The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Agenda 11-28-2016MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2016 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Dieringer at 7:03 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Black, Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Dieringer. Councilmembers Absent: None. Others Present: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Howard Weinberg, Attorney (18 Portuguese Bend Road). Hal Light, Attorney (15 Portuguese Bend Road). William Hassoldt, 15 Portuguese Bend Road. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road. 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. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Financial Statement for the Month of October, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. Allied Recycling Tonnage Report for October, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. D. List of 2017 City Council Meeting Dates and City Holidays. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. E. City Council Personnel Committee meeting notes of November 9, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. F. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1195 — A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MODIFYING THE DECISION OF THE CITY MANAGER M THE APPEAL FILED BY DR. JEFFREY OSTRIKER AND ORDERING THE CONFINEMENT OF AZUL TO THE OSTRIKER PROPERTY. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt as presented. Mayor Dieringer asked that Item 4F be removed from the consent calendar for individual consideration. Hearing no objection, she so ordered. Councilmember Pieper noted that on the payment of bills, the check payable to the Sheriff's Dept. for $22,000 and listed as supplemental traffic enforcement was actually for regular monthly Sheriffs Dept. contract services and supplemental traffic enforcement. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council approve the remaining items on the consent calendar as presented. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1 195 — A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MODIFYING THE DECISION OF THE CITY MANAGER IN THE APPEAL FILED BY DR. JEFFREY OSTRIKER AND ORDERING THE CONFINEMENT OF AZUL TO THE OSTRIKER PROPERTY. Mayor Dieringer asked for clarification with regard to the City Council retaining jurisdiction over this matter for 90 days and asked that the matter be brought back for a report to the City Council within the 90 days whether or not there has been a violation of the order. Following brief discussion, the City Manager was asked to report back to the City Council in 90 days. Councilmember Wilson commented that he is still not comfortable with modifying the City Managers order given the circumstances of the events and the previous disregard for the prior order; and believes that the dog should be removed from the City. Following brief discussion, Councilmember Wilson moved that the City Council uphold rather than modify the City Manager's original determination that the dog be removed from the City. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion which failed with Councilmembers Black, Mirsch and Mayor Dieringer opposed. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council adopt the resolution as presented. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion, which carried with Councilmember Wilson opposed. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME None. COMMISSION ITEMS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSIDERATION OF AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858, TO TEMPORARILY PLACE A MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE AND/OR PROCESSING OF ANY APPLICATION SOUGHT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION) OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF. Mayor Dieringer introduccd the item and asked for stall's comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that before the City Council for public hearing is an interim ordinance to place a moratorium on the acceptance and/or processing of applications brought under the City's current view preservation ordinance. She stated that the City Council directed staff to prepare the ordinance recognizing that the changes made when Measure B was adopted by the voters in 2013 made the ordinance difficult to implement. She stated that the ad hoc committee created to discuss amending the view preservation ordinance and a possible ballot measure to repeal Measure B met several times with interested parties and with conscnsus amongst the group ultimately recommended that a moratorium be put in place while the Planning Commission and City Council consider options for changes to the City's view preservation ordinance. She stated that if adopted tonight, the moratorium would be in place for 90 days after which per State law, the City Council would be required to hold another public hearing to extend the ordinance for an additional 10 months and 15 days or 22 months and 15 days depending on the City council's preference. She stated that adoption of the ordinance requires a 4/5 vote and noted that the moratorium could be repealed by the City Council at any time during the two-year period. Mayor Dieringer opened the public hearing and called for public comment. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council adopt the interim ordinance temporarily placing a moratorium on the acceptance and/or processing of any applications sought under the provisions of Chapter 17.26 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONING CASE NO. 902, AT 23 CREST ROAD EAST WILL BE CONTINUED TO JANUARY 9, 2017. ZONING CASE NO. 902. REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 11,100 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE, WITH 11,100 SQUARE FOOT BASEMENT, 1,540 SQUARE FEET ATTACHED GARAGES, 2,654 SQUARE FEET COVERED PORCHES, 864 SQUARE FOOT SWIMMING POOL AND SPA, TRELLISES, NEW DRIVEWAY AND AN OUTDOOR KITCHEN AND GRADING FOR A TOTAL OF 51,625 CUBIC YARDS OF DIRT, WHICH INCLUDES OVER -EXCAVATION AND RE - COMPACTION; CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO CONSTRUCT AN 800 SQUARE FOOT GUEST HOUSE, AND A 1,300 SQUARE FOOT STABLE; IN ZONING CASE NO. 902, AT 23 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT I32A-MS), ROLLING HILLS, CA (HYNES). THE PROJECT IS Minutes City Council Meeting 11-28-16 EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303, CLASS 3 EXEMPTION GUIDELINES. Consideration of this matter was continued to the January 9, 2017 meeting of the City Council. No action was taken. OLD BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE ROLLING HILLS CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE APPEALS OF DR. AND MRS. STEPHEN NUCCION AND MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM HASSOLDT AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS BY DECLARING THAT SPECIFIC TREES LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD HAVE CAUSED SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT TO THE VIEW FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD AND SETTING FORTH RESTORATIVE ACTION TO ABATE THE IMPAIRMENT. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that before the City Council for consideration is a resolution to uphold the Committee on Trees and Views decision in a view impairment case filed by the property owners at 18 Portuguese Bend Road (Nuccion) regarding trees located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road (Hassoldt) that was appealed to the City Council by both parties. She stated that the City Council considered this case over several months and at its October 24'" meeting directed staff to prepare the resolution which upholds the Committee's decision with regard to remediation and makes separate findings to support the action. Shc stated that one change was made to the remediation action due to the fact that a pole used as reference point for the remediated tree height on one of the trees (Tree #5) has been cut shorter since the Committee considered this case as was brought to the City's attention by Hal Light, the attorney for the Hassoldts. Shc stated that staff contacted Edison to determine the height of the original pole before it was cut shorter and it was determined that the original height was 43 ft. and staff recommends that action on Tree #5 be changed to "Reduce the crown to a height of 43 feet." She stated that also in response to the comments made by Mr. Light with regard to the resolution, reference has been made to Mr. Ruben Green's testimony; a provision has been added to allow the Hassoldts to be present when staff takes pictures after the remediation action is complete; and acknowledgement has been made to the fact that the Hassoldts have trimmed some of the trees since the case was brought before the Committee on Trees and Views. Mayor Pro Tem Black moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1196 as presented. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion. Mayor Dieringer asked for public comment on the resolution. Hal Light, Attorney addressed the City Council to ask for clarification with regard to the Hassoldts being present when the photos are taken after the remediation action is complete, specifically asking if the provision allows the Hassoldts to also take photographs. City Atlomey Jenkins responded that the provision allow the Hassoldts to observe the photos being taken, but there would only be one set of photographs taken by staff to serve as the official photographs which could be viewed by the parties to confirm they arc accurate. Mr. Light further expressed concem regarding the height specified for Tree #5 stating that based on its current height, the tree would suffer damage if it were to be trimmed to 43 ft. He further suggested that ISA standards and best practices be used when the tree is trimmed and suggested that the trimming height be increased to 55-65 ft. He further noted that the pole is also located at a slightly higher elevation on the slope by 2-3 ft. Howard Weinberg, Attorney addressed the City Council stating that now is not the time to be questioning the remediation actions. He stated that he also spoke to Edison to confirm the height of the pole. He further stated that they would be amenable to modifying the resolution to take into account difference in elevation between the location of the tree and the location of the pole. William Hassoldt, 10 Pine Tree Lane addressed the City Council to express concem for the health of the tree if it is trimmed to 43 ft. In response to Mayor Dieringer, City Attorney Jenkins stated that the prescribed remediation would control, but if in the course of performing the remediation the contractor were to alert the City that there is Minutes • City Council Meeting 11-28-16 a violation of standards or endangerment to the life of the tree, the matter could be brought back to the City Council for consideration of modification to the resolution. Discussion ensued concerning the appropriate height for Tree N5 based on the fact that the utility pole has been reduced in height. Councilmember Pieper suggested modifying the resolution to specify that Tree tt5 be cut to 46 ft. in height. Following further discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Black amended his motion to adopt the Resolution as modified in Section 5F to change the action on Tree /45 to "Reduce the crown to a height of 46 feet above ground" Councilmember Pieper seconded the amended motion. Following further discussion, the motion carried with Mayor Dieringer opposed based on a lack of substantial evidence. CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FOR AWARD OF A BID'TO CHRISP COMPANY FOR FY 2016-17 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS PROJECT. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. City Manager Cruz stated that this matter was brought before the City Council at its last meeting but it was noted that the quantities for the reflective pavement markers seemed incorrect so staff was directed to verify the information and report back to the City Council He further stated that it was found that the numbers were inadvertently reversed; but in checking the bids, the outcome remains the same and Chrisp Company is still the lowest bidder. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council award the bid for the FY 2016-17 replacement of traffic striping and pavement markings project to Chrisp Company and direct the City Manager to execute the agreement. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. NEW BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA ORDERING TI-IE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF A CERTAIN MEASURE RELATING TO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REPEALING MEASURE 13 BY AMENDING SUBSECTION (E) OF SECTION 17.26.050 AND REPEALING SECTION 17.26.090 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2017, AS CALLED BY RESOLUTION NO. 1192. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. City Clerk Luce presented the staff report stating that the Measure B ad hoc committee has been having discussions regarding how to move forward with making amendments to the View Preservation Ordinance in light of Measure 13; and at its last meeting, after hearing the ad hoc committee's report, the City Council asked staff to bring forward a resolution placing a measure on the ballot to repeal Measure 13 if the City has an election on March 7, 2017. She stated that the resolution is presented for consideration. Mayor Dieringer suggested that the City Council hear the staff report on the next item on the agenda before taking action on this item. Hearing no objection, she so ordered. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS SETTING PRIORITIES FOR THE FILING OF ARGUMENTS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS; AND ALLOWING FOR REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR MEASURES ON THE BALLOT FOR THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON MARCH 7, 2017. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING A CITY MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA. PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR MEASURES SUBMITTED FOR THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON MARCH 7, 2017. Minutes City Council Meeting 11-28-16 City Clerk Luce stated that in conjunction with placing a measure on the ballot the City Council also has the authority, if adopted by resolution, to direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, to set the priorities for filing direct arguments for and against the ballot measure and to allow for rebuttal arguments to the direct arguments. Brief discussion ensued concerning the impartial analysis and the process for selecting arguments. Following brief discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Black moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1197 adding a measure to repeal Measure B to the ballot for the City's General Municipal Election scheduled for March 7, 2017. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion. Mayor Dieringer expressed concern that directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis would create an unnecessary expense in light of the fact that the ballot measure may be removed from the ballot if the election is ultimately cancelled for lack of candidates. Mayor Pro Tem Black moved to close the debate and proceed with the vote following public comment. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion. The motion failed with Councilmember Mirsch and Mayor Dieringer opposed. Mayor Dieringer called for public comment. In response to an inquiry from Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road, Councilmember Pieper clarified that the resolution being considered would place the measure on ballot for the March 7, 2017 election that has already been called and the measure would be removed if the election is cancelled for lack of candidates. He further noted that if the election is cancelled, the City would likely call a special election in June to consider the measure. Mayor Dieringer commented that in order to maintain the trust of the community, she does not believe that the measure to repel Measure B should be placed on the ballot until there is something in place to amend the view preservation ordinance that has community support. Mayor Pro Tem Black reiterated his motion that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1197 adding a measure to repeal Measure B to the ballot for the City's General Municipal Election scheduled for March 7, 2017. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the reiterated motion which carried with Mayor Dieringer opposed. '.. Fs . Mayor Dieringer stated that the City Council would next consider the resoltuions regarding an impartial analysys, arguments and rebuttals. She further expressed concern about expending funds to direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysys when the measure may be ultimately removed from the ballot if the election is cancelled for lack of candidates. In response to the Mayor's conccren, City Attonrey Jenkins stated that he could delay preparation of the analysis until the last moment to wait and see what happens with respect to the election. Mayor Pro Tem Black stated that he sees no downside to having the City Attorney prepare the impartial analysis. Discussion ensured concerning the arguments and the City Council concurred that the City Council should be authorized to write the argument in favor of the measure. Furhter discussion ensued concerning rebuttal arguments. Howard Weinberg addressed the City Council to sugggest that the City Council allow rebuttal arugments and authorize the voting public to author the rebuttal arguments to create balance. Discussion ensued conceming the timing for placing a competing measure on the ballot. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1198 providing priority for the filing of an argument in favor of the argument to Councilmembers Black, Mirsch, Pieper and Wilson; and authorizing the City Attomey to prepare an impartial analysis for the measure on the ballot for the City's general municipal election scheduled for March 7, 2017. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Mayor Pro Tem Black and Councilmember Mirsch were appointed to an ad hoc committee to write the argument. Mayor Pro Tem Black moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1199 providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for the measure on the ballot for the City's general municipal election scheduled for March 7, 2017. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Minutes City Council Meeting 11-28-16 MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS Mayor Pro Tem Black asked about the status of the installation of the left turn signal at the intersection of I'alos Verdes Drive North and Portuguese Bend Road. Staff stated that the project is nearing completion and the signal should be operational in early December. STATUS REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL TREES AND VIEWS AD HOC COMMITTEE ON ITS EFFORTS TO AMEND THE VIEW PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. Mayor Dicringer introduced the item and asked for a report from the Committee. Councilmember Mirsch provided an overview of the progress of the ad hoc committee stating that the ad hoc committee has met several times to work toward developing a balanced and equitable view resolution process that could be crafted into an ordinance acceptable to both thc City Council and the authors of Measure 13 and Measure 2017. She stated that it was the hope of the Committee that a compromise could be reached to allow for an unchallenged repeal of Measure B, remove the need to take Measure 2017 to the voters and avoid the divisiveness associated with those processes. She stated that with much compromise from both parties, agreement was reached on several major issues and concepts; and the purpose of the document provided tonight was to provide an overview of those major areas of agreement and ascertain if the City Council is willing to forward the Committee's work to the Planning Commission for review and possible revisions to the City's View Preservation Ordinance. She stated that the purpose of tonight's discussion is to determine if there is enough merit to the concepts presented to forward the matter to the Planning Commission for discussion. Discussion ensued concerning the concepts presented. The Committee further explained some of the provisions contained in the DRAFT ordinance and reiterated that the primary objective of the changes is to provide balance between trees and views recognizing that both trees and views have benefits and arc valuable assets to the community. Councilmember Mirsch noted that the DRAFT ordinance establishes rights and responsibilities for both the view seekers and vegetation owners and further reviewed some of those rights and responsibilities as presented in thc DRAFT ordinance. Councilmember Mirsch further reviewed the unresolved areas of the DRAFT ordinance including that the City should only serve as an advisory body and its rulings should not be binding. She further explained that as a compromise, it was suggested that if thc parties mutually agree to binding arbitration, the City would pay for a portion of those fees on a sliding scale depending on when in the process the arbitration is agreed to. She stated that when the Planning Commission considers this matter, their task will be to determine if the revised ordinance serves the residents well; is the ordinance workable and able to be applied consistently; and are the procedures balanced and equitable. Councilmember Mirsch reiterated that it is important to remember the purpose of the ad hoc committee and recognize that compromises and agreements were made — by both sides — to try to avoid 1) opposition to our Repeal Measure B effort, and 2) another ballot measure. She commented that if a final product produced by the City does not contain sufficient provisions to satisfy the authors of Measure 2017 (as agreed upon in the ad hoc meeting discussions) or if there is not an agreed -upon ordinance ready to be placed on the books should Measure 13 be repealed, they will most likely go forward with their organized opposition to the City's measure to Repeal Measure 13 as well their petition to place "Measure 2017" on the ballot at the next possible election. In response to Mayor Dieringer, Councilmember Mirsch stated that it was the hope of the ad hoc committee that finding agreement to the major concepts described would aid the Planning Commission in its discussion but it would not preclude discussion on other matters it finds pertinent. Following further brief discussion, Councilmember Mirsch moved that the DRAFT ordinance prepared by the ad hoc committee to amend the City's View Preservation Ordinance be fonvarded to the Planning Commission for discussion and public hearing. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried without objection. MATTERS FROM STAFF None. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS None. Minutes City Council Meeting 1 1-28-16 CLOSED SESSION None. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION None. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Dieringer adjourned the meeting at 9:08 p.m. An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Wednesday, December 14, 2016 beginning at 7:30 a.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, City Clerk Approved, Bea Dieringcr Mayor Minutes City Council Meeting 11-28-16 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am a citizen of the United States. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within proceeding; my business address is 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. On the 23id day of November, 2016,1 serve the within City Council Meeting - 11/28/2016 _a copy of which is annexed hereto and made a_parthereof, and the person,_or__persons, named -_,____ below were emailed or mailed the agenda: E -MAILED MAILED Interested RH Web site IistSery Parties Interested parties DropBox 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 declare under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 23`' day of November, 2016 at Rolling Hills, California. Ewa Nikodem Administrative Assistant AGENDA REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2016 7:00 P.M. Mr Ra 1149 qiera INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Next Resolution No. 1195 Next Ordinance No. 348 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 itcms 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 actcd 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. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Financial Statement for the Month of October, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. Allied Recycling Tonnage Report for October, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. D. List of 2017 City Council Meeting Dates and City Holidays. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. E. City Council Personnel Committee meeting notes of November 9, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. F. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1 195 — A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MODIFYING THE DECISION OF THE CITY MANAGER IN THE APPEAL FILED BY DR. JEFFREY OSTRIKER AND ORDERING THE CONFINEMENT OF AZUL TO THE OSTRIICER PROPERTY. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt as presented. 5. COMMISSION ITEMS NONE. Page 1 of 3 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858, TO TEMPORARILY PLACE A MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE AND/OR PROCESSING OF ANY APPLICATION SOUGHT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION) OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF. B. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONING CASE NO. 902, AT 23 CREST ROAD EAST WILL BE CONTINUED TO JANUARY 9, 2017. ZONING CASE NO. 902. REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 11,100 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE, WITH 11,100 SQUARE FOOT BASEMENT, 1,540 SQUARE FEET ATTACHED GARAGES, 2,654 SQUARE FEET COVERED PORCHES, 864 SQUARE FOOT SWIMMING POOL AND SPA, TRELLISES, NEW DRIVEWAY AND AN OUTDOOR KITCHEN AND GRADING FOR A TOTAL OF 51,625 CUBIC YARDS OF DIRT, WHICH INCLUDES OVER -EXCAVATION AND RE -COMPACTION; CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO CONSTRUCT AN 800 SQUARE FOOT GUEST HOUSE, AND A 1,300 SQUARE FOOT STABLE; IN ZONING CASE NO. 902, AT 23 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 132A -MS), ROLLING HILLS, CA (HYNES). THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303, CLASS 3 EXEMPTION GUIDELINES. 7. OLD BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE ROLLING HILLS CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE APPEALS OF DR. AND MRS. STEPHEN NUCCION AND MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM HASSOLDT AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS BY DECLARING THAT SPECIFIC TREES LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD HAVE CAUSED SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT TO THE VIEW FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD AND SETTING FORTH RESTORATIVE ACTION TO ABATE THE IMPAIRMENT. B. CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FOR AWARD OF A BID TO CHRISP COMPANY FOR FY 2016-17 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS PROJECT. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF A CERTAIN MEASURE RELATING TO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REPEALING MEASURE B BY AMENDING SUBSECTION (E) OF SECTION 17.26.050 AND REPEALING SECTION 17.26.090 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2017, AS CALLED BY RESOLUTION NO. 1192. City Council Agenda I 1/28/16 Page 2 of 3 B. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS SETTING PRIORITIES FOR THE FILING OF ARGUMENTS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS; AND ALLOWING FOR REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR MEASURES ON THE BALLOT FOR THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON MARCH 7, 2017. (1) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING A CITY MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS. (2) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR MEASURES SUBMITTED FOR THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON MARCH 7, 2017. 9. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS A. STATUS REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL TREES AND VIEWS AD HOC COMMITTEE ON ITS EFFORTS TO AMEND THE VIEW PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. 10. MATTERS FROM STAFF NONE. 11. CLOSED SESSION NONE. 12. ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 7:30 a.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 Counc Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after 1/ review in the City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which th In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, participate in this meeting due to your disability, please c least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the City t accessibility and accommodation for your review of this age City Council Agenda 11/28/16 Page 3 of Ewa, I'm solibut I had Hv Char. -File tact pafre of -the ardor Please (qlam in +he -paciudJ - I ota.rcadi Sued a., pbf • CHECK CHECK NO. DATE 24579 1282016 24575 1282016 24576 1/28/2016 24577 1/28/2016 24578 1282016 24579 1282016 24580 1282016 24581 1282016 24582 1282016 24583 1282016 29584 1282016 24585 1282016 24586 1282016 24587 1282016 24588 1282016 24589 1282016 24590 2/01/2016 24591 2/012016 24592 2/012016 24593 2/01/2016 24594 2/012016 24595 2/012016 PR LINK 1I/11/16 PR LINK 11/11/16 PR LINK 11/23/16 PR LINK 1123/16 City OS, _AIL Agenda Item No: 4-A Mtg. Date: 11/28/16 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 11/28/2016 - CHECK RUN PAYEE APA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES GOVINVEST, INC. JANET FARIA KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS LA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT OPUS BANK PACIFIC COAST LANDSCAPE ROLLING HILLS ESTATES THE GAS COMPANY VOID CHECK VOID CHECK VOID CHECK USCM VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS WILLDAN INC. CALPERS CALPERS DELTA DENTAL VISION SERVICE PLAN - (CA) VOID CHECK STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY PR LINK - PAYROLL PROCESSING PK LINK - PAYROLL 23 & PR TAXES PR LINK - PAYROLL PROCESSING PR LINK - PAYROLL 29 & PR TAXES DESCRIPTION NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 3771521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 AMOUNT MEMEBERSHIP I/1/17 TO 12/31/17 435.00 ANIMAL HOUSING COSTS FOR OCT 2016 29.24 SOFTWARE ANNUAL LICENSING FEE 1500.00 16' HOLIDAY OPEN HOUSE -CATER 3000,00 COPIER, 10/12/16 TO 11/11/16 165.73 SUPPL TRAFFIC ENFORCE OCT 2016 26368.19 OCTOBER 2016 CREDIT CARD CHARGES - OFFICE SUPPLIES 330.99 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE NOV 16 565.00 TRAFFIC OFFICER, 620 TO 7/15 648.99 GAS BILL; 102/16 TO 11/4/16 19.17 PRINTER ERROR PRINTER ERROR PRINTER ERROR DEFERRED COMP 11232016 1370.34 DEFERRED COMP 1123/16 364.00 PROFESSIONAL SER FOR OCT'16 1692.50 HEALTH INSURANCE DEC 2016 5662.69 NOV 2016 PERS RETIREMENT 5119.47 DENTAL INSURANCE DEC 2016 681.72 VISION INSURANCE DEC 2016 80.95 PRINTER ERROR LIFE INSURANCE DEC 2016 201.49 PROCESSING FEE 48.45 PAY PERIOD - OCTOBER 26, 2016 THROUGH NOVEMBER 8, 2016 16,820.00 PROCESSING FEE 60.95 PAY PERIOD - NOVEMBER 9, 2016 THROUGH NOVEMBER 22, 2016 17,320.91 1, Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager of Rolling Hills, California certify that the above demands are accurate and there is available in the General Fund a balance of 582,485.78 for the payment of above ite • Previously Disbursed 5 82,485.78 0 Printed on Recycled Paper CITY OF ROLLING HILLS BALANCE SHEET October 31, 2016 MUNICIPAL GENERAL& DEPOSIT COPS& COMMUN. SELF- REFUSE TRAFFIC TRANSIT UTILITY CAPITAL TUNE FUND - CLEEP FACILITIES INSUR COLLECT. SAFETY PROP A,C,M FUND @ TDA ASSETS Cash & Cash Equivalents $ 4,214,309 $ 1,771 $ 116,310 $ 18,282 $ 260,374 $ 237,006 Cash & Cash Equivalents - Capital Project Fund - - - - Poppy Trail Grading Bond - 305,000 - - - Accounts Receivable 6,032 - 222,332 273,986 Prepaid Expense & Deposits 17 967 - LIABILITIES $ 31,002 $ 166,428 $ 1,236,507 TOTAL ASSETS S 4,238,308 S 306,771 S 116,310 5 18,282 $ 482,706 5 510,992 $ 31,002 5 166,428 5 1,236,507 Accounts & Contract Payable $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ 253,836 $ $ - $ Employee Benefits Payable 2,231 Deposits 18,803 306,771 Deferred revenues 14 012 TOTAL LIABILITIES 35 046 306 771 253 836 FUND BALANCE Unassigned Fund Balance 4,203,262 - 116 310 18,282 482 706 257 156 31 002 $ 166 428 1 236 507 TOTAL UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE 4,203,262 116 310 18,282 482 706 257 156 31,002 166,428 1,236,507 )TAI. UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE & LIABILITI $ 4,238,308 5 306,771 5 116,310 $ 18,282 S 482,706 S 510,992 S 31,002 $ 166,428 $ 1,236,507 COMPOSITION OF CASH Petry Cash $ 1,500 OPUS Bank - Checking Account 68,209 OPUS Bank - Money Market 163,939 Opus Bank Interest Checking 1,005,248 Calif. State Local Agency Investment Fund 4,548,093 Malaga Bank - CDARS - CD's 495,000 $ 6.281,989 ved By: 174. ymond R. Cruz, City Manage Date //- "".6 BEGINNING YFD OF YEAR TOTAL TOTAL $ 6,281,989 5 6,891,267 305,000 305,000 502,350 407,570 17,967 37,436 $ 7,107,306 S 7,641,273 $ 253,836 $ 470,261 2,231 2,408 325,574 325,574 14012 14012 595,653 812,255 6 511 653 6 829 018 6,511,653 6,829,018 5 7,107,306 S 7,641,273 RH bal_fy16-17 11/92016 5:44 PM CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SUMMARY STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Actual Compared to Annual Budget July 1, 2016 to October 31, 2016 Fund GENERAL Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue CITIZENS' OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue COMMUNITY FACILITIES Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue MUNICIPAL SELF-INSURANCE Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue REFUSE COLLECTION Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TRAFFIC SAFETY Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TRANSIT- PROPOSITION A, C & M Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue UTILITY FUND Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TOTAL ALL FUNDS Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue This Year Last Year This Year Better (Worse) Annual Budget & Adj. Remaining Budget $ 72,248 $ 99,942 $ (27,694) 1,931,600 $ 1,859,352 477,978 389,896 (88,082) 1,842,793 1,364,815 (405,730) (289,954) (115,776) 88,807 494,537 8,000 8,000 - (344,050) (352,050) (397,730) (281,954) (115,776) (255,243) 142,487 • 48,181 •' y. 32,081 16,100.00 115,125 66,944 26,267 31,298 5,031 164,000 137,733 21,914 783 21,131 (48,875) (70,789) 0 21,914 783 21,131 (48,875) (70,789) - - 100 100 - - 62,700 62,700 - - - (62,600) (62,600) - - - 62,600 62,600.00 _ - _ _ 0 217 217 6,000 6,000.00 - (217) 217 (6,000) (6,000.00) - (217) 217 (6,000) (6,000.00) 262,478 256,708 5,770 771,900 509,422 253,836 251,993 (1,843) 761,508 507,672 8,642 4,715 3,927 10,392 1,750 (8,000) (8,000) (24,000) (16,000) 642 (3,285) 3,927 (13,608) (14,250) • 1i. " 32,932 - 32,932 - 50 (32,882) 1,930 2,696 766 .55,500' - 53,570 31,002 (2,696) 33,698 (55,450) (86,452) - - r 55,450 - 55,450 31,002 (2,696) 33,698 - (31,002) 26,810 26,855 (45) 85,786 58,976 190,000 190,000.00 26,810 26,855 (45) (104,214) (131,024) 26,810 26,855 (45) 1104,214) (131,024) - - - 150,000 150,000.00 - - - (150,000) (150,000.00) - - 250,000 250,000.00 - - 100,000 100,000.00 442,649 415,586 . 