use is a sample letter your City may wish to use to express your City's voice in support of this urgent and imperative policy change. February 2, 2016 Page 2 Pursuant to Chapter 3.67 of the Los Angeles County Code and the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Assembly Bill 939), the Task Force is responsible for coordinating the development of all major solid waste planning documents prepared for the County of Los Angeles and the 88 cities in Los Angeles County with a combined population in excess of ten million. Consistent with these responsibilities and to ensure a coordinated and cost-effective and environmentally sound solid waste management system in Los Angeles County, the Task Force also addresses issues impacting the system on a countywide basis. The Task Force membership includes representatives of the League of California Cities -Los Angeles County Division, County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, City of Los Angeles, waste management industry, environmental groups, the public, and a number of other governmental agencies. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Mike Mohajer of the Task Force at MikeMohaierAvahoo.com or at (909) 592-1147. Sincerely, 7444/464.e —t; Clash - Margaret Clark, Vice -Chair Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/ Integrated Waste Management Task Force and Mayor, City of Rosemead PH:kk P:\eppub\EA\EA\TFITF\Letter :\2016\February\CountyEPROrdinance-RequestSuPPertCities.doc cc: League of California Cities, Los Angeles Division California Product Stewardship Council San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments South Bay Cities Council of Governments Gateway Cities Council of Governments Westside Cities Council of Govemments Each City Mayor, City Council Member, and City Manager in the County of Los Angeles Each City Recycling Cordinator in Los Angeles County Each Member of the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Each Member of the Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Task Force Los Angeles County Pharmaceuticals and Sharps Collection and Disposal Stewardship Ordinance Draft Letter of Support to be put on City Letterhead Date The Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Los Angeles Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street, Room 383 Los Angeles, CA 90012 SUBJECT: LOS ANGELES COUNTY PHARMACEUTICALS AND SHARPS COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL STEWARDSHIP ORDINANCE — SUPPORT Dear Supervisors: The City of _ is in support of Los Angeles County's efforts to adopt a product stewardship ordinance that would provide for the proper collection and disposal of unwanted/unused pharmaceuticals and sharps waste generated by residents. Adoption of this Ordinance is important because it would establish a sustainably financed program that will provide residents with a convenient means to safely dispose of unwanted sharps and pharmaceuticals. It would also help prevent these products from entering the environment, reduce their availability for drug abuse and misuse, and reduce injuries associated with sharps being improperly disposed. With access to safe and convenient disposal options, as well as a robust outreach and education program, residents will be empowered to properly dispose their materials. The passage of this Ordinance would ensure that manufacturers and producers of prescription and nonprescription drugs and sharps share in the responsibility of proper disposal of their products. Our City supports this shared responsibility approach and do not want the cost of managing these materials at the end of their useful life solely borne by local jurisdictions. We understand the County has conducted multiple stakeholder meetings which. included representatives from the manufacturers and producers of these materials, retailers, pharmacies, consumer advocacy groups, environmental organizations, waste, hauling industry, and others in order to develop the most effective Ordinance. Following adoption of the Ordinance by the Board, the City of is very interested in passing a resolution to adopt this Ordinance so that our City's residents also have access to safe, convenient, and sustainably financed collection and disposal methods of pharmaceuticals and sharps. Should you have any questions, please contact Sincerely, XXX, Title Organization cc: Sachi A. Hamai, Los Angeles County Chief Executive Officer Patrick Ogawa, Los Angeles County Acting Executive Officer Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (Angelo Bellomo) Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Task Force GAIL FARBER, CHAIR MARGARET CLARK, VICE • CHAIR February 2, 2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE/ INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE 900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE, ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331 P.O. BOX 1460, ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460 www.laco u ntyiswmtf.org The Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Los Angeles 383 Kenneth Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Supervisors: LOS ANGELES COUNTY PHARMACEUTICALS AND SHARPS COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL STEWARDSHIP ORDINANCE — SUPPORT The Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/Integrated Waste Management Task Force (Task Force) strongly supports the Board's adoption of the Los Angeles County Pharmaceuticals and Sharps Collection and Disposal Stewardship Ordinance (Ordinance). As currently drafted, the Ordinance would require manufacturers of pharmaceuticals and sharps to develop stewardship plans to address the collection and disposal of unwanted/unused pharmaceuticals and sharps waste generated by residents. The adoption of such an ordinance is critically needed, because it establishes a sustainably financed program to provide residents with a convenient means to safely dispose of unwanted sharps and pharmaceuticals. It would help to prevent such products from entering the environment, reduce their availability for drug abuse and misuse, and reduce injuries associated with sharps being improperly disposed. With access to safe and convenient disposal options, as well as a robust outreach and education program, residents will be empowered to properly dispose of these products and prevent them from causing additional harm. The adoption of this Ordinance would also ensure that manufacturers and producers of prescription and nonprescription drugs and sharps share in the responsibility of proper disposal of their products. The Task Force fully supports this shared responsibility approach and strongly opposes other policy measures that would place the financial burden of managing these materials at the end of their useful life solely upon local jurisdictions. We understand the County has conducted multiple stakeholder meetings which included representatives from the manufacturers of these products, retailers, pharmacies, environmental organizations, consumer advocacy groups, waste hauling industry, and others in order to develop the most effective Ordinance. Pursuant to the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Assembly Bill 939) and Chapter 3.67 of the Los Angeles County Code, the Task Force is County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors February 2, 2016 Page 2 responsible for coordinating the development of all major solid waste planning documents prepared for the County of Los Angeles and the 88 cities in Los Angeles County. Consistent with these responsibilities and to ensure a coordinated and cost- effective and environmentally sound solid waste management system in Los Angeles County, the Task Force also addresses issues impacting the system on a countywide basis. The Task Force membership includes representatives of the League of California Cities -Los Angeles County Division, the County Board of Supervisors, City of Los Angeles, waste management industry, environmental groups, the public, and a number of other governmental agencies. For the reasons described above, the Task Force strongly urges the Board's adoption of the Ordinance. The Task Force commends the County for the transparent process in which the Ordinance was developed. Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Mike Mohajer of the Task Force at MikeMohaier(&vahoo.com or (909) 592-1147. Sincerely, ?Wart eievzh- Margaret Clark, Vice -Chair Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/ Integrated Waste Management Task Force and Mayor, City of Rosemead PH:kk P:\eppub\EA\EA\TF\TRLetters\2016\February\CountyEPROrdlnance-RequestAdoPtionBOS.dac cc: Sachi A. Hamai, Chief Executive Officer Patrick Ogawa, Acting Executive Officer Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (Cynthia Harding, Jeffery Gunzenhauser and Angelo Bellomo) Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (Gail Farber, Shari Afshari and Dan Lafferty) San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments South Bay Cities Council of Governments Gateway Cities Council of Governments Westside Cities Council of Governments Each City Mayor, City Council Member, and City Manager in the County of Los Angeles Each Member of the Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Task Force Los Angeles (:aunty rnarmaceuncals ana 5narps Collection and Disposal Stewardship Ordinance • 4 ice; Frequently Asked Questions /7 What is Los Angeles County doing to address pharmaceutical and sharps waste? • On August 11, 2015, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted a motion directing the CEO to work with key County Departments to draft an Ordinance addressing unused/unwanted pharmaceutical and sharps waste. Specifically, the Ordinance would require manufacturers and producers of prescription and nonprescription drugs and sharps to develop product stewardship take -back programs to collect and dispose of unused/unwanted pharmaceutical and sharps waste from County residents. The Board of Supervisors requested the Ordinance to be drafted within 6 months, therefore it is expected that the Ordinance could be considered by the Board at their February 16, 2016 meeting. What is Product Stewardship? • Product Stewardship, also known as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), is a policy framework that strives for a shared responsibility for end -of -life costs of products, rather than defaulting to local govemments to address these costs. In this way, the costs for disposal of hard to manage products are incorporated into the cost of a product, and producers have an incentive to improve the design of those products to make them easier to collect and recycle, less toxic, and more environmentally friendly. Why is this Ordinance needed? • The County recognizes that pharmaceuticals play a critical role in treating diseases and saving lives. However, consumers of pharmaceutical products have limited options for disposal of excess or expired pharmaceutical supplies. The safe disposal of pharmaceutical and sharps waste is a public safety and environmental need that calls for safe, convenient, and sustainable disposal options for residents in Los Angeles County. What has the County done so tar to develop the Ordinance? • As part of the process to develop the most successful and effective Ordinance, the County conducted several stakeholder meetings which included representatives from manufacturers and producers of prescription and nonprescription drugs and sharps, retail associations, pharmacies, hospitals, consumer advocacy groups, environmental organizations, and others. • The County has also reviewed policies from around the world as well as local ordinances developed by Counties in California to identify best practices and incorporate lessons learned from those programs. Page 1 of 2 Los Angeles county rnarmaceutlCals ana snarps Collection and Disposal Stewardship Ordinance Frequently Asked Questions Where else have such policies been Implemented? • EPR is gaining ground for many products, and EPR programs for pharmaceuticals have been in operation in Europe, Canada and Mexico for many years. More recently, ordinances have been adopted by several jurisdictions in California, including Alameda, Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties as well as King County in the State of Washington. How will this Ordinance be administered? Will It be expensive? • The program would be overseen by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, however manufacturers of the pharmaceuticals and sharps would be responsible for designing, implementing and financing the stewardship program. The County believes there should be shared responsibility for the management of pharmaceutical and sharps waste at the end of their life, rather than relying on local jurisdictions to take sole responsibility to administer and fund collection programs. • Producers are typically able to develop programs to collect their products that are more cost-effective than govemment-funded programs. In areas where such programs have been implemented, the cost of the programs were minimal and not expected to increase the costs for phamlaceuticals. For example, King County, Washington's program is estimated to cost just over $600,000 for the first year (which includes one-time start-up costs), which amounts to 0.054 percent of total pharmaceutical sales in King County. What can Cities do If they want to develop a similar program? Would each City need to develop an Ordinance and complete a separate process to adopt