City Council Agenda 03-14-2016CITY 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 11'h day of March, 2016, I serve the within
City Council Meeting - 03/14/2016
a copy of which is annexed hereto and made a part hereof, on the person, or persons, named
below by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully
prepaid, in the United States mail at Rolling Hills, California addressed as follows:
E -MAILED MAILED DropBox
NONE
RH Web site IistSery
Interested parties
City Attorney
CouncilMembers
Dieringer, Pieper,
Black, Mirsch and Wilson
DELIVERED
City Manager
City Council
Also posted at City Hall, at www.Rolling-Hills.org and pdf's in DropBox.
1 certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on the 11'h day of March, 2016 at Rolling Hills, California.
eidi Luce
City Clerk
ti
I
MINUTES OF
AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2016
CALL TO ORDER
An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by
Mayor Pieper at 7:03 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling
Hills, California.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present:
Councilmembers Absent:
Others Present:
Black, Dieringer, Mirsch, Wilson and Mayor Pieper.
None.
Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager.
Mike Jenkins, City Attorney.
Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director.
Heidi Luce, City Clerk.
Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive.
Jeffrey Ostriker, 27 Caballeros Road.
Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West.
Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road.
Patty Naegely, on behalf of Occhipinti (34 Crest Road East).
OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME
Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council to suggest that the City Council meetings
be televised so that residents that don't drive can see the meetings.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A.
B.
Minutes - Regular Meeting of February 22, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
Payment of Bills.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council approve the items on the consent calendar as
presented. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection.
PRESENTATION
Presentation of City Council Commendation to Commander Blaine Bolin
Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department
The City Council presented a Commendation to Lomita Sheriffs Station Captain Blain Bolin to thank him
for his service to the City and congratulate him on his promotion to Commander of the North Patrol
Division. Commander Bolin thanked the City for its support during his four years as Captain of the
Lomita Station.
City Manager Cruz then introduced the new Lomita Station Captain, Dan Beringer.
Mayor Pieper stated that if there are no objections, New Business Item 8A regarding an appeal of the City
Manager's determination in aggressive animal complaint will be taken out of order at the request of the
appellant. Hearing no objection, he so ordered.
DRAFT
NEW BUSINESS
CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FILED BY DR. JEFFREY OSTRIKER, PURSUANT TO
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6.24.070, REGARDING A DETERMINATION ORDERING
THE DISPOSITION OF AN AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL COMPLAINT FILED BY MR.
MATTHEW CHAISSON.
Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for stalls comments. City Manager Cruz presented the staff
report and reviewed the complaint filed by Mr. Matthew Chaisson against a dog, Azul, owned by Dr.
Jeffrey Osktriker alleging that Azul came onto the property where Mr. Chaisson resides and killed his
chickens. He further reviewed the investigation performed by an officer of the Los Angeles County Dept.
of Animal Care and Control which found the complaint to be meritorious. He then reviewed the order
imposed by the City Manager as a result of complaint being confirmed. He stated that the order required
that Azul be confined to Dr. Ostriker's property and when off the property, be under control of a leash by
a person capable of controlling the dog. He further commented that this matter is before the City Council
because a timely appeal was filed by Dr. Ostriker requesting that the City Manager's decision be
reviewed. He stated that additional correspondence was received from Dr. Ostriker and Mr. Chaisson and
has been placed on the dais.
Dr. Jeffrey Ostriker, 27 Caballeros Road addressed the City Council to request that the City Manager's
order be modified to allow him to walk his dogs off leash due to medical reasons. He presented letters
from a doctor and psychologist in support of his request.
Following discussion, Councilmember Black moved that the City Council affirm the City Manager's
decision in the aggressive animal complaint against a dog owned by Dr. Jeffrey Ostriker that the dog be
confined to the property when on the property and to modify the order to allow Dr. Ostriker to walk the
dog off leash provided that he does not walk in the vicinity of the property where the chickens owned by
Mr. Matthew Chaisson are located (8 Crest Road East). Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion,
which carried without objection.
COMMISSION ITEMS
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-02 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A
SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION, GRADING, SWIMMING POOL, PORCH, TRELLIS, AND
WALLS AND VARIANCES FOR ENCROACHMENT WITH PORTIONS OF THE
ADDITIONS, WALLS AND A LIGHTWELL INTO SETBACKS, TO EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO EXCEED 2.5'
AVERAGE HEIGHT OF WALLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 888 AT 17 MIDDLERIDGE LANE
NORTH, (LOT 5 -MR), IN THE OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT-OZD-I, (POST).
Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed
the constrained lot configuration and provided an overview of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No.
888 at 17 Middleridge Lane North. She stated that after several public hearings, a site visit and
modifications to address the Planning Commission's concerns regarding the project, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 2016-02 approving the request on a 3-2 vote.
Councilmember Dieringer expressed concern regarding the encroachment into the front yard setback and
questioned the need/justification for granting a variance for the encroachment.
Following discussion, Councilmember Black moved that the City Council receive and file Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2016-02 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 888
at 17 Middleridge Lane North. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried with Mayor
Pro Tem Dieringer opposed.
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-04 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A
DETACHED GARAGE, GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS; A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE; AND VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT
AN ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE IN THE FRONT SETBACK, A ONE -CAR PARKING
PAD LESS THAN 30 FEET FROM THE ROADWAY EASEMENT LINE, GARAGE AND
Minutes
City Council Meeting
03-14-16
DRAFT
WALL ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, OUT OF GRADE
CONDITION OF THE GARAGE, WALL THAT DOES NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2.5 -FEET,
TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL AND TOTAL COVERAGE
AND THE DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT, IN ZONING CASE NO. 892, AT 3 EASTFIELD
DRIVE, (LOT 58-EF), (BENNETT).
Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed
the constrained lot configuration and provided an overview of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No.
892 at 3 Eastfield Drive. She stated that after a public hearing and site visit, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. 2016-04 approving the request on a 4-0 vote with Commissioner Smith
abstaining.
Following brief discussion, Councilmember Wilson moved that the City Council receive and file Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2016-04 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 892
at 3 Eastfield Drive. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer seconded thc motion, which carried without objection.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE
ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020
AND ADDING CHAPTER 17.29 IN ORDER TO IMPOSE AN EXPRESS BAN ON MEDICAL
MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND DISPENSARIES WITHIN THE CITY, IN ZONING CASE
NO. 899 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2016-01.
AND
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE
ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020
AND ADDING CHAPTER 17.29 IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE PERSONAL CULTIVATION
OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND IMPOSE AN EXPRESS BAN ON COMMERCIAL
MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND DISPENSARIES WITHIN THE CITY IN
ZONING CASE NO. 899 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2016-01.
Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz presented
the staff report stating that before the City Council are two proposed ordinances pertaining to delivery and
cultivation of medical marijuana in the City. She reviewed the background of the issue including the State
legislative history on the issue. She stated that the Planning Commission also heard this matter and
recommended adoption of the stricter ordinance prohibiting all cultivation including for personal use. She
noted that at the time the Planning Commission heard this matter, there was a March 1st deadline by
which cities needed to take action, if they wished to regulate any marijuana activities, but thc State
legislature since eliminated the deadline. When the matter was before the Planning Commission, the
public provided testimony suggesting that the City provide for delivery of medical marijuana and allow
for personal cultivation but given the urgency of the matter, the Planning Commission recommended
adoption of an ordinance banning all cultivation and permitting delivery by a dispensary having a
legitimate storefront. Stall' has since further researched the issue and prepared a second draft ordinance
allowing for personal cultivation but still banning commercial cultivation.
Discussion ensued concerning the amount of area that is allowed for personal cultivation. Further
discussion ensued concerning commercial cultivation of other crops and the delivery mechanisms by
which qualified patients would be allowed to obtain medical marijuana.
Mayor Pieper called for public comment.
Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West addressed the City Council to urge the City Council to adopt the
ordinance allowing for personal cultivation of medical marijuana.
Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer expressed concern that the allowing personal cultivation outdoors could
potentially increase crime in the City. She suggested allowing only indoor growth. Discussion ensued
concerning State law versus Federal law relating to marijuana. City Attorney Jenkins stated that it is
illegal under Federal law to sell, cultivate or use marijuana. Councilmember Black suggested not adopting
an ordinance and just defaulting to Federal law as it relates to medical marijuana.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
03-14-16
DRAFT
Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council waive full reading and introduce on first reading an
ordinance of the City of Rolling Hills amending Sections 17.08.050 and 17.16.020 and adding Chapter
17.29 in order to permit the personal cultivation of medical marijuana and impose an express ban on
commercial medical marijuana cultivation and dispensaries within the City. Mayor Pieper seconded the
motion. Discussion ensued concerning the allowance for personal cultivation and the licensing
requirement. With regard to the provision that there be no exterior evidence of cultivation from any street
[Section 17.29.020(C)(I)(h)], Councilmember Wilson suggested that trails and easements be added as
locations from where there shall be no exterior evidence of cultivation. Following discussion,
Councilmember Mirsch accepted Councilmember Wilson's amendment and Mayor Pieper seconded.
Following brief discussion, the motion carried as amended with Councilmember Black and Mayor Pro
Tem Dieringer opposed.
OLD BUSINESS
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1182 ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE 13 RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION.
Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that
two items regarding this item were received today and have been placed on the dais. The City Council
took a brief recess to read the materials submitted.
Planning Director Schwartz then presented the staff report and reviewed the background of this matter
stating that for several months the City Council has been considering the adoption of administration
regulations interpreting Measure 13 so that it can be applied consistently. She stated that the issues being
discussed include the matters of acquisition and maturity. She noted that the City Council has already
decided on an interpretation for the acquisition issue; and at its last meeting decided, on the maturity issue,
to use 75% of a tree's maximum canopy width and height as a metric for determining maturity. She stated
that since that meeting it was learned that there are several ways to measure "width" of a canopy. She
stated that there are various methods for measuring canopy width and staff recommends using the "drip
line" to measure the canopy spread. She stated also that since the last meeting, it was learned that the
most recent edition of Sunset Western Garden Book does not include some of the trees common in Rolling
Hills where the previous version did. She stated that it is staffs recommendation that staff be allowed to
use the previous version as a reference. Lastly, based on direction received at the last meeting that staff do
research pertaining to "Consulting Arborists", most of the local landscape/arbor companies do not employ
an arborist certified by the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA), but do consult with one
when needed.
Planning Director Schwartz stated that the City Council has two items left to consider. First, to finalize the
"maturity" issue and secondly to affirm the less controversial issue with regard to the "retroactivity"
provision.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer, Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the various methods for
measuring canopy "spread". Discussion ensued concerning the various methods for measuring width and
height of trees. Further discussion ensued conceming the height ranges.
Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer expressed concern that trees may not reach their maximum height due to
planting site conditions and suggested that the City Council consider adding language to refer to the
maximum "expected" height so that the planting site can be taken into consideration. She stated that she
does not think the presently proposed interpretation regarding maturity meets the legal requirements. Brief
discussion ensued concerning tree height.
With regard to the issue of which version of Sunset Western Garden Book should be used a reference for
tree heights, the City Council concurred that the most recent edition should be used unless a tree is not
listed in that version, then the previous edition where a particular tee is listed could be used.
Discussion ensued concerning using a consulting arborist certified by the American Society of Consulting
Arborists (ASCA) rather than an arborist certified by the American Society of Arboriculture (ASA) when
arborist consultant services are needed. Following discussion, the City Council concurred to use the
proposed language presented in the draft Administrative Regulations attachcd to the resolution.
Discussion ensued concerning retroactivity portion of the administrative regulation. The City Council
Minutes
City Council Meeting
03-14-16
DRAFT
concurred to use the language as proposed in the draft Administrative Regulations attached to the
resolution.
Mayor Pieper called for public comment.
Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council to suggest that when an arborists'
services are necessary that an ASCA certified consulting arborist be used.
Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road addressed the City Council in support of using 75% of the maximum
expected hcight and using the most recent version of Sunset Western Garden book that lists the specific
tree as a reference.
Patty Naegely addressed the City Council on behalf of the Occhipinti Family (34 Crest Road East) to
further explain the correspondence she presented which shows that many trees in the area do no reach
their maximum height even though they are mature.
Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the proposed Administrative Regulations as presented in the draft
resolution. Discussion ensued concerning maturity.
Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council change the word "maximum" to "expected" in
Section 2001 as it relates to the tree canopy height and width. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer seconded the
motion. Following further discussion concerning the "expected" canopy height and width spread, the
motion failed with Councilmember Black, Mirsch Wilson and Mayor Pieper opposed.
Councilmember Wilson moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1182 adopting administrative
regulations interpreting Measure B relating to view preservation as amended. Mayor Pieper seconded the
motion, which carried with Councilmember Black and Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer opposed.
MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS
DISCUSSION CONCERNING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PERSONNEL
COMMITTEE REGARDING FILLING AN UNEXPECTED VACANCY ON THE ROLLING
HILLS TRAFFIC COMMISSION. (ORAL REPORT)
Mayor Pieper reported that the Personnel Committee discussed the unexpected vacancy on the Rolling
Hills Traffic Commission and directed staff to advertise the vacancy in the Citywide newsletter and
proceed with the recruitment process to fill the vacancy so that the position will be filled by the May
meeting of the Traffic Commission.
OTHER MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Pieper reported that the Personnel Committee also discussed the issue of employee salary
adjustments and the matter will be placed on the Closed Session agenda at a future meeting for discussion
and then discussed in open session by the City Council.
Mayor Pieper stated that he is hearing resident concern regarding coyotcs.
Councilmember Wilson suggested that staff address the issue of traffic control when contractors are
working in the City so that they be required to remove or make the traffic control signage not visible in the
hours that they arc not working.
Councilmember Mirsch asked that a discussion regarding a process for responding to correspondence
received be agendized for discussion at future City Council meeting.
Mayor Pieper askcd that a discussion on a proposed ballot measure pertaining to view preservation be
agendized for discussion at future City Council meeting.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
03-14-16
DRAFT
MATTERS FROM STAFF
CONSIDERATION OF PROVIDING ACCURATE COMPENSATION TO THE LAW FIRM
JENKINS & HOGIN FOR UNDERPAYMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDED THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS FOR VIEW IMPAIRMENT CASES FROM MAY OF 2014 TO
DECEMBER 2015.
City Attorney Jenkins recused himself from discussion on this matter because it relates to his services and
left the dais. City Manager Cruz presented the staff report stating that due to billing error, the City
Attorney's office inadvertently under billed the City for services related to view impairment cases from
May 2014 to December 2015. Following brief discussion, Councilmember Black moved that the City
Council approve an appropriation in the amount of $13,832.90 to accurately compensate Jenkins & Hogin
for legal services provided between May 2014 and December 2015 that were billed incorrectly resulting in
an underpayment. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer seconded the motion, which carried without objection. City
Attorney Jenkins returned to the dais.
CLOSED SESSION
None.
AD.IOURNMENT
Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Pieper adjourned the meeting at 9:39 p.m. in
memory of long time residents Rosina Baur, Georgia Claessens and Cosimo Occhipinti. An adjourned
regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, March 21, 2016 beginning at 6:00
p.m. at 18 and 15 Portuguese Bend Road for the purpose of conducting a field trip regarding the appeals of
a Committee on Trees and Views decision. An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council is
scheduled to be held on Monday, March 28, 2016 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at
City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California.
Respectfully submitted,
Heidi Luce
City Clerk
Approved,
Jeff Pieper
Mayor
Minutes
City Council Meeting
03-14-16
RECEIVtD
Monday, March 14, 2016 7:54 AM
Subject: IGRAYMAILJ Re: Measure B Interpretation MAK 14 2096 1:1111
• Date: Thursday, March 10, 2016 5:45 PM C®
From: Laura Gregorio dictg2000@gmail.com>
To: "htuce@cityofrh.net" <hluce@cityofrh.net> City of Rolling Hills
{{��t111
Cc: Yolanta Schwartz cys@cityofrh.net>, Wendy Starks cwstarks@citybfth.net>, toe gregono <tgregorio@pcmcus.com>
Hello City of RH.... A place I have called home for almost 20 years. We have had 6 different homes within the city and they
were all different. Never before have I had so much trouble as I do now with trees and the view issues.
I happen to be at the last meeting pertaining to the interpretation of Measure B. Both myself and my husband left that
meeting very upset about the way that anyone on the board is interpreting, or having to be defined, anything to do with the
views or trees in the city. A lot of the houses and vacant land in our area have had or currently have views. Some better then
others! Whether a view is purchased or obtained by the kindness of an opposing neighbor, what is the issue? Not everyone
will be happy but then again, not everyone takes care of their land, trees included, anyway. If some nice new neighbor wants
to clean up a couple of trees to get a peek of a view or an enormous 180 degree view, why do we care? Even the easement
trees are a nuisance at some locations and could use some TLC.
To purchase a view as we did here at 45 Eastfield was a once in a lifetime chance at an amazing city and harbor view which we
truly do love. Unfortunately we do not have a very cooperative neighbor.... the neighbor below us has been allowed to grow a
tree up into our view (which it has doubled it's size since we purchased the home and was actually well below our viewing area
when we bought the home). Then we go through proper channels to try to come to some sort of 'resolution' with regard to
our view issue only to be told by the homeowner whose tree is beginning to block our amazing view, that we need to
determine value with/without the tree then pay him the difference and then cut the tree. This is ridiculous! However we
probably would have gladly done this but we have had nothing but trouble trying to get a hold of them. Even the arbitrator
had issues contacting these neighbors. The opposing neighbor is very rarely home, doesn't answer the door when he is home
and will not respond to mail as he does not even have a mailbox!! That such craziness is allowed to go on in a city such as ours
is completely ridiculous. That no one from the city helped to respond to such ridiculousness is beyond me!! Meanwhile I sit
here with a view that soon will be blocked out in a large area where our harbor view is concerned upsets me greatly... and I
have no recourse. Once the tree grows up into our view, the value of our home will most likely suffer... maybe not a lot but it
will still be less then it is now. Where is the fairness to me?? To my family who may inherit the home someday? I was told by
someone in the city that maybe our house on Eastfield has' too much view' so we may not be able to get that one tree
trimmed after all even if we appeal to the city for help. So, what are we supposed to do? Just let trees grow up into our
view??? Who the heck decided that a view we purchased, maintained where we could and continue to try to keep is too
much view. We bought this view. We got this view. We want to keep our view.
So my question that I brought up that night at the meeting, and my question today remains the same... who is the city to
determine what type, size, shape, age a tree is or is not- when a tree can, should or could be cut what right does the city have
to allow a mature, maturing or brand new tree to grow up into anyone's view, to ruin a properties value, to diminish the worth
of the land just because a tree... A TREE... is allowed to grow and mature and not be trimmed down, or replaced by something
that does not block a view. It is a tree. It can be trimmed a million times without any harm to the tree and if it gets harmed,
there is another one just like it in a bucket somewhere waiting to be planted in the dead trees place!!
There is a woman who lives next to me on Saddleback, another home we own, and I am going to do everything in my power to
help her get her view back! She has lived there 40 years.... Let's see how this plays out. I am sure she has a lot of old photos
showing no trees in her view linel Will be in touch about this very soon.
Instead of worrying about the definition of a 'tree's size, shape, age', why doesn't the city worry about the value, beauty and
personal pride a homeowner takes living in the city and maintaining his or her property including but not limited to the value
placed in a view that has been purchased or created then allowed to diminish because a random homeowner decides or has
the power to say that you can not maintain your view any longer. Why is this allowed? How is it that the city can come out to
the home to look around and decide if you have too much view or that your view can be improved but only out of a certain
viewing window or to a predetermined percentage.
I know we can not go around cutting down all the trees in the city but we can go around and clean up the trees in the city.
Trimming a tree is not a crime. Even the fire department said we could cut down or cut out some of our trees and still have
plenty to go around. No one wants to pay for anything which is the bigger issue. Let's work on setting money aside to pay for
the maintenance, trimming and clearing of the trees in the easements. (Of which I have cleared, cleaned and trimmed my fair
share!)
Maybe we need a rule that states if your tree is in the view line you must allow your neighbor to trim the tree or replace the
tree at the cost of the homeowner who has the complaint about the tree provided you can show that the tree was not in your
view line when the property was purchased or at sometime when you owned the home. Didn't we vote on something like this
already??? Additionally, maybe one of the new papers included in a listing/sale of a property is the signature of the
neighbor(s) whose trees you have trimmed in the past with a picture of the view with the date on the photo which will help to
determine where the original view line was and how it can be maintained. If that house sells again and the current owner did
zero to maintain the trees and/or the view, then the new owner will get a photo showing his/her view in it's present condition,
(maybe the view is no more) with the signature of the neighbors whose trees block the view and a signature of the seller
stating that this is the view you are buying so that there is no confusion as to when the view was purchased, where the trees
are that have been removed, or trimmed down to establish, maintain or grant a view to a property going forward. Something
like this would work in everyone's favor because you know what you bought, when you bought it and that 'this' photo is what
you are allowed to maintain for as long as you own the property whether it is willed or gifted to a family member makes no
difference.. it is from the actual purchase date of the property. Photos are easy to take...we can make the photo a part of the
sale process. The photo will be a part of the property file and can be updated with every purchase and include all the
surrounding properties that could be or are a part of a view from that particular home or home site. What is one more piece
of paper!
I am sure you can find a lot of various interpretations of what a tree size is or is not... 1 know I can.
I am sure this note is way behind as far as someone listening to me and will mean nothing to anyone but I feel better writing
this all out. I think we should work on a new way or method to obtain views that are opened up or purchased and stop trying
to put a definition on the trees size, shape, age that can be interpreted a million different ways.
Thank you for your time
Laura Gregorio
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Heidi Luce <hluce@cityofrh.net> wrote:
At its meeting on Monday, March 14th beginning at 7:000 p.m. the City Council will continue its discussion
regarding Measure B Interpretation. Attached please find the agenda for your reference. The staff reports and
pertinent information can be found on the City's web site at the following link:
http://rolling-hills.org/index.aspx?nid=140 <http://rolling-hills.org/index.aspx?nid=140 <http://rolling-hills.org/
index.aspx?nid=140>
BCC: Interested Parties
Best regards,
Heidi
Heidi Luce, CMC
City Clerk/Executive Assistant
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274
310-377-1521 <te1:310-377-1521> Fax: 310-377-7288 <te1:310-377-7288> www.Rolling-Hills.org
<http://www.Rolling-Hills.org>
Annie Occhipinti
34 Crest Road East
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
City Council
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Re: Tree Height
Councilmembers:
RECEIVED
MAR 14 2016
City of Rolling Hills
By
March 14, 2016
I urge you to change the resolution you are considering for Measure B.
I have had an arborist make a quick tour of the surrounding area and he has
confirmed that the so-called "maximum" height" and "maximum canopy" in the Sunset
Western Garden Book (2013 printing) are not actually the maximums for the many trees
in the area.
I include with this letter pictures and addresses of trees that are all larger than
the maximum heights in the Sunset Western Garden Book. As there are so many
actual examples of trees exceeding the maximum heights in the book, your proposed
resolution will not be a good test of what is a Mature Tree. My arborist explained that
pruned trees can send up growth much higher than the species typical height.
TREE
ADDRESS
MAX HEIGHT
(in book)
ACTUAL HEIGHT
Olive
1356 Via Coronel
30 tall / 30' canopy
42 feet tall / 35' canopy
Olive
1405 Via Margarita
30 tall / 30' canopy
32 feet tall / 28' canopy
Califomia Pepper
26621 Westvale
40 tall / 40' canopy
54 feet tall / 71' canopy
Califomia Pepper
5400 Montemalaga
40 tall / 40' canopy
50 feet tall / 49' canopy
Sugar gum
Eucalyptus
1378 Via Castilla
90 tall / 75' canopy
102 feet tall / 58' canopy
Instead, please change the resolution to say that a Mature tree is 90% of the
maximum height — but if a tree is taller (or bigger canopy) than the maximum, the view
applicant should be able to present evidence that the tree in question has been pruned
in the last 10 years. If the applicant shows pruning, then a pruned tree cannot be
considered Mature.
Yours sincerely,
Annie Occhipinti
RECEIVED
To whom it may concern,
MAR 142016
City of Rolling Hills
By
March 14, 2016
I am writing this letter in regards to Mr. Ostriker appealing my Animal Complaint Report. Since the
previous verdict stating that Azul needs to be leashed while off the Ostriker property at 26 Caballeros, I
have crossed paths with Mr Ostriker and his off leash dogs on Purple Canyon Trail. At that time, Mr
Ostriker promised never to walk with his dogs by 8 Crest Rd E (Juanita Crane Trail) again. He apologized
for the previous incidents and stated that he wants to be a good neighbor.
If the outcome of this appeal states that Mr Ostriker can continue to walk with his dogs off leash, I
would appreciate that his promise to stay away from 8 Crest Rd E, be upheld.
Sincerely,
Matthew Chaisson
CATHLEEN CUNNINGHAM, LMFT
1826 S. ELENA AVE SUITE D
REDONDO BEACH, CA 90277
3/13/16
Jeffrey Adam Ostriker suffers from several physical disabilities that affects his mental health. I have
prescribed Dr. Ostriker dogs to accompany him on walks.
Thank You,
Cathleen Cunningham, LMFT
Psychotherapist
RECEIVED
MAR 14 2016
City of Rolling Hills
By
ADVANCED ORTHOPEDIC SPECIALTY CENTER
Southern California Knee Center/Sports Medicine
JOSEPH C. ANDERSON M.D., INC.
Director
COMPLEX KNEE PROBLEMS
DIPLOMATE OF THE CARE OF THE KNEE
AMERICAN BOARD OF SURGERY OF THE KNEE
ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY VIDEOARTHROSCOPY
TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT
March 14, 2016
DR. JEFFREY A. OSTRIKER HAS BEEN MY PATIENT FOR 11 YEARS. HE HAS
AVASCULAR NECROSIS OF THE HIPS AND KNEES. IF HE WALKS FOR AN
EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME, HE NEEDS TO USE TWO CANES OR WALKING
STICKS. HE SHOULD NOT SQUAT.
Sincerely,
�. .(iat6/24-aign-Ma RECEIVED
Joseph C Anderson M.D.
MAR 14 2016
City of Rolling Hills
By
21825 HAWTHORNE BLVD.TORRANCE, CA 90503 PH.# 310/542-9111 FAX 310/214-5263
Thursday, March 10, 2016 4:00 PM
Subject: Measure B Interpretation
Date: Thursday, March 10, 2016 3:59 PM
From: hluce@cityofrh.net chluce@cityofrh.net>
To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net>
Cc: Wendy Starks <wstarks@cityofrh.net>
At its meeting on Monday, March 14th beginning at 7:000 p.m. the City Council will continue its discussion regarding
Measure B Interpretation. Attached please find the agenda for your reference. The staff reports and pertinent
information can be found on the City's web site at the following link:
http://rolling-hills.org/index.aspx?nid=140 <http://rolling-hills.org/index.aspx?nid=140
BCC: Interested Parties
Best regards,
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 businoss 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 intondod 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.
Thursday, march 10,20164:31 PM
Subject: Mail deliveryfailed
Date: Thursday, March 10, 2016 3:59 PM
From: Mail DeliverySystem <MAILER-DAEMON@p02c110141.mxlogic.net>
To: "hluce@cityofrh.net" <hluce@dryofrh.net>
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you have sent could not be delivered to one or more
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address failed:
<joerich@richdevelpoment.com>: 553 Domain 'richdevelpoment.com' does not exist
<adelatorre@jaunitasfoods.com>: 553 Domain 'jaunitasfoods.com' does not exist
Included is a copy of the message header:
Received: from unknown [68.15.91.214] (EHLO remote.cityofrh.net)
by p02c11u141.mxlogic.net(mxl_mta-0.5.0-8) over TLS secured channel
with ESMTP id 87a02e65.0.611908.00-276.1738917.p02c11o141.mxlogic.net (envelope -from
<hluce@cityofrh.net>);
Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:59:57 -0700 (MST)
X-MxL-Hash: 56e20a7d6aee8021-fda3f28931252fa08d855fc786a35658b4ae2a3a
Received: from SERVER1.cityofrh.local ((fe80::283e:91e7:746e:ee57]) by
SERVER1.cityofrh.local((fe80::283e:91e7:746e:ee57810]) with mapi id
14.01.0438.000; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:59:51 -0800
From: Heidi Luce <hluce@cityofrh.net>
To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net>
CC: Wendy Starks <wstarks@cityofrh.net>
Subject: Measure B Interpretation
Thread -Topic: Measure B Interpretation
Thread -Index: AdF7KO1DaaC19G1VJUij6pVnbBOx7Q==
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 23:59:51 +0000
Message-ID:<D3074A74.150E5%hluce@cityofrh.net>
Accept -Language: en -US
Content -Language: en -US
X -MS -Has -Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user -agent: Microsoft-Entourage/13.16.0.130206
x-originating-ip: (192.168.1.101]
Content -Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="_004 D3074A74150E5hlucecityofrhnet_"
MIME -Version: 1.0
Thursday, March 10, 2016 4:43 PM
Subject: Mail deliveryfailed
Date: Thursday, March 10, 2016 4:00 PM
From: Mail DeliverySystem <MAILER-DAEMON@p02c11o141.mxlo8ic.net>
To: "hluce@cityofrh.net" <hluce@ciryofrh.net>
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you have sent could not be delivered to one or more
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
<navarroji@cox.net>: 550 5.1.1 <navarroji@cox.net> invalid recipient - Refer to Error Codes
section at http://postmaster.cox.net/confluence/display/postmaster/Error+Codes for more
information. P .
This is the message header from the original message:
Received: from unknown [68.15.91.214] (EHLO remote.cityofrh.net)
by p02c11o141.mxlogic.net(mxl_mta-8.5.0-8) over TLS secured channel
with ESMTP id 87a02e65.0.611908.00-276.1738917.p02c11o141.mxlogic.net (envelope -from
<hluce@cityofrh.net>);
Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:59:57 -0700 (MST)
X-MXL-Hash: 56e20a7d6aee8021-fda3f28931252fa08d855fc786a35658b4ae2a3a
Received: from SERVER1.cityofrh.local ([fe80::283e:91e7:746e:ee57]) by
SERVER1.cityofrh.local([fe80::283e:91e7:746e:ee57810]) with mapi id
14.01.0438.000; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:59:51 -0800
From: Heidi Luce <hluce@cityofrh.net>
To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net>
CC: Wendy Starks <wstarks@cityofrh.net>
Subject: Measure B Interpretation
Thread -Topic: Measure B Interpretation
Thread -Index: AdF7KO1DaaC19G1VJUij6pVnbBOx7Q==
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 23:59:51 +0000
Message -ID: <D3074A74.150E58hluce@cityofrh.net>
Accept -Language: en -US
Content -Language: en -US
X -MS -Has -Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user -agent: Microsoft-Entourage/13.16.0.130206
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.101]
Content -Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="_004 D3074A74150E5hlucecityofrhnet_"
MIME -Version: 1.0
Thursday, March 10, 2016 4:02 PM
Subject: Proposed Ordinance re: Medical Marijuana
Date: Thursday, March 10, 2016 4:00 PM
From: hluce@cityofrh.net <hluce@cityofrh.net>
To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net>
Cc: Wendy Starks <wstarks@cityofrh.net>
At its meeting on Monday, March 14th beginning at 7:000 p.m. the City Council will hold a public hearing to consider a
proposed ordinance pertaining to medical marijuana. Attached please find the agenda for your reference. The staff
report and pertinent information can be found on the City's web site at the following link:
http://rolling-hills.org/index.aspx?nid=140 <http://rolling-hills.org/index.aspx?nid=140
BCC: Interested Parties
Best regards,
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 I /ills. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intondod solely for the use of
the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intondod mcipiont, or the employee or agent responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please adviser 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.
