11A01% ez-
O
$*—
991 RLI41f qe& INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310)377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 11A
Mtg. Date: 3/17/15
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: SHAHIEDAH COATES, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE AND
REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO VIEW IMPAIRMENT.
ATTACHMENTS:
A) CITY VIEW PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS
B) EXCERPTS FROM A STAFF REPORT PROVIDED TO THE
COMMISSION IN 2012, INCLUDING ATTACHMENTS
OBJECTIVE
The City Council's Ad Hoc Committee has recommended adoption of an ordinance
amending the City's View Preservation Ordinance and new administrative regulations
interpreting Measure B. The purpose of this report is to advise you on the deliberations
of the Ad Hoc Committee to guide your discussion regarding future actions relative to
the View Preservation Ordinance.
BACKGROUND
In June 1988, the City adopted the View Preservation Ordinance ("Ordinance"). The
Ordinance established preservation of views as a primary value of the community and
created a process by which a property owner could seek to abate a view obstruction
caused by vegetation on a neighboring property. In November 2003, the ordinance was
modified relative to the composition of the Committee on Trees and Views ("CTV"), the
body designated to consider view applications.
In 2012, the Planning Commission conducted discussions regarding the Ordinance and
developed a list of potential amendments. For further information regarding the
O
Planning Commission's discussions in 2012, please refer to the attached staff report
from the August 12, 2012 Planning Commission meeting and its attachments, which
include copies of view ordinances adopted in other cities and a matrix comparing
pertinent provisions of those ordinances. The City did not move forward with the
Planning Commission's recommendations because the Ordinance was amended by
voter initiative.
In March 2013, the residents of Rolling Hills passed Measure B, an initiative that
amended the Ordinance in several respects. Most notably, Measure B: 1) limited the
view that may be restored to the view that existed when the current owner of a
property actually acquired the property; 2) exempted trees that were mature at the time
of property acquisition from the Ordinance; and 3) specified that the purpose of the
Ordinance is to create "view corridors" and views through trees, rather than
unobstructed views. Measure B specified that its provisions apply retroactively.
Measure B contains several ambiguities that have resulted in uncertainty in its
application. Additionally, Measure B did not address several potential modifications to
the Ordinance discussed by the Planning Commission in 2012. As a voter -approved
initiative, Measure B cannot be amended by the City Council, but may only be amended
by the voters. However, to the extent that Measure B is unclear or susceptible to
interpretation, the City may adopt administrative regulations interpreting Measure B in
order to achieve uniformity (and eliminate the potential for inconsistent case-by-case
determinations) in the consideration of view complaints. Further, provisions of the
Ordinance that were not amended by Measure B may be amended by an ordinance of
the City Council upon the Planning Commissions recommendation.
On July 28, 2014, the City Council established an Ad Hoc Committee to propose
amendments to the Ordinance and administrative regulations interpreting Measure B
("Regulations"). Councilmembers Pieper and Dieringer were appointed to the
Committee. The Ad Hoc Committee met on August 4, October 27, November 10,
November 24, 2014, and January 12, 2015. The Committee members reviewed and
discussed the list of potential amendments to the Ordinance prepared by the Planning
Commission in 2012 as well as additional recommendations from staff related to
amendments to the Ordinance and adoption of new Regulations. The Ad Hoc
Committee reached a consensus regarding several issues, but was unable to agree on
others.
The Planning Commission discussed the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations at the
February 17, 2015 meeting and requested additional information and clarification of the
Ordinance's existing language and the proposed amendments. The attached draft
amendment reflects the existing language of the View Preservation ordinance and
amendments recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee, compared against the existing
language in the Ordinance. Items on which the Committee did not agree are
highlighted in yellow and the language added by Measure B is in bold, italics and larger
font.
-2-
With respect to amendments to the ordinance, the Ad Hoc Committee was unable to
agree as to whether subsequent maintenance costs should be borne by the owner of the
obstructing vegetation in all cases, or whether the CTV should have discretion to
require an alternate allocation of subsequent maintenance costs. The Ad Hoc Committee
also did not agree on whether the City should be indemnified for its costs and expenses
related to litigation arising from view restoration orders.
The attached draft Regulations reflect the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee.
The Ad Hoc Committee was unable to agree on the definition of "mature" trees or the
circumstances that would result in a change in ownership of property. Staff
recommends that as part of its review of the proposals, the Commission resolve the
areas of disagreement before making a recommendation to Council.
At the February 17, 2015 meeting, the Commission asked staff to report back on the
following questions: 1) whether the City's insurance provides financial resources for
defense of litigation that may be considered an alternative to indemnification by
complainants; 2) whether other cities with similar view ordinances require
indemnification; 3) the frequency with which cities' view orders are challenged in court
and how successful cities are in defending their decisions; 4) what alternatives are
available to promote voluntary settlement of view cases; and 5) what effect repeal of the
view preservation ordinance would have on Measure B.
The discussion below titled "ITEMS UNRESOLVED BY THE AD HOC COMMITTEE".
includes options to address the Ordinance amendments and provisions of the proposed
Regulations on which the Ad Hoc Committee was unable to agree.
AD IOC COMMITTEE CONSENSUS ITEMS
In addition to correcting various typographical errors in the Ordinance, the Ad Hoc
Committee reached consensus on the following items:
1. A property may acquire more than one separate and independent view through
the Ordinance.
2. "Principal residence" should be defined to exclude bathrooms, hallways, garages
and closets.
3. During the course of a hearing, an applicant may be required to amend an
application or provide supplemental materials in specified circumstances.
4. Agreements reached in mediation shall be confirmed by an executed contract
between the parties and will not be implemented or enforced by the City.
5. The CTV may make a finding that although a view exists and is significantly
impaired, restorative action is precluded by specified circumstances (i.e., impacts
G
to the environment or to the privacy of the property on which the objectionable
vegetation is located).
6. "View corridor" should be defined.
7. The ordinance should clarify that complainants bear the cost of initial restorative
action, up to the amount of the lowest bid.
8. The period to implement the initial restorative action should be extended to
reflect field conditions and arborist recommendations.
9. Measure B's retroactivity provision has the effect of invalidating all view
restoration orders issued by the City prior to passage of Measure B.
10. A person is not precluded from applying for view restoration if: a) vegetation on
the applicant's own property contributes to the view impairment; or b) the
applicant previously obtained an order abating impairment of the same view
caused by vegetation on another property.
ITEMS UNRESOLVED BY THE AD HOC COMMITTEE
The Ad Hoc Committee did not agree on recommendations pertaining to the four items
listed below. Alternative options are presented to aid in your deliberation.
1. Should the City be indemnified for its costs and expenses related to litigation
arising from view restoration orders? The Ordinance is silent on this issue.
a. The Issue: The Ordinance grants residents a right to obtain a City
order resolving a view dispute. View impairment decisions are
adjudicatory City actions and therefore may be challenged in Superior
Court by way of a writ of mandamus. The City could incur significant
expenses in defending a lawsuit challenging a view impairment
decision. Currently, the Ordinance is silent as to whether the City or
the person seeking view restoration should bear the costs of defending
litigation challenging a City order resolving a view dispute. In the few
cases that have been filed, the City has defended the litigation at City
expense.
Option 1: If complainants are required to indemnify the City and
reimburse its administrative and legal costs incurred in defending
litigation challenging a City order resolving a view dispute, the primary
benefit would be conserving the City's limited resources. The primary
downside is that the additional financial risk could create a hardship for
some applicants, particularly those on fixed incomes.
0
Option 2: The City shall bear its own costs in defending litigation
challenging a view restoration order. Since its adoption, the Ordinance
has not required indemnification of the City's legal costs, and the City has
not been faced with an excessive number of lawsuits challenging its view
orders.
2. Section 17.26.060(C) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code currently provides a
general rule that the owner of view obstructing vegetation shall bear the cost
and expense of subsequent maintenance of the vegetation required to comply
with a view restoration order. However, Section 17.26.060(D) provides that
the implementation method may be modified if grounds exist. The two
provisions create some uncertainty as to whether subsequent maintenance
costs may be allocated in part to a person seeking to restore a view. The Ad
Hoc Committee members disagree as to whether subsequent maintenance
costs should be borne by the owner of the obstructing vegetation in all cases,
or whether the CTV should have discretion to require an alternate allocation
of subsequent maintenance costs. The two alternatives are set forth in Section
17.26.060(C) of the attached draft ordinance, as well as provided below.
Option 1: Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation in question shall be
performed at the cost and expense of the owner of the property on which
the vegetation is growing, unless the Committee adopts a final decision
providing an alternative cost allocation, which shall be accompanied by
written findings justifying the alternative cost allocation. The vegetation
shall be maintained in accordance with the final decision so as not to allow
for future view impairments.
Option 2: Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation in question shall be
performed at the cost and expense of the owner of the property on which
the vegetation is growing. The vegetation shall be maintained in
accordance with the final decision so as not to allow for future view
impairments.
3. Measure B limits potential view restoration to the view that existed when a
"current owner" "actually acquired the property." What constitutes a change
in ownership affecting the date that an owner "actually acquired" property?
a. The Issue: If a complainant may only acquire the view that existed
when the current owner actually acquired the property, it is important
to identify the circumstances that constitute a change in ownership.
Measure B is silent on this issue. The California Revenue & Taxation
Code (R&T Code) defines a change in ownership for purposes of
property tax reassessment. The City may adopt the definition of a
change in ownership set forth in the R&T Code or adopt a reasonable
alternative definition for purposes of the Ordinance.
5
b. Option A: Adopt the definition of a change in ownership set forth in
the R&T Code. This option will provide certainty to parties, City
officials and staff. However, the definition in the R&T Code excludes
certain transfers that would normally result in a change in ownership,
such as an inheritance by a child from his or her parents if certain
requirements are met. The inheritance exclusion would allow a child
who inherits property to apply to restore the view that his or her
parents enjoyed when the parents acquired the property, if evidence of
the view exists. Other exemptions contained in the R&T Code will
have similar consequences. The hypotheticals below illustrate how the
R&T Code treats the most common transfers of property.
c. Option B: Adopt an alternative definition of a change in ownership.
The alternative definition must be reasonable and certain enough to
place the public on notice as to what view they may seek to restore.
Several alternatives exist. For instance, the City could adopt the
definition of change in ownership set forth in the R&T Code with the
exception of the inheritance exclusion.
Hypothetical A (revocable trust)
Parents purchase a house in 1950. In 1951, they place the house into a revocable trust,
naming themselves as trustees and their children as beneficiaries. In 1990, the parents
die, which has the legal consequence of making the trust irrevocable. The house
remains in the trust until 2000, when the children sell the house on the open market and
share the proceeds.
Transfer
1950 purchase of house
1990 death of parents, which
makes trust irrevocable by
law
2000 sale of house
Not a Transfer
1951 placement of house into
revocable trust
Hypothetical B (irrevocable trust)
Whose View From
When?
Parents, 1950
Children, 1990 (but see
discussion of
Reassessment Exclusion
in Hypo D below)
Buyer, 2000
Parents purchase a house in 1950. In 1955, husband dies. In 1957, widow places house
into irrevocable trust, naming children as beneficiaries. In 1970, widow dies. Children
maintain ownership of the house through the trust and lease the house for 5 year terms.
Transfer
1950 purchase of house
1957 placement of house
into irrevocable trust
Not a Transfer
1955 death of husband
1970 death of widow
Leasing of the house, as long as
each lease term is under 35
years
Hypothetical C (no trust; life estate)
Whose View From
When?
Widow, 1950
Children, 1957 (but see
discussion of
Reassessment Exclusion
in Hypo D below)
Children, 1957
Grandparents purchase a house in 1950 and do not place the house into a trust. In 1980,
grandparents deed house to grandchild with reservation of life estate for the
grandparents' lives. Grandparents die in 2000.
Transfer
1950 purchase of house
2000 death of
grandparents,
ending life estate
Not a Transfer
1980 deed to grandchild because
life estate is reserved
Hypothetical D (no trust; inheritance)
Whose View From
When?
Grandparents, 1950
Grandchild, 2000 (if no
Reassessment Exclusion,
discussed in Hypo D)
Grandchild, 1950 (if
Reassessment Exclusion
applies)
Parents purchase a house in 1950 and do not place the house into a trust or prepare a
will. In 2000, parents die and children inherit house. Alternatively, the same scenario,
but the parties are grandparents and grandchild rather than parents and child.
Transfer
1950 purchase of house
2000 death of parents and
inheritance by children
Not a Transfer
Children, 1950 (if
Reassessment Exclusion
applies)
-7-
Whose View From
When?
Parents, 1950
Children, 2000 (if no
Reassessment Exclusion)
Two voter propositions (Prop. 58 and Prop. 193, effective November 6,1986 and
March 27,1996, respectively, and both codified as R&TC §63.1) authorize transfers of
property between parents and children and grandparents and grandchildren to be
excluded from property tax reassessment; however, the exclusion is not automatic.
Without the exclusion, such a transfer would result in a change in ownership under the
Rev. & Tax Code and the transfer date would serve as the new base year for calculation
of property taxes under Prop. 13. In most cases, the base year change would increase
the property tax assessment. Therefore, Prop. 58 and Prop. 193 authorize an eligible
new owner to opt into the reassessment exclusion. However, because the exclusion is
not automatic (in rare cases, reassessment may have favorable tax consequences or a
transfer may be ineligible for the exclusion), state law does not categorically exempt
transfers by inheritance from changes in ownership.
Reassessment Exclusion Eligibility:
a) The transfer (by sale, gift or inheritance) occurred on or after
November 6,1986;
b) The transferred property was the principal residence of the transferor;
c) The transfer was one of the following: a) from parents to their
children, b) from children to their parents, or c) from grandparents to
their grandchildren;
d) A claim and proof of eligibility was filed with the County Assessor
within three years after the date of the transfer or before the property
was sold to a third party, whichever is earlier.
4. Measure B exempts from the Ordinance "any vegetation which is already
mature at the time any party claiming a view impairment actually acquired
the property" and provides that "mature" and "maturing" shall be defined
by industry standards predominantly accepted by arborists. It has become
apparent that arborists classify trees as "mature" and "maturing" in
numerous ways, resulting in differences of opinion regarding the maturity of
trees at issue in a view impairment complaint. The Ad Hoc Committee
determined that the Sunset Western Garden Book is an authoritative
reference guide for determining whether vegetation is "mature" or
"maturing." That book provides a range of heights at which vegetation is
considered "mature." The Ad Hoc Committee members disagree as to
whether vegetation should be considered "mature" by the City when it
reaches the lowest or average height of the range. The two alternatives are set
forth in Section 3001 of the attached draft Regulations.
Em
FUTURE ACTIONS
The City has been considering updating its view Preservation Ordinance for some time,
and is now faced with ambiguities resulting from Measure B. The Ordinance, as
amended by Measure B, is located in Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, the
Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, it may only be amended pursuant to an ordinance of the
City Council recommended by the Planning Commission. Because the Regulations
affect administration of view impairment cases, the Regulations are being presented to
the Planning Commission concurrent with the draft ordinance.
It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider the attached proposed
amendments to the View Preservation Ordinance and new Regulations interpreting
Measure B, resolve the items upon which the Ad Hoc Committee did not agree, identify
any additional items it would like addressed in the ordinance and Regulations,
schedule a public hearing on the proposed amendments and Regulations, and adopt a
resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Title 17
of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code pertaining to view preservation and Regulations
interpreting Measure B.
C-9-)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Chapter 17.26 - VIEW PRESERVATION
Note: Red underlines reflect proposed amendments to the existing code.
Language deleted appears on the side of the page. Provisions added by
MEASURE B are in boldlitalics and larger font. Provisions not agreed
upon by the Ad Hoc Committee members and to be determined by the
Planning Commission are in YELLOW.
1. SECTION 17.12.220 "V" words, terms and phrases.
CURRENT: "View" means a view from a principal residence and any
immediately adjoining patio or deck area at the same elevation as the residence
which consists of a visually impressive scene or vista not located in the immediate
vicinity of the residence, such as a scene of the Pacific Ocean, off -shore islands,
city lights of the Los Angeles basin, the Palos Verdes Hills or Los Angeles Harbor.
"View impairment" means a significant interference with and obstruction of a
view by landscaping, trees or any other planted vegetation. (No change proposed)
PROPOSED. 17.12.220 "V" words, terms and phrases.
"View" means a view from a principal residence, bui not incl_udino frorn.
batnroorns. hallway s, garages or closets, and any immediately adjoining patio or
deck area at the same elevation as the residence which consists of a visually
impressive scene or vista not located in the immediate vicinity of the residence,
such as a scene of the Pacific Ocean, off -shore islands, city lights of the Los
Angeles basin, the Palos Verdes Hills or Los Angeles Harbor.
DRAFT -
"View corridor- means a view from a designated viewingarea broken into
se gmeats �veetg atioa.
2. Section 17.26.010 (Same as CURREN], except for minor changes
proposed -in red. Words to be deleted are on the side.)
17.26.010 Intent and purpose.
The City recognizes the contribution of views to the overall character and
beauty of the City.' ' iews of the Pacific Ocean, Catalina Island, City lights and
Los Angeles Harbor are a special quality of property ownership for many
residential lots in the City. These views have the potential to be diminished or
eliminated by maturing landscaping located on private property. The purpose of
this chapter is to protect this important community asset by establishing procedures
for the protection ) f v;ekm and abatement of view obstructions created by
landscaping, while at the same time protecting natural vegetation from
indiscriminate removal.
3. 17.26.020 Committee on trees and views.
CURRENT - No changes proposed
A Committee on Trees and Views is established for the purpose of
administering the provisions of this chapter. The Committee shall be composed of
three members of the Planning Commission appointed by the Commission
annually at the same time as the Commission selects its officers, or whenever a
vacancy occurs. Committee meetings shall be scheduled as adjourned or special
meetings of the Commission. The Committee is authorized to consult with City
officials and with specialists such as landscape architects and arborists as required,
2
Deleted: Panoramic
Ddeted: v
- DRAFT -
but shall not incur any expense on behalf of the City without prior approval of the
City Council.
4. 17.26.030 Desirable and undesirable trees.
CURRENT - No changes proposed
The Committee is authorized and directed to prepare lists of types of desirable
and undesirable trees for planting within the City. The list shall be based upon tree
size and shape, rate of growth, depth of roots, fall rate of leaves or bark or fruit or
branches, and other factors related to safety, maintenance and appearance. The
purpose of this provision is to make information available to property owners,
which may serve to avoid future occasion for permits, complaints, and other
proceedings authorized by this chapter.
(Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993).
5. 17.26.040 Abatement of view imuairment Procedure.
CURRENT: 17.26.040 - Abatement of view impairment—Procedure.
Any person who owns or has lawful possession of a residence from which
view is impaired by vegetation growing on property other than their own may seek
abatement of the view impairment under the following procedure:
A. Application Required. The complainant shall submit a complete
application for abatement of view impairment on a form provided by the
City. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as provided for in
Section 1 7.30.030 of this title. The complainant shall describe in the
application what efforts have been made by the complainant to resolve the
3
�7
DRAFT
view impainnent prior to filing the complaint. A complaint shall not be
accepted for filing unless the complainant can demonstrate that the owner
of the view -impairing vegetation has been given notice of the impairment
and a reasonable opportunity to abate it, but has refused to do so.
B. Mediation. Upon receipt and acceptance of an application as complete,
the City Manager shall refer the matter to a mediator for conduct of a
mediation session to abate the view impairment. The mediator shall be
responsible for notifying the property owner of the view -impairing
vegetation of the application and for scheduling and managing the
mediation process. If agreement is reached through mediation, it shall be
implemented in accordance with Section 17.26.060
C. Public Hearing. In the event mediation fails to achieve agreement, the
matter shall be returned to the City Manager, who shall schedule the matter
for a public hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views.
(Ord. 292 §5, 2003; Ord. 239 §11(par!), 1993).
PROPOSED:
17.26.040 Abatement of view irnnairment—Procedure
Any person who owns or has lawful possession of a residence from which a.
view is impaired, pi rsuant to the definition of "view impairment" in Section
1.7. i 2_.220 of this title vegetation growing on property other than their own may
seek abatement of the view impairment under the following procedure:
A. Mediation Application. The complainant shall submit a complete
application for abatement of view impairment ,� uu,, on a form odea: Required
provided by the City. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as
4
I@]
- DRAFT -
provided for in Section 17.30.030 of this title. The complainant shall
describe in the application what efforts have been made by the
complainant to resolve the view impairment prior to filing then ion _
applic�lticn. An aplemic:tion Shall not be accepted for filing unless the
complainant can demonstrate that the owner of the view -impairing
vegetation has been given notice of the impairment and a reasonable
opportunity to abate it, but has refused to do so.
B. Eligibility. A person shall not be- precluded _from filing anapplication ibr
abatement of a view impairin itt on p,,roitnds that vegt tatipn located on
the complainant'sproverty contl-ibutes to impairment of the requested
viow._ A person who has obtained an order abAdn impairment of a view
afainst a prop illy shill not be precluded from filing a stlbsequcnt
application to abate inwairment of'the sante view by ycgtit tioq on
anothQr prta! rty_,_An ap.plication may_l�fled to abate imPairatent of
one or more distinct v_it;ws_ listed in Section 17.12.220- "View;" howeyer,
if multiple views are identified.` each must. be.dislointedand observable
from a straw viewingarea.
C. Mediation. Upon receipt and acceptance of an application as complete,
the City Manager shall refer the matter to a mediator for conduct of a
mediation session to abate the view impairment. The mediator shall be
responsible for notifying the property owner of the view -impairing
vegetation of the application and for scheduling and managing the
mediation process. At the conclusion of mediation, themediator shall
advise the City Manager alto whether the complaint has been resolved,
,AgLL ement�eached through mediation, be reflected in an executed
J
Deleted: complaint
Deleted: complaint
`-
Deleted:
q4 I
�ha!11 W.11i1+ £csa� 7 i ::1 i }Fi = ;ice Pt d
- DRAFT -
contract and implemented in accordance with the terms of the kf,rcement.
D. Public Hearing Application- In the event mediation fails to achieve
agreement, the complainant nfay subunit an application and
1Ieconapanving Vas provided for in Section 17.30_030 of this title for a
public hearing, [ fpon receipt and iccepta nee of an application for
public hearit�g_as cRmote. the City Manager shall schedule the matter
for a public hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views. if P.
complete application fora public hearing is not received within 30 days
of the mediator's notification set iorth iif_Sectio_n_17.2h.040(C. the City
shall terminate all proceedings related to the application.
6. 17.26.050 Hearing procedure and findings.
CURRENT:
A. Notice Required. Public notice of the hearing shall be given a minimum
of fifteen days prior to the hearing. The hearing shall not proceed unless
proof is shown that the owner of the tree or other obstructing vegetation
received notice of the hearing as provided herein:
1. Notice shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, to
the owner of the tree or other obstructing vegetation and to the
complainant;
2. Notice shall be given by first class mail to all property owners
within one thousand feet of the exterior boundary of the property
on which the tree or other obstructing vegetation are located and to
other persons who, in the Committee's judgment, might be
affected.
6
01
Deleted: Section 17.26.060
LOWMIRM12
Deleted: the matter shall be returned to
f:
Deleted: , who
- DRAFT -
B. Content of Notice. The notice shall state the name of the complaining
party, the name of the property owner against whom the complaint is
filed, the Iocation of the tree or other vegetation, and the time and place
of hearing. The notice shall invite written comments to be submitted prior
to or at the hearing.
C. Conduct of Hearing. The Committee shall adopt rules for the conduct of
required hearings. At the hearing, the Committee shall consider all
written and oral testimony and evidence presented in connection with the
application. In the event the Committee requires expert advice in
consideration of the matter, the cost of obtaining such evidence shall be
borne by the complainant, pursuant to written agreement with the City.
D. Findings. Based on the evidence received and considered, the
Committee may find any of the following:
1. That no view exists within the meaning of this chapter;
2. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter, but that
the view is not significantly impaired; or
3. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter and that it
is significantly impaired.
The Committee shall make specific written findings in support of the
foregoing determinations.
E. Action. If the Committee makes finding subsection (D)(3) of this section,
it shall order such restorative action as is necessary to abate the view impairment
and to restore the complainants view, including, but not limited to, removal,
pruning, topping, thinning or similar alteration of the vegetation. Such order is
7
- DRAFT -
not intended to create an unobstructed view for applicants. Instead it is
intended to create view corridors and a view through trees. The
Committee may impose conditions as are necessary to prevent future view
impairments. In no event shall restorative action be required if such action would
adversely affect the environment or would unreason -ably detract from the privacy
or enjoyment of the property on which the objectionable vegetation is located.