It? • The Ordinance will initially cover the County Unincorporated Communities, however, Los Angeles County serves as the Health Officer for 85 of the 88 cities within the County (with the exception of the Cities of Long Beach, Pasadena, and Vernon). Therefore, those 85 Cities could choose to adopt the County's Ordinance simply by passing a resolution. This would ensure the same safe, convenient, and sustainably financed collection and disposal options are made available to City residents. • Cities could also consider sending letters to Board of Supervisors, adopting resolutions in support of EPR, and/or attending the February 16, 2016 Board meeting at which the County's Ordinance will be considered, in order to express support for the passage of the Ordinance. Page 2 of 2 I� December 15, 2015 Hilda L. Solis, Chair Board of Supervisors County of Los Angeles Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street, Room 383 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Los Angeles County Division Lcague of California Cities° Via Fax: (213) 613-1739 RE: Los Angeles County Pharmaceuticals and Sharps Collection and Disposal Stewardship Ordinance — NOTICE OF SUPPORT Dear Supervisor Solis: The Los Angeles County Division of the League of California Cities° (Division) supports the drafting and adoption of Los Angeles County's Pharmaceuticals and Sharps Collection and Disposal Stewardship Ordinance. The proposed ordinance would require the development of Stewardship Plans to address the collection and disposal of unwanted/unused pharmaceuticals and sharps waste generated by residents. The ordinance establishes a sustainably-financed program that will provide residents with a convenient means to safely dispose of unwanted sharps and pharmaceuticals and help to prevent them from entering the environment, reduce their availability for drug abuse and misuse, and reduce injuries associated with sharps being improperly disposed. With access to safe and convenient disposal options, as well as a robust outreach and education program residents will be more informed of the appropriate collection and disposal methods. We understand the County has conducted multiple stakeholder meetings which • included representatives from the manufacturers and producers of these materials, retailers, pharmacies, consumer advocacy groups, environmental organizations, waste hauling industry, and others in order to develop the most effective ordinance. The passage of this ordinance would ensure that manufacturers and producers of prescription and nonprescription drugs and sharps share in the responsibility of proper disposal of their products. The Division supports this shared responsibility approach as the costs of managing these materials at the end of their life should not solely come from local iurisdictions. 2015-16 OFFICERS AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRESIDENT CAROL CHEN CERRITOS VICE PRESIDENT MICHEAL O'LEARY CULVER CITY SECRETARY J ESS TALAMANTES BURBANK TREASURER MICUEL CANALES ARTESIA STATE LEAGUE DIRECTOR OWEN NEWCOMER WHITTIER IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT STEVEN LY ROSEMEAD REGIONAL DIRECTORS ARROYO VERDUGO CITIES LAURA FRIEDMAN GLENDALE ('ITY OF LOS ANGELES JOHN WICKHAM LOS ANGELES GATEWAY CITIES COG LARRY FORESTER SIGNAL HILL 1 AS VIRGENES-MALIBU COG BRAD HALPERN \VESTLAKE VILLAGE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COG SAM PEDROZA CLAREMONT SAN FERNANDO VALLEY COG EMILY GABEL-LUDDY BURBANK SOUTH BAY CITIES COG BEA DIERINCER ROLLING HILLS WESTSIDE CITIES COG DR. WILLIE BRIEN BEVERLY HILLS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JENNIFER QUAN Again, the Los Angeles County Division supports the adoption of this ordinance so that our residents have access to safe, convenient, and sustainably-financed collection and disposal methods of pharmaceuticals and sharps. Thank you for your consideration. Should you have any further questions, please contact Kristine Guerrero at kguerrero@cacities.org. Sincerely, Carol Chen President, Los Angeles County Division, League of California Cities Mayor, City of Cerritos cc: Supervisor Mark Ridley -Thomas, Fax (213) 680-3283 Supervisor Sheila Kuehl, Fax (213) 625-7360 Supervisor Don Knabe, Fax (213) 626-6941 Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, Fax (213) 974-1010 Sachi A. Hamai, Chief Executive Officer, shamai@ceo.lacounty.gov Angelo J. Bellomo, EPR Working Group, abellomo@ph.lacountv.gov Kristine Guerrero, Los Angeles County Division, LOCC, kguerrero@cacities.org 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 LOS ANGELES COUNTY PHARMACEUTICALS AND SHARPS COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL STEWARDSHIP ORDINANCE An ordinance amending Title 11 — Health and Safety of the Los Angeles County Code, relating to requirements for the collection and disposal of unwanted drugs and sharps. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles ordains as follows: Chapter 11._ is hereby added as follows: Chapter 11. — Stewardship Prooram<for Collectiomand Disposal of Unwanted Covered Drugs and Unwanted Sharps. 11. .010 Title. 11._ 015 Purpose 11. .020 Definitions. 11._.030 Stewardship Plans — Participation. 11. .040 Stewardship Plans — Components. 11._ 050 Stewardship Plans — Collection of Covered Drugs and Sharps. 1 /.06 Stewardship PPllans Disposal Covered Drugs and Sharps. 11. 0 Stewardship Plans — Admini`strative and Operational Costs. 11._.090 Stewardship Plans — Identification of Responsible Stewards of Covered 11._.080 Stewardship Plans —Reporting Requirements. Drugs and Sharps. 11._.100 Stewardship Plans — Review of Proposed Plans. 11._.110 Stewardship Plans — Prior Approval for Change. 11._ 120 Stewardship Plans — Enforcement and Penalties. 11._.130 Stewardship Plans — Regulations, Guidelines, and Reports. 11._.140 Plan Review and Annual Operation Fees. HOA.1870224.1 1/52016 1 1 11._ 150 Information Required at Point of Sale. 2 11._ 160 Stewardship Plans — Promotion, Outreach and Education. 3 11._ 170 Undertaking for the General Welfare. 4 11._.180 Compliance With Federal, State, and Local Laws. 5 11._.190 Severability. 6 7 11. .010 TITLE. 8 This Chapter may be cited as the Pharmaceuticals and Sharps Collection and Disposal 9 Stewardship Ordinance. 10 11 11._.015 PURPOSE. 12 13 Program that: (1) allows fororrtthe saaf , convenient �d sustainable -collection and disposal of 14 unwanted Drugs and Sharps by County residents, and (2) protects, maintains, restores and/or \\ )L_ A\ 15 enhances the environment and.its natural -resources. Said Stewardship Program shall be ) 16 designed,, operated and of nded`by the Pharmaceutical and Sharps industries with oversight 17 by the County Department of Public Health. 18 This Chap intended to supplement the provisions of federal and state law by 19 prescribing higher standards of sanitation, health and safety where not preempted by federal o !J 20 or state law. Whenever any technical words or phrases are not defined herein, but are 21 defined under federal or state law, such definitions are incorporated into this Chapter and 22 shall be deemed to apply as though set forth herein in full. The purpose of this Chapter is t •establish a Pharmaceutical and Sharps Stewardship 23 24 11._.020 DEFINITIONS. 25 HOA.1870224.1 1/5/2016 2 1 For purposes of this Chapter, the following definitions shall apply: 2 "Collection Site" shall mean a location where one or more receptacles are provided 3 pursuant to a Stewardship Plan for County residents to safely and securely deposit Unwanted 4 Covered Drugs and/or Unwanted Sharps. 5 "Collector" shall mean a Person who hosts one or mor�receptacles for the collection of 6 Unwanted Covered Drugs and/or Unwanted Sharps pursuant to this Chapter. 7 "Contact Information" shall mean a business.phone umber, facsimile phone number, 8 mailing address, and electronic mail address( 9 "Controlled Substances" for purposes of this ctio all mean,a substance listed 10 under the Califomia Health and SafetyhCode Sections'i 1053 through 11058 or Title 21 of the 11 United States Code Sections 812 and 813 oranysucc s or legislation. 12 County shall mean the County oLos Angeles. 13 "Covered Drug>shal� an-; rug inany f r ; incluiiuddnga'controlled substance, that is 14 sold, offered for sale to, orotherwisedistributed for use by, one or more consumers in the 15 Service Area,. including pre cs ription,_ nonprescription, brand name, and generic. "Covered 16 Drug" shall include controlled substances and notwithstanding the previous sentence, shall A 17 not include \:,(1) vitamins orsupplements; (2) herbal -based remedies and homeopathic drugs, 18 products, or remedies;(3) cosmetics, shampoos, sunscreens, toothpaste, lip balm, 19 antiperspirants, or otherpers nal care products that are regulated as both cosmetics and 20 nonprescription drugs derthe,federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or any successor 21 legislation; (4) Drugs for which Responsible Stewards provide a pharmaceutical product 22 stewardship or take -back program as part of a federal Food and Drug Administration - 23 managed risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (Title 21 U.S.C. Sec. 355-1); and (5) Drugs 24 that are biological products as defined by 21 C.F.R. 600.3(h) as it exists on the effective date 25 HOA.1870224.1 1/5/2016 3 1 of this Chapter if the Responsible Steward already provides a pharmaceutical product 2 stewardship or take -back program. 3 "Department" shall mean the Department of Public Health. 4 "Director" shall mean the Director of the Department of Public Health or his or her 5 designee. 6 "Drug" shall mean: (1) any article recognized in the official United States 7 Pharmacopoeia - National Formulary, the official homeopathic, harmacopoeia of the United 8 States or any supplement of the formulary or those pharmacopoeias published by the U.S. 9 Pharmacopeial Convention and the HomeopathiIPharmacopoeia Convention of the United \\ / > \\ 10 States; (2) any substance intended for,use in the diagnosis; cure, mitigation, treatment, or 11 prevention of disease in humans oro the`imals; (3) any substance, other than food, 12 intended to affect the structure or any function &4h -body of humans or other animals; or (4) 13 any substance intended for -us as�a component of any -substance specified in (1), (2), or (3) 14 of this definition, but not adevic or a component part or accessory of a device. \\ % I-_ \\ 15 "FDA" shall mean the United States. Food and Drug Administration. 16 "Hazardous Waste DisposaFFacility" shall -have the meaning set forth by the United 17 States Environmental Pr\ ction Agency n y.under Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 18 264 and 265 \, or y successor Legislation. 19 "Manufacture shall mean the production, preparation, propagation, compounding or 20 processing of a Drug o othersubstance or device, but shall not include the preparation, 21 compounding, packaging, or labeling of such a Drug, substance or device by a practitioner 22 incidental to the administration or dispensing of a Drug, substance or device in the course of 23 his or her professional practice. 24 25 HOA.1870224.1 4 1/52016 1 "Mail -Back Services" shall mean a collection method for Unwanted Covered Drugs 2 and/or Unwanted Sharps from County residents utilizing Mailers for shipment to a Person that 3 will dispose of them in accordance with the Stewardship Plan. 4 "Mailer" shall mean a prepaid, preaddressed, tamper -resistant envelope or container 5 used for mailing Unwanted Covered Drugs and/or Unwanted Sharps. Any Mailer used for 6 Unwanted Sharps must be FDA -compliant. 7 "Nonprescription Drug" shall mean a Drug that�may beJawf\ sold without a 8 prescription. 9 10 11 12 ' 13 association, cooperative, ooth entity of any kind or nature. C \ \ \" / ,' 14 15 16 17 are dispensed 18 "Potential. Authorized Collector" shall mean any entity that is registered, or that may 19 apply to register, with he U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for the collection of 20 Drugs, such as a manufa \.\\r2d stributor, reverse distributor, narcotic treatment program, 21 retail Pharmacy, or a hospital/clinic with an on -site Pharmacy. 22 "Repackager" shall mean a Person who owns or operates an establishment that 23 repacks and/or relabels a product or package for further sale or distribution. 24 "Responsible Steward" shall mean: 25 "Participating City" shall mean an incorporated city within the County that adopts the requirements of this Chapter into its -respective municipal code. "Person" shall mean a human'being firm, sole proprietorship, corporation, limited liability company, general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, "Pharmaceutical" shall have the same meaning as Drug. "Pharmacy" -shall mean an area place, o \premises licensed by the state of California f -in-which'� \) Board of1Phaarmacy e profes ion of pharmacy is practiced and where prescriptions HOA.1870224.1 1/52016 5 1 (a) The Person who Manufactures or causes to be Manufactured a Covered 2 Drug or Sharps; or 3 (b) If the Person described in (a) is beyond the County's jurisdiction, the first 4 Person who repackages or distributes the Covered Drug or Sharps in or into the 5 County, including but not limited to a Wholesaler or R9ackager; or 6 (c) if the Persons described in (a) and (b) are beyond the County's jurisdiction, 7 the first Person who sells or offers for sale the Co rev a Drug or Sharps in or into the 8 County. /� 9 "Service Area" shall mean the unincorporated County and all Participating Cities. 