Thursday, March 10, 2016 9:00 PM
Subject: March 14th Agenda Packet Available in Dropbox
Date: Thursday, March 10, 2016 3:59 PM
From: htuce@cityofrh.net <htuce@cityofrh.net>
To: "Raymond R. Cruz" <rcruz@cityofrh.net>
Cc: Wendy Starks <wstarks@cityofrh.net>
Hello!
The agenda and staff reports for the March 14, 2016 City Council meeting have been uploaded to Dropbox. You may
access the files at the following link:
httos://www.dronbox.co m/sh/Du m6k9ek leb2 rhz/mTel2Yl0 rv?n=40995098
Have a great weekend!
BCC: Dieringer, Jenkins, Mirsch, Pieper and Wilson
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 tho mador 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.
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
AGENDA ADJOURNED
REGULAR MEETING
Next Resolution No. 1182
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2016 NEW START TIME: 7:00 P.M.
Next Ordnance No. 347
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME
This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding the items on the
consent calendar or items not listed on this agenda. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will take
place on any items not on the agenda.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may
request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council
Actions.
A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of February 22, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
B. Payment of Bills.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
PRESENTATION
Presentation of a City Council Commendation to Commander Blaine Bolin
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
5. COMMISSION ITEMS
A. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-02 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN
REVIEW FOR A SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION, GRADING, SWIMMING POOL,
PORCH, TRELLIS, AND WALLS AND VARIANCES FOR ENCROACHMENT
WITH PORTIONS OF THE ADDITIONS, WALLS AND A LIGHTWELL INTO
SETBACKS, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF
THE LOT AND TO EXCEED 2.5' AVERAGE HEIGHT OF WALLS IN ZONING
CASE NO. 888 AT 17 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH, (LOT 5 -MR), IN THE
OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT-OZD-1, (POST).
Page 1 of 3
B. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-04 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE. CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR. A SITE PLAN
REVIEW FOR A DETACHED GARAGE, GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS; A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE; ANT)
VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE IN THE
FRONT SETBACK, A ONE -CAR PARKING PAD LESS THAN 30 FEET FROM THE
ROADWAY EASEMENT LINE, GARAGE AND WALL ENCROACHMENT INTO
THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, OUT OF GRADE CONDITION OF THE GARAGE,
WALL THAT DOES NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2.5 -FEET, TO EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL AND TOTAL COVERAGE AND THE
DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT, IN ZONING CASE NO. 892, AT 3 EASTFIELD
DRIVE, (LOT 58-EF), (BENNETT).
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING TITLE 17 OF
THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050
AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING CHAPTER 17.29 IN ORDER TO IMPOSE AN
FXPRFSS RAN ON MEDICAT. MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ANT) DISPENSARIES
WITHIN THE CITY, IN ZONING CASE NO. 899 AND ZONING CODE
AMENDMENT NO. 2016-01.
AND
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING TITLE 17 OF
THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 1'/.08.050
AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING CHAPTER 17.29 IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE
PERSONAL CULTIVATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND IMPOSE AN
EXPRESS BAN ON COMMERCIAL MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND
DISPENSARIES WITHIN THE CITY INZONING CASE NO. 899 AND ZONING
CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2016-01.
7. OLD BUSINESS
A. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1182 ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW
PRESERVATION.
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FILED BY DR. JEFFREY OSTRIKER,
PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6.24.070, REGARDING A
DETERMINATION ORDERING THE DISPOSITION OF AN AGGRESSIVE
ANIMAL COMPLAINT FILED BY MR. MATTHEW CHAISSON.
City Council Agenda
03/14/16 Page 2 of 3
9. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL Alb MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS
A. DISCUSSION CONCERNING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PERSONNEL
COMMITTEE REGARDING FILLING AN UNEXPECTED VACANCY ON THE
ROLLING HILLS TRAFFIC COMMISSION. (ORAL REPORT)
10. MATTERS FROM STAFF
A. CONSIDERATION OF PROVIDING ACCURATE COMPENSATION TO THE LAW
FIRM JENKINS & HOGIN FOR UNDERPAYMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES
PROVIDED THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS FOR VIEW IMPAIRMENT CASES
FROM MAY OF 2014 TO DECEMBER 2015.
12. CLOSED SESSION
NONE.
13. ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: Monday, March 28, 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 18 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
03/14/16 Page 3 of
DRAFT
Agenda Item No. 4-A
Meeting Date: 03/14/16
MINUTES 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:
CONSENT CALENDAR
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.
Kirt Behera, 12 Ringbit Road East.
Jeanne Saks, 33 Crest Road West.
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.
DRAFT
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.
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 after 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
Minutes
City Council Meeting
02-22-16
DRAFT
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 culling and use prior cutting
instead.
Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the Cil.y Council to suggest I:hat the reference to previously
trimmed trees be eliminated completely.
Hal Light, Attorney addressed the City Council to also suggest that the reference to previously trimmed
trees be eliminated completely.
Further discussion ensued concerning 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.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
02-22-16
DRAFT
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 RJIMC 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 (CONTNUED)
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, Attorney 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 buyer to a seller.
Hal Light, Attomey addressed the City Council regarding the issue 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 return 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
Minutes
City Council Meeting
02-22-16
DRAFT
SHARPS COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL STEWARDSHIP ORDINANCE.
Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staff's 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 11, 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.
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 Sheriff'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.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
02-22-16
DRAFT
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,
Heidi Luce
City Clerk
Approved,
Jeff Pieper
Mayor,
Minutes
City Council Meeting
02-22-16
CHECK CHECK
NO• DATE
• 24209
• 24210
• 24211
• 24212
• 24213
• 24214
• 24215
• 24216
24217
24218
24219
24220
24221
24222
24223
24224
24225
24226
24227
24228
24229
24230
24231
24232
24233
24234
24235
24236
24237
24238
24239
24240
24241
24242
24243
24244
24245
• PR LINK
• PR LINK
• PR LINK
• PR LINK
City 0/R0/ , fidt
Agenda Item No: 4-B
Mtg. Date: 03/14/16
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377.1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
3/14/2016 - CHECK RUN
PAYEE
03/01/2016 CALPERS
03/01/2016 CALPERS-
03/01/2016 HEALTHSMART BENEFIT SOLUTIONS
03/01/2016 METLIFE SBC
03/012016 STEVEN COOLEY
03/012016 SUN LIFE
03/01/2016 USCM
03/012016 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS -
03/142016 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO.
03/14/2016 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
03/142016 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
03/142016 COX COMMUNICATIONS
03/142016 DAILY BREEZE
03/142016 EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICES, INC.
03/14/2016 FIRST BANKCARD
03/142016 FIRST BANKCARD
03/14/2016 FOUNTAINHEAD CONSULTING INC.
03/14/2016 HASLER
03/14/2016 JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP
03/142016 KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS
03/14/2016 LA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT
03/14/2016 MANERI SIGN CO., INC.
03/142016 MARTIN & CHAPMAN CO.
03/14/2016 MCGOWAN CONSULTING
03/142016 PACIFIC COAST LANDSCAPE
03/14/2016 PALOS VERDES PENINSULA
03/142016 PAWS VERDES SECURITY SYS, INC
03/142016 REMOTE SATELLITE SYS INTL
03/142016 S & W COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
03/142016 SMART SOURCE OF CALIFORNIA LLC
03/142016 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
03/142016 THE GAS COMPANY
03/142016 TRAVERS TREE SERVICE, INC.
03/14/2016 USCM
03/142016 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS -
03/142016 WILLDAN INC.
03/142016 XEROX CORPORATION
2/19/2016 PR LINK - PAYROLL PROCESSING
2/192016 PR LINK - PAYROLL 4 & PR TAXES
3/4/2016 PR LINK - PAYROLL PROCESSING
3/42016 PR LINK - PAYROLL 5 & PR TAXES
Total
DESCRIPTION
HEALTH INS MARCH 2016
RETIREMENT FEB 2016
VISION INS MARCH 2016
DENTAL INS MARCH 2016
REFUND SECURITY DEPOSIT
LIFE INSURANCE MARCH 2016
457 PAY PERIOD 2/19/2016
457 PAY PERIOD 2/192016
BILLING PERIOD 129/16-2/16/16
ANIMAL HOUSING COSTS JAN 2016
BUILDING & SAFETY NOVEMBER2015
PHONE & INTERNET MARCH 2016
ADVERTISING FEB 2016
JANITORIAL SERVICE FEB 2016
OFFICE SUPPLIES/LCC BEN WEB
HOTEL FOR CONFERENCE RAY
IT CONSULTING MARCH 2016
POSTAGE 2/17/16
ATTORNEY SERVICES FEB 2016
MAINT ON COPIER 1/12 - 2/11
LAW ENFORCEMENT FEB 2016
POST ONLY FOR SIGN
RESOLUTION PLANNING BINDER
PERMIT CONSULTING JAN 2016
MONTHLY LANDSCAPE FEB 2016
RH NEWSLETTER
SECURITY SYSTEM APRIL - JUNE
SATELLITE PHONES MARCH 2016
REPAIRED LOOSE PHONE WIRE
LETTERHEAD ORDER
BILLING PERIOD 125 - 224
BILLING PERIOD 12/8 - 2/10
REMOVE FALLEN TREE
457 PAY PERIOD 3/4/16
PAY PERIOD 03/42016
PROFESSIONAL SR VS JAN 2016
COPIER LEASE FEB 2016
Processing Fee
Pay Period - February 3, 2016 Through February 16, 2016
Processing Fee
Pay Period - February 17, 2016 Through March 1, 2016
1, Raymond R. Cru; City Manager of Rolling Hills, California cevi& that the above demands
are accurate and there is available in the General Fund a balance of 5111,252.46 for the
p en (above items.
ymond 'Cruz, City Manager
• Previously Disbursed
AMOUNT
7,191.17
5,245.72
115.66
642.27
4,500.00
330.65
780.00
364.00
348.24
280.58
3,914.16
393.62
288.90
368.00
750.77
510.35
516.00
2,000.00
5,073.00
183.36
23,476.50
156.76
182.77
445.00
4,165.00
1,389.75
237.00
97.90
150.00
306.75
913.56
320.08
395.00
1,230.00
364.00
5,588.75
33.00
59.95
18,702.79
49.95
19,191.50
S 111,252.46
73,2.2..27
0
Printed on Recycled Paper
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 5-A
Mtg. Date: 03/14/16
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR Vn
THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER elitz
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2016-02. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION, GRADING, SWIMMING
POOL, PORCH, TRELLIS, AND WALLS AND VARIANCES FOR
ENCROACHMENT WITH PORTIONS OF THE ADDITIONS, WALLS AND A
LIGHTWELL INTO SETBACKS, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO EXCEED 2.5' AVERAGE HEIGHT OF
WALLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 888 AT 17 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH, (LOT 5 -
MR), IN THE OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT-OZD-1, (POST).
REQUEST AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
1. It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide
other direction to staff.
2. The property owners Mr. and Mrs. John Post applied for a Site Plan Review for a
1,055 square foot addition with 1,260 square foot basement, varying heights, but not to
exceed 5' high retaining walls, 492 square foot swimming pool with a spa, 100 square
foot covered porch, 180 square foot trellis; all of which require 1,510 cubic yards of
grading (incl. 150 c.y. for future stable and excavation from pool and basement); and
Variances to encroach with the entire front addition (395 sq.ft.) into the front 30'
setback, with 120 sq.ft. of the 660 sq. foot side addition into the side yard setback,
including with the basement below, with 125 sq.ft. new basement proposed under a
portion of the existing residence; to encroach with the walls and basement light well
into the side setback; to exceed the 2.5'required average height of retaining walls and to
exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot. Additionally, stairs and not to
exceed 3' high wall along the stairs will be constructed in the south side yard setback to
gain access into the rear of the pool area, construction of which is compliant with the
Zoning Ordinance and is allowed in setbacks.
The property received a condition with past approvals that any additional construction
or grading on the lot be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
3. The Planning Commission by a vote of 3-2 approved the project. The applicant
revised the project per the Commission's recommendation and removed stairs and wall
from the north easement area and also reduced the encroachment of the new addition
along the north side of the house to match the footprint of the existing encroachment.
They have also redesigned the rear patio area and reduced the number of walls in the
rear. Those Commissioners in favor of the project found that Middleridge Lane is a
unique street, where the properties are cut by the street; most homes have small
building pads, as the lots are steep in the rear; the aerial photo of the street showed that
most homes encroach into the already reduced front setback; the lot size is adequate to
accommodate the new addition and related walls and the pool and the lot will not look
overdeveloped; that development plan generally follows natural contours of the site to
the maximum extend practicable to accomplish groomed and usable areas of the lot.
The Commissioners also found that the applicants made great effort to address the
Commissioners' concerns.
Those Commissioners in opposition of the project found that the project is too massive
and crowded and does not meet the goals of the General Plan.
A "no further development without Planning Commission review" condition was
included in the resolution.
BACKGROUND
4. The property is located in the OZD-1 District (Overlay RAS-1 Zone) and is
divided by Middleridge Lane North along 130 foot street frontage. The OZD-1 zoning
was established within the RAS-1 district to allow modernization, reconstruction or
enlargement of homes located on unique lots generally characterized by steep terrain,
smaller than typical lots and smaller than typical homes in the City, lots that are
divided by a road and lots where redevelopment is difficult due to setback
requirements.
Properties in the OZD-1 are allowed reduced front yard setback for locating primary
structures, including attached garages, of 30' from the roadway easement line,
(elsewhere in the City the front yard setback is 50' from the roadway easement line). In
addition, if the existing residence encroaches into the side yard setback by no more than
10', the structure may be reconstructed within the same footprint. However, any new
addition must comply with the 20' side yard setback requirement. Other requirements
of this zone include: only one driveway is permitted and 60% of the front yard area
must be landscaped (Chapter 17.17 of the Zoning Ordinance).
ZC NO. 888
O
The gross lot area, including the street is 55,756 square feet, (1.28 acres), of which
approximately 22,520 square feet is located on the west side of Middleridge Lane North;
which is 40.3% of the gross lot area. The net lot area for development purposes is 36,943
square feet.
5. The subject property was originally developed with a 2007 square foot residence
and 527 square foot garage to up to 30' front yard setback. In 2003, with a modification
in 2004 a 1,153 square foot addition was approved with a Variance for encroachment of
portion of the addition into the front and side setbacks. In 2007 a variance was granted
to allow a trellis, seating wall and a barbeque to be located in the side setback.
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
6. The applicants request as follows: a Site Plan Review for a 1,055 square foot
addition to the existing residence, a 1,260 square foot basement, 100 square foot covered
porch, 240 square feet attached trellis, grading of 1,510 cubic yards of dirt to construct a
492 square foot pool (including spa and infinity over -flow feature), varying heights, but
not to exceed 5' high retaining walls to create terraced areas in the rear of the pool for
patios. The grading includes 225 c y cut and fill for future stable/corral and 585 cubic
yards for basement and pool excavation, of which 460 c.y. would be exported. The
request for Variances includes encroachment with the front addition (395 sq.ft.) into the
front 30' setback and with 190 sq.ft. of the 660 sq. foot side addition into the north side
yard setback. A new basement is proposed under a portion of the existing house, of
which 125 square feet would encroach into the north side yard setback (in line with
existing house encroachment); and 190 square feet of the basement would encroach into
the same setback, and be located under the new addition. Further, 46 sq.ft. of the
proposed light well would encroach 5.8' into the north side yard setback, and portions
of the retaining walls, including the retaining wall in the easement, would also encroach
into the north side yard setback. The retaining walls vary in height, but not exceed 5'.
However, they do not average out to 2.5' in height, and therefore require a variance.
With the future grading for the stable and corral the disturbance of the lot would be
50.4%, which also requires a variance.
7. Although the property is located in the OZD-1 zone, a Variance is required for
the encroachment with the additions, because the front addition of 395 sq.ft. is proposed
to encroach between 16' to 19' into the reduced 30' front yard setback; the side addition
is proposed to encroach up to 7.8' into the north side yard setback, and the new
basement would encroach between 5' and 7.8' into the north side setback.
8. The terraced patios below the swimming pool have been redesigned to include
two up to 5' high retaining walls between the terraces.
9. A 450 square foot future stable and corral location and access thereto was
approved with the previous applications and is proposed across from the main
residence off of Middleridge Lane North.
O
ZC NO. 888
Pursuant to Section 17.16.010 a lot divided by an improved roadway, for development
purposes, has two front yard setbacks of 50' from the roadway easement line; one on
each side of the road.
10. With the additions and future stable the structural coverage on the net lot would
be 6,448 square feet or 17.45% and with the allowed deductions 6,188 square feet or
16.75%, (max permitted 20%). The total lot coverage, structures and hardscape, would
be 11,558 square feet or 31.3%, (max. permitted 35%).
11. The residential building pad, outside the 30' front yard setback and with the
addition of the flat area behind the pool will be 7,920 square feet and the coverage will
be 5,398 square feet or 68.2%, which excludes the allowable deductions of the trellis,
barbeque and covered porch, (guideline - 30%). Currently the building pad coverage on
the existing 6,530 square foot residential building pad is 58.4%, and was previously
approved. The future stable pad would be 1,500 square feet and with a 450 square foot
stable the coverage would be 30%.
12. Grading for this project would entail 585 cubic yards excavation of dirt for the
basement and pool, of which 460 cubic yards is proposed to be exported. Grading for
the future stable is shown as 225 cubic yards total. Additionally, 700 cubic yards of
grading, including over excavation and compaction is required for the yard areas and
walls, for a total of 1,510 cubic yards of cut and fill.
13. The disturbed area of the lot is currently 44.7% and will increase to 50.4%, which
requires a variance. The resulting slopes behind the terraced yards will have 2:1
gradient.
14. Responding to the criteria to be satisfied for grant of a Variance, the applicants'
representative state in part that the proposed development is consistent with most
homes on Middleridge Lane North. The area is zoned OZD-1 because the existing .
conditions do not conform to the general city zoning. The lots along Middleridge lane
are narrow and are divided by the road, leaving very small building pads for
construction. The existing rear slope is extremely steep, up to 1.5:1 slope, and means
that in order to gain any flat area in the rear, retaining walls must be used, as typical
grading method would not work in this condition. In addition, in order to gain some
back yard and to "catch" the steep slope, the terraced walks with planters and the
retaining walls are necessary. Otherwise a very tall wall would be required.
She states that the existing residence already encroaches into the side and front setback
and they're proposing to further encroach. Encroaching into setbacks is necessary for
any significant improvement of the property. With planters and landscaping, the visual
impact of the project will be lessened.
The applicants state that there already exists a staircase along the north side of the yard
and that they would be relocating it.
ZC NO. 888 0
15. RHCA review and approval of the project is required.
16. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
17. The Planning Commission requested information regarding encroachments of
other homes along Middleridge Lane N. The applicant submitted information showing
that most of the homes along Middleridge Lane N. encroach to up to 30' front yard
setback (currently allowed in the OZD-1 district) and several encroach further than the
30' from roadway easement. In addition, many encroach into the side setbacks.
18. When reviewing a development application the City Council should consider
whether the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates
environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature
vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development
pattern in the immediate project vicinity; is in keeping with the desired development
pattern and character of the City; and otherwise preserves and protects the health,
safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. The City Council must also consider
the criteria for granting a Site Plan and Variances.
ZONING CASE NO. 888
SITE PLAN REVIEW &
VARIANCE
EXISTING
PROPOSED
RA -S- 1 SETBACKS - OZD-1
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
& GARAGE
ADDITIONS & POOL;
GRADING, RETAINING
WALLS
Front: 30 ft. from rd. easmnt. line
Side: 20 ft. from side property line
Rear: 50 ft. from rear property line
SPR required for additions, pool,
grading and walls;
Variance is required for
encroachment into setbacks, non-
conforming wall height & to
exceed max. permitted
disturbance
Residence
Garages
Pool/spa
Pool equip.
Stable
Attch. Porch-
Service yard
Trellis
BBQ
Basement
3105 sq.ft.
615 sq.ft.
0 sq.ft.
0 sq.ft.
0 sq.ft.
0 sq.ft.
96 sq.ft.
207 sq.ft.
53 sq.ft.
None
Residence
Garages
Pool/spa
Pool equip.
Stable -future
Attch porch-
Service yard
Trellis
BBQ
Attch trellis
Basement
4160 sq.ft.
615 sq.ft.
492 sq.ft.
35 sq.ft.
450 sq.ft.
100 sq.ft.
96 sq.ft
207 sq.ft
53 sq.ft.
240 sq.ft.
1260 sq.ft.
TOTAL
4,076 sq.ft.
TOTAL
6,448 sq. ft.
GRADING
N/A
Total of 1,510 c.y. of cut and
fill, incl. 585 c.y. excavation
for basement and pool. 225
c.y. for future stable. 700
c.y. over excavation and
compaction for the yard
and walls.
Site Plan Review required if
excavation and/or fill or
combination thereof that is more
than 3 feet in depth and covers
more than 2,000 sq. ft.). Must be
balanced on -site.
ZC NO. 888
STRUCTURAL LOT
11.03%; with deductions
10.33%%
17.45% of 36,943 s.f. net lot
area; w/allowances 16.75%
COVERAGE
(20% maximum)
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
19.7% w/allowances
31.3% or 11,558 sq.ft. of
36,943 sq.ft. net lot area;
with allowances
(35% maximum)
BUILDING PAD COVERAGE
6,530 sq.ft. pad w/58.4%
coverage
1500.sq.ft pad w/30% coverage
7,920 sq.ft. pad w/ 5,398
sq.ft. or 68.2% coverage
w/ deductions.
1500.sq.ft pad w/30%
coverage
(30% max. -guideline) Residential
Stable -future
DISTURBED AREA
44.7% previously disturbed
50.4% proposed -
Variance requested
(40% maximum; any graded
building pad area, any remedial
grading (temporary disturbance),
any graded slopes and building
pad areas, and any non -graded
area where impervious surfaces
exist.)
STABLE (min. 450 SO.FT.
Future 450 sq.ft. and adj. corral
Future 450 sq.ft. and corral
& 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL)
STABLE ACCESS
From Middleridge N.
From Middleridge N.
ROADWAY ACCESS
Existing driveway
Existing driveway
VIEWS
N/A
Planning Commission
review
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
N/A
Planning Commission
review
HOMES IN VICINITY:
Address
Lot size (excl. road easement)
House size
9 Middleridge Ln. N
49,600 sq.ft.
2,937 sq.ft.
11 Middleridge Ln. N
50,530 sq.ft.
3,960 sq.ft.
15 Middleridge Ln. N
44,000 sq.ft.
3,101 sq.ft.
19 Middleridge Ln. N.
49,220 sq.ft.
2,728 sq.ft
21 Middleridge Ln. N.
53,140 sq.ft.
3,777 sq. ft
22 Middleridge Ln. N
37,030 sq.ft.
2,257 sq.ft.
23 Middleridge Ln. N.
42,250 sq.ft.
Approved recently
3,837 sq.ft.
17 Middleridge Ln. N
49,220 sq.ft.
3,105 sq.ft. Proposed 4,160
VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone;
and
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is
ZC NO. 888
denied the property in question; and
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege;
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles
Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous
waste facilities; and
G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
11.46.010 Purpose.
The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain
development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is
consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically
sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent
with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and
otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills.
11.46.050 Required findings.
A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve,
conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application.
B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the
Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made:
1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and
all requirements of the zoning ordinance;
2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by
minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the
actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot;
3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding
residences;
4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible,
existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees,
drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls);
5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount
of grading required to create the building area;
6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such
flow is redirected into an existing drainage course;
7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these
elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural
character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between
private and public areas;
8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of
pedestrians and vehicles; and
9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
ZC NO. 888
Tuesday, January 19, 4:18:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: [GRAYMAIL] FW: Planning commission
Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 3:51:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: John Post <john_post@postinsurance.com>
To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net>
Yolanta:
If it is not too late I would like the e-mail below attached to our file for this evening. Mr. Johnson owns the lot
next door and he approves
of our revised project.
Thanks,
RECEIVED
ED
John Post JAN 19 2016
Original Message City of Rolling Hills
From: Steve Johnson(mailto:steveCdorecisionamc.com] By
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 3:12 PM
To: John Post
Subject: RE: Planning commission
John, Please forward on to Planning Commission.
To: Planning Commission
We support and approve the updated revision of the South side neighbor Post house remodel.
Steve A. Johnson (North Side Neighbor)
19 Middleridge Lane North Rolling Hills
Steve A. Johnson CEO
Precision Asset Management
22700 Crenshaw Blvd.
Torrance, CA 90505
Ph: (424) 203-7676
Fax: (424) 203-3050
Email: steve@orecisionamc.com
www.precisionamc.com
Privileged And Confidential Communication.
This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Ad (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this
electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying,
distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.
Pagel.
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR A SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION, GRADING, SWIMMING POOL,
PORCH, TRELLIS, AND WALLS AND VARIANCES FOR
ENCROACHMENT WITH PORTIONS OF THE ADDITIONS, WALLS
AND A LIGHTWELL INTO SETBACKS, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO EXCEED 2.5'
AVERAGE HEIGHT OF WALLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 888 AT 17
MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH, (LOT 5 -MR), IN THE OVERLAY
ZONING DISTRICT-OZD-1, (POST).
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. John Post for a Site
Plan Review for a 1,055 square foot addition with 1,260 square foot basement, varying
heights, but not to exceed 5' high retaining walls, 492 square foot swimming pool with a
spa, 100 square foot covered porch, 180 square foot trellis; 1,510 cubic yards of grading
(incl. 150 c.y. for future stable and excavation from the pool and basement); and
Variances to encroach with the front addition (395 sq.ft.) into the front 30' setback, with
120 sq.ft. of the 660 sq. foot side addition into the side yard setback, including with the
basement below, with 125 sq.ft. basement proposed under a portion of the existing
residence; to encroach with the walls and basement light well into the side setbacks; to
exceed the 2.5'required average height of retaining walls and to exceed the maximum
permitted disturbance of the lot. Additionally, stairs and not to exceed 3' high wall along
the stairs will be constructed in the south side yard setback to gain access into the rear of
the pool area, construction of which is compliant with the Zoning Ordinance.
The property received a condition with past approvals that any additional construction
or grading on the lot be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings
to consider the application on September 15, 2015, and at a field trip and at their regular
meeting on October 20, 2015, and on January 19, 2016. The applicants were notified of
the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard from all persons
interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff. The Planning
Commission reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants and their
representatives were in attendance at the meetings of the Planning Commission. Several
neighbors testified in support of the project.
Section 3. The property is located in the RAS-1 Overlay Zoning District
(OZD-1) of the City. The OZD-1 was established within the RAS-1 Zoning District to
ZC No. 888
allow modernization, reconstruction, or enlargement of homes located on unique lots
generally characterized by steep terrain, smaller than typical lots in the City, smaller
than typical homes in the City, lots that are divided by a road and lots where
redevelopment of the existing home is difficult due to setback requirements.
Properties in the OZD-1 are allowed a reduced front yard setback for locating primary
structures including attached garages to 30' from the roadway easement line. In
addition, an existing encroachment of not more than 10' into the side setback may be
reconstructed; however, any new construction must comply with the 20' side yard
setback requirement.
Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class
3 Exemption, pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA (California Environmental Quality
Act) Guidelines and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review.
Section 5. Section 17.46.030 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a development
plan to be submitted for Site Plan Review and approval before any structure, (with
exceptions), may be constructed. Section 17.46.020.A of the Municipal Code requires a
Site Plan Review for an addition exceeding 999 square feet, for grading, and walls
higher than 3 feet. With respect to the Site Plan Review applications for the
improvements subject to the requirements of the above listed Section, the Planning
Commission makes the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan and
surrounding uses because the proposed project complies with the General Plan
requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open
space between surrounding structures. The construction of the additions will occur in
an area previously graded and disturbed and new earthwork will be confined to
creating a larger pad for the construction of the pool and related retaining walls to
accommodate the building pad and access thereto. The lot size is adequate to
accommodate the new addition and related walls and the pool and not look
overdeveloped.
B. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state
of the lot because minimal grading is required for the pad to construct the swimming
pool and related terraced areas and the additions will utilize the existing level area of
the lot. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open
space on the property. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses,
buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot have been considered, and the
construction will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses,
buildings, or structures because the proposed improvements will be constructed on a
portion of the lot which is least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened
and landscaped with shrubs and trees and is of sufficient distance from nearby
ZC No. 888
residences so that the proposed project will not impact the view or privacy of
surrounding neighbors.
C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass
with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. The proposed project is
consistent with the scale of homes in the surrounding RA -S-1, OZD-1 similarly zoned
neighborhood. The proposed project entails additions to the living area with a
basement, a trellis, swimming pool, pool equipment area, and terraced walls, all of
which are common improvements throughout the City. The project site, with the
development, will be within the allowed structural coverage (17% proposed, max.
permitted 20%) and total coverage of the lot (32% proposed/35% maximum permitted).
D. The development plan generally follows natural contours of the site to the
maximum extend practicable to accomplish groomed and usable areas of the lot.
Natural drainage courses will not be affected by the project. Minimal grading is
proposed and therefore existing drainage channels are not anticipated to be impacted.
The project construction will not be located in a canyon or on existing slopes that exceed
25%.
E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience
and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed
development will utilize the existing driveway approach.
F. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and is exempt pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines.
G. The project preserves much of the existing vegetation including trees and will
supplement these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping. A landscaping plan will
be filed with the City.