F. Finality of Decision. The Committee's decision shall be final twenty
days after adoption of its written findings, unless it is appealed to the City
Council pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.54
{Ord. 295 §7 (Exh. B (part)), 2004, Ord. 23.9 §11 (part), 1993) (Ord. No. 333
(Measure B), 3-18-2013)
PROPOSED: (No changes are proposed to current language in Paragraph A, B
and D from above)
17.26.050 Hearing procedure and findines.
C. Conduct of Hearing. The Committee shall adopt rules for the conduct
of required hearings. At the hearing, the Committee shall consider all written
and oral testimony and evidence presented in connection with the
application. rfdurinr* the course of the proceed n s it is discovered that
in�forination submitted in an application is inaccurate or incomplete such that
it could be misleadin14, or a significant change has occurred impactinff eithcr
the view or the obstruction, an applicant may bedirected. to amend the
application or submit
.$u�plernental inforrPation. In the event the Committee
requires expert advice in consideration of the matter, the cost of obtaining
such evidence shall be borne by the complainant, pursuant to written
101
J .7 :x_ ;h
agreement with the City. An application shall be deemed withdrawn and all
proceedings shall be terminated with respect L reto if th_oarties to a
co_ mint notify the City tliat it has been Vol unt`grily resolved gr the
colpplainant requests a May of the D c,c edings for more than one hundred
eight`, (18 ftdays unless good cause -exist-, for the delay.
E. Action. If the Committee makes finding subsection (D)(3) of this
section, it shall order such restorative action as is necessary to abate the view
impairment, including, but not limited to, removal, pruning, topping,
thinning or similar alteration of the vegetation. Such order is not
intended to create an unobstructed view for applicants. Instead it
is intended to create view corridors and a view through trees The
Committee may impose conditions as are necessary to prevent future view
impairments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, 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. Ifrestorative action is
precluded b the lie ex.istenee of one or more_such limiting factors the
Committee shall make specificwritten findings to that effect.
F. Environmental Review. If the Committee makes f ndina subsection
(DX3J of this section and orders restorative action. the proposed order shall
be reviewedbyCity staff to determine the appropriate level of
environmental review. If the action is determined to be exeilipthorn the
California_ Environmental Qualm Act "Ct"QA7� a resolution containinu the
Committee's written findings shall bet_rg�;daopn I�.isthe
Oq
Deleted: or
Delet2d: and to restore the complainant's view
- DRAFT -
Committee's next me„ in . If the action is determined not to N exempi
from CEOA, the complain ►nt shall bear the Ci 's reasonable costs of
environmental review and CEQA compliance, including consultant fees.
G. Finality of Decision. The Committee's decision shall be final on the.
date the Committee adopts a resolution setting #orih_itsdecision. The
decision shall become effective thir"ays after adoption oflbq resolutign,
unless an appeal has been f led,to_the City Council pursuant to the provisions
of Chapter 17.54. For -purposes of such nn app -cal, references in the Planning
Commission in Chapter 17.54 shall be interpreted as inclusive of the
C',ommiitve on Trees and Views.
7. 17.26.060 Implementation of restorative action.
CURRENT:
A. Within thirty days of a final decision ordering restorative action, the
complainant shall obtain and present to the owner of the obstructing vegetation
three bids from licensed and qualified contractors for performance of the work, as
well as a cash deposit in the amount of the lowest bid. In order to qualify, the
contractors must provide insurance which protects and indemnifies the City and the
complainant from damages attributable to negligent or wrongful performance of
the work. Any such insurance shall be subject to the approval of the City.
B. The owner of the obstructing vegetation may select any licensed and
qualified contractor to perform the restorative action (as long as the insurance
requirements of subsection A of this section are satisfied), but shall be
responsible for any cost above the amount of the cash deposit. The work shall be
completed no more than thirty days from receipt of the cash deposit.
io
Deleted: twenty
Deleted: its written findings
Deleted: it is appealed
- DRAFT -
C. Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation in question shall be performed
as prescribed by the Committee's final decision at the cost and expense of the
owner of the property on which the vegetation is growing. The vegetation shall
be maintained in accordance with the final decision so as not to allow for future
view impairments. A notice of the decision shall be recorded against the title of
the property and shall run with the land, thereby giving notice of this obligation
to all future owners.
D. The implementation method provided for in this section may be modified
by the parties or in any final decision if grounds exist to justify such a
modification. In particular, the Committee may allocate the cost of restorative
action as follows:
1. If the Committee finds that the tree or other vegetation constitutes a
safety hazard to the complainant or his property, and is being maintained by
the owner in disregard of the safety of others, the owner may be required to
pay one hundred percent of the cost of correction; or
2. If the owner is maintaining a hedge fifteen feet or more in height, the
Committee may allocate the cost of correction to the property owner,
provided that the owner of the land on which the hedge exists shall not be
required to pay more than twenty-five percent of the cost of such
correction.
(Ord. 239 §11 (part). 1.993).
PROPOSED:
17.26.060 Implementation of restorative action.
A. : tic complainant shall hear the cost o.'.the initial restorative action..
M
0-M
- DRAFT -
Within thirty days of a final decision ordering restorative action, the
complainant shall obtain and present to the owner of the obstructing
vegetation three bids from Iicensed and qualified contractors for
performance of the work, as well as a cash deposit in the amount of the
lowest bid. In order to qualify, the contractors must provide insurance
which protects and indemnifies the City and the complainant from
damages attributable to negligent or wrongful performance of the work.
Any such insurance shall be subject to the approval of the City.
B. The owner of the obstructing vegetation may select any licensed and
qualified contractor to perform the restorative action (as long as the
insurance requirements of subsection A of this section are satisfied), but
shall be responsible for any cost above the amount of the cash deposit.
The work shall be completed no more than,i i ormdays from receipt of
the cash depositor if addition.tl time is neceCsary due to weather or.
unique conditions_ of the. vegetation, at the earliest_dato recommended by
the contractor and approved b}r the City Man eget .
c. OPTION I_Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation in question shall
be performed at the cost and expense of the owner of the property on
which the vegetation is growing -unless the Committee adopts a final
decision proyiding an alternative cost allocation. which shall be.
aceprapgnied by written findin;s1ustifving the altertlativQ cost allocation.
The vegetation shall be maintained in accordance with the final decision
so as not to allow for future view impairments.
OPTION 2: Subseq_ucnt maintenance_ of_ the v_egetatiou in question shall
beperformed at the cost and e pi tnse of the owner of the proVerty un
12
:1«18.1-0 5,05 APA
Deleted: as prescribed by the Committees
final decision Fp
- DRAFT -
which the yeg Cation is growin .Tie vfgetation shall be maintained in
accordance with the final decision so as not to allow for future view
impairments_
1
Deleted: A notice of the decision shall be
recorded against the title of the property and
S. 17.26.070 Enforcement. No change proposed. (Reference added to the
shall run with the land, thereby giving notice of
this obligation to all future owners.
nuisance chapter of the RHMQ
�l
Deleted: <9>The implementation method
provided for in this section may be modified '
CURRENT:
by the parties or in any final decision if �
grounds exist to justify such a modification,
In particular, the Committee may allocate the i
A. Failure or refusal of any person to comply with a final decision under this
cost ofrestorativeaction iftheCommittee
finds that the tree or other vegetation ;
chapter or to comply with an provision of this chapter shall constitute a
p p Y Y p P
constitutes a safety hazard to the complainant
or his property, and is being maintained by
the owner in disregard of the safety of others,
misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars or six
the owner may be required to pay one
hundred percent of the cost of eorrecti [t)
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
B. A final decision rendered under this chapter may be enforced civilly by way of
action for injunctive or other appropriate relief, in which event the prevailing
party may be awarded attorney's fees and costs as determined by the court.
C. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the prosecution of any civil cause of
action under the law by any person with respect to the matters covered herein.
(Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993),
9. 17.26.080 Notification of subsequent owners.
CURRENT: The owner on whose property the offending vegetation exists
shall notify all successor owners of the final decision in any proceeding under this
13
DRAFT -
chapter, and such decision shall be binding upon all such successors in interest.
Within thirty days of the final decision, an informational covenant shall be
recorded against the title of the property on a form provided by the City.
(Ord. 239 § l l (part), 1993).
PROPOSED:
17.26.080 Notification of subseauent owners.
Within thirt days of the final decision oftile Cos>tmittee, or the City
Council on appeal an informational covenant shall be recorded against the title of
the property on which the offendint�vegetation exists and the complainant's
rroperty,_on a form provided by the City. vvhigb shill run with t_he land and be
bindingupnn_all successors in interost,
17.26.090 (PER MEASURE B -No change proposed)
CURRENT:
17.26.090 - Preservation of views definers.
Notwithstanding any other provision of Clrd 226010 to
17.26080 inclusive, the following provision shall apply and supersede
in priority any other provision.
1. A view is defined in Chapter [Section] IZ12 O and only
applies to that view existing from the date any current owner of
a property in the City of Rolling actually acquired the property.
2. Chapter /Section] 17.26,01(1 provides that the intent of the
14
Deleted:
Deleted: The owner on whose propeRy the !
offending vegetation exists shall notify all successor
owners of the final decision in any proceeding under I
this chapter, and such decision shall be binding upon
all such successors in interest. 1
- DRAFT
Ordinance is to protect views from "maturing" vegetation. As
such, in addition to the limitations otherwise set forth in
Cha ter I Z2b; including but limited to this Section I Z26.�9Q,
any vegetation which is already mature at the time any party
claiming a view impairment actually acquired the property shall
be exempt from Chapter 17 26_. "Mature" versus "Maturing"
shall be defined by industry standards predominantly accepted
by arborists.
3. The burden of proof to show that any view is impaired shall
be upon the party claiming such impairment, and the standard
shall be by "clear and convincing evidence". Evidence shall be
weighted in the following order of priority:
a. Photographs,
b. Expert testimony; and lastly
c. Other evidence
(Ord. No. 333 (,Veasure B), 3-18-2013)
Editor's note
—
Ord. No. 333 (Measure B) which added the provisions set out herein, was adopted
March 18, 2013, as a result of a vote of the electorate and thus cannot be changed
except by another vote. Said ordinance states, "This_ Iection 17.26.090 shall be
effective retroactively to the date Chapter 17.26 was first made an Ordinance to the
15
- DRAFT -
City of Rolling Hills."
TO BE DECIDED:
Section 17.26.I00 Indemnification
1. Should the Citi be indemnified for its costs and expenses related to
litigation arising from view restoration orders? The Ordinance is silent
on this issue.
a. The Issue: The Ordinance grants residents a right to obtain a City
order resolving a view dispute. View impairment decisions are
adjudicatory City actions and therefore may be challenged in
Superior Court by way of a writ of mandamus. The City could
incur significant expenses in defending a lawsuit challenging a
view impairment decision. Currently, the Ordinance is silent as to
whether the City or the person seeking view restoration should
bear the costs of defending litigation challenging a City order
resolving a view dispute. In the few cases that have been filed, the
City has defended the litigation at City expense.
Option A: If complainants are required to indemnify the City and
reimburse its administrative and legal costs incurred in defending
litigation challenging a City order resolving a view dispute, the
primary benefit would be conserving the City's limited resources.
]6
- DRAFT -
The priniary challenge is that the additional financial risk could create
a hardship for some applicants, particularly those on fixed incomes.
Option B. The City shall bear its own costs in defending litigation
challenging a vie -vv restoration order. Since its adoption, the
Ordinance has not required indemnification of the City's legal costs,
and the City has not been faced with an excessive number of lawsuits
challenging its view orders.
17
Page 13: [11 Deleted Shahiedah Coates 11/24/1411:29AM
The implementation method provided for in this section may
be modified by the parties or in any final decision if grounds
exist to justify such a modification. In particular, the .
Committee may allocate the cost of restorative action if the
Committee finds that the tree or other vegetation constitutes
a safety hazard to the complainant or his property, and is
being maintained by the owner in disregard of the safety of
others, the owner may be required to pay one hundred
percent of the cost of correction.
If the owner is maintaining a hedge fifteen feet or more in height, the
Committee may allocate the cost of correction to the property owner,
provided that the owner of the land on which the hedge exists shall not be
required to pay more than twenty-five percent of the cost of such correction.
Hrt�
q4 Yd INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No: 4-A
Mtg. Date: 08-09=12
TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF LANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ANTON DAHLERBRUCH, CITY MANAGER Pki
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIREC
SUBJECT: VIEW ORDINANCE
DATE: JULY 13, 2012
ATTACHMENTS.
1. Rolling Hills
Municipal Code Sections 17.12 and 17.26
"Maintaining Scenic Views in Rolling Hills" FAQ
Complaint Application
1987188 Planning Commission minutes
1988 City Council minutes
Matrix of View cases
RHCA View Policy
2. Other Municipal View Ordinances
Beverly Hills
Laguna Beach
Rancho Palos Verdes
Rolling Hills Estates
Sausalito
Tiburon
3. Correspondence
From Mr. Gill
March 24 email "Chapter 17.26 View Preservation
April 11 email "VPO"
April 22 email "Draft view ordinance revision'
April 27 email "Results of Trees and Views Survey"
July 24 email "Planning Commission Public Forum on View Preservation —
August 9 7 PM"
From Mrs. Greenberg
March 20 letter to Planning Department/Committee on Trees & Views
From Mr. Dahlerbruch
March 30 letter to Mr. Gill
March 30 fetter to Mrs. Greenberg
4. Ballot Measure for March 2013
Title and Summary
Ordinance language
5. legal
Murrell v. Rolling Hills Community Association
Echevarrieta v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Bishop v. Hanes
"Response to legal concerns raised regarding view preservation ordinance" prepared
by Elizabeth M. Calciano, Asst. City Attorney
V11
RECOMMENDATION
At its regular meeting of June 25, the City Council directed that the Commission review
the City's View Ordinance (Municipal Code Sections 17.12.220 and 17.26) and consider
whether to recommend changes to the Ordinance in light of two recent contentious View
Ordinance proceedings (one of which is still pending) and an initiative petition seeking
amendment to the Ordinance that has recently qualified for the ballot. At this meeting, it
is recommended that the Planning Commission receive public comment on the subject
matter and inform staff whether it desires any gdditionai documentation or answers to
specific questions. Time permitting, the Planning Commission may desire to begin
discussing the City's existing ordinance in relation to possible modifications. Staff
recommends that this matter then be continued to a future meeting for further
consideration. Topics for consideration are listed below.
BACKGROUND
In March 1988, after 9 meetings and hearing approximately 93 public comments, the
Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt an ordinance addressing
Views. The following June, after 5 meetings and approximately 22 additional public
comments, the City Council adopted the View Ordinance that in substantial form
remains the same today. Some of the residents who participated in the public process
24 years ago are the same residents who have recently expressed comments about
Views. Many of the issues and concerns, on both sides of the topic, also remain the
same.
Adoption of the View ordinance by the City Council reflected a value judgment that
Views are a significant feature of the community. Since the adoption of the ordinance,
the City has received thirteen (13) complaint applications, of which: three (3) were
resolved through mediation, two (2) were withdrawn and resolved privately, two (2)
outcomes are not known because the files are incomplete, two (2) were resolved by the
Committee on Trees and Views, and four (4) were appealed to and addressed by the
City Council. Of the six (6) total cases that went through the public process (Committee
on Trees and Views/City Council), it was found in one case that there was "no
significant view impairment" and thus, no action was directed. In two cases, a total of
eight (8) trees were identified for removal along with tree trimming. In two of the cases,
only tree trimming was directed. And, in the most recent case adjudicated by the
Committee, approximately 20% (22 trees) of the subject landscaping were identified for
removal, approximately 50% (55 trees) were subject to trimming and approximately
30% (31 trees) required no action. This case is currently on appeal to the City Council.
In only one instance has a party to a View proceeding challenged a final decision of the
City Council; that case is currently pending in Superior Court.
All the case files are available for public review at City Hall.
REVIEW OF ORDINANCE MODELS'
A number of jurisdictions throughout the State have passed ordinances providing
protection for private views. The speck legislative approach taken varies rather
greatly from jurisdiction. Two view preservation ordinance models on either end of the
spectrum are the Tiburon Model, which provides for a private right of action for
enforcement, and the Rancho Palos Verdes model, which provides for a local agency
review and permitting system. Both models have been the subjects of published cases
in the Court of Appeals. Some other jurisdictions, like Sausalito and Laguna Beach,
have chosen a hybrid approach that are also discussed below.
Private Cause of Action—The Tiburon Model
The Town of Tiburon in Marin County has sought to preserve the views of its
homeowners by creating a privately enforceable right to "preserve views or sunlight
which existed at any time since they purchased or occupied a property from
unreasonable obstruction by the growth of trees." TMC § 15-1(a)(1).. Property owners
are therefore forbidden to allow their foliage to unreasonably block the protected views
of others, see § TMC 154(a), and homeowners are given standing to sue them if they
violate this rule. See § TMC 15-3.
This right is conditioned, however, upon the homeowner's completion of several dispute
resolution attempts prior to litigation. Thus, a person who wants to require a neighbor to
trim, top, or remove foliage that has obstructed his or her view must first engage in
informal discussions with the neighbor to resolve the issue. See § TMC 15-9. Upon
proof that such talks have failed, the homeowner must attempt to engage his or her
neighbor in non-binding mediation. If this should fail, he or she may then attempt to
engage in binding arbitration. See TMC § 15-11. Only if should this too fail, or the
foliage owner refuses to participate, is the homeowner authorized to litigate the issue.
See § TMC 15-12.
The Tiburon ordinance provides that all costs of mediation and arbitration are to be split
evenly between the complaining homeowner and the foliage owner, unless the parties
agree otherwise or permit the mediator or arbitrator to apportion the costs differently.
See TMC § 15-13. The costs of any eventual litigation are to be apportioned by the
judgment of the court or settlement agreement. Lastly the cost of any restorative
action (i.e., trimming, topping, or removing offending foliage) is "jtjo be determined by
mutual agreement, or through mediation, arbitration, court judgment or settlement." id.
The result of the private litigation model and these provisions is that the city bears little if
any administrative costs in its attempt to preserve the right of its citizens to enjoy their
scenic views.
The primary advantage to a local government of the Tiburon model is financial.
Because it simply creates a privately enforceable right, it ideally achieves the goals of
1 Jenkins & Hogin provided staff the following information regarding the various types of view
preservation/restoration ordinances in place around the state.
preserving and restoring views without greatly adding to a municipality's administrative
or litigation costs. The costs of both resolving the issue and any restorative action are
instead bom by the private parties. This results in an efficient outcome by encouraging
parties to enforce their rights under the ordinance only when they most value them,
thereby discouraging petty disputes.
The largest drawback to the Tiburon model is that a private enforcement mechanism
necessarily cedes control of local land use decisions to the courts because, although
the ordinance sets out specific standards for which foliage should be found to be
violating the law, see TMC § 15-8 (describing a preferred hierarchy of restorative
actions), the ultimate determination of rights and the extent of any required corrective
action will be made by a mediator, an arbitrator, or the court and not by the municipality.
The extent to which this is a real concern will necessarily vary on two conditions: the
extent to which a municipality wishes to control land uses in its jurisdiction, and the
scope of disputes arising under the newly created right. For example, a city may care
not to be involved in a simple dispute between two neighbors over a single pine tree.
The City of Westlake Village has taken a similar approach with its view preservation
ordinance.
2. Local Review & Permitting System - The RPV Model.
In contrast to the Tiburon Model, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) has created
two view recovery procedures; one to Preserve" views which existed at the time their
Ordinance became effective (November 1989) and the other procedure to "Restore" a
view that existed at the time the affected view lot was legally created. See generally
RPVMC § 17.02.040 et seq. The City's Planning Commission administers the View
Restoration Permit process and with this process the homeowners are not given
standing to enforce any rights in private litigation. Under the View Preservation
Application process, foliage owners are required to maintain their foliage at the same
height that it was in November 1989 or thereafter and the burden of proof rests with the
property owners whose views have become significantly impaired. The RPV ordinance
also differs from the Tiburon model by accounting for the impact on protected views of
both new development as well as foliage growth. The system is thus bifurcated with
one procedure for reviewing height variance requests, and another for permits to
remove offending foliage.
The RPV system for issuing permits to remove foliage that blocks a protected view is
unique. Under the system, both for "Preservation" of view and "Restoration" of view a
resident or homeowner whose view has become impaired must first attempt to consult
with the foliage owner and, upon proof of failure to resolve the issue privately, may then
apply to the City. The City's View Restoration Commission reviews applications for a
view restoration permit and City staff reviews applications for view preservation permit
under its code enforcement ability. Once an application is filed for view restoration, the
Commission then holds a noticed hearing on the matter and issues a permit to have the
foliage removed, altered, or replaced if it makes six findings, including that the foliage
significantly impairs a view from the applicant's viewing area and that any change will
not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the property
upon which the foliage is located. See RPVMC § 17.02.040(C)(2)(a) and RPVMC §
17.02.040(C)(2)(c). The applicant, fofiaae nwner, or any other affected party may
appeal this decision to the city council. See RPVMC § 17.02.040(C)(2)(g). Execution of
the permit is provided for as follows:
[T]he [planning] director shall send a notice to the property owner to trim, cull, lace or
otherwise cause the foliage to be reduced to sixteen feet or the ridge line of the
primary structure, whichever is lower, or such limit above that height which' will
restore the view. The applicant shall be responsible for the expense of the foliage
removal and/or replacement ordered pursuant to this subsection only to the extent of
the lowest bid amount provided by contractors licensed to do such work in the city of
Rancho Palos Verdes and selected by the applicant. If after ninety calendar days
the foliage has not been removed, the city of Rancho Palos Verdes will authorize a
bonded tree service to trim, cull, lace or remove the identified foliage at the owner's
expense. After the initial trimming, culling, lacing or removal of the foliage, the
owner, at the owners expense, shall be responsible for maintaining the foliage so
that the view restoration required by the view restoration permit is maintained. §
RPVMC 47.02.040(C)(2)(d).
The RPV ordinance's cost -shifting provision thus differs from the Tiburon model in
placing almost all the costs of restorative actions on the party asserting the right to a
protected view. It also differs in explicitly allowing the city agent to enter the premises
and complete the task if the foliage owner refuses to comply with the permit order.
The RPV model puts the city in the position of enforcing rights afforded by the view
preservation ordinance. Appointed members of the View Restoration Committee
determine which trees create an obstruction and what restorative measures are
involved, with the city council sitting as the forum for appeals. The -degree of control
ceded to the courts is thus limited to mandamus review of city decisions.
This degree of local control necessarily comes at a price, however. First, although the
RPV model shifts the costs of restorative actions to the party asserting the view
restoration right, it costs a city money to establish and administer the permitting system.
It is possible, however, to recoup some administrative costs with permitting fees.
Second, such a system potentially subjects the city itself to litigation.
3. Hybrid Models—Laguna Beach and Sausalito
In between the purely private litigation established by the Tiburon Model and the wholly
municipal permitting scheme of the RPV model, there are a range of options available.
The cities of Laguna Beach and Sausalito have both opted to adopt the basic structure
of the Tiburon Model (reconciliation, mediation, arbitration, and litigation), but have
inserted local governmental action at some point prior to litigation.
Thus, in Laguna Beach a property owner is eligible to file a complaint/application in
order to preserve a reasonable amount of view which existed after either the property
acquisition date or the effective date of the ordinance, whichever is later, After the
complainant has unsuccessfully tried to resolve the issue on his or her own, the issue
must be presented to a Tree/View Review Equity Evaluation (TREE) Board prior to
attempts at mediation, arbitration, litigation. See Laguna Beach Municipal Code
(LBMC) § 12.16.060. The TREE Board Ids a noticed hearing and issues findings as
1
to whether the complainant's view is unreasonably blocked and if so what corrective
action should be taken. See LBMC § 12.16.080. The decision of the board is non-
binding, however, and participation in the hearing is not mandatory. A tree owner's
failure to participate may, however, be brought to the court's attention in any
subsequent litigation.
The Laguna Beach ordinance thus combines both the private litigation model of the
Tiburon ordinance and the municipal review of the RPV model. it may thus impose
more administrative costs on the city than the Tiburon model, but does not subject it to
further direct litigation.
Sausalito's ordinance also follows the basic Tiburon model, but entails more municipal
involvement than the Laguna Beach ordinance. A property owner in Sausalito may file
an application for view preservation that existed at the time of purchase of the property.
The ordinance also is clear that the owner is eligible for a not a panoramic view. Like
the Tiburon model, the complainant must first attempt to resolve a view dispute through
informal meetings, mediation, and arbitration. See Sausalito Municipal Code (SMC) §
11.12.040(B). At the arbitration phase, however, the city's Trees and Views Committee
acts as the arbitrator at a noticed hearing, the outcome of which is binding on the
parties. See SMC § 11.12.040(B)(3). Sausalito's ordinance further deviates from the
Tiburon model by requiring parties who forgo arbitration to solicit a Fact Finding and
Advisory Decision of the Trees and Views Committee before proceeding to litigation.
See SMC § 11.12.040(B)(4). Like the decision of Laguna Beach's TREE Board, this
decision is non-binding, and either party may subsequently pursue litigation. Unlike
the Laguna Beach ordinance, however, the Sausalito ordinance purports to create a
rebuttable presumption in such litigation that the decision of the Trees and Views
Committee is correct, thus shifting the burden to the party pursuing litigation to show
otherwise. The Sausalito ordinance, then, creates a private right of action but also
attempts to maintain a large degree of municipal control over the final view preservation
outcome by entrenching its opinion via arbitration or an advisory opinion combined with
a rebuttable presumption.
Generally speaking, considering the various options, the greater control a city wants to
exert over view preservation disputes, the greater the costs it will incur from
administration and litigation.