10 "Sharp" shall mean a needle; safety engineered_needle, lancet or other, similar 11 instrument that is designed to punci re`the skin of individuals or animals for medical purposes 12 and that is sold, offered for sale, or otherwise distributed for use by one or more consumers in 13 the County and may include anything affixed'toth i instrument, such as a syringe. r\ 14 "Stewardship Organization"shall mean \an`rganization designated by a Responsible 15 Steward or group of, Responsible Sttew'ards to a\ct\.).--. is agent to develop and implement a 16 Stewardship Ian. �\ 17 "Stew �ip Plan" or "Plan" shalljean a plan approved by the Director for the 18 collection, transportation, and disposal of -Unwanted Covered Drugs and/or Unwanted Sharps 19 pursuant to this Chap et r that is financed, developed, and implemented by a Responsible \\ / ! 20 Steward operating individually, jointly with other Responsible Stewards, or through a \_// 21 Stewardship Organization. 22 "Stewardship Program" or "Program" shall mean the County program described in this 23 Chapter. 24 25 HOA.1870224.1 1/52016 6 1 "Unincorporated Community" shall mean a community located within the 2 unincorporated area of the County, as identified by the County's Chief Executive Officer on its 3 official website. 4 "Unwanted Covered Drug" shall mean any Covered Drug that the consumer wishes to 5 discard. This shall exclude Covered Drugs disposed of by.commercial and institutional 6 sources including, but not limited to, hospitals, clinics,,and Pharmacies. 7 "Unwanted Sharps" shall mean any Sharp r`Sharps tha \econsumer wishes to 8 discard. This shall exclude Sharps disposed,of by commercial and institutional sources 9 including, but not limited to, hospitals, clinics, 10 "Wholesaler" shall mean a Person o purchases Covered Drugs and/or Sharps for 11 resale and distribution to Persons othe t, han consumers. 12 13 11. .030 STEWARDSHIP PLANS — PARTICIPATION. 14 (a) Each Responsible Steward must notify the Director in writing of the Responsible \\ i t __, A \ 15 Steward's intent to operate orparticipate'in a Stewardship Plan for the collection, / \ \ ( \��) 16 transportation, and disposal of the Covered -Drug or Sharps, respectively, within six months of 17 the effective date of this Chapter ro six months after the Covered Drug or Sharps are first sold 18 into or offered for le in the County, whichever is later. \\ 19 (b) Each Responsible Steward shall participate in such a Stewardship Plan approved 20 by the Director either : operating, y (�� g, individually or jointly with other Responsible Stewards; 21 or (2) entering into an agreement with a Stewardship Organization to operate, on the 22 Responsible Steward's behalf. 23 (c) Each Stewardship Plan must be approved by the Director before any collection of 24 Unwanted Covered Drugs and/or Unwanted Sharps may commence thereunder. Proposed 25 HOA.1670224.1 1/5/2016 7 1 changes to an approved Plan shall be subject to the requirements set forth in Section 2 11. .110. 3 (d) Each Responsible Steward operating individually, jointly with other Responsible 4 Stewards, or through a Stewardship Organization shall: 5 (1) Within six months of the effective date of this Chapter or six months after the 6 Covered Drug or Sharps are first sold or offered for sale o it nto the County, whichever is 7 later, identify to the Director in writing an individual l autho of be the official point of contact 8 for the Stewardship Plan and the individual's,Contact Information. Said Contact Information 9 shall be kept current at all times. Director shall be,notified of any chang In such Contact 10 Information within ten (10) business\, -days; \\\ 11 (2) Within six months of the effective of hisChapter or six months after the 12 Covered Drug or Sharps are first sold or offered forsale in the County, whichever is later, and 13 annually thereafter, notify the following Persons the opportunity to participate in the 14 Stewardship Plan by serving\asCollectors, and provider the Director with copies of all such 15 notifications: \\/��\ 16 f "(A) Alkretail\Pharmacies„hosppit)))als/clinics with on -site Pharmacies, and -:-....e 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 other Potential Authorized Collectors; (B) Persons ther than Potential Authorized Collectors, such as retail establishments, tha uld potentially host Collection Sites for Sharps; and (C) All law enforcement agencies in the County. (3) Within nine of the effective date of this Chapter or nine months after the Covered Drug or Sharps are first sold or offered for sale in or into the County, whichever is later, submit a proposed Stewardship Plan as described in Section 11._ 040 to the Director for review; HOA.1870224.1 1/5/2016 8 1 (4) Within three months of the Director's approval of the Stewardship Plan, the 2 Stewardship Plan shall be implemented in accordance with this Chapter; 3 (5) At least every three years after the Stewardship Plan commences 4 operations, submit an updated Stewardship Plan to the Director explaining any substantive 5 changes to the Stewardship Plan. The updated Stewardship Plan shall be accompanied by 6 the plan review fee in accordance with Section 11. . 400oof `s Chapter. The Director shall 7 review updated Stewardship Plans using the process described in Section 11. .100. 8 (e) A Responsible Steward, operating/individually, jointly with other Responsible 9 Stewards, or through a Stewardship Organization; may enter into agreements with other 10 Stewardship Organizations, servi providers, or ther,.P re sons as needed to carry out its 11 Stewardship Plan in whole or in part.\� 12 Should the Responsible Stew`r�der o an change in ownership or control, (f) P 9 Y 9 . it 13 must notify the Director wit 30h within of such change andshould ownership or control be 14 transferred to a company not cond cting business in the County, the Responsible Steward 15 shall provide the name and Contact I formation of the first Person who causes the Covered (\\ \ ) 16 Drug or Sharps to be brought in or into the County for repackaging, distribution, or sale. 17 (g) Each ResponsibleSteward, perating individually, jointly with other Responsible 18 Stewards, or through a Stewardship Organization, shall commence within thirty (30) calendar 1 19 days good faith negotiations with any Responsible Steward expressing an interest to 20 participate in its Stewardship -Plan. For every Responsible Steward not accepted as a 21 participant in the Plan, the Responsible Steward, group of Responsible Stewards, or 22 Stewardship Organization rejecting the Responsible Steward expressing an interest to 23 participate shall notify the Director in writing within thirty (30) calendar days of the rejection 24 and set forth the reasons for such decision. 25 HOA.1870224.1 1/52016 9 1 (h) Any Person who is not a Responsible Steward, such as a Person providing 2 Covered Drugs or Sharps free of charge, may choose to participate in the Program. Such 3 Person may operate individually, jointly with a Responsible Steward or group of Responsible 4 Stewards, or through a Stewardship Organization. Any Responsible Steward, group of 5 Responsible Stewards, or Stewardship Organization app a� d by such Person for potential 6 collaboration must in good faith consider allowing such such'Person to participate in its 7 Stewardship Plan. Should such Person participatein the Program, such Person shall be .47 8 subject to the same requirements under this Chapter as any Responsible Steward, group of 9 Responsible Stewards, or Stewardship Organization. If such Person no longer wishes to 10 participate in the Program, such Person shall not fy the: Director of samwithin thirty (30) 11 calendar days. 12 (i) After the first full year of implementation ota Steewardship Plan, a Responsible 13 Steward may notify t f Director imwriting of its intent,to.submit anew Stewardship Plan. 14 Within three months ofsu h notification, the Resp ible Steward, operating individually, 15 jointly with other Responsible Stewards or through a Stewardship Organization, shall submit � l \� \ 16 a proposed Stewardship Plan as.described underr.Section 11._.040 to the Director for review. 17 The new Stewardship Planshall be accompanied by the plan review fee in accordance with 18 Section 11. 1 of is Chap � .� The Director shall review new Stewardship Plans using 19 the process described in Section 11. .100. \\/1 20 (j) Should a Responsible -Steward, operating individually, jointly with other Responsible 21 Stewards, or through a Stewardship Organization, become aware of any Covered Drug or 22 Sharps being sold or offered for sale in or into the County whose Responsible Steward is 23 neither operating nor participating in a Stewardship Plan, the Responsible Steward becoming 24 25 HOA.1870224.1 1/5/2016 10 7 8 for the Director to inspect at reasonable times-thefacilities, vehicles, and equipment used in 9 carrying out the Stewardship Plan. 10 l\ 11 11._ 040 STEWARDSHIP PLANS'— COMPONENTS: 12 — "%i--� \Each Stewardship Plan,whichmust be submitted reviewed according to Section 13 11. .110, shall include 14 (a) The name of each Responsible Steward participating in the Stewardship Plan; the 15 name of each. Covered \\ruand"typee of Sharp, the Responsible Steward either Manufactures 16 or purchases for repackaging, distribution, saleooffer of sale; and the name and Contact 17 Information of an individual authorized to be the official point of contact for each Responsible 18 Steward and to wom h the Director may direct all inquiries regarding the Responsible 19 NN J / 20 (b) A description of the proposed collection system designed to provide safe, \/ 21 convenient, and ongoing collection services for Unwanted Covered Drugs and Unwanted 22 Sharps from County residents within the Service Area in compliance with the requirements set 23 forth in Section 11._ 050. The description shall include but not be limited to a list of all 24 collection methods and participating Collectors; a list of addresses for the Collection Sites; a 25 1 aware of this shall notify the Director of same and the basis for such belief within thirty (30) 2 calendar days. 3 (k) The Director may, on a case -by -case basis, approve in writing requests for time 4 extensions related to submission dates and deadlines in this Section 11._.030. 5 (I) The Director may audit the records of a Responsible, Steward, group of Responsible 6 Stewards, or Stewardship Organization related to a Stewardship Plan or request that the Responsible Steward, group of Responsible Stewards; or Stewardship Organization arrange NN \ \ �1 Steward's compliance with the requirements of this Chapter; HOA.1870224.1 1/5/2016 11 1 description of how any periodic collection events will be scheduled and where they will be 2 located; and a description of how any Mail -Back Services will be provided to County residents 3 in the Service Area, including a physical sample of the Mailers to be used. The description of 4 the collection services shall include a list of Potential Authorized Collectors, law enforcement 5 agencies, and other Persons contacted by the Responsible Sward pursuant to Section 6 11._ 030, and a list of all who expressed an interest in serving as Collectors in the 7 Stewardship Plan; 8 (c) A description of the proposed handling,and disposal system, including the name 9 and Contact Information for each Collector, each Personret fined to nsspor the collected 10 items, each Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility to be used by the Stewardship Plan in 11 accordance with Sections 11._ 050'arid 11%, .060, and any other Person retained to \\i 12 implement any portion of the Stewardship Plan, 13 (d) A description of.tth policies andprocedures to be followed by Persons handling 14 Unwanted Covered Drugs and Unwanted Sharps/collected rider the Stewardship Plan, 1 15 including a description of how'each Collector, each Person retained to transport the collected \) 16 items, Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities:,and'any other Person retained to implement any 17 portion of the Plan will ensure that the collected items are safely and securely tracked from 18 collection through final disposal, nd h w the Responsible Stewards participating in the 19 Stewardship Plan will ensure that MI Persons participating in, operating, and otherwise \\ /I 20 implementing the Stewardship will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local 21 laws and regulations, including but not limited to those of the United States Drug Enforcement 22 Administration and the State of California Board of Pharmacy; 23 (e) A certification that any patient information appearing on Drug and Sharp packaging 24 will be kept secure and promptly destroyed; 25 HOA.1870224.1 1/5/2016 12 2e- 1 (f) A description of the public education and promotion strategy required in Section 2 11._.160, including but not limited to a copy of instructions, signage, and promotional 3 materials for residents, as well as instructions and signage, as may be needed, for Collectors, 4 Persons retained to transport collected items, Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities, and all 5 other Persons implementing any portion of the Plan; 6 (g) Proposed short-term and long-term plans rfrequency of collection (torn Collection 7 Sites, public education, and promotion of the Plan; and 8 (h) A description of how the Stewardstipplan will consider )u e of existing 9 providers of waste pharmaceutical services; (2) separating Covered Drugs and Sharps from 10 packaging to the extent possible to reduce transportation and disposal costs;/and (3) recycling 11 of Drug and Sharp packaging to the extent feasible. 