Section 6. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code
permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property
and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from
making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the
same vicinity. A Variance is required from RHMC Sections 17.16.190F and 17.16.060(B)
because the project exceeds the allowed maximum average of wall height of 2.5 -feet and
the walls and basement light well would be located in side yard setback.
Additionally, a Variance to Section 17.17.030 is required because it states that every lot in
the RAS-1, OZD-1 zone shall have a front setback of not less than 30 feet from the
roadway easement and for new construction, 20 feet from the side property line. The
applicants request a Variance to construct an 395 square foot addition that would
encroach into the front 30' setback; 120 square feet of the 660 square foot addition to
ZC No. 888
encroach into the side setback, including the basement, and in addition, 125 square feet of
the basement proposed under a portion of the existing residence would encroach into the
side setback.
A Variance to Section 17.060.070B is also required because the maximum disturbed area is
not to exceed 40% and this project is proposed to exceed maximum disturbance with
50.41%.
With respect to this request for Variances, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to this property that do not apply generally to the other properties in the same
zone. The lots along Middleridge are narrow and are divided by the road, leaving very
small building pads for construction. For development purposes the road easement plus
additional 10' parallel to the road is deducted from the size of the lot; and for
Middleridge Lane properties that condition exists on both sides of the road, leaving a
smaller net lot area than lots where the road does not intersect the properties. Therefore
the disturbed area of the lot is measured against a smaller portion of the lot. The
exceedance of disturbance of the lot will result from future construction of the stable and
corral and is not related to the current project. The property is exceptional in that the
existing rear slope of the property is very steep, up to 1.5:1 slope, and in order to gain flat
area in the rear, retaining walls must be used, as typical grading methods would not
work in this condition. Additionally, in order to gain some back yard and to "catch" the
steep slope, the terraced walks with planters and retaining walls are necessary.
Otherwise a very tall wall would be required.
B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone,
but which is denied to the property in question. Strict application of the Zoning
Ordinance would deprive the property owner of the right and benefits enjoyed by
similarly situated properties in the same zone. The encroachment permits the use of the
lot to the extent allowed for other properties with similar lot configurations. The side
encroachment will be along the line of the current encroachment of the residence. The
property is located in the Overlay District of the City, where it has been determined the
lots are difficult to develop due to their configuration, size or steepness, and therefore
the front setbacks were reduced and side setback encroachment with existing structures
could remain and/or be reconstructed. The new addition along the line of the existing
encroachment will not be more intrusive or make the side look overdeveloped than
exists.
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the properties or improvements in such vicinity and zone
in which the property is located. Development in the front setback is in line with some
of the other properties along Middleridge Lane North and is in line with the existing
ZC No. 888 4
side setback encroachment. The structural lot coverage and the total impervious lot
coverage are within the requirements of the City. The area of additions or pool would
not impair views.
D. In granting of the Variance the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance
will be observed in that the proposed additions, pool and walls to create a patio area
will be orderly, attractive and shall protect the rural character of the community. The
proposed project will not encroach into potentially future equestrian uses on the
property. A suitable stable and corral area exists on the site.
E. The Variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of
Rolling Hills because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan
requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open
space between surrounding structures. The structural lot coverage and the total
impervious lot coverage are within the requirements of the City.
F. The variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles
Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous
waste facilities.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings the Planning Commission hereby
approves the Site Plan Review and Variance application in Zoning Case No. 888 for a
1,055 square foot addition with a 1,260 square foot basement, varying heights, but not to
exceed 5' high retaining walls, 492 square foot swimming pool with spa, 100 square foot
covered porch, and trellis; all of which require 1,510 cubic yards of grading; and
Variances to encroach with the front addition (395 square feet), into the front 30'
setback, with 120 square feet of the 660 square foot new addition and new basement,
and 125 square foot basement addition, under the existing residence; to encroach with
the walls and basement light well into the side setback; to exceed the 2.5' required
average height of the retaining walls and to exceed the maximum permitted
disturbance of the lot. Additionally, stairs and not to exceed 3' wall along the stairs will
be constructed in the south side yard setback to gain access into the rear of the pool
area, construction of which is compliant with the Zoning Ordinance.
A. The conditions of approval specified herein shall be printed on all
construction plans and shall be available at the construction site at all times.
B. The Site Plan Review and Variances approvals shall expire within two
years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this approval has
not commenced within that time period, as required by Sections 17.46.080(A) and
17.38.070(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise
extended pursuant to the requirements of those sections.
ZC No. 888
C. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any conditions
thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted
hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to
cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested,
has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period
of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination.
D. All requirements of the Building and Construction Code, the Zoning
Code, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with,
including the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, unless otherwise set forth in this approval,
or shown otherwise on an approved plan. All existing overhead utility lines serving the
subject property shall be undergrounded pursuant to Section 17.27.030.
E. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance
with the site plan on file dated February 2nd, 2016. Prior to submittal of final working
drawings to the Building and Safety Department for issuance of grading and/or
building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to City staff for
verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the
Planning Commission.
F. The licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for
Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform
in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth
therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance.
Further, the person obtaining a building and/ or grading permit for this project
shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed
according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith.
G. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association (RHCA).
H. Grading for the project shall not exceed a total of 1,510 cubic yards of cut
and fill, which includes future grading for a stable. No grading at this time shall be
conducted in the area set aside for a future stable. 585 cubic yards of dirt may be
exported from the excavation of the pool and basement. The resulting slopes shall not
exceed 2:1 gradient.
I. The proposed basement shall not exceed 1,260 square feet and shall meet
all requirements of the Los Angeles County Building Code for basements, including exit
doors and provision for light and ventilation.
ZC No. 888 6
A minimum of four -foot path and/or walkway, which does not have to be
paved, shall be provided around the entire perimeter of the structure, including the
basement. The basement light well wall shall not be exposed more than 5' above grade.
J. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 6,388 square feet or 17.3% of the
net lot area, in conformance with the zoning ordinance limit of 20%. Total lot coverage
of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 11,850 square feet, or 32.1%, which is in
conformance with the zoning ordinance limit of 35%.
K. The new infinity pool and spa shall not exceed 492 square feet in total
area. The pool equipment shall be screened; if by a solid wall, the wall shall not exceed
4 feet in height at any point from finished grade. Sound attenuating equipment shall be
installed to dampen the sound. The swimming pool and the spillway shall utilize the
most quiet and technologically advanced equipment to dampen the sound.
L. The disturbance of the net lot area shall not exceed 18,623 square feet of
surface area or 50.4%.
M. Residential building pad coverage on the new 7,920 square foot residential
building pad shall not exceed 5,758 square feet or 72.7%, which includes the
encroachment into the reduced front yard setback.
N. Should 5,000 square feet or more of existing landscaping be altered or new
landscaping introduced, the applicant shall be required to conform to the City of
Rolling Hills Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, Chapter 13.18 of the Municipal
Code.
O. The applicant shall submit to the City two copies of a landscaping and
irrigation plan prior to obtaining grading permit. All backfilled and graded areas as
well as the slope between the walls shall be vegetated utilizing to the greatest extent
feasible medium to large size native and drought resistant plants. Plants shall be
utilized, which are consistent with the rural character of the community and meet the
fire department requirements for fire resistant plants. Any trees and shrubs used in the
landscaping scheme for this project shall be planted in a way that will not result in a
hedge like screening and as not to impair views of neighboring properties but to screen
the project site.
P. Pursuant to Section 17.17.030, 60% of the remaining front yard area shall
be landscaped, as defined in Section 17.12.250 of the Zoning Ordinance and such area
shall be shown on the plans as landscaped area.
Q. Minimum of 50% of the construction material spoils shall be recycled and
diverted. The hauler shall provide the appropriate documentation to the City.
ZC No. 888
R. There shall be no dumping of any debris, trash, soil spoils, construction
materials or any other matter anywhere on the property. Further, perimeter easements
and trails, if any, shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be
limited to, driveways, fences -including construction fences, grading, stairs,
landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, play equipment, parked vehicles, building
materials, debris and equipment, except if permitted by the Rolling Hills Community
Association.
S. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule
and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the
hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and
mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet
residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills.
T. During construction, trucks shall not park, queue and/ or idle at the project
site or in the adjoining right-of-way before or after the permitted hours of operations.
To the maximum extent possible, staging of equipment and parking of vehicles during
construction shall be on site.
U. If required by the City's drainage engineer, the applicant shall submit a
detailed drainage plan. This project may be subject to the requirements of the City's
Low Impact Development portion of the Storm Water Management and Pollution
Control ordinance triggered where 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface is
reconstructed or added and/or the project is deemed hillside development.
V. No drainage device may be located in such a manner as to contribute to
erosion or in any way affect an easement, trail or adjacent properties. The energy
dissipaters, if required, shall be designed in such a manner as to not cross over any
equestrian trails or easements. The drainage system(s) shall not discharge water onto a
trail, shall incorporate earth tone colors, including in the design of the dissipater and
shall be screened from any trail and neighbors views to the maximum extent
practicable, without impairing the function of the drainage system.
W. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department requirements for the
installation and post construction maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities, and
their Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste and storm water
management, including erosion control measures.
X. The property owners shall comply with the LA County Public Health
Department requirements pertaining to septic sewer systems.
ZC No. 888
8 OD
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
Y. During construction, conformance with the air quality management
district requirements shall be complied with, so that people or property are not exposed
to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors.
Z. The property owner and/or his/her contractor/applicant shall be
responsible for compliance with the no -smoking provisions in the Municipal Code.
AA. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including
for clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can
be found at:
httpWwww.wrh.noaa.gov/Iox/main.php?suite=safety&page=hazard definitions#FIR
E. It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to
monitor the red flag warning conditions.
AB. The property on which the project is located shall contain a stable and
corral or a set aside area to provide an area meeting all standards for a stable, corral
with access thereto.
AC. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code, any modifications to the property or this project, which would
constitute additional grading, height or structural development shall require the
filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission.
AD. Until the applicants execute and record an Affidavit of Acceptance of all
conditions of this Site Plan Review and Variances approvals, as required by the
Municipal Code, the approvals shall not be effective.
AE. All conditions of the Site Plan Review and Variance approvals, that
apply, shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permit.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16 D RY 4 16.
ELF, CHAIRM
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
ZC No. 888
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-02 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A SUBSTANTIAL
ADDITION, GRADING, SWIMMING POOL, PORCH, TRELLIS, AND WALLS AND
VARIANCES FOR ENCROACHMENT WITH PORTIONS OF THE ADDITIONS,
WALLS AND A LIGHTWELL INTO SETBACKS, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
PERMI11lD DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO EXCEED 2.5' AVERAGE
HEIGHT OF WALLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 888 AT 17 MIDDLERIDGE LANE
NORTH, (LOT 5 -MR), IN THE OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT-OZD-1, (POST).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
February 16, 2016 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Cardenas, Kirkpatrick and Chairman Chelf.
NOES: Commissioners Gray and Smith.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
HEIDI LUCE
CITY CLERK
ZC No. 888
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 5-B
Mtg. Date: 03/14/16
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2016-04. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A DETACHED GARAGE, GRADING AND RETAINING
WALLS; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED
GARAGE; AND VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE
RESIDENCE IN THE FRONT SETBACK, A ONE -CAR PARKING PAD LESS THAN
30 FEET FROM THE ROADWAY EASEMENT LINE, GARAGE AND WALL
ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, OUT OF GRADE
CONDITION OF THE GARAGE, WALL THAT DOES NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2.5 -
FEET, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL AND TOTAL
COVERAGE AND THE DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT, IN ZONING CASE NO.
892, AT 3 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 58-EF), (BENNETT).
REQUEST AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
1. It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report including
Traffic Commission's recommendation to widen the driveway, or provide other
direction to staff.
2. The property owners Mr. and Mrs. Bennett, applied for a Site Plan Review for
minor grading to widen the existing driveway and create a one car parking pad and up
to 5' high retaining wall and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for replacement of the
existing detached 672 square foot garage with a new 704 square foot detached garage
and multiple variances. Variances is requested to construct a 195 sq. ft. addition to the
main residence of which 61 square feet would encroach 6'3" into the front setback, to
provide a new one -car parking pad, less than 30 feet from the roadway easement line
and a 5' high retaining wall that will not average out to 2.5' in height in the front setback,
to encroach 18' into the front yard setback with the detached garage, to exceed the
maximum permitted structural and total coverage of the lot and the disturbed area of the
lot, and to reconstruct the garage with an out of grade condition along the northeast side
of the garage.
3. The Planning Commission by a vote 5-0 approved the project, after the applicant
revised the plan to addressed the out -of -grade condition at the side and rear of the
proposed garage, and once the Commissioners received assurances from the applicant
that he would make every effort to retain a large pine tree at the front of the property,
adjacent to the newly proposed retaining wall. The Commission found that the revised
plan addresses the out -of -grade condition by screening it with two retaining corner
walls that will be a maximum of 5 -feet high, which will straddle the corner of the garage
and will average out to 2.5 feet; planting to screen this condition; providing a 4 -foot
planter and a 4' access path, and confirmed that a concerted effort will be made to retain
the pine tree in the front.
The Planning Commission found that the project is an improvement to the property,
especially the ingress/egress from the street; that it takes cars away from parking on a
very narrow and inaccessible area of Eastfield Drive; that the garage condition is existing
and the difference in size between the existing garage and the proposed garage is
minimal and that the addition to the house is also insignificant as it is under an existing
roof on a property where most of the house and garage encroach into the front setback.
Currently, the garage contains illegal guest/sleeping quarters, which will be eliminated
and entire structure used as a garage.
A "no further development without Planning Commission review" condition was
placed on the project.
BACKGROUND
4. The property is zoned RAS-1 and consists of 1.4 acres gross (60,984 sq. ft.) and
44,413 sq. ft. net lot area for development purposes. The property is located on the north
side of Eastfield Drive. The property is almost square shaped. The property is
characterized by a steep slope, descending from the southwest comer (front) diagonally
to northeast corner (rear). The topography in the front yard between the road edge and
house front wall has a drop of 18 feet. This project site is developed with a single family
residence, detached garage built in 1956 and tennis court.
5. Records show that in 1963 the Planning Commission granted a front yard
variance for an addition, waiving then required 30 foot front setback in favor of 23 -feet,
in recognition of the constraints of the steep terrain and fact that the detached garage
already encroached 7 feet into the then required 30' setback. In 1971 the Planning
Commission granted a variance for a tennis court, allowing the court to encroach into
the side yard setback.
ZC NO. 892
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
6. The property is developed with a 3,073 square foot residence, 672 square foot
garage and 510 square foot swimming pool on a 5,908 square foot building pad area
(outside setbacks). A 6,433 square foot tennis court is located in the rear of the property.
The existing garage will be demolished and replaced and a nonconforming animal pen
in the front yard setback will be removed. A 1,000 square foot area is proposed to be set
aside for a future stable and corral near the tennis court.
7. As existing the site has nonconforming structural coverage of 24.1% (20%
allowed) and with the proposal, this will increase to 25.9%, (which includes a future
stable). The existing total coverage is also nonconforming at 36.7% (35% allowed) and
this will be increased to 41.1%, requiring a variance.
8. The construction of a new garage and an addition of an enclosed front entry
within the standard 50 -foot front setback each require a new variance because the
current proposal exceeds the scope of the prior variance. The new garage will be 704
square feet (3 -car), detached and reoriented so that the access will be at the front, facing
Eastfield. By reorienting the garage, it will encroach 18' into the required 50' front
setback, for a total encroachment of 576 square feet. (Current garage encroaches 27' for a
total encroachment of 594 square feet). Behind the garage, a new service yard will be
built. In between the garage and front entry of the home, a paved entry courtyard will
be created leading to the proposed new 61 square foot enclosed entry.
9. The applicant's goal is to improve access and parking on the property. To
improve access, the driveway will be widened approximately 5 feet and the garage will
be reconstructed with increased setback and new orientation. To increase on -site
parking, a one -car motor court will be constructed within the front setback, 8 feet from
the roadway easement line, which requires a variance. Pursuant to Section 17.16.150 of
the Municipal Code parking areas must be located at least 30 feet from the roadway
easement line and the driveway and parking area may not cover, respectively, more than
20% and 10% of the front yard setback. The driveway will cover 11.5% and the parking
area will cover 9% of the front setback, which is conforming.
10. The applicant proposes to construct several retaining walls to create the new
motor court and to widen the driveway (to 17 feet wide at its narrowest point). Several
existing retaining and rubble walls will be removed. At the motor court a 5 -foot high
maximum retaining wall is required but the wall along the driveway will vary in height
to no more than 3 feet. The construction of the wall along the driveway complies with
the code, as up to 3' high walls are permitted along driveways.
11. The creation of the motor court and widened driveway involves minor grading,
including 21 cubic yards of earth that will be reused as fill under the new garage slab.
This grading will not alter the existing drainage patterns.
ZC NO. 892
12. The widening of the driveway requires review by the City's Traffic Commission,
which was approved on January 28, 2016. The project must also be reviewed by the
Rolling Hills Community Association.
13. The existing disturbed area is 38.9% of the net lot, (40% max.) and with this
proposal, due to the minor grading at the front, the disturbed area will increase (4.5%) to
43.4%, requiring a variance.
14. Coverage on the 5,908 square foot residential building pad (outside of setbacks)
will be increased from 72.4% to 85.8%. The guideline established by the Planning
Commission is a maximum pad coverage of 30%. Even though grading is being done at
the front, because it is within the setback, it does not increase the size of the building pad.
15. In accordance with Section 17.16.040 of the Municipal Code, a Conditional Use
Permit is required for a detached garage pursuant to the criteria and conditions in
17.16.210 as follows:
a. (Garage) shall not be located in the front yard or any setback.
b. A sink and toilet is permitted.
c. A kitchen or kitchenette shall not be permitted.
d. No sleeping quarters or renting of the structure shall be permitted.
e. The Planning Commission and/or the City Council shall have the ability to limit the
size of the detached garage in relationship to the size of the residence, topography, size
of the lot and other conditions.
The proposed garage will be in compliance with the above criteria except location within
the front yard and setback, which is included in the variance applications. No sleeping
quarters, or plumbing fixtures are proposed and the proposal is for a standard 3 -car
garage structure. An existing guest quarters within the existing garage will be
permanently removed.
CONCLUSION
16. When reviewing a development application the City considers whether the
proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates
environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature
vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development
pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the
health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. In addition, the Council must
determine if the project meets the Variance criteria enclosed with this report.
17. In reviewing this application, the City Council should consider the topography of
the property, lot size and/or shape and the location of the previously graded pad at the
front of the property, which limits site layout options.
ZC NO. 892
18. The owner has submitted the following as the basis for making findings to approve
the project:
Site Plan Review: 1) The proposed grading and retaining walls will be minor in amount
and degree and will not alter the existing character and residential use on the property or
of the surrounding neighborhood, nor will existing contours of the property be
significantly altered; 2) Existing landscaping will be preserved, and all otherwise native
vegetation on the property will be preserved.
Variances: 1) The proposed motor court, while within the front yard setback, will be
screened behind and at the bottom of a slope which is consistent with the natural
topography; 2) The proposed 5 -foot retaining wall in the front yard will blend with the
existing topography; 3) The encroachment of the garage into the front setback will be less
than the existing garage and is constrained by the location of the existing house and
building pad which, in turn is constrained by the steep topography both at the front and
towards the rear of the building pad; 4) The amount of new living area being added
within the front setback will not create any adverse visual bulk impacts because it will be
a relatively small area (61 square feet) and will not be visible from the street at the lot
front; 5) The lot coverage increase is relatively small compared to the amount of coverage
that is associated with the existing improvements, in particular, the existing 6,433 square
foot sports court; the amount of disturbed area exceedance proposed is relatively minor
and the purpose, to provide more onsite parking, and to widen the driveway will result in
better vehicle access.
Conditional Use Permit: Other than the requested variance for location, the detached
garage will comply with the development standards for detached garage.
19. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a minor addition to an existing
residence pursuant to Section 15301.e of the CEQA Guidelines.
ZC NO. 892
Z
V _ SITE PLAN REVIEW
EXISTING
PROPOSED
RA -S-1 ZONE SETBACKS
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE,
DETACHED GARAGE,
POOL, SPORT COURT
ADDITIONS, DETACHED
GARAGE, SERVICE YARD,
MOTOR COURT, GRADING
VARIANCES: FRONT
YARD, WALL HEIGHT,
DISTURBED AREA
Front: 50 ft. from front easement
line
Side: 20 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from property line
STRUCTURES
Residence
Garage
Stable(fut)
Service yd
Guest hse
Pool
Pool eqpm.
Sport court
Shed
3073 sq.ft
420 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
252 sq.ft
510 sq.ft
24 sq.ft.
6433 sq,ft
76 sq. ft.
Residence
Garage
Stable (fut)
Service yd
Guest hse
Pool/spa
Pool eqpm.
Sport court
Shed
3268 sq.ft
704 sq.ft
450 sq.ft.
109 sq.ft
0 sq.ft.
510 sq.ft.
24 sq.ft.
6433 sq.ft.
76 sq.ft.
(Site Plan Review required for new
structures, grading and if size of
the residence increases by more
than 999 sq. ft. in a 36 -month
period).
TOTAL
10,788
sq.ft.
TOTAL
11,574 sq.ft.
STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE
24.1%
25.9% of 44,413 sq.ft. net
lot area (with deductions)
(20% maximum)
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
36.7%
41.1% of 44,413 sq.ft. net lot
area (with deductions)
(35% maximum)
BUILDING PAD COVERAGE
72.4% of 5,908 sq.ft. pad
85.8% of 5,908 sq.ft. pad
(30% maximum guideline)
GRADING
N/A
21 cubic yards total, to be
balanced on site
Site plan review required if
excavation and/or fill or
combination thereof is more than 3
feet in depth and covers more than
2,000 sq. ft., must be balanced on
site
DISTURBED AREA
38.9% of lot
43.4% of lot
(40% maximum; any graded
building pad area, any remedial
grading (temporary disturbance),
any graded slopes and building
pad areas, and any nongraded
area where impervious surfaces
exist.)
STABLE (minimum 450 sq. ft.) and
Future
CORRAL (minimum 550 sq. ft.)
STABLE ACCESS
N/A
Future
ACCESSWAY
Existing from Outrider
Existing from Eastfield
VIEWS
N/A
Planning Commission
review
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
N/A
Planning Commission
review
ZC NO. 892
SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL CRITERIA
17.46.010 Purpose.
The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development
projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's
General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves
existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattem
in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of
the citizens of Rolling Hills.
17.46.050 Required findings.
A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally
approve, or deny a site plan review application.
B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission,
or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made:
1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of
the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance;
2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of
the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the
actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot;
3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural
terrain and surrounding residences;
4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest
extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature
trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls);
5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to
minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area;
6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage
flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course;
7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees
and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and
enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area
between private and public areas;
8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe
movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and
9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL CRITERIA:
17.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit.
The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use permit
application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the project is consistent with
the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and meets the provisions and intent of this title. In
making such a determination, the hearing body shall find that the proposed use is in general accord with
the following principles and standards:
A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan;
B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures
have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these
adjacent uses, building or structures;
C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to
accommodate the use and buildings proposed;
D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of
the zone district;
ZC NO. 892
E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities;
F. That the proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this title.
VARIANCE APPROVAL CRITERIA
17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make
the following findings:
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone;
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in
question;
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity;
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed;
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant;
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous
Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and
G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance
ZC NO. 892
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A
DETACHED GARAGE, GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS; A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE;
AND VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE IN
THE FRONT SETBACK, A ONE -CAR PARKING PAD LESS THAN 30 FEET
FROM THE ROADWAY EASEMENT LINE, GARAGE AND WALL
ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, OUT OF GRADE
CONDITION OF THE GARAGE, WALL THAT DOES NOT AVERAGE OUT TO
2.5 -FEET, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL AND
TOTAL COVERAGE AND THE DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT, IN ZONING
CASE NO. 892, AT 3 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 58-EF), (BENNETT).
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Bennett with respect to real
property located at 3 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 58-EF) requesting a Site Plan Review
for grading (21 c.y.) to widen the existing driveway and create a one car parking pad and up to
5' high retaining walls and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for replacement of the existing
detached 672 square foot garage with a new 704 square foot detached garage and variances
that include: 1) to construct a 195 square foot addition to the main residence of which 61 sq. ft.
would encroach 6'3" into the front setback, 2) to provide a new one -car parking pad, less than
30 feet from the roadway easement line, 3) to encroach 18' into the front yard setback with the
detached garage, 4) to exceed the maximum permitted structural and total coverage of the lot
and the disturbed area of the lot, 6) to locate 5' high retaining wall in the front setback, that
will not average out to 2.5' in height and 7) to reconstruct the garage with an out of grade
condition.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to
consider the application at a regular meeting on December 15, 2015 and January 19, 2016 and
at a field trip to the property on January 19, 2016. Several neighbors were present at the
meetings, and one neighbor was present at the field trip. The applicant was notified of the
public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all
persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the
Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicant's
representative was in attendance at the hearings.
Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-1 and consists of 1.4 acres gross (60,984 sq. ft.)
and 44,413 sq. ft. net lot area for development purposes. The property is located on the north
side of Eastfield Drive. The property is almost square shaped. The property is characterized by
a steep slope, descending from the southwest corner (front) diagonally to northeast corner
Reso. 2016-04
3 Eastfield Drive
10
(rear). The topography in the front yard between the road edge and house front wall has a
drop of 18 feet, or a 69% downslope. This project site is developed with a single family
residence and detached garage built in 1956.
In 1963 the Planning Commission granted a front yard variance for an addition,
waiving the then required 30 foot front setback in favor of 23 -feet, in recognition of the
constraints of the steep terrain and fact that the detached garage already encroached 7 feet into
the 30' setback. In 1971 the Planning Commission granted a variance for a tennis court,
allowing the court to encroach into the side yard.
Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3
Exemption, and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 5. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for Site
Plan Review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or any building or
structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing
buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the
building or structure by more than 999 square feet in any thirty-six (36) month period. With
respect to the Site Plan Review application requesting grading and construction of a new
detached garage, grading, and retaining walls, the Planning Commission makes the following
findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning
Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General
Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open
space between surrounding structures. The homes in the neighborhood are similar in size to
the proposed home on smaller lots. As existing the site has nonconforming structural coverage
and existing total coverage already and with the proposal the increase for both will be
minimal. The proposed grading and retaining walls will be minor in amount and degree and
will not alter the existing character and residential use on the property or of the surrounding
neighborhood, nor will existing contours of the property be significantly altered. Existing
landscaping will be preserved including one large pine tree in the front yard, and all otherwise
native vegetation on the property will be preserved and the walls screened.
B. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state
of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structure will not cause the lot to
look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain
open space on the property. The proposed motor court, while within the front yard setback,
will be screened behind and at the bottom of a slope, which is consistent with the natural
topography. The proposed retaining wall in the front yard will blend with the existing
topography. The encroachment of the garage into the front setback will be less than the
existing garage encroachment and is constrained by the location of the existing house and
building pad, which, in turn is constrained by the steep topography both at the front and
towards the rear of the building pad. The amount of new living area being added within the
Reso. 2016-04
3 Eastfield Drive
front setback will not create any adverse visual bulk impacts because it will be a relatively
small area, is under an existing overhang and will not be visible from the street at the lot front.
C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass
with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. The lot and house are similar to
adjacent lots and residences and the garage will be screened via a retaining wall and
landscaping on the side and rear.
D. The development plan incorporates existing trees and is screened from other
properties and the road by existing vegetation, which will be preserved. Every attempt will be
made to retain a large existing pine tree in the front setback close in proximity to the proposed
retaining wall.
E. The development plan follows to the maximum extent practicable contours of the
site to minimize grading and retain the natural drainage courses. The proposed grading and
retaining walls will be minor in amount. The dirt from the excavation of the small parking
pad will be utilized to construct the retaining wall surrounding the new garage, so that
grading will be balanced on site. The graded areas will be landscaped.
F. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience
and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the existing driveway will be
utilized and the new driveway configuration will promote safety as it will allow residents to
drive directly into the garage from the street. The proposed parking pad and space will allow
more parking on -site as the site is currently constrained for on -site parking.
G. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act and is exempt.
Section 6. Section 17.16.210(A)(4) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits
approval of a detached garage under certain conditions, provided the Planning Commission
approves a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant is requesting to construct a 704 square foot
detached garage. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning
Commission finds as follows:
A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for construction of the garage structure
would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General
Plan because the use is consistent with similar uses in the community and is a permitted use
with a CUP. The area proposed for such structure would not require substantial grading, and
such use will not make the lot overdeveloped. The proposed detached garage is in the same
location as the existing detached garage and in a location best suited for the garage, as there is
no other area to place a garage. The proposed location will not interfere with the location of
the tesidence.
B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and
structures have been considered, and the detached structure will not adversely affect or be
Reso. 2016-04
3 Eastfield Drive
3 ®
materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the side and rear
portions of proposed use will be partially screened from view by a retaining wall and
landscaping and is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the structure will not
impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. The out -of -grade condition of the
proposed garage will be buffered with a retaining wall and landscaping to soften the impact.
C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and
surrounding residences because the detached garage structure will comply with the low
profile residential development pattern of the community, there is adequate area on the
property to construct such a 450 square foot stable, and the project would not take away an
area for equestrian development in the future.
D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development
standards of the zone district as approved by this Resolution, because it is a permitted use
under the Municipal Code.
Section 7. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code
permit approval of a Variance granting relief from the standards and requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property
prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by
similar properties in the same vicinity or zone.
A Variance is required from RHMC Sections 17.16.190F, 17.16.080 and 17.16.060 because the
project exceeds the allowed maximum average of wall height of 2.5 -feet of both the free
standing wall and the walls of the proposed garage and the front parking pad wall, portion of
the residence addition and portion of the detached garage would be located in setbacks.
A Variance to Section 17.060.070 is also required because the maximum disturbed area is not to
exceed 40% and this project is proposed to exceed maximum disturbance with 43.4%, and the
proposed total structural and total lot coverage area would exceed the allowed amounts with
an increase from 24.1% to 25.9% where 20% maximum is allowed for structural coverage, and
an increase from 36.7% to 41.1% where 35% maximum total lot coverage is allowed.
With respect to the aforementioned requests for Variances, the Planning Commission
finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions on the subject property as
follows:
Regarding requested variance relating to the height and encroachment into the setback
for the proposed retaining wall: the proposed 5 -foot retaining wall in the front yard will match
the upward slope and will blend in with the natural slope and will not be seen from the street.