DISCUSSION — TOPICS FOR CONSIDERATION
Rolling Hills essentially has a hybrid View ordinance that aligns more closely with the
Rancho Palos Verdes model. For discussion of possible modifications to the ordinance,
the Planning Commission may want to:
1. Consider if the existing ordinance is appropriate for the community or, what
alternative model should be adopted? Should the City have a View ordinance?
2. Consider whether "restore" and "restorative action" should be defined more
clearly or replaced with another term.
3. Consider whether to modify the Ordinance by adding a time from which the view
is considered protected.
3. Address whether "view" should be defined as "corridor" views or panoramic views
or some other criteria.
4. Consider including a procedure to recover costs for completing CEQA review
when necessary;
5. Whether there is another mechanism for handling the funds rather than the
Complainant providing the funds to the homeowner to remove the trees;
6. Whether additional factors should be added to Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RH)
§ 17.26.060 to clarify the Committee's discretion regarding how to apportion the costs of
initial removal and subsequent maintenance
7. Fix typographical error in RH § 17.26.010; the fourth sentence should read: "The
purpose of this chapter is to protect this important community asset by establishing
procedures for the protection of views and abatement of view obstructions created by
landscaping ..."
8. Whether more than one viewing area should be considered for view preservation,
and if so, what criteria should be employed.
9. Consider whether the ordinance should require the complainant to indemnify the
City against any legal challenge.
10. Should there be consideration of trees located on properties beyond the adjacent
property of the complaining party.
0-1�s
OTHER RELATIVE INFORMATION
The City of Rolling Hills together With the rest of the Peninsula Cities has been
designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). As such, the Fire
Department is strongly recommending that Eucalyptus Trees and Pine Trees not be
planted and when possible removed. In addition, with every new development and
substantial addition, the Fire Department Forestry Division reviews landscaping plans
for fuel modification zones" requiring that only certain plants be planted within certain
distances to a structure. Very few trees may be planted within one hundred feet of a
structure, which do not include Eucalyptus or Pine Trees.
Recognizing that views are a desirable asset of properties, the City has been placing a
condition on most of its discretionary approved cases which require that any new trees,
if a part of the landscaping scheme, be of a type that at maturity do not exceed the ridge
height of the structure.
FISCAL IMPACT
Corresponding with the new 2012113 fiscal year, the complaint and processing fees for
a view impairment complaint was increased to more fully reflect the administrative cost
of providing the service. The current fee structure is reflected in the attached "complaint
application."
If the City Council chooses a different model of enforcement, or chooses to require
indemnification from the property owner, the fiscal impacts from potential litigation could
be significantly decreased. Further, changes ultimately adopted by the City Council that
affect the City's administrative procedures may result a modification to the fees.
NOTIFICATION
Notice of this meeting to inform the community was included in two City newsletters.
CONCLUSION
When the Planning Commission has identified specific changes it desires to consider as
modifications to the existing View ordinance, staff will prepare a Resolution for approval
recommending an ordinance modification to the City Council.
AD:hl
View Ordinance staff neportAm
9
Summary Matrix of View Ordinances
City Beverly Laguna Rancho Rolling Sausalito Tiburon Rolling
Hills Beach Palos Hills Hills
Owners have x x x x x
private cause of
action
Liability & x x x x
Indemnification
City Summary Matrix oFView Ordinaeces.d=
August 2012
(D3-+
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
�r
NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310)377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC FORUM ON VIEW PRESERVATION
STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT
#2
OTHER MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES
City of Beverly Hills
Article 1. Trousdale Estates View Restoration i
10-8-101: Purpose And Intent
10$-102: Definitions
10-8-103: Exemption
10-8-104: Procedures
10-8-105: Continuation Of Process After Agreement
10-8-106: View Restoration rmi
10-8-107: Decisions Intended To Run With The lmd: Disclosure
10-8-108: ,Private Rieht Of Action: Subsenuent Enforcement By View OwnerApd Attomev Fcf&
10-8-109: Landscape Standards
10-8-110: Aionment Of Costs
10-8-101: PURPOSE AND INTENT:
The intent of this article is to restore and preserve certain views from substantial disruption by the growth of
privately owned trees, vegetation, or a combination thereof while providing for residential privacy and security;
maintaining the garden quality of the city; ensuring the safety and stability of the hillsides; and, acknowledging the
importance of trees and vegetation in the city as an integral part of a sustainable environment. It is the further intent
to establish a process by which residential property owners in Trousdale Estates may seek to restore and preserve
certain views, with an emphasis on early neighbor resolution of view restoration issues. It is also the intent of this
article to educate residents to consider the potential to block neighbors' views before planting foliage and in
maintaining foliage. It is not the intent of this article to create an expectation that any particular view or views would
be restored or preserved. (Ord. 11-0-2616, eff. 1-6-2012)
I
10-8-102: DEFINITIONS:
Unless the context otherwise requires, the definitions set forth in this section shall govern the construction of this
article:
ARBORIST: An individual certified as an arborist by the International Society Of Arboriculture (ISA), or an
individual who is currently listed as a consulting arborist by the American Society Of Consulting Arborists (ASCA),
CITY ADVISORY OPINION: A nonbinding opinion rendered by the director of community development or his/her
designee, to a view owner who requests such an opinion and pays a fee as set by the city council.
DAMAGE: Any action which may cause death or significant injury to a tree, or which places the tree in a hazardous
condition or an irreversible state of decline. Such action may be taken by, but is not limited to, cutting, topping,
girdling, poisoning, trenching, grading, or excavating within the drip line of the tree.
FOLIAGE: The aggregate of leaves, branches and trunks of one or more plants. Trees and hedges, including hedges
that otherwise meet the standards of the zoning code, are included in the definition of foliage.
FOLIAGE OWNER: An owner of real property in Trousdale Estates upon which is located foliage that is subject to
an action filed pursuant to this article and which property is within five hundred feet (500') of a view owner's
property. "Foliage owner" shall reference one or more owners of the same property.
FORESTER: An individual licensed in California as a registered professional forester (RPF).
HEDGE: Shall have the same meaning as set forth in section 10-3-100 of this title.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: A landscape architect registered by the state of California.
PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE: The main structure or building on a site zoned for residential use and
used or occupied as a private ane -family residence.
PROTECTABLE VIEW: A protectable view may include any view of the Los Angeles area basin from a "viewing
area" as defined in this section. The view of the Los Angeles area basin may include, but is not limited to, city lights
(Beverly Hills and other cities), ocean, and horizon. The term "protectable view" does not mean an unobstructed
panorama of all or any of the above. For purposes of this section, a protectable view shall be determined from a
point thirty six inches (36") above the finished grade of the viewing area.
PROTECTED VIEW: A protectable view that has been determined by the reviewing authority to merit restoration.
RESTORATIVE ACTION: Any specific steps taken affecting foliage that would result in the restoration or
preservation of a protected view.
SAFE HARBOR AREA: The area below a safe harbor plane.
SAFE HARBOR PLANE: A plane defined by points at the edge of view owner's level pad to points measured from
grade at the edge of an adjacent downslope foliage owner`s principal building area that is farthest from the edge of
view ownees level pad located in a line of sight of a protectable view. The points of the plane on foliage owner's
property shall be at a height of one foot (l') above the height of the roof of the primary residential structure on
foliage owner's property, not to exceed a maximum height of fifteen feet (I Y) as measured from grade (see
illustration in section 10-8-103 of this chapter). If the downslope property is undeveloped, or if the upslope
property's view is over the driveway or "pole" portion of a flag lot, then the maximum height of fifteen feet (15')
from grade shall apply.
For the purposes of this definition, the height of the roof of the primary residential structure excludes chimneys, stair
or elevator shafts, vent pipes, mechanical equipment, parapets, architectural features that extend above the primary
roof elevation, antennas, and other rooftop equipment. If the roof height varies, the height of the roof of the primary
residential structure shall be the highest point of the roof of the primary structure.
For purposes of this definition, downslope and upslope properties separated by a public street shall be deemed to be
adjacent.
If a view owner's level pad is less than one foot (1') above the height of the roof of the primary residential structure
on foliage owner's property, then the safe harbor plane shall be defined as a plane above the foliage owner's level
pad at a height of one foot (P) above the height of the roof of the primary residential structure on foliage owner's
prolerty.
TREE: A woody perennial plant, consisting usually of a single elongated main stem or trunk and many branches.
TREE SURVEY: A tree survey includes the following information for trees alleged to impair a view and all trees
within the vicinity of the alleged view impairing trees as determined by a landscape architect, arborist, or forester:
A. Species of each tree, based on scientific name, and the common name;
B. Tree identifying number and location recorded on a map;
C. Physical measurements of the tree such as height and circumference: tree circumference shall be treasured on the
primary trunk at a height of four feet six inches (4'6") above natural grade;
D. Age of the tree;
E. Report of overall health and structural condition of the tree;
F. Life expectancy and suitability for preservation;
G. Potential restorative actions to address trees alleged to disrupt a view, impact of such restorative actions on trees,
and long term maintenance activities to prevent future potential view disruption; and
H. Tree management recommendations.
The survey shall be signed or stamped by a registered landscape architect, arborist or forester.
If a foliage owner does not grant access to his/her property for the purpose of conducting a tree survey, a tree survey
report shall be prepared with as much of the above information as possible, using other information sources such as
photographs taken from other properties, satellite photographs from commercially available sources, public record
permit information for work performed on foliage owner's property, and other similar information sources.
VIEW OWNER: Any owner or owners of real property in Trousdale Estates that has a protectable view and who
alleges that the growth of foliage located on a property within five hundred feet (500) of their property is causing
substantial disruption of a protectable view. "View owner" shall include one or more owners of the same property.
VIEW RESTORATION GUIDELINES: Guidelines for implementation of the ordinance prepared by the
community development department, adopted by the planning commission, and made available to the public.
VIEW RESTORATION PROPERTY SURVEY: A survey completed by a certified professional, such as an ALTA
(American Land Title Association) survey, of view owner's site and foliage owner's site that may include calculation
of the "safe harbor plane" as defined in this article and any other information or calculations as may be of assistance
to a reviewing authority pursuant to this section.
If access to the foliage owner's property is necessary to complete the survey and the foliage owner does not grant
access to his/her property for the purpose of conducting the survey, a view restoration property survey report shall
be prepared using other information sources such as measurements taken from other properties, photographs taken
from other properties, satellite photographs from commercially available sources, public record permit information
for work performed on foliage owner's property, and other similar information sources.
VIEWING AREA: An area from which a protectable view is assessed, located on the level pad that contains the
primary residential structure. A viewing area shall be a room of the primary residential structure (excluding
hallways, laundry rooms, closets and garages), or a patio, deck or landscaped area adjacent to the primary residential
structure that does not extend beyond the level pad. There may be one or more viewing areas on a property. The
reviewing authority shall establish the viewing area or areas as part of its finding that the view owner has a
protectable view. The reviewing authority may designate a location as a viewing area if, in the opinion of the
reviewing authority, an average resident would often observe a protectable view from that area. (Ord. 11 -0-2616,
eff.1-6-2012)
10-8-103: EXEMPTION.
The provisions of this article shall not apply to foliage where the highest point of the foliage is below a "safe harbor
plane" as defined in this article. The exemption applies to foliage on foliage owner's property. Foliage shall be
maintained in accordance with all other requirements of this code, including landscape maintenance standards.
SAFE HARBOR AREA
Safe Harbor Area
PROPERTY LINE One funt above hOW4 of roof IROPERTY LINE
as measured from grade of Edge
of Principal Building Area Yaw Owner
ProuclabM Wew - - . '` ,ate Edge Of level pad
(view Of LosAngaloa �
Area Basin) _ L7 _. :,
Foliage vdfmn this area
would tie eaanpt
1 Follaga Owners
Prod by tMeCammunlly 09v6kWrMm 06PIR nam
(Ord. 11-0-2616, eff. 1-6-2012)
12'
10-$-104: PROCEDURES:
Except for violations of section 10-3-2616 of this title, complaints received by the city regarding foliage blocking
views in Trousdale Estates shall be addressed through the view restoration permit preapplication procedures in this
article. The procedures in this article will be augmented by the view restoration guidelines.
The procedures set forth below shall be followed in order for a view owner to pursue remedies available in this
article. More than one view owner may pursue remedies simultaneously with one or more foliage owners as
determined by the parties involved.
A. Parties' Option To Enter Binding Arbitration; Effect Of Arbitration Decision: Nothing in this article is intended to
preclude interested parties from agreeing to resolve the dispute or disputes through binding arbitration, in which case
compliance with the procedures set forth in this section shall not be required. View owners who are subject to a
binding arbitration decision shall be precluded from applying for a view restoration permit as to any foliage owner
who is a party to the binding arbitration decision.
B. Initial Neighbor Outreach:
1. If a view owner wishes to pursue remedies available in this article, the view owner shall notify each foliage owner
in writing of concerns regarding disruption of the view owner's protectable view by foliage on foliage owner's
property (the "initial neighbor outreach"). This initial neighbor outreach shall be on a form provided by the city in
the view restoration guidelines on file in the city, shall be signed by the view owner, and shall include a sighed
statement from view owner that view owner or the view owner's representative shall offer to meet with each foliage
owner. The initial neighbor outreach notification shall clearly identify the remedy sought by view owner and include
a good faith estimate of the cost of the remedy, and an offer to pay that amount.
2. Agreement to participate in the initial neighbor outreach by each foliage owner shall be voluntary, but each
foliage owner shall have no more than thirty (30) days from service of written request to respond to the view owner,
unless foliage owner requests a ten (10) business day extension in writing or the response period is otherwise
extended by mutual agreement of the view owner and the foliage owner. Failure to respond shall be considered
rejection by the foliage owner. The initial neighbor outreach should be followed by discussions between view owner
and each foliage owner to attempt to reach a mutually agreeable solution.
3. If the view owner and a foliage owner are unable to resolve the matter, or if a foliage owner fails to respond to the
initial neighbor outreach, the view owner may proceed with a mediation process. To participate in the city sponsored
mediation process, the view owner shall submit to the city proof of the initial neighbor outreach in the form of a
63
certified letter and mailing receipt. If a foliage owner did not respond to the initial neighbor outreach, then the view
owner shall also provide an affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury, indicating the nonresponse of foliage owner.
4. If, pursuant to an agreement between the view owner and a foliage owner, the view owner or foliage owner may
damage or remove, or cause to be damaged or removed, any "protected tree" as defined in section 10-3-2900 of this
title, a tree removal permit must first be obtained in accordance with the requirements of section 10-3-2901 of this
title.
C. Mediation:
1. If the parties are unable to reach agreement through the initial neighbor outreach process and the view owner
wishes to pursue remedies available in this article, then, as a prerequisite, the view owner shall notify each foliage
owner of an offer to mediate. The notice shall be on a form provided by the city in the view restoration guidelines,
shall be signed by view owner, and shall include a signed statement from the view owner that the view owner or the
view owner's representative shall offer to meet with each potential foliage owner and a mediator. The notice shall
clearly identify the remedy sought by the view owner and include a good faith estimate of the cost of the remedy.
2. Acceptance of mediation by each foliage owner shall be voluntary, but each foliage owner shall have no more
than thirty (30) days from service of a written request for mediation to accept or reject the offer of mediation, unless
the foliage owner requests a ten (10) business day extension in writing or the response period is otherwise extended
by mutual agreement of the foliage owner and the view owner. Failure to respond shall be considered rejection.
Each mediation session may involve one or more view owners and one or more foliage owners at the discretion of
the parties involved.
3. The view owner and each foliage owner shall comply with requirements in the view restoration guidelines
regarding submittal of information to the mediator.
4. The mediator shall not have the power to issue binding orders for restorative action but shall strive to enable the
parties to resolve their dispute at this stage. If an agreement is reached between the parties as a result of mediation,
the mediator will encourage the participants to prepare, and can assist in the preparation of, a private agreement for
the parties to sign.
S. If the view owner and a foliage owner are unable to resolve the matter, or if a foliage owner fails to respond to the
mediation notice or to participate in the mediation process as prescribed in the view restoration guidelines, then the
view owner may proceed to file for a view restoration permit.
6. If, pursuant to an agreement between the view owner and a foliage owner, the view owner or foliage owner may
damage or remove, or cause to be damaged or removed, any "protected tree" as defined in section 10-3-2900 of this
title, a tree removal permit must first be obtained in accordance with the requirements of section 10-3-2901 of this
title.
D. City Advisory Opinion: A view owner may request a nonbinding advisory opinion at any time prior to the view
owner filing an application for a view restoration permit in accordance with the requirements of section 10-8-106 of
this chapter, If the view owner wishes to pursue the process set forth in section 10-8-106 of this chapter, the view
owner must wait twelve (12) months from receipt of the city advisory opinion to file a view restoration permit
application. (Ord. 11-0-2616, eff. 1-6-2012)
10-8-105: CONTINUATION OF PROCESS AFTER AGREEMENT:
If the view owner and a foliage owner enter into a private agreement as a result of initial neighbor outreach or
mediation before the filing of a view restoration permit application, and that agreement is not adhered to by parties
to the agreement, the parties may pursue civil litigation; however, if the view owner wishes to pursue remedies
available in this article, then the view owner may continue with the preapplication process at the step after the step at
which the agreement was entered into, provided that less than two (2) years have passed since the date of the private
agreement, If the view owner wishes to pursue remedies available in this article and more than two (2) years have
passed since the date of the private agreement, then the view owner shall begin view restoration procedures with the
initial neighbor outreach. (Ord. 11-0-2616, eff. 1-6-2012)
10-8-106: VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT:
A. View Restoration Permit: After exhaustion of the prehearing steps set forth in section 10-5-104 of this chapter,
and upon application by a view owner in a form satisfactory to the director of planning and community
development, the reviewing authority may issue a view restoration permit to a view owner with a protectable view
as defined in this article where the protectable view from a viewing area is substantially disrupted by "foliage" as
defined in this article and the reviewing authority makes all of the findings as set forth in this section.
B. Reviewing Authority: The reviewing authority for a view restoration permit application shall be the planning
commission. If a view restoration permit application includes review of a "protected tree" or trees as defined in
section I0-3-2900 of this tide, then the reviewing authority may order the removal of the tree or trees pursuant to
section 10-3-2902 of this title as part of the restorative action required by a view restoration permit.
C. Application: Application for a view restoration permit shall be in writing on a form prescribed by the director of
community development and shall include, but not be limited to, the following information:
1. Proof that view owner has attempted or completed the following procedures as required in this section:
a. Initial neighbor outreach; and
b. Mediation.
2. Identification of the specific remedy sought by view owner and an estimate of cost.
3. A view restoration property survey documenting that the subject foliage is on foliage owner's property, that the
foliage owner`s property is within five hundred feet (500') of view owner's property, and the foliage is above the safe
harbor plane.
4. A tree survey.
If an applicant does not submit the necessary information and the application remains incomplete for six (6) months
after the city, in writing, deems the application incomplete, the director of community development shall deny the
application without prejudice, and shall provide notice to the applicant of that determination.
Once a complete application has been received, the city shall send a formal notice of the application to the foliage
owner including a copy of the application, a copy of the view restoration guidelines and a request for an invitation to
staff and the reviewing authority to visit foliage owner's property with foliage ownees authorization.
D. Verification Of Information: All applicants for a view restoration permit shall submit an affidavit, signed under
penalty of perjury, that the information provided in the application and other submitted documents is complete, true,
and accurate based on the applicants' knowledge and reasonable investigation.
E. Public Hearing Notice: The reviewing authority shall hold a public hearing concerning each application for a
view restoration permit.
Notice of any hearing held pursuant to this section shall be mailed at least thirty (30) days prior to such hearing by
United States mail, postage paid to the "applicant and all owners and residential occupants of property within five
hundred feet (500) of the view owner's and foliage owner's properties, as shown on the latest equalized assessment
roll.
F. Public Hearing: The director of community development or the reviewing authority may, at its discretion, require
the review or additional review of any view restoration case by a qualified soils engineer, landscape architect,
arborist, or other appropriate professional, based on the specific conditions of foliage owner's property. Foliage
owner authorization shall be required prior to accessing the foliage owner's property. If foliage owner does not
permit access to foliage owner's property, the reviewing authority shall review the case using other information as
may be available, including information provided by the view owner.
G. Restrictions And Conditions: In approving a view restoration permit, the reviewing authority may impose such
restrictions or conditions, including restorative action, as it deems necessary or proper to restore a protected view;
protect the foliage owner`s reasonable enjoyment of its property; protect the public health, safety and welfare; or any
combination thereof.
H. Appeals; Effective Date: Any decision of the planning commission made pursuant to this section may be
appealed to the city council by view owner or foliage owner pursuant to the provisions set forth in title 1, chapter 4,
article 1 of this code. The appeal period shall commence at the date of mailing of the notice of decision.
Any decision of the planning commission made pursuant to this section takes effect fourteen (14) days from the
issuance of a notice of decision unless an appeal is filed. If appealed, then the effective day is the date on which the
city council acts.
I. Findings:
1. The reviewing authority may issue a view restoration permit to remove or alter foliage on any lot that is all or
partly within five hundred feet (500') of a view owner's property if it makes all of the following findings:
a. The view owner has a protectable view. The reviewing authority shall determine the viewing area or areas in order
to make this finding.
b. The view owner has substantially complied with the initial neighbor outreach and mediation procedures of this
article.
c. The view owner's protectable view is substantially disrupted by foliage on foliage owner's property that is not
exempt under section 10-8-103 of this chapter. The following criteria shall be considered in determining whether or
not a protectable view is substantially disrupted:
(1) Foliage Position Within A Protectable View: Foliage located in the center of it protectable view is more likely to
be found to substantially disrupt a view than foliage located on the protectable view's periphery.
(2) Foliage Size And Density: Foliage that by virtue of its size and density obstructs a large portion of a protectable
view is more likely to be found to substantially disrupt the view than is foliage that obstructs only a small portion of
the protectable view. Trees located in close proximity to each other and maintained in such a way as to collectively
form an uninterrupted "green barrier" are more likely to be found to substantially disrupt a view than are individual
trees.
(3) View Diminished By Other Factors: The extent to which the view has been or is diminished by other factors
such that removal of the foliage at issue will not substantially restore the protectable view. Other factors that may be
considered include, but are not limited to, permitted structures, and foliage that is not on a private property within
five hundred feet (500') of the view owners property.
d. With respect to any tree protected pursuant to section 10-3-2902 of this title, removal of the tree will not:
(1) Adversely affect the neighboring properties or the general welfare or safety of the surrounding area; or
(2) Adversely affect the garden quality of the city.
2. The reviewing authority may allow foliage to substantially disrupt a protectable view if the reviewing authority
makes one or more of the following findings:
a. The foliage is important to the integrity of an existing landscape plan.
b. Alteration of the foliage will unreasonably impact the privacy and security of the foliage owner.
c. Alteration of the foliage will have a substantial adverse impact on stability of a hillside, drainage, or erosion
control.
d. Restoration of the protectable view would not substantially enhance a reasonable person's enjoyment of the view
owner's property taken as a whole.
J. Restorative Action: The reviewing authority may, through issuance of a view restoration permit, require
restorative action on foliage owner's property. All restorative action must be performed by a licensed and bonded
tree or landscape service unless mutually agreed upon by the view owner and the foliage owner. Restorative action
may include, but is not limited to, the following:
1. Trimming, culling, lacing, or reducing foliage to a height or width to be determined by the reviewing authority but
not below the safe harbor plane.
2. Requiring the complete removal of the foliage when the reviewing authority finds that the trimming, culling,
lacing, or reduction of the foliage is likely to kill the foliage, threaten the public health, safety, or public welfare, or
will destroy the aesthetic value of the foliage that is to be pruned or reduced. Removal of a healthy tree not on a Iist
of nuisance trees maintained by the city is to be avoided unless the reviewing authority determines such removal is
necessary to avoid substantial disruption of a protected view.
3. Requiring replacement foliage when the reviewing authority finds that removal without replacement will cause a
substantial adverse impact on one or more of: a) the public health, safety and welfare; b) the privacy of the property
owner; c) shade provided to the dwelling or property; d) the energy efficiency of the dwelling; e) the stability of the
hillside; f) the health or viability of the remaining landscaping; or g) the integrity of the landscape plan.
K. Notice Of Decision:
1. Written Decision Required: The action taken by the reviewing authority shall be set forth in writing.
2. Notice Of Decision: Within five (5) days after the issuance of a decision by the reviewing authority, the director
of community development shall cause a copy of the decision to be mailed through the United States mail, postage
prepaid, to each of the following persons:
a. The view owner, using the mailing address set forth in the application;
b. Each foliage owner that is named on the application, as listed on a current tax assessor's roll and to the occupant
of the foliage owner's property if the foliage owner's address is different than the property on which the foliage is
located.
The failure of the person addressed to receive a copy of the decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of
any decision.
L. Indemnification: View owner shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the city, its agents, officers, attorneys
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding (collectively "action") against the city or its agents, officers,
attorneys or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul the entitlements that may be granted by the city through
issuance of a view restoration permit, and for any and all costs incurred in enforcing the view restoration permit,
except for those costs of enforcement as the city may recover from a foliage owner. Indemnitor shall reimburse the
city for any court costs and attorney fees that the city may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action.