12 13 11. .050 STEWARDSHIP PLANS — COLLECTION -OF COVERED DRUGS AND SHARPS. ( 14 (a) This Chapterdoes not require any'Person to serve as a Collector in a Stewardship 15 Plan. A Person may,offer to serve as a Collector`wth or without compensation by a ( \) 16 Responsible Ste arwd`group of Responsible Stewards, or Stewardship Organization. 17 Responsible Stewards are encouraged to host Collection Sites where feasible. \\ \\ \\ 18 (b) The collection system for each Stewardship Plan shall: 19 (1) Provide ongoing, reasonably convenient and equitable access for all County 20 residents in the ServicAre/ regardless of the racial, cultural, or socioeconomic 21 composition of the neighborhoods within which the Collection Sites are located. At a 22 minimum, the following requirements shall be met: 23 A. Population Density: In each Unincorporated Community and in each 24 Participating City with at least one Potential Authorized Collector, each 25 HOA.1870224.1 1152016 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Stewardship Plan shall provide at least one Collection Site for Unwanted Covered Drugs, at least one Collection Site for Unwanted Sharps, and for every 30,000 County residents at least one additional Collection Site for Unwanted Covered Drugs and at least one additional Collection Site for Unwanted Sharps. B. Travel Distance: Collection Sites shall be geographically distributed so as to ensure that every resident within the Service Area is within 2.5 miles of a Collection Site for Unwanted Covered Drugs nd a Collection Site for Unwanted Sharps to the greatest extent feasible; C. Sites per Supervisorial.District: In no event shall'there be fewer than 10 Collection Sites for Unwanted Covered'Drugs or fewer than 10 Collection Sites for Unwanted Sharps in each County. Supervisorial District; (2) In areas where the minimum requirements -set forth in subsection (b)(1) are ) \ �� not met, the Stewardship Plan shallsetforth the reasons for such failure and provide f l N\ for monthly collection events and/or Mailers to be distributed to consumers in those (3) Be safe and secure, including requiring the prompt destruction of patient information on any and Ill packaging; (4) Include a mechanism whereby Responsible Stewards of Sharps participating in the Plan provide for distribution of FDA -compliant Sharps containers / designed for the safe handling of Sharps to the consumer free of charge, preferably at the point of sale of the injectable Drug or at the time the consumer otherwise receives the Sharps for usage; HOA.1870224.1 1/52016 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 explanation to the Director within 30 calendar days of the rejection setting forth the 9 reasons for such decision; and ^ 10 (7) Provide Mailers and Mail -Back \\\Services,free of charge, totesidents in the 11 Service Area upon request through the Stewardship.Plan's 24 -hour, toll -free phone \\'%***•:N- N\ 12 number and website. Assistance,through the toll -free phone number and website shall \\ 7 �� 13 be in English, Spanish,- and other languages as determined by the Department. 14 (c) Collection Sites for Unwanted Covered Drugs shall accept all Covered Drugs and 15 Collection Sites for.UnwantedfSha ps shall ac ept all Sharps. All Collection Sites shall be 16 accessible County residents aleast during the hours that the Collector is normally open for 17 business to,the public. Collection Sites h ll be emptied and otherwise serviced as often as 18 necessary to avoid creating hazardous conditions, including reaching capacity. Collection 19 Sites shall utilize secure. collection, receptacles in compliance with all applicable federal, state, 20 and local laws, including but no limited to requirements of the DEA and the State of Califomia 21 Board of Pharmacy. (5) Provide FDA -compliant Sharps collection receptacles to any hosts of Collection Sites for Sharps. A Sharp may be refused for collection if it is not placed within a FDA -compliant Sharps container designed for the safe handling of Sharps; (6) Commence good faith negotiations with any Person expressing an interest to serve as a Collector within 30 calendar days of e rson's expression of such interest. For every Person not accepted as a Collector, the Responsible Steward, group of Responsible Stewards, or Stewardship Organization shall submit a written 22 (d) Each Responsible Steward, operating individually, jointly with other Responsible 23 Stewards, or through a Stewardship Organization, shall ensure that all Collection Sites 24 prominently display a 24 -hour, toll -free phone number and website for the Stewardship Plan. 25 HOA.1870224.1 1/52016 15 1 Said toll -free phone number and website shall be a means by which any Person can provide 2 feedback on collection activities, including but not limited to the need to empty the receptacles 3 more frequently or reporting a hazardous condition observed at or near the Collection Sites. 4 Each Stewardship Plan shall provide for the immediate abatement of any hazardous condition 5 arising from or related to operations performed under the St wardship Plan and shall notify 6 the Director within 24 hours of notice of same. 7 8 11._.060 STEWARDSHIP PLANS — DISPOSAL' OF COVERED;DRUGS AND SHARPS. 9 (a) Covered Drugs collected under a Stewardship Plan must be disposed of at a 10 permitted Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility. 11 (b) Sharps collected under a Stewardship Plan must be disposed of in accordance 12 with California Health and Safety Code Section. 118286 or any successor legislation. A\ N-\•) 13 (c) The Director may grant approval f�for Stewardship Plan to dispose of some or all 14 collected Covered Drugs at a permitted large''muni pwast al e combustor, as defined by the 1 15 United States .Environme Environmental Protection Agency under Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, \ 16 Parts 60 and 62, or any successor legislation if -the Director deems the use of a Hazardous 17 Waste Disposal Facility described under,subsection (a) to be infeasible for the Stewardship 18 Plan based on cost, logistics, or other considerations. 19 (d) A Stewardship Plan may petition the Director for approval to use final disposal 20 technologies that provide sup�or environmental and human health protection than provided 21 by the disposal technologies in subsections (a) through (c), or equivalent protection at lesser 22 cost. The proposed technology must provide equivalent or superior protection in each of the 23 following areas: (1) monitoring of any emissions or waste; (2) worker health and safety; (3) 24 reduction or elimination of air, water or land emissions contributing to persistent, 25 HOA.1870224.1 1/5/2016 16 1 bioaccumulative, and toxic pollution; and (4) overall impact on the environment and human 2 health. 3 4 11._.070 STEWARDSHIP PLANS — ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONAL COSTS. 5 (a) Each Responsible Steward, group of Respon I tewards, or Stewardship 6 Organization participating in a Stewardship Plan shall prepare and implement its Stewardship 7 Plan as required by this ordinance at its own cost.and expense. 8 (b) No Responsible Steward, group o`Responsible Ste and Stewardship 9 Organization, or any other Person may charge a point -of -sale fee to consumers to recoup the N \ 10 costs of any Stewardship Plan, nor may they charge a specific point -of -sale collection fee at 11 the time that Covered Drugs and/or Sharps are collected. 12 (c) Responsible Stewards are not required to p` r costs of staff time at Collection 13 Sites provided by Collectors volunteering to partici in Stewardship pate Plan. 14 15 16 17 annually thereafter, each Responsible Steward, group of Responsible Stewards, and \ \N 18 Stewardship Organization shall\submit a'report to the Director on behalf of participating 19 Responsible Stewards describing their plan's activities during the previous reporting period. 20 The report must include 21 (1) A list of Responsible Stewards participating in the Stewardship Plan; 22 (2) The amount, by weight, of Covered Drugs and the amount, by weight, of 23 Sharps collected, including the amount by weight from each collection method used; _� 11._.080 STEWARDSHIP PLANS --REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. (a)'Within six months after the end ofthhe frst 12 -month period of operation, and 24 (3) A list of Collection Sites; 25 HOA.1870224.1 1/5/2016 17 1 (4) The number of Mailers provided to County residents and the method and 2 location of distribution; 3 (5) The number of Sharps containers provided to County residents and the 4 method and location of distribution; 5 (6) The dates and locations of collection eventheld; 6 (7) The transporters used and the disposal facility or facilities used for all 7 Covered Drugs and Sharps; \ 8 (8) Whether any safety or security problems occurred during collection, \\ 9 transportation or disposal of Unwanted Covered Drugs and, UnwantedSharps during the 10 reporting period and, if so, what changes ha or will e made to policies, procedures or 11 tracking mechanisms to alleviate the problermand to improve safety and security in the future; 12 13 implemented during the reporting portingpg period; 14 (10) A description of how collected'packaging was recycled to the extent 15 feasible, including the recycling facility or facilities sed, and the amount of packaging 16 collected by weight and percent recycled; 17 `(111)) A summa y of the S`\ Stewardship Plan's goals, the degree of success in 18 meeting those goals in the past year, and,•if any goals have not been met, what effort will be 19 made to achieve the goals th next year; and 20 (12) The totaal �enditures of the Stewardship Plan during the reporting period. 21 (13) An Executive Summary. 22 (b) Each Responsible Steward, group of Responsible Stewards, and Stewardship 23 Organization shall provide on a quarterly basis, a list of Responsible Stewards participating in 24 25 HOA.1870224.1 1/5/2016 \\ t\ (9) A description of the public education, outreach and evaluation activities 18 u 1 the Stewardship Plan. Any change in the official point of contact for the Plan must be 2 provided to the Department within 30 days of the change. 3 (c) The Director shall make reports submitted under this Chapter available to the 4 public. 5 (d) For the purposes of this Section 11._.080, "reporting period" means the period 6 from January 1 through December 31 of the same calendar year, unless otherwise specified 7 by the Responsible Steward, group of Responsible Stewardsand Stewardship Organization 8 to the Director. 9 <<, 10 11._.090 STEWARDSHIP PLAN`— IDENTIFICATION OF RESPONSIBLE'STEWARDS 11 OF COVERED DRUGS AND SHAR P:` 12 Any Person receiving a letter of inquiry fiom the Director regarding whether or not it is a �. 13 Responsible Steward fund thi `haapte `u t respond writing within 60 days. If such 14 Person does not believe it is a Responsible Steward under this Chapter, it must state the 15 basis for such belief. It must also provide a list of all Covered Drugs and Sharps it r \ l —."--...>%, \) 16 repackages, distributes, sells, or offers for salewiwithin the County, if any, and identify the name t, \ 17 and Contact Information of the Person(s) from whom it acquired said Covered Drugs or 18 Sharps. \\\ w\ 19 / 1 20 21 22 23 24 25 11. .100 STEWARDSHIP PLANS — REVIEW OF PROPOSED PLANS. (a) By nine months after the effective date of this Chapter, each Responsible Steward, group of Responsible Stewards, or Stewardship Organization shall submit its proposed Stewardship Plan to the Director for review, accompanied by the plan review fee in accordance with Section 11._.140 of this Chapter. The Director may upon request provide HOA.1870224.1 1/5/2016 19 1 information, suggestions, and technical assistance about the requirements of this Chapter to 2 assist with the development of a proposed Stewardship Plan. 3 (b) The Director shall review the proposed Stewardship Plan and determine whether it 4 meets the requirements of this Chapter. 5 (c) After the review under subsection (b) and within/96days after receipt of the 6 proposed Stewardship Plan, the Director shall either approve or reject the proposed ( 17\\ 7 Stewardship Plan in writing and, if rejected, pro reasons forthe ejection. 8 (d) If the Director rejects a proposed Stewardship Plan, a Responsible Steward, group 9 of Responsible Stewards, or Stewardship Organization must submit a revised Stewardship 10 Plan to the Director within 60 days after receiving written notice tice of the rejection. The Director 11 shall review and approve or reject a revi es d Stewardship Plan as provided under subsections 12 (b) and (c). 13 (e) If the Director rejects a revised Stewardship Fl`�or any subsequently revised 14 plan, the Director may deem the Responsible` Steward, group of Responsible Stewards, or 15 Stewardshi Organization out compliance with this Chapter and subject to the enforcement 16 provisions in this Chapter.N \ 17 (f) The Department,`at the lee discretion of the Director, may establish a technical \\ \ \ \\N 18 advisory committee to assist the Department in reviewing Stewardship Plans or otherwise \\ 1 1 19 assisting in the implementation of this ordinance. 20 (g) The Director shams make all proposed and approved Stewardship Plans submitted 21 under this Chapter available to the public for review and comment. 22 23 11._.110 STEWARDSHIP PLANS — PRIOR APPROVAL FOR CHANGE. 