27,063 2,904,561 2,461,912 760,011 676,100 (83,911) 3,232,501 2,472,490 (317,362) (260,514) (56,848) (327,940) (10,578) $ (317,362) $ (260,514) $ (56,848) $ (327,940) $ (10,578) CRH inc_fr16-17 11/9/2016 5:56 PM CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTIAL ALLIED WASTE RECYCLE NOW REPORT Report Date: 2016 MONTH 2016 January February March April May June July August September October November December Year to Date Totals: Average Monthly Totals: 2016 RECYCLED • (tons) 74.63 82.00 83.40 86.74 104.26 91.53 85.65 94.93 118.68 57.87 879.70 GREEN WASTE (tons) 83.74 66.79 106.96 100.87 102.06 96.02 103.09 104.95 100.16 91.23 955.87 C&D C&D Disposal Diversion Recycled Disposed Tonnage 14 4.33 1.85 151.42 51.49% 3.20 1.37 155.47 49.22% 11.44 4.10 134.50 59.28% 4.97 1.37 118.77 61.58% 51.72 12.62 163.93 59.38% 61.24 19.13 134.20 61.87% 113.19 41.37 124.30 64.57% 67.91 18.35 150.33 61.35% 16.05 5.35 141.45 61.54% 27.89 5.32 161.50 51.48% - - 0.00% - - - 0.00% 361.93 110.84 1,435.85 315.97 308.83 340.40 312.72 434.59 402.12 467.60 436.47 381.68 343:81 0.00 0.00 58.69% 87.97 95.59 36.19 11.08 143.59 0.58 MONTHLY TOTALS (tons) 3,744.19 374.42 RECEIVED NOV 222016 City of Rolling Hills By 2017 City Council Meeting Dates and City Holidays Agenda Item No: 4-D Mtg. Date: 11/28/16 Scheduled Date Holiday Conflict Holiday Date Re -scheduled Date/Time January 9, 2017 January 23, 2017 February 13, 2017 February 27, 2017 March 13, 2017 March 27, 2017 April 10, 2017 Passover April 10-18 TBD April 24, 2017 May 8, 2017 May 22, 2017 June 1.2, 2017 June 26, 2017 July 10, 2017 July 24, 2017 August 14, 2017 August 28, 201.7 September 11, 2017 September 2S, 2017 October 9, 2017 October 23, 2017 November 13, 2017 November 27, 2017 December 11, 2017 Holiday Open House N/A N/A December 25, 2017 Christmas Day Observed December 25, 2017 DARK 2017 Holidays Observed (City Hall Closed) Other Holidays: January 2, 2017 January 16, 2017 February 20, 2017 May 29, 2017 July 4,2017 September 4, 2017 November 10, 2017 November 23-24, 2017 December 26, 2017 December 25, 2017 New Year's Day (observed) Martin Luther King Jr. Day President's Day Memorial Day Independence Day Labor Day Veterans Day (observed) Thanksgiving Holiday Christmas Eve (observed) Christmas Day April 3-7, 2017 April 10-18, 2017 September 20-21, 2017 September 29-30, 2017 PVPUSD Spring Break Passover Rosh Hashanah Yom Kippur Unless otherwise noted, meetings in conflict with a holiday will be cancelled. DRAFT 11/28/16 7 Agenda Item No.: 4-E Mtg. Date: 11/28/16 Personnel Committee November 9, 2016 6:00 PM Meeting Notes Participants Leah Mirsch, Councilmember Jeff Pieper, Councilmember Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager The Committee meeting was called to order at 6:03 pm. 1. Revised City Manager Performance Evaluation Form The City Manager and Councilmember Mirsch explained the process to Councilmember Pieper on how they developed a revised City Manager performance evaluation form. It included the review of several sample forms provided by the California City Management Foundation and City of Rolling Hills Estates and Hermosa Beach. They came to an agreement to one form that had all the necessary categories to completely evaluate the City Manager without being too long. It included now five rating categories —Rating 5 Outstanding; Rating 4 Exceeds Acceptable Standard; Rating 3 Satisfactory, Acceptable, Competent; Rating 2 Below Acceptable Standard; and Rating 1 Unsatisfactory. The Committee members agreed to the revised form and its five new rating categories, but made two changes. The first being that the City Council Personnel Committee will responsible for calculating the numerical elements of the evaluation and that a sixth rating category be added —No Rating. This rating category will be utilized when the rater has no knowledge or experience with regard to the City Manager's capabilities and/or quality of performance within this area of evaluation. Furthermore, the Committee members want to make sure that mutual goals and objectives will be developed for the City Manager for the next evaluation period. 2. City Employee Compensation Options The City Manager explained that he needs as a manager to have the ability to reward outstanding performance. He outlined a number of options to the Committee members that include: performance bonus as outlined in the Personnel Policy Manual, gift cards, spa days, team lunches, health club benefit, logo clothing, etc. The Committee members were open to these options, but asked the City Manger to vet what is legal for municipal employees and investigate what is being utilized by other public agencies. Furthermore, the City Manager was asked to quantify what these options would cost before bringing to the City Council for their consideration. 0 • 3. Employee Handbook and Personnel Policy Manual Amendments The City Manager briefed the Committee members of how there are several areas where the Employee Handbook and Personnel Policy Manual needs to be updated due to the addition of a new employee, changes in benefits, and changes to State and Federal employee relations law. The City Manger stated that he would develop a list of proposed changes for the Personnel Committee to consider. The Committee agreed that the City consider hiring a vendor a review our documents to make sure they are compliant with State and Federal law. Staff will now look for vendors that provide this service for municipal governments and request bids and associated references for the Committee's future review. The meeting was adjourned at 6:53 pm. Notes prepared by: Raymond R. Cruz 8(4 ail Res "44 qieth INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 4-F Mtg. Date: 11/28/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1195 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MODIFYING THE DECISION OF THE CITY MANAGER IN THE APPEAL FILED BY DR. JEFFREY OSTRIKER AND ORDERING THE CONFINEMENT OF AZUL TO THE OSTRIKER PROPERTY DATE: November 28, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1195 that affirms and modifies an order of the City Manager concerning the Ostriker aggressive animal case. BACKGROUND The incidents giving rise to this appeal from Dr. Jeffrey Ostriker (27 Caballeros Rd.) are the second set of incidents in the last 12 months involving killing of chickens by his dog Azul. The first incident occurred in December 2015 when Azul killed a chicken belonging to Matthew Chaisson, occupant of the property at 8 Crest Road East. In response to that incident, the City Manager ordered that Azul be confined to the Ostriker residence and when walked be restrained by a leash by a person capable of controlling the dog. Dr. Ostriker appealed that order to the City Council, in which he urged the Council to allow him to walk Azul without a leash due to his physical disabilities. The outcome of that appeal was memorialized in City Council Resolution No. 1183. The City received a complaint report on August 4, 2016 from Mr. NormLaCaze (24 Portuguese Bend Road) alleging that Dr. Ostriker's dog Azul (described as "a large, broad chested, whitish type dog) and two other dogs entered his property on two different occasions and attacked his chickens, each incident resulted in the death of numerous chickens. Mr.LaCaze elected not to file a complaint after the first incident. However, the second of these incidents on August 3, 2016, resulting in the killing of 40 juvenile chickens, prompted him to file the complaint. On August 19, 2016, Mrs. Geraldean Belleville (12 Crest Road East) filed a complaint alleging that Azul ("a long body, medium length legs, blonde colored cocker spaniel type hair dog") entered her property on August 5, 2016 where the dog broke down the chicken coop and killed all the chickens within it. Ms. Belleville stated in the report that she witnessed the attack. Pursuant to RHMC Section 6.24.090, following an investigation conducted by the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control, the City Manager conducted an administrative hearing on Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. in the Rolling Hills City Council Chamber to determine if the alleged attacks had occurred and if the conditions imposed by the City Council in Resolution No. 1183 had been violated. At the hearing, each involved party made its initial presentation and brief rebuttals before the hearing was concluded. After reviewing the incident investigation reports from the LA County Department of Animal Care and Control officers, written documents provided by the parties involved, and the oral testimony provided at the administrative hearing, the City Manager determined that the LaCaze and Belleville complaints were meritorious and that Dr. Ostriker violated the conditions of Resolution No. 1183 by allowing Azul to roam freely and out of his immediate control. In view of RHMC Section 6.24.090(A), the City Manager ordered that Azul be removed from the City immediately. Pursuant to Section 6.24.070, Dr. Ostriker appealed the City Manager's order. A hearing on the appeal was scheduled for and conducted on November 14, 2016. DISCUSSION The City Council received a written staff report containing numerous attachments, including correspondence from Dr. Ostriker and a report from the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control. Testifying at the hearing were Dr. Jeffrey Ostriker (the dog owner), Matthew Chaisson (previous victim of an Azul attack), Carol LaCaze (current complainant), Norm LaCaze (current complainant), Geraldean Belleville (current complainant), Dianne Wyatt (Azul's groomer), Sue Doyle (Azul's trainer), Cathleen Cunningham (Dr. Ostriker's therapist), Melvyn Honig and James Aichele. The City Council reviewed and considered all of the written and oral evidence submitted in the matter prior to making its decision. Consequently, and based on the foregoing, the City Council modified the decision of the City Manager by requiring that Dr. Ostriker permanently remove Azul from the City as follows: 0 A. Azul is ordered confined to the Ostriker property and shall be kept indoors at all times, except as provided in paragraph B below. B. Azul may be allowed outdoors, provided that he is confined to a fully enclosed, secure dog run with a concrete pad. C. Azul shall not be walked outdoors off the °striker property anywhere within the territorial boundaries of the City of Rolling Hills. The City Council reserves jurisdiction over this appeal for 90 days, during which time the City Manager is directed to monitor Dr. °striker's compliance with the conditions imposed herein. Should Dr. Ostriker not be in compliance, the City Manager shall schedule a hearing before the City Council. The remedial provisions of this Resolution supersede the remedial provisions set forth in Resolution No. 1183. The enclosed resolution drafted by staff provides the logistical details of the modified order of the City Council that it believes follows the intent of the City Council's action on November 14, 2016. NOTIFICATION The parties involved in the appeal have been notified. RRC:hl °striker 2nd appeal Reso_staffreport.docx o THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK RESOLUTION NO. 1195 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MODIFYING THE DECISION OF THE CITY MANAGER IN THE APPEAL FILED BY DR. JEFFREY OSTRIKER AND ORDERING THE CONFINEMENT OF AZUL TO THE OSTRIKER PROPERTY The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. The proceedings described in this Resolution were conducted pursuant to the authority and procedures set forth in Chapter 6.24 of Title 6 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code ("RHMC"), entitled "Aggressive Animals." All "section" references in this Resolution are to sections contained in Chapter 6.24. Section 2. The subject of the proceedings described in this Resolution is a male Spaniel mix named Azul ("the dog"), owned by Dr. Jeffrey Ostriker ("Owner"), who reside at 27 Caballeros Road in the City of Rolling Hills ("City"). Section 3. The incidents giving rise to this appeal are the second set of incidents in the last 12 months involving killing of chickens by Azul. The first incident occurred in December 2015 when Azul killed a chicken belonging to Matthew Chaisson, occupant of the property at 8 Crest Road East. In response to that incident, the City Manager ordered that Azul be confined to the Ostriker residence and when walked be restrained by a leash by a person capable of controlling the dog. Dr. Ostriker appealed that order to the City Council, in which he urged the Council to allow him to walk Azul without a leash due to his physical disabilities. The outcome of that appeal was memorialized in City Council Resolution No. 1183, which concluded in Section 7 as follows: "The City Council hereby affirms the decision of the City Manager requiring that Dr. Ostriker permanently confine Azul to his property and maintain the perimeter fencing on the property in proper working order. The City Council hereby modifies the decision of the City Manager based on the evidence received de novo at its hearing of March 14, 2016 pursuant to Section 6.24.070 relieving Dr. Ostriker of the requirement that Azul be restrained by a leash when being walked by Dr. Ostriker himself, so long as he remains more than 300 feet from the property line of the Chaisson home and any other residence that keeps chickens. Except when being walked by Dr. Ostriker himself, Azul must be restrained by a leash by a person capable of controlling Azul when off the Ostriker property. Violations of any of the provisions of this Resolution or failure of confining devices that cause Azul to escape the confinement of the Ostriker property shall be investigated pursuant to the provisions of Section 6.24.090 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code." Section 4. The course of events that led to this proceeding are summarized as follows, more detailed descriptions of which can be found in the City Council staff report dated November 14, 2016 and the attachments thereto, all of which are hereby incorporated into this Resolution by reference as though fully set forth: A. The City received a complaint report on August 4, 2016 from Mr. Norm LaCaze (24 Portuguese Bend Road) alleging that Dr. Ostriker's dog Azul (described as "a large, broad chested, whitish type dog) and two other dogs entered his property on two different occasions and attacked his Resolution No. 1195 chickens, each incident resulted in the death of numerous chickens. Mr. LaCaze elected not to file a complaint after the first incident. However, the second of these incidents on August 3, 2016, resulting in the killing of 40 juvenile chickens, prompted him to file the complaint. B. On August 19, 2016, Mrs. Geraldean Belleville (12 Crest Road East) filed a complaint alleging that Azul ("a long body, medium length legs, blonde colored cocker spaniel type hair dog") entered her property on August 5, 2016 where the dog broke down the chicken coop and killed all the chickens within it. Ms. Belleville stated in the report that she witnessed the attack. Section 5. Pursuant to RHMC Section 6.24.090, following an investigation conducted by the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control, the City Manager conducted an administrative hearing on Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. in the Rolling Hills City Council Chamber to determine if the alleged attacks had occurred and if the conditions imposed by the City Council in Resolution No. 1183 had been violated. At the hearing, each involved party made its initial presentation and brief rebuttals before the hearing was concluded. After reviewing the incident investigation reports from the LA County Department of Animal Care and Control officers, written documents provided by the parties involved, and the oral testimony provided at the administrative hearing, the City Manager determined that the LaCaze and Belleville complaints were meritorious and that Dr. Ostriker violated the conditions of Resolution No. 1183 by allowing Azul to roam freely and out of his immediate control. In view of RHMC Section 6.24.090(A), the City Manager ordered that Azul be removed from the City immediately. Section 6. Pursuant to Section 6.24.070, Dr. Ostriker appealed the City Manager's order. A hearing on the appeal was scheduled for and conducted on November 14, 2016. The City Council received a written staff report containing numerous attachments, including correspondence from Dr. Ostriker and a report from the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control. Testifying at the hearing were Dr. Jeffrey Ostriker (the dog owner), Matthew Chaisson (previous victim of an Azul attack), Carol LaCaze (current complainant), Norm LaCaze (current complainant), Geraldean Belleville (current complainant), Dianne Wyatt (Azul's groomer), Sue Doyle (Azul's trainer), Cathleen Cunningham (Dr. Ostriker's therapist), Melvyn Honig and James Aichele. The City Council reviewed and considered all of the written and oral evidence submitted in the matter prior to making its decision. Section 7. findings: Based on all of the foregoing, the City Council makes the following factual A. Azul by all accounts has a history of aggressive behavior towards chickens. The attacks on the LaCaze and Belleville chickens are the second, third and fourth confirmed attacks this year. The photographs presented to the Council verified the deadly attacks. B. Carol and Norm LaCaze terstified persuasively that Azul showed extreme belligerence to their gardener, Armando, who witnessed the attack in progress and threw a rock at Azul in order to drive him away when it appeared that the dog was advancing on him. The LaCaze and Belleville witnesses expressed concern for the safety of their grandchildren, who frequently visit their residences. C. Dr. Ostriker does not deny that Azul is responsible for the attacks; in fact, he expressed remorse for Azul's attacks and offered to reimburse the victims for their losses`.' In mitigation, Dr. Ostriker argued that Azul is an emotional support animal necessary for his emotional well-being. Dr. Resolution No. 1195 -2- Ostriker presented testimony from Azul's groomer and trainer to the effect that Azul is not aggressive towards people or other dogs and from his therapist who testified as to his emotional condition. Dr. Ostriker expressed a willingness to leash Azul whenever off his property. Section 8. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the City Council draws the following conclusions from the evidence: A. Azul attacked and killed the LaCaze and Bellevile chickens. B. Though there is no evidence that Azul has attacked humans or animals other than chickens, Azul showed aggressiveness and beligerance towards the LaCaze gardener Armando when discovered in the midst of his killing frenzy. C. The City Council finds that if allowed to roam free Azul poses an extreme risk of harm to chickens and a serious potential harm to humans (especially children) who may be in the immediate area of an attack. An attack by a dog against another animal is unacceptable in a community without a leash law. The evidence shows without doubt that the attacks occurred and that future aggressive behavior is likely if Azul is free to roam off the Ostriker property. D. When walking Azul without a leash, Dr. Ostriker allowed Azul to leave his immediate control and to roam freely in the neighborhood, resulting in an attack on the LaCaze chickens. Azul again was allowed to roam freely when for the second time he attacked the LaCaze chickens, and yet another time when he attacked the Belleville chickens. Dr. Ostriker has violated the conditions imposed on him by City Council Resolution No. 1183, resulting in the death of innumerable chickens and causing fear and alarm among his neighbors. E. The Council is sympathetic to Dr. Ostriker's feelings for Azul and his asserted need for an emotional support animal. That said, and however beneficial that may be to Dr. Ostriker, Azul presents a real and serious threat to the health of animals, and potentially humans, in the community. On balance, and given the history of attacks and killings in 2016 alone, the consequences of a potential future attack outweigh the benefits that Azul provides to Dr. Ostriker. Notwithstanding Dr. Ostriker's affection for Azul, if necessary Dr. Ostriker can replace Azul with another emotional support animal; the same cannot be said for the effects of potential future attacks — which could include injuries or further death — which cannot be undone. Section 9. Consequently, and based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby modifies the decision of the City Manager requiring that Dr. Ostriker permanently remove Azul from the City as follows: A. Azul is ordered confined to the Ostriker property and shall be kept indoors at all times, except as provided in paragraph B below. B. Azul may be allowed outdoors, provided that he is confined to a fully enclosed, secure dog run with a concrete pad. C. Azul shall not be walked outdoors off the Ostriker property anywhere within the territorial boundaries of the City of Rolling Hills. Resolution No. 1195 3 ©, Section 10. The City Council reserves jurisdiction over this appeal for 90 days, during which time the City Manager is directed to monitor Dr. Ostriker's compliance with the conditions imposed herein. Should Dr. Ostriker not be in compliance, the City Manager shall schedule a hearing before the City Council. Section 11. The remedial provisions of this Resolution supersede the remedial provisions set forth in Resolution No. 1183. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28ih day of November, 2016. BeaDieringer Mayor ATTEST: Heidi Luce City Clerk Resolution No. 1195 4- STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS The foregoing Resolution No. entitled: SS A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MODIFYING THE DECISION OF THE CITY MANAGER IN THE APPEAL FILED BY DR. JEFFREY OSTRIKER AND ORDERING THE CONFINEMENT OF AZUL' TO THE OSTRIKER PROPERTY was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on November 28, 2016, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Heidi Luce City Clerk Resolution No. 1195 -5- aceet9 gal 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: 11/28/16 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR r NATALIE C. KARPELES, ASSISTANT CITY ATTO NEY ORDINANCE NO. 348 - AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858, TO TEMPORARILY PLACE A MORATORIUM ON THE CONSIDERATION AND PROCESSING OF ANY APPLICATION SOUGHT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION) OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE, AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF. DATE: November 28, 2016 ATTACHMENT: Ordinance No. 348 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt: ORDINANCE NO. 348 - AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858, TO TEMPORARILY PLACE A MORATORIUM ON THE CONSIDERATION AND PROCESSING OF ANY APPLICATION SOUGHT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION) OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE, AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS The adoption of Measure B in March 2013 by the electorate has led to practical difficulties in the application of the City's view preservation ordinance (RHMC Chapter 17.26). The City Council has appointed a subcommittee to work collaboratively with a O group of residents to rewrite the view preservation ordinance in order to address the ambiguities and uncertainties that hamper its effective application and enforcement. Pending the conclusion of that process, it is possible that application of the current view preservation ordinance will result in determinations and decisions that are inconsistent with the new ordinance being prepared. Furthermore, the processing of applications received under the current ordinance would result in the City having to expend considerable time, expense and resources to evaluating applications under an ordinance that may soon become obsolete. With a four -fifths vote of the City Council, adoption of the interim ordinance would immediately suspend the utilization of Chapter 17.26 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code for 45 days. Note that an urgency ordinance may remain in effect for only 45 days unless it is extended by another four -fifths vote. After notice and a hearing, the City Council would have to reconsider this item at a duly noticed public hearing on January 9, 2017. At the January 9, 2017 meeting, the Council may extend the ordinance for either ten months and 15 days, with the option of an additional one-year extension; or 22 months and 15 days. In other words, this Ordinance may be extended so that its full duration is up to a maximum of two years. Council would have the option to repeal the interim ordinance at any time prior to its expiration. ALTERNATIVES The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1. Adopting the proposed Interim Urgency Ordinance; 2. Refusing to adopt the proposed Interim Urgency Ordinance; or 3. Providing staff with an alternative direction. NOTIFICATION • Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Breeze on November 18, 2016 and the City Council meeting agenda was included in latest City Newsletter. The agenda and staff report were posted on the City's website and notification of this item was sent to those residents who signed up for automatic notifications of " Pending Ordinances". The staff report and the agenda was also provided to the RHCA. ORDINANCE NO. 348 AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858 TO TEMPORARILY PLACE A MORATORIUM ON THE PROCESSING AND CONSIDERATION OF ANY APPLICATION SOUGHT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION) OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE, AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Purpose. The general plan of the City acknowledges the contribution of both trees and views to the character and beauty of the City. Recognizing that trees and views and the benefits derived from each may come into conflict, the City's 1988 View Preservation Ordinance was established to create a process whereby a property owner could seek to abate an obstructed view balancing tree- and view -related values. In March 2013, the residents of Rolling Hills passed Measure B to amend the View Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 17.26 of the City's Municipal Code). 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: (i) only a view that existed when the current property owner "actually acquired" the property may be restored; (ii) 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; (iii) abatement of view impairment is intended to create "view corridors" and views through trees; and (iv) Measure B specified that its provisions are to be applied retroactively. Implementation of Measure B revealed various ambiguities in language, resulting in uncertainty in its application. Specifically at issue were the definitions of "mature" and "maturing" trees; the interpretation of the date of acquisition of property; and the retroactive application of Measure B. On February 8, 2016, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 346 amending portions of the View Preservation Ordinance that were unaffected by Measure B and adopted Resolution No. 1182, which adopted administrative regulations interpreting Measure B. In mid -2016, proponents of a new initiative measure began circulating a petition in order to propose a wholesale rewrite of the View Preservation Ordinance. The City Council appointed an ad hoc subcommittee of its members to meet with the proponents in an effort to collaboratively craft a new ordinance that could be adopted by the Council without a vote of the electorate. SECTION 2. Urgency findings. On November 28, 2016, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing. In light of the evidence submitted and testimony received during the public hearing, the City Council finds as follows: A. The adoption of Measure B in March 2013 by the electorate has led to practical difficulties in the application of the City's view preservation ordinance (RHMC Chapter 17.26); B. As noted in Section 1, the City Council is currently actively studying the City's current view preservation ordinance and has determined to work with City residents collaboratively to rewrite the view preservation ordinance in order to address the ambiguities and uncertainties that hamper its effective application and enforcement; C. Pending the conclusion of that process, it is possible that application of the current view preservation ordinance will result in determinations and decisions that are inconsistent with the ordinance being prepared, and that considerable time, expense and resources will be devoted to evaluating applications under an ordinance that may soon become obsolete; D. Adoption of this interim ordinance is necessary to prevent inconsistent application of the City's view preservation ordinance during the pendency of this process and to avoid a threat to public health and safety; E. This interim ordinance is necessary to protect the public safety, health, and welfare, by prohibiting the acceptance, processing, and/or consideration of any application sought under the City's current view preservation ordinance. SECTION 3. Interim Zoning Regulations. Notwithstanding any provision of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code to the contrary, no applications for the protection of views and abatement of view obstructions under Chapter 17.26 shall be processed, considered or acted upon by the Committee on Trees and Views or the City Council during the pendency of this Ordinance or any extension thereof. SECTION 4. Exceptions. Enactment of this Ordinance shall not preclude the City from processing an application under Chapter 17.26 filed and accepted as complete prior to November 14, 2016. Furthermore, enactment of this Ordinance shall not preclude the City from enforcing the provisions of Section 17.26.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code as to any failure or refusal of any person to comply with a final decision made under Chapter 17.26 between March 2013 and November 28, 2016. SECTION 5. Severability. If any part or provision of this Ordinance or the application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the application of such part of provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. SECTION 6. Conflicting Laws. For the term of this Ordinance, or any extension thereof, the provisions of this Ordinance shall govern over any conflicting provisions of any other City code, ordinance, resolution or policy. SECTION 7. Adoption. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858 and shall take effect immediately upon adoption by a four -fifths vote of the City Council. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect for a period of 45 days from the date of its adoption unless extended by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code Section 65858. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2016. BEA DIERINGER, MAYOR ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK Ordinance No. 348 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 348 entitled: AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858 TO TEMPORARILY PLACE A MORATORIUM ON THE PROCESSING AND CONSIDERATION OF ANY APPLICATION SOUGHT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION) OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE, AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF. 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. 348 3 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310)377-1521 FAX (310)377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 7-A Mtg. Date: 11/28/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR 0 NATALIE C. KARPELES, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 1196 OF THE ROLLING HILLS CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE APPEALS OF DR. AND MRS. STEPHEN NUCCION AND MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM HASSOLDT AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS BY DECLARING THAT SPECIFIC TREES LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD HAVE CAUSED SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT TO THE VIEW FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD AND SETTING FORTH RESTORATIVE ACTION TO ABATE THE IMPAIRMENT. DATE: November 28, 2016 ATTACHMENT: Resolution No. 1196 BACKGROUND On October 24, 2016, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to conclusively determine the extent of the Nuccions' view as it existed in April of 2009. Evidence was presented from all interested persons, and included the original complaint filed by the Nuccions; the October 15, 2015 declaration of Mr. Martin Jimenez; email exchanges between the Hassoldts and the Nuccions; photographs received by the City on April 25, 2016; the arborist reports of Mr. Dane Shota, Mr. William McKinley, and Mr. David De la Torre; a photometric analysis prepared by Ms. Anastasia Kostiuk; the metadata of the photos submitted along with a summary of said photos, provided by Mr. Weinberg; correspondence submitted by Mr. Weinberg including the declarations of Stephen Nuccion, Diana Nuccion, Margaret Schmit, Suzanne Sussman, Keith Kelley, Karina Santana, Yasmine Ryan, Sean Cardenas, James C. Roberts III, and Lianne Koeberle; and correspondence submitted by Mr. Light, including the declaration of Mr. Ruben M. Green. The Council also heard testimony from Mrs. Hassoldt, Mrs. Nuccion, Mr. Light, Mr. Weinberg and Mr. Green. Based on the evidence the City Council directed that staff return with a resolution memorializing its findings and upholding the decision of the Committee on Trees and Views. The Council's findings and directions (setting forth the restorative measures necessitated by said impairment) are memorialized in Resolution No. 1196, which had been placed as an agenda item for the November 14, 2016 City Council meeting. At the City Council meeting on November 14, 2016, the Council was scheduled to consider Resolution No. 1196. A few hours prior to the meeting, Mr. Harold Light (attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Hassoldt) submitted a letter to the City Council requesting the inclusion of certain information within Resolution No. 1196. Specifically, Mr. Light requested that the Resolution: (1) accurately address the fact that the utility pole, referenced with regard to tree #5, has presently been reduced in size by Edison; (2) confirm the fact that the Hassoldts trimmed the Obstructing Trees in February of 20162; (3) explain that Mr. Ruben Green provided oral testimony for the Council's consideration during the October 24, 2016 City Council meeting3; and (4) explicitly provide that the Hassoldts and their counsel may be present during the City's regulatory site visit following the Initial Restorative Action. The City Council continued the November 14, 2016 meeting to tonight's meting so that Staff could consider Mr. Light's requests. Staff has modified Resolution No. 1196 in response to Mr. Light's letter. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that, after careful consideration of the facts and confirmation of the accuracy of the enumerated findings, the City Council adopt: RESOLUTION NO. 1196 OF THE ROLLING HILLS CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE APPEALS OF DR. AND MRS. STEPHEN NUCCION AND MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM HASSOLDT AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS BY DECLARING THAT SPECIFIC TREES LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD HAVE CAUSED SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT TO THE VIEW FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD AND SETTING FORTH RESTORATIVE ACTION TO ABATE THE IMPAIRMENT. Please see Section 5, Paragraph F, page 8 — "Reduce crown to a height of 43 feet above Around," This change has been made pursuant to Mr. Light's request and subsequent to discussions with Edison's legal representative regarding the height of the pole prior to it being reduced.. 2 Please see Section 4, Paragraph I, page 6 — "While_ l record indicates that the Hassoldts trimmed unsp_e_ if d trees in January or February of 7016, the Council nonetheless finds that theyestolative action set forth in Section 4 nfthi&Resolution remains appropriate." l Please see Section 3, page 3 — "The Council also heard testimony from Mr Green Mrs. Hassoldt, Mrs. Nuccion, Mr. Light, Mr. Weinberg and Dr. Nuccion." " Please see Section 6, page 9 — "Upon conclusion of the Initial Restorative Action, the Nuccions shall contact the City and_the..Hassoldts to schedule a site visit to 18 Porttpyese Rend Road during which City staff shall visit -18 take photograph(s) from the Designated Viewing Areas to be attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution for the purpose of establishing the level of restorative action for future maintenance. Thellassoldts may attendthis site visit as observers only " RESOLUTION NO. 1196 A RESOLUTION OF THE ROLLING HILLS CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE APPEALS OF DR. AND MRS. STEPHEN NUCCION AND MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM HASSOLDT AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS BY DECLARING THAT SPECIFIC TREES LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD HAVE CAUSED SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT TO THE VIEW FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD AND SETTING FORTH RESTORATIVE ACTION TO ABATE THE IMPAIRMENT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City's View Preservation Ordinance was enacted in June 1988. The ordinance established preservation of views to be of primary value to the community and created a process by which a property owner could seek to restore a view obstructed by landscaping. In March 2013, the Rolling Hills electorate passed an initiative entitled Measure B amending the 1988 View Preservation Ordinance. The principal effect of Measure B was to shift the application of the Ordinance from protecting views that are capable of being enjoyed from a property to views that were actually enjoyed from a property when the property owner first acquired the property. In particular, the initiative amended the View Preservation Ordinance as follows: • Protecting only those views which existed when the current property owner acquired ownership of the property; • Limiting the protection of the ordinance to views obstructed by "maturing" vegetation (thereby excluding views obstructed by trees that were "mature" at the time of the property acquisition); and • Restoring views from "view corridors," and "views through trees." Section 2. On April 24, 2014, Dr. and Mrs. Stephen Nuccion, the owners of the property located at 18 Portuguese Bend Road ("Nuccions"), filed a View Impairment Complaint ("Complaint") regarding the trees located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road, a property owned by Mr. and Mrs. William Hassoldt ("Hassoldts"). The Complaint alleged that at the time the Nuccions purchased their property in April of 2009 they enjoyed a panoramic view of the Santa Monica Mountains, Mount Baldy and the City lights to the north of Rolling Hills, and that since 2012 the Hassoldts had failed to maintain the trees located upon their property such that the view from 18 Portuguese Bend Road was significantly impaired. Pursuant to the Complaint, the Nuccions requested that their view be restored to the condition that it was in during April of 2009. Pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code 17.26.040(B), the Complaint was referred to a mediator and both parties engaged in mediation; the mediation was unsuccessful. The Nuccions thereafter applied to the City's Committee on Trees and Views ("CTV") in order to resolve the Complaint. By the end of December 2014, City staff had informed the Nuccions that their application was incomplete and requested additional information; this information was not provided to the City until February 4, 2015. Resolution No. 1196 -1- 0 After several postponements, duly noticed public hearings (per Rolling Hills Municipal Code Sections 17.26.040(C) and 17.26.050(A) -(B)) were conducted before the CTV on March 17, 2015, April 21, 2015, May 14, 2015, July 7, 2015, July 21, 2015 and September 22, 2015. Additionally, the CTV attended a duly noticed field trip to both the 15 and 18 Portuguese, Bend Road properties on April 21, 2015. At each of the aforementioned meetings, evidence was received from all persons interested in the matter and from members of City staff. The CTV reviewed, analyzed and studied the evidence submitted. At its July 7, 2015 meeting, the CTV determined that it did not have sufficient evidence to determine whether the trees located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road that are the subject of this Complaint ("Obstructing Trees") were mature in April of 2009 and directed the City to retain a certified arborist to provide an opinion as to the maturity of the Obstructing Trees. The City conducted a request for proposals and selected David de la Torre as the independent arborist. Mr. De La Torre concluded that of the 11 trees at issue, only two (trees #4A and #7) were not mature in 2009 and would therefore be eligible for remediation under Measure B. Notwithstanding the report of Mr. De La Torre, the historical photographs in ROLLING HILLS The Early Years, by A.E. Hanson (1978), in addition to other substantial evidence in the record, indicated that of the 11 Obstructing Trees, only trees #9 and #9A were mature when the Nuccions acquired their property in 2009, thereby rendering the remaining nine (9) Obstructing Trees eligible for remediation under Measure B. Ultimately, the CTV found that: (1) a view (as defined in the Municipal Code) existed from 18 Portuguese Bend Road when the Nuccions acquired the property in 2009; (2) the view from the Nuccions' property is significantly impaired because 11 trees located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road impair the view of the City lights from the Designated Viewing Areas; and (3) restorative action on the nine (9) Obstructing Trees is necessary to abate the view impairment by creating view corridors and views through the trees. To this effect, the CTV adopted Resolution No. 2015-03-CTV on October 7, 2015. On October 27, 2015, the Hassoldts filed an appeal of the CTV's decision to the City Council contesting the CTV's determination that the nine (9) Obstructing Trees were not mature in 2009. Specifically, in their appeal the Hassoldts asserted that: (1) the Nuccions have not established by clear and convincing evidence, or at all, the existence of a protected view over 15 Portuguese Bend Road; (2) there was no view from 18 Portuguese Bend Road prior to April 2009; and (3) each of the trees subject to the Nuccions' complaint are exempt because they were mature on April 22, 2009. Also on October 27, 2015, the Nuccions filed an appeal of the CTV's decision to the City Council contesting the CTV's determination that trees #9 and #9A were mature in 2009 and ineligible for remediation under Measure B; a determination that the Nuccions claim arose out of the CTV's unsupported and unsubstantiated decision to reject one arborist's report over another. Both appeals were timely filed pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code section 17.26.050(G) and the provisions of Chapter 17.54. At the November 23, 2015 City Council meeting, City staff provided an overview of the case and the evidence for the Council's consideration. Thereafter, the Council heard public testimony and concluded the meeting by scheduling a field trip to both properties which, after several postponements, was held on March 21, 2016. At the field trip, the City Council determined that the Nuccions had a view (as defined by Rolling Hills Municipal Code section 17.12.220), which could be observed from the living room at the north side of the residence and a patio/pool deck area immediately adjacent thereto along the northern side of the residence. At the April 25, 2016 City Council meeting, the Council was provided with aerial photographs of both properties, a list of the Obstructing Trees, tree measurements and calculations extrapolating the age of the Obstructing Trees and their heights in 2010 (provided by Mr. Howard Weinberg, attorney for the Resolution No. 1196 -2- Nuccions), a photometric analysis to determine the height of the trees in 2010 (prepared by Ms. Anastasia Kostiuk, a 3D Engineer, on behalf of the Nuccions), and a declaration provided by Mr. Brandon Gill (an arborist hired on behalf of the Nuccions). The Council also heard testimony from Mr. Ruben Green, a Registered Consulting Arborist (hired by the Hassoldts); Mrs. Diana Nuccion; Mr. Howard Weinberg; and Mr. Hal Light with regard to the maturity of the Obstructing Trees. At the conclusion of the public hearing, and after considerable deliberation, the City Council concluded on the basis of the evidence that the Nuccions had a view when they acquired their property; that only two of the Obstructing Trees were mature in 2009. The City Council then directed staff to return with a resolution declaring that the view from 18 Portuguese Bend Road is significantly impaired by the nine identified immature trees located on 15 Portuguese Bend Road, and setting forth restorative action to abate the impairment. In the course of implementing that direction, the City Attorney and staff determined that it would be beneficial to introduce an intermediate step in the process in order to assure that the findings placed into the resolution were consistent with the Council's direction and with the requirements of the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. Consequently, in anticipation of the June 13, 2016 City Council meeting, staff prepared a report outlining all of the evidence presented to date relating to the extent of the view which existed from the Nuccions' property in April of 2009 and presented three options for the City Council to consider: (1) review the evidence supporting the existence of a view in 2009 and reaffirm its direction from April 25, 2016 and direct staff to return with a resolution upholding the CTV's October 7, 2015 decision; (2) re -open the public hearing after public notice and schedule another hearing; or (3) provide alternative direction to staff. During the course of the June 13, 2016 meeting, the Nuccions proffered additional evidence which had not been submitted during the hearing. This supplementary eleventh -hour evidence demonstrated to the Council that additional evidence existed which the parties had not previously presented to the Council for its consideration; therefore, in an effort to ensure that the entire universe of evidence was adequately being considered, , the Council moved to reopen the public hearing for the limited purpose of considering the issue of whether a view existed at the time the Nuccions' acquired their property. The Council further instructed the Nuccions to submit digital copies (including the metadata) of all photographs that had been submitted in support of the view impairment complaint, and instructed both parties to submit any and all additional evidence for the Council's consideration. Section 3. On October 24, 2016, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing (Rolling Hills Municipal Code Sections 17.26.040(C) and 17.26.050(A) -(B)) to conclusively determine the extent of the Nuccions' view as it existed in April of 2009. Evidence was presented by all interested persons, including the Complainants; the October 15, 2015 declaration of Mr. Martin Jimenez; email exchanges between the Hassoldts and the Nuccions; the photographs received by the City on April 25, 2016; the arborist reports of Mr. Dane Shota, Mr. William McKinley, and Mr. David De la Torre; the photometric analysis prepared by Ms. Anastasia Kostiuk; the metadata of the photos submitted along with a summary of said photos, provided by Mr. Weinberg; correspondence submitted by Mr. Weinberg including the declarations of Stephen Nuccion, Diana Nuccion, Margaret Schmit, Suzanne Sussman, Keith Kelley, Karina Santana, Yasmine Ryan, Sean Cardenas, James C. Roberts III, and Lianne Koeberle; and correspondence submitted by Mr. Light, including the declaration of Mr. Ruben M. Green. The Council also heard testimony from Mr. Green, Mrs. Hassoldt, Mrs. Nuccion, Mr. Light, Mr. Weinberg and Dr. Nuccion. This evidence was fully considered by the City Council, whose findings are expressed in further detail below. Section 4. The City Council finds as follows: Resolution No. 1196 A. Pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code section 17.26.090(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: (1) photographs; (2) expert testimony; and lastly (3) other evidence, which may include testamentary evidence and any documentation (other than photographs). B. Pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.26.050 D(3), a view as defined in Section 17.12.220 of the Municipal Code existed from 18 Portuguese Bend Road when the Nuccions acquired the property in 2009. The Council finds, pursuant to the March 21, 2016 field trip to the property located at 18 Portuguese Bend Road, that the viewing area from the Nuccions' property includes a living room at the north side of the residence and a patio/pool deck area immediately adjacent thereto along the northern side of the residence, from the standing perspective of an average height person ("Designated Viewing Areas"). C. The Nuccions provided numerous photographs of their view from the Designated Viewing Areas; four photographs bore handwritten dates claiming that the photographs were taken in either 2010 or 2011. The Council notes that the photographic evidence in this case is further complicated by the fact that the Nuccions had the opportunity to, and in fact did, arrange for the trimming of the trees on 15 Portuguese Bend Road prior to the date that the Hassoldts purchased their property in 2012. Pursuant to a recent request for the production of metadata, the earliest photograph submitted for the Council's consideration was taken during dusk on July 14, 2010; this image is dark and does not adequately/clearly depict the Offending Trees. For these reasons, none of the photographs submitted, including the July 14, 2010 photograph, conclusively establish the view as it existed in from the Nuccions' property in 2009. D. In the absence of clear and convincing testamentary evidence provided by the experts and conclusive photographic evidence, the Council relied heavily upon the declarations of the parties and their witnesses to establish the scope of the view from 18 Portuguese Bend Road. The Council commented on the integrity of the declarants provided by the Nuccions, and found their declarations persuasive. Specifically, the Council found the declaration of Mr. Roberts (whose father sold 15 Portuguese Bend Road to the Hassoldts, and who was personally involved with the care of 15 Portuguese Bend Road from 2005-2011) to be particularly persuasive. Additionally, the Council concluded that the MLS listing from February 2008 established clear and convincing evidence that a view existed from 18 Portuguese Bend Road at or about the time the Nuccions purchased their property. The listing included a description of the view as follows: "Panoramic City Lights and partial ocean views... Pool and spa overlooking views." The Council finds persuasive the testimony provided that the Nuccions relied upon this statement in viewing the home and would not have purchased the home if it did not in fact have the views described in the 2008 MLS listing. E. The only evidence presented by the Hassoldts to rebut the evidence provided by the Nuccions is a report by arborist Ruben Green, who concludes on the basis of historic aerial photographs of some of the Obstructing Trees dated 2008 that a view could not have existed from the Nuccion property in 2009. However, while the aerial photographs show the height and spread of the trees from above, they do not show how the trees affected the view from the Designated Viewing Area on the Nuccion property. Mr. Green argues from the aerial photographs that the Nuccions "could not" have had a view; however, the Council finds this testimony to be speculative because the photographs do not take into account the height differential and viewing angle from the Nuccion residence. Furthermore, the Hassoldts did not provide any contrary declarations. The Council finds that the overwhelming Resolution No. 1196 -4- testamentary evidence of persons who visited the property in 2009 outweighs the speculative conclusions derived from aerial photographs. F. Pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.12.220 "View Impairment," Section 17.26.050(D)(3) and Section 17.26.090 (3), the Council finds that the Nuccions have shown by clear and convincing evidence that the view from the Nuccions' property is significantly impaired because 11 trees located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road significantly impair the view of the Santa Monica Mountains, Mount Baldy and the City lights from the Designated Viewing Areas. The Nuccions provided an aerial photograph of the Obstructing Trees located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road. The Obstructing Trees have been identified as Tree Number One through Tree Number 9A, looking in a northerly direction from the perspective of 18 Portuguese Bend Road. The aforementioned photograph is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution. G. Further, the Council finds that, while the photographic evidence submitted by the parties was not persuasive with regard to the maturity of the trees, the testamentary evidence provided, coupled with the time and diligence devoted to this issue by the CTV indicates that only two of the Obstructing Trees (#9 and #9A) were mature when the Nuccions acquired their property in 2009 and are therefore ineligible for remediation under Measure B. Therefore, because the remaining nine trees were not mature when the Nuccions acquired their property, the Council hereby orders restorative action set forth below. H. Lastly, the Council determined that nine (9) of the Obstructing Trees were not mature and therefore subject to remediation under sections 17.26.010 and 17.26.090(2) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. On the issue of maturity, the Council considered the following evidence: (1) The June 16, 2015 Consulting Arborist Report prepared by Mr. Dane Shota (retained by the Hassoldts). Mr. Shota observed the Obstructing Trees from the Hassoldts' property; he determined that any conclusions derived from the height of the trees would be inaccurate because the tress have been pruned/manipulated. Mr. Shota provided a list of 20 trees located on the Hassoldt property that he determined were mature; no explanation was provided for this determination. Lastly, Mr. Shota's report contained a statement that "[a] lot of the trees that are mature were planted in 1937;" it is unclear from Mr. Shota's report to whom this unsubstantiated statement is attributed. The CTV determined that the conclusions reached by Mr. Shota were inaccurate because there were virtually no trees in the City of Rolling Hills in 1937. The balancing of this evidence, and the determinations made by the CVT with regard to it, are confirmed by the City Council. (2) The June 17, 2015 Certified Arborist Report prepared by Mr. William McKinley (retained by the Nuccions). Mr. McKinley concluded that all eleven of the Obstructing Trees were "actively growing" and therefore could not have been mature in 2009. Mr. McKinley based his conclusions on visual observations made of the Obstructing Trees from the Nuccions' pool deck area, and what he determined to be "cut lines" and evidence of trimming/regrowth. Based on historical photographic evidence (which depicted virtually no trees planted in the City in 1937 — other than a few olive trees), the CTV agreed with Mr. McKinley that nine of the Obstructing Trees could not have been mature; however, the CTV disagreed with Mr. McKinley's conclusion that the two olive trees planted on the Hassoldt property were maturing (as they had arguably been planted in the City around 1937). The balancing of this evidence, and the determinations made by the CVT with regard to it, are confirmed by the City Council. (3) The September 2, 2015 Certified Arborist Report prepared by Mr. David De La Torre (retained by the City). Mr. De La Torre observed the Obstructing Trees from the Hassoldt property. Using a mathematical equation to determine the age of the trees, Mr. De La Torre explained how he Resolution No. 1196 -5- determined their maturity. Mr. De La Torre determined that the average age of the Obstructing Trees was 62 years old (the oldest tree was 141, while the youngest was 15.) Based upon this information, Mr. De La Torre concluded that of the eleven Obstructing Trees, nine (9) were mature and only two (2) were maturing. Based on historical photographic evidence, the CTV disagreed with Mr. De La Torre that nine (9) of the Obstructing Trees were mature; virtually no tress had been planted in the City in 1937 (other than a few olive trees), therefore the nine (9) trees indicated by Mr. De La Torre could not have been mature in 2009. The CTV concluded that except for the two olive trees located on the Hassoldt property, the remaining nine trees were maturing and therefore subject to remediation. The balancing of this evidence, and the determinations made by the CVT with regard to it, are confirmed by the City Council. (4) The August 28, 2015 Certified Arborist Report prepared by Mr. Kevin Eckert (retained by the Nuccions). Mr. Eckert concluded that all eleven of the Obstructing Trees were maturing; his conclusions were derived from the "2010/2011" photographs that had been submitted by the Nuccions and a "video stream" of the view from the Nuccions' pool deck area. Based on historical photographic evidence (which depicted virtually no trees planted in the City in 1937 — other than a few olive trees), the CTV agreed with Mr. Eckert that nine of the Obstructing Trees could not have been mature; however, the CTV disagreed with Mr. Eckert's conclusion that the two olive trees planted on the Hassoldt property were maturing (as they had arguably been planted in the City around 1937). Furthermore, the Council had subsequently learned from the metadata presented as evidence in October, that the photographs relied upon by Mr. Eckert had actually been taken between 2011-2012; therefore the Council confirmed that the accuracy of the conclusions reached by Mr. Eckert were questionable. (5) The April 16, 2016 and May 12, 2016 reports prepared by Ms. Anastasia Kostiuk (3D Engineer retained by the Nuccions). Ms. Kostiuk was asked to review photographs provided to her by the Nuccions, which she was told were taken in 2010; as well as aerial photographs of the Hassoldt property taken between 2008-2012. Ms. Kostiuk took these photographs and created 3D renderings of them, from these renderings she mathematically determined the height of each tree based on the length of the shadows they cast. The Council determined that the evidence provided by Ms. Kostiuk was inconclusive as it was later revealed that the dates of the photographs provided by the Nuccions were not taken in 2010, but rather in 2011-2012. Furthermore, the data provided by Ms. Kostiuk revealed conflicting and fluctuating evidence related to the height of the trees over time. (6) The February 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016 declarations of Mr. Ruben Green (certified arborist retained by the Hassoldts). Mr. Green conducted a site inspection at the Hassoldt property to supervise trimming that was being conducted. Mr. Green does not consider Ms. Kostuik's method to be a reliable way to determine the maturity of the trees. Mr. Green provided his own aerial photographs from 2008 and 2011 to call into question the accuracy of the data Ms. Kostiuk relied upon; specifically, Mr. Green calls attention to the varying height of the utility pole and the evidence of topping in Ms. Kostiuk's photographs. However, the Council determined that in either declaration Mr. Green does not provide an opinion as to whether or not the trees were mature. Ultimately, the Council finds that the weight of the evidence supports a finding that nine (9) of the Obstructing Trees were not mature in 2009 and that restorative action on the nine (9) Obstructing Trees is necessary to abate the view impairment by creating view corridors and views through the trees. I. Pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.26.050(E), the Council finds the restorative action set forth below in this Resolution is necessary to abate the view impairment by creating view corridors and views through trees, that the restorative action will not adversely affect the environment, and that the action will not unreasonably detract from the enjoyment or privacy of the property at 15 Portuguese Bend Road. While the record indicates that the Hassoldts trimmed unspecified trees in January or February of 2016, the Council nonetheless finds that the restorative action set forth in Section 5 of this Resolution remains appropriate. Resolution No. 1196 J. The City reviewed the proposed restorative action's environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA") and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines") and determined the proposed project to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15304 (Minor Alterations of Land) and Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines. The project is exempt because no trees will be removed. Instead, the Obstructing Trees will be cleaned out, shaped and trimmed and a substantial amount of the foliage will remain. No evidence was introduced to suggest that the restorative action will cause an adverse environmental impact. Thus, it can be said with certainty that there will be no environmental impact from the proposed actions. Section 5. The Council orders the following restorative action pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.26.050(E): A. Pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.26.060(A), within thirty (30) calendar days of adoption of this Resolution, the Nuccions are hereby required to obtain and present to the Owners of 15 Portuguese Bend Road, a minimum of three (3) bids from licensed qualified contractors for the performance of the Initial Restorative Action set forth in this Resolution as well as a cash deposit in the amount of the lowest bid. The contractors must provide insurance which protects and indemnifies the City and the Nuccions from damages attributable to negligence or wrongful performance of the work. Any such insurance shall be subject to the approval of the City. B. Pursuant to Section 17.26.060(B), the Owners of 15 Portuguese Bend Road may select any licensed and qualified contractor to perform the Initial Restorative Action (defined below) (as long as the insurance requirement of the above paragraph is satisfied), but shall pay for any cost above the amount of the cash deposit. The work for the Initial Restorative Action shall be completed no later than February 14, 2017 or pursuant to an alternative schedule (but no later than March I, 2017) if the selected contractor determines that the health of the trees would be compromised if the work is performed by February 14, 2017. C. Subsequent maintenance of the subject vegetation shall be performed at the cost and expense of the owners of 15 Portuguese Bend Road. All vegetation subject to the restorative action described in this Resolution and any future planting, including replacement trees, shall be maintained so that the view shown in the photograph to be taken by City staff or designee following the Initial Restorative Action, as detailed below, is preserved. The trees shall be maintained so as to not allow for future view impairments from the Designated Viewing Areas of 18 Portuguese Bend Road. Tree maintenance shall be done in the winter months (December — March) and shall be completed by March 1 of each year in which the work is to be done, as specified in paragraph F of this section of this Resolution. D. An informational covenant shall be recorded against the title of 15 Portuguese Bend Road and shall run with the land, thereby giving notice of this Resolution to all future owners. E. Initial Restorative Action shall be limited to the 9 Obstructing Trees as identified in the table below. Resolution No. 1196 7 0 F. The Initial Restorative Action shall consist of the following: TYPE OF TREE AND TREE # LOCATION ACTION MAINTENANCE 1 Eucalyptus NO ACTION NO ACTION 2 Eucalyptus- along Roadway easement -front Lace, shape & crown reduce to no higher than the current height of Palm Trees Every two years 3 Washington Fan Palm- along N/E side of property Remove the dead fronds Every two years 3-A Washington Fan Palm- along N/E side of property Remove the dead fronds Every two years 4 Eucalyptus & various volunteers- S/W corner of lot Lower the canopy and trim to old cuts for city view Every two years 4-A Olive & various volunteers- S/W corner of lot Lower the canopy and trim to old cuts for city view Every two years 5 Eucalyptus- by garage Reduce crown to a height of 43 feet above ground Every two years 6 California Pepper- along front Shape & reduce canopy to old cuts Every two years 6-A California Pepper -along front Shape & reduce canopy to old cuts Every two years Olive Tree- along front; S/E corner7 Shape, reduce crown and trim to old cuts for city view Every two years 8 Acacia NO ACTION NO ACTION 9 Olive Tree- lawn area NO ACTION NO ACTION 9-A Olive Tree- lawn area NO ACTION NO ACTION ITOTAL 9 Trees Subject to Initial Restorative Action The locations of the above listed trees are shown on the aerial photograph attached hereto as Exhibit A. G. The actions described above shall be accomplished per ISA industry standards and best arborist practices, and the following definitions shall apply: Resolution No. 1196 -8- Crown Reduction: Height reduction to specified height by removing selective branches, deadwood, stems and foliage to reduce the height and spread of a tree. Lace: Thin out thick areas of the canopy to expose the structure of dominant branches, clean out the crown, shaping and balancing the tree. Section 6. Upon conclusion of the Initial Restorative Action, the Nuccions shall contact the City and the Hassoldts to schedule a site visit to 18 Portuguese Bend Road, during which City staff shall take photograph(s) from the Designated Viewing Areas to be attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution for the purpose of establishing the level of restorative action for future maintenance. The Hassoldts may attend this site visit as observers only. Section 7. There shall be no restorative action required for the remainder of the trees on the property at 15 Portuguese Bend Road not listed in the Initial Restorative Action in this Resolution. However, trees on the property not included in this Resolution shall be maintained at current configuration and any new growth that extends into the view established by this Resolution shall be removed at the same time as the maintenance is conducted for the Obstructing Trees, at the sole expense of the Owners of 15 Portuguese Bend Road. Section 8. The parties by mutual agreement, if they so desire, may modify the implementation action in this Resolution, as set forth in Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.26.060(D). Any such mutual agreement shall be recorded. Section 9. In the event that any party requests inspection of implementation of Resolution 1196 on grounds that the restorative action or maintenance is not compliant with this Resolution, the City may be required to incur substantial costs in investigating the complaint. Therefore, the City shall be entitled to recover its costs from a non -compliant party, for activities including, but not limited to, hiring independent consultants. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by Members of the City Council this day of November 2016. Bea Dieringer Mayor ATTEST: Heidi Luce City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ) SS Resolution No. 1196 -9- TD The foregoing City Council Resolution No. 1196 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE ROLLING HILLS CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE APPEALS OF DR. AND MRS. STEPHEN NUCCION AND MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM HASSOLDT, AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS BY DECLARING THAT SPECIFIC TREES LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD HAVE CAUSED SIGNIFICANT VIEW IMPAIRMENT TO THE VIEW FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD AND SETTING FORTH RESTORATIVE ACTION TO ABATE THE IMPAIRMENT. was approved and adopted at a meeting of the City Council on November , 2016 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Heidi Luce City Clerk This decision is final and conclusive. Any action challenging this administrative order must be filed with a court of law within the time limits set forth in section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Resolution No. 1196 -10- EXHIBIT A Resolution No. 1196 EXHIBIT B Resolution No. 1196 -12- INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 7-B Mtg. Date: 11/28/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FOR AWARD OF A BID TO CHRISP COMPANY FOR FY 2016-17 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS PROJECT. DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: Chrisp Company Bid Schedule Agreement RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that members of the City Council award the FY 2016-17 City of Rolling Hills Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings on Certain Streets Project to Chrisp Company of Fremont, California in an amount not to exceed $32,178.30 which includes a 10% contingency for unexpected field conditions or change orders. Additional restriping may be authorized when needed, as the "on -call" cost included in the bid will apply for a 12 -month period beginning with award of the bid. BACKGROUND For FY 16/17, the City Council asked staff to formalize its recent practice to stripe the City's streets on a "as needed" basis. Therefore, staff worked with the City's Traffic Engineer and developed a methodology for a yearly review of all the City streets to determine which ones needed to be re -striped. A catalog of conditions was developed by the Traffic Engineer that will include illustrations of street striping examples to assist staff in determining when roadways demand re -striping. Staff, with the assistance of the Traffic Engineer each year will survey the streets and make the determination as to which streets meet the conditions for re -striping. When the survey is completed, including an inquiry with the Rolling Hills Community Association to determine what streets are planned to be repaved, staff will go out to competitive bid in order for the work to be completed. This year, the RHCA repaved the following four streets: Buckboard Trail, Hackamore Road, Meadowlark Lane and Reata Lane. Furthermore, staff retained a private street striping vendor this summer, J & S Striping, to complete a comprehensive street striping and marking inventory for the streets identified to be completed this fiscal year. This needed to be done because the existing inventory was broken down into two categories: all City streets and all major thoroughfares. Therefore, the City will need to continue to complete its street -by -street inventory in order to formally implement the "as needed" annual street striping and marking program. This item was first brought to the City Council at the November 14, 2016 City Council meeting. Councilmember Pat Wilson questioned staff about the bid schedule where the Chrisp Company provided its cost for "Blue" vs. "Yellow" reflective pavement markers. It was evident that staff made an error in the bid document where it called out for 300 blue reflective pavement markers at each fire hydrant and 20 yellow reflective pavement markers to replace the ones that are missing on the streets the City plans to restripe. Although it was not clear at the time what happened, staff asked the City Council to continue the item to the November 28, 2016 City Council meeting in order to rectify the issue. It was found that staff inadvertently reversed the numbers for the two different colored reflective pavement markers. The end result is that the cost to complete the project became less expensive due to the fact that the yellow reflective pavement markers are 50% less than the blue reflective pavement markers. Staff recalculated the bids and found that the Chrisp Company is still the lowest bidder. Staff confirmed with Chrisp Company officials that they would abide by the change order with costs originally submitted. DISCUSSION The Traffic Engineer and staff assessed the condition of the roadway striping for FY 16/17, and determined its "as needed" recommendations that were included in the Request for Bids (RFB). On October 11, 2016 staff placed advertisements requesting bids in the Dodge Green Sheet, as well as posted at City Hall and on the City's website. The Dodge Green Sheet is a publication commonly used by local governments for the advertisement of public works projects. The bids were publically opened on November 7, 2016 at 11:00 AM at City Hall and the proposals are as follow: REVISED CALCULATIONS COMPANY NAME BID AMOUNT WITHOUT RPMs RPMs COST YELLOW (qty. 300) RPMs COST BLUE (qty: 20) TOTAL COST With Corrected RPMs Quantities Chrisp Company $27,553 $1,500 ($5 ea) $200 ($10 ea) I $29,253 J&S Striping $28,230 $900 ($3 ea) $300 ($15 ea) $29,430 Stemdahl Enterprises, Inc $36,000 $3,000) ($10 ea ($00 a) $39,200 PCI $38,400 (2'40$8 ea) ($6 eo) $40,920 ORIGINAL BID COMPANY NAME ORIGINAL BID AMOUNT ON -CALL UNIT PRICES ONLY Chrisp Company $30,653.00 $7,181.86 (of which sandblasting is $5,000 per L.F.) J&S Striping $32,790.00 $4,153.89 (of which sandblasting is $2,800 per L.F.) Sterndahl Enterprises, Inc. $39,200.00 $3,380.64 (of which sandblasting is $2.50 per S.F) PCI $40,360.00 $4,839.55 (of which sandblasting is $2,500 per LF.) The Chrisp Company had the lowest bid of the four bidders for the FY 16/17 bid schedule, which is for the road striping work recommended to be done immediately because this year's scheduled street resurfacing project has already been completed by the RHCA. The City don't have any on -call striping work scheduled and if the Association will be repaving more streets later in the year, no sandblasting will be necessary on the repaved streets. Staff has evaluated the Chrisp Company's bid package and found that the bid is in order and it includes the required Bid Bond. Furthermore, the Chrisp Company's California State Contractors License is current and active. Staff contacted the references provided by Chrisp Company and found out that the vendor is reliable and that projects were completed within budget and on time. The Chrisp Company also restriped the Rolling Hills roadways in FY 15/16 and did a satisfactory job, within the time frame and on budget. The proposed agreement provides for a 10% contingency for change orders and unexpected field conditions. The streets scheduled for striping include: Buckboard Trail Buggy Whip Drive Cinchring Road Crest Road East and West Eucalyptus Lane Hackamore Road Hillside Lane Hummingbird Lane FISCAL IMPACT Meadowlark Lane Outrider Road Pinto Road Poppy Trail Portuguese Bend Road Possum Ridge Road Quail Ridge Road South Ranchero Road Reata Lane Ringbit Road East Roadrunner Road Roundup Road Spur Lane Wideloop Road Williamsburg Lane Since the City already completed its initial striping and marking inventory, the remaining FY 2016/17 budget includes $45,617 for its citywide "as needed" restriping program. The funding for roadway striping comes from the Traffic Safety Fund. Below is the Chrisp Company's bid, including the 10% contingency. Bid Amount 10% Contingency Total $29,253.00 $ 2,925.30 $32,178.30 As you can see, the bid from the Chrisp Company is within the budgeted amount for FY 16/17 for street striping. NOTIFICATION The bidders have been notified that the City Council will be considering the bid award at its meeting of November 28, 2016. CONCLUSION With the City Council's approval of the bid and the appropriation, the City Manager will sign and execute the agreement. In addition, residents and the Rolling Hills Community Association will be notified in advance of when the striping commences. RRC:en Award Striping 2016-17-CC-rpt.docx City of Rolling Hills COMPANY NAME: C}�'LIS? Ctrl y7Aq q BID SCHEDULE • FOR FY 2016-2017 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS B 0 1 N N gst 3 i NN f 15k R R s ' —. h k ii N O 0 0 hi I. NN P I 3Z's —.-co .-.-. r N r .- r .-.-.- X 5 A .” s 5 i l i 3 E g EM aS 51 o 8 ryR T c e;01121,7 € 111 @ v of p p 1 2 2016-2017 RFB Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings -9- ® Revised 09-19.2016 City of Rolling Hills COMPANY NAME: C► -wt Cowl PAPL? BID SCHEDULE - CONTINUED FOR FY 2016-2017 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS IN THE CITY OF ROLLING BILLS ITEM _ QUANTITY EACH TOTAL All Streets listed on page No. 9 N/A N/A $ Z7 1453 cY Blue Reflective Pavement Markers (RPM's) at each fire hydrant 300 $ OD 0 " 42 $ 3,000 Yellow Reflective Pavement Markers (RPM's) 20 $ G9)- $ to 100 TOTAL AMOUNT IN FIGURES $ 301(053 TOTAL AMOUNT BID IN WORDS: 1 \cIr kA tklhs44 )( Lovkl ‘\1/4411 \¼'u LIot's ` - Continue to page 11 - NOTE: Buckboard Lane, Hackamore Road, Meadowlark Lane & Reata Lane were recently repaved. There is no current striping there. CONTRACTOR Name CAIe-SF CD0/1?/4Mi Street Address 11365D 0S6. -t00 (PO►40 City jYfpMr- State Zip Code `'/yn% Telephone Number 570. 6,5-6, zr'-Iv E-mail guiEls i' @,Ci-tMsPW. corn Signature and Title of Bidder or Authorized epresentative 2016-2017 RFB Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings -10- r City of Rolling Hills COMPANY NAME: Is? COl't'1y?l q ON -CALL UNIT PRICES FOR FY 2016-2017 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS On -Call Service: Unit prices herein will apply for a I2 -month period beginning with award of the bid. The City may call upon Contractor during the 12 -month period for striping as needed at the per unit rates specified in the bid schedule. No. Description Quantity .. Unit: Unit price 1. Repaint Detail 1 1 L.F. $ • 110 2. Repaint Detail 21 1 L.F. $ , Vii. 3. Repaint Detail 27B 1 L.F. $ , to 4. Repaint Detail 38A 1 L.F. $ 19,2 5. Repaint 12" White x -walk 1 L.F. $ I W 6. Repaint 12" stop bar and stop legend 1 Each $ VI °= 7. Repaint 12" Yellow Line 1 L.F. - $ Poi 8. Repaint STOP AHEAD legend 1 Each $ ill) °= 9. Repaint HORSE XING legend 1 Each $ 110 `.' 10. Repaint 24" Whitc Line 1 L.F. $ 3 z° 11. Repaint ROAD ENDS legend 1 Each $ H p °.; 12. Repaint 400 FEET legend 1 Each $ 110 f" 13. Repaint 500 FEET legend 1 Each S i io . 14. Repaint SLOW CURVE marking 1 Each $ 110 ,,-" 15 Blue Reflective Pavement Markers 1 Each $ '0 "' 16. Yellow Reflective Pavement Markers 1 Each $ C 17. Sandlasting 1 L.S. $ 5 pot °= t 18. Additional cost (if any) Each $ I 50 $ Seven TOTAL $ A California, TOTAL AMOUNT BID IN FIGURES $ L Sitt a ►�c Li 1 Q tr�w 19 loo T BID WORDS VICE RE� I Dr�T n" (Signature, Name and Title) "-day of /VOUcv/$&e_ , 2016. 2016-2017 RFB Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings City of Rolling Hills DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS BIDDER proposes to subcontract certain portions of the work which are in excess of one-half of one percent of the bid and to procure materials and equipment from suppliers and vendors as follows: NAME, ADDRESS, AND PHONE NUMBER OF SUBCONTRACTORS, SUPPLIERS AND VENDORS SUB- CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NUMBER IDENTIFY WORK TO BE PERFORMED, MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT. 2016-2017 RFB Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings -12- City of Rolling Hills BIDDER'S REFERENCES The following are the names, addresses and phone numbers for three public agencies for which BIDDER has performed similar work within the past two years: 1. Name and address of owner Name and telephone number of person familiar y(i�lr p oc 2. 3. Contract amount/Type of work Date completed Name and address of ow r Name and teleph ?nu ber of . , son familiar with project Contra unY1'ype . work Date completed Name and a.. ess of owner and telephone number of person familiar with project Contract amount/Type of work Date complete The following are the names, addresses, and phone numbers for all brokers and sureties from whom PRINCIPAL intends to procure insurance bonds: SwR-EN: 11114EbEAS (,RWAIN 100 CAumom 'm St 3(� OiwkANciy2 C(4,q//lI ¶Yotn : v2 J. Cpusg 11S6 77v4 Sr 4'15D/ Stw it nlusw, CA (M LOSS 8:/6414 2016-2017 RFB Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings 13 unrisp company References 1ul6 Class Name & address Of work Job Information of General Contractor Contact Telephone Project Amount & Completion Date Paint Striping Thermo Markings Roadside Signs 2008-2016 Annual Citywide Street Maint. City of Fontana 16849 Orange Way Fontana, Ca 92335 Chad Gordon 909-350-7634 . $200,000 Ongoing Thermo Striping & Mrkg Grinding Removals Roadside Signs Annual Signing and Striping City of Pico Rivera 6615 Passons Boulevard Pico Rivera, CA 90660 Jose Loera (562) 801-4350 570,000 Apr -16 Thermo Striping Thermo Marking Pavement Markers Thermoplastic Traffic Striping, Markings, & Markers City of Corona 400 S Vicentia Ave Corona, CA 92882 Scot Miller 951.817-5708 $100,000 Ongoing Non Skid Thermo Striping Non Skid Themo Marking Roadside Signs Annual Citywide Maintenance W City of hitter 13230 Penn Street Whittler, CA 90602 James Keena (562) 567-9514 $250,000 Ongoing Paint Striping Annual Citywide Reslriping City of Rancho Mirage. 69825 Highway 111 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Dave Martin 760-343-0561 ext. 512 $75,000 Reoccuring Annually Thermo Striping Green Non -Skid Bike Lane Roadside Signs Green Bike Lanes City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, Ca 92701 Odando Garcia 714-647-5049 $160,000 Dec -15 Stop Signs Speed Limit Signs Telespar/Round Post Citywide Sign Replace City of San Marcos 1 Civic Center Drive San Marcos, CA 92069 Michael Rafael (760) 744-1050 ext. 3274 $185,000 Feb -15 Stop Signs Speed Limit Signs No Parking Signs Citywide Sign Replace City of Simi Valley 2929 Tapo Canyon Road Simi Valley, CA 93063 Rocky Nungester - (805) 583-6882 $115,000 Jul -15 City of Rolling Hills EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMPLIANCE BIDDER certifies that in all previous contracts or subcontracts, all reports which may have been due under the requirements of any Agency, State, or Federal equal employment opportunity orders have been satisfactorily filed, and that no such reports are currently outstanding. CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE REQUIREMENT The undersigned certifies that he/she is aware that this contract cannot be awarded to him unless, at the time of the submittal of the bid, he/she is the holder of a valid California Contractor's License proper and adequate for the work required by this contract, and that the failure to obtain proper and adequate licensing for an award of the contract shall result in the forfeiture of the bidder's security. 2016-2017 RFB Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings -14- City of Rolling Hills BIDDERS' INFORMATION BIDDER certifies that the following information is true and correct: Bidder's /' Name L#(LI.S? Cyr IPIANN Business Address 142 St Os&Iwo' o;a� 9-ifLl+bio-/ Cfa-- 9is<39 Telephone 5/0. (o36. 2840 State Contractor's License No. and Class 3%'I bill/ 4, C 13� C3Z Original Date Issued 5/31//q'yy Expiration Date J~/c3//20/9' The following are the names, titles, addresses, and phone numbers of all individuals, firm members, partners, joint venturers, and/or corporate officers having a principal interest in this bid: lgo n- C44z4sP 31�6�r Rce-a- I -Is flD V16E_ RES O rr IDAtrlp Mou.w.c VICE. carth►b - The date of any voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy judgments against any principal having an interest in this bid are as follows: N`A All current and prior DBA's, alias, and/or fictitious business names for any principal having an interest in this bid are as follows: AJ 4 2016-2017 RFB Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings -15- City of Rolling Hills I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above representations are true and correct , r Executed this �5// day of /1'0V&.iBa—, 2016, at { nom , California. Signature . •' Title of Bidder or Authorizeli Representative (SEAL) 2016-2017 RFB Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings -16- City of Rolling Hills BID BOND FOR FY 2016-2017 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that Bidder CHRISP COMPANY PRINCIPAL, and TrevelensCeaualryend Surety Company ofAmerica , as SURETY, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Rolling Hills, as AGENCY, in the penal sum of TEN PERCENT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT BID— which is ten percent (10%) of the total amount bid by PRINCIPAL to AGENCY for the above stated project, for the payment of which sum, PRINCIPAL and SURETY agree to be bound, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITIONS OF THIS OBLIGATION ARE SUCH that, whereas PRINCIPAL is about to submit a bid to AGENCY for the above stated project, if said bid is rejected, or is said bid is accepted and a contract is awarded and entered into by PRINCIPAL in the manner and time specified, and provides the required payment and performance bonds and insurance coverages to AGENCY, this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise it shall remain in full force and effect in favor of AGENCY. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have set their names, titles, hands, and seals this 2nd day of NOVEMBER ,2016. PRINCIPAL: CHRISP COMPANY BY: BY: TAMMIE ALLISON, SECRETARY SURETY: BY TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA BETTY L. T " LE ' TINO, ATTORNEY -IN -FACT Subscribed and sworn to this NOTARY PUBLIC day of , 2016. (SEAL) 2016-2017 RFB Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings -17- Place Notary Seal Above CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CIVIL CODE § 1189 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California County of San Francisco on November 2, 2016 Date personally appeared before me, Janet C. Rojo, Notary Public • Here Insert Name and Title of the Officer Betty L. Tolentino Name(s) of Signer(s) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(es), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. JANET C. ROJO COMM #2041020 , NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFCRN!.A p r SAN : RANC!300 COUNTY t,1/41,• S , :•omm. Expires Oct, 9, 2017 I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS mand and official seal. OPTIONAL Signature of Notary Publi Though this section is optional, completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — 0 Limited ❑ General ❑ Individual 0 Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee 0 Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: Signer's Name: ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — 0 Limited 0 General ❑ Individual 0 Attomey in Fact ❑ Trustee 0 Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: ©2014 National Notary Association • www.NationalNotary.org • 1 -800 -US NOTARY (1-800-876-6827) Item 415907 WARNING: THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUT THE RED BORDER TRAVELERSJ POWER OF ATTORNEY Farmington Casualty Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company Attorney -In Fact No. 229166 St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company Travelers Casualty and Surety Company Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company Certificate No. 0 0 6 8 8 2 6 3 0 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That Farmington Casualty Company, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company are corporations duly organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut, that Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Iowa, and that Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Wisconsin (herein collectively called the "Companies"), and that the Companies do hereby make, constitute and appoint Susan Hecker, Maureen O'Connell, Robert Wrixon, Brian F. Cooper, M. Moody, Betty L. Tolentino, Janet C. Rojo, Virginia L. Black, K. Zerounian, and Kevin Re of the City of San Francisco State of California their true and lawful Attomey(s)-in-Fact, each in their separate capacity if more than one is named above, to sign, execute, seal and acknowledge any and all bonds, recogriizances, conditional undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof on behalf of the Companies in their business of guaranteeing the fidelity of persons, guaranteeing the performance of contracts and executing or guaranteeing bonds and undertakings required or permitted in any actions or proceedings allowed by law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Companies have caused this instrument to be signed and their corporate seals to be hereto affixed this day of July 2016 Farmington Casualty Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company. Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company Si. Paul Guardian Insurance Company State of Connecticut City of Hartford ss. By: I1th St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company Travelers Casualty and Surety Company Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company On this the I Ith day of July 2016 before me personally appeared Robert L. Raney, who acknowledged himself to be the Senior Vice President of Farmington Casualty Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, and that he, as such, being authorized so to do, executed the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein contained by signing on behalf of the corporations by himself as a duly authorized officer. In Witness Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. My Commission expires the 30th day of lune, 2021. 58440-5-16 Printed in U.S.A. ( itii C. j� `Marie C. Tetreault, Notary Public WARNING: THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUT THE RED BORDER WARNING: THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUT THE RED BORDER This Power of Attomey is granted under and by the authority of the following resolutions adopted by the Boards of Directors of Farmington Casualty Company, Fidelit and Guaranty Insurance Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian lnsuranc Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, and United State Fidelity and Guaranty Company; which resolutions are now in full force and effect, reading as follows: RESOLVED, that the Chairman, the President, any Vice Chairman, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President,any Vice President, any Second Vic President, the Treasurer, any Assistant Treasurer, the Corporate Secretary or any Assistant Secretary may appoint Attorneys -in -Fact and Agents to act for and on behal of the Company and may give such appointee such authority as his or her certificate of authority may prescribe to sign with the Company's name and seal With th, Company's seal bonds, recognizances, contracts of indemnity, and other writings obligatory in the nature of a bond, recognizance, or conditional undertaking, and an; of said officers or the Board of Directors at any time may remove any such appointee and revoke the power given him or her; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chairman, the President, any Vice Chairman, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President or any Vice President ma' delegate all or any pan of the foregoing authority to one or more officers or employees of this Company, provided that each such delegation is in writing and a com thereof is filed in the office of the Secretary; and it is 'F• FURTHER RESOLVED, that any bond, recognizance, contract of indemnity, or writing obligatory in die nature of a bond, recognizance, or conditional underakinp shall be valid and binding upon the Company when (a) signed by the President, any Vice Chairman, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President or any Vice President, any Second Vice President, the Treasurer, any Assistant Treasurer, the Corporate Secretary or any Assistant Secretary and duly attested and sealed with the Company's seal by a Secretary or Assistant Secretary; or (b) duly executed (under seal, if required) by one or more Attorneys -in -Fact and Agents pirsuant to the power prescribed in his or her certificate or their certificates of authority or by one or more Company officers pursuant to a written delegation of authority; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that the signature of each of the following officers: President, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President, any Vice President, any Assistant Vice President, any Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, and the seal of the Company may be affixed by facsimile to any Power of Attorney or to any certificate relating thereto appointing Resident Vice Presidents, Resident Assistant Secretaries or Attomeys-in-Fact for purposes only of executing and attesting bonds and undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof, and any such Power of Attomey or certificate bearing such facsimile signature or facsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon the Company and any such power so executed and certified by such facsimile signature and facsimile seal shall be valid and binding on the Company in the future with respect to any bond or understanding to which it is attached. 1, Kevin E. Hughes, the undersigned,Assistant Secretary, of Farmington Casualty Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a tore and correct copy of the Power of Attorney executed by said Companies, which is in full force and effect and has not been revoked. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seals of said Companies this 2nd day of November Kevin Hughes, Assisuun Se tary ,20 16. To verify the authenticity of this Power of Attorney, call 1-800-421-3880 or contact us at www.travelersbond.com. Please refer to the Attorney -In -Fact number, the above -named individuals and the details of the bond to which the power is attached. WARNING: THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUT THE RED BORDER CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CIVIL CODE § 1189 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate Is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California County of ALAMEDA On 11/3/16 Date personally appeared before me, KELLY R. AGUILAR, NOTARY PUBLIC Here Insert Name and Title of the Officer TAMMIE ALLISON Name(s) of Signer(s) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within Instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they-executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/thelrsignature(s) on the Instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. �•y_ • KELLY R. AGUILAR Commission p 2066619 r z�,ti Notary Public • California z J z �•- • 4 rk'r Alameda County t'v Comm. EpiresMay 2.2016 Place Notary Seal Above I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph Is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature Signature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though this section is optional, completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capaclty(les) Claimed by Signers) Signer's Name: U Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — f7 Limited f -I General ❑ Individual 0 Attorney In Fact ❑ Trustee U Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: Signer's Name: ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — 0 Limited El General El Individual 0 Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee I) Guardian or Conservator Li Other: Signer Is Representing: ...-.�a arswilkiniaticticgmscizAwommilvi ._.�-_.aas�6_d�J-..�.C.a7a..= ©2014 National Notary Association • www.NationalNotary.org • 1 -800 -US NOTARY (1-800-876-6827) Item #5907 City of Rolling Hills NON -COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT FOR FY 2016-2017 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA State of California County of Los Angeles R1%702- 1)c153W9 SS. says that he or she is ►/ /('e ) oKr , being first duly swom, deposes and of e t2 ' CQYi'l (p- PiK) `Z the party making the foregoing bid, that the bid is not made in the interest of, or on behalf of, any undisclosed person, partnership, company, association, organization, or corporation; that the bid is genuine and not collusive or sham; that the bidder has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other bidder to put in a false or sham bid, and has not directly or indirectly, colluded, conspired, connived, or agreed with any bidder or anyone else to put in a sham bid, or that anyone shall refrain from bidding; that bidder has not in any manner, directly or indirectly, sought by agreement, communication, or conference with anyone to fix the bid price of the bidder or any other bidder, or to fix any overhead, profit, or cost element of the bid price, or of that of any other bidder, or to secure any advantage against the public body awarding the contract of anyone interested in the proposed contract; that all statements contained in the bid are true; and, further, that the bidder has not, directly or indirectly, submitted his or her bid price or any breakdown thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulged information or data relative thereto, or paid, and will not pay, : . ' fee to any corporation, partnership, company association, organization, bid depository, or to any em. er or agent thereof to effectuate a collusive or sham bid. Subscribed and sworn to before me on 2016-2017 RFB Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings -18- Signature 'tint{ Lica (date) Signa (Notary Seal) rmnnumumummmnunnnmmmmmmmunnmmummmmi. KAY UKES COMM. #2095563 NOTARY PUBLIC- CALIFORNIA u V/ :ery r Exp.oa mmp. JCOUNTY My Comm. 01Y siunonuununmm11nmomnnnunaiununnnnommnmmnnm4 City of Rolling Hills BID FOR FY 2016-2017 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA Bids to be received on Monday, November 7, 2016, at 11:00 a.m. at the City of Rolling Hills City Hall. Completion Time: 15 consecutive working days unless otherwise agreed upon. Forfeiture Due to Delay - $250.00 per calendar day CONTRACTOR Name Coats? Con -An Street Address 436 5`( eXj_noo 0 o PC City v1010 State e3C1- Zip Codegy63c1 Telephone Number 510. 656.2£-'4 D 2016-2017RFB Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings -19- CONTRACT AGREEMENT FOR FY 2016-2017 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA THIS CONTRACT AGREEMENT is made and entered into for the above stated project this 29th day of November, 2016, BY AND BETWEEN the City of Rolling Hills as AGENCY, and Chrisp Company, as CONTRACTOR. WITNESS that AGENCY and CONTRACTOR have mutually agreed as follows: ARTICLE 1 The contract documents for the aforesaid project shall consist of the Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Bid, Standard Specifications, Special Provisions, and all referenced specifications, details, standard drawings, and appendices; together with three (3) signed copies of the Contract Agreement, three (3) signed copies of required bonds, one (1) copy of the certificates (including Endorsement Form CG 20-10-11-85), permits, notices, and affidavits; and also including any and all addenda or supplemental agreements clarifying, amending, or extending the work contemplated as may be required to insure its completion in an acceptable manner. All of the provisions of said contract documents are made a part hereof as though fully set forth herein. ARTICLE II For and in consideration of the payments and agreements to be made and performed by AGENCY, CONTRACTOR agrees to furnish all materials and perform all work required for the above stated project, and to fulfill all other obligations as set forth in the aforesaid contract documents. ARTICLE III CONTRACTOR agrees to receive and accept the prices set forth in the Bid as full compensation for furnishing all materials, performing all work, and fulfilling all obligations hereunder. Said compensation shall cover all expenses, losses, damages, and consequences arising out of the nature of the work during its progress or prior to its acceptance including those for well and faithfully completing the work and the whole thereof in the manner and time specified in the aforesaid contract documents; and also including those arising from actions of the elements, unforeseen difficulties or obstructions encountered in the prosecution of the work, suspension or discontinuance of the work, and all other unknowns or risks for any description connected with the work. On -Call Service: Unit prices herein will apply for a 12 -month period beginning with award of the bid. The City may call upon Contractor during the 12 -month period for striping as needed at the per unit rates specified in the bid schedule. ARTICLE IV AGENCY hereby promises and agrees to employ, and does hereby employ, CONTRACTOR to provide the materials, do the work, and fulfill the obligations according to the terms and conditions herein contained and referred to, for the prices aforesaid, and hereby contracts to pay the same at the time, in the manner, and upon the conditions set forth in the contract documents. PERSONNEL: Contractor shall provide at all times sufficient personnel and flag men with the skills and experience necessary to perform the various activities for the full performance of this work. All personnel provided for the performance of this Agreement shall be employees of the Contractor and Contractor shall assume payment of all wages, taxes and all other employee costs, unless otherwise provided. On -site personnel shall wear identifiable company uniforms including shirts, jackets, and caps, as necessary. Frequent inspections of the site shall be made by an appropriate Supervisor of the Contractor to assure adherence to schedules and policies by the crews performing the work. Area Supervisors shall be available to attend job walks with the City Manager or representative as necessary. Contractor shall provide and designate one -person as the designated City contact. ARTICLE V CONTRACTOR acknowledges that this contract is subject to the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing the Section 1720) of the California Labor Code relating to public works and public agencies and agrees to be bound by all the provisions thereof as though set forth in full herein. CONTRACTOR agrees to comply with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1775 concerning penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. The Contract shall, as a penalty to the AGENCY, forfeit not more than fifty dollars ($50) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations for the work or craft in which the work is employed for any public work done under the contract by CONTRACTOR or by any subcontractor. CONTRACTOR agrees to comply with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1777.5 concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects, and further agrees that CON 1 RACTOR is responsible for compliance with Section 1777.5 by all of its subcontractors. CONTRACTOR agrees to comply with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess hours. The CONTRACTOR shall, as a penalty to the AGENCY, forfeit twenty-five dollars ($25) for each worker employed in the execution of the contract by the CONTRACTOR or by any subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than 8 hours in any one calendar day and 40 hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the California Labor Code. In accordance with California Labor Code Section 1860 and 3700, every Contractor will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its employees. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1861, CONTRACTOR, by signing this contract certifies as follows: "I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for worker's compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract." 20/6-20/7 Agreement- Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings ARTICLE VI With respect to performance of work under this contract, CONTRACTOR shall maintain and shall require all of its subcontractors to maintain insurance as required in the Standard Specifications of the Project Specifications. ARTICLE VII CONTRACTOR'S LIABILITY: The City of Rolling Hills and its officers, agents and employees ("Indemnitees") shall not be answerable or accountable in any manner for any loss or damage that may happen to the work or any part thereof, or for any of the materials or other things used or employed in performing the work; or for injury or damage to any person or persons, either workers or employees of CONTRACTOR, of its subcontractors or the public, or for damage to adjoining or other property from any cause whatsoever arising out of or in connection with the performance of the work. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for any damage or injury to any person or property resulting from defects or obstructions or from any cause whatsoever. CONTRACTOR will indemnify Indemnities against and will hold and save Indemnitees harmless from any and all actions, claims, damages to persons or property, penalties, obligations or liabilities that way be asserted or claimed by any person, firm, entity, corporation, political subdivision, or other organization arising out of or in connection with the work, operation, or activities of CONTRACTOR, its agents, employees, subcontractors or invitees provided for herein, whether or not there is concurrent passive negligence on the part of City. In connection therewith: a. CONTRACTOR will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any such claims, damages, penalties, obligations or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, expert fees and costs incurred in connection therewith. b. CONTRACTOR will promptly pay any judgment rendered against CONTRACTOR or Indemnitees covering such claims, damages, penalties, obligations and liabilities arising out of or in connection with such work, operations or activities of CONTRACTOR hereunder, and CONTRACTOR agrees to save and hold the Indemnitees harmless therefrom. c. In the event Indemnitees are made a party to any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against CONTRACTOR for damages or other claims arising out of or in connection with the work, operation or activities hereunder, CONTRACTOR agrees to pay to Indemnitees and any all costs and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in such action or proceeding together with reasonable attorneys' fees. Contractor's obligations under this section apply regardless of whether or not such claim, charge, damage, demand, action, proceeding, loss, stop notice, cost, expense, judgment, civil fine or penalty, or liability was caused in part or contributed to by an Indemnitee. However, without affecting the rights of City under any provision of this agreement, Contractor shall not be required to indemnify and hold harmless City for liability attributable to the active negligence of City, provided such active negligence is determined by agreement between the parties or by the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction. In instances where City is shown to have been actively negligent and where City active negligence 2016-20/7 Agreement- Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings accounts for only a percentage of the liability involved, the obligation of Contractor will be for that entire portion or percentage of liability not attributable to the active negligence of City. So much of the money due to CONTRACTOR under and by virtue of the contract as shall be considered necessary by City may be retained by City until disposition has been made of such actions or claims for damages as aforesaid. It is expressly understood and agreed that the foregoing provisions are intended to be as broad and inclusive as is permitted by the law of the State of California. This indemnity provision shall survive the termination of the Agreement and is in addition to any other rights or remedies which Indemnitees may have under the law. This indemnity is effective without reference to the existence or applicability of any insurance coverage which may have been required under this Agreement or any additional insured endorsements which may extend to Indemnitees. CON I RACTOR, on behalf of itself and all parties claiming under or through it, hereby waives all rights of subrogation and contribution against the Indemnitees, while acting within the scope of their duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising out of or incident to activities or operations performed by or on behalf of the CONTRACTOR regardless of any prior, concurrent, or subsequent passive negligence by the Indemnitees. ARTICLE VIII This contract is not assignable nor the performance of either party's duties delegable without the prior written consent of the other party. Any attempted or purported assignment or delegation of any of the rights of obligations of either party without the prior written consent of the other shall be void and of nut force and effect. ARTICLE IX In any action brought to declare the rights granted herein or to enforce any of the teens of this contract, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees in an amount determined by the court. ARTICLE X CONTRACT is and shall at all times remain as to the AGENCY, a wholly independent Contractor. Neither the AGENCY nor any of its agents shall have control of the conduct of CONTRACTOR or any of the Contractor's employees, except as herein set forth. CONTRACTOR shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of AGENCY. ARTICLE XI The CONTRACTOR is responsible for paying all retail, sales and use, transportation, export, import, special, or other taxes and duties applicable to, and assessable against any work, materials, equipment, services, processes and operations incidental to or involved in this contract. The CONTRACTOR is responsible for ascertaining and arranging to pay them. The prices established in this contract shall 2016-2017 Agreement- Replacement of - 4 Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings 0 include compensation for any taxes the CONTRACTOR is required to pay by laws and regulations in effect of the bid opening date. ARTICLE XII All notices and communications shall be sent to the parties at the following address: CITY: City Manager City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 ARTICLE XIII This contract supersedes any and all other agreements either oral or written, between the parties and contains all of the covenants and agreements between the parties pertaining to the work of improvements described herein. Each party to this contract acknowledges that no representations,. inducements, promises, or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein, and that any other agreement, statements or promise not contained in this contract shall not be valid or binding. Any modification of this contract will be effective only if signed by the party to be charged. ARTICLE XIV Insurance coverages shall be provided by CONTRACTOR as follows: CONTRACTOR shall, at his expense, obtain and keep in force during the term of this Agreement, all policies specified below. Self Insured Retention / Deductibles. All policies required by this Agreement shall allow City, as additional insured, to satisfy the self -insured retention ("SIR") and/or deductible of the policy in lieu of the CONTRACTOR (as the named insured) should CONTRACTOR fail to pay the SIR or deductible requirements. The amount of the SIR or deductible shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney and the Finance Director. CON TRACTOR understands and agrees that satisfaction of this requirement is an express condition precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement. Failure by CONTRACTOR as primary insured to pay its SIR or deductible constitutes a material breach of this Agreement. Should City pay the SIR or deductible on CONTRACTOR's behalf upon the CONTRACTOR's failure or refusal to do so in order to secure defense and indemnification as an additional insured under the policy, City may include such amounts as damages in any action against CONTRACTOR for breach of this Agreement in addition to any other damages incurred by City due to the breach. Contractor shall maintain and deliver copies of its • Comprehensive General Liability Insurance • Products/Completed Operations Hazard • Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles. • Contractual General Liability • Workers' Compensation Insurance covering its employees for injuries arising out of and in the course of their employment 2016-2017 Agreement- Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings The liability insurance coverage values are hereby established to be: Insurance Coverage Requirements Comprehensive General Liability Products/Completed Operations Hazard Comprehensive Automobile Liability Contractual General Liability Worker's Compensation Insurance Limit Requirement $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $1,000,000 The City, it officers, employees and agents, shall be named as additional insured on all such policies. Each policy of insurance shall contain a clause prohibiting cancellation, modification or lapse without (30) days prior written notice having been given to the City. All insurance policies shall be subject to approval by the City Attorney and certificates evidencing such policies shall be provided to the City concurrently with the filing of all required bonds. The General Aggregate Limits must apply "per project". A combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the amount of $3,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits. The General Aggregate Limits must apply "per project". In addition, Contractor shall take and assume all responsibility for the work as stated herein and/or shown on the plans and specifications. The Contractor shall bear all losses and damages directly or indirectly resulting to him, to the Agency, its officers, employees, and agents, or to others on account of the performance or character of the work, unforeseen difficulties, accidents or any other causes whatsoever. If Contractor, for any reason, fails to maintain insurance coverage, which is required pursuant to this Agreement, the same shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement. City, at its sole option, may forthwith terminate this Agreement and obtain damages from the Contractor resulting from said breach. Alternatively, City may purchase such required insurance coverage, and without further notice to Contractor, City may deduct from sums due to Contractor any premium costs advanced by City for such insurance. Contractor will defend any. action or actions filed in connection with any of said claims, damages, penalties, obligations or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees incurred in connection herewith; Contractor will promptly pay any judgment rendered against City, its officers, agents or employees for any such claims, penalties, obligations or liabilities; and, In the event City, its officers, agents or employees are made a part to any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against Contractor for such damages or other claims arising out of or in connection with the sole negligence or wrongful acts of Contractor hereunder, Contractor agrees to pay City, its officers, agents, or employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by City, its officers, agents of employees in such action or proceeding, including by not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees. 2016-2017 Agreement- Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings ARTICLE XV CONTRACTOR affirms that the signatures, titles and seals set forth hereinafter in execution of this Contract Agreement represent all individuals, firm members, partners, joint ventures, and/or corporate officers having a principal interest herein. No act by the Agency, or its representatives in processing or accepting any plans, in releasing any bond, in inspecting or accepting any work, or of any other nature, shall in any respect relieve the Contractor or anyone else from any legal responsibility, obligation or liability he might otherwise have. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns do hereby agree to the full performance of the covenants herein contained and have caused this Contract Agreement to be executed in triplicate by setting hereunto their names, titles, hands, and seals this ,- day of November, 2016. CONTRACTOR: e David L. Morris, Executive Vice President (Title) Contractor's License No. 374600 Subscribed and swom to this % day of November, 2016. NOTARY PUBLIC AGENCY: ATTESTED: (SEAL) KELLY R. AGUILAR Commission # 2066619 Notary Public - California f Alameda County My Comm. Expires May 2.2018 —w& .zsra..zcv-^.r.. Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager Heidi Luce, City Clerk (EXECUTE IN TRIPLICATE) 2016-20!7 Agreement- Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings Date Date FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND FOR FY 2016-2017 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that , as CONTRACTOR and , a SURETY, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Rolling Hills as AGENCY, in the penal sum of Dollars and Cents ($ ), which is one hundred (100%) percent of the total contract amount for the above stated project, for the payment of which sum, CONI'ItACTOR and SURETY agree to be bound, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITIONS OF THIS OBLIGATION ARE SUCH that, whereas CONTRACTOR has been awarded and is about to enter into the annexed Contract Agreement with AGENCY for the above stated project, if CONTRACTOR faithfully performs and fulfills all obligations under the contract documents in the manner and time specified therein, then this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise it shall remain in full force and effect in favor of AGENCY; provided that any alterations in the obligations or time for completion made pursuant to the terms of the contract documents shall not in any way release either CONTRACTOR or SURETY, and notice of such alterations is hereby waived by SURETY. In case suit is brought upon this bond the said SURETY will pay a reasonable attomey's fee to the owner in an amount to be fixed by the court. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have set their names, titles, hands, and seals this day of , 20 . CONTRACTOR* SURETY* * Provide CONTRACTOR/SURETY name, address and telephone number and the name, title, address and telephone number for authorized representative. Power of Attorney must be attached. Subscribed and sworn to this NOTARY PUBLIC day of , 20 . (SEAL) 2016-2017 Agreement- Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings (EXECUTE IN TRIPLICATE) PAYMENT BOND FOR FY 2016-2017 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Rolling Hills as AGENCY has awarded to Chrisp Company, as Contractor, a contract for the above stated project; and WHEREAS, said Contractor is required to furnish a bond in connection with said contract, to secure the payment of claims of laborers, mechanics, materials persons, and other persons as provided by law; NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Contractor and Surety, are held and firmly bound unto AGENCY in the sum of thirty thousand six hundred fifty three Dollars and 00 Cents ($30,653.00) which is one hundred (100%) percent of the total contract amount for the above stated project, for which payment well and truly be made we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITIONS OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH that if said CONTRACTOR, its heirs, executors, administrators, successors, assigns or subcontractors, shall fail to pay any of the persons named in Civil Code Section 3181, or amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to work or labor withhold, and paid over to the employment Development Department from the wages of employees of the Contractor and its subcontractors pursuant to Section 13020 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, with respect to such work and labor, that the surety or sureties herein will pay for the same in an amount not exceeding the sum specified in this bond, otherwise the above obligation shall be void. In case suit is brought upon this bond, the said surety will pay a reasonable attorney's fee to the plaintiffs and the AGENCY in an amount to be fixed by the court. This bond shall inure to the benefit of any of the persons named in Civil Code Section 3181 as to give a right of action to such persons or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond. The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of said agreement or the specifications accompanying same shall in any manner affect its obligations on this bond. The surety hereby waives notice of any such change, extension, alteration or addition and hereby waives the requirements of Section 2845 of the Civil Code as a condition precedent to any remedies AGENCY may have. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have set their names, titles, hands, and seals this day of , 2016. CONTRACTOR* SURETY* 20/6-20/7 Agreement- Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings * Provide CONTRACTOR/SURETY name, address and telephone number and the name, title, address and telephone number for authorized representative. Power of Attorney must be attached. Subscribed and sworn to this NOTARY PUBLIC day of , 20 (SEAL) (EXECUTE IN TRIPLICATE) 2016-2017 Agreement- Replacement of - 10 - Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings 0 MAINTENANCE BOND FOR FY 2016-2017 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA KNOW ALL PERSON BY THESE PRESENTS THAT WHEREAS, the City of Rolling Hills as AGENCY has awarded to , as Contractor, a contract for the above stated project; and WHEREAS, said Contractor is required to furnish a bond in connection with said contract guaranteeing maintenance thereof: NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Contractor and Surety, are held firmly bound unto AGENCY in the sum of Dollars and Cents ($ ), which is ten (10%) percent of the total contract amount for the above stated project to be paid to AGENCY, its successors and assigns, for which payment well and truly be made, we bind ourselves, out heirs, executors and administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITIONS OF THIS OBLIGATION ARE SUCH THAT IS SAID contractor shall remedy without cost to AGENCY any defects which may develop during a period of one (1) year from the date of recordation of the Notice of Completion of the work performed under said contract, provided such defects are caused by defective or inferior materials or work, then this obligation shall be void; otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and effect. In case suit is brought upon this bond, the said SURETY will pay a reasonable attorneys fee to the owner in an amount to be fixed by the court. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have set their names, titles, hands, and seal this day of , 20 . CONTRACTOR* SURETY* (EXECUTE IN TRIPLICATE) 20/6-2017 Agreement- Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR FY 2016-2017 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SCOPE OF WORK The work to be done consists of furnishing all materials, equipment, tools labor, and incidentals as required by the plans, specifications, and contract documents. The general items of work include painting and repainting of traffic striping and pavement markings, replacement of missing markers, the installation of new reflective pavement markers/markers, and the removal of obsolete and/or unnecessary striping and pavement markings. Work shall include the cleaning of soil and debris from areas to be striped prior to actual striping. Rolling Hills is a forested area and at no time shall any employees of contractor smoke inside or outside of vehicles while in the City of Rolling Hills. LOCATION OF WORK The general locations and limits of the work are as follows: See page No. 9 for a list of street and anticipated work being proposed. The work being proposed is the restriping of certain streets, however Hackamore Road will require relocation of stop bar and stop legend. Coordinate with City staff when ready to paint. MATERIALS AND STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, GENERAL STANDARDS Fire Hydrant markings shall be BLUE Reflective Pavement Markers (RPM's) at each Fire Hydrant, in center of closest driving lane. Materials. Paint for traffic striping shall be rapid dry. Paint for crosswalks, stop bars, arrows other pavement legends and curb markings shall be ready -mixed rapid dry type. One coat of paint is sufficient. Must not be completely absorbed by the pavement and must be visible. Edgeline Striping Paint Material: Antiskid (edgeline striping to consist of 65% mixture of sand and 35% mixture of glass beads). Paint a 4" white edgeline stripe along the streets. Any cost increase greater than 10% must be approved by the City Manager. SIGNING, STRIPING, AND PAVEMENT MARKERS All equipment, materials, and components for striping, and the installation thereof, shall conform to the Caltrans Standard Plans, dated 2015 and Standard Specifications, Section 84, "Traffic Stripes and Pavement Markings," and Section 85, "Pavement Markers," dated 2015 except as noted in the Special Provisions and on the Plans. These Plans and Specifications are hereinafter referred to as State Standard Plans and State Standard Specifications. Copies of these documents are available from Caltrans, District 7 office at 100 South Main Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 or from Caltrans, 6002 Folsom Boulevard, Sacramento, California 95819, (916) 445-3520. All materials required for the completion of 2016-2017 Agreement- Replacement of - 12 - Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings work as shown on the Plans, shall be provided by the Contractor. TIME FOR COMPLETION The Contractor shall complete all work in every detail within fifteen (15) working days after the date in the Notice to Proceed, exclusive of maintenance periods, except or otherwise agreed upon. CONSTRUCTION, SCHEDULE AND COMMENCEMENT OF WORK At least one week prior to the start of work, the Contractor shall furnish to the City Manager a schedule of work showing the Contractor's planned sequence of operations. The Schedule shall show the manner of traffic control planned for the complete project, such as complete road closure, partial closures, flagmen, and detouring details. The list showing lane closures shall be prepared for each day. Such schedule shall be subject to the review and approval of City Manager. No work shall be done until the City Manager and Contractor have agreed to the schedule to be followed by the Contractor. Prior to issuing the Notice to Proceed, the City Manager will schedule and conduct a prcconstruction meeting with the Contractor to review the proposed construction schedule and delivery dates and clarify inspection procedures. ORDER OF WORK Unless directed otherwise by the City Manager, the order of the various work activities shall be completed at the discretion of the Contractor. PROSECUTION OF WORK The Contractor shall submit weekly progress reports to the City Manager. The report shall include updated construction schedule. Any deviations from the original schedule shall be explained. EXTENSION OF TIME Requests for an extension of time must be delivered to the City Manager within five consecutive calendar days following the date of the occurrence which caused the delay. The request must be submitted in writing and must state the cause of the delay, the date of the occurrence causing the delay, and the amount of additional time requested. This shall be included as part of the construction schedule required above. Requests for extensions of time shall be supported by all evidence reasonably available or known to the Contractor which would support the extension of time requested. Requests for extensions of time which are not received within the time specified above shall result in the forfeiture of the Contractor's right to receive any extension of time requested. If the Contractor is requesting an extension of time because of weather, he shall supply daily written reports to the City Manager describing such weather, and the work which could not be performed that day because of such weather or conditions resulting therefrom and which he otherwise would have performed. 20/6-2017 Agreement- Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings - 13 - WORKING DAY The Contractor's activities shall be confined to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Deviation from these hours will not be permitted without the prior consent of the City Manager except in emergencies involving immediate hazard to persons or property. In the event of either a requested or emergency deviation, inspection service fees will be charged against the Contractor. The service fees will be calculated at overtime rates including benefits, overhead, and travel time. The service fees will be deducted from any amounts due the Contractor. FORFEITURE DUE TO DELAY The Contractor shall complete all or any designated portion of the work called for under the contract within the time set forth in the Section entitled Time for Completion. In accordance with Government Code Section 53069.85, Contractor agrees to forfeit and pay Agency the amount of Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($250.00) per day for each and every day of unauthorized delay beyond the completion date, which shall be deducted from any monies due the Contractor. Failure of the Contractor to perform any covenant or condition contained in the contract documents within the timer period specified shall constitute a material breach of this contract entitling the Agency to terminate the contract unless the Contractor applies for, and receives, an extension of time in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section entitled Extension of Time. ' Failure of the Agency to insist upon the performance of any covenant or conditions within the time period specified in the contract documents shall not constitute a waiver of the Contractor's duty to complete performance within the designated periods unless the waiver is in writing. The Agency's agreement to waive a specific time provision or to extend the time for performance shall not constitute a waiver of any other time provisions contained in the contract documents. Failure of the Contractor to complete performance promptly within the additional time authorized in the waiver or of time agreement shall constitute a material breach of this contract entitling the Agency to terminate this agreement. The Contractor shall not be deemed in breach of this contract and no forfeiture due to delay shall be made because of any delays in the completion of the work due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor provided the Contractor requests an extension of time in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section entitled Extension of Time. Unforeseeable causes of delay beyond the control of Contractor shall include acts of God, acts of a public enemy, acts of the govemment, acts of the Agency, or acts of another contractor in the performance of a contract with the Agency, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, freight embargoes, and weather, or delays of subcontractors due to such causes, or delays caused by failure of the owner of a utility to provide for removal or relocation of existing utility facilities. Delays caused by actions or neglect of Contractor or his agents, servants, employees, officers, subcontractors, directors, or of any party contracting to perform part or all of the work or to supply any equipment or materials shall not be excusable delays. Excusable delays (those beyond the Contractor's control) shall not entitle the Contractor to any additional compensation. The sole remedy of the Contractor shall be to seek an extension of time. 2016-2017 Agreement- Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings - 14 - TRAFFIC AND ACCESS The Contractor will be required to maintain at least one lane of traffic in each direction through the project area at all times in a manner satisfactory to the City Manager. It is the Contractor's responsibility to provide cones, barricades, lights and any other measures necessary for regulation of traffic. STREET CLOSURE, DETOURS, BARRICADES All traffic control barricades, signs and devices used by the Contractor shall, at a minimum, conform to the "Manual of Warning Lights and Devices," adopted by and in current use by the State of California, Department of Transportation. Channelization devices shall be spaced no greater than 25 feet apart. The Contractor shall take additional precautions as he may find necessary under the circumstances. Should Contractor fail to provide adequate traffic control or safety barricades, and in the event a responsible individual cannot be located or refuses to perform, the Agency will at its option place needed devices or engage a private firm to place and maintain said barricades, which will be charged to Contractor directly. STREET CLOSURES WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. PARTIAL AND FINAL PAYMENT The closure date for period progress payments will be the twenty-fifth day of each month. Authorization to pay is commonly received on the second Monday of the following month. The full ten (10) percent retention will be deducted from all payments. The final retention will be authorized for payment thirty-five days after the date of recordation of the Notice of Completion. The Contractor may substitute securities for any monies withheld by the Agency to ensure performance under the contract as provided in Public Contract Code Section 22300. PERMITS Pursuant to State Bill 854, the following new requirements apply to all public works projects: A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded. The website for contractor registration with the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) is https://efiling.dir.ca.gov/PWCR; the annual non-refundable fee, valid July 1 through June 30 (state fiscal year), is $300. Contractors who are awarded a public works project must submit electronic payroll records to the DIR's Compliance Monitoring Unit (CMU) in addition to providing wet -ink original copies to the City or its designated labor compliance enforcement officer. 2016-2017 Agreement- Replacement of - 15 - Trafc Striping and Pavement Markings NOTIFICATION The Contractor shall notify Willdan Engineering and the owners of all utilities and substructures not less than 40 hours prior to starting construction. The following list of names and telephone numbers is intended for the convenience of the Contractor and is not guaranteed to be complete or correct: WILLDAN ENGINEERING Attention: Ms. Vanessa Munoz CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Attention: City Manager ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Attention: Kristen Raig, Manager SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY Attention: Ms. Faviola Ochoa SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY Attention: Ms. Connie Turner VERIZON Attention: Mr. Mike Murray COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Attention: Mr. Jim Leach CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY Attention: Mr. Henry Wind LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Attention: Mr. Chris Oberle (562) 368-4848 (310) 377-1521 (310) 541-6222 (310) 781-8480 (310) 783-9341 (562) 435-9594 (949) 546-2406 (310) 257-1400 (310) 534-3760 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT Attention: No Name Given (818) 458-3129 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (800) 422-4133 EMERGENCY INFORMATION The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the Contractor and subcontractors, or their representatives, shall be filed with the City Manager and the County Sheriffs Department prior to beginning work. 2016-20/7 Agreement- Replacement of - 16 - Trafc Striping and Pavement Markings STREET MAP CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Map is available on the City's web site at http:/ /rolling-hills.org/DocumentView.aspx?DID=5 2016-2017 Agreement- Replacement of - 17 - Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings air, al R��Sip W416 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 8-A Mtg. Date: 11/28/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF A CERTAIN MEASURE RELATING TO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REPEALING MEASURE B BY AMENDING SUBSECTION (E) OF SECTION 17.26.050 AND REPEALING SECTION 17.26.090 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2017, AS CALLED BY RESOLUTION NO. 1192. DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 2016 ATTACHMENT: Resolution No. 1197 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that members of the City Council consider and adopt Resolution No. 1197. BACKGROUND In March 2013, the Rolling Hills electorate passed an initiative entitled Measure B amending the 1988 View Preservation Ordinance. The principal effect of Measure B was to shift the application of the Ordinance from protecting views that are capable of being enjoyed from a property to views that were actually enjoyed from a property when the property owner first acquired the property. In particular, the initiative amended the View Preservation Ordinance as follows: • Protecting only those views which existed when the current property owner acquired ownership of the property; • Limiting the protection of the ordinance to views obstructed by "maturing" vegetation (thereby excluding views obstructed by trees that were "mature" at the time of the property acquisition); and • Restoring views from "view corridors," and "views through trees." Implementation of Measure B revealed various ambiguities in language, resulting in uncertainty in its application. Specifically at issue were the definitions of "mature" and "maturing" trees; the interpretation of the date of acquisition of property; and the retroactive application of Measure B. Recognizing this ambiguity, the City Council held several public meetings to discuss clarifying Measure B and modifying the View Preservation Ordinance. Subsequent to those meetings, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 346 amending portions of the View Preservation Ordinance that were unaffected by Measure B and adopted Resolution No. 1182, which provided administrative regulations interpreting Measure B in February and March 2016 respectively. In April and May 2016, the City Council held two public forums in order to receive input from the public as to its views on Measure B and whether or not the City Council should consider placing a measure on the ballot to repeal or amend Measure B. During those meetings, the City Council received public testimony from several members of the community, some of whom purported that they are planning to place in initiative on the March 2017 ballot to amend the ordinance, including Measure B provisions. In August 2016, Richard Colyear and Lynn Gill submitted a notice of intent to begin circulating a petition in order to propose a wholesale rewrite of the View Preservation Ordinance. As of the writing of this report, the petition itself has not yet been filed. Following the public forums the City Council appointed Councilmembers Mirsch and Pieper to an ad hoc committee to further consider this matter and to meet with the crafters/revisionists of the ordinance and Measure B to craft language that could be a compromise and possibly eliminate the need to have competing measures on the March 2017 ballot. The ad hoc committee continues to meet with members of the community in an effort to collaboratively craft a new ordinance that could be adopted by the Council without a vote of the electorate and has provided the City Council with several oral reports as to the status of that process. Recognizing that in order to make any amendments that involve Measure B, the voters would need to repeal Measure B, the ad hoc committee recommended at the November 14th City Council meeting that the City Council direct staff to bring forward a Resolution adding a measure to the ballot at the City's March 7, 2017 General Municipal Election that would repeal Measure B. At the November 28, 2016 meeting the members of the ad hoc committee will provide an update of the efforts to collaboratively, with the residents input, craft ideas for an ordinance, which would be forwarded to the Planning Commission for full text preparation and public hearings. Following Planning Commission public hearings and recommendation to the City Council, the full text of the Ordinance would be scheduled for City Council public hearings. CONCLUSION As directed by the City Council staff has prepared an ordinance to repeal Measure B and a resolution adding the measure to the ballot at the City's March 7, 2017 General Municipal Election. The attached resolution is recommended for adoption. HL: Add Measure to March 2017-staffreport.docx 0 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK RESOLUTION NO. 1197 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF A CERTAIN MEASURE RELATING TO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REPEALING MEASURE B BY AMENDING SUBSECTION (E) OF SECTION 17.26.050 AND REPEALING SECTION 17.26.090 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2017, AS CALLED BY RESOLUTION NO. 1192. WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, March 7, 2017 has been called by Resolution No. 1192, adopted on October 24, 2016, and WHEREAS, the City Council also desires to submit to the voters at the election a question relating to whether the provisions added to Chapter 17.26 (View Preservation) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code by Measure B in March 2013 should be repealed; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council, pursuant to its right and authority, does order submitted to the voters at the General Municipal Election the following question(s): YES Shall an ordinance be adopted repealing the March 2013 amendments made to the City's View Preservation Ordinance by Measure B? NO SECTION 2. That the proposed measure submitted to the voters is whether o repeal Measure B from Chapter 17.26, the City of Rolling Hills View Preservation Ordinance.) (attached as Exhibit A.) SECTION 4. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections. SECTION 5. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law. SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. Resolution No. 1197 -1- PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28'h day of November, 2016. BEA DIERINGER MAYOR ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK Resolution No. 1197 -2- �(p / STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS The foregoing Resolution No. 1197 entitled: SS A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF A CERTAIN MEASURE RELATING TO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REPEALING MEASURE B BY AMENDING SUBSECTION (E) OF SECTION 17.26.050 AND REPEALING SECTION 17.26.090 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2017, AS CALLED BY RESOLUTION NO. 1192. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 28" day of November, 2016 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK Resolution No. 1197 -3- Qi) EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REPEALING MEASURE B BY AMENDING SUBSECTION (E) OF SECTION 17.26.050 AND REPEALING SECTION 17.26.090 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE The People of the City of Rolling Hills do ordain as follows: Section 1. Subsection (E) of Section 17.26.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.26.050 — Hearing procedure and findings. 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. eate . rrido_s a.,a . 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 unreasonably detract from the privacy or enjoyment of the property on which the objectionable vegetation is located. Section 2. Section 17.26.090 ("Preservation of views defined") is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 3. 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 by vote of the electorate this _ day of March, 2017. ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK Resolution No. 1197 -4- 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 REPEALING MEASURE B BY AMENDING SUBSECTION (E) OF SECTION 17.26.050 AND REPEALING SECTION 17.26.090 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE. Was approved by vote of the electorate at the regular municipal election conducted on March _, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK Resolution No. 1197 5- INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 TO: FROM: THRU: SUBJECT: DATE: NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 8-B Mtg. Date: 11/28/16 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS SETTING PRIORITIES FOR THE FILING OF ARGUMENTS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS; AND ALLOWING FOR REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR MEASURES ON THE BALLOT FOR THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON MARCH 7, 2017. (1) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING A CITY MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS. (2) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR MEASURES SUBMITTED FOR THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON MARCH 7, 2017. NOVEMBER 28, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: (1) DRAFT Resolution No. 1198 - Arguments/Impartial Analysis (2) DRAFT Resolution No. 1199 - Rebuttals RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the members of the City Council review the staff report and attached Resolutions pertaining to setting priorities for filing written arguments; authorizing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis; and whether or not to allow rebuttal arguments and adopt or amend the Resolutions to reflect the intentions of the City Council. DISCUSSION As adopted in Resolution No. 1197 earlier this evening, the following question will appear on the ballot for the City of Rolling Hills General Municipal Election on March 7, 2017: YES Shall an ordinance be adopted repealing the March 2013 amendments made to the City's View Preservation Ordinance by Measure B? NO With the attached Resolutions, the City Council may consider several items relative to the ballot measure including setting priorities for filing of written arguments; directing the City Attorney to submit an impartial analysis; and authorizing rebuttal arguments. By adoption of the Resolution(s), these item(s) would appear in the Voter Information Guide mailed to all registered voters in the City of Rolling Hills. Arguments (Resolution No. 1198) Elections Code 9281 allows registered voters to submit arguments in favor of or against any city measure being submitted to the voters. Elections Code 9282 further clarifies that for measures placed on the ballot by the legislative body, the legislative body, or any member or members of the legislative body authorized by that body, or any individual voter who is eligible to vote on the measure, or a bona fide association of citizens, or any combination of voters and associations may file a written argument for or against any city measure. Section 1 of Resolution No. 1198 authorizes the members of the City Council to select members of the legislative body to author an argument for or against the measure. The City Council should discuss and determine which members it wishes to authorize to file the arguments. Based on the direction of the City Council, Section 1 of the resolution will be filled in accordingly. The written arguments in favor of and against the measure may be no more than 300 words and must be submitted to the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m. on December 12, 2016. If more than one argument for or more than one argument against any measure is submitted to the City Clerk within the specified time frame, the City Clerk, per Elections Code Section 9287 shall select one of the arguments in favor and one of the arguments against the measure for printing and distribution to the voters. The following criteria is used for setting priority for which author's argument is selected: • The legislative body, or member or members of the legislative body authorized by that body • The individual voter, or bona fide association of citizens, or combination of voters and associations who are the bona fide proponents of the measure • Bona fide associations of citizens • Individual voters who are eligible to vote on the measure. Impartial Analysis (Resolution No. 1198) For measures placed on the ballot, the City Council may also direct the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the City Attorney for preparation of an impartial analysis which to be included in the Sample Voter Information Guide. If the City Council wishes to include an impartial analysis, Section 2 of Resolution No. 1198 directs preparation of the Impartial Analysis. The impartial analysis may be no more than 500 words and must be submitted to the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m. on December 12, 2016. In the absence of such direction, or if this section were removed from Resolution an impartial analysis will not appear in the Voter Information Guide. Rebuttals (Resolution No. 1199) Elections Code 9285 allows for the filing of rebuttal arguments if the City Council adopts a Resolution providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments. If adopted, Resolution No. 1199 sets the criteria and process for filing of the rebuttal arguments. The author(s) of the argument in favor of and against the measure may prepare and submit a rebuttal argument or may authorize in writing any other person to prepare, submit or sign the rebuttal argument (no more than five people). Rebuttal arguments may be not be more than 250 words and would need to be filed with the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m. on December 22, 2016. Other Considerations Upon adoption of these Resolutions, a notice will be posted at City Hall setting the date after which no arguments for or against a measure may be submitted to the City Clerk and a date, if rebuttals are allowed by which the rebuttals must be submitted. Once the period for filing arguments and/or rebuttals is closed, there is a 10 calendar day period in which all of the materials will be available for public examination. CONCLUSION The attached draft Resolutions are presented for review and discussion. It is recommended that the members of the City Council review the Resolutions and adopt or amend them to reflect the intentions of the City Council. HL: ElectionResos-A rgumen t-Rebuttal-sla4oc THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK RESOLUTION NO. 1198 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING A CITY MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS. WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Rolling Hills, California, on March 7, 2017, at which there will be submitted to the voters the following measure: YES Shall an Ordinance be adopted repealing the March 2013 amendments made to the City's View Preservation Ordinance by Measure B? NO NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City Council authorizes the following member(s) of its body (Councilmember In Favor) and/or (Councilmember In Favor) and/or (Councilmember In Favor) and/or (Councilmember Against) (Councilmember Against) (Councilmember Against) to file a written argument not exceeding 300 words regarding the City measure as specified above, accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California. The arguments may be changed or withdrawn until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk after which no arguments for or against the City measure may be submitted to the City Clerk. The arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed, with the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers who is the author of the argument. The arguments shall be accompanied by the Form of Statement To Be Filed By Author(s) of Argument. Section 2. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the city attorney, unless the organization or salaries of the office of the city attorney are affected. a. The city attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure not exceeding 500 words showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. If the measure affects the organization or salaries of the office of the city attorney, the city clerk shall prepare the impartial analysis. Resolution No. 1198 �o b. The analysis shall include a statement indicating whether the measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters or by the goveming body of the city. c. In the event the entire text of the measure is not printed on the ballot, nor in the voter information portion of the voter information guide, there shall be printed immediately below the impartial analysis, in no less than 10 -point type, the following: "The above statement is an impartial analysis of the proposed Ordinance. If you desire a copy of the ordinance, please call the election official's office at 310-377-1521 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you." d. The impartial analysis shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments. Section 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of November, 2016. BEA DIERINGER MAYOR ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK 2 Resolution No. 1198 The foregoing Resolution No. entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENT REGARDING A CITY MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of November, 2016 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK Resolution No. 1198 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ® RESOLUTION NO. 1199 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR MEASURES SUBMITTED FOR THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON MARCH 7, 2017. WHEREAS, § 9282 of the Elections Code of the State of California provides for written arguments to be filed in favor of or against city measures not to exceed 300 words in length; and WHEREAS, § 9285 of the Elections Code of the State of California authorizes the City Council, by majority vote, to adopt provisions to provide for the filing of rebuttal arguments for city measures submitted at municipal elections; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That pursuant to Section 9285 of the Elections Code of the State of California, when the elections official has selected the arguments for and against the measure (not exceeding 300 words each) which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the elections official shall send a copy of an argument in favor of the measure to the authors of any argument against the measure and a copy of an argument against the measure to the authors of any argument in favor of the measure immediately upon receiving the arguments. The author or a majority of the authors of an argument relating to a city measure may prepare and submit a rebuttal argument not exceeding 250 words or may authorize in writing any other person or persons to prepare, submit, or sign the rebuttal argument. A rebuttal argument may not be signed by more than five authors. The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed, with the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers, not more than 10 days after the final date for filing direct arguments. The rebuttal arguments shall be accompanied by the Form of Statement To Be Filed By Author(s) of Argument. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut. Section 2. That all previous resolutions providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for city measures are repealed. Section 3. That the provisions of Section 1 shall apply only to the election to be held on March 7, 2017, and shall then be repealed. Section 4. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. Resolution No. 1199 1 ® PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of November, 2016. BEA DIERINGER MAYOR ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK Resolution No. 1199 The foregoing Resolution No. 1199 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE CITY MEASURE SUBMITTED FOR THE ROLLING HILLS GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON MARCH 7, 2017. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of November, 2016 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK 3 Resolution No. 1199 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310)377-1521 FAX (310)377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 9-A Mtg. Date: 11/28/16 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL TREES AND VIEWS AD HOC COMMITTEE COUNCILMEMBERS LEAH MIRSCH AND JEFF PIEPER STATUS REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL TREES AND VIEWS AD HOC COMMITTEE. NOVEMBER 28, 2016 Attached to this cover memo are the following documents for the City Council's information: • Comments from ad hoc committee (p. 3-5) • Comments from Spencer Karpf (p. 7-9) • DRAFT Ordinance prepared by Spencer Karpf (p. 11-38) THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Rolling Hills City Council - Ad Hoc Committee On Trees and Views November, 2016 The ad hoc committee met several times in an effort to develop a balanced and equitable view resolution process that could be crafted into an ordinance acceptable to both the City Council and the authors of Measures B and "2017". It was our hope that if such a compromise could be reached it would allow for the unchallenged repeal of Measure B, remove the necessity of running a "Measure 2017", and avoid the divisiveness associated with those processes. The committee was able — with much compromise from both sides — to reach agreement on several major issues and concepts. The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of those major areas of agreement and see if the Council is willing to recommend that the work of the committee be referred to the Planning Commission for review and possible revisions to our Ordinance Chapter 17.26. Major Areas of Agreement Please note that throughout this document the terms "tree(s)" and "vegetation" will be interchangeable, as will "his", "hers" and "their(s)". Principles 1. Both trees (vegetation) and views and their benefits are valuable assets to individual property owners and to the city as a whole. 2. The objective of a proposed ordinance(s) is to establish a balanced and fair process to resolve situations when conflicts between view seekers and vegetation owners cannot be resolved by the individual parties. Concepts 1. Establishment of Rights for view seekers and vegetation owners, as well as the establishment of responsibilities for view seekers and vegetation owners to protect those rights. A) A view seeker is only entitled to the view that existed on the earliest of the original purchase date (defined pretty much as definitions developed in 2016 — arms length transaction, etc) or some later date on which he can establish the existence of the view. That view could include a view that existed by virtue of the vegetation owner's normal maintenance or by agreement between property owners — but not on the loss of vegetation due to destruction (ie fire, disease) B) A vegetation owner only has a right to his established vegetation as it existed on his original purchase date or any date subsequent for which he can establish the existence of established vegetation that did not impair a current property owner's view. C) A View seeker has the responsibility to protect their view by addressing view impairment issues with the vegetation owner in a timely manner and taking the appropriate steps specified in the ordinance to resolve. Failure to meet the duty to protect the view may result in diminishing their right(s) to the view. 1 D) A vegetation owner has a duty to ensure that his vegetation does not grow into the view(s) of his neighbor(s). Owners are required to perform maintenance to their vegetation to maintain it in a healthy condition for both safety reasons and to ensure their vegetation does not grow into the views of their neighbors. 2. Establish the power of the city, through the planning commission , to address the issue of impairments to neighbor(s)'s view(s) by their vegetation as a condition of approval for new construction or additions over 1,000 sq ft. 3. Definitions and establishment of specific view restoration actions, in order of preference, starting with the least severe (ie lacing) and more severe (topping & removal) at the bottom. When considering the restoral action, if it is determined that a professional opinion is required to aid the CTV (or city, on appeal) those professionals will be either ISA certified master arborists or ASCA registered consulting arborists. 4. Establishment of Remedy Categories for view restoration. The categories allow for different levels of restoration depending on how much time has passed, or other circumstances, since the view was established and the view seeker's request to protect his view. This goes to item 1C, where the duty to protect the view may be diminished by delaying. Example: at Category 1 (shortest number of years between, maybe 3) the view seeker would be entitled to the highest remediation available. But if you waited until Category 3 (say category 1 plus xx years — maybe 10) or Category 4 (possibly 25 years) you would be entitled to a restoration that only allowed for some actions but prohibiting others. The number of years for each category has not been determined — for the planning commission to decide. 5. Development of a list of types of desirable and undesirable trees for planting within the city. Factors to be considered include (but not limited to) tree size, rate of growth, depth of roots, and the likelihood (or unlikelihood) that the species may grow to interfere with views of a neighboring property owner. 6. Development of an Approved Arborist List that includes licensed local ISA certified master arborists or ASCA registered consulting arborists. Major Unresolved Issues 1.The role of the City in the dispute resolution process. The authors of Measure 2017 advocate that the role of CTV and City Council (upon appeal) should only be advisory; rulings from those bodies should not be binding, and the city should not allow itself to become a party in these disputes. They support the concept that these cases should be settled by means of Binding Arbitration or civil action, removing the City as a party to the dispute. Since the Civil code precludes the city from forcing mandatory binding arbitration, and based on previous decisions by the CTV, Planning Commission and City Council on this issue, we rejected that concept. We supported the current process that requires the City to act in a quasi-judicial role, hearing the facts, making findings, and upholding and enforcing our ordinances with binding rulings. In an effort to compromise on this issue we offered : At any time during the View Complaint process, if BOTH parties voluntarily agree, they may opt out of the City's View complaint process and participate in voluntary binding 2 arbitration. The city would pay for the arbitration costs (not including personal attys, etc). We recommended a cap be placed on the amount the city would pay, and that the cap amount would be based on a graduated scale, with a higher amount allowed the earlier the case opts -out of the city process. The amounts have not been decided — P/anning Commission to determine. I thought this offer had been acceptable to both sides, but their final Draft Ordinance submission contains some additional/differing language and provisions, creating some confusion. Therefore, for purposes of this document, the issue is being classified as "unresolved". 2. Also contained in 17.26.50 - 17.26.70 are requirements for city staff to establish view data bases, procedures for notification of pending property sales, and "educational" procedures for residents and realtors. We did not agree to those requirements at this time due to a lack of staff resources, but suggested these ideas could be explored further in future discussions. Summation There are many other areas, criterion, procedures, etc not covered here — this is just an overview of major issues. Included in your packet is a Draft Ordinance and some notes prepared by Spencer Karpf that provide much more detail. We did not agree to accept the Draft as written - still a few issues, mostly administrative in nature, to be resolved. But in the interest of good faith and moving forward it was agreed that if the Council supports the major concepts and our recommendation to refer the matter to the Planning Commission for hearings and review, the Draft be submitted to the Commission for informational purposes in those processes. It would be a useful tool that supports the issues and compromises the ad hoc committee was trying to achieve, and possibly avoid re -inventing the wheel — or at least parts of the wheel. But it is understood that it is the Planning Commission's responsibility to develop policies and direct the City Attorney to craft ordinances supporting those policies. The ad hoc committee is not trying to mandate to the Commission or the Council how to find on our agreements. We are recommending that the agreements be reviewed by the Commission to determine if they serve our residents well by establishing workable, balanced and equitable procedures to resolve instances where rights of view seekers and vegetation owners may conflict. It is important to remember the purpose of the ad hoc committee and realize that these compromises and agreements were made — by both sides — to try to avoid 1) opposition to our Repeal Measure B effort, and 2) another ballot measure. If a final product produced by the city does not contain sufficient provisions to satisfy the authors of Measure 2017 (as agreed upon in the ad hoc meeting discussions) or if there is not an agreed -upon ordinance ready to be placed on the books should Measure B be repealed, they will most likely go forward with their organized opposition to the city's Repeal Measure B efforts, as well their petition to place "Measure 2017"on the ballot at the next possible election. Should that occur the city need not approve any proposed agreements — unless it is deemed by the Commission that any such agreement(s) remain in the best interest of the residents. Respectfully submitted by Leah Mirsch 3 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Chapter 17.26 - VIEW AND VEGETATI ON PRESERVATION In understanding this draft and modifying it, it is useful to understand the underlying approach taken. 1. We start by defining Rights and Duties (obligations) of View Seekers and Vegetation owners. 2. Based on what these are we instruct the decision makers (Committee on Trees and Views, City Council, Arbitrators) on what Findings of Fact they must make and what burden of proof they should apply in making those Findings.. 3. Based on these Findings of fact, we next determine what level and type of Remedy, if any, is to be made available to the View Seeker and what type, if any, of protection is appropriate to make available to the Vegetation Owner.; 4. And finally, based on an appropriate level of Remedy and protection, we determine implementation of preservation / restorative actions to be taken. In general, the draft document, which was written by someone with limited MS -Word skills, is in serious need of some corrections to its formatting and numbering. The author leaves that to others. "Commission" is a reference to the Planning Commission; "committee" is a reference to the ad hoc committee that produced the draft ordinance. "Measure 2017" is a reference to the initiative that is currently being circulated for appearance on the next election ballot that it qualifies for. Notes to Final Submission: For review by Planning Commission / City Council 1. Note to 17.26.000 Words Terms and Phrases: These definitions can be in this Chapter or in the Chapter that contains all the other definitions. Better here where the definitions can be limited to this Chapter so as not to create possible conflicts with definitions used more broadly throughout other ordinances. Add additional definitions of types of pruning along with pictures. These can be added by the view committee. Further NOTE: The entire document should be searched for unused definitions which are not used and should therefore be deleted ) 2. The issue of retroactivity of the ordinance has not been address. The committee believes that there are only two cases that create problems and they might be addressed with language specific to them such as "The following two cases can be resubmitted to be re -decided under the terms of this Chapter if so desired by the parties or the one who most suffered from the decision under the previous ordinance: a. List parties b. List parties 3. The committee considered the creation of a data base of information on views in Rolling Hills to be maintained by the City. The general feeling was that it would impose too much burden on City staff. However, if nominal, but significant information could be maintained it might benefit the processes of the new ordinance. This is something that could be looked at as an enhancement after the basic ordinance goes into effect. 4. Under definition of "View", a value was given to "panoramic" views and "view corridors". The Commission may want to determine the correct sweep of the horizon for each of these. 5. The definition of "View Corridor" should be consistent with the above. 6. Under section 17.26.40 the size of the approved arborist list should be established. 7. Throughout the Chapter there are references to the number of years a View Seeker fails to exercise his right to his view. These were set by the author but the Commission should review to see if they comport with its thinking. The occurrences are listed here : a. 17.26.080 (1) b. 17.26.160(C) c. 17.26.160(D) d. 17.26.160(E) e. 17.26.160(F) f. 17.26.160(G) 8. In 17.26.080 (9) there is a reference to a particular date. This is intended to be the date of enactment of the original Chapter 17.26. This was a suggestion by Leah that at the time the property was purchase, there were no view, rights. Then, the ordinance came into existence and there were view rights but the owner may have already lost his view and did not want to upset his neighbors, and may still not want to. But, in this case, because of all the changes in View rights, this owner somehow should be entitled to a little extra protection. If this is to be included perhaps it needs some language to explain it. 9. This is a general comment about 17.26.090 and the sections following it which seek to spell out the processes the View Seeker and Vegetation owner must / should follow. What the author has come up with as a compromise to the question of whether the actions of the City through the View Committee and the City Council are binding and enforceable or merely advisory. This was a sticking point in the negotiations of the committee (small "c"). I've attempted to achieve a middle ground solution by making it binding and enforceable so long as the decision of the City is not taken into Arbitration or the Court system but only advisory if the Council's decision is arbitrated or litigated, unless the Arbitration is binding by mutual agreement of the parties in which case the City can enforce the decision of by the Arbitrator(s). It could also be made enforceable if it there was non -binding arbitration that was accepted by both parties.. The author has arbitrarily put some timeframes into the language but there may be statutory considerations that would have to be dealt with by the City Attorney. 10. In various places in language having to do with findings of the View Committee or the City Council Measure 2017 contained language about the role and actions of the City Attorney who, presumably, would be present. That language was not included in this draft of Chapter 17.26 as the role and actions of the City Attorney at Commission and Council hearings and meetings is determined by California law. These meetings and hearings are recorded and the recordings made available free to residents. The author thinks this sufficient to ensure proper behavior by the City Attorney. 11. In various places in the draft, mostly if not exclusively having to do with findings, Views are described as having been "Significantly Impaired". There is no definition provided for this and for it to have meaning the Commission or Council will have to either provide a definition or provide different language which can be defined or does not require definition. Here are the occurrences —There may be others that the author has missed. a. 17.26.120 (3)(b) b. 17.26.150(2)(10) 12. Bearing in mind the overall approach of this ordinance as discussed at the beginning of this document, there may be additional findings of fact that need to be specified in 17.26.150(2) in order to support additions to the Remedies specified in 17.26.160. Certainly a Remedy has to be developed for a View Seeker who purchased 10 years or more prior to the implementation of the original 17.26 as detailed in 17.26.10(2)(9) 13. Section 17.26.210 might benefit from a discussion of what sorts of agreements between View Seekers and Vegetation Owners should be / must be recorded. These would be agreements that the Property Owners worked out themselves, resulted from Mediation, resulted from a ruling coming out of the Committee, the Council, Arbitration or Litigation. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 10 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 1 Chapter 17.26 - VIEW AND VEGETATION PRESERVATION Sections: 17.26.000 Words, Terms and Phrases 17.26.010 Intent and purpose. 17.26.020 Committee on Trees and Views. 17.26.030 Desirable and undesirable trees. 17.26.040 Development of an Approved Arborist List 17.26.050 REMOVED 17.26.060 Identification of Transferring or Recently Transferred Property; Notification of Sellers, Buyers, Realtors and other potentially interested parties4f potential'view claims. 17.26.070 Education of Rolling Hills Owners and Realtors Serving.Rolling Hills Rega ding this View and Vegetation Preservation Ordinance 17.26.080 Establishment of Rights and Duties of View Seekers and Vegetation Owners Under this Chapter. 