City may, at its sole and absolute discretion: 1) participate in the defense of such action undertaken by view owner,
or 2) retain separate counsel whose attorney fees and costs shall be paid by view owner. Such participation in the
defense of such action or the retention of separate counsel by the city shall not relieve view owner's obligations
under this provision. The city shall promptly notify the view owner of any such action.
View owner shall indemnify the city against any and all claims resulting from the issuance, defense,
implementation, or enforcement of the view restoration permit. (Ord. 11-0-2616, eff. 11-`6' -2012)
10-8-107: DECISIONS INTENDED TO RUN WITH THE LAND; DISCLOSURE: '"-'�
Decisions regarding view restoration shall be binding on all current and future owners of view owner's property and
foliage owner's property, and such decisions must be disclosed by each owner to subsequent owners of the property.
(Ord. 11-0-2616, eff. 1-6-2012)
10-8-108: PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION; SUBSEQUENT ENFORCEMENT BY VIEW OWNER AND
ATTORNEY FEES: ri
The city shall take such action, as appropriate, to ensure initial compliance with a view restoration permit. After an
initial determination by the city that a foliage owner has complied with a view restoration permit, any further dispute
regarding the foliage owner's compliance with the view restoration permit shall be resolved by a civil action initiated
by the view owner.
At any time, before or after an initial determination of compliance with a view restoration permit by the city, any
view owner may sue in Los Angeles superior court to enjoin violation of, or compel compliance with, a view
restoration permit. The prevailing party in any such civil action between a view owner and a foliage owner shall be
entitled to recover its reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in the litigation. (Ord. 11-0-2616, eff. 1-6-2012)
At
10-8-109: LANDSCAPE STANDARDS.
The view restoration guidelines shall include landscape standards that include a fist of nuisance trees that should not
be planted in hillside view areas. (Ord. l 1-0-26'16, eff. 1-6-2012)
10-8-110. APPORTIONMENT OF COSTS: '-`"3
It is the intent that procedural fees referenced in this section shall reflect the actual cost of administrative activities
required of the city to implement this article. Additional clarification of fees and costs may be included in the view
restoration guidelines.
A. Initial Neighbor Outreach:
1. Procedural Costs: Any costs associated with obtaining information, mailing the required notice, or preparing an
agreement shall be borne by the view owner. The view owner shall pay the cost of a view restoration property
survey or tree survey if such a survey is completed.
2. Restorative Action: The cost of restorative action agreed upon by the view owner and the foliage owner shall be
borne by the view owner unless otherwise agreed to by the foliage owner.
3. Maintenance Costs: The cost of subsequent maintenance of foliage on the foliage owner's property shall be
allocated as agreed upon by the parties.
B. Mediation:
1. Procedural Costs: Any costs associated with obtaining information, mailing the required notice, or preparing an
agreement shall be borne by the view owner. The view owner shall pay the cost of a view restoration property
survey or tree survey if such a survey is completed.
2. Restorative Action: The cost of restorative action agreed upon by the view owner and the foliage owner shall be
borne by the view owner unless otherwise agreed to by the parties.
3. Maintenance Costs: The cost of subsequent maintenance of foliage on the foliage owner's property shall be
allocated as agreed upon by the parties.
C. View Restoration Permit With Public Hearing:
1. Procedural Costs: View owner shall bear the cost of application fees and other application costs including the
view restoration property survey and tree survey and the cost of any other information requested by the reviewing
authority.
2. Restorative Action:
a. The foliage owner shall pay one hundred percent (100%) of the cost of restorative action if the foliage owner did
not participate in mediation and the reviewing authority finds restorative action is required.
b. The view owner and foliage owner shall each pay fifty percent (50%) of the cost of restorative action if the
foliage owner participated in mediation and the reviewing authority finds restorative action is required.
3. Maintenance After Initial Restorative Action: The foliage owner shall pay for subsequent maintenance of the
foliage consistent with the view restoration permit.
D. Appeal To City Council:
1. Procedural Costs: Appellant shall bear the costs of the appeal application including the appeal fee, public notice
cost, and any other application costs.
2. Restorative Action: The cost of restorative action resulting from an appeal to the city council shall be apportioned
in the same way as the cost of restorative action pursuant to a decision by the planning commission.
3. Maintenance After Initial Restorative Action: The foliage owner shall pay for subsequent maintenance of the
foliage consistent with the view restoration permit. (Ord. It -0-2616, eff. 1-6-2012)
City of Laguna Beach
Chapter 12.16 VIEW PRESERVATION
//www.grgd.e.iis/ 7 =12-
12 16&showA11=1&fraiPes=on - startCoa
1=
# Prior ordinance history: Ords. 1335 and 1344.
12.16.010 Findings
The city council finds and declares as follows:
(1) Both views and trees/vegetation contribute to the aesthetic value, quality of life, ambiance and
economic value of properties within the city. Similarly, access to sunlight across property lines contributes to the
health and well being of community members, enhances property values and provides an opportunity to utilize solar
energy. Utilization of passive solar energy reduces air pollution, visual blight and ill health.
(2) Views, whether of the Pacific Ocean, islands, the surrounding hillsides and canyons or other
natural and manmade landmarks produce a variety of significant and tangible benefits for both residents and visitors.
Views contribute to the aesthetic visual environment of the community by providing scenic :vistas and inspiring
distinctive architectural design. Views contribute to property values.
(3) Trees and vegetation produce a wide variety of significant psychological and tangible benefits for
both residents and visitors to the community. Trees and vegetation provide privacy, modify temperatures, screen
winds, replenish oxygen to the atmosphere, maintain soil moisture, mitigate soil erosion and provide wildlife habitat.
Trees and vegetation contribute to the visual environment and aesthetics by blending, buffering and reducing the
scale and mass of architecture. Trees and vegetation within the city provide botanical variety and a sense of history.
Trees and vegetation also create shade and visual screens and provide a buffer between different land uses. Trees
contribute to property values.
(4) The benefits derived from views, trees/vegetation and sunlight may come into conflict. The
planting of trees and other vegetation and their subsequent growth, particularly when such trees are not properly
maintained, can produce unintended harmful effects both on the property on which they are planted and/or on
neighboring properties. It is, therefore, in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare to:
(a) Recognize that every real property owner in the city is entitled to a process to resolve conflicts that
negatively impact view equity, in order to preserve a reasonable amount of the view and/or sunlight benefiting such
real property which exist after either the property acquisition date or the effective date of the ordinance codified in
this chapter, whichever is later; and
(b) Establish procedures and evaluation criteria for the resolution of view and/or sunlight claims so as
to provide a reasonable balance between trees/vegetation, privacy and views and/or sunlight related values. (Ord.
1430 § 1 (part), 2003).
12.16.020 Intent and purpose.
The intent and purpose of this chapter is to:
(1) Recognize and establish a process by which real property owners may preserve view equity and/or
sunlight access within the immediate vicinity of their property as set forth in Section. 12.16.040;
(2) Establish procedures and evaluation criteria by which real property owners may seek resolution of
such view equity and/or sunlight access disputes;
(3) Discourage ill-considered damage to trees/ vegetation and promote proper landscaping
establishment and maintenance.
It is not the intent and purpose of this chapter for the city to create either a covenant running with the land
(for example, CC&R's or deed restriction) or an equitable servitude (for example, easement or license). (Ord. 1430
$ 1 (part), 2003).
12.16.030 Definitions.
For the purpose of this chapter, the meaning and construction of words and phrases hereinafter set forth
shall apply:
4g
"Alter" means to take action that changes the tree or vegetation, including but not limited to extensive
pruning of the canopy area, topping, cutting, girdling, interfering with the water supply, applying chemicals or re-
grading around the feeder toot zone of the tree or vegetation.
"Arbitration" means a voluntary legal procedure for settling disputes and leading to a final and binding
determination of rights of parties, usually consisting of a hearing before an arbitrator where all relevant evidence
may be freely admitted as set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1280 et seq.
"Arbitrator" means a mutually agreed upon neutral third party professional intermediary wbo conducts a
hearing process, and who hears testimony, considers evidence and makes binding decisions for the disputing parties.
The arbitrator may be chosen from a list available from the city of qualified and professionally trained
(arbitrators/mediators), including but not limited to members of the American Association of Arbitrators and
professionals associated with the Orange County Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service.
"Arborist, certified" means a person who has passed a series of tests by the international Society of
Arboriculture (ISA), is governed by ISA's professional code of ethics and possesses the technical W, ...r ✓ ;,..ce
through experience and related training to provide for or supervise the management of trees and other woody plants,
"Authorized agent" means a person, as defined herein, who has been designated and approved in writing by
the property owner of record to act on his/her behalf in matters pertaining to the processing of a view equity and/or
sunlight claim as outlined in this chapter.
"Canopy" means the umbrella -like structure created by the over -head leaves and branches of a tree which
create a sheltered area below.
"City" means the city of Laguna Beach.
"City maintained trees" means trees which are specifically designated for maintenance by the city council.
"City maintained trees" include heritage trees which are located in the unimproved portion of a dedicated and
accepted street right-of-way easement and for which the real property owner has requested and given written
permission for the city to maintain.
"City property" means any real property of which the city is the fee simple owner of record.
"Claim, view equity and/or sunlight" rrreans documentation, as set forth in Section 12.16.050, that outlines
the basis of view equity and/or sunlight access diminishment and the specific restoration action that is being sought.
"Complainant" means any property owner, group of property owners or authorized agent who allege that
trees)/vegetation located within the immediate vicinity of their property as set forth in Section 12.16.040 is causing
unreasonable obstruction of the view and/or sunlight access benefiting such real property.
"Crown" means the rounded top of the tree.
"Crown reduction/shaping" means a method of comprehensive pruning that reduces a tree's height and/or
spread. Crown reduction entails the reduction of the top, sides or individual limbs by means of removal of leaders or
the longest portion of limbs to a lateral large enough to assume the terminal. The diagram that follows is illustrative
of "crown reduction/shaping" within the meaning of this chapter.
(iDo
Crown Reduction/Shaping
"Destroy" means to kill or take action that endangers the health or vigor of a tree or vegetation, including,
but not limited to, cutting, girdling, interfering with the water supply, applying chemicals or re -grading around the
base of the trunk.
"Director" means the director of the city community development department.
"Heading back" means the overall reduction of the mass of a tree by modification to major limbs. The
diagram that follows is illustrative of "heading back" within the meaning of this chapter.
Heading Back
"Heritage tree" means any tree or stand of trees that have been placed on the heritage tree list by the city
council, pursuant to Chapter 1208 of this code.
"Lacing" means a comprehensive method of pruning that systematically and sensitively removes excess
foliage and improves the structure of the tree. The diagram that follows is illustrative of "lacing" within the meaning
of this chapter.
Before and After
Lacing
"Landscape consultant" means a landscape professional hired by the city to provide advice and information
regarding landscape plans, view equity and/or sunlight claims, and landscaping techniques and maintenance
procedures.
"Maintenance pruning" means pruning with the primary objective of maintaining or improving tree health
and structure; includes "crown reductiontshaping" or "lacing," but not ordinarily "topping" or "heading back."
"Mediator" means a neutral, objective third party professional negotiatorlfacilitator to help disputing parties
mach a mutually satisfactory solution regarding a view equity and/or sunlight claim. The mediator shall be chosen
from a list available from the city of qualified and professionally trained (arbitrators/mediators), including but not
limited to members of the American Association of Arbitrators and professionals associated with the Orange County
Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service.
"Obstruction" means the blocking or diminishment of a view and/or sunlight access attributable to growth,
improper maintenance or location of trees and/or vegetation.
"Person" means any individual, individuals, corporation, partnership, firm or other legal entity.
"Preservation action" means any specific steps taken affecting trees or vegetation that would result in the
preservation of view equity and/or sunlight access across property lines.
"Pruning" means the removal of plant material from a treelvegetation.
"Real property" means rights or interests of ownership of land and all appurtenances to the land including
buildings, fixtures, vegetation and improvements erected upon, planted or affixed to the land.
"Severe pruning" means the cutting of branches and/or trunk of a tree in a manner which substantially
reduces the overall size of the tree or destroys the existing symmetrical appearance or natural shape of the tree and
which results in the removal of main lateral branches leaving the trunk and branches of the tree in a stub appearance.
"ropping" and "heading back" as defined herein are considered to be severe pruning.
"Stand thinning" means the selective removal of a portion of trees from a grove of trees.
"Street" means the portion of a right-of-way easement used for public purposes, such as roadway
improvements, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, dedicated to the city, and formally accepted by the city into the city
public street system for maintenance purposes.
"Sunlight" means the availability or access to light from the sun across property lines.
"Topping" means eliminating the upper portion of the trunk or main leader of a tree.
"Tree" means any woody perennial vegetation that generally has a single trunk and reaches a height of at
least eight feet at maturity.
"Tree/vegetation owner" means any person owning real property in the city whereon tree(s) and/or
vegetation is located.
"Vegetation" means all types of plants, bushes, hedges and shrubs, including trees.
"View" means a vista of features, including but not limited to bodies of water, beaches, coastline, islands,
skylines, ridges, hillside terrain, canyons, geologic features and landmarks. The term "view" does not mean an
unobstructed panorama of these features.
"View equity" means achievement of a fair, reasonable, and balanced accommodation of views and
competing obstructions (such as structures, trees and/or vegetation), privacy and the use and enjoyment of property.
When reasonably possible and feasible, development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to preserve views
from and sunlight to neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to
develop as described and illustrated in the city's design guidelines.
"Vista pruning" means the selective thinning of framework limbs or specific areas of the crown of a tree to
allow a view from a specific point. (Ord. 1430 § 1 (part), 2003).
12.16.040 View equity a for sunlight claim limitations.
Subject to the other provisions of this chapter, a real property owner in the city may initiate the claim
resolution process as outlined in Section 12.16.060. However, a claim for preserving view equity and/or sunlight
access may only be made regarding any tree/vegetation located on real property, as defined herein, which is within
five hundred feet from the complainant's real property boundary, and if a claim has not been initiated against that
real property by the complainant or any other real property owner within the last two years.
Requests for view equity and/or sunlight preservation action with regard to any tree and/or vegetation
located on city property, parks and for city maintained trees may only be initiated as outlined in Section 12.04.070
of this code.
Requests for view equity and/or sunlight preservation action with regard to any heritage tree not maintained
by the city, may only be initiated as outlined in Section 12.08.070 of this code. (Ord. 1430 § I (part), 2003).
12,16-050—View-and/or sunlight claim,
A claim to preserve view equity and/or sunlight shall consist of all of the following:
(1) A description of the nature and extent of the alleged obstruction, including pertinent and
corroborating evidence. Evidence may include, but is not limited to, documented and dated photographic prints,
negatives, slides and written testimony from residents living in the area. Such evidence must show the extent to
which the view and/or sunlight access has been diminished by trees and/or vegetation;
(2) The location of all trees and/or vegetation alleged to cause the obstruction, the address of the
property upon which the trees and/or vegetation are located, and the present tree/vegetation owner's name and
address;
(3) Specific view equity and/or sunlight preservation actions proposed by the complainant to resolve
the allegedly unreasonable obstruction;
(4) Evidence that initial discussion as described in Section 12.16.070 has been made and has failed.
Evidence may include, but is not limited to, copies of receipts for certified or registered mail correspondence;
(5) Evidence confirming the ownership and the date of acquisition of the complainant's property.
(Ord. 1430 § 1 (part), 2003).
12.16.060 View eouity and/or sunlight claim resolution process.
The complainant shall follow the process established by this chapter in seeking preservation of view equity
and/or sunlight access. First, the complainant must complete the "initial discussion" process described in Section
12.16.070. Second, if that process does not yield a result mutually satisfactory to the complainant and the
treelvegetation owner, then the complainant may file a view equity and/or sunlight claim with the city and request
mediation, as described in Section 12.16.080. If the tree/vegetation owner does not participate in mediation or if
mediation is unsuccessful in resolving the claim, then the complainant may pursue resolution by arbitration, as set
forth in Sections 12.16.090. If arbitration is not chosen by the complainant, accepted by the tree/vegetation owner or
is unsuccessful in resolving the claim, the complainant may initiate litigation as described in Section 12.16.100.
(Ord. 1430 § 1 (part), 2003).
12.16.070 Initial discussion.
A complainant who believes that a tree or vegetation which has grown on another person's property has
caused unreasonable obstruction of view equity and/or sunlight access from the complainant's property, shall first
notify the treelvegetation owner of such concerns. The notification shall request personal discussions to enable the
complainant and tree/vegetation owner to attempt to reach a mutually agreeable solution, and shall be followed-up in
writing. The notification shall include a copy of the view preservation ordinance (Chapter 12.16 of this code),
available from the city. The complainant shall invite the tree/vegetation owner to view the alleged obstruction from
the complainant's property, and the tree/vegetation owner is urged to invite the complainant to view the situation
from his/her property. Failure of the tree/vegetation owner to respond to the written request for initial discussion
within forty-five days from the date of delivery shall be deemed formal refusal by the treelveg"on owner.
If the parties do not agree as to the existence and nature of the complainant's obstruction and to the
appropriate preservation action or initial discussion is refused, the complainant may proceed with the subsequent
claim resolution process outlined in Section 12.16.060. (Ord.1430 § I (part), 2003).
12.16.080 Mediad
If the initial discussion, as outlined in Section 12.16.070 fails to achieve agreement between the
tree/vegetation owner and the complainant, the complainant may file a written view equity and/or sunlight claim
with the city requesting mediation. Upon receiving the written claim and processing fee, in the amount established
by resolution of the city council, city staff shall prepare and send by certified mail to the tree/vegetation owner, a
copy of the written claim and a notice requesting that the treelvegetation owner accept participation in a mediation
process to attempt to resolve the claim for preservation of view equity and/or sunlight access. Acceptance of
mediation by the tree/vegetation owner shall be voluntary. However, the failure of the treelvegetation owner to
participate in mediation shall result in the burden of proof being shifted from the complainant to the tree/vegetation
owner in the event of subsequent arbitration and/or litigation. The notice shall inform the tree -vegetation owner of
this consequence of non -participation. The notice shall also inform the tree/vegetation owner that a failure to
respond to the notice requesting mediation within forty-five days from the date of delivery shall be deemed formal
refusal of the mediation process by the tree/vegetation owner.
If the tree/vegetation owner agrees to participate in a mediation process, the complainant shall then pay the
fee established by resolution of the city council for the mediation process, including review by a certified arborist. In
the event that the parties are unable to choose a mediator from an approved list of professional mediators, city staff
shall randomly select a mediator from the list. The city staff, in consultation with the mediator, shall establish a date
for mediation, and a written notice of the mediation hearing date shall be sent to each party by certified mail.
The mediator shall be guided by the provisions of this chapter, including the claim evaluation criteria and
the hierarchy of preservation actions set forth in Sections 12.16.120 and 12.16.130, respectively, in attempting to
resolve the view equity and/or sunlight claim. The mediator shall also consider recommendations of the city's
landscape consultant and/or certified arborist regarding landscape techniques and/or maintenance procedures.
The role of the mediator shall be advisory in nature and shall not be binding in establishing the preservation
of view equity and/or sunlight access. Any agreement reached between the two parties as a result of the mediation
process described herein shall be reduced to writing and signed by the mediator and all of the parties, and two copies
shall be submitted to the director of community development. The cost of mediation, including review by a certified
arborist, shall be paid initially by the complainant, provided, however, that the ultimate responsibility for such cost
may subsequently be modified either by mutual agreement of the parties or by a determination of the mediator as to
a just and reasonable allocation of the responsibility. (Ord. 1430 § 1 (part), 2003).
12.16.090 Arbitration.
If the initial discussion under Section 12.16.070 and mediation under Section 12.16.080 fail to achieve
agreement between the treelvegetation owner and the complainant, the complainant may send to the tree/vegetation
owner a request to participate in a binding arbitration process. Acceptance of arbitration by the tree/vegetation
owner shall be voluntary. However, the failure of the tree/vegetation owner to participate in the binding arbitration
process shall result in the burden of proof being shifted from the complainant to the tree/vegetation owner in the
event of subsequent litigation. The notice shall inform the tree/vegetation owner of this consequence of non -
participation. The tree/vegetation owner shall have forty-five days from delivery of the notice to either accept or
decline arbitration. Failure to respond within forty-five days shall be deemed formal refusal of arbitration. If
accepted, the parties shall agree in writing to the selection of an individual arbitrator, which may be chosen from a
list of professional arbitrators available from the city, within thirty days of such acceptance. If the parties do not
agree on a specific arbitrator within thirty days, either party may petition a court of competent jurisdiction to appoint
an arbitrator.
The arbitrator shall be guided by the provisions of this chapter, including the claim evaluation criteria and
the hierarchy of preservation actions set forth in Sections 12.16.120 and 12.16.130, respectively, in attempting to
help resolve the view equity and/or sunlight claim, and shall submit a complete written decision to the complainant
and the tree/vegetation owner. Any decision of the arbitrator shall be enforceable pursuant to the provisions of
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1285 et seq., and two copies of the decision shall be submitted to the
director of community development.
The costs of arbitration shall be paid initially by the complainant, provided, however, that the ultimate
responsibility for such costs may subsequently be modified either by mutual agreement of the parties or by a
determination of the arbitrator as to a just and reasonable allocation of the responsibility. (Ord. 1430 § 1 (part),
2003).
12.16.100 Litigation.
If a complainant has been unsuccessful in attempting to obtain agreement under Section 12.16.070 and
afterwards by Sections 12.16.080 and 12.16 090, the complainant may initiate civil action in a court of competent
jurisdiction for resolution of his/her view equity and/or sunlight claim under the provisions of this chapter. In such
event, the complainant shall provide two copies of the filed complaint to the director of community development.
(Ord. 1430 § 1 (part), 2003).
12.16.1 l0 Preservation action limitations.
Except as otherwise authorized by law, no tree and/or vegetation on real property owned or controlled by
another person may be removed, destroyed or altered unless the complainant either enters into a written agreement
with the tree/vegetation owner or obtains an arbitration award or judicial decision specifying, in detail, the nature
and timing of the preservation action and the parties responsible for performing such action. (Ord. 1430 § 1 (part),
2003).
12.I6.12Q View epuity and/or 1' v Imation criteria.
In evaluating a view equity and/or sunlight claim, the following unranked criteria shall be considered:
(1) The vantage point(s) from which the view and/or sunlight is obtained or received;
(2) The extent of the view and/or sunlight obstruction;
(3) The quality of the view and/or sunlight access, including the existence of landmarks or other
unique view features, and/or the extent to which these views and/or sunlight access are blocked by trees) and/or
vegetation;
(4) The extent to which the view and/or sunlight access is diminished by factors other than trees)
and/or vegetation;
(5) The extent to which the tree(s) and/or vegetation have grown to obscure the enjoyment of view
and/or sunlight access from the complainant's property;
(6) The number of existing trees or amount of vegetation in the area, the number of healthy trees that
a given parcel of land will support, and the current effects of the tree(s) and their removal on the neighboring
vegetation;
(7) The extent to which the tree(s) and/or vegetation provide:
(a) Screening or privacy,
(b) Energy conservation and/or climate control,
S6
(c) Soil stability, as measured by soil structure, degree of slope and extent of the tree's root system
when a tree is proposed to be removed,
(d) Aesthetics,
(e) Community/neighborhood quality, value or significance,
(f) Shade,
(g) Historical context due to the age of the tree/vegetation,
(h) Rare and interesting botanical species,
(i) Habitat value for wildlife, and
0) Blending, buffering or reduction in the scale and mass of architecture.
(8) The date the claimant purchased his/her property;
(9) The date the tree/vegetation owner purchased his/her property. (Ord. 1430 § 1 (part), 2003).
12.16.130 Hierarchy of actions,
View equity and/or sunlight preservation actions must be consistent with all other provisions of this
chapter. The practices of tree/vegetation establishment and maintenance outlined in the city's landscape and scenic
highways resource document shall be referred to in establishing preservation actions. Severe pruning should be
avoided due to the damage such practice causes to the tree's form and health. reservation actions may include, but
are not limited to the following, in order of preference:
(1) Lacing. Lacing is the most preferable pruning technique that removes excess foliage and can
improve the structure of the tree.
(2) Vista Pruning. Vista pruning of branches may be utilized where possible, if it does not adversely
affect the tree's growth pattern or health. Topping should not be done to accomplish vista pruning.
(3) Crown Reduction. Crown reduction is preferable to topping or tree removal, if it is determined that
the impact of crown reduction does not destroy the visual proportions of the tree, adversely affect the tree's growth
pattern or health, or otherwise constitute a detriment to the tree(s) in question.
(4) Stand Thinning. The removal of a portion of the total number of trees from a grove of trees,
without any replacement plantings.
(5) Topping. Eliminating the upper portion of a tree's trunk or main leader. Topping is only to be
permitted for trees specifically planted and maintained as a hedge, espalier, bonsai or in pollard form and if
restoration actions (1) through (4) of this section will not accomplish the determined restoration and the subsequent
growth characteristics will not create a future obstruction of greater proportions.