24 25 HOA.1870224.1 1152016 20 1 (a) Proposed changes to an approved Stewardship Plan that substantively alter plan 2 operations, including, but not limited to, changes to participating Responsible Stewards, 3 Collectors, collection methods, Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities, how to achieve the 4 service convenience goal, policies and procedures for handling Unwanted Covered Drugs and 5 Unwanted Sharps, or education and promotion methods, mustbe approved in writing by the 6 Director before the changes are implemented. 7 (b) A Responsible Steward, group of Responsible St ewards, wards, or Stewardship 8 Organization shall submit to the Director any p or pos d change to a Stewardship Plan in 9 writing at least 30 days before the change is scheduled to tak effect. Any such submittal 10 shall be accompanied by the review/fee in accordancewith,Section 11. `140 of this Chapter. 11 (c) A Responsible Steward, group of Responsible Stewards, or Stewardship 12 Organization shall notify the Director at least 15 days,before.implementing any changes to 13 Collection Site locations, ethod§ for sche u iing-andio`periodic collection events, or 14 methods for distributing Mailers, that do not substantively alter achievement of the service (_ \\ 15 convenience goal under Section 11._ 050 of this Chapter, or other changes that do not \) 16 substantively, alter planoperations under subsection (a). 17 (d A Responsible Steward group of Responsible Stewards, or Stewardship 18 Organization may request an dvan determination from the Director whether a proposed 19 change would be deemed to substantively alter plan operations. 20 21 11. .120 STEWARDSHIP PLANS — ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES. 22 (a) The Director shall administer the penalty provisions of this Chapter. 23 (b) If the Director determines that any Person has violated any provision of this 24 Chapter or a regulation adopted pursuant to this Chapter, the Director shall send a written 25 HOA.1870224.1 1/52016 21 1 warning, as well as a copy of this Chapter and any regulations adopted pursuant to this 2 Chapter, to the Person or Persons who violated it. The Person or Persons shall have 45 days 3 after the date of mailing of the warning to come into compliance and correct all violations. 4 (c) If the Person or Persons fail to come into compliance or correct all violations, the 5 Director may impose administrative fines for violations of is Chapter or of any regulation 6 adopted pursuant to this Chapter, Los Angeles County -Code, Title 1, Chapter 1.25, as 7 amended, is hereby incorporated in its entirety and shall 7\Ngovern the imposition, enforcement, 8 collection, and review of administrative citations issued to enforc thi Chapter or any rule or 9 regulation adopted pursuant to this Chapter. Each day constitute,a separate violation for 10 these purposes. (� 11 (d) County Counsel, the District Attorne , and any applicable City Attorney may bring a Y PP 12 civil action to enjoin violation= r compel ccmpl with\an�requirement of this Chapter 13 or any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to this Chapter, as wellasfor payment of civil 14 penalties and any other pprop an to emedy. 'The ourt shall award reasonable attorneys 15 fees and costs to County Counsel, the District Attorney, and any applicable City Attorney. 16 (e)1Any'P Person who knowingly and lINn fully violates the requirements of this Chapter or 17 any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to this Chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon 18 conviction thereof is punishable by a fine f not less than fifty dollars ($50) and not more than 19 one thousand ($1,000) for each day per violation, or by imprisonment for a period not to 20 exceed six months, or by puch fine and imprisonment. 21 (f) Any Person in violation of this Chapter or any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to 22 this Chapter shall be liable to the County for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed one 23 thousand dollars ($1,000) per day per violation. Each day in which the violation continues 24 shall constitute a separate violation. Civil penalties shall not be assessed pursuant to this 25 HOA.1870224.1 1/5/2016 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 subsection (f) for the same violations for which the Director assessed an administrative penalty pursuant to subsection (c). (g) In determining the appropriate penalties, the court or the Director shall consider the extent of harm caused by the violation, the nature and persistence of the violation, the frequency of past violations, any action taken to mitigate the violation, and the financial burden to the violator. (h) The Director may exercise reasonable discretion to waive strict compliance with the requirements of this Chapter that apply to Responsible Stewards in order to achieve the objectives of this Chapter. 11. .130 STEWARDSHIP PLANS= REGULATIONS; GUIDELINES, AND REPORTS. \ \ \� \\N (a) The Director may adopt regulations and guidelines necessary to implement, administer, and enforce/this Chapter. (b) The Director may work with each Stewards, and Stewardship Organization as goals and performance including but not lim t \, promotion for a. Stewardship Plan. Responsible Steward, group of Responsible needed, but no less than annually, to define ited to collection amounts, education, and (c) The Director shall report biennially to the Board of Supervisors concerning the status of all Stewardship Plans and recommendations for changes to this Chapter. The biennial report may also includeJa summary of available data on indicators and trends of pharmaceutical pollution, abuse, poisonings and overdoses from prescription and nonprescription drugs and a review of comprehensive prevention strategies to reduce risks of drug abuse, overdoses, and preventable poisonings. The first report shall be due two years from the effective date of this Chapter. HOA.1870224.1 1/52016 23 1 2 11. .140 PLAN REVIEW AND ANNUAL OPERATION FEES. 3 (a) Each Responsible Steward, group of Responsible Stewards, and Stewardship 4 Organization participating in a Stewardship Plan shall pay to the Director plan review fees to 5 be established under subsection (d) for the performance ofcertain functions as applicable, 6 including but not limited to: 7 (1) Review of a proposed Stewardship Plan; 8 (2) Review of a revised, proposed Stewardship Plan; 9 (3) Review of changes to an approved Stewardship Plan; 10 (4) Review of an updaated Stewardship Plan at (east every three: years as 11 required under Section 11. .030 of this Chapter; (5) Review of any petition for approval to use alternative final disposal 12 � \\ 13 technologies under Section -1-1. ,y 60 of this h p/ an`) 14 15 / -�� \ ( �\ \) 16 Steward`and'Stewards`p Organization shall pay to the Director annual operating fees to be 17 establishedunder subsectio(d; f`t tion 11._ 140. 18 (c) A Stewardship Organization may remit the plan review fee on behalf of its 19 participating Responsible Stewards. \\ 20 (d) As soon as practicable, the Director shall propose to the Board of Supervisors a 21 schedule of fees charged to each Responsible Steward, group of Responsible Stewards, and 22 Stewardship Organization to cover costs of administering and enforcing this Chapter. The 23 Director shall set the fees to recover but not exceed actual and reasonable costs to the 24 County. The Board of Supervisors must approve the schedule of fees after a public hearing 25 (6) Environmental review of a Stewardship Plan. \N )�-� A� (b) In addition to plan review fees; each Responsible Steward, group of Responsible HOA.1870224.1 1/5/2016 24 1 for it to become effective. The Auditor -Controller shall confirm that the fees set by the Director 2 do not exceed the actual and reasonable costs to the County. 3 4 11._.150 INFORMATION REQUIRED AT POINT OF SALE. 5 (a) Any Person selling or offering for sale Covered D ur gs or Sharps to the public shall 6 post display materials approved by the Director explaining how and where members of the N, 7 public may safely and lawfully dispose of Unwanted Covered -Drugs and Unwanted Sharps at 8 no cost to the consumer. The materials shall be n`English, Spanish; and other languages as 9 determined by the Department and shall be legible and easily understandable by the average 10 person. The materials shall be posted on the premises of the Person's place of business in a 11 location visible to the public, if applicabl a d.adjacentto the area where prescription drugs 12 are dispensed. Mail-order Pharmacies and on-line Pharmacies selling Covered Drugs or 13 Sharps to County residents shall provide such materials with the -order. �.\ \t 14 (b) The Directormay, in his or her discretion, authorize a business to use alternate N\ ) . \\, 15 means to comply with the requirementiofsubsection (a). No Person may sell or offer for sale 16 Covered` `s or Sharp`o the p�l\using any alternate means of compliance with this 17 Chapter unless specifically authorized t odo so in advance in writing by the Director. 18 19 11._.160 STEWARDSHIP PLANS — PROMOTION, OUTREACH AND EDUCATION. 20 (a) Each Responsible Steward, group of Responsible Stewards, or Stewardship 21 Organization shall develop a ystem of promotion, outreach, and public education to be 22 included in the Stewardship Plan. Specifically, each Responsible Steward, group of 23 Responsible Stewards, or Stewardship Organization shall: 24 25 HOA.1870224.1 1/52016 25 1 (1) Promote the collection options offered under its Stewardship Plan to 2 residents and the health care community. Promotion shall include outreach and educational 3 materials: 4 A. Promoting safe storage of Drugs and Sharps by residents during the 5 treatment period; 6 7 8 9 10 11 B. Describing where and how to return<Unnwanted Covered Drugs and Unwanted Sharps undertheStewardshh,Plan; C. Expressly discouraging stockpiling of Unwanted Covered Drugs and Unwanted Sharps; and » \ D. Expressly discouraging disposal of said items in the trash or through a plumbing or eepti system. 12 These materials must be provided Pharmacies, retailers f Covered Drugs and 13 Sharps, health care practitioners, health care ffailities, veterinary facilities, and other 14 prescribers for their own education as well as for dissemination to residents; \\ % `\. 15 /(2) •Use Plain language and explanatory images so as to be readily \. ) 16 understandable b ay ll residents,` including individuals with limited English proficiency; 17 \(3) Work iwth"Collectors participating in Stewardship Plans to develop clear, 18 standardized instructions, signage and promotional materials for residents on the use of 19 collection receptacle and a readily -recognizable, consistent design of collection receptacles; \11 20 (4) Establish a"24 -hour, toll -free phone number and single website where 21 information can be obtained regarding collection options and current locations of Collection 22 Sites; 23 (5) Within six months of the effective date of this Chapter and biennially 24 thereafter conduct a survey of residents, pharmacists, veterinarians, retailers, and health 25 HOA.1870224.1 1/52016 26 1 professionals who interact with patients on the use of Drugs and Sharps after the first full year 2 of operation of the plans. Survey questions shall include but not be limited to questions 3 designed to: (1) assess the awareness of the County's Stewardship Program, the 4 Stewardship Plans in operation, and the location of all available Collection Sites; (2) assess to 5 what extent Collection Sites and other collection methodrtsafe, convenient, easy to use, 6 and utilized by residents; and (3) assess knowledge and attitudes about risks of abuse, 7 poisonings and overdoses from prescription and nonpres nc ptwrnDrugs used in the home. 8 Draft survey questions shall be submitted to the Director for review and comment at least 30 9 days prior to initiation of the survey. Results of `the survey shall be eporteddtto the Director 10 and made available to the public on the website required iuiu red in,this Section 11t X060 within 90 11 days following the end of the survey pennod .Each Responsible Steward, group of 12 Responsible Stewards, and Stewardship Organization shall ensure the privacy of all survey 13 respondents. / N) 14 (b) All surveys, outreach, education, promotion, websites, and toll -free phone numbers Y \\ J L P 15 required by this Section 11\ .160 shall be in English, Spanish, and other languages as 16 determined by the Departmen�lf more than Stewardship Plan is approved, then to the 17 extent feasible; all Stewardship Plans coordinate with each other and develop a single 18 system of promotion and education, wiith�a'single toll -free hotline and website and consistent 19 signage and materials across the County. 20 21 11. .170 UNDERTAKING FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE. 22 In adopting and implementing this Chapter, the County is assuming an undertaking 23 only to promote the general welfare. It is not assuming, nor is it imposing on its officers and 24 25 HOA.1870224.1 1/52016 27 1 employees, an obligation for breach of which it is liable in money damages to any Person who 2 claims that such breach proximately caused injury. 3 4 11. .180 COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS. 5 6 Organization operating under this Chapter must comply with all applicable federal, state, and 7 local laws and regulations. 