The sloping condition at the front of the lot in this area makes a retaining wall necessary to
protect the proposed new outdoor car -port. The addition, of which 61 square feet will
encroach into the front setback is minimal, given that almost half of the residence and most of
the existing garage encroach into the front setback due to the configuration and steepness of
the lot. The addition will be almost entirely under an exiting roof line and not visible from the
street. The encroachment of the proposed garage will follow the same footprint as the existing
Reso. 2016-04
3 Eastfield Drive
4
garage, but 7 feet less and will provide safer ingress and egress onto the property. The out of
grade condition of the proposed garage will be within the footprint of the existing garage and
will not be exacerbated by the new construction. The steepness and configuration of the lot
makes it impossible to meet the code requirement and provide for a garage on the lot. The
visual impact of the out of grade condition of the garage will be mitigated by the construction
of a terraced wall and landscaping in front of this condition.
Regarding the requested variances from Section 17.16.070, relating to maximum
structural and total lot coverage limits and disturbance of the lot: the property is uniquely
constrained by an existing tennis court on the property, and by the steep topography both at
the front and the rear of the building pad. The lot coverage is relatively small compared to
the amount of coverage that is associated with the improvements, specifically the existing
6,433 square foot sports court. The proposed additional disturbance to provide more on -site
parking, and to widen the driveway is minimal and will result in better vehicle access. To the
maximum extent practicable the proposed development works within and follows the
existing conditions on the lot.
B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zone but which is
denied to the property in question by strict application of the code. The property right which
otherwise would be enjoyed is the ability to utilize a portion of the front yard for on -site
parking, and superior access and entry/exit to the garage than currently exists.
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the properties or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the
property is located in that the proposed on -site parking space and reconfigured garage access
increases safety to the residents and neighborhood as it allows for direct access from the
street. Further, the increased on -site parking is necessary as parking on Eastfield Drive is
greatly needed and constrained on this stretch of the road. Additionally, the improvements
to the property (additional parking space, retaining wall, residential addition, and garage)
will not be easily viewed from adjacent properties, and the street and visual impacts are
minor. To the maximum extent practicable the proposed development works within and
follows the existing conditions on the lot and therefore will not be materially or otherwise
detrimental to the public.
D. In granting of the Variance the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be
observed in that the proposed parking pad, retaining wall, and garage, and small residential
addition construction will be orderly, attractive, and while the garage has an out -of -grade
condition, it will be buffered and mediated with landscaping and a wall to ensure it will not
affect the rural character of the community. The subject property retains a suitable stable and
corral set -aside area and the proposed garage and addition will not impact use of these
existing structures.
E. The Variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling
Hills because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low
Reso. 2016-04
3 Eastfield Drive
profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding
structures.
F. The Variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles
Hazardous Waster Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste
facilities.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings in Sections 5, 6, and 7, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application, Conditional Use Permit and
Variances in Zoning Case No. 892 for minor grading and construction of a residence addition,
a detached garage, a new one -car parking space, and retaining walls as shown on the Site Plan
dated January 29, 2016 subject to the following conditions:
A. The conditions of approval specified herein shall be printed on all construction
plans and shall be at all times available at the construction site.
B. The Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance approvals shall
expire within two years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this
approval has not commenced within that time period, as required by Sections 17.46.080(A),
17.42.070(A) and 17.38.070(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is
otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of those sections.
C. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any conditions thereof
are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall
lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the
opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter
the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of
the City's determination.
D. All requirements of the Building and Construction Code, the Zoning Code, and
of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with, including the
Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, unless otherwise set forth in this approval, or shown otherwise
on an approved plan. All existing overhead utility lines serving the subject property shall be
undergrounded pursuant to Section 17.27.030.
E. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the
site plan on file dated January 29, 2016
F. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for
plan check and construction review must conform to the development plan approved with this
application. In addition, prior to submittal of final plans to the Building Department for
issuance of building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to staff for verification
that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission.
The licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for
Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all
Reso. 2016-04
3 Eastfield Drive
6 14
respects to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth therein and
the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance.
Further, the person obtaining a building and/ or grading permit for this project shall
execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to
this Resolution and any plans approved therewith.
G. Grading shall not exceed a total of 21 cubic yard of cut and fill, which includes
the creation of a one -car motor court, to widen the driveway, and to mediate the out -of -grade
condition of the garage, and shall be balanced on site. Cut and fill slopes shall not exceed
steepness as shown on the development plan dated January 29, 2016. Prior to the issuance of
grading or building permits, a landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Department
H. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 11,574 square feet or 25.9% of the net lot
area, (excluding 76 sq.ft. allowed ancillary detached structures).
I Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 18,241 square
feet, including the widened driveway and the motor court or 41.1% of net lot area (with
deductions).
J. The retaining wall along the motor court and driveway may not exceed 5 feet in
height at any one point from the finished grade. The retaining walls flanking the detached
garage may not exceed 5 feet in height, sloping to 0 feet, with 2.5 feet average, for
approximately 54 feet in length total.
K. The disturbance of the net lot shall not exceed 19,260 square feet of surface area
or 43.4%.
L. Residential building pad coverage on the 5,908 square feet residential building
pad shall not exceed 85.8%. The stable/sports court building pad shall remain at 7,790 square
feet with coverage or 82.6%, which includes the sports court.
M. A minimum of four -foot level path and/or walkway, which does not have to be
paved, shall be provided around the entire perimeter of the garage.
N. There shall be no sleeping quarters, temporary occupancy or any cooking
facilities in the detached garage. The detached garage shall not exceed 704 square feet as
measured from the outside walls, and may contain a toilet and a sink.
O. Should the detached garage as specified on the approved plan be converted to
another use, without required approvals, the permit granting the detached garage may be
revoked, pursuant to Chapter 17.58, and the structure may have to be removed at the cost of
the property owner.
Reso. 2016-04
3 Eastfield Drive
7 s
P. A fuel modification plan, a landscape plan, and an irrigation plan prepared by a
registered landscape architect, landscape designer, landscape contractor, or an individual with
expertise acceptable to the forestry division of the fire department shall be submitted and
approved by the City, including for screening of the north eastern portions of the detached
garage. •
Q. All graded areas shall be vegetated utilizing to the greatest extent feasible
mature native and drought resistant plants. Plants shall be utilized, which are consistent with
the rural character of the community and meet the fire department requirements for fire
resistant plants. Any trees and shrubs used in the landscaping scheme for this project shall be
planted in a way that will not result in a hedge like screening and as not to impair views of
neighboring properties but to screen the project site.
R. Every effort will be made to retain the large existing pine tree at the front of the
property that is shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department on January 29,
2016.
S. The property owners shall be required to conform to the City of Rolling Hills and
RHCA roofing material standards, Outdoor Lighting Standards, as well as all other
requirements of the Municipal Code.
T. Minimum of 50% of the construction material spoils shall be recycled and
diverted. The hauler must be licensed by the City, must have the appropriate insurance and
must provide the appropriate documentation to the City.
U. There shall be no dumping of any debris, trash, soil spoils, construction materials
or any other matter into the canyons.
V. The property lines, easement lines and setbacks, where possible, in the vicinity of
the areas of construction, shall be delineated during the entire duration of the construction and
no grading, construction or storage of any objects including building materials shall take place
in the easement, unless approved by the RHCA.
W. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and
regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM
and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment
noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of
Rolling Hills.
X. During grading and construction operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or
idle at the project site or in the adjoining right-of-way before or after the permitted hours of
operations. To the maximum extent possible, staging of equipment and parking of vehicles
during construction shall be on site.
Reso. 2016-04
3 Eastfield Drive 8
Y. The contractors and subcontractors are to encourage their employees to car-pool
into the City.
Z The applicant shall comply with requirements for bonding for grading and all
other requirements resulting from the review of the soils and geology reports.
AA. No drainage device may be located in such a manner as to contribute to erosion
or in any way affect an easement, trail or adjacent properties.
AB. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district
requirements shall be complied with, so that people or property are not exposed to undue
vehicle trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors. The grading activities shall be watered on a
daily basis, or more often, if necessary.
AC. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices
(BMPs) related to solid waste and storm management, including post construction
maintenance of stormwater facilities.
AD. An Erosion Control Plan, if required by the building department, shall be
prepared to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control storm water
pollution as required by the Code.
AE. The property owner and/or his/her contractor/applicant shall be responsible
for compliance with the no -smoking provisions in the Municipal Code.
AF. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for
clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be found
at: http;//www.wrh.noaa.gov/Iox/main.php?suite=safety&page=hazard definitions#FIRE. It
is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red
flag warning conditions.
AG. Until the applicants execute and record an Affidavit of Acceptance of all
conditions of this Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance approvals, as
required by the Municipal Code, the approvals shall not be effective.
AH. All conditions of the Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Variance
approvals, that apply, shall be complied with prior to the issuance of grading or building
permit.
AI. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code, any future modifications to the property or to this project, which would
constitute additional grading, height or any structural development shall require the filing
of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission.
Reso. 2016-04
3 Eastfield Drive
9 01
AJ. 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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16th DAY OF� 6.
ELF, C RM
ATTEST: .
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
Reso. 2016-04
3 Eastfield Drive 10
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-04 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A
DETACHED GARAGE, GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS; A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE;
AND VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE IN
THE FRONT SETBACK, A ONE -CAR PARKING PAD LESS THAN 30 FEET
FROM THE ROADWAY EASEMENT LINE, GARAGE AND WALL
ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, OUT OF GRADE
CONDITION OF THE GARAGE, WALL THAT DOES NOT AVERAGE OUT TO
2.5 -FEET, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL AND
TOTAL COVERAGE AND THE DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT, IN ZONING
CASE NO. 892, AT 3 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 58-EF), (BENNETT).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on February 16,
2016 the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Cardenas, Gray, Kirkpatrick and Chairman Chelf.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Smith.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
eil-etaiSa
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
Reso. 2016-04
3 Eastfield Drive 11
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310)377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 6-A
Mtg. Date: 03/14/16
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
NATALIE C. KARPELES, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
CONSIDERATION OF TWO VERSIONS OF AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REGARDING PROPOSED
ADDITIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO THE ROLLING HILLS
MUNICIPAL CODE TO REGULATE THE CULTIVATION AND
DISPENSATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA IN ZONING CASE NO.
899 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2016-01.
DATE PUBLISHED: MARCH 3, 2016
ATTACHMENTS:
A) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016-01 (p. 9-16)
B) AN ORDINANCE prohibiting all cultivation, dispensation and
mobile dispensation of medicinal marijuana within the City; deliveries
by either fixed dispensaries operating outside the City or primary
caregivers to qualified patients/primary caregivers within the City are
permitted (p. 17-22)
C) AN ORDINANCE prohibiting all commercial cultivation,
dispensation and mobile dispensation of medical marijuana in the City;
and permitting non-commercial cultivation of medical marijuana for
personal use as well as deliveries by either fixed dispensaries operating
outside the City or primary caregivers to qualified patients/primary
caregivers within the City (p. 23.30)
RECOMMENDATION
Determine whether to adopt either of the Ordinances, or direct staff to prepare some
other draft ordinance amendment regulating the cultivation and dispensation of
0
medical marijuana within the City. Once determined, waive full reading and introduce
on first reading the ordinance selected for discussion/adoption.
BACKGROUND
Under federal law, the distribution of marijuana remains a federal offense. However,
the federal government has traditionally relied on state and local authorities to address
marijuana activities through strong state -based enforcement efforts. California is one of
two dozen states that have legalized marijuana for medical use; yet the recreational use
of marijuana is still unlawful in our state. In order to allow persons in need of medical
marijuana to use it without fear of prosecution, California approved the Compassionate
Use Act (CUA) in 1996. Similarly, in 2004, California approved the Medical Marijuana
Program (MMP) to clarify the scope of the CUA and to provide limited protection
under the law for the cultivation of marijuana for qualifying patients and primary
caregivers.
However, even though the CUA and MMP provide limited immunity from specified
State marijuana laws, this immunity does not grant any land use rights or create the
right to maintain a public nuisance? In 2010 and 2011, the MMP was amended to
recognize the authority of counties and cities to "[a]dopt local ordinances that regulate
the location, operation or establishment of a medical marijuana cooperative or
collective" and to civilly and criminally enforce such ordinances. Moreover, in 2013 the
Court of Appeal affirmed the ability of local government entities to prohibit the
cultivation of marijuana under its land -use authority, holding that "there is no right -
and certainly no constitutional right - to cultivate medical marijuana..."2
On October 9, 2015, Governor Brown signed three bills into law - Assembly Bills 266
and 243, and Senate Bill 643 - collectively referred to as the Medical.Marijuana
Regulation and Safety Act ("MMRSA"). Prior to the passage of the MMRSA, State law
provided no legal mechanism for commercial cultivation of marijuana for medicinal
purposes and Federal law prohibited all cultivation of marijuana. Until the MMRSA
was passed, cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purposes in California was restricted
to individual qualified patients or their primary care givers for non-commercial
purposes and limited to personal quantities. The MMRSA became effective on January
1, 2016 and contains provisions that govern the cultivating, processing, transporting,
testing, and distributing of medical marijuana to qualified patients. The MMRSA also
contains new statutory provisions that:
• Set up a "dual licensing" scheme which requires dispensaries and cultivators to
obtain a local license prior to requesting and obtaining a license from the State;
no dispensary or cultivation activity may lawfully operate without both a State
and local license.
I See City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Ca1.4'" 729
2 Mara! v. City of Live Oak (2013) 221 Cal.App.4'" 975
t.
• Identify a new business model for the distribution of marijuana: "mobile
dispensaries." Mobile dispensaries involve the commercial transportation of
medical marijuana to qualified patients or caregivers by a dispensary or via any
technology platform, which may be independently licensed or owned by the
dispensary. According to the provisions of the MMRSA, mobile dispensaries
must be expressly identified and banned in order to be prohibited.
• Allow the City to completely prohibit the delivery of marijuana by requiring a
local government that wishes to prevent marijuana delivery activity from
operating within the local government's boundaries to enact an ordinance
affirmatively banning such delivery activity (see Business & Professions Code §§
19300.5 (m) & 19340(a)).
• Preserves the ability of a qualified patient and/or primary caregiver to cultivate
for personal, non-commercial purposes, sets new limits on such cultivation, and
excludes such personal cultivation from State cultivation licensing requirements.
Furthermore, the MMRSA allows local governments to enact ordinances
expressing their intent to prohibit the cultivation of marijuana and their intent
not to administer a conditional permit program for the cultivation of marijuana
(see Health & Safety Code § 11362.777(c)(4)).
• Expressly provide that the MMRSA does not supersede or limit local law
enforcement activity, enforcement of local ordinances, or enforcement of local
permit or licensing requirements regarding marijuana (see Bus. & Prof. Code §
19315(a)).
• Expressly provide that the MMRSA does not limit the authority or remedies of a
local government under any provision of law regarding marijuana, including but
not limited to local governments' right to make and enforce within its limits all
police regulations not in conflict with general laws (see Bus. & Prof. Code §
19316(c)).
Commercial medical marijuana activities, as well as cultivation for personal medical use
as contemplated by the Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program,
can adversely affect City residents. Several California cities have reported negative
impacts of marijuana cultivation, processing and distribution activities. For instance,
within the Counties of Los Angeles and Orange, mobile dispensaries have been the
targets of armed robbers seeking cash and drugs. As a result, many drivers reportedly
carry weapons or have armed guards as protection, although sometimes to no avails. In
the City of Oakland, the cultivation and processing of medical cannabis has resulted in
damages to buildings containing indoor medical cannabis cultivation facilities; such
damages include improper and dangerous electrical alternations and use, inadequate
ventilation leading to mold and mildew, as well as an increase in the frequency of
home -invasion robberies and similar crimes. Unlike indoor cultivation, exterior
3 For instance, in June of 2011, a marijuana delivery from a Los Angeles mobile dispensary turned deadly in
Orange County when four individuals reportedly ambushed the mobile dispensary driver and his armed
security guard and tried to rob them. One of the suspects approached the delivery vehicle and confronted the
driver and a struggle ensued. A second suspect, armed with a handgun, approached the security guard, who
fired at the suspect hitting him multiple times.
cultivation activities require large amounts of space and, if operated by a number of
primary caregivers, collectives and cooperatives, may result in a large quantity of plants
being cultivated on a single parcel of land. As these "crops" begin to flower, they
produce a strong odor that is detectable far beyond the property boundaries. Not only
is the odor of flowering marijuana plants offensive, it also alerts persons to the location
of the valuable plants and creates an increased risk of nuisance activity, including
crime.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 19, 2016 and adopted
Resolution No. 2016-01 recommending that the City Council amend the Municipal
Code in this matter. The Planning Commission resolution provides that delivery of
marijuana, with certain conditions, is allowed and that any cultivation, including for
non-commercial use is banned. This language is incorporated into version one of the
ordinances for consideration by the City Council. During the time the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on this matter there was an urgency to adopt an
ordinance by March 1, 2016, if the City wished to control any of the activities related to
marijuana cultivation and dispensing. However, just prior to March 1, 2016, the
Governor signed a bill removing the urgency. The City Attorney suggests that
regulations be adopted to take advantage of the fact that under the new law cities could
regulate such activities, or be regulated by the State.
As stated before, due to the urgency, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution
recommending amending the Zoning Ordinance prohibiting cultivation of medical
marijuana for personal use, members of the Planning Commission expressed concern
with such prohibition, but felt that this provision could be amended at a future date.
Given that the urgency to adopt an ordinance no longer exists, the City Attorney's office
prepared another version of the ordinance addressing Planning Commission concerns.
This is the reason why staff has brought forth two ordinances for City Council's
consideration; one as adopted (by Resolution) by the Planning Commission, prohibiting
cultivation of marijuana for any personal use and another permitting cultivation for
personal medicinal purposes.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED REVISIONS
Until now, the City's land use regulations were not required to expressly prohibit
commercial cultivation of medicinal marijuana because it was not legal pursuant to
State or Federal law and because such commercial cultivation is not recognized as a
specifically allowed use in the City's land use districts. Prior to the effective date of this
new law, the cultivation, processing and distribution of medical marijuana in the City is
prohibited to the extent such activities are prohibited by the Federal Controlled
Substances Act, or other law.
Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (the City's Zoning Ordinance) lists
specifically permitted uses within the City's various zones. As medical marijuana
dispensaries are not permitted by right or with a conditional use permit, they are
prohibited. Because the Rolling Hills Municipal Code does not currently expressly and
separately prohibit the cultivation of marijuana or the delivery of marijuana within the
City, Title 17 has historically been applied to prohibit or preclude these types of
activities. In order to ensure full local control over regulation of commercial cultivation
of marijuana for medicinal purposes in the City is preserved, the MMRSA contains
language that requires cultivation and delivery services to be expressly prohibited by
local ordinance, if the City wishes to do so.
Attached to this Memorandum are two proposed Ordinance amendments; the first
version is as was adopted by the Planning Commission recommending that the City
Council amend the Zoning Ordinance by adding Chapter 17.29 to Title 17, as well as
proposed amendments to sections 17.08.050 and 17.16.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code in order to impose an express ban on marijuana cultivation, dispensaries, and
deliveries made within the City from mobile dispensaries operating without a fixed
dispensary address. The second version is a draft ordinance, identical to the first in
imposing an express ban on marijuana dispensaries and deliveries made within the City
from mobile dispensaries operating without a fixed dispensary address; however, it
would allow for limited personal cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purposes.
If adopted by the City Council, these ordinances will:
Version one
Version two
Prohibit any cultivation, delivery (by any
Prohibit the commercial cultivation, delivery
mobile marijuana dispensary that does not
(by any mobile marijuana dispensary that does
have a fixed storefront and which operates
not have a fixed storefront and which operates
solely as a mobile retail outlet which
solely as a mobile retail outlet which
transports or delivers, or arranges the
transports or delivers, or arranges the
transportation or delivery of marijuana), and
transportation or delivery of marijuana), and
distribution of marijuana in all zones within
distribution of marijuana in all zones within
the City by expressly listing them as a non-
the City by expressly listing them as a non -
permitted uses
permitted uses
Add Chapter 17.29 to Title 17 ("Zoning") of
Add Chapter 17.29 to Title 17 ("Zoning") of
the Rolling Hills Municipal Code to
the Rolling Hills Municipal Code to
extensively regulate the delivery, cultivation
extensively regulate the delivery, cultivation
and dispensing of marijuana within the City.
and dispensing of marijuana within the City.
Specifically, Chapter 17.29 will:
Specifically, Chapter 17.29 will:
(1) Prohibit mobile marijuana dispensaries
(1) Prohibit mobile marijuana dispensaries
from operating within the City;
from operating within the City;
(2) Expressly prohibit deliveries of
(2) Expressly prohibit deliveries of
marijuana by mobile dispensaries without
marijuana by mobile dispensaries without
a fixed storefront, both within the City, as
a fixed storefront, both within the City, as
well as deliveries to and from the City;
well as deliveries to and from the City;
(3) Expressly prohibit the cultivation of
marijuana for commercial purposes
anywhere in the City, unless preempted by
state or federal law;
(4) Regard any violation of the ordinance
to be a nuisance subject to summary
abatement, and/or administrative citation,
among other enforcement remedies; and
(5) Expressly prohibit the cultivation of
marijuana by any person (including
qualified patients and primary caregivers)
anywhere in the City, unless preempted by
state or federal law.
(3) Expressly prohibit the cultivation of
marijuana for commercial purposes
anywhere in the City, unless preempted by
state or federal law;
(4) Regard any violation of the ordinance
to be a nuisance subject to summary
abatement, and/or administrative citation,
among other enforcement remedies; and
(5) Permit the cultivation of medical
marijuana for personal use only when
conducted in conformance with the
following specific standards:
(a) Only qualified patients and/or
primary caregivers may cultivate, and
only then may cultivate pursuant to
square footage parameters outlined by
State law;
(b) Only persons who reside on the
parcel full-time may cultivate on that
parcel;
(c) Cultivation is only permitted on
parcels with residential units;
(d) The use of gas products to
cultivate is prohibited;
(e) The sale of medical marijuana is
prohibited, notwithstanding the
exceptions for compensation outlined
in Health and Safety Code section
11362.765(c);
(f) Cultivation activities cannot be
visible from the public right-of-way;
(g) The cultivation of marijuana shall
not create a public nuisance due to
noise, dust, glare, odor, gases,
vibrations, safety, etc.
(h) The cultivation of marijuana shall
be conducted in accordance with State
and local laws related to land
conversion, grading, electricity usage,
water usage, agricultural discharge,
etc.
0
NOTIFICATION
A notice of this public hearing was published in the Peninsula News on March 3, 2016,
in the City's Newsletter and was posted at City Hall. The City Council agenda is also
available on the City's website.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and determine whether to
adopt either of the ordinances or direct staff to prepare some other draft ordinance
amendment regulating the cultivation and dispensing of medical marijuana within the
City.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
AMEND TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING
CHAPTER 17.29 IN ORDER TO IMPOSE AN EXPRESS BAN ON
MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND DISPENSARIES
WITHIN THE CITY IN ZONING CASE NO. 899 AND ZONING CODE
AMENDMNET NO. 2016-01.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY
FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Rolling Hills Municipal Code ("RHMC") Section 17.08.050 provides that uses
not specifically permitted in the RHMC are prohibited. Section 17.16.020 provides a list of permitted
uses and prohibited uses. Commercial uses are not specifically permitted; therefore, they are prohibited.
However, the City has determined that recent developments in State Law regarding the regulation of
medical marijuana make it necessary to clarify that uses such as the cultivation and dispensation of
marijuana are expressly banned in the City of Rolling Hills.
Section 2. The proposed ordinance has been reviewed in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, and it has been determined that the proposed ordinance would not have a
significant effect on the environment.
Section 3. Chapter 17.50 of the RHMC sets forth procedures for amending the Zoning
Ordinance. A public hearing before the Planning Commission is necessary before a recommendation for
a Zoning Code amendment can be made to the City Council. On January 19, 2016 the Planning
Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and accepted public testimony.
Section 4. The Planning Commission considered the information provided by City staff,
public testimony, and other evidence regarding the proposed ordinance. This Resolution, and its
findings, are based upon the evidence presented to the Commission at its January 19, 2016 hearing,
including, without limitation, the staff report submitted and finds that the proposed Zoning Ordinance
amendments comply with the requirements of the City of Rolling Hills General Plan, Rolling Hills
Municipal Code and State Planning and Zoning Laws (Government section 65000 et seq.).
Section 5. The Planning Commission does hereby find and declare as follows:
A. On October 9, 2015, Governor Brown signed three bills into law — Assembly Bills
266 and 243, and Senate Bill 643 — collectively referred to as the Medical
Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act ("MMRSA"). The MMRSA became
effective on January 1, 2016 and contains provisions that govern the cultivating,
processing, transporting, testing, and distributing of medical marijuana to
qualified patients.
B. The MMRSA states that if a city or county has not adopted land use regulations
by March 1, 2016, to either regulate or ban cultivation of marijuana for medicinal
Resolution No. 2016-01
1 ff)
purposes, the State will be the sole authority that issues cultivation licenses in that
jurisdiction, meaning no local license will be required.
C. Commercial medical marijuana activities, as well as cultivation for personal
medical use as allowed by the Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana
Program, can adversely affect the health, safety, and well-being of City residents.
Further, as recognized by the Attorney General's August 2008 Guidelines for the
Security and Non -Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use, marijuana
cultivation or other concentration of marijuana in any location or premises
without adequate security increases the risk that surrounding homes or businesses
may be negatively impacted by nuisance activity such as loitering or crime.
D. The Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC) does not currently expressly and
separately prohibit the cultivation of marijuana within the City, Title 17 has
historically been applied to prohibit or preclude these types of activities. In order
to ensure full local control over regulation of commercial cultivation of marijuana
for medicinal purposes in the City is preserved, the MMRSA requires the City to
adopt an ordinance expressly regulating commercial cultivation by March 1, 2016
to ensure the State is not the sole regulator of cultivation activities. Additionally,
the MMRSA also contains language that requires delivery services to be expressly
prohibited by local ordinance, if the City wishes to do so.
E. The Zoning Ordinance text amendments are consistent with the goals, policies,
and objectives of the General Plan because the proposed ordinance is in the public
interest and there are community benefits resulting from the regulation of medical
marijuana.
The Zoning Ordinance text amendments promote the health, safety, and welfare
of Rolling Hills' residents and serve the goals and purposes of RHMC Title 17 by
ensuring compliance with the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act.
G. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the
environmental impacts of the action be assessed. The proposed amendment will
not in itself result in any environmental impacts nor will the amendment result in
any changes in the physical conditions that exist in the City. Staff has determined
the proposed ordinance to be Categorically Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines per § 15061 (b)(3).
Section 6. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Zoning
Ordinance text amendments as set forth in attached Attachment A, which is incorporated by reference.
Section 7. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Resolution are
based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record.
The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the Planning
Commission in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record
as a whole.
Resolution No. 2016-01
Section 8. All summaries of information in the findings, which precede this section, are
based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such
summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.
Section 9. This Resolution will remain effective until superseded by a subsequent resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19th DAY OF
ATTEST:
,C11NWww
HEIDI LUCE
CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 2016-01
3 ®
HEL
CHAIRMAN
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-01 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
AMEND TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING
CHAPTER 17.29 IN ORDER TO IMPOSE AN EXPRESS BAN ON
MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND DISPENSARIES
WITHIN THE CITY IN ZONING CASE NO. 899 AND ZONING CODE
AMENDMNET NO. 2016-01.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on January 19th, 2016 by
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Cardenas, Gray, Kirkpatrick, Smith and Chairman Chelf.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of Califomia was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
cikaithwp
HEIDI LUCE
CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 2016-01
ATTACHMENT A
Amend Title 17 (ZONING) as follows:
1. Section 17.08.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
A. Except as provided in this title, no building shall be erected, reconstructed or
structurally altered, nor shall any building or land be used for any purpose except
as specifically provided for and allowed by this title. Any use or structure not
specifically permitted by this title shall be prohibited.
e cultivation dispensation and mohile dispensing of mariiu na are exnre lv
ited i
Accordingly. the City shall not issue any permit. license, ocother entitlement for
the cultivation. dispensation. and mobile disnensjng of marijuana.
2. Section 17.16.020 B of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding
subparagraph 3, 4, and 5 and shall read as follows:
17.16.020 - Permitted and prohibited uses.
B. The following uses are prohibited in the RA -S zone:
1. It shall be unlawful for any person to offer or make available for rent or to rent
(by way of a rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral or
written) for compensation a residential dwelling or a room in a dwelling for
occupancy of less than thirty days.
2. It shall be unlawful for any person to occupy a residential dwelling or a room in a
dwelling for less than thirty days pursuant to a rental agreement, lease, license or
any other means, whether oral or written, for compensation.
Dispensing of Cannabis and annabis delivery by any mobile marijuana
disnensary (as that term is further defined in section 17.59.0101 that does not
have a fixed storefront and which operates solely as a mobile retail outlet which
transports or delivers. or arranges the transportation or delivery. of a nabi to
a Person. •including deliveries made via any tec nologv platform owned nd
controlled by the mobile medical mariivana dispensary. or independently
licensed by the State under the Medical Mari,ji ana Regulation andSafety :_et
which enables persons qualified patients and/or nr;mary caregivers rsanee
for or facilitate the commercial transfer of medical marijuana or medical
marijuana products defined in hapter .5 of the eat d Safety Code. as
may be amended
4,. Commercial cannabis activities including cultivation possession manufacture,
possessing. storing at ry lut e, labeling transporting. distribution—oa
Sale of medical marijuana or medical mari.ivana products except as set forth in
Business and Professions Code section 19319. related to qualified patients
and/or primary , caregivers.
Resolution No. 2016-01
5 Cultivation of cannabis or medical marijuana. inc di the nlantine. erowine.
harvesting, inp c�ufne grading or rimmine of mariivana or cannabi
defined in Chapter 3 5 of the Health and Safety Code as may be amended.
3. Title 17, Chapter 17.29, "Medical Marijuana Regulation" is hereby added to the Rolling
Hills Municipal Code to read as follows:
Tile 17
Chapter 17.29 Medical Marijuana Regulation
Sections:
17.29.010 Definitions
17.29.020 Prohibition
17.29.030 Exception
17.29.040 Public Nuisance
Sec. 17.29.010 Definitions.
As used in this chapter:
Cannabis, or Marijuana, shall have the same definition as Health and Safety Code section
11018.
Commercial Cannabis Activity means cultivation, possession, manufacture, processing, storing,
laboratory testing, labeling, transporting, distribution, or sale of Medical Cannabis or a Medical
Cannabis product, except as set forth in Business and Professions Code Section 19319, related to
Qualifying Patients and Primary Caregivers.