(6) Heading Back. Eliminating the outer extent of the major branches throughout the tree. Heading
back is only to be permitted for trees specifically planted and maintained as a hedge, espalier, bonsai or in pollard
form and if restoration actions (1) through (5) of this section will not accomplish the determined restoration and the
subsequent growth characteristics will not create a future obstruction of greater proportions.
(7) Tree/Vegetation Removal. Tree and/or vegetation removal, which may be considered when the
above-mentioned restoration actions are judged to be ineffective and may be accompanied by replacement plantings
or appropriate plant materials to restore the maximum level of benefits lost due to tree removal. (Ord. 1430 § 1
(pad), 2003).
x,16.140 Responsibility for nreservation action and subsequenC maintenance
The complainant shall be responsible for paying the cost of any determined preservation action unless the
parties agree to share the costs in some other manner. Subsequent maintenance shall be determined either by
agreement between the tree/vegetation owner and the complainant, or as required pursuant to any final arbitration
decision or court order. (Ord. 1430 § 1 (part), 2003).
12.16.150 Liability.
(1) The city shall not be liable for any damages, injury, costs or expenses which are the result of any
determinations resulting from mediation, arbitration or litigation, concerning view equity and/or sunlight claim or a
complainant's assertions pertaining to views and/or sunlight access granted or conferred herein.
(D4
(2) Under no circumstances shall the city have any responsibility or liability to enforce or seek any
legal redress, civil or criminal, for any decision that any other person or entity makes concerning a view equity
and/or sunlight claim.
(3) A failure to comply with the provisions of this chapter is not a misdemeanor, and the enforcement
of this chapter shall be only by the affected and interested private parties. (Ord. 1430 § l (part), 2003).
12.1 b.1 h0 Sever i i
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this chapter is for any reason held invalid
or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter.
The city council hereby declares that it would have adopted this and each section, subsection, phrase or
clause of this chapter irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, phrases or clauses be
declared invalid or unconstitutional on their face or as applied. (Ord. 1430 § 1(part), 2003).
OSS
� d&p—I — — - 414V l rnl"If I ft a—UV nnti N"jF Y171 All. 1 i
subsections (1) and (2) of this section, provided that each space meets the minimum
dimensions specified in subsection (5) of this section.
17.02.035 - Application requirement.
Applications that involve the construction of a new single-family residence shall include a geology
report determining that the project is geologically feasible. The city geologist shall review and approve
said report prior to the application for said project being deemed complete for processing.
17.02.040 - View preservation and restoration. .,
The residents of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, by the adoption of this section, have made a
finding that the peace, health, safety and welfare of the community will be served by the adoption of this
section and by the regulations prescribed herein.
A. Definitions. When not inconsistent with the context, the words used in the present tense
include the future; words in the singular number include the plural; and those in the plural
number include the singular. In carrying out the intent of this section, words, phrases and
terms shall be deemed to have the following meanings ascribed to them:
1• "City" means the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and its employees and staff and those
designated by the city council to act on behalf of the city.
2. "City council" means the duty elected legislative body of the city of Rancho Palos
Verdes.
3. "Director" means the director of the planning, building and code enforcement
department of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
4. "Foliage" means natural growth of trees, shrubs and other plant life.
5. "Lot coverage" means that portion of a lot or building site which is occupied by any
building or structure, including trellises; decks over thirty inches in height (as
measured from wdsting adjacent grade); parking areas; driveways; or impervious
surfaces (impervious surfaces less than five feet in width and/or one patio area less
than five hundred square feet in area shall be excluded from the lot coverage
calculation).
6. "Neighborhood character" means the existing characteristics, in terms of the following:
a. Scale of surrounding residences;
b. Architectural styles and materials; and
C. Front, side and rear yard setbacks.
7. "Planning commission" means the planning commission of the city of Rancho Palos
Verdes as defined in Chapter 2.20 (Planning Commission) of this Municipal Code.
8. "Privacy" means reasonable protection from intrusive visual observation.
g• "Scale" means the total square footage and lot coverage of a residence and all
ancillary structures.
10- "Setback" means the minimum horizontal distance as prescribed by this Code,
between any property line or private easement boundary used for vehicular and/or
pedestrian access and the closest point on any building or structure, below or above
ground level, on the property. In cases where there is no structure on a lot, setback
shall mean the minimum horizontal distance between the property line or easement
boundary line and a line parallel to the property line or easement boundary line.
Please refer to Chapter 17.48 (Lots, Setbacks, Open Space Area and Building
Height) for setback regulations.
11. Shall and May. "Shall" is mandatory and "may" is permissive.
12. "Structure" means anything constructed or built, any edifice or building of any kind, or
any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some
definite manner, which is located on or on top of the ground on a parcel of land
utilized for residential purposes, exduding antennas, skylights, solar panels and
similar structures not involving the construction of habitable area.
11,C1 LZ y:jbAM
http://libmry.munlcode.com/HTML/16571/level 3/TIT17Z2.AR11REDl_CH...IMIRERSDI.htmWTITI7TO—ARTIREDI_CH17.02SIMIRERSDI_17.02.040VIPRRE Page 5, of 14
, JiJ ac ---...
13. "Style" means design elements which consist of, but are not limited to:
a. Facade treatment;
b. Height of structure;
c• Open space between structures;
d. Roof design;
e. The apparent bulk or mass of the structure; and
f. The number of stories.
14. View. On the Palos Verdes peninsula, it is quite common to have a near view and a
far view because of the nature of many of the hills on the peninsula. Therefore, a
'Mew" which is protected by this section is as follows:
a. A "near view" which is defined as a scene located on the peninsula including,
but not limited to, a valley, ravine, equestrian trail, pastoral environment or any
natural setting; and/or
b. A "far view" which is defined as a scene located off the peninsula including, but
not limited to, the ocean, Los Angeles basin, city lights at night, harbor, Vincent
Thomas Bridge, shoreline or offshore islands.
A "view" which is protected by this section shall not include vacant land that is
developable under this Code, distant mountain area not normally visible, nor the sky,
either above distant mountain areas or above the height of offshore islands. A view
may extend in any horizontal direction (three hundred sbdy degrees of horizontal arc)
and shall be considered as a single view, even if broken into segments by foliage,
structures or other interference.
15. "Viewing are" means that area of a structure (excluding bathrooms, hallways,
garages or closets) or that area of a lot (excluding the setback areas) where the
owner and city determine the best and most important view exists. In structures, the
finished floor elevation of any viewing area must be at or above existing grade
adjacent to the exterior wall of the part of the building nearest to said viewing area.
16. The "view restoration commission" means the planning commission of the city of
Rancho Palos Verdes.
B• Regulations.
1 • Building Height. Any individual or persons desiring to build a new structure or an
addition to an existing structure shall be permitted to build up to sixteen feet in height
pursuant to subsection B of this section provided there is no grading, as defined in
Section 17.76.040 of this title, to be performed in connection with the proposed
construction, and further provided that no height variation is required, and all
applicable residential development standards are or will be met In cases where an
existing structure is voluntarily demolished or is demolished as a result of an
involuntary event, a height variation application will not be required to exosed sixteen
feet in height, provided that the replacement structure will have the some or less
square footage and building height as the existing structure and will be reconstructed
within the building envelope and footprint of the pre-existing structure. Approval for
proposed structures or additions to existing structures exceeding sixteen feet in
height, may be sought through application for a height variation permit, which, if
granted pursuant to the procedures contained herein, will permit the individual to build
a structure not exceeding twenty-six feet in height, except as provided in subsection
(B)(1)(d) of this section, or such lower height as approved by the city, measured as
follows:
a. For sloping lots which slope uphill from the street of access or in the same
direction as the street of access and for which no building pad exists, the
height shall be measured from the preconstruction (existing) grade at the
highest point on the lot to be covered by the structure to the ridgeline or the
highest point of the structure, as illustrated in Figure 1 below.
FIGURE 1
http://Iibrary.municode.com/HTML/16571/level3/,nTl7ZO-mTIRMI_CH...!M tSDi.html#TIT17ZOJ1RTIREDi_CH17.02SIMIRERSDLI7.02.04OVIPRRE Page 6 of 14
71
fWO
b. For sloping lots which slope downhill from the street of acoess and for which no
building pad exists, the height shall be measured from the average elevation of
the setback line abutting the street of access to the ridgeline or the highest
point of the structure, as illustrated in Figure 2 below.
FIGURE 2
0.
ftMAIM
Old
r
C. For lots with a "building pad" at street level or at a different level than the street
or lot configurations not previously discussed, the height shall be measured
from the preconstrudion (existing) grade at the highest elevation of the existing
building pad area covered by the structure to the ridgellne or highest point of
the structure, as illustrated in Figure 3 below. Portions of a structure which
extend beyond the "building pad" area of a lot shall not qualify as the highest
elevation oovered by the structure, for the purposes of determining maximum
building height Structures allowed pursuant to this subsection shall not exceed
Monty feet in height, as measured from the point where the lowest foundation
or slab meets finished grade, to the ridgeline or highest point of the structure.
Otherwise, a height variation permit shall be required.
FIGURE 3
o
http://library.municode.com/HTML/16571/levei3/TITl7ZO-ARTIREDI_CH...IMt R,SD[.html#TITI7ZOJIRTIREDI_CH17.02SIMIPERSDI_i7.02.044VIPRRE Page 7 of 14
Chapter 17.02 - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R5) V15TRIL75
"IT WHIM
zZa'a -
OR 4.tjWOM
� 4 tdAt �
�i
d. On sloping lots described in Sections-1M.M(3)(1)(a) and
(B)(1)(b) of this chapter, the foundation of the structure shall contain
a minimum eight That step with the slope of the lot, as illustrated in Figure 4
below. however, no portion of the structure shall exceed thirty feet in height,
when measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets
finished grade to the ridge line or highest point of the structure. The thirty foot
height shall not exceed a horizontally projected sixteen That height line (from
the high point of the uphill stop of the structure).
2. Setbacks for Sloping Lots. On lots which slope uphill from the street of access and
where the height of a structure is in excess of sixteen feet above the point where the
lowest foundation or slab meets the ground, areas in excess of the sixteen foot height
limit shall be set back one foot from the exterior building facade of the first story, most
parallel and closest to the front property line, for every foot of height in excess of
sixteen feet, as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets
the ground, as illustrated in Figure 4 below.
FIGURE 4
-0---
t-
t • I
Will-
i
-06
3. f=oliage Obstruction. No pennon shaft significantly impair a view from a viewing area of
a lot by permitting foliage to grow to a height exceeding:
a. The height determined by the view restoration commission through issuance of
a view restoration permit under Section 17.02.040(0)(2) of this chapter, or
b. If no view restoration permit has been issued by the view restoration
commission, a height which is the lesser of.
i. The ridge line of the primary structure on the property; or
ii. Sixteen feet.
If foliage on the property already exceeds the provisions of subdivisions (i) and (ii) of
7R/1Z 9:36 AM
http://libmry.municade.com/HTML/16571/Ieve131TIT17ZO-ARTIREDI-CH...IMIRF11cn-1 htrn*TITl7ZO-ARTIREDl_CH17.02SIMIRERSDI-17,02.04OVIPRRE Page 8 of 14
' SCS
�.Ilap[Of 1LVG - ]IP14LC-rAMILT AcaluCly I ImL %"; u1] I KIL.I-'o
Section 17.1a2.1Q(B)(3) of this chapter on the effective date of this section, as approved by
the voters on November 7, 1989, and significantly Impairs a view from a viewing area of a
lot, then notwithstanding whether any person has sought or obtained issuance of a view
restoration permit, the foliage owner shall not let the foliage exceed the foliage height
existing on the effective date of this section (November 17, 1989). The purpose of this
paragraph is to ensure that owners of foliage which violates the provisions of this paragraph
on the effective date of this section shall not allow the foliage to increase in height. This
paragraph does not "grandfath&' or otherwise permit such foliage to continue to block a
view.
4. Removal of Foliage as Condition of hermit Issuance. The city shall issue no
conditional use permit, variance, height variation, building permit or other entitlement
to construct a structure, or to add livable area to a structure on a parcel utilized for
residential purposes, unless the owner removes that part of the foliage on the lot
exceeding sixteen feet in height or the ridge line of the primary structure, whichever s
lower, that significantly impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel. The
owner of the property is responsible for maintaining the foliage so that the views
remain unimpaired. This requirement shall not apply where removal of the foliage
would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the occupants of the
property on which the foliage exists and there is no method by which the property
owner can create such privacy through some other means allowed within the
development code that does not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of
another property. The initial decision on the amount of foliage removal required or the
reasonable degree of privacy to be maintained shall be made by the director, the
planning commission or the city council, as appropriate for the entitlement in question.
If the permit issuance involves property located within the Miraleste recreation and
park district, the findings of Section 17.02.04o(C)(2)(c)(vl) of this chapter shall apply.
A decision by the director on either of these matters may be appealed to the planning
commission, and any decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the
city council.
5• Determination of Viewing Area.
a. The determination of a viewing area shall be made by balancing the nature of
the view to be protected and the importance of the area of the structure or lot
from where the view is taken. Once finally determined for a particular
application, the viewing area may not be changed for any subsequent
application. In the event the city and owner cannot agree on the viewing area,
the decision of the city shall control. A property owner may appeal the city's
determination of viewing area. In such event, the decision on the viewing area
will be made by the body making the final decision on the application. A
property owner may preserve his or her right to dispute the decision on the
viewing area for a subsequent application, without disputing the decision on a
pending application, by filing a skatement to that effect and Indicating the
viewing area the property owner believes to be more appropriate. The
statement shall be filed with the city prior to consideration of the pending
application by the city.
C. Procedures and Requirements.
1 • Preservation of Views Where Structures are Involved.
a• Any person proposing to construct a structure above sixteen feet shall submit a
height variation permit application to the city. A determination on the application
shall be made by the director in accordance with the findings described in
Section 17.02.040(C)(1)(e) of this chapter. The director shall refer a height
variation application directly to the planning commission for consideration under
the same findings, as part of a public hearing, if any of the following is
proposed:
i, Any portion of a structure which exceeds sixteen fleet in height extends
closer than twenty-five feet from the front or street -side property line; or
ii. The area of the structure which exceeds sixteen fleet in height (the
second story footprint) exceeds seventy-five percent of the first story
footprint area (residence and attached garage);
Sixty percent or more of a garage footprint is covered by a structure
which exceeds sixteen feet in height (a second story);
Melte V:soAM
http://library.municode.com/HTML/16571/level3/TITI7ZOJIRTIREDI_CH.. t@FI�SDIAMWTITI7ZOJIRTIREDLCH17.0ZSIMIRERSDI_17.02.04OMPRRE Page 9 of 14
%.ri&Fner Af.WL- arnuLU-•rn 1K.r KG7WUVIIML %"I VIJI KILO
N• The portion of the structure which exceeds sixteen feet in height is
being developed as part of a new single-family residence; or
V. Based on an initial site visit, the director determines that any portion of a
structure which Is proposed to exceed sixteen feet in height may
significantly impair a view as defined in this chapter.
b. The applicant shall take reasonable steps established by the city council to
consult with owners of property located within five hundred feet of the
appllcanf's property. The applicant shall obtain and submit with the application
the signatures of the persons with whom the applicant consulted. Where a
homeowners! association existing in the neighborhood affected has provided
written notice to the director of its desire to be notified of height variation
applications, the applicant shall mail a letter to the association requesting its
position on the application. A copy of this letter and the response of the
association, if any, shall be submitted with the application. A fee shall be
charged for the application as established by resolution of the city council.
C. The director shall, by written notice, notify property owners within a five -
hundred -foot radius of the subject property and the affected homeowners'
association, if any, of the application and inform them that any objections to the
proposed construction must be submitted to the director within thirty calendar
days of the date of the notice.
d. The applicant shall construct on the site at the applicant's expense, as a visual
aid, a temporary frame of the proposed structure.
e. A height variation application to build a new structure or an addition to an
existing structure, either of which exceeds siren feet in height up to the
maximum height permitted in subsection (13)(1) of this section, may be granted
with or without conditions if the following findings can be made:
i• The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process
established by the city;
ii. The proposed new structure that is above sixteen fleet in height or
addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height does
not significantly impair a view from public property (parks, major
thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or equestrian trails) which has been
Identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as city -
designated viewing areas;
The proposed new structure is not located on a ridge or a promontory;
IV. The area of a proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in
height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen fleet in
height, as defined in subsection B of this section, when considered
exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the
viewing area of another parcel. If the viewing area is located in a
structure, the viewing area shall be located in a portion of a structure
which was constructed without a height variation permit or variance, or
which would not have required a height variation or variance when
originally constructed had this section, as approved by the voters on
November 7, 1989, been in effect at the time the structure was
constructed, unless the viewing area located in the portion of the
existing structure which required a height variation permit or variance
constitutes the primary living area (living room, family room, dining room
or kitchen) of the residence;
V. If view impairment exists from the viewing area of another parcel but It is
determined not to be significant, as described in subsection (C)(1)(e)(vi)
of this section, the proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in
height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in
Rancho Palos Verdes, California, Code of Ordinances as Title 17 - ZONING sa ARTICLE I. - RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS ?> Chapter 17.02 - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS) DISTRICTS >>
-u dr,p,r wouvier UUNI Ura.. I . 1.. yprdnrmerrrm�arrw errrnr�vy �a�
considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the
proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to
a structure that is above sixteen feet in height; and (b) considering the
1IZILL W50 AM
http://IlbraFy.munkode,com/HTML/18571/level3/TIT17ZO-ARTIREDI-C... MIRERSDI.html#TITI7ZQ.ARTIREDI_CH17.02SIMIRERSDI_17.02.040VIPRRE Page 10 of 14
I.napRr Lr.u[ - 201NUU-rM1MILf KtNUtR I IFIL �KW UMI KK, 1 ]
amount of view impairment that would be caused by the construction on
other parcels of similar new structures or additions that exceed sixteen
feet in height;
vil• The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements;
Vili_ The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood
character;
ix. The proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or
addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height does
not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the
occupants of abutting residences.
f. V* tten notice of the director's or planning commission's decision shall be sent
to the applicant, his/her representative and to all parties who responded to the
original notice.
9• The decision of the director may be appealed to the planning commission by
the applicant or any person who responded in writing to the director prior to the
director's decision; provided, the appeal is filed in writing within fifteen calendar
days after the date of the director's decision. The appellant shall pay an appeal
fee as established by resolution of the city council.
h. Notice of the public hearing for an initial determination of a height variation
application by the planning commission or an appeal to the planning
commission and/or city council shall be mailed thirty calendar days prior to the
hearing, to property owners within five hundred feet of the applicant's property,
as well as any additional property owners previously determined by the city to
be affected by the proposal.
L In hearing an appeal of the director's decision, the planning commission shall
grant the application and cause a permit to be issued, only if it finds that all of
the requirements of subsection (C)(1)(e) of this section have been met.
1• A decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council by
the applicant or any person who commented orally or in writing to the planning
commission; provided, the appeal is filed in writing within fifteen calendar days
after the date of the planning commission's decision. The appellant shall pay
an appeal fee as established by resolution of the city council. In order to grant
a permit, the city council must determine that all of the requirements fisted in
subsection (C)(1)(e) of this section have been met.
2 Restoration of Views Where Foliage is a Factor.
a• Any resident owning a residential structure with a view may file an application
with the city fior a view restoration permit. The applicant shall file with the
application proof that the applicant consulted, or attempted to consult, with the
property owner whose foliage is in question. The applicant shall pay a fee for
the view restoration permit as established by resolution of the city council.
b. The application shall be submitted to the view restoration commission. Written
notice of the time and place for the hearing on the application shall be sent to
the applicant and the property owner(s) of the foliage involved at least thirty
calendar days prior to the meeting of the commission. Commission members
shall inspect the site prior to the public hearing. Only view restoration
commission members who make a site inspection may participate in the public
hearing.
C. In order for a view restoration notice to be issued, the commission must find:
L The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process
and has shown proof of cooperation on hisser part to resolve conflicts;
ii. Foliage exceeding sixteen feet or the ridge line of the primary structure,
whichever is lower, significantly impairs a view from the applicant's
viewing area, whether such foliage is located totally on one property, or
when combined with foliage located on more than one property;
M. The foliage to be removed is located on property, any part of which
less than one thousand feet from the applicants property line(s);
iv. The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist, as view
impairing vegetation, when the lot from which the view is taken was
created;
V. Removal or trimming of the foliage will not cause an unreasonable
TRl1L 9:36 AM
http://Ilbrary.municode.com/HTML/16571/level31TiT17ZO-ARTIREDI_C...MIKE�Df.htmi#TIT177aARnRED1-CH17.02SIMIRERSDI_17.02.040VIPRRE Page 11 of 14
..r.M�rwr +• .rte r...wr� •...�..-• r�r...vr.. ... w ,rv/ vr.. • r�ra. r.�
infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the property upon which
the foliage is located;
V1. For property located within the boundaries of the Miraleste recreation
and park district, the commission shall also find the removal or trimming
of the foliage strikes a reasonable balance between meeting the
purposes of this section, as set forth in the ordinance approved by the
voters on November 7, 1989, and preserving the historical
developments of the Miraleste recreation and park district area with a
large number of trees.
d. Should the commission make findings requiring issuance of a view restoration
permit, the director shall send a notice to the property owner to trim, cull, lace
or otherwise cause the foliage to be reduced to sixteen feet or the ridgeline of
the primary structure, whichever is lower, or such limit above that height which
will restore the view. The property owner will have ninety calendar days to
have the foliage removed. The applicant shall be responsible for the expense
of the foliage removal and/or replacement ordered pursuant to this subsection
only to the extent of the lowest bid amount provided by contractors licensed to
do such work in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and selected by the applicant.
After the initial trimming, culling, lacing or removal of the foliage, the owner, at
the owners expense, shall be responsible for maintaining the foliage so that
the view restoration required by the view restoration permit Is maintained.
e. To the extent legally permissible, trees or foliage on property owned by any
governmental entity, except the city and the Miraleste recreation and park
district, shall be subject to view restoration control, as per the provisions of this
section; except, that the foliage shall be trimmed or removed thirty calendar
days foilowing issuance of the notice. Trees and/or foliage located on city
property, or in the public right-of-way, as defined in Chanter 77.95 (Definitions),
shall be subject to view restoration control, as per the provisions of this
section, pursuant to the city tree review permit procedure contained in Section
17.76.100 (City tree review permit.)
f. The view restoration commission may impose such reasonable conditions or
restrictions on the approval of a view restoration permit as may be found to be
appropriate or necessary th protect the public health, safety or welfare or the
foliage owner's reasonable enjoyment of his or her property. Such conditions or
restrictions may include, but are not limited to: (1) requiring the complete
removal of the subject foliage when the commission finds that the trimming,
culling, lacing or reducing of that folliage to sixteen feet or the ridge line is likely
to kill the foliage, threaten the public health, safety and welfare, or will destroy
the aesthetic value of the foliage that is to be pruned or reduced in height,
provided that the property owner consents to the removal; and (2) requiring
replacement of such foliage when the commission finds that removal without
replacement will cause a significant adverse impact on; (a) the public health,
safety and welfare, (b) the privacy of the property owner, (c) shade provided to
the dwelling or the property, (d) the energy -efficiency of the dwelling, (e) the
health or viability of the remaining landscaping, or (f) the integrity of the
landscape plan, provided that the property owner .consents to the replacement.
g. The applicant, the owner of the property where the foliage is located, or any
other interested person may appeal the decision of the view restoration
commission to the city council by filing with the city clerk a written notice of
appeal, including the grounds for the appeal, and any specific action being
requested by the appellant, together with the appeal fee established by
resolution of the city council, within fifteen calendar days after the view
restoration commission adopts the resolution setting forth its decision. The
decision of the view restoration commission is final if no appeal is filed within
fifteen calendar days. If such an appeal is timely and properly filed, a copy of
the findings of the view restoration commission and all materials on file with the
director shall be transmitted to the city council, which shall be part of the
appeal hearing record, together with the notice of appeal and any other written
materials submitted by interested parties. Additional written materials shall be
submitted to the city dark at least seven calendar days prior to the date that
the appeal will be heard by the city council.
11, 1 - ..Ju M"I
http://library.municok.com/HTML/15571/level3/TITI7ZO_ARnREDI_C... MIRERSDI.html#TIT17ZO.ARTIREDI_CH17.02SIMIRERSDI_17.02.040YIPRRE Page 12 of 14
L.nar7Le1 LI uc - NIMALL- MmIL-1 1%c3luC1i11IML 11Ul UI] 1 M%-13
infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the property upon which
r1Sl-Lf 7:'YOMM
the foliage is located;
A. For property located within the boundaries of the Miraieste recreation
and park district, the commission shall also find the removal or trimming
of the foliage strikes a reasonable balance between meeting the
purposes of this section, as set forth in the ordinance approved by the
voters on November 7, 9989, and preserving the historical
developments of the Mimleste recreation and park district area with a
large number of trees.
d. Should the commission make findings requiring issuance of a view restoration
permit, the director shall send a notice to the property owner to trim, cull, lace
or otherwise cause the foliage to be reduced to sixteen feet or the ddgeline of
the primary structure, whichever is lower, or such limit above that height which
will restore the view. The property owner will have ninety calendar days to
have the foliage removed. The applicant shall be responsible for the expense
of the foliage removal and/or replacement ordered pursuant to this subsection
only to the extent of the lowest bid amount provided by contractors licensed to
do such work in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and selected by the applicant.