17.26.090 View and Vegetation Equity Process (VAVEP)sOvery "w 17.26.110 View and Vegetation Equity Process — Invitation to Meet and Confer 17.26.110 View and Vegetation Equity Process — Mediation 17.26.120 View and Vegetation Equity Proces Committee on Trees and Views i '- 17.26.130 View and Vegetation Equi C'......ty Process --Appeal to-Ci A ty Council 17.26.140 View and Vegetation Equity Process — Arbitration and Litigation 11/7 17.26.150 Burden of Proof; Additional Specific Findings of Fact 17.26.160 Remedy Categories -and View Restoration Criteria 17.26.170 Allocation of Costs for View and Vegetation Equity Process 17.26.180 Costs of Implementation of Preservation / Restorative actions 17.26.190 Enforcement ` \Y er i 17.26.200 Unauthorized restorative actions prohibited 17.26.210 Notificat cin-of subsequent Property Owners 17.26.220 fSeverability, adoption;,and publication ')) 17.26.000 —'Woords, Terms and/ Phrases \ / Solely for the purposes of this chapter, the meaning and construction of the following words, terms and phrases shall apply. In the event that there is any conflict between how a word, term or phrase is here defined and how it is defined in Chapter 17.12, Definitions, the definitions set forth below shall apply. "Child or Children" means a natural child, adopted child and step -child. "Committee" means the Committee on Trees and Views established by this Chapter. "Complaint" or "View Complaint" means an invocation of the rights of a View Seeker against a Vegetation Owner under this Chapter's View and Vegetation Equity Process. Page 1 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 2 "Complainant" means the View Seeker invoking this Chapter's View and Vegetation Equity Process to restore a View that she considers to be impaired by the Vegetation of a Vegetation Owner. "Crown" means the rounded structure of branches that make up the top of a tree. "Crown lifting" means removing the lower branches of a tree so that a'view can be experienced under the tree. \)1 "Crown reduction" means a method of pruning that reduces a tree's height and/or spread. ", \ -Cs— Crown reduction means reducing -the top, sides or individual limbs of a tree by means of removal of leaders or,the longest portion of limbs to a lateral limb large enough to assume the tree's growth Page 2 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 3 "Council" means the Rolling Hills `City i1C��il. "Damage" means to endanger the health or" vigor of a tree or vegetation, including, but 1. not limited to, girdling, severefpruning\(topping tr heading back), interfering with the water supply, applying chemicals, or re --grading around the se of the trunk so as to disrupt the feeder root zone of the tree or vegetation. "Decision -making body ea s a governmental agency such as city council, a • committee to which a governmental agency has delegated authority, an arbitrator or a judicial body. "Established View" means a view, as defined in this section, from a View Seeker's Real • Property that existed on thedate the property was most recently Purchased for fair market value through an arms -length Purchase or sale (as evidenced by a deed) or at any other specific point in time since that date. Thus, an Established View can be as of any date subsequent to a Property Owner's purchasing of the property. "Established View Date" is the date that the View Seeker claims he had an Established View" that has now been impaired and which he seeks to have restored. It may be the Original Purchase Date or some later date for which the Property Owner is able to establish by a "preponderance of the evidence", as that phrase is commonly understood by the California legal system, the nature of his Established View that has become impaired. Page 3 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 4 "Established Vegetation" means Vegetation, as defined in this section that "existed" on a Vegetation Owner's Real Property. As of the most recent Original Purchase Date or on any other specific date since that Original Purchase Date. "Established Vegetation Date" is the date that a Vegetation Owner claims she had Established Vegetation which she is entitled to retain in whole or in part against the View Complaint of a View Seeker her Vegetation creates View Impairment(s). It may be'the Original Purchase Date or some later date for which the Vegetation Owner is able to establish that her "Existed" within the above context means Vegetation that is was planted in the ground and was of a certain height and spread as of an Original Purchase,Date or other specific date subsequent to it . Vegetation existed. "Grandchild" shall include grandchildren and great`grandchildren.. The singular includes the plural in all cases "Heading back / Head Back" mcans the r ion-of_the mass'df a tree by cutting back major limbs and/or the trunk. "Hedge" afeennc�boundary formed by closely growing Vegetation, usually bushes or shrubs. "His / Her" or e ,/ His". The use of the pronoun "His" is always intended to mean "His / Her" and the use of the pronoun "Here is always intended to mean "Hers / His". Similarly with him and her, he and she, etc. "Lacing" means pruning trees in a manner that selectively removes excess (primarily interior) limbs and foliage to improve the structure of a tree and to provide a view through a tree. Page 4 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 5 Before and After Lacing "Maintenance" means pruning a tree with the primary objective of preserving or improving tree health and structure, enhancing aesthetics and / or opening up the \%) View(s) of neighboring properties.. "Original Purchase Date" shall mean the date on which the Real Property was transferrethbetween parties for market -value in an arms -length Sale (as evidenced by a deed)? A transfer between Spouses, Domestic Partners, Parents,and' Children, or Parents and Grandchildren shall not alterlliis'Original Purchase Date. The Original Purchase Date shall,continue to be the date of the last transfer thatrtt k place s result of a market -value, arms -length sale (as evidenced`by a,deed).., "Party" or "Parties" mean either or both the View Seeker or the Vegetation Owner that are participants in a View and Vegetation Equity Process as,described in 17.26.90, et. seq. "Person� "" means any individual, individual, corporation, partnership, firm or other legal entity. "Property Owner" means a Person or Persons who have legal ownership of Real Property within the City of Rolling Hills. "Pruning" means the removal of plant material from a tree or vegetation. Page 5 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 6 "Purchase or Purchased" means the transfer of "Real Property" as a result of a market - value, arms -length sale (as evidenced by a deed transferring the Real Property between parties). Transfers between spouses or legally recognized domestic partners shall not be treated as a "Purchase" nor shall transfers between parent(s) and Children or Grandchildren, nor shall transfers to and from a trust or similar instrument between spouses, domestic partners, or parents and Children or Grandchildren. In the case of any of these transfers, regardless of their nature, the "Original Purchase Date" shall remain the date when the Real Property was transferred as a result of a market - value, arms -length sale (as evidenced by a deed) "Real Property" means rights or interests of ownership of land/17 and to the land including buildings, fixtures, Vegetation and improvement erected upon, planted or affixed to the land. "Sale / Sold" means the transfer of a parcel or parcels of Real -Property for market -value in an arms -length transaction as evidenced by a deed. "Spouse" shall include both partners through marriage and legally recognized domestic partners. "Staff" means management and staff members of the City of Rolling Hills. "Stand Thinning" means the selective removal of specific trees from a group of trees. "Topping" means ttha'r mov_aall of theent a top or a significant portion of the top of a tree's crown by cutting back large diameter branches to stubs and/or truncating the main stem/trunk. , 011/40 \iii "Tree" means any perennial vegetation with a woody main -stem or trunk (sometimes multiple trunks) ordinarily growing to a considerable height, and usually developing branches at some distance from the ground. References herein to "tree" shall include the plural. Page 6 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 7 "Vegetation Owner" means any Property Owner in the City of Rolling Hills, or authorized agent of such Property Owner, who owns Real Property in Rolling Hills on which Vegetation is located. "Vegetation" means all types of plants including, bushes, hedges and shrubs, vines, grasses and trees. "View" means a vision from a Viewing Point of a visually impre'ssive scene or�vista such as the Pacific Ocean, off -shore islands, mountains, lights of the Los/Angeles basin, the Palos,Verdes hills and canyons, the Los Angeles harbor and/or Long Beach harbor and similar. A view maybe panoramic, which is an extensive largely unobstructed view spanning at least 120 degrees of the compass or a View Corridor comprising less than 100 and`mo?tha e, n 20 degrees of the compass. A view may include structures or Established Vegetation in the foreground or background of the Property Owner that provides visual perspective. "View," includes both the singular and the plural. "View Complaint" or "Complaint" means an i' nvocation-of the rights of a View Seeker against a Vegetation Owner under this Chapter's View and Vegetation Eq ity Process "View Corridor" means a View spanning less than'100 degrees of the compass but more than 20 degrees of the compass. The View may or may not contain some impairments that may be either buildings or Vegetation. \ r "View Impairment" means any obstruction of an Established View by Vegetation on another property within the City of RollingHillssthat diminishes that Established View. "View Seeker" ans any Property Owner in the City of Rolling Hills, or authorized agent of such Property Owner, who alleges that Vegetation located on a Vegetation Owner's property • within the City of Rolling Hills is i m pa i r i n g such owner's Established View. "Viewing Point"Ais a location within a principal residence, or Guest House, but not including garages, closets, basements, laundry rooms or other similar minor rooms, plus from any immediately adjoining patio or deck area at the same elevation or within 10 feet of the elevation as the residence which has a "View" as defined in this section. 17.26.010 -Intent and purpose. The City of Rolling Hills enjoys both beautiful views and an abundance of trees and other Vegetation, and values both as contributing equally to the unique character of the City, enhandng the quality of life of the residents, and increasing the value of Real Property within the City. Page 7 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 8 Views of the Pacific Ocean, off -shore islands, lights of the Los Angeles basin and surrounding communities, the Palos Verdes hills or canyons, the Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors and so forth are a special quality of Real Property ownership for many residential lots in the city. Views contribute theOtisambiance,uniquenature,andpropertyvaluesof thoseproperdesthatindude Vevs Vegetation produces significant psychological and tangible benefits for both residents and the broader community. Vegetation, particularly Trees, provide sha de, reduce energy costs, provide privacy, visual screens and buffers between properties, modify temperatures, screen winds, stabilize soil, replenish oxygen to they atmosphere, remove pollutants from the air, mitigate soil erosion, and'provide Afr wildlife habitat. Vegetation contributes to the ambiance, unique nature and.property values of the Real Property that it is found on. The rights of View Seekers to their stablished View and the rights of Vegetation Owners to their Established Vegetation, both as created and d ifined his Chapter, may come into conflict. Views have the potential to be impairedtyVegetaby ttion growing on other Y properties within the City. It can also be the case that View Seekers,Cin attempting to regain their Established View, can only do so by diminishing the rights of'Vegetation Owners to their Established Vegetation. The purpose of this Chapter 17.26 is to: 1. Encourage residents of the City to independently resolve conflicts between themselves as View Seekers and Vegetation Owners\:without the necessity of involving the City by providing a clear ordinance that defines the rights and duties of each Party to a dispute in a manner that is understandable to -both. 2. Establish the rights and duties of a"Property Owner (View Seeker) in the City of Rolling Hills to preserve and'/ or restore an Established View, as defined in this Chapter; 3. Establishhe r t ights and duties of a Property Owner ( Vegetation Owner) in the City of Rolling Hills to'p`eserve and,maintain Established Vegetation as defined in this Chapter; 4. To the extent possible, mitigate the inherent conflict between an Established View and GE`stablished Vegetation by establishing procedures for the protection or restoration of an Established View/Ind/or abatement ofaViewlmpairment created by Vegetation, while at the same time protecting Established Vegetation. ; 5. Preserve Real Property rights of Vegetation Owners by not unreasonably reducing privacy, shade, soil stability, and so forth provided by Vegetation on their property; 6. Resolve conflicts between View Seekers and Vegetation Owners in a manner that balances the rights of each while applying Remedies to View Impairment that results in the least possible Damage to Vegetation. 7. Establish that Owners are required to perform Maintenance to the Vegetation on their property so as to maintain their Vegetation in a healthy condition both for safety reasons and to ensure that their Vegetation does not grow into the Views of their neighbors; 8. Establish that Property Owners have a responsibility to select Vegetation for their property that is not likely to obstruct the Views of other Property Owners as it matures. The City of Page 8 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 9 Rolling Hills maintains lists of Vegetation species that are appropriate to achieve this purpose; 9. Establish that Property Owners with an Established View are responsible for taking timely action to preserve their View(s) when the Vegetation of other Property Owners begins to obstruct them; 1o. Establish procedures for a View Seeker to seek restoration of an Established View that has been impaired by a Vegetation Owner's Vegetation; 11. Establish a view data base that maintains information regarding the Views of Rolling Hills properties. 12. Establish mechanisms for determining when a property has been transferred or is in the process of being transferred; establish the power of City, through the,Plammng Commission and the City Council, to require the removal of Vegetation that interferes with the Views of neighbors as a condition of approval for new construction/or additions of over 1000 square feet. 13. Establish educational programs that provide residents, whether -potential View Seekers or potential Vegetation Owners, and members of the,Real.Estate community, with information regarding the rights and duties of residents under this,Chapter. 14. Establish the City's authority to require a Vegetation Owner to take remedial action, as described herein, to restore an Established -View of a View Seeker that has been impaired by the Vegetation of a Vegetation Owner.1 .: 17.26.020 - Committee on Trees and Views. A Committee on Trees and Views ( the Committee) is established for the purpose of administering the provisions of this chapter/The C6mmittee shall be composed of three members of the Planning Commission appointed by the tCommission,annuallOat'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 CommissionVhelpommittee`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: r d239 §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, and the likelihood (or unlikelihood) that the species may grow to interfere with Views of Property Owners The purpose of this provision is to make information available to Property Owners which may serve to avoid future occasion for permits, complaints, and other proceedings authorized by this chapter. (Ord. 239 § 11(part), 1993). 17.26.040 — Development of Approved Arborist List Page 9 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 10 The Committee is authorized and directed to develop and maintain a list of approved, licensed local ISA certified master arborists or ACA registered consulting arborists who are familiar with the vegetation appropriate to and / or to be found in the Palos Verdes Peninsula who will be deemed qualified to provide expert testimony in View Impairment complaint cases. The list shall contain between three and six arborists and shall be reviewed each year to ensure that is kept current with the correct numbers of arborist who are currently practicing. 17.26.050 — Views of Rolling Hills Data Base City Staff is authorized and directed to develop a data base ofthe Views of Rolling Hills Properties that obtained on various dates. In particular, whenever there is a change in ownership or potential change in ownership, City staff should photograph the Views of the transferring or recently transferred property. Staff should also develop other sources of information on Views as they existed within the City as of a particular date. Such sources might include those that are available via mapping services on the intemet and similar. 'The City/shall establish a schedule for Staff to inventory all Real Properties within the City to establisl the nature of their Views that might be considered significant, if any. The purpose of this View Data Base is to serve as evidence of the existence of Established Views as_of particular dates to aid in the resolution of View Complaints. C As part of the education process described below'm 17:26.060 Property Owners will be encouraged to take pictures of their Views and Vegetation when they Purchase their property or take title to is as a result of a transfe er nce that does not affect their Original Purchase Date and periodically thereafter. Property"O—wners my provide a copy of these pictures to City Staff to become part of the City's Data Base.) Base.) 17.26.060 — Identification of Transferring or Recently Transferred Property; Notification of Sellers, Buyers, Realtors and other potentially interested parties of potential view claims. City'staff is directed to develop mechanisms for identifying transferring properties. Such mechanisms'should utilize thepnformation that is available from local Realtors, the Rolling Hills CommunitrAssociation, aria inquiries made of the City itself by potential sellers or buyers. City personnel are directed to/ this information that identifies potentially transferring properties to conduct an inspection of/thesuch properties and surrounding properties whose View(s) may be effected by Vegetation on such property and then advise both the potential seller and the Owners of such potentially View affected properties of potential View Claims. City staff may use the expert services of arborists included on the City maintained list in conducting this research. 17.26.70 — Education of Rolling Hills Owners and Realtors Serving Rolling Hills Regarding this View and Vegetation Preservation Ordinance City staff is authorized and directed to develop educational materials and policies intended to raise the awareness of Property Owners and members of the Realtor community that serves Rolling Hills of the nature of the rights and duties created by the this Chapter and the Page 10 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 11 responsibility of Property Owners as sellers to disclose View and Vegetation issues that affect their property. These educational materials should stress the importance of View Seekers and Vegetation Owners recording any agreements that they reach that they would like preserved for future Property Owners. 17.26.080 - : Establishment of Rights and Duties of View Seekers and Vegetation Owners under this Chapter. 1. It is here established that if a View Seeker exercises her right to preserve her views by notifications(s) to the Vegetation Owner or the filing of a View Complainfwithin XXX years ot of the onset of any View Impairment, so long as there has n -been a sale ofthe Real Property whose Vegetation impairs the View(s) within thisXXX years period, that -1.0:r View Seeker can be entitled to a Remedy as defined Section 176.1 arl 160 of this Chater. 2. A View Seeker is entitled to the View that they had on` earliest of f the Original Purchase Date or some later date on which he can establish the existence of Established View(s). 3. A View Seeker may elect to be entitled to an Established View that.existed by virtue of an � agreement with another or other Property ;Owners) or as a_result of the outcome of a View Complaint, so long as that agreement or that outcome has been recorded against all properties of the View Seeker(s) and Vegetation-Owner(s) involved; 4. A View Seeker may not, however, have a right to a greater View than those described in 1, 2, and 3 based on the loss of Vegetation of othep Owners due to destruction (fire, flood, etc.) or disease or the like unless the Vegetation Owner elects not to replace the Vegetation so lost. Otherwise/Vegetation-Owner who suffered the loss is entitled to replant and allow her Vegetation to attain the height, girth and density that it possessed beforeetthhee.destructionn or disea e,claimed it; 5. A View,Seeker is never entitled to greater View(s) than the View(s) that existed on the • most recent Original Purchase Date unless such greater View(s) are created by agreement with another or other Owners. A View Seeker is not entitled to a greater view based on the loss of Vegetation -of other Property Owners due to fire or disease or the like; 6. A View Seeker has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect her View(s) either by notifying other Property Owners who's Vegetation grows to impair her View(s) by or taking action under this Chapter to project her View(s). 7. A View Seeker's rights to a View may be diminished as a result of her not meeting her duty to protect her View(s) or if necessary to achieve a balance with a Vegetation Owner's rights to the preservation of his Vegetation. 8. If a View Seeker does not meet her duty to protect her View(s) prior to the sale of a property to a new Owner which property has Vegetation that impairs her View(s), Page 11 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 12 then her rights to her View(s) may be diminished or lost. 9.7A View Seeker whose Original Purchase Date predates January 1, 1983 (this is intended to be approximately 10 years prior to the implementation of the original Chapter 17.26) may have limited rights under Section 17.26.160 to restoration of his View(s) despite not having taken steps to protect his View(s) as prescribed herein. 10. A Vegetation Owner has a basic right, subject to a balancing of rights, -t his Established Vegetation as it existed on his Original Purchase Date of the Real Property or on any date subsequent for which she can establish the existence of.Established Vegetation that did not Impair a current Property Owner's V (s) 11. A Vegetation Owner has no basic entitlement to have his Vegetation impairhe,, View(s) of another Property Owner beyond the impairment that was present and caused by her Vegetation as of the Original PurchaseDate ofthe complaining View Seeker, provided, however, that the Vegetation Owners rights to her Vegetation may be increased by the failure of the View Seeker to exerciisse`his rirights to his Views. 12. A Vegetation Owner has a duty to ens ru e -that his Vegetation does not grow into the View(s) of his neighbors and also has a2iuty_to select Vegetation species that are appropriate (i.e. not undesirable) to hisiproperty's.location with respect to Impairing the View(s) of other Property Owners. 13. A Vegetation Owner's,rights to his Vegetation may be reasonably diminished if necessary to achieve a tialancelwith a View Seeker's rights to her View(s), if he selects Vegetation thatis undesirablec-as-detaile on lists maintained by the City, or if he does Jo/ensure not meet his obligation -that hisd'Vegetation does not grow into the View(s) of other Property Owners.. 14. A Vegetati� o 0 er'sririigghts to his Vegetation may be reasonably diminished if necessary to achieve a balance with a View Seeker's rights to her View(s). 17.26.090 —View an d Vegetation Equity Process ("VAVEP") - Overview Any View Seeker who alleges that her Real Property suffers "View Impairment(s) by Vegetation growing on Real Property other than their own may seek abatement of the alleged View Impairment(s) by following the process established by this Chapter in seeking assistance from the city for preservation or restoration his Established View(s); 1. A View Seeker applicant must complete the Meet and Confer process described in Section 17.26.100. If that initial discussion process does not result in an agreement between the Parties then the View Seeker may file a View Complaint with the city and request mediation, as described in Section 17.26.110. Page 12 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 13 2. If the Vegetation Owner refuses to participate in mediation or if mediation is unsuccessful in resolving the Complaint, the View Seeker may pursue resolution by requesting a hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views as described in Sec. 17.26.120 3. If the ruling of the Committee on Trees and Views is not accepted by either Party, either or both Parties may appeal the ruling to the City Council for a resolution as set forth in Section 17.26.140 4. If the ruling of the City Council on appeal is not accepted by either Party, they may pursue resolution via binding arbitration, as set forth in Section 17.26.140. 17.26.100 — View and Vegetation Equity Process — Invitation to and Confer A View Seeker, who believes that Vege a'ion f 'Property Owner's Real Property is causing an Impairment of his alleged Established ew'must notify the Vegetation Owner in writing of suchconcerns. The written notification (an"Invitation" to meet and confer) shall request personal discussions to enable the View�Seeker and Vegetation Owner to attempt to reach a mutually agreeable solution. The invitation shall reference this Chapter and its availability on the Ci y's'website and'include a hardcopy which is available from the City. The View Seeker must provide a copy of this invitation to the City. Initiation of an invitation to meet and confer'must be done by the View Seeker as a condition of his right to file a View Complaint as outlined below. The invitation shall contain -an offer for the Vegetation Owner to examine the alleged View Impairment from the Viewing Point(') on the Vie Seeker's Property. The invitation shall include a general statement of t where ediation that the View Seeker desires as well as the major specifics that the View Seeker can determine would restore his alleged Views. The invitation ould suggest to the Vegetation Owner that they examine the situation.t gether on the Vegetation Owner's Property. The invitation should also conta tn4vidence (i.e. copies of photos, etc.) that the View Seeker believes establishes his position concerning his Views. Failure of the Vegetation Owner to respond to the written request for initial discussion within thirty days from the date of delivery shall be deemed formal refusalby the Vegetation Owner to participate in the initial discussion. If the invitation to meet and confer is refused by the Vegetation Owner, or if the parties cannot come to an agreement about what actions are to be taken to remediate the Impairment(s) to the View Seeker's alleged Established Views within 90 days of the mailing of the invitation, then the View Seeker may proceed with the subsequent View Complaint procedure outlined below in Sections 17.26.110 through 17.26.145. If the Parties are able to reach agreement as to what remediation / restoration actions are to be taken that agreement should be reduced to a writing which is then filed both with Page 13 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 14 the City and recorded against the Parties' properties. Such an agreement should contain all the important elements of the remediation / restoration actions to be taken immediately as well as details about how the View Seeker's Views are to be protected going forward. Such elements may include: 1. The generalities and major specifics as to the actions to be taken; 2. Which specific Vegetation shall be remedied, 3. What specific remediation is requested for each tree and other vegetation, including diagrams or marked -up photographs, 4. What replacement plantings are required, 5. Who pays for what remediation and replacement, 6. Who pays for future maintenance, and how administered, 7. Other pertinent details of the remediation. / / The City shall bear the cost of having the agreement drafted by`he•City Attorney or other attorney of the City's choosing. 17.26.110 — View and Vegetation Equity Process—ir tion If the Parties are not able to reach agreement as,described'through meeting and conferring as described above in Section 17.26.100, the View Seeker`("Complainant") may file a View Complaint as described below: u A. The Complainant shall,su�omplete 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 View Impairment application what efforts have been\made by the Complainant to resolve the View Impairment prior to filing the application..This description must include whether the Parties have met and conferred (or just confe rr ed)ai*hif not what, steps the Complainant took in an attempt to do so. An application shall not be accepted for filing unless the Complainant can demonstrate that the Vegetation Owner ofthe view -impairing Vegetation has been given notice of the impairment and a''reasonable opportunity to abate it, and that he and the Vegetation Owner have met and conferred as described/in 17.26.100 but that either the Vegetation Owner refused to Meet and Confer or'refused to°atiate the alleged View impairment. B. The View Complaint shall describe in detail the nature of the Views that are claimed to be impaired; the nature of the impairment(s), and both general and specific requests for remediation / restoration\/ In addition, the Complaint shall indicate and document the Original Purchase Date of the View Seeker's Real Property and the date of her Established View. C. Evidence offered in support of the View Seeker's complaint should accompany the application. D. Eligibility. A person shall not be precluded from filing an application for abatement of View Impairment on grounds that vegetation located on the Complainant's property contributes to impairment of the requested view. A person who has obtained an order abating impairment of a view against a Vegetation Owner shall not be precluded from filing a subsequent application to abate impairment of the same view by Vegetation of another Vegetation Owner. An application may be filed to abate impairment of one or more distinct Views listed in described in Section Page 14 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 15 17.26.000 "View;" however, if multiple Views are identified, each must be disjointed and observable from a separate Viewing Point. E. Upon receipt and acceptance of an application as complete, the City Manager shall refer the matter to a mediator for conduct of a mediation session to abate the View Impairment as described below in Section 17.26.110. The mediator shall be responsible for notifying the Property Owner,' the view -impairing Vegetation of the application and for scheduling and managing the mediation process. At the conclusion of mediation, the mediator shall advise the City Manager as to whether the Complaint has been resolved. Agreement reached through mediation shall be reflected in an executed contract and implemented in accordance with the terms of the agreement. //J !\, Public Hearing Application. In the event mediation fails to achieve,,agreement, the Complainant may submit an application and accompanying fee aspTovided for in Section 17.30.030 of this title for a public hearing. Upon receipt and acceptance of,an'application for a public hearing as complete, the City Manager shall schedule the matter for a public hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views as described below in 17.26.120 If a complete application for a,public hearing is not received within sixty days of the mediator's notification set forth in Section"'1.7.26.040(C), the City shall terminate, without prejudice, all proceedings related to the application. 17.27.120 — View and Vegetation Equity Process - C m iittee on Trees and Views The following process shall apply: 1) Public Hearing. The matter shall be returned -to the City Manager, who shallschedule the matter for a public he g,before the Committee on Trees and Views. (Ord. 292 §5, 2003; Ord. 239 §11(p rt), 1993) 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 treeor dther obstructing vegetation (Vegetation Owner) has received notice of the hearing as provided herein: a) Notice-shallbe given by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the owner of the Real Property on which the tree or vegetation allegedly impairing an alleged established view are located (Vegetation Owner), and to CO the complainant (View Seeker); n) Notice shall/be given by first class mail to all Property Owners within five hundred feet of the exterior boundary of the property on which the tree or vegetation allegedly impairing an Established View is located, and to other persons who, in the Committee's judgment, might be affected. iii) where there is more than one Real Property with Vegetation that impairs a view of View Seeker, the Committee will deal with all of those properties, to the extent possible, in a consolidated manner to arrive at a comprehensive recommendation. b) Content of Notice. The notice shall state the name of the complaining party (View Seeker), the name of the Property Owner against whom the complaint is filed (Vegetation Owner), the location of the tree(s) or other vegetation, and the time and place of hearing. The notice shall invite written comments to be submitted prior to orat the hearing. 2) Conduct of Hearing. The Committee shall adopt rules for the conduct of required Page 15 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 16 hearings. At the hearing, the Committee shall consider all written and oral testimony and evidence presented in connection with the application. The Committee shall be guided by the provisions of this chapter, including the Burden of Proof and Additional Specific Findings of Fact set for in Section 17,26.160, the Remedy Categories and View Restoration Criteria set forth in 17.26.170 and the Establishment of Rights and Duties of View Seekers and Vegetation Owners set forth in 17.26.080, respectively, in attempting to resolve the View Complaint. a) Arborists. The Committee may at its discretion retain a panel of three ISA certified master arborists or ASCA registered consulting arborists, or combination thereof, from the list maintained by the City/One,is to be chosen by the View Seeker, one by the Vegetation Owner and'one by,the two so chosen to provide expert advice to the Committee. Nothing contained\in this subsection shall preclude the Parties from selecting additional arborists to provide evidence on their respective behalves/, b) Other Professionals. Whether or not the Committee elects to use the services of arborists as described above in (a), it may\r‘etat p ofessionals such as surveyors, landscapers, tree Maintenance companies, plant nurseries, and so forth to provide expert opinions and cost estimates to\the Committee. c) The View Seeker and Vegetation Ownerr may at theirown discretion and their own expense appoint authorized agents, and/or retain -legal counsel, arborists, surveyors and other professionals' to provide,expert testimony. \\// 3) Findings. Based on the evidence received'and factors contained in Sec. 17.26.150 and 17.26.160 the Committe hse all make one or more of the following general findings of )L, fact: a) That there are no'Es`ablished-View(s) as of a particular date within the meaning of this Chapter; b) That there are Established View(s) as of a particular date within the meaning of this �chap t tn ter,_b; hat no eof the Established View(s) are Significantly Impaired; c) That there are Established View(s) as of a particular date within the meaning of (\/this Chapterand'one or more of these Established View(s) are Significantly Impaired, d)\That the Vegetation impairing Established View(s) is Established Vegetation subject'protection under this Chapter. e) That the Vegetation impairing Established View(s) is not subject to protection under this Chapter. 