Cultivation means any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing,
grading, or trimming of Cannabis.
Delivery shall include the use by a Dispensary of any technology platform owned and controlled
by the Dispensary, or independently licensed by the State under the Medical Marijuana
Regulation and Safety Act, which enables Persons, Qualified Patients, and/or Primary Caregivers
to arrange for or facilitate the commercial transfer of Medical Cannabis or Medical Cannabis
products. The term "Delivery" does not include the distribution of Cannabis from a Mobile
Marijuana Dispensary.
Dispensary means a facility where Medical Cannabis, Medical Cannabis products, or devices for
the use of Medical Cannabis or Medical Cannabis products are offered, either individually or in
any combination, for retail sale, including an establishment that Delivers Medical Cannabis and
Medical Cannabis products as part of a retail sale.
Medical Cannabis means a product containing Cannabis, including but not limited to,
concentrates and extractions, intended to be sold by Medical Cannabis patients in California
pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 and 11362.7.
Resolution No. 2016-01
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act shall refer to Chapter 3.5 of the California
Business and Professions Code, commencing with section 19300, et seg.
Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries means any dispensary, cooperative, association, club, business,
collective, operator, or provider that does not have a fixed storefront and which operates solely
as a mobile retail outlet which transports or Delivers, or arranges the transportation of Delivery,
of Medical Cannabis to a Person.
Person means any individual, firm, corporation, association, club, society, or other organization.
The term Person shall include any owner, manager, proprietor, employee, volunteer, or
salesperson.
Primary Caregiver shall have the same definition as Health and Safety Code section 11362.7, as
may be amended.
Qualified Patient shall have the same definition as Health and Safety Code section 3362.7, as
may be amended, and which means a Person who is entitled to the protections of Health and
Safety Code section 11362.5. For the purposes of this Article, Qualified Patient shall include a
Person with an identification card, as that term is defined by Health and Safety Code section
11362.7 et seq.
Sec. 17.29.020 Prohibition.
A. Commercial Cannabis Activities of' all types are expressly prohibited in all zones within
the City's jurisdictional limits. No Person shall establish, operate, conduct, or allow a
Commercial Cannabis Activity anywhere within the City.
B. Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries are prohibited in all zones within the City's jurisdictional
limits. No Person shall: -
1. Locate, operate, own, suffer, allow to be operated or abide, abet or assist in the
operation of any Mobile Marijuana Dispensary within the City;
2. Deliver Marijuana to any location within the City from a Mobile Marijuana
Dispensary, regardless of where the Mobile Marijuana Dispensary is located, or
engage in any operation for this purpose; or
3. Deliver any Medical Cannabis product, including, but not limited to tinctures,
baked goods, or other consumable products, to any location within the City from a
Mobile Marijuana Dispensary, regardless of where the Mobile Marijuana
Dispensary is located, or engage in any operation for this purpose.
C. Marijuana cultivation by any person or entity, including clinics, collectives, cooperatives
and dispensaries, is prohibited in all zones within the City's jurisdictional limits. No
permit, whether conditional or otherwise, shall be issued for the establishment of such
activity. No Person, including a Qualified Patient or Primary Caregiver, shall Cultivate
any amount of Cannabis in the City, even for medicinal purposes, except where the City
is preempted by federal or state law from enacting a prohibition on such activity.
Sec. 17.29.030 Exception. The Delivery of medical cannabis to qualified patients with valid
identification cards or a verifiable written recommendation from a physician for medical cannabis, and
primary caregivers with a valid identification card outside the premises of the medical cannabis
Resolution No. 2016-01
dispensary, is permitted from a Dispensary with a fixed location operating outside of the City. This
exception does not include Deliveries made by Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries.
Sec. 17.29.040 Public Nuisance.
Any use or condition caused, or permitted to exist, in violation of any provision of this Article
shall be, and hereby is declared to be, a public nuisance and may be summarily abated by the City
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 731 or any other remedy available to the City.
Resolution No. 2016-01
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING
TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING
CHAPTER 17.29 IN ORDER TO IMPOSE AN EXPRESS BAN ON
MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND DISPENSARIES
WITHIN THE CITY IN ZONING CASE NO. 899 AND ZONING CODE
AMENDMENT NO. 2016-01.
The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Commercial medical marijuana activities, including commercial cultivation, can
adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the public.
Section 2. Rolling Hills Municipal Code ("RHMC") Section 17.08.050 provides that uses not
specifically permitted in the RHMC are prohibited. Section 17.16.020 provides a list of permitted uses
and prohibited uses. Commercial uses are not specifically permitted; therefore, they are prohibited.
However, the City has determined that recent developments in State Law regarding the regulation of
medical marijuana make it necessary to clarify that uses such as the commercial cultivation and
dispensing of marijuana are expressly banned in the City of Rolling Hills.
Section 3. The City Council does hereby find as follows:
A. On October 9, 2015, Governor Brown signed three bills into law — Assembly Bills 266
and 243, and Senate Bill 643 — collectively referred to as the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety
Act ("MMRSA"). The MMRSA became effective on January 1, 2016 and contains provisions that
govern the cultivating, processing, transporting, testing, and distributing of medical marijuana to
qualified patients.
B. Commercial medical marijuana activities can adversely affect the health, safety, and
well-being of City residents. Further, as recognized by the Attorney General's August 2008 Guidelines
for the Security and Non -Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use, marijuana cultivation or other
concentration of marijuana in any location or premises without adequate security increases the risk that
surrounding homes or businesses may be negatively impacted by nuisance activity such as loitering or
crime.
C. The Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC) does not currently expressly and separately
prohibit the commercial cultivation of marijuana within the City, Title 17 has historically been applied
to prohibit or preclude these types of activities. In order to ensure full local control over regulation of
commercial cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purposes in the City is preserved, the MMRSA
requires the City to adopt an ordinance expressly regulating cultivation and delivery, if the City wishes
to do so.
D. The Zoning Ordinance text amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and
objectives of the General Plan because the proposed ordinance is in the public interest and there are
community benefits resulting from the regulation of medical marijuana.
Ordinance No.
Prohibt Cultivitation
E. The Zoning Ordinance text amendments promote the health, safety, and welfare of
Rolling Hills' residents and serve the goals and purposes of RHMC Title 17 by ensuring compliance
with the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act.
Section 4. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the
environmental impacts of the action be assessed. The proposed amendment will not in itself result in any
environmental impacts nor will the amendment result in any changes in the physical conditions that exist
in the City. Staff has determined the proposed ordinance to be Categorically Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines per § 15061 (b)(3).
Section 5. Section 17.08.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
17.08.050 — Zoning compliance required.
A. Except as provided in this title, no building shall be erected, reconstructed or
structurally altered, nor shall any building or land be used for any purpose except
as specifically provided for and allowed by this title. Any use or structure not
specifically permitted by this title shall be prohibited.
B. The cultivation, dispensation, and mobile dispensing of marijuana are expressly
prohibited in all zones of the City (per Section 17.16.020 B and Chapter 17.29).
Accordingly, the City shall not issue any permit, license, or other entitlement for
the cultivation, dispensation, and mobile dispensing of marijuana.
Section 6. Section 17.16.020(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended by
adding subparagraph 3, 4, and 5 and shall read as follows:
17.16.020 - Permitted and prohibited uses.
B. The following uses are prohibited in the RA -S zone:
1. It shall be unlawful for any person to offer or make available for rent or to rent
(by way of a rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral
or written) for compensation a residential dwelling or a room in a dwelling for
occupancy of less than thirty days.
2. It shall be unlawful for any person to occupy a residential dwelling or a room in a
dwelling for less than thirty days pursuant to a rental agreement, lease, license or
any other means, whether oral or written, for compensation.
3. Dispensing of Cannabis and Cannabis delivery by any mobile marijuana
dispensary (as that term is further defined in section 17.20.010) that does not have
a fixed storefront and which operates solely as a mobile retail outlet which
transports or delivers, or arranges the transportation or delivery, of Cannabis to a
Person, including deliveries made via any technology platform owned and
controlled by the mobile medical marijuana dispensary, or independently licensed
by the State under the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act, which
enables persons, qualified patients, and/or primary caregivers to arrange for or
Ordinance No.
Prohibt Cultivitation
facilitate the commercial transfer of medical marijuana or medical marijuana
products, defined in Chapter 3.5 of the Health and Safety Code, as may be
amended.
4. Commercial cannabis activities, including cultivation, possession, manufacture,
possessing, storing, laboratory testing, labeling, transporting, distribution, or sale
of medical marijuana or medical marijuana products, except as set forth in
Business and Professions Code section 19319, related to qualified patients and/or
primary caregivers.
5. Cultivation of cannabis or medical marijuana, including the planting, growing,
harvesting, drying, curing, grading, or trimming of marijuana or cannabis, defined
in Chapter 3.5 of the Health and Safety Code, as may be amended.
Section 7. Title 17, Chapter 17.29, "Medical Marijuana Regulation" is hereby added to the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code to read as follows:
Title 17
Chapter 17.29 Medical Marijuana Regulation
Sections:
17.29.010
17.29.020
17.29.030
17.29.040
Section 17.29.010
Definitions
Prohibition
Exception
Public Nuisance
Definitions.
As used in this chapter:
Cannabis, or Marijuana, shall have the same definition as Health and Safety Code section
11018.
Commercial Cannabis Activity means cultivation, possession, manufacture, processing, storing,
laboratory testing, labeling, transporting, distribution, or sale of Medical Cannabis or a Medical
Cannabis product, except as set forth in Business and Professions Code Section 19319, related to
Qualifying Patients and Primary Caregivers.
Cultivation means any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing,
grading, or trimming of Cannabis.
Delivery shall include the use by a Dispensary of any technology platform owned and controlled
by the Dispensary, or independently licensed by the State under the Medical Marijuana
Regulation and Safety Act, which enables Persons, Qualified Patients, and/or Primary Caregivers
to arrange for or facilitate the commercial transfer of Medical Cannabis or Medical Cannabis
products. The term "Delivery" does not include the distribution of Cannabis from a Mobile
Marijuana Dispensary.
Ordinance No.
Prohibt Cultivitation
Dispensary means a facility where Medical Cannabis, Medical Cannabis products, or devices for
the use of Medical Cannabis or Medical Cannabis products are offered, either individually or in
any combination, for retail sale, including an establishment that Delivers Medical Cannabis and
Medical Cannabis products as part of a retail sale.
Medical Cannabis means a product containing Cannabis, including but not limited to,
concentrates and extractions, intended to be sold by Medical Cannabis patients in California
pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 and 11362.7.
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act shall refer to Chapter 3.5 of the California
Business and Professions Code, commencing with section 19300, et seq.
Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries means any dispensary, cooperative, association, club, business,
collective, operator, or provider that does not have a fixed storefront and which operates solely
as a mobile retail outlet which transports or Delivers, or arranges the transportation of Delivery,
of Medical Cannabis to a Person.
Person means any individual, firm, corporation, association, club, society, or other organization.
The term Person shall include any owner, manager, proprietor, employee, volunteer, or
salesperson.
Primary Caregiver shall have the same definition as Health and Safcty Code section 11362.7, as
may be amended.
Qualified Patient shall have the same definition as Health and Safety Code section 3362.7, as
may be amended, and which means a Person who is entitled to the protections of Health and
Safety Code section 11362.5. For the purposes of this Article, Qualified Patient shall include a
Person with an identification card, as that term is defined by Health and Safety Code section
11362.7 et seq.
Section 17.29.020 Prohibition.
A. Commercial Cannabis Activities of all types are expressly prohibited in all zones within
the City's jurisdictional limits. No Person shall establish, operate, conduct, or allow a
Commercial Cannabis Activity anywhere within the City.
B. Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries are prohibited in all zones within the City's jurisdictional
limits. No Person shall:
1. Locate, operate, own, suffer, allow to be operated or abide, abet or assist in the
operation of any Mobile Marijuana Dispensary within the City;
2. Deliver Marijuana to any location within the City from a Mobile Marijuana
Dispensary, regardless of where the Mobile Marijuana Dispensary is located, or
engage in any operation for this purpose; or
3. Deliver any Medical Cannabis product, including, but not limited to tinctures,
baked goods, or other consumable products, to any location within the City from a
Mobile Marijuana Dispensary, regardless of where the Mobile Marijuana
Dispensary is located, or engage in any operation for this purpose.
Ordinance No.
Prohibt Cultivitation
C. Marijuana cultivation by any person or entity, including clinics, collectives, cooperatives
and dispensaries, is prohibited in all zones within the City's jurisdictional limits. No
permit, whether conditional or otherwise, shall be issued for the establishment of such
activity. No Person, including a Qualified Patient or Primary Caregiver, shall cultivate
any amount of Cannabis in the City, even for medicinal purposes, except where the City
is preempted by federal or state law from enacting a prohibition on such activity.
Section 17.29.030 Exception. The Delivery of medical cannabis to qualified patients with valid
identification cards or a verifiable written recommendation from a physician for medical cannabis, and
primary caregivers with a valid identification card outside the premises of the medical cannabis
dispensary, is permitted from a Dispensary with a fixed location operating outside of the City. This
exception does not include Deliveries made by Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries, as that term is defined in
Section 17.29.010.
Section 17.29.040 Public Nuisance. Any use or condition caused, or permitted to exist, in violation
of any provision of this Article shall be, and hereby is declared to be, a public nuisance and may be
summarily abated by the City pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 731 or any other remedy
available to the City.
Section 8. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is, for any
reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it
would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences or clauses or phrases be
declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 9. This Ordinance was assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria
contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines (the
Guidelines), and the environmental regulations of the City. The City Council hereby finds that under
Section I5061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of
CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that the provisions contained herein would not have the
potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
Section 10. The ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its passage.
Section 11. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the
same to be published as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2016.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Ordinance No.
Prohibt Cultivitation
Heidi Luce, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
) §§
I certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING
TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING
CHAPTER 17.29 IN ORDER TO IMPOSE AN EXPRESS BAN ON
MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND DISPENSARIES
WITHIN THE CITY IN ZONING CASE NO. 899 AND ZONING CODE
AMENDMENT NO. 2016-01.
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.
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
Ordinance No. 6
Prohibt Cultivitation
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING
TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING
CHAPTER 17.29 IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE PERSONAL
CULTIVATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND IMPOSE AN
EXPRESS BAN ON COMMERCIAL MEDICAL MARIJUANA
CULTIVATION AND DISPENSARIES WITHIN THE CITY IN
ZONING CASE NO. 899 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO.
2016-01.
The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Commercial medical marijuana activities, including commercial cultivation, can
adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the public.
Section 2. Rolling Hills Municipal Code ("RHMC") Section 17.08.050 provides that uses not
specifically permitted in the RHMC are prohibited. Section 17.16.020 provides a list of permitted uses
and prohibited uses. Commercial uses are not specifically permitted; therefore, they are prohibited.
However, the City has determined that recent developments in State Law regarding the regulation of
medical marijuana make it necessary to clarify that uses such as the commercial cultivation and
dispensing of marijuana are expressly banned in the City of Rolling Hills.
Section 3. The City Council does hereby find as follows:
A. On October 9, 2015, Governor Brown signed three bills into law — Assembly Bills 266
and 243, and Senate Bill 643 — collectively referred to as the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety
Act ("MMRSA"). The MMRSA became effective on January 1, 2016 and contains provisions that
govern the cultivating, processing, transporting, testing, and distributing of medical marijuana to
qualified patients.
B. Commercial medical marijuana activities can adversely affect the health, safety, and
well-being of City residents. Further, as recognized by the Attorney General's August 2008 Guidelines
for the Security and Non -Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use, marijuana cultivation or other
concentration of marijuana in any location or premises without adequate security increases the risk that
surrounding homes or businesses may be negatively impacted by nuisance activity such as loitering or
crime.
C. The Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC) does not currently expressly and separately
prohibit the commercial cultivation of marijuana within the City, Title 17 has historically been applied
to prohibit or preclude these types of activities. In order to ensure full local control over regulation of
commercial cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purposes in the City is preserved, the MMRSA
requires the City to adopt an ordinance expressly regulating cultivation and delivery, if the City wishes
to do so.
D. The Zoning Ordinance text amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and
objectives of the General Plan because the proposed ordinance is in the public interest and there are
Ordinance No.
0)
Permit Non -Commercial Cultivitation
community benefits resulting from the regulation of medical marijuana.
E. The Zoning Ordinance text amendments promote the health, safety, and welfare of
Rolling Hills' residents and serve the goals and purposes of RHMC Title 17 by ensuring compliance
with the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act.
Section 4. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the
environmental impacts of the action be assessed. The proposed amendment will not in itself result in any
environmental impacts nor will the amendment result in any changes in the physical conditions that exist
in the City. Staff has determined the proposed ordinance to be Categorically Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines per § 15061 (b)(3).
Section 5. Section 17.08.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
17.08.050 - Zoning compliance required.
A. Except as provided in this title, no building shall be erected, reconstructed or
structurally altered, nor shall any building or land be used for any purpose except
as specifically provided for and allowed by this title. Any use or structure not
specifically permitted by this title shall be prohibited.
B. The commercial cultivation, dispensation, and mobile dispensing of marijuana are
expressly prohibited in all zones of the City (per Section 17.16.020 B and Chapter
17.29). Accordingly, the City shall not issue any permit, license, or other
entitlement for the commercial cultivation, dispensation, and mobile dispensing of
marijuana.
Section 6. Section 17.16.020(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding
subparagraphs 3 and 4 to read as follows:
17.16.020 —Permitted and prohibited uses.
B. The following uses are prohibited in the RA -S zone:
3. Dispensing of Cannabis and Cannabis delivery by any mobile marijuana
dispensary (as that term is further defined in section 17.29.010) that does not
have a fixed storefront and which operates solely as a mobile retail outlet which
transports or delivers, or arranges the transportation or delivery, of Cannabis to
a Person, including deliveries made via any technology platform owned and
controlled by the mobile medical marijuana dispensary, or independently
licensed by the State under the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act,
which enables persons, qualified patients, and/or primary caregivers to arrange
for or facilitate the commercial transfer of medical marijuana or medical
marijuana products, defined in Chapter 3.5 of the Health and Safety Code, as
may be amended.
4. Commercial cannabis activities, including cultivation, possession, manufacture,
possessing, storing, laboratory testing, labeling, transporting, distribution, or
sale of medical marijuana or medical marijuana products, except as set forth in
Ordinance No.
Permit Non -Commercial Cultivitation
Business and Professions Code section 19319, related to qualified patients
and/or primary caregivers.
Section 7. Title 17, Chapter 17.29, "Medical Marijuana Regulation" is hereby added to the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code to read as follows:
Title 17
Chapter 17.29 Medical Marijuana Regulations
Sections:
17.29.010 Definitions.
17.29.020 Prohibition.
17.29.030 Cultivation Registration.
17.29.040 Exception.
17.29.050 Public Nuisance.
Section 17.29.010 Definitions.
As used in this chapter:
Cannabis, or Marijuana, shall have the same definition as Health and Safety Code section
11018.
Commercial Cannabis Activity means cultivation, possession, manufacture, processing, storing,
laboratory testing, labeling, transporting, distribution, or sale of Medical Cannabis or a Medical
Cannabis product, except as set forth in Business and Professions Code Section 19319, related to
Qualifying Patients and Primary Caregivers. Commercial cannabis activity does not include: (1)
a qualified patient, who cultivates, possesses or stores cannabis exclusively for his or her
personal medical use and who does not provide, donate, sell, or distribute cannabis to any other
person; and (2) a primary caregiver who cultivates, stores, possesses, donates, or provides
cannabis exclusively for the personal medical purposes of no more than five (5) specified
qualified patients but who does not receive remuneration for these activities except for
compensation in full compliance with Section 11362.765(c) of the Health and Safety Code.
Cultivation means any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing,
grading, or trimming of Cannabis.
Delivery shall include the use by a Dispensary of any technology platform owned and controlled
by the Dispensary, or independently licensed by the State under the Medical Marijuana
Regulation and Safety Act, which enables Persons, Qualified Patients, and/or Primary Caregivers
to arrange for or facilitate the commercial transfer of Medical Cannabis or Medical Cannabis
products. The term "Delivery" does not include the distribution of Cannabis from a Mobile
Marijuana Dispensary.
Dispensary means a facility where Medical Cannabis, Medical Cannabis products, or devices for
the use of Medical Cannabis of Medical Cannabis products are offered, either individually or in
any combination, for retail sale, including an establishment that Delivers Medical Cannabis and
Ordinance No.
Permit Non -Commercial Cultivitation
Medical Cannabis products as part of a retail sale.
Medical Cannabis means a product containing Cannabis, including but not limited to,
concentrates and extractions, intended to be sold by Medical Cannabis patients in California
pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 and 11362.7.
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act shall refer to Chapter 3.5 of the California
Business and Professions Code, commencing with section 19300, et seq.
Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries means any dispensary, cooperative, association, club, business,
collective, operator, or provider that does not have a fixed storefront and which operates solely
as a mobile retail outlet which transports or Delivers, or arranges the transportation of Delivery,
of Medical Cannabis to a Person.
Person means any individual, firm, corporation, association, club, society, or other organization.
The term Person shall include any owner, manager, proprietor, employee, volunteer, or
salesperson.
Primary Caregiver shall have the same definition as Health and Safety Code section 11362.7, as
may be amended.
Qualified Patient shall have the same definition as Health and Safety Code section 3362.7, as
may be amended, and which means a Person who is entitled to the protections of Health and
Safety Code section 11362.5. For the purposes of this Article, Qualified Patient shall include a
Person with an identification card, as that term is defined by Health and Safety Code section
11362.7 et seq.
Section 17.29.020 Prohibition.
A. Commercial Cannabis Activities of all types are expressly prohibited in all zones within
the City's jurisdictional limits. No Person shall establish, operate, conduct, or allow a
Commercial Cannabis Activity anywhere within the City.
B. Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries (as defined in Section 17.29.010) are prohibited in all
zones within the City's jurisdictional limits. No Person shall:
1. Locate, operate, own, suffer, allow to be operated or abide, abet or assist in the
operation of any Mobile Marijuana Dispensary within the City;
2. Deliver Marijuana to any location within the City from a Mobile Marijuana
Dispensary, regardless of where the Mobile Marijuana Dispensary is located, or
engage in any operation for this purpose; or
3. Deliver any Medical Cannabis product, including, but not limited to tinctures,
baked goods, or other consumable products, to any location within the City from a
Mobile Marijuana Dispensary, regardless of where the Mobile Marijuana
Dispensary is located, or engage in any operation for this purpose.
C. Cultivation of medical marijuana is expressly prohibited in all areas of the City except as
outlined below:
Ordinance No.
Permit Non -Commercial Cultivitation
1. Medical marijuana for personal use may be cultivated in conformance with the
following standards:
a. By a qualified patient, cultivating marijuana pursuant to Section 11362.5
of the Health and Safety Code, if the area he or she uses to cultivate
marijuana does not exceed 100 square feet and he or she cultivates
marijuana for his or her personal medical use and does not sell, distribute,
donate, or provide marijuana to any other person or entity.
b. By a primary caregiver, cultivating marijuana pursuant to Section 11362.5
of the Health and Safety Code, if the area he or she uses to cultivate
marijuana does not exceed 500 square feet and he or she cultivates
marijuana exclusively for the personal medical use of no more than five
(5) specified qualified patients for whom he or she is the primary caregiver
and does not receive remuneration for these activities, except for
compensation provided in full compliance with Health and Safety Code
section 11362.765(c).
c. A qualified patient may cultivate medical marijuana on the parcel where
the qualified patient resides fulltime, and shall not participate in medical
marijuana cultivation in any other location within the City.
d. A primary caregiver may cultivate medical marijuana on the parcel where
the primary caregiver resides fulltime, and shall not participate in medical
marijuana cultivation in any other location within the City.
e. Medical marijuana cultivation is permitted only on parcels developed with
residential units.
f. The use of gas products (including, without limitation, CO2, butane;
propane, and natural gas) for indoor medical marijuana cultivation or
processing is prohibited.
g. Medical marijuana for sale is prohibited. Notwithstanding this section, a
primary caregiver may recover from his or her qualified patient
compensation provided in full compliance with Health and Safety Code
section 11362.765(c).
h. There shall be no exterior evidence of medical marijuana cultivation from
any street.
i. Any medical marijuana cultivated within a residence shall not create
humidity, mold, or other nuisance conditions.
j. The medical marijuana cultivation area shall not adversely affect the
health or safety of the nearby residents by creating dust, glare, excessive
light, noise, noxious gases, odor, smoke, vibration, or other impacts, and
shall not be hazardous due to use or storage of materials, products,
processes, or wastes.
k. The cultivation of medical marijuana shall be in accordance with state and
local laws related to land conversion, grading, electricity usage, water
usage, agricultural discharges, and similar matters.
2. Processing marijuana for commercial sale is prohibited in all areas of the City.
Section 17.29.030 Cultivation Registration. Prior to commencing any medical marijuana
cultivation, the person(s) owning, leasing, renting, occupying, or having charge or possession of any
Ordinance No.
Permit Non -Commercial Cultivitation
legal parcel or premises where medical marijuana cultivation is proposed to occur must register for
medical marijuana cultivation with the City. The following information will be required with the initial
registration application and subsequent registration extensions:
A. Notarized signature from the owner of the property consenting to the cultivation of
marijuana at the premises on a form acceptable to the City.
B. The name of each person owning, leasing, occupying, or having charge of any legal
parcel or premises where medical marijuana will be cultivated.
C. A copy of a current, valid identification card, as that term is defined by Health and Safety
Code section 11362.7 et seq., and the name and of each qualified patient or primary caregiver who
participates in the medical marijuana cultivation.
D. The physical site address where the marijuana will be cultivated.
E. A signed consent form, acceptable to the City, authorizing City Staff, including the
Sheriff's Department, the authority to conduct an inspection of the site used for the cultivation of
marijuana, upon twenty-four (24) hours' notice.
F. The initial registration shall he valid for no more than two (2) years and may be extended
in increments of two (2) years.
G. The City Manager, or his or her designee, may, in his or her discretion, deny any
application for a medical marijuana cultivation registration, or extension thereof, where he or she finds,
based on articulated facts, that the issuance of such registration, or extension thereof, would be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. The City Manager shall deny an application for
medical marijuana cultivation registration or extension thereof that does not demonstrate sal.isfaclion of
the minimum requirements of this chapter. The denial of any registration application or extension shall
be subject to appeal by the Rolling Hills City Council.
H. The City Council may establish a fee or fees required to be paid upon filing of an
application for registration as provided by this chapter, which fees shall not exceed the reasonable cost
of administering this chapter.
Section 17.29.040 Exception. The Delivery of medical cannabis to qualified patients with valid
identification cards or a verifiable written recommendation from a physician for medical cannabis, and
primary caregivers with a valid identification card outside the premises of the medical cannabis
dispensary, is permitted from a Dispensary with a fixed location operating outside of the City or a
primary caregiver cultivating within the boundaries of the City. This exception does not include
Deliveries made by Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries, as the term is defined in Section 17.29.010.
Section 17.29.050 Public Nuisance. Any use or condition caused, or permitted to exist, in violation
of any provision of this Article shall be, and hereby is declared to be, a public nuisance and may be
summarily abated by the City pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 731 or any other remedy
available to the City.
Section 8. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is, for any
reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it
would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof,
iuespeetive of llie fact that any une ur inure sections, subsections, sentences or clauses or phrases be
declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 9. This Ordinance was assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria
contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines (the
Ordinance No. 6
Permit Non -Commercial Cultivitation
Guidelines), and the environmental regulations of the City. The City Council hereby finds that under
Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of
CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that the provisions contained herein would not have the
potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
Section 10. The ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its passage.
Section 11. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the
same to be published as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of , 2016.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Heidi Luce, City Clerk
Ordinance No.
Permit Non -Commercial Cultivitation
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
) §§
I certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING
TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING
CHAPTER 17.29 IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE PERSONAL
CULTIVATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND IMPOSE AN
EXPRESS BAN ON COMMERCIAL MEDICAL MARIJUANA
CULTIVATION AND DISPENSARIES WITHIN THE CITY IN
ZONING CASE NO. 899 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO.
2016-01.
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.
Ordinance No.
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
Permit Non -Commercial Cultivitation
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.: 7-A
Mtg. Date: 03/14/16
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER 2-4-C-7—
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1182 TO ADOPT
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B
RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION
DATE: MARCH 14, 2016
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Ordinance, and recent amendments -
Ordinance No. 346.
B. Resolution No. 1182 of the City Council adopting administrative regulations
interpreting Measure B, as amended by the City Council at the 2/8 and 2/22/16
meetings
BACKGROUND
1. It is recommended that the City Council continue deliberations on the proposed
Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B.
2. The City Council held public hearings in the matter of administrative regulations
interpreting Measure B at its January 11, 2016, February 8, 2016 and February 22, 2016
meetings, and continued deliberation on the matter.
3. All of the documents and information provided to the City Council for the
January 11, February 8 and February 22 meetings continue to be relevant and are
available at City Hall. Please refer to your previous packets.
4. At the February 22, 2016 meeting following discussion and public input on the
interpretation of what constitutes "acquisition" of property as it relates to Measure B,
0
the City Council accepted the City Attorney's recommendation (see Resolution No.
1182).
5. In addition, the City Council reviewed the public input from previous meetings
and discussed at length and took public testimony on the topic of interpreting "mature"
trees. 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".
Based on the discussion on this topic at the previous meetings, where members of the
public and the City Council expressed some interest in defining mature trees as when
the tree reaches a certain percentage of its potential growth, and to aid in Council's
discussion, and following staff's discussion with several arborists, the City Attorney
prepared a suggested language for Council's consideration. After some discussion,
public input and minor changes, Council members agreed and accepted the City
Attorney's definition. It was also suggested that language be incorporated into the
interpretation of this section regarding the use of an arborist with ASCA qualifications
should an expert opinion be sought regarding maturity of trees.
A discussion also ensued whether the City when ascertaining the height of trees should
use the Sunset Western Garden Book or other resource book. Staff stated that after
speaking with several arborists they all agreed that the Sunset Western Garden Book is
the most commonly referred to resource and respected by arborists and others in the
profession. Staff also reported on the difference between professional certification by
the International Society of Arborists (ISA) and American Society of Consulting
Arborists (ASCA). Staff reported that in order to be a member of ASCA one must have
greater experience and education than to be a certified arborist by ISA and that ASCA
member must be certified by ISA. As for who could be an expert witness, staff was
informed that one does not have to be a member of ASCA to be an expert witness, but it
may carry greater weight with some judges, due to the greater amount of education and
experience that is required for members of ASCA.