After the initial trimming, culling, lacing or removal of the foliage, the owner, at
the owner's expense, shall be responsible for maintaining the foliage so that
the view restoration required by the view restoration permit is maintained.
e. To the extent legally permissible, trees or foliage on property owned by any
governmental entity, except the city and the Miralests recreation and park
district, shall be subject to view restoration control, as per the provisions of this
section; except, that the foliage shall be trimmed or removed thirty calendar
days following issuance of the notice. Trees and/or foliage located on city
property, or in the public right-of-way, as defined ink (Definitions),
shall be subject to view restoration control, as per the provisions of this
section, pursuant to the city tree review permit procedure contained in Section
17.76.104 (City tree review permit.)
f. The view restoration commission may impose such reasonable conditions or
restrictions on the approval of a view restoration permit as may be found to be
appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare or the
foliage owner's reasonable enjoyment of his or her property. Such conditions or
restrictions may include, but are not limited to: (1) requiring the complete
removal of the subject foliage when the commission finds that the trimming,
culling, lacing or reducing of that foliage to sixteen Beet or the ridge line is likely
to kill the foliage, threaten the public health, safety and welfare, or will destroy
the aesthetic value of the foliage that is to be pruned or reduced in height,
provided that the property owner consents to the removal; and (2) requiring
replacement of such foliage when the commission finds that removal without
replacement will cause a significant adverse impact on: (a) the public health,
safety and welfare, (b) the privacy of the property owner, (c) shade provided to
the dwelling or the property, (d) the energy -efficiency of the dwelling, (e) the
health or viability of the remaining landscaping, or ($ the integrity of the
landscape plan, provided that the property owner consents to the replacement.
9. The applicant, the owner of the property where the foliage is located, or any
other interested person may appeal the decision of the view restoration
commission to the city council by filing with the city clerk a written notice of
appeal, including the grounds for the appeal, and any specific action being
requested by the appellant, together with the appeal fee established by
resolution of the city council, within fifteen calendar days after the view
restoration commission adopts the resolution setting forth its decision. The
decision of the view restoration commission is final if no appeal is filed within
fifteen calendar days. If such an appeal is timely and properly filed, a copy of
the findings of the view restoration commission and all materials on file with the
director shall be transmitted to the city council, which shall be part of the
appeal hearing record, together with the notice of appeal and any other written
materials submitted by interested parties. Additional written materials shall be
submitted to the city clerk at least seven calendar days prior to the date that
the appeal will be heard by the city council. 0
http:l/llbrary.munlcode.nom/HTML/16571/Ieve13/TIT17ZOJ{RTIREDI_C...M l l.html#T r17Z0-1RTIREDI_CH17.02SIMIRERSDI_17.02.040VIPRRE Page 12 of 14
L.rmpLur Lf we - 7rrR,Lr-rMM5L T KL:SILJrA+r I PAL %K30 V IJ r Kl%. l J
Upon receiving the notice of appeal, the city clerk shall schedule the matter for
review at a forthcoming meeting of the city council. At the city council meeting, oral
testimony shall be limited to five minutes in length for each of the partes whose
properties are affected by the decision and two minutes per person for other
individuals. Oral testimony shall be limited to the issues raised in the written appeal.
At the conclusion of the oral presentation, the city council may do one of the
following:
L Affirm the decision of the view restoration commission and approve the
application upon finding that all applicable findings have been correctly
made and all provisions of subsection (C)(2) of this section are complied
with;
ii. Approve the application but impose additional or different conditions as
the city council deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of subsection
(C)(2) of this section;
Iii. Disapprove the application upon finding that all applicable findings
cannot be made or all provisions of subsection (C)(2) of this section
have not been compiled with; or
iv. Refer the matter back to the view restoration commission to conduct
further proceedings. The remanded proceedings may include the
presentation of significant new evidence which was raised in conjunction
with the appeal. The city council shall state the ground(s) for the remand
and shall give instructions to the view restoration commission
concerning any error found by the city council In the commission's prior
determination.
h. If, after ninety calendar days, the foliage has not been removed or trimmed in
accordance with the requirements of a view restoration or view preservation
permit, the city of Rancho Palos Verdes will authorize a bonded tree service to
trim, cull, lace or remove the identified foliage at the owner's expense. In the
event that the city Is required to perform the work, the foliage owner will be
billed for all city expenses incurred in enforcing the view restoration or
preservation permit (including reasonable attorney's fees). If the property
owner does not pay the city for the amount set forth on the invoice, the city
may record a lien or assessment against the foliage owner's property, pursuant
to QbaukL8.24 of this Cale.
TABLE 02-A: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
/JLI lL uma AM
For exceptions and explanatory descriptions of these standards and for other development
standards that apply to single-family residential areas, see Articles VI and VII of this title. The number
which follows an "RS--" designation indicates the maximum number of lots per acre permitted in the zone;
the "RS -/1" number indicates the minimum number of acres per lot permitted.
DISTRICT LOT DIMENSIONSI MINIMUM SETBACKS3. 6 MINIMUM SETBACKS2, 3, a FOR MAXIMUM MAXIMUM PARKING
FOR CITY CREATED LOTS LOTS CREATED PRIOR TO LOT HEIGHTS. REQUIREMENT
INCORPORATIONIANNEXATION COVERAGE 4, 7
AREA WIDTH DEPTH FRONT INTERIOR STREET REAR FRONT INTERIOR STREET REAR
SIDE SIDE SIDE SIDE
TTL ONE
BOTH SIDE
SIDES
RS -A-5 5 200 300 20 30 1Q 20 20 20 5 19 lft
acres
RS -1 1 acre 100 150 20 25 12 20 20 20 5 1Q 1;F 25%
1l
1$
RS -2 20,000 90 120 20 20 1Q 20 20 20 5 1Q 11 40% JA
Fa
http://IlbmFy.rnunicode.com/HTML/16571/leve13/TIT17ZOARTIREDI_C...MIR Dl.htmIOTIT17Z RTIREDI-CH17.0251MIRERSI]I-17.02.040VIPRRE
less than 5,000
91 of habitable
space = 2
enclosed
garage spaces
51000 S.f, or
move of
habitable space
= 3 enclosed
garage spaces
Page 13 of 14
CITVOFL WCHO WDS QES
MSG fNf Y nFVT:l CPMFKF WARTiMFT1T
View Restoration. View Preservation. and City Tree Review Permits
In November 1989 the voters in the City of Ranch Palos Verdes passed Proposition M, a View
Preservation and Restoration Ordinance (herein the "OrdinanoWl. The Ordinance establishes
two view recovery procedures; one to "Preserve" views which existed at the time or since the
Ordinance became effective (November 17, 1989) and the other procedure,. to "Restore" a view
that existed at the time the affected view lot was legally created. The Ordinance was codified as
RPV Municipal Code Section 17.02.040.
The City tree policy was not originally part of the Proposition M. However, in consideration of the
Ordinance, the City Council adopted Resolution 89-119 in 1989. This resolution made the City
accountable to the spirit of the view restoration process by implementing the City Tree Review.
Permit policy as a procedure to be used by residents to have view4mpairing City trees trimmed
or removed. The City Tree Review Permit policy was codified into the RPV Municipal Code as
Section 17,76.100.
F26Von Pdvate Proggir excceedW 16 feet in _Uhtandlorthea&e1theofthe
folhVe owner's residence
(RPV Municipal Code Section 17,02.048)
View Restoration Permit (VRPI: Approved and issued by the Planning Commission (PC) in
cases where the view was already impaired at the time the Ordinance went into effect but was
not impaired when the applicant's lot was created. There are six criteria, which constitute the
basis for a decision by the PC. If a VRP is approved, the applicant (not the foliage owner) pays
for the cost of performing the necessary work. Once the initial trimming and/or removal work is
completed, then the foliage owner Is required to maintain the foliage at his or her own expense.
In order to initiate the application, the City asks that you make an attempt to work out the issue
with the foliage owner. Written proof of your attempt will be asked by the City before you submit
any application to the City. If you cannot work out a solution with your neighbor on an informal
basis, you may then submit a completed "Notice of Latent to File An Ali on For View
Restoration" form to the City. After your application is received, a pre-applicationlmediation
meeting will be scheduled with all parties involved in order to attempt to resolve the issues
between the parties. If no resolution can be made, a 014ew Restoration Permit Aodicetiore may
be submitted to the City so that the Planning Commission could review and deliberate on the
application request. A non-refundable flat fee of $5106 is due at the time of submittal. If the
permit request Is approved by the Planning Commission, then the applicant will be required to
pay the costs of performing the required trimming, removal and/or planting replacement foliage.
View Preservation Application (VPP): Pursuant to the Ordinance, foliage owners are
required to maintain their foliage at the same height that It was in November 1989 or thereafter
so as not to cause a significant impairment of a view. in order to enforce this provision of the,
Code, the burden of proof rests on the property owners whose views have become significantly
impaired. Burden of proof is usually in the form of a photograph documenting an unobstructed
view taken on November 17, 1989 or sometime thereafter from the affected property's viewing
IC:!an 11AAm4.x< * RAV! 1. I Rawl S -K } 7f4 .r'f39
l'!11Y� �1:.; d� CXM�I_ LM :) dC tF'Lfi i?F�faN?h ;S3Ci a41 92281 � .U: `Ci J[ :i+l L YL'1q,WJM t3tis W 7Q0C 1 A?1.1 AX 1310) ;.:4-52W
F mAf rq Rm`-;*R''°Vt:C7M; L'k'4'13rfi�iC?5 1 171 S{,a"l�Ri�+e
area. You may initiate the View Preservation process by submitting a completed
"Documentation of Existina View or Follsoe"'form accompanied by color or black and white
photographs. Staff will then complete a site visit to verify that the submitted photographs
accurately depict an unobstructed view from the property owner`s viewing area. Any Staff -
verified photographs will be kept on file in the Community Development department and can be
used if you wish to continue with the View Preservation process.
In order to initiate a View Preservation application, the City asks that you make an attempt to
work out the issue with the foliage owner. Written proof of your attempt will be asked by the City
before you submit any application to the City. if you cannot work out a solution with your
neighbor on an Informal basis, you may then submit a completed "Notice olIntent to File An
gpolication For View Preservation form to the City. There are no City fees involved to initiate
this type of a request. After your application is received by the City, City Staff will visit your
residence and determine whether the subject foliage creates a significant view impairment. If it
is determined there is a significant view impairment, then the City will issue a written notice to
the foliage owner informing him/her that of the view impairment and such notice shall request
that the foliage owner trim the offending foliage to the condition shown In the applicant-
submitted
pplicantsubmitted documented view photograph within a 30 day period. If the foliage owner voluntarily
performs the necessary work within 30 days of receiving notice, then no further permit
processing shall be required.
If no work is performed within 30 days of receiving the notices, than you may file a formal
application. Once a fonral View Preservation Permit application has been submitted, the
Director of Community Development shall make a determination on the request. If time View
Preservation Permit application is approved by the Director a "Notice of the Director's
Determination will be issued, giving the foliage owner 90 days to perform the necessary work.
Foliage on Public Pro_ ern
(RPV Municipal Code Section 17.76. 100)
City Tree Review Permit (CTRP): If the foliage that is significantly impairing your view is
located on public property, then you may submit a completed "Clty Tree Rffview Permit
Apalication For View Restoration" form to the City. A non-refundable fiat processing fee of $6W
is due at the time of the application submittal. Pursuant to Section 17.76.100 of time City's
Development Code, you should also be aware that the Director of Community Development
shall only grant the city tree review permit if it is determined that trees and/or foliage the City -
owned foliage &nffiicantly, irrrpairs a view from a City Code defined viewing area. If the permit
application is approved by the Director of Community Development, then the City shall pay for
the tree removal costs.
See the View Restoration Guidelines and Procedures for more Information. The Guidelines, forms
and applications are available at the Community Development Department and on the City's
website: htto://www.oalosverdes.cam/rov/dlanninahvrestoraUonlindex.cfm
Please contact the City's View Restoration Staff at (310) 544-5226 or email at planninalmrrav,Dom if
you have any questions.
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
ORDINANCE NO. 661
AN ORDINANCE OF `rHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
ESTATES ADDING CHAPTER 17.55 ENTITLED VIEW PRESERVATION TO TITLE
17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES.
WHEREAS, both views and trees/vegetation contribute to the aesthetic value, quality of
life, ambiance and economic value of properties within the city. Similarly, access to sunlight
across property lines contributes to the health and well being of community members, enhances
property values and provides an opportunity to utilize solar energy. Utilization of passive solar
energy reduces air pollution, visual blight and ill health; and
WHEREAS, views, whether of the Pacific Ocean, the surrounding hillsides and canyons
or other natural and manmade landmarks produce a variety of significant and tangible benefits
for both residents and visitors. Views contribute to the aesthetic visual environment of the
community by providing scenic vistas and inspiring distinctive architectural design. Views
contribute to property values; and
WHEREAS, residents and property owners cherish their outward views from the Palos
Verdes Peninsula. Outward views contribute greatly to the quality of life in the city and promote
the general welfare of the entire community; and
WHEREAS, trees and vegetation produce a wide variety of significant psychological and
tangible benefits for both residents and visitors to the community. Trees and vegetation provide
privacy, modify temperatures, screen winds, replenish oxygen to the atmosphere, maintain soil
moisture, mitigate soil erosion and provide wildlife habitat. Trees and vegetation contribute to
the visual environment and aesthetics by blending, buffering and reducing the scale and mass of
architecture. Trees and vegetation within the city provide botanical variety and a sense of
history. Trees and vegetation also create shade and visual screens and provide a buffer between
different land uses. Trees contribute to property values. Absent an unreasonable obstruction of
the view of a neighboring property, the city encourages and supports the growth and
maintenance of trees and vegetation; and
WHEREAS, owners and residents should maintain trees on their property in a healthy
condition for both safety reasons and for preservation of outward views. Before planting trees,
owners and residents should consider view blockage potential, both currently and at tree
maturity, and should not plant, maintain or permit to grow any tree or vegetation which
unreasonably obstructs the view from a neighboring property; and
WHEREAS, the benefits derived from views and trees/vegetation may come into
conflict. The planting of trees and other vegetation and their subsequent growth, particularly
when such trees are not properly maintained, can produce unintended harmful effects both on the
property on which they are planted and/or on neighboring properties; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare to:
(a) Establish the right of real property owners in the city to preserve and/or restore
views which existed from unreasonable obstruction by the growth of trees and other vegetation.
Such a right shall accrue, and shall protect views that existed, on the date the property was
acquired or fifteen years prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter,.
whichever is later;
(b) Recognize that every real property owner in the city is entitled to a process to
resolve conflicts that negatively impact view equity, in order to preserve a reasonable amount of
the view benefiting such real property;
ORDINANCE NO. 661
ADDING CHAPTER 17.55
VIEW PRESERVATION TO TITLE 17
OCTOBER 12, 2010
G
(c) Establish a process and evaluation criteria by which property owners may seek
restoration of views when unreasonably obstructed by the growth of trees or other vegetation;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the following sections of the CEQA Guidelines,
Califomin Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3: i) Section 15061(b)(3) (CEQA only applies
to activities which have the potential for having a significant effect on the environment), ii)
15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378), and iii)15175 (the Master
Environmental Impact Report for the city's General Plan certified on September 22,1992 has
addressed mitigating environmental measures for all proposed amendments to be made to the
Municipal Code); and
WHEREAS, the original version of Ordinance No. 661 has been posted on the city's
website for public review since March 4, 2010, and has been the subject of significant public
input and commentary; and
WHEREAS, the city council, upon giving the required Notice, did on the 11th da of
May, the 130' day of July, the 10th day of August, the 2e day of September, and the 12' day of
October 2010, conduct Public Hearings, at which time all interested parties were given full
opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
ESTATES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1 Chapter 17.55, entitled View Preservation, is hereby added to Title 17 of
the Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code,
CHAPTER 17.55 - - VIEW PRESERVATION
SEC. 17.55.010 Findings and declarations.
The city council finds and declares as follows:
(1) Both views and trees/vegetation contribute to the aesthetic value, quality of life,
ambiance and economic value of properties within the city. Similarly, access to sunlight across
property lines contributes to the health and well being of community members, enhances
property values and provides an opportunity to utilize solar energy. Utilization of passive solar
energy reduces air pollution, visual blight and ill health.
(2) Views, whether of the Pacific.Ocem, the surrounding hillsides and canyons or
other natural and manmade landmarks produce a variety of significant and tangible benefits for
both residents and visitors. Views contribute to the aesthetic visual environment of the
community by providing scenic vistas and inspiring distinctive architectural design. Views
contribute to property values.
(3) Residents and property owners cherish their outward views from the Palos Verdes
Peninsula. Outward views contribute greatly to the quality of life in the city and promote the
general welfare of the entire community.
(4) Trees and vegetation produce a wide variety of significant psychological and
tangible benefits for both residents and visitors to the community. Trees and vegetation provide
privacy, modify temperatures, screen winds, replenish oxygen to the atmosphere, maintain soil
moisture, mitigate soil erosion and provide wildlife habitat. Trees and vegetation contribute to
the visual environment and aesthetics by blending, buffering and reducing the scale and mass of
architecture. Trees and vegetation within the city provide botanical variety and a sense of
history. Trees and vegetation also create shade and visual screens and provide a buffer between
different land uses. Trees contribute to property values. Absent an unreasonable obstruction of
the view of a neighboring property, the city encourages and supports the growth and
maintenance of trees and vegetation.
ORDINANCE NO. 661
ADDIN4 CHAPTER 17.55
VIEW PRESERVATION TO Tin.E 17
0=08R 12.7010
(5) Owners and residents should maintain trees on their property in a healthy
condition for both safety reasons and for preservation of outward views. Before planting trees,
owners and residents should consider view blockage potential, both currently and at tree
maturity, and should not plant, maintain or permit to grow any tree or vegetation which
unreasonably obstructs the view from a neighboring property.
(6) The benefits derived from views and trees/vegetation may come into conflict.
The planting of trees and other vegetation and their subsequent growth, particularly when such
trees are not properly maintained, can produce unintended harmful effects both on the property
on which they are planted and/or on neighboring properties. It is, therefore, in the interest of the
public health, safety and welfare to:
(a) Establish the right of real property owners in the city to preserve and/or restore
views which existed from unreasonable obstruction by the growth of trees and other vegetation.
Property owners shall have the right to preserve views that existed on the date the property was
acquired or fifteen years prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter,
whichever is later;
(b) Recognize that every real property owner in the city is entitled to a process to
resolve Conflicts that negatively impact view equity, in order to preserve a reasonable amount of
the view benefiting such real property; and
(c) Establish a process and evaluation criteria by which property owners play seek
restoration of views when unreasonably obstructed by the growth of trees or other vegetation.
(7) When a dispute arises concerning the impairment or obstruction of a view, the
parties should act reasonably to resolve the dispute through friendly communication, thoughtful
negotiation, compromise, and other traditional means, such as discussions with the appropriate
neighborhood or homeowner association. Those disputes which are not resolved through such
means shall follow the procedure established herein. (Ord. 661 § I (part), 2010).
SEC. 1755.020 Intent and purpose.
The intent and purpose of this chapter is to:
(1) Recognize and establish a process by which real property owners may preserve or
restore view equity within the immediate vicinity of their property as set forth in Section
17.55.040;
(2) Establish procedures and evaluation criteria by which real property owners may
seek resolution of view equity disputes;
(3) Discourage duplicative, repetitive or serial claims for view equity; and
(4) Discourage ill-considered damage to trees/vdgetation and promote proper
landscaping establishment and maintenance.
It is not the intent of the city to encourage clear -cutting or substantial denuding of any
property of its trees by overzealous application of provisions of this chapter. It is also not the
intent or purpose of this chapter for the city to create either a covenant running with the land (for
example, CC&.R's or deed restriction) or an equitable servitude (for example, easement or
license). However, the City will keep a record of agreements and decisions reached pursuant to
Sections 17,55.070, 17.55.080, 17.55.90 and 17.55.110 of which it is notified, and provide those
agreements and/or decisions as part of the pre -purchase inspection report it provides to
prospective purchasers of property in the city who request such a report. (Ord. 661 § 1 (part),
2010).
SEC. 17.55.030 Definitions.
For the purpose of this chapter, the meaning and construction of words and phrases
hereinafier set forth shall apply.
3
ORDINANCENO. 661
ADDQ70 CHAPTER 17.55
VIEW PRESERVATION TO TITLE 17
OCTOBER 12.2010
"Alter" means to take action that changes the tree or vegetation, including but not limited
to, extensive pruning of the canopy area, cutting, girdling, interfering with the water supply,
applying chemicals or re -grading around the feeder root zone of the tree or vegetation.
"Arbitration" means a voluntary legal procedure for settling disputes and leading to a
final and binding determination of rights of parties, usually consisting of a hearing before an
arbitrator where all relevant evidence may be freely admitted as set forth in California Code of
Civil Procedure Section 1280 et seq.
"Arbitratoe, means a mutually agreed upon neutral third party professional intermediary
who conducts a hearing process, and who hears testimony, considers evidence and makes
binding decisions for the disputing parties. The arbitrator of a view equity dispute shall be
chosen from a list available from the city of qualified and professionally trained
arbitrators/mediators, including but not limited to, members of the American Arbitration
Association.
"Arborist, certified" means a person who has passed a series of tests by the International
Society of Arboriculture (ISA), is governed by ISA's professional code of ethics and possesses
the technical competence through experience and related training to provide for or supervise the
management of trees and other woody plants. The arborist utilized in mediation of a view equity
dispute shall be the city's certified arborist.
"Authorized agent" means a person, as defined herein, who has been designated and
approved in writing by the property owner of record to act on his/her behalf in matters• pertaining
to the processing of a view equity claim as outlined in this chapter,
"Canopy"means the umbrella -like structure created by the over -head leaves and
branches of tree which create a sheltered area below.
"City" means the City of Rolling Hills Estates.
"City maintained trees" means trees which are specifically designated for maintenance by
the city council. "City maintained trees" include heritage trees which aro located in the
unimproved portion of a dedicated and accepted street right-of-way easement and for wbieh the
real property owner has requested and given the city written permission to maintain.
"City property" means any real property ofwhich the city is the fee simple owner of
record.
"Claim, view equity" means documentation, as set forth in Section 17.55.050, that
outlines the basis of view equity diminishment and the specific preservation action that is being
sought.
"Crown" means the rounded top of the tree.
"Crown reduction/shaping" means a method of comprehensive pruning that reduces a
tree's height and/or spread. Crown reduction entaila the reduction of the top, sides or individual
limbs by means of removal of leaders or the longest portion of limbs to a lateral large enough to
assume the terminal. The diagram that follows is illustrative of"crown reduction/shaping"
within the meaning of this chapter.
ORDINANCE No. 651
ADOINO CHAPTER 1755
VIEW PRESERVATION TO TITLE 17
OCTOBER 12, 2010
Grown Reduction/Shaping
"Destroy" means to kill or take action that endangers the health or vigor of a tree or
vegetation, including, but not limited to, cutting, girdling, interfering with the water supply,
applying chemicals or re -grading around the base of the trunk.
"Heading back" means the overall reduction of the mass of a tree by modification to
major limbs. The diagram that follows is illustrative of "heading back" within the meaning of
this chapter.
Heading Back
5
ORDINANCE M 661
ADD1N0 CRAPTER 17.55aZ'1.8
ri-5
VISW PRESERVAMN TO T17
OC rOOM 12, 2010
"Lacing" means a comprehensive method of pruning that systematically and sensitively
removes excess foliage and improves the structure of the tree. The diagram that follows is
illustrative of "lacing" within the meaning of this chapter.
Before and Auer
Lacing
"Maintenance pruning" means pruning with the primary objective of maintaining or
improving tree health and structure; includes "crown reduction/shaping" or "lacing;' but not
ordinarily "headine hack."
"Mediator" means a neutral, objective third party professional negotiator/facilitator to
help disputing parties reach a mutually satisfactory solution regarding a view equity claim. The
mediator shall be chosen from a list available from the city of qualified and professionally
trained arbitmtors/mediators, including but not limited to, members of the American Arbitration
Association.
"Obstruction" means the blocking or diminishment of a view attributable to growth,
improper maintenance or location Of trees and/or vegetation.
"Person" means any individual, individuals, corporation, partnership, firm or other legal
entity.
"Preservation action" means any specific steps taken affecting trees or vegetation that
would result in the preservation or restoration of view equity. across property lines.
"Pinning" means the removal of plant material from a tree/vegetation.
"Real property" means rights or interests of ownership of land and all appurtenances to
the land including buildings, fixtures, vegetation and improvements erected upon, planted or
affixed to the land.
"Severe pruning" means the cutting of branches and/or trunk of a tree in a manner which
substantially reduces the overall size of the tree or destroys the existing symmetrical appearance
or natural shape of the tree and which results in the removal of main lateral branches leaving the
trunk and branches of the tree in a stub appearance. "Heading back" as defined herein is
considered to be severe pruning.
"Stand thirmine' means the selective removal of a portion of trees from a grove of trees.