4. Additional Specific Findings: the Committee shall make written findings in support of the foregoing determinations and shall, if it makes a finding of (3)(c), with or without a finding of (3)(d), it shall make further specific findings of fact as are appropriate from the list in Section 1726.160 as well as others it deems necessary to support its detailed Actions, as discussed below in €., including, but not limited to the following: 5. Selection of Appropriate Remedy or Remedies. If the Committee makes finding of subsection (3)(c) with or without a finding of (3)(d) it shall order such remedial action(s) as are appropriate to its findings necessary to abate the View Seeker's View Impairment Page 16 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 17 while factoring in the Vegetation Owner's rights based the Remedies delineated in Section 17.26.160. The specific Remedy or Remedies chosen by the Committee should relate to both the general and the specific facts found by the Committee as described above. 6. Specific Actions to be taken by the Vegetation Owner: Based on the Remedy or Remedies identified as appropriate by the Committee, the Committee shall delineate the specific restorative actions to be taken by the Vegetation Owner to correct some or all of the impairments to the View Seeker's View all as described in 17.26A 60. 7. 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/lfthe action is determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality',tAct ("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/hot to be exempt from CEQA, the complainant shall bear the City's reasonablecosts4f environmental review and CEQA compliance, including consultant fees. \\JJ J'2 8. Finality of Decision. The Committee's decision shat be/final on the date the Committee adopts a resolution setting forth its decision. The decision shall become effective ninety 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. If no Parties elect to appeal to the -City Council within the time provided, than the Committee's decisionwill-be deemed to have been accepted by all Parties and may be enforced by the'Cit pursuant to th'e provisions of Section 17.26.170, 17.26.180, and 17.26.190. 17.27.130 — View,an`d Vegetation Equity Process - Appeal to the City Council If either Party dissatisfied with the ruling of the Committee they may appeal said ruling The following'process shall apply: 1) PublicHearing. The matter shall be returned to the City Manager, who shall schedule the matter for a public hearing before the City Council. Public notice of the hearing shall be given a minimum of thirty days prior to the hearing. The hearing shall not proceed unless proof is shown that both the View Seeker and all Vegetation Owners have received notice of the hearing as provided herein: to the City Council. a) Notice shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, to allPartiestotheView Complaint and Page 17 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 18 i) Notice shall be given by first class mail to all Property Owners within five hundred feet of the exterior boundary of the property on which the tree or vegetation allegedly impairing an Established View is located, and to other persons who, in the City Manager's judgment, might be affected. ii) Where there is more than one Vegetation Owner with Vegetation that impairs a view of View Seeker, the Council will deal with all of those properties, to the extent possible, and to the extent that they were all dealt with in the decision of the Committee. b) Content of Notice. The notice shall state the names of the all "Parties to the Complaint and shall include a copy of the ruling of the Committee. The notice shall invite written comments to be submitted prior to orat the hearing 2) The Appeal to the City Council for a hearing shall be treated as a hearing'de-novo. 3) Conduct of Hearing. The Council shall adopt rulesfor the conduct of required hearings. At the hearing, the Committee shall consider all written andyoral testimony and evidence presented in connection with the application. The Council she be guided by the provisions of this chapter, including'the,Burden of Proof and Additional Specific Findings of Fact set for in Section 17,26.160 the•Remedy Categories and View Restoration Criteria set forth in 17.26:170 and; the_ Establishment of Rights and Duties of View Seekers and Vegetation1Owners set forth in 17.26.080, respectively, in attempting to resolve the View Complaint. a) Arborists. The Courigl shall receive the evidence presented by the arborists selected by the'Committ ee under 117.26.120(2)(A) Nothing contained in this subsection shall preclu7 7 de-the_Parties fct rom selecting additional arborists provide evidence onbtheir respective.behalves. 4 11/4 ,e, / b) Other Professionals/Whether or not the Council elects to use the services of arborists as described'above in (a), it may retain professionals such as surveyors, landscapers tree Maintenance companies, plant nurseries, and so forth to provide exper opinions and cost estimates to the Council and may evidence (provided by theOther Professionals used by the Committee as described in 17.26.120(2)(A): c) -The View Seeker and Vegetation Owner may at their own discretion and their own expel a appoint authorized agents, and/or retain legal counsel, arborists, surveyors and other professionals to provide expert testimony. 4) Findings. Based on the evidence received and factors contained in Sec. 17.26.150 and 17.26.160 the Committee shall make one or more of the following general findings of fact: a) That there are no Established View(s) as of a particular date within the meaning of this Chapter; b) That there are Established View(s) as of a particular date within the meaning of this chapter, but that none of the Established View(s) are Significantly Impaired; c) That there are Established View(s) as of a particular date within the meaning of Page 18 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 19 this Chapter and one or more of these Established View(s) are Significantly Impaired, d) That the Vegetation impairing Established View(s) is Established Vegetation subject to protection under this Chapter. e) That the Vegetation impairing Established View(s) is not subject to protection under this Chapter. 4. Additional Specific Findings: the Council shall make written findings in support of the foregoing determinations and shall, if it makes a finding of (3)(c), With'or without a finding of (3)(d), it shall make further specific findings of fact as are appropriate from the list in Section 1726.160 as well as others it deems necessary to support its/detailed Actions, as discussed below in E., including, but not limited to the following: (% 5. Selection of Appropriate Remedy or Remedies the Committeei,makes finding of subsection (3)(c) with or without a finding of (3)(d),it shall order such remedial action(s) as are appropriate to its findings necessary to/abate the View Seeker's View Impairment while factoring in the Vegetation Owner's rights basedrthe Remedies delineated in Section 17.26.160. The specific Remedy or'Remediies'chosen by the Council should relate to both the general and the specific facts'found by the Committee as described above. 6. Specific Actions to be taken (byy t a Vegetation Owner: Based on the Remedy or Remedies identified as appropriate by`the,Couhcil, 4he Committee shall delineate the specific restorative actions to be taken by the, -Vegetation Owner to correct some or all of the impairments to the View Seeker's\View all as described in 17.26.160. 7. Environmental Review:,lf the Council 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'swritten"findings shall be presented for adoption at the Council'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 tinsulta4fees. 5) 8 ," Finality ofDecision. The Council's decision shall be final on the date the Council adopts a resolution setting forth its decision. The decision shall become effective ninety days after adoption of the resolution unless a Party files a request that the matter be arbitrated or elects to litigate the matter. 6) lAny Party to -the Complaint, if dissatisfied with the resolution of the Council, may initiate'Arbrtration as described below or may file a complaint with a Los Angeles County Court having jurisdiction. If no Parties to the View Complaint elect initiate Arbitration or file a legal action within the time provided, than the Council's decision will be deemed to have been accepted by all Parties and may be enforced by the City pursuant to the provisions of Section 17.26.170, 17.26.180, and 17.26.190. 17.27.140 — View and Vegetation Equity Process - Arbitration and Litigation Arbitration Page 19 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 20 If the proceedings under Sections 17.26.090, et. seq. fail to achieve a resolution of the Complaint, any dissatisfied Party may deliver by certified mail to the other Parties, a request to participate in an arbitration process. Said other Parties shall have thirty days from delivery of the request for arbitration to either accept or decline arbitration. Failure to respond within thirty days shall be deemed formal refusal of arbitration. If arbitration is accepted, within thirty days of such acceptance the parties shall agree in writing to the selection of an arbitrator, who shall be chosen from a list provided by the city i of qualified and professionally trained arbitrators, including but not limited -to, members of the American Arbitration Association. If the parties are unable to agree on a specific arbitrator within thirty days, City staff shall randomly select an arbitrator from\the list maintained by the city. In addition, either party may petition a court of competentyurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator. \* The arbitrator shall be guided by the provisions of this chapter, in particular Sections 17.26.080, 17.26.090, 17.26.150 and 17.26,160 in attempting to'resolve the View Complaint, and shall submit a complete written decision the'View Seekerand the Vegetation Owner(s). Such written decision shall contain all findings of fact, Remedies selected and restorative actions to be taken .as set forth in thisthapter. The Parties will be strongly encouraged_t ubmit the matter to Binding Arbitration and should they do so, the City shall bear a\portion of the costs as described in 17.26.170. If one or more Parties decline participation inB`inding Arbitration then the Parties shall bear the responsibility for all costs of Arbitration. 1 V If the Parties have submitted'the matter to Binding Arbitration, any decision of the arbitrator shall be enforceable pursuant to the pr visions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1285 et seq. Whether Binding or not, the Arbitrator shall submit two copies o f the decision to the city clerk Ifrthe'Parties h elected to arbitrate but it is non -binding arbitration, then the decision of the Arbitratorishall become final unless a Party elects to litigate by filing a complaint.in a court of competent jurisdiction within XXX days. If no such election is made within the time frame required, then the decision of the Arbitrator shall be considered final and may be enforced by the City pursuant to??? (this Chapter or the Code of Civil Procedure as appropriate.) If the Parties elect to Arbitrate, whether binding or not or if any Party elects to litigate by filing an action in a court of competent jurisdiction following a resolution or ruling by the City Council, then rulings and resolutions by either the Committee on Trees and Views or the City Council shall not be binding on any Party, and shall be of no force and effect but rather shall be considered to be only advisory in nature. Litigation Page 20 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 21 Any party to a View complaint may elect to file a complain with a court of competent jurisdiction following a ruling or resolution by the City Council or following non- binding Arbitration. If any of the Parties elect to so litigate rulings and resolutions by the Committee on Trees and Views or the City Council shall not be binding on any Party, and shall be of no force and effect but rather shall be considered to be merely advisory in nature. 17.26.150 Burden of Proof; Additional Specific Findings of Fact 1. Burden of Proof The burden of proof to show that a View on a View Seekers Real Property ism n'Established View, that Vegetation upon the Vegetation Owner's Real Property is Established Vegetation, that an Established View existed on a particular date, that Vegetation existed as of a particular date and that View(s) of a View Seeker are impaired as well as all other significant Findings of -Fact, as listed below, made by the Committee in its ruling, the City Council on appeal, or in the-Bindin'g Arbitration provided for in this Chapter shall be by "a preponderance of the evidence"I In making a -finding of fact regarding these or other matters the Committee should weigh the evide 1e .the following order of priority: A. Information maintained in th� s of Rolling Hills Data Base described in 17.26.050 and maintained by the City. � )1 B. Dated photographic prints, negatives slides, or digital images [California Evidence Code Section 1500.6(a)j, including aerial and other view images to be found online; C. Deed or other legal instruments; D. LocationsofVegetation shown on site plans of the Real Property; 1 E. Expert- testimony, especially that of arborists on the list maintained by the city; F. Documents and otheyMaterials maintained by RHCA, e.g. Minutes of Directors Meetings. G. Testimony of RHCA staff; Testimony of neighbors and former residents; and lastly H. Other evidence. 2. Additional Specific Findings of Fact Following are the additional findings of fact that may be made by the Committee, the Council or an Arbitrator in support of adopting a specific Remedy Category or Categories to address a View Impairment. 1. The most recent Original Purchase Date that the View Seeker's Real Property was conveyed to him for fair market value in an arms -length transaction (as evidenced by a deed); What the View(s) were on that date; z. Whether this date pre -date xxxxx, the date of the City's original View Ordinance. 3. The most recent Original Purchase Date that the Vegetation Owner's Real Property Page 21 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 22 was conveyed to her for fair market value in an arms -length transaction (as evidenced by a deed); 4. What Vegetation was on the property on that date determined in (3), what was its nature, height and girth, and how much, if at all, did it interfere with the View(s) of other Property Owners. 5. The extent to which the View Seeker exercised his right to preserve his View by notification(s) to the Vegetation Owner or the filing of a View Complaint.' on 6. The most recent date the Vegetation Owner's Real Property was conveyed for fair market value in an arms -length transaction (as evidenced by a deed) / 7. The extent to which the Vegetation Owner elected to landscape'with Vegetation selected from lists of appropriate Vegetation, especially trees available from the City. 8. The viewing point(s) on the View Seeker's Real Property from/which the alleged Established View(s) are claimed to be impaired; 2 \\ om 9. The significance of the alleged Established View fr the View Seeker's property, including the existence of landmarks, vistas, or other unique,features of an Established View, 10. The extent to which specific Vegetation, particularly trees on the Vegetation Owner's Real Property impair the Established View, 11. The extent to which the Established View -has been or is,diminished by a legal building structure that is consistent with -city er gulations, and vegetation within the silhouette of such a structure. Vegetationmay grow up to the height of the roof ridge for a privacy shield and/or to shield the view into a pool or patio and certain other private ^areas iJwithin a'RRealllProperty 17.26.160 Remedy Categories and,View Restoration Criteria Remedy Categories A Decision -making B hall select.on o r more of the following Remedy Categories as appropriate to the restoration of the impaired View(s) of a View Seeker depending on its general and specific findings of fact as described above; I A) Remedy Category 0 Level 0 means that based on the findings of the Decision -making Body View Seeker is not entitled to any Remedy other than Hedge trimming (see below) either because of a failure to establish the existence of a View to which he is entitled or because the rights of the Vegetation Owner takes precedence over his rights. B) Remedy Category 1: Level 1 means the remedy available to a View Seeker to restore an Established View that was lost in whole or in part as a result of his failure to exercise his rights to protect his View where property containing the View obstructing Vegetation has now been sold to a new Vegetation Owner or because the View Seeker failed to exercise his rights for a period in excess of 10 years, all as set forth in Section 17.26.030 of this Chapter. The remedies available to the View Seeker are to compel pruning of the View obstructing Vegetation so as to Page 22 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 23 achieve partial View restoration through Crown Lifting, Crown Reduction, Lacing and similar reductions in tree size and height that will not damage or endanger the tree(s) and The Vegetation Owner may not be compelled to top trees or remove them. C) Remedy Category 2: Level 2 means the remedy available to a View Seeker to restore an Established View that was lost in whole or in part as a result of his failure to exercise his rights to protect his View where property containing the View obstructing Vegetation has now been sold to a new Vegetation Owner or because the View Seeker failed to exercise his rights for a period in excess of 10 years, all as set forth in Section 17.26.030 of this Chapter. The remedies available to the View Seeker are 1) To compel pruning of the Viewbstructing;Vegetation so as to achieve partial View restoration through Crown Lifting, Crown Reduction Lacing and similar reductions in tree size and height that will not damage or endanger the tree(s) and�2)be Reductions in the height of hedges that are above the ridgeline of the principal residence on i the Vegetation Owner's property subject to the criteria set forth in the Hedge Remedy, below.. The Vegetation Owner may not be compelled to top trees o, r remove them. I/ D) Remedy Category 3" means the remedy available to a View Seeker to restore an Established View that was lost in whole orin part as a -result of his failure to exercise his rights to protect his View for a period in excess of\6 years but not in excess of 10 years, all as set forth in Section 17.26.030 of this Chapter. The remedies available to the View Seeker are 1) To compel pruning of the View obstructing Vegetation so as to achieve as much View restoration as possible through Crown Liftin Crown Reduction, Lacing and similar reductions in tree size and height that will not damage or endanger the tree(s); 2) Reductions in the height of hedges that are above the ridgeline of the principal -residence on the Vegetation Owner's property subject to the criteria set forrtth_in the Hedge Remedy, below.; 3) Strand thinning; and 4) Limited individual tree topping (where permitted by the nature of the species). If the Vegetation Owner purchased h si property during more than two years prior to the origination of the View ! Complaint/The remedies available to the View Seeker are all that will restore his View to the most recent date on which a Vegetation Owner purchased her property in an arm -length sale (as evidenced by a deed)br;the date which a View Seeker can establish the View that they had, whichever.is later E) "Remedy Category 4: Level 4 means the remedy available to a View Seeker to restore an Established View that was lost in whole or in part and the View Seeker has acted within three to six years to protect his rights to his View. The remedies available to the View Seeker are 1) To compel pruning of the View obstructing Vegetation so as to achieve as much View restoration as possible through Crown Lifting, Crown Reduction, Lacing and similar reductions in tree size and height that will not damage or endanger the tree(s); 2) Reductions in the height of hedges that are above the ridgeline of the principal residence on the Vegetation Owner's property subject to the criteria set forth in the Hedge Remedy, below.; 3) Strand thinning; and 4) Very limited individual tree removal and / or topping (where permitted by the nature of the species). If the Vegetation Owner purchased his property during more Page 23 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 24 than two years prior to the origination of the View Complaint, The remedies available to the View Seeker are all that will restore his View to the most recent date on which a Vegetation Owner purchased her property in an arm -length sale (as evidenced by a deed) or the date which a View Seeker can establish the View that they had, whichever is later E) "Remedy Category 5: Level 5: means the remedy available to a View Seeker to restore an Established View that was lost in whole or in part and the View Seekef,has acted within one to three years to protect his rights to his View. The remedies available to the View Seeker are 1) To compel pruning of the View obstructing Vegetation so as to achieve as much View restoration as possible through Crown Lifting, Crown Reduction, Lacing and similar r ductions in tree size and height that will not damage or endanger the tree(s); 2) Reductions in the height of hedges that are above the ridgeline of the principal residence on the Vegetation Owner's propertysubjectto the criteria set forth in the Hedge Remedy, below.; 3) Strand thinning; nd 4) Moderately limited individual tree removal and / or topping (where permitted by,the nature of the species); 5) The creation of one or more View Corridors not to exceed they liew`the View Seeker had as of their Original Purchase date or some later date for which they camestablish a View existed whichever is m later. If the Vegetation Owner purchased his property during ore\than two years prior to the origination of the View Complaint, the remedies available to the View Seeker are all that will restore his View to the most recent date on which a Vegetation Owner purchased her property in an arm -length sale (as evidenced by a deed) or1tlie date whicha'View Seeker can establish the View that they had, whichever is later. F) "Remedy Category 6: Level 6: means -the remedy available to a View Seeker to restore an Established View that was lost in whole oin part and the View Seeker has acted within one year to protect his rights to his View. The remedies available to the View Seeker are 1) To compel pruning of the Vie obstructi w- ng Vegetationsoas to achieve as much View restoration as possible through Crown Lifti Crown Reductioh acing and similar reductions in tree size and height that will not damage ong;r\endanger the treeL(s); 2) Reductions in the height of hedges that are above the ridgeline of the principal residence on the Vegetation Owner's property subject to the criteria set forth ,in the Hedge Remedy, below.; 3) Strand thinning; and 4) Moderately limited individual tree removal and / or topping (where permitted by the nature of the species); 5) The creation of one or more View Corridors not to exceed the View the View Seeker had as of their Original Purchase date or some later date for which they can establish a View existed whichever is later. If the\Vegetation Owner purchased his property during the year that the View Seeker failed to act than the ViewSeeker%s remedy may be limited to the View they had on the date of the Vegetation Owner's purchase. NV G) Remedy Category 7: This is to be a category for creating corridors where they are warranted by the circumstances. G) Hedge Remedy: This is to be a category specifically for hedges which is not dependent on any finding of fact in favor of either the View Seeker or the Vegetation owner. It is thought that hedges may always, or virtually always, be trimmed down to a certain level to provide a View for a View Seeker without adversely affecting the Vegetation Owner. It could, however, still be limited by considerations having to do with the Vegetation Owner's privacy. Page 24 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 25 In general, a View Seeker is always entitled to require a Vegetation Owner to top their Hedge so that it not exceed the sightline of a six-foot tall person standing at a View Point on the View Seeker' Property to the highest point of the ridgeline a down sloop Vegetation Owner's property. However, this shall be limited by a Vegetation Owner's right to privacy in their backyard and further limited by a right of the down sloop Vegetation Owner's right to be free of light cast by the View Seeker's Principal Residence or Guest House. (This needs some further definition as to how this works.) View Restoration Criteria If there is finding by the Committee that a View Impairment of an Established View by a Vegetation Owner's Vegetation exists, then, after selecting the appropriate Remedy Category or Categories, the following shall be considered in determining he t 'actual appropriate preservation or restorative actions to be taken 1. Mitigating factors. The following non -ranked factors shall be considered in determining appropriate actions to preserve or restore an Established View, while at the same time accommodating Real Property rights of Vegetation Owners: %"--._ (a) Visual screening or privacy, and sound\buffering between properties, providedby,Ve eta.tion, 1/4 (b) Shade, energy conseryconservation/Ind/oro and/or climate control (c) Soil stability, as determined by soil composition, degree of slope and extent of the tree's/vegetation's root system when a Vegetation is proposed to be removed, �Vr 2. Hazards posed by specific-tree(s) or vegetation including, but not limited to disease, fire danger or or danger of falling limbs or trees, • 3. Environmental Review. In no event shall preservation/restoration action be required n w ifsuch action adversely affect the environment. Any proposed agreement or order by a decision -making body shall be reviewed by city staff to determine any required environmental review. If the remediation action is determined by city staff not to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), city staff shall arrange for a CEQA environmental review to determine CEQA compliance and/or conditions. Costs of environmental review shall be paid initially by the View Seeker, provided, however, that the ultimate responsibility for such costs may subsequently be modified by mutual agreement of the parties or by order of a decision -making body. The intent in effecting preservation or restoration of Established Views is to comply as much as is reasonably possible with Vegetable Maintenance and pruning standards of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), so that such actions, in the opinion of an ISA certified Page 25 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 26 master arborist or ASCA registered consulting arborist, would not destroy the visual proportions of the Vegetation, adversely affect the Vegetation's growth pattern or health, or the Vegetation in question itself. Specific View preservation and restoration actions may include, but are not limited to the following, stated in descending order of preference: 1. Lacing. Lacing removes excess foliage and can improve the structure of the tree. Views can be provided through laced trees, 2. Crown Raising. Crown raising may be utilized to provide a view under the crown of a tree, 3. Crown Reduction. Crown reduction may be used to reduce the height and/or spread of a Vegetation, Stand Thinning. The removal of some of the total number of trees from a grove of trees may be used, to thin out the grove in order to provide a view through the grove, a. Heading Back Heading Back generally damages.an' 1 weakens trees, and makes them susceptible to disease. Headed back trees appeardisfigured and mutilated. For this reason Heading Back of trees is generally limited forVegetation specifically planted and maintained as a hedge, espalier brinpollard form 5. Topping as a may or may not be a,considered remedial action if it is appropriate for the species of{tree.`omespecies, if topped properly, do not suffer permanent damage and*may be topped repeatedly. Others, however, may b `severely injured/to the point that they will die. Similarly, somelre s may toppedlin a manner which is esthetically pleasing while others may not.\These aspects of various species are important o consider bifore.setecting topping as a remedial action. 6. Vegetation Removal Removal of_vegetation may be considered when the above preservation actions are judged to be ineffective, and which may be accompanied by requifed'replacement'plantings of appropriate Vegetation to mitigate the level of Real Property benefits,) st due to Vegetation removal. 17.26.170 'Allocation of Costs for View and Vegetation Equity Process Costs incurred imthe>View' and Vegetation Equity Process described in 17.26.090 shall be allocated between the Parties to a View Complaint and the City as follows: /\\ A) Meet and Confer: Each party to bear their own costs. B) Mediation. The View Seeker is to be responsible for the fees described in 17.26.110 C) Complaint Evaluation and Ruling by Committee on Trees and Views. Each Party to be responsible for its own legal expenses, including the introduction of expert testimony. City to be responsible for all other expenses including investigations and expert testimony by arborists used in the process as described in 17.26.120 D) Appeal of Ruling by Committee on Trees and Views to the City Council. Each Party to be responsible for its own legal expenses, including the introduction of expert testimony. City Page 26 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 27 to be responsible for all other expenses including investigations and expert testimony by arborists used in the process as described in 17.26.120 E) Arbitration. Each Party to be responsible for its own legal expenses and other costs of the Arbitration. F) However, the above notwithstanding, if the Parties agree to Binding Arbitration, the City shall contribute to the costs of the Arbitration as follows. The City will be responsible for arbitration fees (e.g. arbitration association, room rental, and similar) as well as the fee(s) of the arbitrator(s) and the costs of the experts described in 17.26.120(2), provided however, that the City's contribution to the cost of Binding Arbitration shall be capped at $$$$$ with any costs in excess of this being borne by the Parties. 17.26.180 -. Costs of Implementation of Preservation / Restorative Actions. A. For View Complaints found to have been brought within byvo (2) years of the impairment of the Established View(s) so long as the Real Property of the VegetatiomOwner has not been Sold prior to the bringing of the Complaint by the View Seeker, the Vegetation Owner shall bear the cost of initial restorative action. B In all cases except as delineated in (A), above, .the Complainant shComplainant,sh9ll bear the cost of the initial restorative action. Within thirty days of a final decision -ordering restorative action, the Complainant shall obtain and present to the owner of the tobstructing vegetation three bids from licensed and qualified contractors for performance of the work, as well, as cash'9deposit 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 Vegetation Owner may/selectany licensed and qualified contractor to perform the restorative action (as long as the insurance requirements of subsection B of this section are satisfied), but shall be responsible for any cost above the -amount of the cash deposit. The work shall be completed no more than ninety days from receipt of the cash deposit or if additional time is necessary due to weather or unique conditions of the vegetation, at the earliest date recommended by the contractor, but no later than one year, and shall'be approved by the City Manager. C. Subsequent -Maintenance of the Vegetation in question shall be performed at the cost and expense of the,Vegetation Owner (arid subsequent Vegetation Owners of the Real Property). The Vegetation shalllbe maintained on a regular basis in accordance with the final decision so as not to allow for future View' Impairment(s). / 17.26.190- Enforcement. A. A "Final Decision" -is here defined as 1) an Agreement accepted in writing by both Parties and is filed with the City; 2) A finding by the Committee that neither Party appeals to the Council within the time allowed for appeal; 3) a ruling on appeal to the Council that is accepted by the Parties; 4) the results of binding arbitration of the View Complaint. b. Failure or refusal of any person to comply with a final decision under this chapter or to comply with any provision of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars or six months in County Jail, or both. Failure or refusal of any person to comply with a final decision under this chapter shall further constitute a public nuisance which may be abated in accordance with the procedure contained in Chapter 8.24. Page 27 Draft November 21, 2016 Page 28 B. A final decision rendered under this chapter may be enforced civilly by way of action for injunctive or other appropriate relief, in which event the prevailing party may be awarded attorney's fees and costs as determined by the court. 17.26.200 Unauthorized restorative actions prohibited. Except as otherwise authorized by law or by a "Final Decision" as defined above in 17.26.190(A) shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine o gone thousand dollars or six months in County Jail, or both to remove, destroy or alter the Vegetation on Real Property owned by another person unless there is a written agreement with the Property Owner on whose property the Vegetation exists. Nothing herein shall preclude aperson injured by the removal, destruction or alteration of such Vegetation from seeking whatever civil remedies are legal available for such injury. 17.26.210 - Notification of subsequent Property Owners. It is not the intent or purpose of this chapter for the city to create either a covenant running with the land or an equitable servitude (for example, easement or license). However, the _ ._ =city will keep a record of agreements and decisions reached pursuaM`to'this chapter as part of the data base provided for in 17.26.050 and will provide those agreements and / or decisions to all Realtors, Agents, prospective sellers and prospective buyers and other transferees that it is able to identify as provided for in 17.26.060. \ V%/ - This section does not preclude recording of the agreements or decisions if that is agreed to by the parties or mandated bya Deusio making Bod 17.26.220 — Severability, adoption and publication 1. If any,ssectioon; subsecti�sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Chapter 17.26 and related definitions in Chapter 17.12 is to any extent found by the decision of any (court of competent)jurisdiction to be illegal, otherwise invalid, incapable of being enforced or unconstitutional, such section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion shall be excluded to the extent of such invalidity or unenforceability; all other terms hereof shall remain in full force and effect; and, to the extent permitted and possible, the invalid or unenforceable term shall be deemed replaced by a term that is valid and enforceable and that comes closest to expressing the intention of such invalid or unenforceable term. 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Chapter 17.26 and related amendments to Chapter 17.12 Definitionsand shall cause the same to be published in accordance with law. Page 28