8 9 Organization operating under this Chapter shallalso ns r ,tthat each Collector, each Person 10 retained to transport the collected items, and any other,Person implementing any portion of 11 the Stewardship Plan complies with all bpplicable deral, state and local laws and 12 regulations. 13 This Chapter shall be construed so as not to conflict with applicable federal or State U t 14 laws, rules or regulations. Nothing in this Chapter hall authorize any agency or department \\ /.�, A\ 15 to impose any duties or obligations in conflict with limitations on municipal authority -"":""••••- \) 16 established by'State for ederal law at the timesuch'agency or department action is taken. 17 The County shall suspend enforcement of this Chapter to the extent that said enforcement 18 would conflict with anypreempti e State or federal legislation subsequently adopted. Nothing 19 in this Chapter is intended or shall,be construed to protect anticompetitive or collusive 20 conduct, or to modify, imp iirr, orsupersede the operation of any of the antitrust or unfair 21 competition laws of the State of California or the United States. Each Responsible Steward, group of Responsible Stewards, and Stewardship Each Responsible Steward, group of Responsible Stewards, and Stewardship 22 23 11._.190 SEVERABILITY. 24 25 HOA.1870224.1 1/52016 28 1 If any of the provisions of this Chapter or the application thereof to any Person or 2 circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of those provisions, including the application of 3 such part or provisions to persons or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid 4 shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the 5 provisions of this Chapter are severable. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HOA.1870224.1 1/5/2016 29 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: 02/22/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: REPORT REGARDING PROCESS FOR REVIEWING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE (OVER -THE COUNTER) APPROVAL. DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: Administrative Approval Instructions and Application RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council review this report and discuss if a change should be made to the process of administrative (over-the-counter) approval of construction projects. BACKGROUND Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer requested that the City Council review the current process of over-the-counter review and approval of construction projects and determine if the process should be changed to include staff's thorough review of files, building permits, and possibly a site visit to determine if there are non -permitted, illegal and/or non- conforming structures on the lot. The Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC) Chapter 17.44 (ZONE CLEARANCE) gives staff the authority to approve certain projects administratively, also referred to as over- the-counter approvals. The California Planning and Zoning Law provides local agencies certain discretions on how to set up zoning ordinances and processes for review and approvals and CEQA distinguishes development projects as administrative and discretionary. Section 17.12.010 of the RHMC (Zoning Ordinance) defines Administrative approval as "an approval of a project by City staff, which requires the approving body to ascertain that the project complies with applicable statutes, ordinances and regulations." Section 17.12.040 of the Zoning Ordinance defines Discretionary approval as "approval of a project, which requires that the Planning Commission ascertain compliance with applicable statutes, ordinances and regulations and which also requires the exercise of judgment, deliberation, or decision on the part of the Planning Commission, and/or the City Council. Discretionary projects include conditional use permit, site plan review and variance." Chapter 17.44 of the Zoning Ordinance describes the purpose of the zone clearance as follows: 17.44.010 Purpose. "The zone clearance process is established to require nondiscretionary administrative review of certain development projects and accessory structures that are not subject to the site plan review process or any other discretionary review under this title. The purpose of the zone clearance process is to ensure that the proposed use or structure satisfies the objective criteria set forth in this title and other provisions of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code." Further, this chapter lists projects that could be approved by this process such as: • Various agricultural structures not to exceed 200 sq.ft. (240 sq.ft. run -in -sheds); • Various accessory buildings (recreation room, hobby shop, etc.) not to exceed 200 sq.ft.; • Alteration, modification, or repair of existing structures; • Up to 999 sq.ft. additions to existing residences; • Major remodel within existing footprint if less than 50% of walls, measured in lineal feet, are demolished; • Major remodel within existing footprint if more than 50% of walls, measured in lineal feet, are demolished with neighbors notification within 1,000' radius, staking of the project and if no more than one objection from noticed properties is received within 14 days of the notice; • Up to 800 sq.ft. swimming pools, spas, other water features; and • Other miscellaneous accessory structures such as: gazebo, bbq, trellis, fire place, outdoor kitchen, up to 3' high walls, solar panels, driveways, other hardscape and similar projects. These projects could be approved administratively if no grading is required and if the project meets all other development standards (setbacks, structural and total lot coverage, and disturbance; some require that stable/corral area be provided). PROCESS Following an inquiry about a project, an application packet is provided to the agent, which is enclosed. The application packet contains detailed information on City's regulations and requirements. However, the actual application is very simple, except for the required calculations to determine if a project meets the zoning development standards requirements. It is required that the property owner(s) sign the application. This process, the application information, and the actual application have taken its shape through the years. For example, until a few years ago staff did not require property owners' signature; before that there was no application form to be completed and most of the information was printed on the plan. Prior to 2001 there were no requirements to submit detailed calculations or detailed plans for projects approvable over-the-counter, except for the designation of a stable/corral area. Through the years staff has required that more and more information he provided on the plans, including all structures on the lot and all dimensions. Sometimes staff required a new survey of the lot and sometimes they did not, depending upon the scope of the project. Starting recently, staff is requiring that a recent survey of the lot be provided for larger projects and for projects that are proposed to be located anywhere but the middle of the lot. Repeatedly staff encounters resistance from applicants' representatives for having to provide all of the information and plans listed in the application packet, for what they deem is a simple and small project. Some feel that they may as well convince the property owners to apply for a larger project that requires discretionary approval, since the information requested is very similar for both. When a project is submitted for review by staff, staff pulls out all of the available information on the property from its planning files and very cursorily thumbs through the files to see if there is a restrictive development condition on the property, what approvals were granted previously, and if there is anything obvious that needs to be considered and/or reviewed. This is a very quick review of the files while the applicant/agent is at the counter. If nothing glaring is found, then staff looks at the proposed project and the application forms and determines if it's substantially complete and contains adequate information, based on the scope of the project. The plan is reviewed for setbacks and other development standards and the calculation sheets are looked at. The plan is then stamped as approved. Staff may include conditions on the approval; (e.g., that utility lines be placed underground, a wall may not exceed 3' in height, etc.). For some projects, such as solar panels, re -roofing, plumbing, changing out mechanical equipment or electrical, no review of previous approvals is conducted. Building permits for properties in Rolling Hills are not kept at City Hall and staff does not review them prior to issuing an over-the-counter approval. If there exists an illegal or non -permitted structure on the property and it is not shown on the plan being submitted for review or on an older plan that is on file with the City, staff would not know of the presence of such structure. Even if a miscellaneous structure is shown on a plan, and it is located in a setback, for example, staff would not require additional information on this structure to ascertain if it is legal or if it was constructed with building permits. (On the other hand, for discretionary projects, staff obtains copies of building permits from the Building Department and reviews them against the information on file at City Hall, and if necessary also reviews the Association files. At times, the building permits are very old and it cannot be discerned what the permit was for). DISCUSSION Not every address file in the City contains information on prior approvals. It wasn't until the City and RHCA offices separated that City staff started keeping records on most projects that were approved administratively. Many of the older records/files are only available at the Association. City did retain records of the Conditional Use Permits and Variances granted by the City since the City incorporated. Most other approvals, including new single family residences and all other miscellaneous structures, (those that did not require a CUP or Variance), were granted administrative approvals until 1988 and were either not kept at the City or are with the Association records. In 1988 the Site Plan Review process (discretionary review) was implemented for all new single family residences, large additions, and other structures, (Chapter 17.46 as amended through the years). Since 1988 all records pertaining to CUP, Variances and SPR were kept at the City; however, for many years thereafter not every over-the-counter approval was kept. Since about 2001 all over-the-counter approvals are kept at the City. As stated earlier, the state law grants local cities certain authority to develop its ordinances and procedures. Most cities distinguish and separate projects that are administrative and discretionary and allow staff to administratively approve certain projects. There are variations to what projects may be approved by staff and how that process works. However, reviewing other cities' procedures, it seems that Rolling Hills' administrative process is most strict. Since some of the other cities have many more types of zoning districts, uses, and type of development, their emphasis and goal for assurances that development standards are followed and adhered to, and that projects are built to code, are different that the City of Rolling Hills where only single family structures and accessory uses are permitted. The administrative process of approval developed by most cities is to expedite approvals of minor projects, as well as not to burden the advisory body or the legislative body with having to make a decision on each an every project. Should the City Council make changes to the administrative approval process, all staffs' actions would be delayed by several weeks to allow time for research and/or a field visit, if so directed by a change. This will most likely delay the review process for discretionary applications. The zoning code would also have to be amended to reflect the changes. NOTIFICATION This item was included on the draft agenda that was printed and distributed with the citywide newsletter. CONCLUSION Having reviewed this report, there are two options before the City Council: 1. Direct staff to leave the process as is. 2. Direct staff to make changes to the process for over-the-counter approvals, and advise what those changes should be. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK e INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF PROTECTS (OVER -THE COUNTER APPROVAL) NOTE: According to Section 17.24.