"Street' means the portion of a right-of-way easement used for public purposes, such as
roadway improvements, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, dedicated to the city, and formally
accepted by the city into the city public street system for maintenance purposes.
ORDINANCE NO. 661
ADDING CHAPTER 17.55
VIEW PRESHRVATION TO TITLE 17
OCTOBER 12, 2010
"Sunlight"' means the availability or access to light from the sun across property lines.
"Tree" means any woody perennial vegetation that generally has a single trunk and
reaches a height of at least eight feet at maturity.
'Tree/vegetation owner" means any person who owns real property in the city on which
tree(s) and/or vegetation is located.
"Vegetation" means all types of plants, bushes, hedges and shrubs, including trees.
-View" means a vista of features, including but not limited to, bodies of water, beaches,
coastline, islands, skylines, mountains, city lights, ridges, hillside terrain, canyons, geologic
features and landmarks. The term "view" does not mean an unobstructed panorama of these
features.
"View equity" means achievement of a fair, reasonable, and balanced accommodation of
views and competing obstructions (such as structures, trees and/or vegetation), privacy and the
use and enjoyment of property. Development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to
preserve views from neighboring properties. No person shall plant, maintain, or permit to grow
any trees or vegetation which unreasonably obstructs the view from a neighboring property.
"View Seeker" means any real property owner in the city or authorized agent of such
property owner who alleges that tree(s)/vegetation located within the immediate vicinity of the
property as set forth in Section 17.55.040 is causing unreasonable obstruction of the view
benefiting such real property
"Vista pruning means the selective thinning of framework limbs or specific areas of the
crown of a tree to allow a view from a specific point. (Ord. 661 § I (part), 2010).
SEC. 17.55.040 View equity claim limitations.
Subject to the other provisions of this chapter, a real property owner in the city may
initiate the claim resolution process as outlined in Section 17.55.060. However, a claim for
preserving or restoring view equity may only be made i) regarding any treelvegetation located on
real property, as defined herein, which is within five hundred feet from the view seeker's real
property boundary, and ii) if a claim has not been initiated against that real property by the view
seeker or any other real property owner in the city within the last two years, unless the
subsequent claim is made within 45 days of notice of the original claim as provided in Section
17.55.080 of this chapter. In addition, a view seeker may only seek to preserve or restore a view
from one common interior or exterior space used by the view seeker, including but not limited to,
the living, family, and dining rooms, rooms that have features such as picture windows, sliding
glass doors, and French doors, and common exterior areas such as patios, balconies, decks, pool
areas, and gazebos designed to take advantage of views. Properties which have more than one
unique or different view shall be permitted to apply for preservation or restoration of one
additional view.
Requests for view equity with regard to any tree and/or vegetation located on city
property or in city parks, or with respect to city maintained trees, may only be initiated as
outlined in Section 17.55.070 of this code. (Ord. 661 § 1 (part), 2010)_
SEC. 17.55,050 View equity claim.
A claim to preserve or restore view equity shall consist of all of the following:
(1) A description of the nature and extent of the alleged obstruction, including
pertinent and corroborating evidence. Evidence may include, but is not limited to, documented
and dated photographic prints, negatives, slides and written testimony from residents living in
the area. Such evidence must show the extent to which the view has been diminished by trees
and/or vegetation;
ORDINANCE NO. 661
ADDINOCNAPTER 17.55
VMW PRESERVATION TO TITLE 17
OCMDER 12, 2610
(2) The location of all trees and/or vegetation alleged to cause the obstruction, the
address of the property upon which the trees and/or vegetation are located, and the present
treelvegetation owner's name and address;
(3) Specific view equity preservation actions proposed by the view seeker to resolve
the allegedly unreasonable obstruction;
(4) Evidence that initial discussion as described in Section 17.55.070 has been made
and has failed. Evidence may include, but is not limited to, copies of receipts for certified or
registered mail correspondence; and
(5) Evidence confirming the ownership and the date of acquisition of the view
seeker's property. (Ord_ 661 § I (part), 2010).
SEC. 17.55.060 View equity claim resolution process.
The view seeker shall follow the process established by this chapter in seeking
preservation or restoration of view equity. First, the view seeker must complete the "initial
discussion" process described in Section 17.55.070. Second, if that process does not yield a
result mutually satisfactory to the view seeker and the treelvegetation owner, then the view
seeker may file a view equity claim with the city and request mediation, as described in Section
17.55.080. Third, if the tree/vegetation owner does not participate in mediation or if mediation is
unsuccessful in resolving the claim, the view seeker may next pursue resolution by arbitration, as
set forth in Section 17.55.090. Fourth, if arbitration is not accepted by the treelvegetation owner,
the view seeker may next request that the city's planning director issue an advisory opinion on
the view equity claim pursuant to Section 17.55.100. If all of these steps are taken and processes
are exhausted by the view seeker but no resolution is reached, the view seeker may then initiate
litigation as described in Section 17.55,110. (Ord. 661 § 1 (part), 2010).
SEC.17.55.070 Initial discussion.
A view seeker who believes that one or more trees or vegetation which has grown on
another person's property in the city has caused unreasonable obstruction of view equity from
the view seeker's property, shall first notify the tree/vegetation owner of such concerns. The
notification shall request personal discussions to enable the view seeker and tree/vegetation
owner to attempt to reach a mutually agreeable solution, and shall be followed-up in writing.
The notification shall include a copy of the view preservation ordinance (chapter 17.55 of this
code), available from the city. The view seeker shall invite the tree/vegetation owner to view the
alleged obstruction from the view seeker's property, and the tree/vegetation owner is urged to
invite the view seeker to view the situation from his/her property. Failure of the tree/vegetation
owner to respond to the written request for initial discussion within forty-five days from the date
of delivery shall be deemed formal refusal by the tree/vegetation owner to participate in the
initial discussion.
If the initial discussion is refused, or if the parties do not agree as to the existence and
nature of the view seeker's obstruction and the appropriate preservation action, the view seeker
may proceed with the subsequent claim resolution process outlined in Section 17.55.060. (Ord.
661 § 1 (part), 2010).
SEC. 17.55.080 Mediation.
If the initial discussion outlined in Section 17.55.070 does not result in an
agreement between the tree/vegetation owner and the view seeker, the view seeker may rile a
written view equity claim with the city requesting mediation. Upon receiving the written claim
and processing fee, in the amount established by resolution of the city council, city staff shall
prepare and send by certified mail to the tree/vegetation owner, a copy of the written claim and a
notice requesting that the tree/vegetation owner agree to participate in a mediation process to
attempt to resolve the view equity claim. In addition, city staff shall notify all property owners
within 500 feet of the tree/vegetation owner's property of the pending view equity claim, their
right to file a view equity claim on their own behalves within 45 days of city staff s mailing of
notice of the original view equity claim, and the fact that their view equity claim will be subject
oRDINANCENOo "I 8 (D8
ADDMGCHAP77R 17.55
VIEW PRJ+MVATIoN 7'O r r7.e 17
OCfOHEa 12,2010
to the two-year time limit set forth in Section 17.55.040 if it is not filed within 45 days of staff's
mailing of notice of the original claim. Any view equity claim(s) submitted by surrounding
property owners after being advised by staff of the pending view equity claim shall, to the extent
possible, be combined with the existing view equity claim for purposes of mediation and
arbitration.
The treelvegetation owner shall have 45 days from delivery of the request for mediation
to either accept or decline mediation. The notice sent to the treelvegetation owner shall inform
the tnWvcgetation owner that a failure to respond to the request for mediation within forty-five
days from the date of delivery of the notice shall be deemed formal refusal of the mediation
process by the tree/vegetation owner.
If the tree/vegetation owner agrees to participate in a mediation process, the view seeker
shall then pay the fee established by resolution of the city council for the mediation process,
including review by the city's certified arborist. The mediator shall be chosen by the parties
from the list of professional mediators maintained by the city. In the event the parties are unable
to choose a mediator from the approved list, city staff shall randomly select a mediator from the
list. City staff, in consultation with the mediator, shall establish a date for mediation, and a
written notice of the mediation hearing date shall be sent to each party by certified mail.
The mediator shall be guided by the provisions of this chapter, including the evaluation
criteria set forth in Sections 17.55.130 and 17.55.140, and the hierarchy of preservation actions
set forth in Section 17.55.150, respectively, in attempting to resolve the view equity claim. The
mediator shall also consider recommendations of the certified arborist regarding landscape
techniques and/or maintenance procedures.
The role of the mediator shall be advisory in nature and shall not be binding in
establishing the preservation or restoration of view equity. Any agreement reached between the
two parties as a result of the mediation process described herein shall be reduced to writing and
signed by the mediator and all of the parties, and two copies shall be submitted to the city clerk.
The cost of mediation, including review by a certified arborist, shall be paid initially by the view
seeker, provided, however, that the ultimate responsibility for such cost may subsequently be
modified by mutual agreement of the parties. Tice mediator is encouraged to suggest a just and
reasonable allocation of responsibility for the cost of mediation as part of the mediation process_
(Ord. 641 § 1 (part), 2010).
SEC. 17.55.D90 Arbitration.
If the initial discussion under Section 17.55.070 and mediation under Section 17.55.080
fail to achieve agreement between the treelvegetation owner and the view seeker, the view seeker
may send to the treelvegetation owner a request to participate in a binding arbitration process.
The treWvegetation owner shall have forty-five days from delivery of the request for arbitration
to either accept or decline arbitration. Failure to respond within forty-five days shall be deemed
formal refusal of arbitration. If arbitration is accepted, the parties shall agree in writing to the
selection of an individual arbitrator, who shall be chosen from a list of professional arbitrators
available from the city within thirty days of such acceptance. If the parties are unable to agree
on a specific arbitrator within thirty days, they may jointly request that city staff randomly select
an arbitrator from the list maintained by the city. In addition, either party may petition a court of
competent jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator from the list maintained by the city.
The arbitrator shall be guided by the provisions of this chapter, including the evaluation
criteria set forth in Sections 17.55.130 and 17.55.140, and the hierarchy of preservation actions
set forth in Section 17.55.150, respectively, in attempting to resolve the view equity claim, and
shall submit a complete written decision to the view seeker and the tredvegetation owner. Any
decision of the arbitrator shall be enforceable pursuant to the provisions of California Code of
Civil Procedure Section 1285 et seq., and two copies of the decision shall be submitted to the
city clerk.
The costs of arbitration shall be paid initially by the view seeker, provided, however, that
the ultimate responsibility for such costs may subsequently be modified either by mutual
9
ORIMNANCE NO. 661
ADDMOCt1AP1ER 17.55
VIEW PRESERVATION TO TITLE 17
OCTOBER 12.2010
agreement of the parties or by a determination of the arbitrator as to a just and reasonable
allocation of responsibility. (Ord. 661 § 1 (part), 2010).
SEC. 17.55.100 Advisory Opinion.
If the initial discussion and mediation processes fail to result in a resolution or agreement,
and if the view seeker requests but the treelvegetation owner declines to participate in arbitration,
the view seeker may request that the city's planning director assess and issue an advisory opinion
on the view equity claim. Such requests must be made to the planning director in writing within
thirty days after arbitration is refused or deemed refused pursuant to Section 17.55.090. The
planning director may, but is not required to, assist the parties in resolving the view equity
dispute. it is the intention of this section that the advisory opinion be admissible as evidence in
any civil action brought pursuant to Section 17.55.1 l0 of this chapter.
SEC. 17.55.110 Litigation.
If a view seeker has attempted to obtain but has been unsuccessful in attaining agreement
or resolution under Sections 17.55.070, 17.55.080, and 17.55.090, the view seeker may initiate
civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction for resolution of his/her view equity claim under
the provisions of this chapter. It is the intent of this chapter that the evaluation criteria set forth
herein be utilized in adjudicating view equity claims in civil litigation. In the event of civil
litigation, the view seeker shall provide two copies of the filed complaint to the city clerk.
The prevailing party in any civil action brought pursuant to this chapter shall be entitled
to recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees incurred.in the litigation, subject to the
following exception: a tree/vegetation owner who prevails in litigation shall not be entitled to
recover attorneys' fees and costs if the tree/vegetation owner has declined to participate in the
initial discussion, mediation, or arbitration processes set forth in Sections 17.55.070, 17.55.080
and 17.55.090, respectively. The notice of the view equity claim and request for mediation
provided by the city in accordance with Section 17.55.080 shall inform the tree/vegetation owner
of this provision and the consequences of non -participation in the initial discussion, mediation,
and/or arbitration processes. (Ord. 661 § 1 (part), 2010).
SEC. 17.55.120 Preservation action limitations.
Except as otherwise authorized by law, no tree and/or vegetation on real property owned
or controlled by another person may be removed, destroyed or altered unless the view seeker
either enters into a written agreement with the tree/vegetation owner or obtains an arbitration
award or judicial decision specifying, in detail, the nature and timing of the preservation action
and the parties responsible for performing such action. (Ord. 661 § 1 (part), 2010).
SEC. 17.55.130 Criteria for determining unreasonable obstruction.
The following criteria are to be considered (but are not exclusive) in determining whether
unreasonable obstruction of a view has occurred:
(t) The vantage point(s) from which the view is observed;
(2) The extent of the view obstruction, both currently and at tree/vegetation maturity;
(3) The quality of the view, including the existence of landmarks, vistas, or other
unique view features;
(4) The extent to which the tree(s) and/or vegetation have grown to obscure the
enjoyment of the view from the view seeker's property since the view seeker's acquisition of his
or her property;
(5) The extent to which the view has been or is diminished by factors other than
tree(s) and/or vegetation. (Ord. 661 § l (part), 2010).
SEC.17.55.140 Criteria for determining appropriate preservation action.
Il)
ORDINANCE NO. 661
1C
(0)
AMINO CHAPTER 17.55
��77
VIEW PRESERVATION TO TITLE t7
OCWBER 12.2014
When it has been determined that unreasonable obstruction has occurred, then the
following unweighed factors shall be considered in determining appropriate preservation action:
(1) The number of existing trees or amount of vegetation in the area and the current
effects of the tree(s) and their removal on the neighboring vegetation;
(2) The extent to which the tree(s) and/or vegetation provide:
(a) Screening or privacy,
(b) Energy conservation and/or climate control,
(c) Soil stability, as measured by soil structure, degree of slope and extent of
the tree's root system when a tree is proposed to be removed,
(d) Aesthetics,
(e) Community/neighborhood quality, value or significance,
(f) Shade,
(g) Historical context due to the age of the treeNegetation,
(h) Rare and interesting botanical species,
(i) Habitat value for wildlife,
6) Blending, buffering or reduction in the scale and mass of architecture.
(3) Any hazards posed by the tree(s) or vegetation including, but not limited to, fire
danger or the danger of falling limbs or trees;
(4) The age, projected rate of growth, and maintenance requirements of the trees) or
vegetation;
(5) The date the view seeker purchased his/her property; and
(6) The date the treelvegetation owner purchased his/her property. (Ord. 661 § 1
(part), 2010).
SEC. 17.55.150 Hierarchy of preservation actions.
View equity actions must be consistent with all other provisions of this Title_ Severe
pouring should be avoided due to the damage such practice causes to the tree's fora and health.
Preservation actions may include, but are not limited to the following, in order of preference,
assuming no countervailing health or safety interest(s) exist:
(1) Lacing. Lacing is the most preferable pruning technique that removes excess
foliage and can improve the structure of the tree.
(2) Vista Pruning. Vista pruning of branches may be utilized where possible, if it
does not adversely affect the tree's growth pattern or health.
(3) Crown Reduction. Crown reduction is preferable to tree removal, if it is
determined that the impact of crown reduction does not destroy the visual proportions of the tree,
adversely affect the tree's growth pattern or health, or otherwise constitute a detriment to the
tree(s) in question.
(4) Stand Thinning. The removal of a portion of the total number of trees from a
grove of trees, without any replacement plantings.
ORDINANCE NO. 661 11
ADOiNa CHAPTER 17.53 81
VIEW PR UERVATION To'P1T1 P 17
0
OCToaER 12, 2010
(5) Heading Back. Eliminating the outer extent of the major branches throughout the
tree. Heading back is only to be permitted for trees specifically planted and maintained as a
hedge, espalier, bonsai or in pollard form and if restoration actions (1) through (4) of this section
will not accomplish the determined preservation action and the subsequent growth characteristics
will not create a future obstruction of greater proportions.
(6) Tree/Vegetation Removal. Tree and/or vegetation removal, which may be
considered when the above-mentioned preservation actions are judged to be ineffective and may
be accompanied by replacement plantings or appropriate plant materials to restore the maximum
level of benefits lost due to tree removal. (Ord. 661 § 1 (part), 2010).
SEC. 1755.160 Responsibility for preservation action and subsequent maintenance.
The view secker shall be responsible for paying the cost of any determined preservation
action unless the parties agree to share the costs in some other manner. Subsequent maintenance
shall be the responsibility of the tree/vegetation owner, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties
or required pursuant to any final arbitration decision or court order. It is the intent of this chapter
that a treelvegetation owner who sells his or her. property notify the purchaser of any agreement,
decision, or court order requiring subsequent maintenance of trees or vegetation_ (Ord. 661 § 1
(part), 2010).
SEC.17.55.170 Liability.
(1) The city shall not be liable for any damages, injuries, costs or expenses which are
the result of an advisory opinion issued by a city employee or official or any agreements or
determinations resulting from mediation, arbitration or litigation concerning view equity claims
or a view seeker's assertions pertaining to views granted or conferred herein. Nowt shall the city
have any liability because a particular neighborhood is granted or denied an exemption pursuant
to Section 17.55.180 of this chapter.
(2) Under no circumstances shall the city have any responsibility or liability to
enforce or seek any legal redress, civil or criminal, for any decision that any other person or
entity makes concerning a view equity claim.
(3) A failure to comply with the provisions of this chapter is not a misdemeanor, and
the enforcement of this chapter shall be only by the affected and interested private parties. (Ord.
661 § 1 (part), 2010).
SEC. 17.55.180 Petition for exemption.
A recognized and established neighborhood in the city may petition the city council for
an exemption from this chapter. The factors the city council will consider in determining
whether such an exemption should be granted shall include, but not be limited to, whether the
neighborhood has unique or historic trees or trees that provide shade or otherwise add to the
character of the neighborhood, and whether the properties in the neighborhood have views of
unique scenic vistas. A petition for exemption may be submitted by the authorized homeowners'
association in the petitioning neighborhood or by a majority of the homeowners in the
neighborhood. The procedures governing exemption petitions shall be established by resolution
of the city council.
SEC. 17.55.190 Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this chapter is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this chapter.
The city council hereby declares that it would have adopted this and each section,
subsection, phrase or clause of this chapter irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, phrases or clauses be declared invalid or unconstitutional on their face or as applied.
(Ord. 661 § 2 (part), 2010)_
12
ORDINANCE NO. 661
ADDINGCHAPTBR 17.55
VIEW PRESERVATION TO TrrLE 17
OCIbBER 12.2610
SECTION 2. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion
of this ordinance or the application thereof to any persons or place, is for any reason held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares
that it would have adopted this ordinance, and each any every section, subsection, subdivision,
sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or
unconstitutional,
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause
the same to be published in accordance with law.
ADOPTED this T2s' day o£2010
JOHN C. ADDLEMAN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DOUGLAS RICHARD, CITY CLERK
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance No. 661 was adopted bZ the City Council of
the City of Rolling Hills Estates at a regular meeting held thereof on the 12 day of October,
2010, by the following vote:
AYES: ADDLEKAN, MITCHELL, SEAMANS,:ZERUNYAN,'ZUCRERMAN
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT; NONE
DOUGLAePRIa-IARD, CITY CLERK
13 83
ORDINANCE NO. 661
ADDM CHAPTER 17.55
VIEW PRESERVATION TO TITLE IT
OCTOBER 12, 2010
THIS PAGE INT INTiONALLY LEFT BLANK
el
City of Sausalito: Tree and View Preservation Ordinance
�,.r„.......
TREE AND VIEW PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
Chapter 11.12 of the Municipal Code
Sections
11.32.010 - Putptree sad Intent
11.18.020 - De ini time
11.12.030 - Protectad7rm
13.12,040 -Views
11.32.0$0 - Enforcement and Penalties
Section 3. Chapter 11.32 ofthe Sausalito Municipal Coda is hereby amended to read as Mom;
1T.12.010 PURPOSE AND YNTBNI' . lbe General Plan of the City ofSaaealito tours the coutnbution of
both trees and views to the character and beauty of the City. The removal of tress without reasonable caths would
destroy the natural beauty of certain areas. contribute to erosion, increase the cost of drainage systems, reduce
protection against wind, and impair residential privacy and quiet. This chapter admowledgw that trees and views,
and the benefits derived from each, may come into conium This Chapter presents gddelines to resolve such
conflicts so as to provide a reason" balance between trees and views related values. It is the intent of this
Chapter to provide an atmosphere m which residents of this corm wty can resolve their diflarencee amongst
themselves without City intervention, For these reasons, the City Council enacts these regulations to promote the
public health, safe and welfare. All tree work to tie performed shall be in accordance to pruning standards of the
International Society of Arboriculture Western Chapter. (ISA Copies available at Community Development
Department.)
r1L12.020 y amu hxaxDW As used in this Chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings get forth in this
section unless the contest clearly indicates otherwise:
Alterations Any action which would significantly change or damage the health or appearance of any tree,
whether, x) by mtting of its trunk or branches, or, 2) by filling or surfacin6 or changing the drainage of the soil
around the tree, 3) by the cutting or removal of roots, 4) by removal of the upper portion of the tree's trunk or main
leader, or s) by any other damaging acts.
Arborist" 1) "Certified"Arborist as currently bstsd by the raternational Society ofAtboricalture, or, 2)
"Consulting" Arborist as currently listed as a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborisra.
Arborism Report: The report of a Certified or Consulting Arborist on the feasibility and impact of suggested tree
WOOL
C.S.H. (Circumi'eremce at Breast Height): The tree trunk's A. ,,....,:,;-: w ea measured at 4 and 1/2 feet above
the ground. For multi-trur&ed trees, the circumference of the two largest trunks combined. Claimant Any
individuals or group of individuals who Mesa claim as required by the provisions of this Chapter.
Claimant: Any individual or group of individuals who files a claim as required by the provisions of this chapter,
Feasible Tree Work. Tree work in which the first priority is the health and appearance of the tree.
Hedge: Any plant material, tre a, stump growth, or shrubbery planted or growing in a dense coutivaoua line, so as
to form a thicket, barrier or living fence.
Page 1 of 11
http://ci.sausahto.ca.us/index,aspx?page=125 9/3/2010
City of Sausalito : Tree and View Preservation Ordinance
Meeting "Noticed"- A meeting of which adjacent residents and property owners are notified by the City.
Obstruction: Any blocking or diminishment of aview or sunlight attributable to the growth, appearance,
maintenance or location of traea_
Pr gc Normal, seasonal malutensnce pruning, trimming, shaping or thinning of a tree neeessaryto its health,
growth and view maintenance. Foliage reduction should not exceed one quarter of the total tree foliage.
A torative Action: Any specific requirement to resolve aview daim.
Routine Prnair g: The removal of any dead parts of atrea Normal, seasonal maintenance prur ft trimming,
shaping or thinning of a tree necessary to its health, growth and view maintffiance. Foliage reduction should not
exceed ons quarter ofthetatal t me foliage.
Shrubs or Shrubbery: A woody perennial plant smaller than a tree, usually having perm memt stems branebing
from or near the ground.
Thinning: The selective removal of entire branches from a tree so as to improve vis2 ter through the tree and/or
improve the trees strocurml condition.
Topping. Removal of the upper portion of a tree's trunk or main leader.
Tree: A bighly compartmented, gmamial, woody, shedding plant that is usually tali, single stemmed, and long-
lived. For tine purposes of this Ordinance, trees ars of the %Ilowing classes.
Dedicated Tree: A tree that has special significance as provided for byresolutim of the City Council.
Desirable Tree: A tree that has been approved for the specific location by the Tee Ooba:oftee or City Arborist
First Growing Tree: A tree developing three feet or more in hsd * in yearly growth,
heritage Tree: A tree wM&has a C.B.H. of go". No undesirable tree w defined herein is ahesitage ties.
Protected Tree: Protected trees are those listedbelow.
1. On all private property: a) the CO fonda or Comte] Live Oak (Quercus agtiinliajmeaanring 12" C.B.H.
or larger•, b) heritage trees; and c) dedicated trees.
2.. On private undeveloped property, a tree measuring i2" C.B.H. or larger.
3. All trees and abrubs on pity-ownedproperty.
4. No undesirable tree is a protected tree.
Undesirable Tree: Is one of the following: i) Eucelyptas globulus, (Blue [ram Eucalyptus); 2) Pinus radiata,
(Monte' Pine); 3) Capreaeas macrocarpa, (Mont V Cypress): 4) Segaola semPmvirmts, (Coastal R®dwnod); 5)
Acacia melanoxylon, {Blackwood Acacia); 6) Aeadabeileyana, (Bailey Acacia); and 7) Acacia decurrens, ({been
Wattle).
Tree Committee: The Committee established under Chapter 2.30 of the Sausalito Municipal Code.