Following the February 22, 2016 meeting, staff received an inquiry from Mr. Weinberg,
an Attorney, regarding the City's planned method for measuring crown spread. Staff
spoke to several arborists and reviewed literature on measuring trees, and although
there are many methods for measuring the height and spread of trees staff recommends
a simple approach and included the methodology to measure the height and width of
trees in the paragraph on interpretation of "Mature" in the Resolution.
6. Also at the previous meeting staff was directed to check with local Tree
Trimming and Landscaping companies, whether their employees are ISA certified or
members of the ASCA.
Of the five companies staff contacted, four responded. Of the four, only one company
has an employee on staff that is an ASCA member; the others have at least one (usually
no more than two) employees on staff that is ISA certified. If needed, they contract with
an independent arborist who is both ISA certified and a member of ASCA. Several of
the consulting arborists staff spoke to are independent consultants and do not work for
a tree trimming company or a landscape architecture firm.
7. As of the writing of this report no correspondence was received since the Council
meeting of February 22, 2016.
8. 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 Council Ad -Hoc
Committee and the Planning Commission concurred with this interpretation and
recommended that the City Council adopt it, (Chapter 3 of Resolution No. 1182).
9. During the public input process on this topic, suggestion was made by several
speakers that the City Council also provide an interpretation of the definition of "view
corridor", and how much of a view corridor is one eligible to recoup. The language of
the ordinance was amended by adding to the definition "view corridor" as follows:
"View corridor" means a view from a designated viewing area broken into segments by
vegetation. The speakers requested that this language be clarified.
10. Resolution No. 1182, attached, contains the recommended language for
interpretation of three provisions from Measure B as follows:
Date of Property Acquisition
"Mature" versus "Maturing" Trees
Retroactivity of Measure B
It is recommended that the City Council review the report, take public testimony and
adopt Resolution NO. 1182, or provide other direction to staff.
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 §1 I (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 §I1(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.
B. The owner of the obstructing vegetation may select any licensed and qualified contractor to
perform the restorative action (as long as the insurance requirements of subsection A of this
section are satisfied), but shall be responsible for any cost above the amount of the cash
deposit. The work shall be completed no more than thirty days from receipt of the cash
deposit.
C. Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation in question shall be performed as prescribed by
the Committee's final decision at the cost and expense of the owner of the property on which
the vegetation is growing. The vegetation shall be maintained in accordance with the final
decision so as not to allow for future view impairments. A notice of the decision shall be
recorded against the title of the property and shall run with the land, thereby giving notice of
this obligation to all future owners.
D. The implementation method provided for in this section may be modified by the parties or in
any final decision if grounds exist to justify such a modification. In particular, the Committee
may allocate the cost of restorative action as follows:
1. If the Committee finds that the tree or other vegetation constitutes a safety hazard to
the complainant or his property, and is being maintained by the owner in disregard of
the safety of others, the owner may be required to pay one hundred percent of the cost
of correction; or
2. If the owner is maintaining a hedge fifteen feet or more in height, the Committee may
allocate the cost of correction to the property owner, provided that the owner of the land
on which the hedge exists shall not be required to pay more than twenty-five percent of
the cost of such correction.
(Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993).
17.26.070 Enforcement.
A. Failure or refusal of any person to comply with a final decision under this chapter or to
comply with any provision of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be
punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars or six months in County Jail, or both. Failure or
refusal of any person to comply with a final decision under this chapter shall further
constitute a public nuisance which may be abated in accordance with the procedure
contained in Chapter 8.24.
B. A final decision rendered under this chapter may be enforced civilly by way of action for
injunctive or other appropriate relief, in which event the prevailing party may be awarded
attorney's fees and costs as determined by the court.
C. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the prosecution of any civil cause of action under the
law by any person with respect to the matters covered herein.
(Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993).
17.26.080 Notification of subsequent owners.
The owner on whose property the offending vegetation exists shall notify all successor
owners of the final decision in any proceeding under this chapter, and such decision shall be
binding upon all such successors in interest. Within thirty days of the final decision, an
informational covenant shall be recorded against the title of the property on a form provided by
the City.
(Ord. 239 §I 1(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
S
ORDINANCE NO. 346
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING
SECTION 17.12.220 AND CHAPTER 17.26 RELATING TO VIEW
PRESERVATION OF TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS
MUNICIPAL CODE.
The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Rolling Hills Municipal Code ("RHMC') Chapter 17.26 governs the process by
which a property owner whose scenic view has become impaired by vegetation growing on another
property may obtain abatement of the view impairment. Section 17.12.220 defines a view. Collectively,
RHMC Chapter 17.26 and the definition of a view make up the City's "View Ordinance." The City has
been engaged in a long-term effort to update the View Ordinance to clarify its provisions and address
circumstances that have arisen in the Committee on Trees and Views' application of the View
Ordinance.
Section 2. Chapter 17.50 of the RHMC sets forth procedures for amending the Zoning
Ordinance. A public hearing before the Planning Commission is necessary before a recommendation for
a Zoning Code amendment can be made to the City Council. After receiving presentations from staff at
the February 17, 2015 and March 17, 2015 meetings, the Planning Commission opened a duly noticed
public hearing on April 21, 2015, which was continued to May 19, 2015, June 16, 2015, July 21, 2015
and August 16, 2015. Public comment was received at each continuance of the public hearing, which
the Planning Commission considered in concert with the recommendations of the City Council's Ad Hoc
Committee created to recommend changes to the View Ordinance, and reports from City staff. Notice
of the public hearings was provided as required by law.
Section 3. After considering all of the evidence in the record on this matter, the Planning
Commission recommended that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Section 17.12.220 and
Chapter 17.26 of Title 17 (Zoning) of the RHMC.
Section Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA"), Public Resources Code Section 21000 to Section 21177, State CEQA Guidelines, 14
California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rolling Hills,
staff analyzed the proposed amendments to the View Ordinance and concluded that the amendments are
exempt from CEQA because they consist only of minor revisions and clarifications to the RHMC and
will not have the effect of deleting or substantially changing any regulatory standards or findings. The
proposed Ordinance is an action that does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the
environment, but rather will clarify the process by which persons may apply for and obtain an order
from the City to abate view impairments. Accordingly, the proposed Ordinance is exempt pursuant to
the "common sense" exemption set forth in Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines batsman there
is no possibility that the Ordinance could have a significant effect on the environment Furthermore, the
proposed Ordinance does not constitute a "project' that requires environmental review (see specifically
14 CCR § 15378 (bX2, 5)).
Section 5 After considering the information presented during public hearings on this matter,
the City Council fords that the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments comply with the requirements
of the City of Rolling Hills General Plan and State Planning and Zoning Laws (Government section
65000 et seq.) and will preserve the public health, safety and general welfare, while balancing property
rights. Notice of the public hearings was provided as requited by law.
Section 6. The City Council hereby adopts an Ordinance amending Section 17.12.220 and
Chapter 17.26 of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code as follows:
A. Amend Section 17.12.220 of' the RHMC to amend the definition of "View" and add the
definition of"View corridor" in alphabetical order to read as follows:
"View" means a view from a principal residence, but not including from garages or closets, and
any immediately adjoining patio or deck area at the same elevation as the residence which
consists of a visually impressive scene or vista not located in the immediate vicinity of the
residence, such as a scene of the Pacific Ocean, off -shore islands, city lights of the Los Angeles
basin, the Palos Verdes Hills or Los Angeles Harbor.
"View impairment" means a significant interference with and obstruction of a view by
landscaping, trees or any other planted vegetation.
Ordinance No. 346 I ''
"View corridor" means a view from a designated viewing area broken into segments by
vegetation.
B. Amend Section 17.26.010 of the RHMC to read as follows:
17.26.010 Intent and purpose
The City recognizes the contribution of views to the overall character and beauty of the
City. Views of the Pacific Ocean, Catalina Island City lights and Los Angeles Harbor are a
special quality of property ownership for many residential lots in the City. These views have the
potential to be diminished or eliminated by maturing landscaping located on private property.
The purpose of this chapter is to protect this important community asset by establishing
procedures for the protection of views and abatement of view obstructions created by
landscaping, while at the same time protecting natural vegetation from indiscriminate removal.
C. Amend Section 17.26.040 of the RHMC to read as follows:
17.26.040 Abatement of view impairment - Procedure.
Any person who owns or has lawful possession of a residence from which a view is
impaired, pursuant to the definition of "view impairment" in Section 17.12.220 of this title, by
vegetation growing on property other than their own may seek abatement of the view impairment
under the following procedure:
A. Mediation Application. The complainant shall submit a complete application for abatement
of view impairment by mediation on a form provided by the City. The application shall be
accompanied by a fee as provided for in Section 17.30.030 of this title. The complainant
shall describe in the application what efforts have been made by the complainant to resolve
the view impairment prior to filing the mediation application. An application shall not be
accepted for filing unless the complainant can demonstrate that the owner of the view -
impairing vegetation has been given notice of the impairment and a reasonable opportunity
to abate it, but has refused to do so.
B. Eligibility. A person shall not be precluded from filing an application for abatement of view
impairment on grounds that vegetation located on the complainant's property contributes ro
impairment of the requested view. A person who has obtained an order abating impairment
of a view against a prop,.ty shall not be precluded from filing a subsequent application to
abate impairment of the same view by vegetation on another property. An application may
be filed to abate impairment of one or more distinct views listed in Section 17.12220
"View," however, if multiple views are identified, each must be disjointed and observable
from a separate viewing area.
C. Mediation. Upon receipt and acceptance of an application as complete, the City Manager
shall refer the matter to a mediator for conduct of a mediation session to abate the view
impairment. The mediator shall be responsible for notifying the property owner of the view -
impairing vegetation of the application and for scheduling and managing the mediation
process. At the conclusion of mediation, the mediator shall advise the City Manager as to
whether the complaint has been resolved. Agreement reached through mediation shall be
reflected in an executed contract and implemented in accordance with the tams of the
agreement.
D. Public Hearing Application. In the event mediation fails to achieve agreement, the
complainant may submit an application and accompanying fee as provided for in Section
17.30.030 of this title for a public hearing. Upon receipt and acceptance of an application
for a public hearing as complete, the City Manager shall schedule the matter for a public
heating before the Committee on Trees and Views. If a complete application for a public
hearing is not received within sixty (60) days of the mediator's notification set forth in
Section 17.26.040(C), the City shall terminate, without prejudice, all proceedings related to
the application.
D. Amend Section 17.26.050 of the RHMC to read as follows:
17.26.050 Hearina procedure and findings.
A. Notice Required. Public notice of the hearing shall be given a minimum of fifteen days
Ordinance No. 346
2
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:
I. 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 trail to all property owners within one thousand
feet of the exterior boundary of the property on which the tree or other obstructing
vegetation are located and to other persons who, in the Committee's judgment, might
be affected.
B. Content of Notice. The notice shall state the name of the complaining party, the name of the
property owner against whom the complaint is filed, the location of the tree or other
vegetation, and the time and place of hearing. The notice shall invite written comments to be
submitted prior to or at the hearing.
C. Conduct of Hearing. The Committee shall adopt rules for the conduct of required hearings.
At the hearing, the Committee shall consider all written and oral testimony and evidence
presented in connection with the application. If during the course of the proceedings it is
discovered that information submitted in an application is inaccurate or incomplete such that
it could be misleading, or a significant change has occurred impacting either the view or the
obstruction, an applicant may be directed to amend the application or submit supplemental
information. In the event the Committee requires expert advice in consideration of the
matter, 0re cost of obtaining such evidence shall be borne by the complainant, pursuant to
written agreement with the City. The City shall select such expert and enter into an
agreement only upon receipt of a payment for the selected service from the party. An
application shall be deemed withdrawn and all proceedings shall be terminated with respect
thereto, without prejudice, if the parties to a complaint notify the City that it has been
voluntarily resolved, or if the complainant fails or refuses to provide supplemental
information requested by the City or fails or refuses to pay the cost of the expert services, or
the complainant requests a delay of the proceedings for more than one hundred eighty (180)
days unless good cause exists for the delay.
11 Findings. Based on the evidence received and considered, the Committee may find any of
the following:
1. That no view exists within the meaning of this chapter,
2. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter, but that the view is not
significantly impaired; or
3. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter and that it is significantly
impaired.
4. The Committee shall make specific written findings in support of the foregoing
determinations.
E. Action. If the Committee makes finding of subsection (D)(3) of this section, it shall order
such restorative action as is nernssary to abate the view impairment, including, but not
limited to, removal, pruning, topping, thinning or similar alteration of the vegetation. Such
order is not intended to create an unobstructed view for applicants. Instead it is intended to
create view corridors and a view through trees. The Committee may impose conditions as
are necessary to prevent future view impairments. In no event shall restorative action be
required if such action would adversely affect the environment or would unreason -ably
detract from the privacy or enjoyment of the property on which the objectionable vegetation
is located. If restorative action is precluded by the existence of one or more such limiting
factors, the Committee shall make specific written findings to that effect.
F. Environmental Review. If the Committee makes finding of subsection (D)(3) of this section
and orders restorative action, the proposed order shall be reviewed by City staff to
determine the appropriate level of environmental review. If the action is determined to be
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), a resolution containing
the Committee's written findings shall be presented for adoption at the Committee's next
meeting. If the action is determined not to be exempt from CEQA, the complainant shall
bear the City's reasonable costs of environmental review and CEQA compliance, including
consultant fees.
G. Finality of Decision. The Committee's decision shall be final on the date the Committee
adopts a resolution setting forth its decision. The decision shall become effective thirty (30)
Ordinance No. 346 3
days after adoption of the resolution, unless an appeal has been filed to the City Council
pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.54. For purposes of such an appeal, references to
the Planning Commission in Chapter 17.54 shall be interpreted as inclusive of the
Committee on Trees and Views.
E. Amend Section 17.26.060 of the RHMC to read as follows:
17,26.060 Implementation of restorative action
A. The complainant shall bear the cost of the initial restorative action. Within thirty (30) days
of a final decision ordering restorative action, the complainant shall obtain and present to the
owner of the obstructing vegetation three bids from licensed and qualified contractors for
performance of the work, as well as cash deposit in the amount of the lowest bid. In order to
qualify, the contractors must provide insurance, which protects and indemnifies the City and
the complainant from damages attributable to negligent or wrongful performance of the
work. Any such insurance shall be subject to the approval of the City.
B. The owner of the obstructing vegetation may select any licensed and qualified contractor to
perform the restorative action (as long as the insurance requirements of subsection A of this
section are satisfied), but shall be responsible for any cost above the amount of the cash
deposit. The work shall be completed no more than ninety (90) days from receipt of the cash
deposit or if additional time is necessary due to weather or unique conditions of the
vegetation, at the earliest date recommended by the contractor, but no later than one year, and
shall be approved by the'City Manager.
C. Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation in question shall be performed at the cost and
expense of the owner of the property on which the vegetation is growing. The vegetation
shall be maintained in accordance with the final decision so as not to allow for future view
impairments.
F. Amend Section 17.26.080 of the RHMC to read as follows:
17,26.080 Notification of subsequent owners.
Within thirty (30) days of the final decision of the Committee, or the City Council on
appeal, a document shall be recorded against the title of the property on which the offending
vegetation exists and the complainant's property, on a form provided by the City, which shall nor
with the land and be binding upon all successors in interest.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8i' day of Febmary, 2016.
ATTEST:
77 boa )
HEIDI LUCE
CITY CLERK
Ordinance No. 346 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
1 certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 346 entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING
SECTION 17.12.220 AND CHAPTER 17.26 RELATING TO VIEW
PRESERVATION OF TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS
MUNICIPAL CODE.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on February 8, 2016 by the
following mll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Black, Mirth, Wilson and Mayor Pieper.
NOES: Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
HEIDI LUCE
CITY CLERK
Ordinance No. 346
5
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 in order to
assure uniformity in the application of Measure B to future view complaint cases. Based on this
authority and recommendation by the Planning Commission, the City Council reviewed, discussed and
developed a policy interpreting Measure B.
Section 4. The City Council finds that Attachment A titled City of Rolling Hills Administrative
Regulations Interpreting Measure B Relating to View Preservation clarify the initiative and is hereby
adopted:
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS _ DAY OF 2016.
MAYOR
Resolution No.1182
Measure B Interpretation
ATTEST:
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this
application must be filed within the time limits set forth in section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
Resolution No.1182
Measure B Interpretation
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.
Angeles.
The im acts of common trans f ... ,.F........,..w., u illustrated below.
ewnef-aeqnifed-the-pr-epeetyrnet-the-clate-ef--the-traftsfer hepitanee,
sale shall be the .Jute o f t e sole a .ideuced b., a dacek
C.
..erty wus .laced into A.e irr sidle trust or the
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.
Resolution No.1182
Measure B Interpretation
Chapter 2
"MATURE" VERSUS "MATURING" TREES
Section 2001. Definition of "Mature" Trees
proponents -6f -Measuce--13-testifie€1--befece-tite-P4anning-GenThtissien4hat4lie-intent-ef-Measure-13-was-te
Section 2001. Definition of "Mature" Trees
For purposes of RHMC Section 17.26.090 (2) a tree will be considered mature if at the time the party
claiming view impairment acquired the property the tree had achieved 75% of its maximum canopy
height and width (spread). Maximum canopy height and width will be as set forth in the latest edition of
the Sunset Western Garden Book. The Sunset Western Garden Book is a trusted reference guide on
trees, plants and other vegetation present in the region and displays a plant species' height ranges and
other characteristics.
Should the Rolling Hills Committee on Trees and Views, City Council or any of the parties involved in
a view complaint case require or wish to obtain an expert opinion on maturity of trees, such opinion
shall be provided by a certified consulting arborist who is a member of the American Society of
Consulting Arborists (ASCA).
For the purpose of measuring the height of a tree, the height shall be measured between the base of the
tree and the tip of the highest branch on the tree. The base of the tree is the point of the tree where the
pith (center) of the tree intersects the ground surface.
The width (spread) of a tree canopy shall be measured across the canopy from the tip of the outermost
branch at one end of the tree to the tip of the outermost branch at the opposite side of the tree (from
dripline to dripline).
Section 2002. Definition of "Maturing" Trees
Trees and other vegetation that are not "mature" as specified in these regulations are "maturing."
Resolution No.1182 4
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 5
Measure B Interpretation
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
) §§
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1182 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW
PRESERVATION
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on , 2016 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of Califomia was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
Resolution No.1182
Measure B Interpretation
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
TO:
FROM: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 8-A
Mtg. Date: 3/14/16
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FILED BY DR. JEFFRY
OSTRIKER, PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6.24.070,
REGARDING A DETERMINATION ORDERING THE DISPOSITION
OF AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL COMPLAINT FILED BY MR. MATTHEW
CHAISSON.
DATE: MARCH 14, 2016
ATTACHMENTS:
Animal Complaint Report filed by Matthew Chaisson dated 12-18-15
Animal Control Officer's Dog Attacks Animal Report dated 1-28-16
City Manager's Determination dated 2-3-16
Appeal letter submitted by Dr. Jeffery Ostriker
RHMC 6.24.050 and 6.24.070
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council determine, from reviewing the record for
which the City Manager made his determination, if the City Manager made the
determination based on substantial evidence in the record. The City Council may
uphold, reverse or modify the order.
BACKGROUND
On December 18, 2015, the City received a formal complaint filed by Mr. Matthew
Chaisson (8 Crest Road East) regarding Azul, owned by Dr. Jeffrey Ostriker (27
Caballeros Rd.). The complaint alleged that Azul has entered Mr. Chaisson's property
on three occasions (the last being on December 11, 2015) and has killed one of his
chickens during each incident.
As is standard procedure, the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and
Control was requested by the City to conduct an evaluation of the complaint. The
investigation included an interview and a visit to the site.
On January 28, 2016, the City received a report inclusive of findings and
recommendations from Animal Care and Control Officer Eva Landas. The investigative
report concluded that the incident involving Azul occurred and thus, it was determined
that the complaint received by the City to be meritorious. Thereafter, on February 3,
2016, a letter was sent by the City Manager to the parties transmitting Officer Landas'
report and, along with City Manager's determination and order that Azul be confined
to Dr. Ostriker's property and under restraint of a leash by a person capable of
controlling Azul when off his property.
On February 11, 2011 Dr. Ostriker dropped by City Hall to meet the City Manager in
order to discuss the Animal Attack case. During this meeting, Dr. Ostriker offered to
compensate Mr. Chaisson for the loss of his three chickens as an offer of good will to
Mr. Chaisson. However, Dr. Ostriker made a request of the City Manager to relieve
him of the requirement of walking Azul always with a leash because he is disabled and
cannot handle a leash. If he was allowed to walk Azul without a leash, he stated he
would agree to sign any legal document that would make him personally liable for any
further attack was proven to be Azul, and would not walk Azul anywhere near Mr.
Chaisson's property in the future. The City Manager left the meeting with Dr. Ostriker
by stating he would need to check with the City Attorney to determine if his proposal is
feasible and if he could consider it administratively.
After the City Manager discussed the proposal with the City Attorney, the City
Manager was informed that he could not consider any proposal administratively
because the Municipal Code requires any amendment to the City Manager's original
order can only be considered by the City Council. The City Manager then contacted Dr.
Ostriker that he would need to appeal his decision before the City Council by
submitting it in writing to the City Clerk and pay a $40 Appeal Fee. Dr. Ostriker stated
he submitted a written appeal when he met with the City Manager the previous week
and would come to City Hall to pay the Appeal Fee. The City Manager did not
remember receiving the written appeal in question and requested that Dr. Ostriker to
bring another copy when he came to City Hall to pay the Appeal Fee. Dr. Ostriker
came to City Hall to submit the written appeal and paid the Appeal Fee on February
22nd.
On March 1, 2016, a letter was forwarded to the parties acknowledging receipt of the
appeal. Also included in the letter, was the date of the City Council's consideration of
the appeal and the procedures for the appeal. The City Manager's determination and
order confining Azul to the property remains in effect during the pendency of the
appeal.
DISCUSSION
This appeal is being held pursuant to Section 6.24.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code. The appeal was filed in a timely manner and the determination of the City
Manager, ordered in regard to Azul, remains in effect during the pendency of the
appeal.
In the appeal, the City Council is to determine if the determination and order of the City
Manager, based on the findings from Animal Care & Control officer's report, is
justified. The City Council may uphold, reverse or modify the order. The decision of
the City Council is final.
NOTIFICATION
The parties involved in the appeal have been notified.
CONCLUSION
Based on the evidence and record, it is recommended that the City Council uphold,
reverse or modify the determination and order by the City Manager in regard to the
complaint filed by Mr. Chaisson (8 Crest Road East) regarding Azul, owned by Dr.
Jeffrey Ostriker 27 Caballeros Road).
RRC:hl
OsMker Aninml Attack nppenl.docx
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
eat, a j aeeefer Weeed INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
Date Received by City
RECEVED
DEC 1 8 2015
City of Rolling Hills
ANIMAL COMPLAINT
REPORT
❑ Animal Attacks Person
Ch. 6.24 RHMC
El Animal Attacks Animal
Ch. 6.24 RHMC
U Animal Displaying Violent or
Threatening Behavior
Ch. 6.24 RHMC
❑ Nuisance Occurrence:
0 Barking Dogs and Other
Animal Noises
Ch. 6.46 RHMC
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310)377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
E-mail CityManager@cityofrh.net
City Manager's extension
(if applicable)
This form must be submitted to the City within ten (10) days of an incident, unless the City
Manager grants an extension for good cause as indicated by the City Manager's initials above.
Ain rial Gni/ rsot/
Name of Person Filing Report
e Gres r to 6 -
Address
aloks-
Date of Time of
Incident Incident
y: 36
AM/S.
/a 48/75 —
Date of Report
CSb5") Soy 7aGay
Telephone No.
ON flat Cf71 C S/ Ui= Of C/ic 5 r
Place of Incident
M-'11/2 77 J(14x/i q Cn'/E 772+,4 -
Information about Attacking/Nuisance Animal:
0S772IKE�
Owner's Name
6,413 ,v) /,t C. army/
87 Cgi34Ccot-v3 !CO
Owner's Address
Breed Color
Height Weight
Was animal wearing a license tag? Yes O No 0 Unknown
Describe Incident/Nuisance Occurrence --If barking dog or other animal noise complaint
indude description of noise and times of day it is heard: (Please use other side of form for
additional information.)
.T HAW= NA0 ;7-rr2EE ,Sep oi2f77 Cur s7A4/c4t2 iNci DENr5 4o/?7♦
M/2, oSin//C fl /fivo 11/5 °Pr- cteac M Cocci/zc13 Co&-. &Ieg
/N4'/QNT- MIAs 4Equ17a:2 /N 7rte /2J7./ cr Gist 4= of- My eN/cit .
)1 gSr %/ MC —N/3 /2266 EWm27&'D e4eitt7z7y Sn/?/1in/� v,A•CH/Clic-/.
/ Over (Page 1 of 2)
Address/Phone No.
Describe Injury:
UM/Le 1 t•/21 i int ,Ci i efecv/ 1c- «E sr Nevi( . A 5 .Z ,24 s/
ov ,-. ten 77t~r..cir 066r Lo l ---r i 9e P,26# illy 044./ A( -ruC Jc-t wrrA
re -4 o
6/2 /hi 743"9;1. 1 saw nee 7u^ an /rd /' - (j5-77zeleek? s 1 /2 /21#14; g
/tt= -72f1 iL AivD77 C/ n+-rn toc_c✓rc'f /<7a& (A)i Tr,77-tt K'r1 C-KenJ
/A) //S /14ou7/• C / Cc rovi z) #5ezc:JI
Witnesses: (You may attach statements from witnesses or other supporting documentation i.e.,
veterinarian or physician bills if there was an injury.)
Name Address/Phone No.
Name
Additional Information:
f eccauo 77n9 C - 77i'e 006-s teNTe7267) P/16Pgn ry 57-0/?- eso
eh° Tree- CiiiC,4=�t/S A/n-7f vie ocol M t /24 A) To -rite 5 -cat
.1' C.zl'f/GrNNT 77.16 cieaC Cc2t& ct L'r /W4G/L/v/G A cry /C4e-7J .
//tZrl C.K/ To ,/DoC& t ECT:n/C Mg. O5772i/CC-72 Tp 2CV/7'V
2 jr. /fE Di Alt .. 777nGo6-frl /V e/Crir-60n5 AA/0 Cry t_7f-tr/-oyetS,
L /raw° Our !AM 4QL) idire2 ,I2 o;'raueenC wA 5 AA -40 U gC_-D.
1 /2O7l'/2 J o 777e fOCr 4'tv0 & Aar/iCZY) ile moot_ A/
AMU. ME' Oohs 0/ C./2tSi 6 AGA/nt. c)EZC //E fic-n 2N o
--/We ,4 , t yz.vc¢:n/ OF L7EG // , ,PCP5 5 A'?2/J (wee O1CrmiAl- /t:5
1C& 5 En -XFO 7715 ,PoPtnrlf A*vo r taste ,gn/v771e2 G ccr(
6 %/+c= C/� ./
N? Cc:C-o/ze27 Doti-. Ati. ;REEF OlcS' 7"ECtttl-fcV OPF.
, fR.. O5�/Cer2 AS is tSmwd MC TM., /t 1445' /10 i o7i7na-
ozez ms ,R Al At . L WOOL_ /) l- ate 7a 13C (:CM t7WS4 2f77
ps/L me twice° Lis ESrrexc AvO RE.A5YL/aty /.It W/1 -C- n/6t-
C to A/t2117 Ps G/LeS E3 ic//Tl ctb6 ol=F i-.S" 5 7 Nk_
Signature of Person Filing Report
(Page 2 of 2)
Rev. 12/2014 public/animal complaint form
RECtLVtn
JAN 2 8 2016
Ci •t Rolling Hills
By
ITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Telephone No. (310) 377-1521 • FAX No. (310) 377-7288
Page L. of S
(v/ DOG ATTACKS ANIMAL ( ) DOG ATTACKS PERSON
( ) ANIMAL NUISANCE OCCURRENCE:
( ) A. Barking Dogs and Other Animal Notes
( ) B. Running or Charging
REPORT FORM
Investigation must be completed within 10 days alter recta of complaint
(Note: An attack must Involve injurious bodily contact, without provocation, per
RHMC Section 6.08.030)
DATE REPORT SUBMITTED TO CITY iLiele7-ddE,`E- IC, 40/ C
NAME OF ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER CbA. C7'Q/V4715
CIE OF INJURED PERSON/OWNER OF INJURED DOG
NAME nit-777/CA) Cf/n/SSO,C/
ADDRESS (3- Cr/Cdi 1.2.4
CITY %s Ct�e7 411//S
C
STATE
DATE
1 ii
ZIP 92n
HOME PHONE Saris'? V72 -6 -fee WORK PHONE ( )
BREED---/bC,A-tOLOR SEX (N NAME
LICENSE NO. le— l.- EXPIRATION DATE Nf % -
STATEMENT TO OFFICER £-&&4 6/E' zo /YA/Cr CM( o
«4?,5?n d /O tC2 ?✓ 47174-7-1a 2- ?Cd/4EA a c/
e tr7.-lci tAt12C- '-r4--7Tntut °flit/ &a" ,67 A
'efrr
Animal Incident Repel Fan
7/97-1
v
Page _ of
INFORMATION REGARDING ATPACKING/NITISANCF. ANIMAL,
NAME OF OWNER %',c6'n —%R-I /COL DATE /43/76
ADDRESS Z7 cA/bM/9'�oS •
CITY -P413L(7Ae theLS STATE dik. ZIP %nV
HOME PHONE (b )sr/V-A47, WORK PHONE (3to ) 93S z -St 3
BREED /b✓E7 COLORwNI SEX) (F) NAME fr21-4 (—
LICENSE NO. W n 32 a EXPIRATION DATE 6-8-/e
STATEMENT TO OFFICER OS%ttICe2 SWIM?) "7/ti-T0,c1 /2/0//3Cei 4i
/6�x) /&)las, /ftcw+3 t�V'Citi I-1 (S. 36c$S QAi 77tc77WC- itylkvAAs tic rvasiS &itS. H/S O S"4-Wr/ 4 /27tH / Wald AM) $( Op EGajoew
aSipt zAMVCCA ,t'zu(,I A Cif-lera ins 194 Haug-. 57EA
°` X)CS/ ti0 I ti0 " f%"A *2fer ( '6° 46°03 711t-acicietAf , lf/z MIN - df=
7t l c/�c acen-/ P4u 0) IT 7tua A.6 69 -A-1 ,'/,ci Z7 recp th& &
VF ih 7✓ZAE/. ZJT,e,/r's' S7)9717J 7W S oratifrat Oyez fd
A7vb 77 -1k -r:771 aA•/v 7,'-te itsADSt69S ArTite/636lie ! //hs.d.t s
Cr&ces l,hts w,r 7/tey AJeic lei VA' 7Wc %r i/•
ftSly/ /ft OrrRz- h/L-CN-A/S&.O -Co triSt12dc l -&H rtt
Cmuce-Ns t At - Guriellcs A6cs doss ati 77/r
rizzei / /be 7t,o d .