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, illegal uses or structures are required to be made conforming or shall be removed. Therefore, you may be required to modify or remove any unauthorized or unlawful use or structure on your property prior to or in conjunction with this application. Pursuant to Chapter 17.44 of the Municipal Code (Zone Clearance), staff may approve certain projects administratively providing all of the development standards specified in the Municipal Code are complied with. Projects submitted for administrative approval will be reviewed for structural and total net lot coverage and percentage of disturbed area, setbacks, grading, walls, area of existing house to be demolished and all other development standards. Additions, accessory structures and pools will also be reviewed for availability of stable/corral or area set aside for a future stable/corral. RHCA Architectural Committee review and Dept. of Building and Safety construction permits are required for all construction. The City of Rolling Hills does not collect a fee for over-the-counter review. Building permit fees will be assessed at the time the project is submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. PLEASE NOTE: • No construction may commence, no matter how small, until you have approvals from 3 entities: City of Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Community Association and Building and Safety Department • All construction involving additions, new structures and most electrical work require undergrounding of all utility lines • For solar panels, if work requires upgrading of electrical panel or relocation of the panel or utility lines, then all of the utility lines must be placed underground • Entire roof replacement is required for additions and repairs of any size to the roof, when the existing roof material does not meet City standards for VHFHSZ • Most construction require LA County Health Department review for septic system • All additions and new structures require evaluation by the Fire Department Fire Prevention Engineering Section • Most projects require Fire Department review for Fuel Modification (planting zones in relationship to distance to structures) • Lighting on the property must meet City's Outdoor Lighting Ordinance standards • Construction/demolition (C&D) permit is required for hauling away construction debris, including rocks, dirt and spoils • All measurements are to be taken from the outside walls of structures; trellis shall be measure from the outside beams, not posts • For additions, verify with PVPUSD if school district fees will be assessed • The City contracts with LA County Building and Safety, 310 534-3760 and with Willdan Engineering Building and Safety, 562 908- 6200 (expedited process, 25% fee over the permit fee schedule) for plan checking, permit issuance and inspection services PROTECTS THAT MAY BE APPROVED OVER-THE-COUNTER: Page 1 of 17 Adm. Approval 1120/6 (SEE CHAI'IERS 17.44, 17.46 and 17.24 - PROVIDING ALL ZONING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE MET AND WHEN NO GRADING IS REQUIRED): • Not to exceed 200 s.f. stable, aviary or other animal shelter; up to 550 s.f. corral; run- in -shed -max. 2 for a total of 240 s.f.; horse turnout- up to 7,200 s.f.; • Not to exceed 200 s.f. guest house, cabana, recreation room and similar structures; must meet all development standards; only one of those uses is allowed on the lot • Reconstruction of legally established structures (conforming or nonconforming) within pre-existing footprint that were damaged by fire, earthquake or other disaster, subject to Chapter 17.24 of the Zoning Ordinance; • Remodeling and repairing of any existing legally constructed structures, including electrical, plumbing, mechanical, doors, windows; • Repair foundation; • Re -roof any structure; • Underground of utility lines to property; • Additions to single-family homes providing the addition is not more than 999 sq.ft. in any thirty-six (36) month period, (which period is measured from the date that a final inspection was issued for a prior addition), and providing that: o all of the development standards are met o site for a stable & corral is provided (min 1,000 sq.ft.) o less than 50% of the exterior walls of the existing house is planned to be demolished* o no grading is required; * If 50% or more of the exterior walls are planned to be demolished, neighbors' notification and silhouette construction is required (17.46.020 3c); • Reconstruction of an existing residence w/ in preexisting footprint on properties eligible for reduced setbacks (17.17. OZD-1; 17.24.045) meeting all of the other over- the-counter approval criteria and Zoning Code requirements; • Basements without surface grading. Excavated material may be exported out of the City; • Up to five (5) of the following structures on the property and providing that any combination of these 5 structures do not exceed 800 sq.ft. & are no more than 120 s.f. each -with some exceptions: storage sheds -no more than 2; detached trellis; detached covered patio; gazebo; outdoor bar, barbeque, fireplace, fire pit; roofed playhouses or forts, fountains, ponds and similar structures; • Swimming pool and spa, less than 800 square feet in area (area of surface water). (Excavation of the pool area is not considered grading); pool/spa fencing per building code is required; (a) Landscaping plan is required for the pool area; • Grading not to exceed 2,000 sq.ft. surface area and when not exceeding 3' cut and/or 3' fill; (building permit may be required); • Retaining walls not to exceed 3' high along driveways, and not to exceed 3' high walls necessary for drainage purposes, as determined by a drainage engineer, (building permit may be required); • Other miscellaneous structures, including, but not limited to service yards, pool equipment, architectural features and elements, driveways, entryways, walkways, parking pads, drainage devices, dish antenna, solar panels, and similar structures, provided the construction does not trigger grading, is not in any setbacks or in the front yard and that otherwise meet the Zoning Code requirements. Page 2 of 17 Adm. Approval 1/20/6 PLAN SUBMITTAL PROCESS It is recommended that the property owner, applicant and/or applicants' representative meet with staff prior to submitting a request for administrative approval. Submittals require current survey, certified site plan/elevation plan and detailed structural and impervious surface coverage calculations. 1. Submit a minimum of two sets of plans using the CHECKLIST as a guide. 2. Submit the application and calculations as required on the "CALCULATION OF LOT COVERAGE" forms. 3. Depending on the nature of the proposed project staff may review and approve the project immediately over-the-counter or take few days to review it. 4. After review and approval staff will stamp the plans "Approved" and keep one set of the plans and calculations in the Planning address file. Staff may place certain conditions on the approval. 5. Over-the-counter approval is valid for one year. Meaning a building permit is to be obtained within one year of approval of the project by City staff. Re -approval may be granted. 6. Following City approval, RHCA Architectural Committee review is required. 7. If a new driveway approach is proposed, Traffic Commission application and review is required. If in any easement, prior to submittal to the City, RHCA approval is required. 8. After approval of the project by the City and RHCA, plans and appropriate specifications, calculations, conditions, etc. are to be submitted to Building and Safety Department (County or Willdan Engineering) for plan check and issuance of permits. 9. Building permits are required for almost any construction. 10. Project must be built per the approved plan. Any modifications must be approved by City, RHCA and the Building Department. 11. Applicant's representative and contractor will be required to certify that the plans submitted for plan check mirrors those approved by the city and that the construction will be per the plans. (Obtain certification forms from City). public:PLANNING MASTERS:Adminiatrative approval Instructions Over the Counter appr.doc Page 3 of 17 O Adm. Approval 1/2016 CHECKLIST FOR PLAN SUBMITTAL (ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW) 1. Application form including computation of structural and total lot coverage, disturbed area, building pad coverage, etc. (forms attached) 2. Recent surveyed property plans (2 sets) showing the following: (depending on the project not all may apply; others may require elevation plans, floor plans, cross sections and other information). • Name, address and telephone number of applicant, and name, address and telephone number of preparer of the plans, • Plot plans must show the entire property. (More than one sheet may be submitted), • Stamp Sr signature by a licensed civil engineer, architect or land surveyor, • North arrow and scale of plans, • Existing contours of the area of construction and the area for a future stable/corral if not existing, • Roadway easement, other easements and horse trails -if any, • Setbacks, • All existing and proposed retaining walls and rubble walls including their height. All existing and proposed hardscape, • Existing building(s) and the proposed addition(s). Show basement area and access thereto, if any. All measurements are to be taken from the exterior finished surfaces of structures, • All existing and proposed architectural features including porches, entryways, porte cocheres, trellises. Elevation plan may be required. • All other existing and proposed structures on the lot and their dimensions, including pool, spa, pond, pool equipment, porches, shelters, entryways, trellises, barbeques, fire pits, fountains, sheds, gazebos, children play houses/forts and others, • Stable/corral or an area for future construction, in a feasible and accessible location of not less than 450 s.f. for the stable, 550 s.f. for a corral (35' from any residence, min. 25' from rear property line, 25' or 35' from side property line if in RAS-1 or RAS-2 zoning district and not in front yard), and access road of not more than 25% grade to the stable, • Verify if utility lines are above or below ground, • Existing and proposed drainage devices, if known, • Primary driveway and other driveways/roads/easements and paved areas or motor courts that exist or are proposed. Motor court may not be closer than 30' to roadway easement, • Distinguish bt pervious vs. impervious surfaces and provide sq.ft. • If known, the location of the septic tank. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE CALCULATION FORMS: Page 4 of 17 Adm. Approval 1/2016 In the TOTAL STRUCTURES column, in addition to those structures listed on the form, include all structures that exist on the lot and those that are proposed, including: cabana, recreation room, hobby shop, guest-house, covered porches, covered entryways, trellis/latticework, gazebo, sheds, pool equipment, service yard, playground equipment, forts, decks, (for deck -see definition in Section 17.12.040 "D" words, terms and phrases of the Zoning Code), and similar structures. In the TOTAL FLATWORK column, include all of the "impervious" surfaces existing and proposed, including driveways all walkways around the residence and accessory uses, walkways from house to other structures, uncovered patios, uncovered parking areas, walkways/decks around the pool, paved access to a stable and all other "impervious" surfaces. Provide sq. ft of pervious surfaces, if any, such as D.G., pavers set in sand, grass-crete and other pervious surfaces. Manufacturing specifications may be required to verify that surface is considered pervious per industry standards. COMPUTATION OF LOT COVERAGE AND DISTURBANCE LOT COVERAGE (STRUCTURAL AND TOTAL) Main buildings, accessory buildings, structures including, but not limited to gazebos, porches, entryways, porte cochere, trellises and similar structures, tennis courts, swimming pools, spa, pool equipment, outdoor bar, barbecue, sheds, shelters, service yards (enclosed or unenclosed), stables, or an area of not less than 450 square feet for the construction of a stable shall not cover more than twenty percent (20%) of the net lot area, provided further that in addition to the above described improvements, the areas included within driveways, paved access to stables, parking spaces, walks, patios, decks and asphalt or concrete paving of any kind excepting roads maintained by the Rolling Hills Community Association, shall not cover more than thirty-five percent (35%) of the net lot area. (See Section 17.16.200 "H" for exceptions). All measurements of structures shall be taken from the exterior finished surfaces. Trellis calculations are to be taken from the edge of the beams, not the posts. For the purposes of this Section "net area" shall exclude: a) the entire area within a recorded roadway easement plus the area within ten (10) feet measured perpendicular to the edge of the roadway easement; (b) the ten (10) foot perimeter of the lot perpendicular to the property lines on all sides; (c) any private drive or driveway that provides access to any other lot or parcel; and (d) the access strip portion of a flag lot. (See NET LOT AREA DIAGRAM) LOT DISTURBANCE Disturbed area of a lot shall be not greater than forty percent (40%) of the net lot area. Exceptions: if 50% or more of the resulting slopes are 3:1 or less - then 50% of the net lot area may be graded/disturbed If all of the resulting slopes are 3:1 or less - then 60% of the net lot area may be graded/ disturbed Disturbance means any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any proposed or existing graded slopes and graded building pad areas, and any nongraded areas where impervious surfaces will remain or are proposed to be added; provided, however, that if a Adm.Approval Page 5 of 17 112016 previously disturbed impervious surface, such as an abandoned driveway or other area determined to be previously altered or graded, is returned to its natural state, and the area matches the terrain and contours of the immediately adjacent area, then such area shall not be considered disturbed. In addition, remedial or temporary grading not greater than two thousand square feet in area, where the surface is returned to its pregraded slope and configuration shall also not be considered disturbed. City strongly encourages that slopes created through grading be gentler than the maximum permitted of 2:1 gradient. PLEASE NOTE: Grading cannot be approved over-the-counter COMPUTATION OF BUILDABLE AREA AND COVERAGE THEREON A policy of the City is to address coverage of an identified "EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED BUILDABLE AREA". Coverage thereon is based upon the calculation of the foot -print square footage of the residence, garage, stable (barn), other accessory structures proposed and/or developed on said "buildable area," and all projecting structures such as entryways, porte cochere, covered porches and breezeways. (Covered porches that are 10% or less in size of the footprint of the residence or accessory structure and attached trellises are not counted). For the purpose of this calculation, "buildable area" shall be defined as stated in Section 17.12.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code which declares "buildable area" as the portion of a lot that constitutes the existing or proposed building pad and any other contiguous portion of the lot NOT IN THE SETBACKS THAT HAS AN AVERAGE SLOPE OF TEN PERCENT (10%) OR LESS. A lot may have more than one "buildable area." Page 6 of 17 Adm. Approval 112016 APPLICATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL (Over the counter approval pursuant to Zone Clearance, Chapter 17.44 of the Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance) PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME OWNER'S ADDRESS OWNER'S TELEPHONE & EMAIL PROPERTY ADDRESS AGENT'S NAME AGENT'S ADDRESS AGENT'S TELEPHONE & EMAIL NATURE OF PROPOSED PROJECT Describe in detail the nature of the proposed project: Page 7 of 17 Adm. Approval 1/2016 Describe the proposed use(s) of the project: Page 8 of 17 Adm. Approval 112016 PROPERTY OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT I (We) declare that I (We) am (are) familiar with City's rules as they relate to this project and with the submittal and construction requirements. Incomplete applications will delay the approval process. Other than the City, prior to start of work, approval and building permits are required from the RI-ICA and Department of Building and Safety. Any modification, change or variation to the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the above agencies prior to commencing such construction. I (We) declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing application is true and correct. By: Date: By: Date: Address City Page 9 of 17 Adm. Approval 1/2016 DATE: ADDRESS: ALL MEASUREMENTS TO BE TAKEN FROM THE EXTERIOR FINISHED SURFACE OF STRUCTURES AND OUTSIDE BEAMS ON TRELLISES; ALL STRUCTURES MUST BE SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND LISTED HERE CALCULATION OF LOT COVERAGE AREA AND STRUCTURES EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL NET LOT AREA sq.ft. RESIDENCE sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. GARAGE sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. SWIMMING POOL/SPA sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. POOL EQUIPMENT sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. GUEST HOUSE sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. CABANA sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. STABLE sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. RECREATION COURT sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. ATTACHED COVERED PORCHES sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. ENTRYWAY/ PORTE COCHERE, BREEZEWAYS sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. ATTACHED TRELLISES sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. *DETACHED STRUCTURES: (circle all that applies) SHEDS, TRELLISES, GAZEBO sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. BARBECUE, OUTDOOR KITCHEN, sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. ROOFED PLAY EQUP.- over 15 ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. high and over 120 sq. ft. in area, WATER FEATURES, ETC. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. SERVICE YARD sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. OTHER sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. BASEMENT AREA sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft (volume of dirt) c.y. DEPTH OF BASEMENT TOTAL STRUCTURES sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. %STRUCTURAL COVERAGE TOTAL STRUCTURES EXCLUDING UP TO 5 & UP TO 800 sq. ft. detached structures that are not higher than 12 ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. % STRUCTURAL COVERAGE Page 10 of 17 Adm. Approval 112016 ALL FLATWORK MUST BE SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND LISTED HERE PRIMARY DRIVEWAY(S) sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. PAVED WALKS, PATIO AREAS, COURTYARDS sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. POOL DECKING sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. OTHER PAVED DRIVEWAYS, ROAD EASEMENTS, PARKING PADS sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. TOTAL FLATWORK % TOTAL FLATWORK COVERAGE sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. TOTAL STRUCTURAL & FLATWORK COVERAGE sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. %TOTAL COVERAGE TOTAL STRUCTURAL & FLATWORK COVERAGE sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. Excl. the allowance of up to 5 — 800 sq. ft. structures from previous page. % TOTAL COVERAGE TOTAL SQ.FT. OF PERVIOUS SURFACES (Other than landscaping; sq.ft. i.e. D.G., pavers set in sand, grass crete) TOTAL DISTURBED AREA sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. % DISTURBED AREA All structures (attached and detached) must be listed. * Miscellaneous free standing accessory structures such as sheds, trellises, covered patios, gazebo, fountains, barbecue, outdoor fire place, etc., are not counted towards coverages unless greater than 120 s.f., (except for trellises), their combined area exceeds 800 sq. ft., or if there are more than 5 such structures on the property. Page 1I of 17 Adm. Approval 1/2016 DATE: ADDRESS: CALCULATION OF BUILDING PAD COVERAGE PAD NO.1 BUILDABLE PAD AREA EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL AND STRIIC:TIIRFS BUILDING PAD sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. RESIDENCE sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. GARAGE sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. POOL/SPA sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. POOL EQUIPMENT sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. CABANA/REC.RM sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. GUEST HOUSE sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. STABLE sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. SPORTS COURT sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. SERVICE YARD sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. ATTACHED COVERED PORCHES Primary residence sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. Accessory structures sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. AREA OF ATTACHED COVERED _sq.ft. sq.ft sq.ft. PORCHES THAT EXCEED to% OF THE SIZE OF RESIDENCE/ACCS. STRUCTURE ENTRYWAY/PORTE COCHERE/ BREEZEWAY sq.ft. _sq.ft. sq.ft. ATTACHED TRELLISES sq.ft. -sq.ft. sq.ft. ALL DETACHED STRUCTURES sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft (from lot coverage page) ALL DETACHED STRUCTURES _sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. (from lot coverage page; minus deductions) OTHER sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. TOTAL STRUCTURES ON PAD NO I sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. % BUILDING PAD COVERAGE TOTAL STRUCTURES ON PAD NO. I sq.ft. sq.k. cq.ft. Not incl. attached trellises, Not inrL allowed deductions, andincL the area of covered porches that exceed 10% of the size of the residence/accs. structures. % BUILDING PAD COVERAGE Page 12of17 Ig Adm. Approval 1/2016 DATE: ADDRESS: CALCULATION OF BUILDING PAD COVERAGE PON2 BUILDABLE PAD AREA EXISTING AND STRUCTURES BUILDING PAD RESIDENCE GARAGE POOL/SPA POOL EQUIPMENT CABANA/REC.RM GUEST HOUSE STABLE SPORTS COURT SERVICE YARD sq.ft. sq ft sq ft sq.ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. ATTACHED COVERED PORCHES Primary residence sq.ft. Accessory structures sq.ft. AREA OF ATTACHED COVERED sq.ft. PORCHES THAT EXCEED ro% OF THE SIZE OF RESIDENCE/ACCS. STRUCTURE ENTRYWAY/PORTE COCHERE/ BREEZEWAY sq.ft. ATTACHED TRELLISES sq.ft. ALL DETACHED STRUCTURES sq.ft. (from previous page) ALL DETACHED STRUCTURES sq ft (from previous page not including allowed deductions) OTHER sq.ft. TOTAL STRUCTURES ON PAD NO. I sq.ft. % BUILDING PAD COVERAGE PROPOSED s- q.ft. s- q. ft. sq. ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. _sq. ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. s- q.ft. TOTAL sq. ft. s- q.ft. - sq.ft. sq.ft sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq.ft. s- q.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. TOTAL STRUCTURES ON PAD NO. I sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. NotincL attached trellises, NntincL allowed deductions, and.incL the area of covered porches that exceed 10% of the size of the residence/acts. structures. % BUILDING PAD COVERAGE Page 13 of 17 Adm. Approval 1/2016 DATE: ADDRESS DRIVEWAY(S) AND MOTOR COURT(S) NOTE: The information below is to be submitted for all new developments, garage addition, modification or relocation and for any modification to existing driveway(s) and motor court(s). If no changes are proposed to the existing driveway or motor court, except for reconstruction/repaving, within existing footprint, provide information for the total pervious and impervious surfaces. Pursuant to Section 17.16.150 of the Rolling Hills Zoning Code, driveways may not cover more than 20% of the setback area in which they are located and uncovered parking areas/motor courts may not cover more than 10% of the front or side yard setback. Uncovered parking areas shall be located no closer than 30 -feet from any roadway easement line. For properties that qualify for reduced setbacks (Sec. 17.17 and 17.24.045) min. of 40% of the front yard area shall be landscaped & only one driveway is allowed. A not to exceed 3 -foot high wall may be permitted along a driveway or stairway in any setback. If any of these improvements are in easements, RHCA approval is required prior to City's review. Page 14 of /7 Adm. Approval 112016 CALCULATION OF DRIVEWAY(S) AND MOTOR COURT(S) COVERAGE; IMPERVIOUS/PERVIOUS SURFACES AND INCLUDING FIRE DEPARTMENT TURN AROUND, IF REQUIRED TOTAL DRIVEWAY(S) EXISTING TOTAL PROPOSED s.f. s.f TOTAL MOTOR COURT(S) s.f. s.f & PARKING PAD(S) AREA OF FRONT SETBACK s.f. AREA OF SIDE SETBACK s.f s.f. s.f ok s.f. s.f ok % AREA OF DRIVEWAY(S) s.f. s.f. IN FRONT SETBACK % OF FRONT SETBACK COVERED BY DRIVEWAY(S) AREA OF MOTOR COURT(S) s.f. s.f & PARKING PADS IN FRONT SETBAC K % OF FRONT SETBACK COVERED BY MOTOR COURT(S) & PARKING PAD(S) AREA OF DRIVEWAY(S) IN SIDE SETBACK % OF SIDE SETBACK COVERED BY DRIVEWAY(S) AREA OF MOTOR COURT(S) & PARKING PADS IN SIDE SETBACK % OF SIDE SETBACK COVERED BY MOTOR COURT(S) & PARKING PAD(S) IMPERVIOUS SURFACE PERVIOUS SURFACE % ok s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. Page 15 of I? Adm. Approval 1/20/6 SUMMARY OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES COUNTED/NOT COUNTED TOWARDS LOT COVERAGE: BUILDING PAD COVERAGE: (guideline - 30% maximum pad coverage). All structures, including porte cochere, breezeway and entryway, shall be counted towards building pad coverage, except for the following: ATTACHED STRUCTURES: • Attached covered porch having an area of 10% or less of the size of the structure that it is attached to, • Attached trellises (open roof) DETACHED STRUCTURES: (not to exceed a total of 5 such structure on a lot, not to exceed 12 feet in height, not to exceed 120 sq.ft. each, (see exceptions below), and not to exceed a combined total of 800 sq.ft.) • Storage sheds; max. 2 on a lot, • Trellis and freestanding covered patio w/solid roof, (may exceed 120 sq.ft.), • Outdoor bar, barbecue, fire place, gazebo, • Roofed playground fort, (may be max. 15 ft.), • fountain, pond and similar structures. These structures may not be located in the front yard area or any setback, except for a fountain, decorative pond or low water feature. STRUCTURAL AND TOTAL LOT COVERAGE AND DISTURBANCE: (Zoning Code requirement: max. - 20% structural coverage; max. - 35% total lot coverage; max. - 40 % lot disturbance -see exceptions). All attached structures, including porches, trellises, porte cochere, breezeway, and entryway shall be counted towards coverage. All detached structures shall be counted towards coverage, except for the following: DETACHED STRUCTURES: (not to exceed a total of 5 such structure on a lot, not to exceed 12 feet in height, not to exceed 120 sq.ft. each, (see exceptions below), and not to exceed a combined total of 800 sq.ft.) • Storage sheds; max. 2 on a lot, • Trellis and freestanding covered patio w/solid roof, (may exceed 120 sq.ft.), • Outdoor bar, barbecue, fire place, gazebo, • Roofed playground fort, (may be max. 15 ft.), • Fountain, pond and similar water feature, 3' high or less. These structures may not be located in the front yard area or any setback, except for a fountain, decorative pond or low water feature. Page 16 of 17 Adm. Approval 112016 Property Line Easement Line Setback Line 10 ft excluded b\.X Residence kbst • NET LOT AREA ROADWAY EASEMENT EXCLUDE ROADWAY EASEMENTS PLUS 10 FEET AT PERIMETER OF THE ENTIRE PARCEL INCL. ALONG ROADWAY EASEMENT NET LOT AREA CALCULATIONS Page 17 of 17 Adm. Approval 1/2016