OBSERVED TEMPERAMENT OF AITACEINGLISMANCE ANIMAL
( )WILD ( )VICIOUS ( )SCARED (FRICE/ENDLY ( )UNPREDICTABLE
( )INJURED ( )SICK ( )OTHER
WITNESS STATEMENT TO OFFICER ! �
(1) NAME /" �A- DATE
ADDRESS
CITY STATE ZIP
HOME PHONE ( ) WORK PHONE ( )_
Animal Incident Report form
71974
0
Paged of 1 -
COMMENT Pit'
(2) NAME DATE
ADDRESS
CITY STATE ZIP
HOME PHONE ( ) WORK PHONE ( )
COMMENT 114 —
DESCRIPTION OF INTURY TO ANIMAL/PERSON OBSERVED BY OFFICER -
(Attach any supporting evidence collected i.e., doctor/veterinarian bills, photos, police report, etc.)
/t tc 'o/ CDY{P7fF/ice,,
V
OFFICER'S DESCRIPTION OF WHAT OCCURRED (based on interview with all panics):
,l&!''G7-f2- // re s,r/t (fr, rites, eVre-/toe—AK sAANicwue/
MS 3 tore S Dv n ckwvv,i/I - (At -C. %Kilt / A 2r A -g /1`/S
pn0tCnr - n`� &de -S 0P-7ENt Oki h G Any(
Animal Indent Report Form
7/97.3
0
Pager of
OTHER OBSERVATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS OF OFFICER
f{ZS a..A-2u/, A £Vh O2-C't. fri /,v fofcc,�%�Ilvt
fri (A irr, c A- CW/Ctaa, *-i k f72Mttyc-Li ,cra& 6 /7.
1>bi 1>L t ?7,'c £C7 ^-6n Caleb 7 1C fi 6/yi AC pia 117�(AtM-It_
9F -lt& Oft,ca-o_i 1h/?f 02- ,F Tnt a/'fincov ova 0,v
7?t 774414 % 3.4 ,s r� p � slaw ?6-w gcrS o3
,*L( Art-- ,7e44:6 / Cta.) tn. ?P1 .VC�C7S /CU' -et- /jtt.(
f irac %c 77-63 -c cX?Cti c1A4 'A) 77E.
enoPer- v !-/1StiEt T/l/S ,4,v1 "-u2 74f Oat /yith
flea tier A-7//2-4-) &'! "4 An Imst-1.-
7-/fr 46//'7V 70 ti 61f- R,.,d 4,,u'1Y Fno/--7 7
ZZOx,Wt•
Ammd Incident Report Form
7!97.5
Pager of r
DOES INCIDENT MEET DEFINITION OF AN ATTACK AS O 1TL D IN RHMC 6 08 03Q
("For purposes of this title, a person or animal shall be deemed to have been "attacked" by an animal if such
animal, without provocation, has injurious bodily contact, including but not limited to biting, with such
person or animal.")
YES( ) NO( )
(FIRST OFFENSE ( ) SECOND OFFENSE
ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER'S_ RECOMMENDATION--DOC • ATTA_CICS PERSON OR
ANIMAL
( )
ATTACK UNSUBSTANTIATED ---NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED. (RHMC
6.24.020)
( ) ATTACK SUBSTANTIATED, ANIMAL UNLICENSED ---PERMANENT REMOVAL
(I FROM THE CITY REQUIRED. (RHMC 6.24.030)
ATTACK SUBSTANTIATED —PERMANENTLY CONFINE ATTACKING DOG TO
PROPERTY/USE LEASH. (RHMC 6.24.030)
( ) SECOND ATTACK ON PERSON SUBSTANTIATED ---PERMANENT REMOVAL
FROM THE CITY REQUIRED. (RHMC 6.24.070)
( ) SECOND ATTACK ON ANIMA!. SUBSTANTIATED
—( )CONTINUE CONFINEMENT/USE LEASH. (6.24.070)
---( )REMOVAL FROM THE CITY RECOMMENDED. (6.24.070)
ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION--NIISANCE OCCIIRHFNCF,
A. BARKING DOGS AND OTHER ANIMAL NOISES (RHMC 6.46)
( ) FIRST OFFENSE --CITY MANAGER SEND LETTER ADVISING OF ALLEGED NOISE
AND REQUEST IMMEDIATE STEPS BE TAKEN TO PREVENT ANY FURTHER
DISBURBANCE. (6.46.020B)
( ) SECOND OFFENSE --SCHEDULE HEARING BEFORE CITY MANAGER (6.46.030)
B. RUNNING/CHARGING (RHMC 6.48.020)
( ) CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT CONFINEMENT TO PROPERTY/USE OF LEASH
(RHMC 6.48.020)
( )
OWNER ELECTS TO CAUSE DOG TO BE PERMANENTLY REMOVED FROM THE
CITY (RHMC 6.48.020)
Animal Incident Repart Form
7/97-4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City o//E /SI _ 44/i
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 3771521
FAX: (310) 3777288
February 3, 2016
VIA REGULAR AND CERTIFIED U.S. MAIL
Dr. & Mrs. Jeffrey Ostriker
27 Caballeros Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Dr. & Mrs. Ostriker,
As you are aware, an Animal Complaint Report (Dog Attacks Animal) was filed with this
office on December 18, 2015 by Mr. Matthew Chaisson (8 Crest Road East) alleging that your
dog, a cream colored Labrador mix, has entered his property on three different occasions and
attacked his chicken, each incident resulted in the death of one of his chickens, with the most
recent incident on December 11, 2015. Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and
Control has completed its investigation of the incident and a copy of the report is attached.
The investigative report concludes that the incident involving your dog Azul occurred and
thus, it is determined that the complaint received by the City is meritorious. As such, per
Municipal Code Section 6.24.030 (c), it is necessary that Azul be confined to your property
and under the restraint of a leash by a person capable of controlling Azul when off your
property. We have enclosed a copy of the applicable Municipal Code Sections for your
information.
In accordance of Municipal Code Section 6.24.070, any person may appeal this order to the
City Council within 10 days of the date of this letter. The appeal must be filed in writing
with the City Clerk.
Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further,
please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
ka"7"twn" 4Thi
Raymond R. Cruz
City Manager
RRC:en 02-03-160striker-ltr.Ana'
C: Officer Eva Landas, Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control
Mr. Matthew Chaisson, 8 Crest Road East
0
Printed on Recycled Paper
6.24.070 Appeals.
A. Any person who is a party to a proceeding described in this chapter and who is dissatisfied with the
order of the City Manager shall have the right to appeal to the City Council.
1. The appeal shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk within ten days after the date of mailing of
the order.
2. Within ten days after receipt of a timely filed appeal, the City Clerk shall set the appeal for
hearing on the next regular meeting agenda of the City Council. The City Council, may continue
the appeal hearing from time to time for good cause.
3. If an animal is ordered permanently confined, the order of the City Manager shall remain in
effect while the appeal is pending and the owner shall comply with all the provisions thereof. If
the owner of the animal is the appealing party, the failure to permanently confine the animal
during the pendency of the appeal shall be grounds for dismissal.
4. If an animal is ordered removed from the City or humanely destroyed, the owner shall cause the
animal to be permanently confined in accordance with Section 6.24.050(B)(9) while the appeal
is pending. If the owner of the animal is the appealing party, the failure to permanently confine
the animal while the appeal is pending shall be grounds for dismissal of the appeal.
B. At the time of hearing the appeal, the City Council shall review and consider all evidence submitted
orally and in writing relating to the order of the City Manager and shall either uphdld, reverse or
modify the order.
C. An appeal fee shall be paid within the time allowed for filing the appeal, as set forth in Chapter 6.56.
No appeal shall be processed or considered by the City Council unless such fee has been paid.
(Ord. No. 339, § 1, 11-10-2014)
Rolling Hills, California, Code of Ordinances
6.24.030 Commencement of enforcement.
A. Enforcement of the provisions of this chapter may be commenced either upon receipt of a complaint
or upon observation by city enforcement officials of behavior demonstrating that a dog or other
animal is aggressive as defined in Section 6.24.010.
B. A complaint shall be filed within ten days of an incident unless an extension is granted upon the City
Manager's finding of good cause, and shall include the date, time, and location of the incident, the
names and statements, if any, of any known witnesses and any other pertinent information in the
possession of the complainant.
C. Upon receipt of a complaint or observation of an incident by city enforcement officials, the City
Manager shall commence an investigation of the allegations. Pending the conclusion of that
investigation, the City Manager may in his or her discretion and based on the nature and severity of
the incident, order the animal confined to the premises of its owner or impounded.
D. If the City Manager orders the animal confined to the premises, the owner may elect to place the
animal in a kennel or veterinary facility. In either event, the animal shall not be removed from its
place of confinement without the prior written approval of the City Manager and shall be made
available to city enforcement officials for observation and inspection. The animal shall be confined
indoors or outdoors on the animal owner's property. Outdoor confinement shall be by a fence,
electronic fence, running line, pulley, or trolley system consistent with California Health and Safety
Code Section 122335 and California Penal Code Section 597t, or other device satisfactory to the
City Manager that prevents the animal from escaping the owner's property. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, when off the owner's property or premises, the animal must be equipped with a muzzle
and securely held by a leash not exceeding six feet in length or similar device or other means to
prevent the animal from escaping by an adult capable of restraining and controlling the animal, and
under that person's immediate control.
E. The City Manager may photograph, inspect and measure the animal as necessary to create a means
of permanent identification to be retained in the City's records.
(Ord. No. 339, § 1, 11-10-2014)
Rolling Hills, California, Code of Ordinances
r Om cox
' ;:= ��5.' u
JAN 282016
Ci afi Rolling Hills
By a a ----CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Telephone No. (310) 377.1521 • FAX No. (310) 377-7288
Page / of
(v) DOG ATTACKS ANIMAL ( ) DOG ATTACKS PERSON
( ) ANIMAL NUISANCE OCCURRENCE:
( ) A. Barking Dogs and Other Animal Notes
( ) B. Running or Charging
REPORT FORM
Investigation must be completed within 10 days alter receipt of complaint
(Note: An attack must Involve Injurious bodily contact, without provocation, per
RHMC Section 6.08.030)
DATE REPORT SUBMITTED TO CITY £el-llet, IC, 20/ C
NAME OF ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER CM. (X.A 44'
NAME OF INJURED PERSON/OWNER OF IN HIRED DOG
NAME Fl7€77-HGv C//, vSSDFC/
ADDRESS Crr CVGGST
CITY 'Ate to e) 21////S
DATE b'i/C
STATE C.04 ZIP l r V
HOME PHONES & V7L/1K
BREBD 1P1/C ^-COLOR
WORK PHONE
SEX ( ,�Fj AME
LICENSE NO. `' EXPIRATION DATE FM
-
STATEMENT TO OFFICER G(,&.4 fS/C F-/A/Cj Ct;;e4 di
Q4 E� 10S-eryEw &>»7l7 /ERuie/,, i�ety/EEZ! a c/
/ !1` r'Lj'D/4.7, i4 / te/T <-z*'%77 &e&i ct e/V , kA --re A
/ jd7/ �—
Animal Incident Rryarl form
7/974
Page _ of
INFORMATION REGARDING ATTACKING/N1IISANCR ANIMAL
NAME OF OWNER c. (�/t(L//Cen__
ADDRESS Z"7 cAa kl/9zoS •
CITY Lit/Lei teltZS
STATE dA
DATE //28//6
ZIP ?0./V
HOME PHONE (WO ) SS/WV-77 WORK PHONE (3/o ).9-3s--a-g&--
BREED S COLOR/NN/ SECS) (F) NAME /E2ct
LICENSE NO. GU 2z 32 3 EXPIRATION DATE 6-5-76
STATEMENT TO OFFICER OS t f l een J) 1 74»T 0 x.) /2/l(/3C t, Wax
/eao /ly,/v-s /-1Crte'% /ttyt1/ci,Ei Nfg 3cc$S 9/.i RAC icNL 4 7/bu/, em-Qy
I s /dc „(7,,n/s- &its. ,-&s Qde; "-4ZGr/ " /271» fi-/aib M✓0 tee OF SGI , N
°CreA IC z fie/%Cep A7u ( 47%J A Cff (r -r e„, /Iv %f/S Hol, . 4 vey/a
R/c(], ADO Ai()'1,41vA ft -2r( LV2dfPc7J ck=rc.(ct,v• art? e%(%' O'.. df
%% C/h. ace/Li 72 1A 0)r 6/)u (/.&i/pki-i r%c;o rfi.c do6S
r)p r —7—ht 7✓11((. &s7,er/ca Sil-'11R-7 774/t1" ----P t s Xccln-r-7) o<a &fFo tt
Art i �h-r :Tt atv/c/ Tif-ME rtes / Yit. e /hs-Sa't-c
CNic,c ,s tms /02er //IIsc 2ry 77 -Ac %f i/•
if —LS -77y, // . oPT82-e7. &7f? .C%'4/S&.o Z' ?� (nSwe t6F-7 rlzve.
/tip CN7c/c,e s <A7-45 i ND ?o-tG—&c. jjt?'c/JCS His ,666c5 aim
%>',t c$cc% •
OBSERVED TEMPERAMENT OF ATTACKING/NUISANCE ANIMAL
( )WILD ( )VICIOUS ( )SCARED (4KIENDLY ( )UNPREDICTABLE
( )INJURED ( )SICK ( )OTHER
WITNESS STATEMENT TO OFFICER
(1) NAME /!� DATE
ADDRESS
CITY STATE ZIP
HOME PHONE( ) WORK PHONE( )
Animal Incident Report Form
7!97.2
Paged ofS.-
COMMENT N/1 -L'
(2) NAME DATE
ADDRESS
CITY STATE ZIP
HOME PHONE ( ) WORK PHONE ( )
COMMENT
DESCRI& ON_OF INJURY TO ANIMAL/PERSON OBSERVED BY OFFICER•
(Attach any supporting evidence collected be., doctor/veterinarian bills, photos, police report, etc.)
tripte w/ 0. if-r4tW
OFFICER'SDESCRIPTION OF WHAT OCCURRED (based on interview with all panics):
0 c - -)--it 1 4, 04 , l`4k= J(. / T4c V c�G✓'��lcc, ,X4(& It NrcrwC.
S 3 QCc, S #d i//s Jj c,w —,1 . (fit. 7.CAi / ta';42ta
oorzor[rn?y nit doers od-7f, L.v win s 1 F7 C.- 4y/
Animal Incident Report Form
7/97.3
Page T of i
OTHER OBSERVATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS OF OFFICER
HIS ei/; -4 GufF// o-cko,-t /,J
f 9 (lc /1'7/Acrt=-A A- Cl'//CC�-.v *--41 ,tf4La i1 .
1701( - 771c 4.tc, Ae' 'r- TR) 7ilC felt. iy AC 17t.
pr .77-t& Ont/cice--Ad Wt/z1 02- Jr- -Mt_ (Wince -A, defruirs olu
x. 4. 77k 4005 Jtkis 4 c s70A) 7b't4 seS ,o -
( /G,,€475o T Ala?
it -.67,0‘d( 77-hs Pimp( ere-C-fetntc i/1 77-tc 'T�t-7Zvte /r
ea.ap&�! 1:4 tlSt/&-S p-/iS A,vjt-t<(2 AIfate A f%L-7
7D Co,... -ft et- , AA/6 Afar /1-7711.v &J Fti 4n ••n -L
77'/c 4417 fry 7o rt(4N 1-•F47`4 117414v Ezp,-7 77/c
Avmcl1nridrnl grporl Form
7157.5
DOES INCIDENT MEET DEFINITION OF AN
("For purposes of this title, a person or animal shall
animal, without provocation, has injurious bodily
person or animal.")
(IFFIRSf OFFENSE
ANIMAL
Paget of
ATTACK AS OUTLINED INRHMC 6 08 03Q
be deemed to have been "attacked" by an animal if such
contact, including but not limited to biting, with such
YES( ) NO( )
( ) SECOND OFFENSE
ANIMAL. CONTROL OFFICER'S R OMMFis92A th n�
w n p RCf1N nR
( ) ATTACK UNSUBSTANTIATED ---NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED. (RI-11vIC
6.24.020)
( ) ATTACK SUBSTANTIATED, ANIMAL UNLICENSED ---PERMANENT REMOVAL
FROM THE CITY REQUIRED. (RHMC 6.24.030)
ATTACK SUBSTANTIATED --PERMANENTLY CONFINE ATTACKING DOG TO
PROPERTY/USE LEASH. (RHMC 6.24.030)
SECOND ATTACK ON PERSON SUBSTANTIATED ---PERMANENT REMOVAL.
FROM THE CITY REQUIRED. (RHMC 6.24.070)
( ) SECOND ATTACK ON ANIMAL SUBSTANTIATED
---( )CONTINUE CONFINEMENT/USE LEASH. (6.24.070)
---( )REMOVAL FROM THE CITY RECOMMENDED. (6.24.070)
ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION --NUISANCE OCCURRENCE.
A. BARKING DOGS AND OTHER ANIMAL NOISES (RHMC 6.46)
( )
(
()
FIRST OFFENSE --CITY MANAGER SEND LETTER ADVISING OF ALLEGED NOISE
AND REQUEST IMMEDIATE STEPS BE TAKEN TO PREVENT ANY FURTHER
DISBURBANCE. (6.46.020B)
( ) SECOND OFFENSE --SCHEDULE HEARING BEFORE CITY MANAGER (6.46.030)
B. RUNNING/CHARGING (RHMC 6.48.020)
( ) CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT CONFINEMENT TO PROPERTY/USE OF LEASH
(RHMC 6.48.020)
( ) OWNER ELECTS TO CAUSE DOG TO BE PERMANENTLY REMOVED FROM THE
CITY (RHMC 6.48.020)
Animal Incident Report Form
7/97.4
I am writing this letter to formally appeal the City's decision regarding the complaint on Azul.
Frankly, after speaking with the animal control officer and reading the report I am shocked at the City's
conclusion.
I will state the reasons. First of all, the report only partially supports the claims of Mr. Chaison. It
confirms the dog with a chicken in his mouth "on the trail". When the animal control officer met my
dogs she found them to be friendly and non -aggressive! (The report confirms this)! She spoke to several
of my neighbors who confirmed that opinion! I explained to her that I had walked Azul on the trails daily
for five years (including the one in question) without incident. They showed no interest in the chickens
when they were in the coop. I did tell her that they chase the crows that eat their food in our backyard.
She said that was normal behavior for cocker spaniels. I often make my own dog food using rotisserie
chicken and brown rice. She even stated that she would check the regulations to see if it was proper for
Mr Chaison to let his chickens run loose. That being said, I told her I wished to be a good neighbor and a
good citizen of the city I have lived in for 25 years. I told her that I would no longer take the dogs on the
trail behind Mr. Chaison's house as long as he owned chickens. She stated that as long as I did this she
saw no problem with my continuing to walk Azul "off leash" on the other trails.
I have since met Mr. Chaison on the trails. We were friendly and hold no ill will toward each other. He
does not hold any resentment toward Azul and understandably wants reassurance that if Azul walks
behind his house that he be under control. 1 reassured him that I would no longer take that trail with
Azul and he seemed satisfied.
Due to a bone disease that affects both my legs, I am disabled. I have had many surgeries and am
considered to be totally disabled by Social Security. As a result, I use "walking sticks" as an aid when on
the trails. I am physically unable to walk the dogs using a leash. Walking my dogs on the trails is my
therapy to stay mobile. They inspire me to stay active! It is because of the Rolling Hills no leash law that
I have never considered moving, as this activity is so important to my health!
Azul was born at my house and I have raised him since he was a pup. He lives with his mother and his
brother. He has never harmed anyone and is loved by my neighbors and all who meet him on the trails.
I would like to continue to walk my dogs (as I have over 1000 times without incident) and avoid the trail
behind Mr. Chaisons house. Rolling Hills does not require a leash for friendly dogs as everyone has
found AZUL. (Officer Landas confirmed his non -aggressive friendliness in her report) Avoiding the trail
behind Mr Chaisons house would satisfy the recommendation of the animal control officer that Azul not
run loose to harm the chickens. If I cannot do this I can no longer continue my relationship with Azul.
Given the love of animals that Rolling Hills promotes I refuse to believe that this is their wish.
If you wish to contact officer Landas to confirm my statements her E-mail is ,
elandas@animalcare.lacounty.gov
Thank you for your consideration
sincerely;
ECEIvED
FEB 2 2 2016
City of Rolling Hills
By
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
6.24.050 - Imposition of remedy —Alternative I.
A. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the City Manager may find that the complaint or observation is
substantiated and that the dog or other animal is aggressive within the meaning of Section 6.24.010, but
that mitigating circumstances exist to allow the animal to be retained by its owner rather than be
removed from the City or humanely destroyed. Such a finding shall be prepared in writing.
B. In the event of such a finding, the City Manager shall impose and the owner of the animal shall comply
with any or all of the following conditions:
1. Annual registration of the animal with the City as an aggressive animal as long as the animal is alive
and residing within the City, subject to payment of a fee set forth by City Council pursuant to Section
6.56.010.
2. The owner shall obtain a policy of liability insurance or a bond to provide coverage for damages or
injuries caused by the animal, evidence of such insurance to be filed with the City Manager, in an
amount deemed sufficient to deter any future incidents of violent or threatening behavior and to
adequately compensate for a future incident should it occur. Such amount shall range from five
hundred thousand dollars to two million dollars based on the evaluation by the City Manager of all
the factors listed in Section 6.24.010(D) and the facts relating to the substantiated complaint or
observation.
3. The animal shall at all times wear an aggressive animal tag and a bright fluorescent yellow collar
visible at fifty feet in normal daylight, both provided by the City at the owner's expense.
4. The owner shall notify in writing the United States Post Office (local branch) and all utility companies
providing service to the residence of the animal's aggressive status.
5. The City Manager may, in his or her discretion, order that the animal wear a muzzle at all times or
only when off the owner's premises.
6. The animal shall be spayed or neutered.
7. The animal shall be microchipped.
8. The owner shall post one or more signs on the premises at a location or locations approved by the
City Manager easily visible to all visitors stating that an aggressive animal resides on the premises.
9. The owner shall be required to permanently confine the animal to the property or premises of the
owner. For purposes of this section "permanent confinement" means:
a. The owner shall securely confine the aggressive dog or other animal indoors or if outdoors, to the
owner's property or premises by a fence, electronic fence, running line, pulley, or trolley system,
or other device satisfactory to the City Manager and consistent with California Health and Safety
Code Section 122335 and California Penal Code Section 597t that prevents the animal from
escaping the owner's property;
b. The owner shall not allow the dog or other animal to run at large upon any street, lane, driveway,
court or other public place, or upon any private property or premises other than private property
or premises which the owner owns, has charge of, or has custody or control of; and
c. The owner shall cause the dog or other animal to be securely held by a leash not exceeding six
feet in length or similar device or other means to prevent the animal from escaping when off the
owner's property or premises, by an adult capable of restraining and controlling the animal, and
under that person's immediate control. At no time may the animal be left unattended in a public
place.
10. The owner shall notify tf ity Manager immediately in the evw he animal is at large, has
committed an attack on any person or animal, has been sold or otherwise disposed of, or has died.
11. Such other reasonable conditions as the City Manager deems necessary to protect the public safety
and welfare.
(Ord. No. 339, § 1, 11-10-2014)
6.24.070 - Appeals.
A. Any person who is a party to a proceeding described in this chapter and who is dissatisfied with the order
of the City Manager shall have the right to appeal to the City Council.
1. The appeal shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk within ten days after the date of mailing of the
order.
2. Within ten days after receipt of a timely filed appeal, the City Clerk shall set the appeal for hearing on
the next regular meeting agenda of the City Council. The City Council may continue the appeal
hearing from time to time for good cause.
3. If an animal is ordered permanently confined, the order of the City Manager shall remain in effect
while the appeal is pending and the owner shall comply with all the provisions thereof. If the owner of
the animal is the appealing party, the failure to permanently confine the animal during the pendency
of the appeal shall be grounds for dismissal.
4. If an animal is ordered removed from the City or humanely destroyed, the owner shall cause the
animal to be permanently confined in accordance with Section 6.24.050(6)(9) while the appeal is
pending. If the owner of the animal is the appealing party, the failure to permanently confine the
animal while the appeal is pending shall be grounds for dismissal of the appeal.
B. At the time of hearing the appeal, the City Council shall review and consider all evidence submitted orally
and in writing relating to the order of the City Manager and shall either uphold, reverse or modify the
order.
C. An appeal fee shall be paid within the time allowed for filing the appeal, as set forth in Chapter 6.56. No
appeal shall be processed or considered by the City Council unless such fee has been paid.
(Ord. No. 339, § 1, 11-10-2014)
616
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
TO:
FROM: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER
N0. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310)377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 10-A
Mtg. Date: 03/14/16
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF PROVIDING ACCURATE COMPENSATION
TO THE LAW FIRM JENKINS & HOGIN FOR UNDERPAYMENT
FOR LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDED THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
FOR VIEW IMPAIRMENT CASES FROM MAY OF 2014 TO
DECEMBER 2015.
DATE: MARCH 14, 2016
ATTACHMENTS:
Letter and attachment from City Attorney dated January 25, 2016
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council appropriate $13,832.90 to accurately
compensate the law firm Jenkins & Hogin for underpayment for legal services provided
the City of Rolling Hills for view impairment cases from May 2014 to December 2015.
BACKGROUND
On January 25, 2016, the City Manager received a letter from City Attorney Michael
Jenkins from the legal firm Jenkins & Hogin advising that a billing error occurred
within the firm's invoices to the City that resulted in an underpayment based on the
City's agreed upon hourly rate. This underpayment occurred for "View Impairment
Cases" from May 2014 to December 2015. The firm is seeking that the City rectify the
underpayment by compensating the firm $13,852.90
DISCUSSION
Once the City Manager received the letter from Mr. Jenkins about the underpayment,
he sought pro bono legal assistance from an experienced outside City Attorney. It was
determined that the City was legally obligated to compensate accurately for services
rendered under a valid contract going back 4 years. Since the underpaid invoices go
back only to May 2014, it well within the statute of limitations and the City can be
legally obligated to pay this underpayment.
CONCLUSION
Michael Jenkins has been the City Attorney since 1982 and his firm Jenkins & Hogin has
provided all the City's general legal services since 2001. Mr. Jenkins and the firm have
served the City well and there never have been a significant invoicing issue with the
firm in the past. Staff believes this unfortunate accounting error should be rectified in
accordance to the law. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council appropriate
$13,832.90 to accurately compensate the law firm Jenkins & Hogin for underpayment
for legal services provided the City of Rolling Hills for view impairment cases from
May 2014 to December 2015.
RRC:hl
Jenkins and Hogin Underpayment Agenda Itern.docx
JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP
A LAW PARTNERSHIP
MICHAEL JENKINS
CHRISTI HOGIN
JOHN C. CO=
GREGG KETTLES
LAUREN LANGER
TREVOR RUSIN
MELINDA A. GREEN
NATALIE C. KARPELES
Ray Cruz, City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Ray,
MANHATTAN TOWERS
1230 ROSECRANS AVENUE, SUITE 110
MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90266
(310) 643.8448 • FAX(310) 643.8441
W W W.LOCALGOV LAW COM
January 25, 2016
WRITER'S EMAIL ADDRESS:
MJENKINS a LOCALGOVLAW.COM
I write to inform you of a billing error in the firm's invoices to the City that has resulted in an
underpayment based on our agreed hourly rate and to request a corrective payment.
Since 2009 the agreed contractual rate for all advisory services is $178/hour. In July 2012, the
City asked me to prepare a summary of all past view impairment cases to include in my analysis of
Measure B. I agreed to hire a law clerk to perform this task and to charge the City at the reduced
rate of $75/hour. I created a separate billing category called "View Impairment Cases" and billed
the law clerk's time at that rate.
Prior to June 2014, we billed our time for view cases in the same invoice as land use applications.
In June 2014, in order to better keep track of our costs associated with view preservation cases,
we started billing that time separately. We billed that time in the "View Impairment Cases"
billing category, but 1 erred not increasing the hourly rate from $75 to $178 in our billing system.
As a result, all of our attorney time since that date has been billed at $75/hour, well below our
contracted rate.
All of the invoices that were billed at $75/hour are attached. The total number of hours billed at
the reduced rate is 134.30, and the value of the differential ($103/hr.) is $13,832.90. I have
enclosed an invoice for that amount and would request payment in order to rectify the error. I
take eat pride in the accuracy of our invoices, in not routinely raising our hourly rates and in
ke pi the C. 's fees low. I am embarrassed by this error and apologize for any inconvenience.
Tanks for vdud l�ssistance.
0
JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP
A Law Partnership
Michael Jenkins
Christi Hogin
John C. Cotti
Gregg Kettles
Lauren Langer
Trevor Rusin
Melinda A. Green
Natalie C. Karpeles
MANHATTAN TOWERS
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
(310) 643-8448 • Fax (310) 643.8441
W W W.LOCALGOV LAW.COM
Writer's Email Address:
Mjenkins@localgovlaw.com
January 25, 2016
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Correction to your account for MAY 2014 - DECEMBER 2015
View Impairment cases underbilled for the period of $13,832.90
May 2014 - December 2015
CORRECTED
AMOUNT DUE MAY 2014 - DECEMBER 2015 $13,832.90
C
Rolling Hills View Impairment Case Invoices
DATE OF
INVOICES
HOURS
AT $75
AT $178
DIFFERENCE
May -14
22.00
1,650.00
3,916.00
2,266.00
Jun -14
5.70
427.50
1,014.60
587.10
Jul -14
10.30
772.50
1,833.40
1,060.90
Aug -14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sep -14
11.10
832.50
1,975.80
1,143.30
Oct -14
5.90
442.50
1,050.20
607.70
Nov -14
12.50
937.50
2,225.00
1,287.50
Dec -15
15.80
1,185.00
2,812.40
1,627.40
Jan -15
4.00
300.00
712.00
412.00
Feb -15
15.10
1,132.50
2,687.80
1,555.30
Mar -15
5.10
382.50
907.80
525.30
Apr -15
2.00
150.00
356.00
206.00
May -15
4.60
345.00
818.80
473.80
Jun -15
4.30
322.50
765.40
442.90
Jul -15
3.80
285.00
676.40
391.40
Aug -15
2.90
217.50
516.20
298.70
Sep -15
0.60
45.00
106.80
61.80
Oct -15
5.20
390.00
925.60
535.60
Nov -15
2.10
157.50
373.80
216.30
Dec -15
1.30
97.50
231.40
133.90
TOTALS 134.30
®
$13,832.90
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
e
Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
Manhattan Towers
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Invoice submitted to:
City Manager
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Invoice Date
Invoice Number
Last Bill Date
June 01, 2014
22534
4/30/2014
In Reference To:View impairment cases
Invoice #22534
Professional Services
Hours Amount
5/5/2014 DHK
DHK
5/7/2014 DHK
5/15/2014 MJ
5/19/2014 DHK
5/20/2014 MJ
DHK
DHK
DHK
DHK
5/21/2014 DHK
5/27/2014 MJ
Review letter received from attorney Ms. Lear; coordinate with staff
regarding contacting Ms. Lear's office regarding same; update file
Legal research regarding City liability for pending views and trees cases;
review and analyze Karim v. City of Pomona case regarding same
Review and reply to 2 emails from Ms. Schwartz regarding continuance
of 5/21 hearing; review letter from Mr. Weinberg regarding same;
telephone call with Ms. Schwartz regarding same
Telephone call from Mr. Cruz regarding acquisition of property issue
Listen to voicemail from Ms. Schwartz regarding Committee on Trees
and Views issue
Conference with Mr. King regarding mediation agreement and view
impairment application
Telephone call with Ms. Schwartz regarding various issues, including
5/20 Committee on Trees and Views meeting; review and reply to 4
emails from Ms. Schwartz regarding same; begin to review agreement
attached to email
Review draft View Committee Complaint and Request for Mediation;
compose email to Ms. Schwartz regarding same
Review and revise mediation agreement; conference with Mr. Jenkins
regarding same; compose email to Ms. Schwartz and attach revised
version of mediation agreement to email
Prepare for and attend Committee on Trees and Views meeting
Exchange emails with Ms. Luce regarding follow up to 5/20 Committee
on Trees and Views meeting
Telephone conference with Ms. Schwartz regarding view hearings and
upcoming issues
SUBTOTAL:
0
0.30
0.30
0.60
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.80
0.30
0.50
1.90
0.20
0.40
5.70 427.50]
City Manager Page 2
Hours Amount
For professional services rendered 5.70 $427.50
Previous balance $1,650.00
5/12/2014 Payment - thank you ($1,650.00)
Total payments and adjustments ($1,650.00)
Balance due $427.50
0
Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
Manhattan Towers
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Invoice submitted to:
City Manager
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Invoice Date
Invoice Number
Last Bill Date
July 05, 2014
22604
6/1/2014
In Reference To:View impairment cases
Invoice #22604
Professional Services
Hours Amount
6/5/2014 MJ Email from Ms. Schwartz regarding Sherman submittal
6/9/2014 MJ Conference with Ms. Coates regarding status of pending view cases
6/11/2014 SC Call with Ms. Schwartz regarding pending view cases.
SC Review materials regarding Occhipinti view case.
MJ Review letter from Sherman attorney requesting continuance of
Occhipinti hearing
6/12/2014 SC Review materials regarding Occhipinti application and provide comments
on draft staff report to Ms. Schwartz.
MJ Review staff report for Occhinpinti hearing
MJ Conference with Ms. Coates regarding preparation for Occhipinti hearing
6/13/2014 SC Review background materials regarding view preservation ordinance,
including prior legal opinions and case law.
SC Analyze and summarize legal issues regarding Occhipinti view hearing.
SC Review letter from Ms. Lear regarding Occhipinti view hearing.
MJ Review letter from Ms. Lear
6/16/2014 MJ Review letter from Fish and Game regarding Sherman property
6/17/2014 SC Respond to inquiry from Ms. Schwartz regarding reliability of engineer
report in Occhipinti case.
MJ Attend view committee meeting
6/19/2014 SC Review case law regarding impact of placing home into trust on right to
restore view.
MJ Conference with Ms. Coates regarding preparation for Occhipiniti
continued hearing
6/20/2014 SC Research potential liability of city under view ordinance.
SUBTOTAL:
For professional services rendered
Previous balance
0.10
0.30
0.60
0.20
0.10
2.20
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.30
1.50
0.80
0.10
1.80
10.30 772.50]
10.30 $772.50
$427.50
City Manager Page 2
Amount
7/5/2014 Payment - thank you ($427.50)
Total payments and adjustments ($427.50)
Balance due $772.50
Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
Manhattan Towers
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Invoice submitted to:
City Manager
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Date
Invoice Number
Last Bill Date
July 31, 2014
iInvoice
7/5/2014
In Reference To:View impairment cases
Amount
Previous balance
7/31/2014 Payment - thank you
Total payments and adjustments
Balance due
$772.50
($772.50)
($772.50)
$0.00
Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
Manhattan Towers
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Invoice submitted to:
City Manager
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Invoice Date
Invoice Number
Last Bill Date
August 31, 2014
22712
7/31/2014
In Reference To:View impairment cases
Invoice #22712
Professional Services
Hours Amount
8/13/2014 SC
SC
MJ
8/14/2014 SC
SC
MJ
8/15/2014 SC
MJ
8/19/2014 SC
MJ
SC
8/21/2014 SC
Telephone call to Ms. Schwartz regarding View Committee agenda and
email language for staff report.
Telephone calf from Ms. Schwartz regarding new information submitted
in Fournier v. Sherman case.
Conference with Ms. Coates regarding issues pertaining to continued
Sherman hearing
Review letter from Mr. Weinberg regarding Fournier case.
Prepare for Fournier view preservation hearing.
Review letter from Ekberg attorney; review analysis of same
Prepare for Fournier v. Sherman view impairment hearing.
Review committee agenda and discuss legal issues with Ms. Coates
Telephone call from Ms. Schwartz regarding meeting and review Code of
Conduct.
Conference with Ms Coates regarding meeting preparation
Prepare for and attend Fournier/Sherman hearing.
Prepare for and attend Occhipinti field trip.
SUBTOTAL:
0.60
0.10
0.10
0.30
1.90
0.20
1.70
0.20
0.20
0.10
2.20
3.50
11.10 832.50]
For professional services rendered 11.10 $832.50
Balance due $832.50
Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
Manhattan Towers.
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Invoice submitted to:
City Manager
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Invoice Date
Invoice Number
Last Bill Date
October 01, 2014
22780
8/31/2014
In Reference To:View impairment cases
Invoice #22780
Professional Services
Hours Amount
9/15/2014 SC
SC
9/22/2014 SC
SC
9/23/2014 SC
SC
SC
9/26/2014 SC
9/29/2014 SC
9/30/2014 SC
MJ
Analyze impact of Measure B on Witte, Shoemaker, Bellis view
impairment case.
Exchange emails with Ms. Schwartz regarding Occhipinti/Sherman view
case.
Review letter received from Ms. Lamberg regarding Occhipinti/Sherman
case.
Telephone call from Ms. Schwartz regarding status of
Sherman/Occhipinti case. •
Exchange emails with Mr. Weinberg regarding Occhipinti/Sherman case.
Research regarding Shoemaker/Witte/Bellis view case.
Review staff report regarding Occhipinti/Sherman view case.
Prepare letter to Wittes, Bellises, and Wald regarding private agreement
and Measure B.
Prepare email to Mr. Cruz and Ms. Schwartz regarding Witte Measure B
letter.
Exchange emails with Ms. Schwartz regarding Occhipinti case
environmental review.
Review emails regarding Occipinti CEQA issue
For professional services rendered
Previous balance
9/24/2014 Payment - thank you
Total payments and adjustments
1.80
0.30
0.10
0.30
0.10
0.40
0.30
1.90
0.20
0.40
0.10
5.90 $442.50
$832.50
($832.50)
($832.50)
Balance due $442.50
9
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
8
Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
Manhattan Towers
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Invoice submitted to:
City Manager
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Invoice Date
Invoice Number
Last Bill Date
October 31, 2014
22846
10/1/2014
In Reference To:View impairment cases
Invoice #22846
Professional Services
Hours Amount
10/1/2014 SC
10/2/2014 SC
MJ
10/20/2014 SC
10/21/2014 SC
MJ
10/22/2014 SC
10/23/2014 SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
10/24/2014 SC
SC
10/28/2014 SC
SC
SC
SC
Prepare for view committee meeting regarding Occhipinti/Sherman case.
Prepare for and attend view committee meeting regarding
Occhipinti/Sherman case.
Conference with Ms. Coates regarding hearing on Occhipinti case
Exchange emails with Ms. Schwartz regarding Sherman/Occhipinti view
case.
Prepare letter to Mr. Weinberg regarding environmental standards
applicable to Fournier and Occhipinti view cases.
Review and comment on letter to Weinstein regarding CEQA
Prepare and transmit letter to Mr. Weinberg regarding environmental
standards applicable to pending view cases.
Review staff report regarding Fournier field trip.
Telephone call from Ms. Schwartz regarding party issues and evidence
in Occhipinti hearing.
Telephone call to Ms. Lamberg regarding identification of trees in
Occhipinti case.
Telephone call to Mr. Weinberg regarding identification of trees in
Occhipinti case.
Return telephone call from Ms. Lamberg regarding photographs in
Occhipinti case.
Review agenda in preparation for Fournier field trip.
Review and edit staff report regarding Occhipinti continued hearing.
Telephone call from Ms. Lamberg regarding supplemental photos
submitted by Occhipintis.
Analyze supplemental photos submitted by Occhipintis and exchange
emails with Ms. Schwartz regarding same.
Exchange emails with Mr. Weinberg regarding supplemental photos in
Occhipinti view case.
Prepare for and attend Committee on Trees and Views field trip and
hearing regarding Fournier case.
0.10
3.70
0.10
0.10
1.10
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.30
0.20
0.40
0.30
5.00
City Manager Page 2
Hours Amount
SUBTOTAL:
For professional services rendered
Previous balance
10/14/2014 Payment - thank you
Total payments and adjustments
12.50 937.50]
12.50
$937.50
$442.50
($442.50)
($442.50)
Balance due $937.50
Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
Manhattan Towers
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Invoice submitted to:
City Manager
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Invoice Date
Invoice Number
Last Bill Date
November 29, 2014
22889
10/31/2014
In Reference To:View impairment cases
Invoice #22889
Professional Services
Hours Amount
11/3/2014 SC
SC
11/5/2014 SC
MJ
11/7/2014 SC
LBL
11/9/2014 SC
11/10/2014 SC
11/11/2014 SC
SC
11/13/2014 SC
11/14/2014 SC
11/16/2014 MJ
11/17/2014 SC
SC
MJ
11/18/2014 SC
SC
Prepare for Occhipinti/Sherman hearing.
Telephone call from Mr. Cruz and Ms. Schwartz regarding preparation
for Occhipinti hearing.
Prepare for and attend Occhipinti/Sherman hearing.
Conference with Ms. Coates regarding view committee meeting
Draft CEQA exemption determination regarding Fournier/Sherman
resolution and consult with Ms. Langer regarding same.
Review CEQA analysis for view preservation decision
Review and edit draft resolution regarding Fournier/Sherman case.
Review and edit draft staff report regarding Fournier/Sherman case.
Continue review and edit of staff report and resolution regarding
Fournier/Sherman case.
Telephone call from Ms. Schwartz regarding Fournier/Sherman
resolution and staff report.
Telephone call to Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding proposed
removal of trees at 33 Crest Road.
Review correspondence from Mr. Weinberg regarding Fournier/Sherman
case.
Review letter from Mr. Weinberg regarding allocation of future
maintenance costs
Analyze and prepare response to letter from Mr. Weinberg regarding
allocation of maintenance costs in Fournier/Sherman case.
Telephone call from Ms. Schwartz regarding Fournier/Sherman
resolution and letter from Mr. Weinberg regarding same.
Conference with Ms. Coates regarding letter from attorney for Fournier
regarding allocation of maintenance costs
Telephone call from Mr. Weinberg regarding Fournier/Sherman
allocation of maintenance costs.
Telephone call from Ms. Schwartz regarding Fournier/Sherman
maintenance cost allocation.
0.40
0.30
4.00
0.10
1.30
0.20
1.90
0.80
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.10
0.10
0.80
0.50
0.10
0.20
0.40
City Manager Page 2
Hours Amount
11/18/2014 SC Locate memorandum regarding modification of maintenance cost
allocation per request from Ms. Schwartz.
SC Analyze letter received from Ms. Lamberg regarding Fournier/Sherman
resolution.
SC Prepare for and attend Committee meeting regarding Fournier/Sherman
case.
11/19/2014 SC Review revisions to Fournier/Sherman resolution.
11/20/2014 SC Review draft resolution regarding Occhipinti/Sherman case.
For professional services rendered
Previous balance
11/14/2014 Payment - thank you
Total payments and adjustments
0.30
0.10
1.70
0.10
0.60
15.80 $1,185.00
$937.50
($937.50)
($937.50)
Balance due $1,185.00
Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
Manhattan Towers
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Invoice submitted to:
City Manager
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Invoice Date
Invoice Number
Last Bill Date
. January 01, 2015
22954
11/29/2014
In Reference To:View impairment cases
Invoice #22954
Professional Services
Hours Amount
12/8/2014 MJ Review email from Ms. Schwartz regarding Occhipinti resolution; 1.00
telephone conference with Mr. Cruz and Ms. Schwartz regarding same
12/9/2014 MJ Telephone conference with Ms. Schwartz regarding outcome of call with 0.20
Weinberg regarding Occhipinti hearing
12/10/2014 MJ Emails from attorneys and Ms. Schwartz regarding regarding -scheduling 0.20
of Occhipinti hearing; telephone conference with Ms. Schwartz regarding
same
12/15/2014 MJ Conference with Ms. Coates regarding Occhipinti continuance 0.10
12/22/2014 SC Telephone call from Ms. Lamberg regarding Fournier appeal hearing. 0.20
SC Review draft staff report regarding Fournier appeal. 0.50
12/23/2014 SC Edit draft staff report to City Council regarding Fournier appeal. 1.10
12/29/2014 SC Assist with preparation of City Council materials regarding Fournier 0.30
appeal.
MJ Conference with Ms. Coates regarding appendices for Fournier appeal 0.20
staff report; review Lamberg letter
12/30/2014 SC Review correspondence from Ms. Lamberg regarding Fournier appeal. 0.20
SUBTOTAL: [ 4.00 300.00]
For professional services rendered
Previous balance
4.00 $300.00
$1,185.00
Balance due $1,485.00
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
Manhattan Towers
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Invoice submitted to:
City Manager
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Invoice Date
Invoice Number
Last Bill Date
February 01, 2015
23003
1/1/2015
In Reference To:View impairment cases
Invoice #23003
Professional Services
Hours Amount
1/7/2015 SC
1/8/2015 SC
1/9/2015 SC
1/12/2015 SC
SC
1/15/2015 SC
1/16/2015 SC
1/19/2015 MJ
1/20/2015 SC
1/21/2015 SC
SC
1/25/2015 MJ
1/26/2015 SC
SC
MJ
1/27/2015 SC
SC
Telephone call to Ms. Schwartz regarding new application for view
restoration.
Telephone call from Ms. Schwartz regarding application for enforcement
of view agreement.
Telephone call to Mr. Nuccion regarding City enforcement of view
complaint agreement.
Telephone call from Mr. Cruz and Ms. Schwartz regarding Nuccion view
impairment complaint.
Prepare response to challenge from Mr. Weinberg regarding
Fournier/Sherman cost -sharing order.
Draft City Council resolution regarding Fournier view appeal.
Review revised draft Committee on Trees and Views staff report
regarding Occhipinti-Sherman resolution.
Review and comment on draft resolution in Fournier appeal
Revise City Council resolution regarding Fournier -Sherman view
impairment appeal.
Telephone call from Ms. Schwartz regarding Fournier -Sherman appeal
and Occhipinti-Sherman hearing.
Preparation for City Council meeting regarding Fournier -Sherman appeal.
Review email from Mr. Weinberg regarding recordation of covenant on
Sherman property
Analyze request from Mr. Weinberg regarding covenant recorded in
Fournier view case.
Telephone call to Ms. Schwartz regarding Fournier covenant and
Planning Commission meeting agenda.
Email from Mr. Weinberg regarding resolution; telephone call from same;
conference with Ms. Coates regarding same
Telephone call to Ms. Schwartz regarding Fournier and Occhipinti view
cases.
Review draft alternative Occhipinti resolution adopting revisions to
Fournier resolution approved by City Council.
0.40
0.40
0.80
0.90
0.50
1.70
0.20
0.20
0.80
0.20,
0.50
0.10
1.20
0.10
0.30
0.30
0.80
City Manager Page 2
Hours Amount
1/27/2015 SC Prepare revised form of informational covenant for view cases. 0.20
MJ Conference with Ms. Coates regarding revisions to Fournier resolution; 0.50
questions that arose during hearing; implications for Occhipinti hearing •
MJ Provide forms for informational covenants 0.10
1/28/2015 SC Review revisions to Occhipinti resolution proposed by Mr. Weinberg. 0.10
SC Advise Ms. Schwartz regarding applicability of writ of mandate to view 0.10
case decisions.
SC Prepare for and attend Occhipinti hearing. 2.20
SC Draft revised form of informational covenant. 1.50
MJ Conference with Ms. Coates regarding Committee decision on Occhipinti 0.10
case
MJ Review and comment on draft form of informational covenant 0.10
1/29/2015 SC Legal research and finalization of revised form of informational covenant. 0.80
SUBTOTAL: [ 15.10 1,132.50]
For professional services rendered 15.10 $1,132.50
Previous balance $1,485.00
1/16/2015 Payment - thank you ($1,485.00)
Total payments and adjustments ($1,485.00)
Balance due $1,132.50
Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
Manhattan Towers
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Invoice submitted to:
City Manager
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Invoice Date
Invoice Number
Last Bill Date
February 28, 2015
23055
2/1/2015
In Reference To:View impairment cases
Invoice #23055
Professional Services
Hours Amount
2/2/2015 SC Draft sample mediation agreement.
MJ Review draft sample mediation settlement agreement
.2/5/2015 SC Respond to inquiry from Ms. Schwartz regarding CEQA Notice of
Exemption in view cases.
• SC Telephone call from Ms. Schwartz regarding CEQA Notice of Exemption
in view cases.
2/6/2015 MJ Revise sample mediation settlement agreement
2/8/2015 SC Edit sample mediation agreement.
2/9/2015 SC Edit sample mediation agreement.
MJ Review and comment on revisions to mediation settlement agreement
template
2/11/2015 SC Continue drafting mediation settlement agreement.
MJ Review revisions to mediation settlement agreement
2/12/2015 SC Telephone call to Ms. Schwartz regarding Nuccion hearing.
2/23/2015 SC Review Travers certificate of insurance regarding performance of view
restoration.
SUBTOTAL:
1.30
0.10
0.30
0.20
0.60
0.10
1.40
0.10
0.30
0.10
0.10
0.50
5.10 382.50]
For professional services rendered 5.10 $382.50
Previous balance $1,132.50
2/26/2015 Payment - thank you ($1,132.50)
Total payments and adjustments ($1,132.50)
Balance due $382.50
Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
Manhattan Towers
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Invoice submitted to:
City Manager
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Invoice Date
Invoice Number
Last Bill Date
March 31, 2015
23128
2/28/2015
In Reference To:View impairment cases
Invoice #23128
Professional Services
Hours Amount
3/17/2015 SC Prepare for and attend Nuccion-Hassoldt hearing. 2.00
For professional services rendered
Previous balance
3/25/2015 Payment - thank you
Total payments and adjustments
Balance due
2.00 $150.00
$382.50
($382.50)
($382.50)
$150.00
Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
Manhattan Towers
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Invoice submitted to:
City Manager
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Invoice Date
Invoice Number
Last Bill Date
April 30, 2015
23189
3/31/2015
In Reference To:View impairment cases
Invoice #23189
Professional Services
Hours Amount
4/17/2015 SC
SC
4/21/2015 SC
SC
4/22/2015 MJ
4/23/2015 SC
4/27/2015 SC
4/28/2015 SC
Respond to inquiry from Ms. Schwartz regarding communication from 0.30
Mrs. Hassoldt.
Telephone call from Ms. Schwartz regarding communication from Mrs. 0.30
Hassoldt.
Prepare for and attend hearing regarding Nuccion/Hassoldt view 2.00
impairment case.
Telephone conference with Ms. Schwartz and Ms. Luce regarding 0.30
Nuccion/Hassoldt view impairment field trip.
Conference with Ms. Coates regarding status of Nuccion/Hassoldt matter 0.10
Advise Ms. Schwartz regarding preparation of informational covenant in i ' 0.20
Sherman view case. 4
Review and revise draft resolution regarding Nuccion-Hassoldt view 0.70
impairment case.
Review and revise draft resolution regarding Nuccion-Hassoldt view 0.70
impairment case.
SUBTOTAL:
For professional services rendered
Previous balance
4/18/2015 Payment - thank you
Total payments and adjustments
4.60 345.00]
4.60 $345.00
$150.00
($150.00)
($150.00)
Balance due $345.00
Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
Manhattan Towers
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Invoice submitted to:
City Manager
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Invoice Date
Invoice Number
Last Bill Date
May 29, 2015
23245
4/30/2015
In Reference To:View impairment cases
Invoice #23245
Professional Services
Hours Amount
5/13/2015 SC Prepare for continued public hearing regarding Nuccion/Hassoldt view
case.
5/14/2015 SC Prepare for and attend public hearing regarding Nuccion/Hassoldt view
case.
5/18/2015 SC Exchange emails with Ms. Schwartz regarding Nuccion/Hassoldt expert
costs.
SC Telephone call from Ms. Schwartz regarding Nuccion/Hassoldt case.
MJ Conference with Ms. Coates and telephone call from Ms. Schwartz
regarding payment for arborist regarding Nuccion matter
5/21/2015 SC Review request for proposals regarding arborist to determine maturity of
trees at 15 Portuguese Bend Rd.
SC Review draft agreement between City and Nuccions regarding payment
of expert costs regarding 15 Portuguese Bend Rd.
5/27/2015 SC Exchange emails with Ms. Schwartz regarding expert arborist in
Nuccion/Hassoldt case.
5/28/2015 SC Telephone call from Ms. Schwartz regarding mediation of view cases.
SUBTOTAL:
For professional services rendered
Previous balance
5/14/2015 Payment - thank you
Total payments and adjustments
0.10
2.20
0.50
0.10
0.20
0.50
0.30
0.20
0.20
4.30 322.501
4.30
$322.50
$345.00
($345.00)
($345.00)
Balance due $322.50
Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
Manhattan Towers
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Invoice submitted to:
City Manager
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Invoice Date
Invoice Number
Last Bill Date
July 06, 2015
23302
5/29/2015
In Reference To:View impairment cases
Invoice #23302
Professional Services
Hours Amount
6/3/2015 SC
6/4/2015 SC
6/11/2015 SC
SC
SC
6/15/2015 SC
SC
SC
MJ
6/30/2015 SC
SC
SC
Telephone call from Ms. Schwartz regarding retaining expert arborist in
Nuccion-Hassoldt case.
Exchange emails with Ms. Schwartz regarding selection of expert
arborist in Nuccion-Hassoldt case.
Prepare for telephone conference with Ms. Berg regarding sample
mediation agreement.
Telephone conference with Ms. Berg regarding sample mediation
agreement.
Revise sample mediation agreement to incorporate comments from Ms.
Berg.
Telephone call to Ms. Schwartz regarding Nuccion concerns regarding
payment of expert arborist.
Draft response to email from Mr. Nuccion regarding payment for expert
arborist.
Advise regarding correspondence between Ms. Schwartz and the
Nuccions/Hassoldts.
Review emails and conference with Ms. Coates regarding Nuccion
refusal to pay for arborist cost
Review correspondence from Mr. Weinberg regarding Nuccion/Hassoldt
hearing.
Review letter from owner at 44 Eastfield regarding view complaint.
Revise staff report regarding Nuccion-Hassoldt hearing regarding new
information received from Mr. Weinberg.
SUBTOTAL:
For professional services rendered
Previous balance
0.30
0.20
0.30
0.70
0.40
0.40
0.50
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.40
3.80 285.00]
3.80 $285.00
$322.50
City Manager
Page 2
Amount
7/6/2015 Payment - thank you ($322.50)
Total payments and adjustments ($322.50)
Balance due $285.00
Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
Manhattan Towers
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Invoice submitted to:
City Manager
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Invoice Date
Invoice Number
Last Bill Date
July 31, 2014
7/5/2014
In Reference To:View impairment cases
Amount
Previous balance
7/31/2014 Payment - thank you
Total payments and adjustments
Balance due
$772.50
($772.50)
($772.50)
$0.00
Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
Manhattan Towers
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Invoice submitted to:
City Manager
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Invoice Date
Invoice Number
Last Bill Date
August 01, 2015
23367
7/6/2015
In Reference To:View impairment cases
Invoice #23367
Professional Services
Hours Amount
7/7/2015 SC Prepare for and attend Nuccion/Hassoldt hearing.
7/8/2015 SC Email Mr. Weinberg regarding retention of expert arborist.
SC Exchange emails with Ms. Schwartz regarding Nuccion/Hassoldt neutral
arborist.
MJ Conference with Ms. Coates regarding Nuccion/Hassoldt
7/14/2015 SC Telephone call from Ms. Schwartz regarding Nuccion-Hassoldt view case.
7/21/2015 SC Prepare for and attend Planning Commission meeting.
1.50
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
1.00
For professional services rendered 2.90 $217.50
Previous balance $285.00
7/31/2015 Payment - thank you ($285.00)
Total payments and adjustments ($285.00)
Balance due $217.50
Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
Manhattan Towers
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Invoice submitted to:
City Manager
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Invoice Date
Invoice Number
Last Bill Date
August 31, 2015
23400
8/1/2015
In Reference To:View impairment cases
Invoice #23400
Professional Services
Hours Amount
8/5/2015 SC
8/24/2015 SC
8/28/2015 SC
8/31/2015 SC
Exchange emails with Ms. Schwartz regarding release of independent
arborist's report in Nuccion/Hassoldt case.
Exchange emails with Ms. Schwartz regarding request for information
from Mr. Weinberg in Nuccion/Hassoldt case.
Review arborist reports regarding maturity of trees in Nuccion/Hassoldt
case.
Exchange emails with Ms. Schwartz regarding arborist report for
Nuccion/Hassoldt case.
For professional services rendered
Previous balance
8/28/2015 Payment - thank you
Total payments and adjustments
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.60 $45.00
$217.50
($217.50)
($217.50)
Balance due $45.00
Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
Manhattan Towers
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Invoice submitted to:
City Manager
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Invoice Date
Invoice Number
Last Bill Date
September 30, 2015
23462
8/31/2015
In Reference To:View impairment cases
Invoice #23462
Professional Services
Hours Amount
9/13/2015 SC Review and edit draft staff report regarding Nuccion/Hassoldt view case.
9/14/2015 SC Exchange emails with Ms. Schwartz regarding Nuccion/Hassoldt case.
9/21/2015 SC Review letter from Mr. Weinberg regarding Nuccion/Hassoldt arborist
reports.
SC Telephone call to Ms. Luce regarding letter from Mr. Weinberg regarding
Nuccion/Hassoldt arborist reports.
9/22/2015 SC Prepare for continued hearing regarding Nuccion/Hassoldt case,
including response to letter from Attorney Weinberg.
SC Telephone call from Ms. Luce regarding Nuccion/Hassoldt view case.
SC Prepare for and attend continued hearing regarding Nuccion/Hassoldt
case.
SC Prepare resolution regarding Nuccion/Hassoldt view impairment case.
9/30/2015 SC Review agenda regarding Committee on Trees and Views hearing on
Nuccion/Hassoldt case.
SUBTOTAL:
0.80
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.60
0.10
2.70
0.50
0.10
5.20 390.00]
For professional services rendered 5.20 $390.00
Previous balance $45.00
9/18/2015 Payment - thank you ($45.00)
Total payments and adjustments ($45.00)
Balance due $390.00
Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
Manhattan Towers
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Invoice submitted to:
City Manager
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Invoice Date
Invoice Number
Last Bill Date
October 31, 2015
23531
9/30/2015
In Reference To:View impairment cases
Invoice #23531
Professional Services
Hours Amount
10/7/2015 SC
10/29/2015 SC
Prepare for and attend meeting of Committee on Trees and Views for
adoption of Nuccion/Hassoldt resolution.
Telephone call from Ms. Luce regarding Nuccion/Hassoldt view case
appeals.
SUBTOTAL:
2.00
0.10
2.10 157.50]
For professional services rendered 2.10 $157.50
Previous balance $390.00
10/14/2015 Payment - thank you ($390.00)
Total payments and adjustments ($390.00)
Balance due $157.50
Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
Manhattan Towers
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, butte 110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Invoice submitted to:
City Manager
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Invoice Date
Invoice Number
Last Bill Date
November 30, 2015
23581
10/31/2015
In Reference To:View impairment cases
Invoice #23581
Professional Services
Hours Amount
11/5/2015 SC Analyze letters of appeal regarding Nuccion/Hassoldt view impairment 0.50
case.
SC Review draft agenda description and notice regarding City Council public 0.30
hearing on appeal of Nuccion/Hassoldt view impairment decision.
11/16/2015 SC Review FPPC opinion regarding Councilmember Piepers participation in 0.10
Nuccion/Hassoldt tree appeal.
SC Revise City Council staff report regarding Nuccion/Hassoldt view case 0.40
appeal to reference FPPC opinion.
SUBTOTAL:
For professional services rendered
Previous balance
11/29/2015 Payment - thank you
Total payments and adjustments
1.30 97.50]
1.30
$97.50
$157.50
($157.50)
($157.50)
Balance due $97.50
Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
ManhattanTowers
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Invoice submitted to:
City Manager
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Invoice Date
Invoice Number
Last Bill Date
December 31, 2015
23635
11/30/2015
In Reference To:View impairment cases
Invoice #23635
Professional Services
Hours Amount
12/14/2015 MJ
Telephone call to Mr. Cruz regarding Hassoldt request for continuance of 0.10
view hearing
SUBTOTAL:
0.10 17.80]
For professional services rendered 0.10 $17.80
Previous balance $97.50
12/14/2615 Payment - thank you ($97.50)
Total payments and adjustments ($97.50)
Balance due $17.80