Tree Owner: Any individual owning real propertyhr the City upon whose land are trees that form thebasis for the
filing of a view claim.
Page 2 of .11
http://ci.sausalito.ca.us/index.aspx?page=125 _ 9/3/2010
City of Sausalito: Tree and View Preservation Ordinance
Tree Removal: The destruction of any tree by Cutting, girdling. interring with the water supply, applying
Chemicals, or regrading around the base of thet nmk.
M ee Wor7Cer: Twd&C tree worker es cu=enrtly lietedbythe luta ational Society of Arbcdo2li rre.
Undeveloped Property: Undeveloped property Mail=
Page 3 of 1 i
.............. .....
1. A parcel of private laud of which less than ten (io) percent is covered by a structure, hicludarg but not
limited to residential lots;
2. Apered of land which can be further divided in accordance with the zoning regulations of the Cfty;
g. A parcel of land on whichthe structures are about to undergo demolition or relocation.
View. A vista of the San Francisca-Richardson Bay, neighboring communities, sarrowdmg hills, or a nearby or
distant wooded area from the primaryliving areas of the home.'Views" include, but are not limitedto akylines,
bridges, distant cities, geologic features, hillside terrains and wooded canyons or ridges. The term "view" does not
mean an unobstructed panorama of all or any of the above.
View Claim: The written basis for arbitration or court action under the provisions offids Chapter, submitted, by
the claimant.
11.12.030TROTBCMD URES.
A. Permit Procedures for Removal or Aluwatkon ofProteeted Trees. Itis unlawful for anyperson to
remove or alter any protected tree as defined herein, without a permit issued and pasted as providedm this
Chapter except for the purpose of routine pruning. No protected tree maybe removed or altered an auy
undeveloped property on Saturday, Sunday or Holidays or at any time owept daring regular working hours (8 -no
a.=- 5 p.m.), Monday through Friday:
i. Applteant's Responsibility:
a. Application. A Tree Removal/Alteration Permit shall be obtained from the Community Development
Department many situation which involves the removalor alteration orpossible damaga to a
protected tree or trees, inelading issuance of a permit for building, grading or demolition. The permit
application mustbe accompaniedbyan admiat report stating the needfor tree removal or alteration
based on the Criteria set forth in subdivision kk ofthis Section, and recommending protective measures
for any endangered tree. Uthe applicant is not the owner of the property on which the tree or trees are
located, the applicant shall attach the written permission of the property owner.
b. Posting ofApplica don and Tree Tags. After submission, of an application under this madon, the
applicant shall be issued tree tags, one of which is to be posted on sub tree proposed for removal or
alteration. Within two (2) working clays after making an application for a tree removal or alteration
per, the applicant shall place the tags on the trees and post the appiiiudion so that it is clearly visible
from the street at the 5ont of the lot. The tags and nadoe shall not be removed for tan worlaug days
thereaiker.
c. Posting of Permit. Following issuance of &tree removal permit, an appHcent shall post a cagy in
plain view on the site wbile tree removal or alteration work is underway. d. Filing Fee The applicant
sball pay the filling fee established bythe City council for tree removal or alteration permit.
d. Filing Fee. The applicant shall past the filling fee established by the city council for tree removal or
alteration permit. ']�
T
http://ci.sausalito.ca.us/itidex.aspx?page=125 9/3/2010
City of Sausalito: Tree and View Preservation Ordinance Page 4 of 11
1. Cdiy'e ReaponmMgy: The CommunityDevelopment Department shall be responsible for receiving
appheations for protected tree removal and/or aheration permits, for confirming that the required
information has been provided by the applicant, and for Issuing tree tags and notices to the applicant.
The Community Development Department shall conte aA tree reaaovah/alteratkm applications and
arborist's reports to:
a. The Design Review Board (m), if the protected tree(s) is to be altmWremoved or endangered as
. .
.................. ... _ . �g�.pl,Op08al'�'S�ItL ......�. w� �s..r.. 6iu uu
removal/alteration application in considering any plans Ibr the property in question.
b. all other applications to the Trees and Views Committee, if the protected tree or trees are on private,
developed property.
c. The ChyArborist if the tree(s) are on publicproperty. Site irspecdon shallbe madebythe esponsible
reviewing agency and written comments received regarding the application shall be considered. The
rospmcecHe reviewing agency may require submission bythe applicant of a sire plan and/or army or
ach other iuf n ma$on as is deemed ne a ess a ry by the reaponalble reviewing agency.
B. Criteria for Grout or Denial ofApplication for Reroovad or Alieratiam of Protected[ Tees
L in order to grant a tree removal or alteration permit; it must be. detemdued that removal or alteration
is necessary in order to acmunpiish anyone of the faAowiog objectives:
s. To insure the public safety as it relates to the health of the tree, potential hazard w life or property,
pra dmity to existing or proposed siructtues, and interknnee with udlitles or sewers.
b. To allow rewonablo enjoyment ofthe property, including suuAgh% andtherhghtto develop the
propmrtY-
C To take reasonable advantage of views.
d. To pursue good, profs a nal practices of forestry or landscape design.
z. In order to grant a tree removal permit, it mustbe determined that any one of the fallowing coaditions
is satisfied:
a. The treo to be removed will be replaced by desirable tree.
b. The Tree Committee waives the above requirement based on nformatiom provided by the
applicant/owner.
g. Minding of anyone of the following is grounds for denial. regardless of the finding in "i." above:
a. R amoval of a bealthy tree of a desired ape" can be avoided by:
L reasonable redesign of the Site plan, prior to consh�oa
x. a) thinning to reduuc density, e.g. "open windows"
a. b) shapingto reduce height orspread. using thiuming cut 9 only (drop a'ub ch)
x. c) heading or topping - this is the least preferable method,due to the tree's health and appearance
and cost of maintenance.
b. Adequate provisiams for drainage, erasion control, land stability, windscreen, visual screening,
privacy and for restoration of ground cover and/or other foliage damaged by tlae tree workhave not
been made in situations where such problems are anticipated as a result of the removal or alteration.
c. The tree to be removed is a member of a group of trees in which each tree is dgmadent upon the
others for survived. ( Z)
http://ci.sausalito.ca.uslindox.aspx?page=125 W 2010
City of Sausalito : Tree and View Preservation Qrdbmce
Page 5 of 11
d. The value of the wee to the neighborhood is greater than its fineanvenience to the owner. The streets
an visual, auditory, and wind screening, privacy and neighboring vegetation must be considered.
e. The need for protection of privacy for the property on which the tree is located and/or for adjacent
properties.
C:YidtlSu�e�aifar rrosecDg bees uUrmg 4onearne0030t.
Adequate protection shall be provided durhagthe coashudion period for any protected trees which areto romain
standing. Measures deemed necessary bythe reviewing agency in consideration of the site, species, condition and
location of the protected trees to remain, mayinclude any of the fallowing,
1. Before the start of any deering, emumation, co:erkrucdon or other work eau ibe site, everyprotecbed tree
demsmned to be endangered bythe wo* shall be securely fenced off at the "prateeterl perhuet�er",which
"be either the anter limits of the branches of such protected tree (tho drip line) or anch greeter
limits as maybe established by the reviewing agency. such fences shall remain in place for the duration
of all anch work. All protected trees to be removed shall be clearly ma ked. A plan shall be established
for the removal and disposal of logs, brush, earth and other debris which will avdd h4myto any
protectedtree.
a. Wbe re proposed development or other sits work is to encroach uporr the protected perimeter of any
protected tree, special measures shad be inearporatedto allowrthe roots to breathe and obtain water
and nutrients. Arty excavation, cutting, Siting, or compaction of the existing ground surface witldn the
protected permute shall be minimized. No asphalt or other paving matnials shall be added. No
change in eadsting ground levels shall occur within four but of the base of any protected tree at
anytime. No bunting or use of equipment with an open flame shall oewr near orwithin the protected
perimeter.
I No storage or dumladmg of all, gas, chsoaicais or other substances that may be harmful to trees shall
occur wMn the protected perimetwof anypmtectedtrees, or any other location an the site from
which such substances might enter the protected perimeter. No heavy oonsiruction equtmead or
construction materials shallbe operated or stored within the protected perimster. WYres shall not be
attachedto o anyproteeted tree, except as needed for support of the tier. No sign, other than a teg
showing the botanical classification, shall be attached to anypratected tree.
4. Periodically during construction, the leaves of the protected trees shall be thoroughly sprayed with
water to prevent buildup of dust and other pollution that would inWt transpiration
g. If any damage to a protected tree should occur during or as a result of work on the site, the contractor,
builder or owner shall promptly notify the City of such damage. If such a protected tree cam not be
preserved in a healthy state, the reviewing agency sball require replacement of any protected tree
removed with another tree or t=ees on the earns atte deemed adequate to compensate forthe lass of the
tree that is removed.
D. issuance of Permit
Consideration of and action on the Permit Application shall be made bythe Board or mal to whom the Permit
Application is routed in accordance with subsection xs.12.030(A)(2), above and that Board or official sball either
approve, condmonally approve or deny the permit with reason for such action stated. If an application for tree
removal/alteration is approved, a permit aball be issued to the applicant by the Community Development
Department in conjunction with any other permit related to the work in gosstion. However, no tree
http://ci.saus alito.ca.ustindex. aspx?page=125 9/3/2010
City of Sausalito: Tree and View Preservation Ordinance Page 6 of 11
removal/alteration permit will be issned untll allrelated budding permits are appao"d.
E. Liabilities
The issuance and exercise of a permit pursuant to tida chapter sbaA notbe deemed to establish any
pablic use or access not already in existance with regard to the propertyto whiehthe permit applies.
__ . _.__ .�._ ___...2` 17ie �ssrian� ads perne$ pitt�ria it fo tTf�s�iap er-JSaltaat crate any naakury or cue U*wun regain m
the workto be performed, and &e applicant for such permit shall Bold harmless the City and its
officers and employees from any damage or injury that may occur in connection with, or resulting
from, such work.
F. Emergency Tree limoval or Alteration
If personal iWary or property damage is imminently threatened, the Fire Chief; the Chief of police or the City
Arborist mai► authorize the removal or altemlim of a protected tees without oaarpliance with otbar provisions of
this ampte r. The removal or alteration. of a protected tree uadw emergency conditions ahall be reported to the
Community Development Department on the first business dayibHowing the emmgency tree wont.
G. Public Utilitiew Pruning
Ayearly two removal permit sball be required for removal or alteration of protected trees as desired in this Chapter
by any public utility, emer mcies excepted. This permit may be revoked at sqy time if the Mlowirg conditions are
not met:
t. The Qommnnity Development Department mostbe hd=Ledof all pruning, detailing street addresses,
tree types and extent ofwork, two wedw in advance of the work date.
a. A weakly worklocation must be provided to the C ityAr xdd for each crew so that the work can be
supervised.
3. All work most beundertheddbrsapervidonofsuArboristand the work actaa%,petformedbyeather
an Arborist or a Certified Tree Worker; and
4. Defined pruning methods must be aced for all udlity pnmi ng work; a oapy is available at the
Community Development Det
H. Appeal of Decoded Permit Appflcations
The decision of the Design Review Board and the Trees and Views Committee is Sinal with regardsto Applications
subject to the jurisdiction ofthose Hoards. With regard to applications subject to the juriadiction of the (Sty
Arborist, the decision of the ChyArborist maybe appealed as follows:
The Community Development Department shall maintain abet of three oxwelting Arbmuw qualified to make
determinations regw red of thia section. Those on the list shag be Consulting Arboriats who have established
through reputation in the community the ability to befak and impartial in making determinatians required in this
section and who have agreed to serve as arbiters forpurposa of imglementingthis section. Aparty aggrieved by the
decision of the City Arborist may requeatthat the C Vq select one of the three listed arbiter/arborists to reconsider
the application. (so long as the aelected arbiter/arborlst has had no prior involvement with the instant application).
The aggrieved party will be required to pay the fee of the arbiter/arboriat in advance and the City shall then select
the arbiter from the list on a rotational basis. The arbiter/arborlat will consider the merits of the application
http;//ci.saugalito.ca.u&rndex.aapx9page=125 4/3/2010
City of Sausalito: Tree and View Preservation Ordinance
pursuant to the provisions of this section, and will render a decision inrrriting either approving the application,
conditionally approving the application, or degying the appUmtian. The decision of the arbiter/arborist willbe
final.
There is no City Council appeal ofthe decision of anyboa4 official or arbiter/arborist of an yTeee Removal
application made pm u m to this section.
A. Unreasonable Obstruction ofViuw or 3uWa&t ProWted
A trot, sbreb, hedge or other vegetation shall not be maintained in such marmer as to unreasonably obstruct the
view from or the sunlight reaching other property.
S. Procedure: Private Tree
initial Reconciliation: Any claimant who believes in goodfdih that the gtawtb, mahaamance and/or
location of trees, shrubs, hedges or other vegetation situated on the property of another unreasonably
diminishes the bene acid use, economic value, suuAW or enjoyment ofthe viewfram the claimanfe
property shall notify the tree owner in writing of thane concerns. The claimant should consult an
Arborist and obtain a report far a feasible solation to ihevlew problem. The notification to the tree
owner should mdrde the arbarist's report, and should also be accongmnied by personal discussions, if
possible, to enable the claimant and the two ownerto attempt to reams amutuallly agreeable solution,
both long term and short harm, to the alleged unreason" obstruction. V any tree involved is a
protected tree, a.tree removal/alter can permit mast be obtained pdor to work being done.
z Mediation: If the initial reconciliation attempt is ansuccesdol, and all parcels involved are private
property, the complaining party shall propose mediation. Acceptance of mediation ahail be vroitmtory,
but the tree owner shall have no mare than so days fi+osu service of a writes request fat mediation to
accept or reject the offer of mediation, unless otberwise extended by complainant. If mediation is
accepted, the parties ahall mutually agree upon a Mediator within to days.
It is recommended that the services of a proftsiooallwytrained mediator or mediation servlcebe
employed. The City shall provide, upon request, for review and consideration for selection bythe
portico a list of mediators and mediation services accompanied by the qualifications providedby such
individuals or entitles. The fee for inedf ation services will be determined by the mediator and the
parties. The mediator sball not have the powerto issue binding orders fox mtorative ackonbA shall
strive to enablethe patties to resolve their dbpnrte at this stage in order to eliminate the need for
binding arbitration, fiLd finding and advisarydedsion, or litigation. Ifanytree involved is ap wo ted
tree, a tree r+emu"d/alterstion permit mast be obtained prior to workbeing done.
Arbitration: In those cases where the parties are unable to reach agrowneat through the Initial
Recouciliation process or with the assistance of a mediator, either the claimant or the true owner may
shier in writing to the other party to submit the dispute to binding arbitration. The initiating party shall
serve on the other party by personal service or certified mail, reborn receipt requested, an agreement
exearted by the initiating party to submit the dispute to binding arbftcatioa. If the non-ndtiaft party
concurs, he/she shat execute the agreement within so days from service. Fail= to execute the
agreement shell be deemed a rejection of binding arbitration.
If the agreement is accepted, the initiating party shall submit a view claim to the City of Sausalitda
Community Development Department. The filing fee for each a claim &W be established by the CAY
Coundi. The Trees and Views Committee serves as a board of arbitration at a noticed public meeting
Page 7 of 11
http://ci.sausalito.ca.us/index.aspA7page=125 9/3/2410
City of Sausalito: Tree and View Preservation Ordinance
which shallbe heldwithin fatty five (40from this "of the filingof the viewdaim- The arbitration
proceeding sballbe based on available evldenee and testimony. Either party to the action may efther be
represented by an Arborist or pmeent an arborast's written reportw the Trees and Views Committee
fifteen (xO days prior to the meeting dab. Me Tees and Viewm Committee may re commeadthe
services of other experts to either or an parries. Each party shall have the right to present wftnemae:s and
to question witnesses preamted by any other patty. The Treses and View Committee ee shall reasonably
attempt, as a group, to inspect the premises ofboth the claimant and the tree owner(s) prior to the
The Trees and Vwws Committee sball submit it written decision to the parties. The decision shall
include the Tri and Views Committee's $ndingm with respect to the Standards listed in subsection C-
3 and 4 of this Section and required restorative so&=. AR mandated reshmraative actions shall be
initiated within thirty (3e) days of the rendition of the aiNtration report, mmless the health of the
growth iavohred mandates a later date. The written decision ofthe Trees and Views Conunittes
mandating restorative action ahadl constitute the tree remnval/aftaration permit required for the
specified wont. The decision of the Trees and Views Committee ahallbe final and binding and
enf tremble, pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Section x280 et seq.
Fad Finding and Advisory Declaim. ra those case where 6e patfim are unable to reach atgrement
through the Ianitial Reconciliation process orwith the asslatanee of a mediator or agree to binding
arbitmdon, the claimant or the tree owner may elect tract Finding and an Adviaory Decision of ibe
Trees andVierra Committee, The applicant shall submit a view claim to the City of Sausaliin's
Community Development Department. The filing lee far mach a claim shalt be established by the City
Councl Ilia Treem and Vwwa Committee serves as the Fact Finding Board and stall render an
Advisory Decision to the parties. A noticed public meeting shall be held withfnfortyfive (45) days ftm.
the date of the filing of the view The proceeding shall be based on avm3Iable eMetnce and
tesdmmw. Either partyto the action may either be represented by an Arborist or present an arborist's
written report to the Trees and Views Committee fifteen (as ) days prior to the meeting data. The Trees
and Views Committee may recommend the services of other experts to either or an parties. The Trees
and Views Committee shall reasonably attempt as it group to inspect the premises of bath the claimant
and the tree owner(s) prior to the arbitration meeting.
The proceeding need siotbe postponed if any party refuses permission to inspect the premises or refuse$ to
participate in the proceeding and produce evidence.
The Trees and Views Committee ahall submit awritten Advisory Decision to the parties. The Decision aban include
the Trees and Views Ormimittee's findings with respect to the Standards listed in subsection C-3 send 4 of this
Section and recommended restorative actions as well recammeemdmg allocation of costa for the same. In the event
litigation is required to enforce the decision of the Trees andViews Committee, there shall be arebuttable
presumption in favor of the Trees and Views Committee's decision. The party bringing any private civil action
under this Ordinance must promptly notify the City of Sauselito's Commuz ltyy Development Department in writing
of such action. Such notification shall be placed in the property fila of the properties when the tram are located.
C. Arbitration ofView Germ
L Reaponsibift of C aimrnt in Arbibmtion
The claim shall submit a view claim on a formpresmiliedby the City. The report of an Arborist shall be
submitted with the view claim. If the claimant isnot the owner of the property to be be edited by the
claim, the claimant shall attach the written permission of the affected property owner;
2. RespomsibiHties efTree CommftWe in Arbitratfan
The Taseem and Views Committee;
Z
Page 8 of 11
http://ci.sausalito.ca.us/indox.aspx?page=125 3/3/2010
City of Sausalito : Tree and View Preservation Ordinance Page 9 of 11
a. Shall conduct a site visit as a group to properties involve&
b. May request additional data.
a Shall conduct a public hearing on the view claim. At keel ten (ro) daysprior to the hearing, notice
thereof shall be matted to the affected paries and to theawners of the property within a radins ofone
hundred U -co) feet of the boundaries of the property upon Wbich the trees are located. Notice of the
hearing shaA 8180 be published and posted at City Hall at least ten (lo) days prior W the hMd%
a Tree-
for limitations on the property of a tree owner.
g. Stasndards for Resolution ution of Claims in Arbitration
The Tree Committee shall, as a group, inspeetthe premises of both chum=*) and. tree owner(s)to
verify the nature and extent of the alleged view obstruction. For purposes of this sec tion, the Tree
Qom and/or any involved Arborist may enter upon the prop" of either or both parties. The
Tree Committee shall evaluate the Standards ed forth below based on the aide visit, the property Me on
record at City Hall, the submitted data and the public meeting.
a. The charneter of the view:
i) The vantage point from which the view is sought.
2) Tyre cdontto Which theviewmight be dhnhdahedby foo n s other than growth involved inthe
Claim.
s) The extent of the View that existed at the time ClalII751rt(8) purchase the property. (Is the pari]
attempting to Create, enhance or restore a view?)
b. Tire chaTdeter of the View obstruction:
i) The extent of the alleged view obstruction as a percentage of the total view (gallate).
2) The impact on the beneficial, use, economic value and enfjoymeut of the claimants property caused
bythe growth.
a The extent of benefits and/or burdens derived fivm the growth in questicm:
r) The visual quality, hiftding but not limited to species, size, growth, foam and vigar.
2) Ucation with respect to overall appearance, design and/or use of the tree owner's property.
S) Visual, auditory, wind screening and pnvaeyprovided by the growth to the owner andthe
neighbors.
4) Effects ors neighboring vegetation provided by the growth.
,S) The impact of the beneficial use, eamomiavalue and enjoyment of the tree owner's property caused
by the growth
d. Restorative astians shall be limited to the following:
I) No action.
2) Thinning to reduce density e.g., open windows.
3) Shaping to reduce height or spread, using tl kmmg ruts only (drop crotch).
4) Heading ortopping.
ii) Tyne removalwith necessary replaceauae t planting.
e. Rach type of restorative ation shat be evaluated based on the above findings and with consideration
given the following fedora:
x) Tire effectiveness of die.awn in restoring the view.
J
tato://ci.sausalito.ca.uslindex.aspx ?page= X25 9/3/2010
r
r
City of Sausalito. Tree and View Preservation Ordinance
2) Any adverse impact of the restorative action on the benefits derived fromthe growth in question.
3) The eost of tineres mfive action as obtained from the viewclaim. The Tim Committee may
deternme that additional estimates are required.
4) The effects upon the privacy ofthe tree owner. Values of quiet and privacy should receive equal
consideration with values of view and sui ftfit.
f. All restorative actions shall be undrrtiflaan with consideration given to the following factors:
1) All restorative actions must be consistent with subsection 0-8, subparagrapbs "d" and "e" of this
Section,
2) Restorative actions shall be limited to shaping, thinning, and/or heading of branches where
possible.
3) When shaping and/orthfaning of branches is not a feasible solution, heading or nipping shall be
preferable to tree removal if it is determined that the impact of topping does not deatroythe visual
proportions of the tree, adversely aftetthetwe'a
growth pattern or health, or otl►eiwin constitute a detriment to the tree in wntion (arIxNL 's advice
required).
4) Tree removal shall onlybe considered whin all outer,. , i , , actions are judged to be baeflective.
Replacement planting ran be required ou the property of the parties.
s) An arborises report is required in determining the nature and cost ofrgUeemeat plant matecisls,
installation of such planet materials, and time required for such plant materials to become well
established,
d) In those cases where tree removal eliminates or significantly reduces the tree owner's benefice of
visual screening, windscreetdng or privacy, replacement scrum plantings shall, at the tree awmea
option, be established prior to tree removal;
notwithstanding the provisions of sub -paragraph "e" above, the tree owner may elect tree removal with
replacement planting as am alterasative to shaping, thmmin& heading or topping•
7) All sk* , tbmming, headip& topping and two removal required under this Chapter maetbe
performed under the daily supervision of an Arborist
Implementadoa of Decision
Within thirty (30) days of the arbitration decision, the tree owner will obtain at least three bids for the
prescribed work from Atbariatn and shall present all bids to daimamt Within fifteen (15) days after
presentatims of the bids, the claimant shall d -posit with the tree owner an amount equal to the
perom age of tlaeloweatbid deemed appropriate bythe Tree Cotnmittee. The tree owner shall, athm
sole discretion, choose the company by which bewishes tbe work done and shall order the work done
within fifteen (is) days sites receiving the rlaimaufs deposit. The tree owner shall paythe
between the deposit amount and the bid amount of the company he has chosen. The authorised wmrk
of correction shall be done by an Arborist under the sole direction and control ofthe tree owner.
g. Allocation of Costa in Arbitration
To be determined by the Arbitration Committee according to the standards set forth under Section C,
sac. 3-4.of this section, and the individual droumstances brought before the Committee.
D. Procedure - City Trees
The Trees and Views Committee does not have jurisdiction over claims concerning trees on public property. The
procedures for handling claims concerning trees on pubiie property areas set fmth in this subsection.
x. Filing of View Claim: A claimant who believes in good faith that the growth, maiutenanea, or location
of ttes situated on City property diminishes the beneficial use, economic value, sunlight, or enjoyn=t
of views naturally accruing to the claimant's property may apply to the Cky on a form approved bythe
CityArborlst. The applicationfarm sballbe accampaxdedbya fiftfee as established by the sty
Page 14 of 11
http://ci.sousalito.ca.us/index.aspx?page=125 9/3/2010
City of Sausalito: Tree and View Preservation Ordinance Page 11 of 11
Council. If the claimant is not the owner of the property that is proposed to bandit from this claim, the
claimant shall attach the written permission of the property owner.
a. Investigation: Upon receipt of a view clams, the City Arborist shall investigate the claim and shall
conaider the pubhe interest m rasiataming the public environment created by the e®sting traea and
landscaping; addidonalby theArborist may take into oonadeaation the Standards set forth in
subsection C -g of this Section and shall issue his or her decision to the claimant wxthiu thirty (so) days
required. Appeal of the decision of the City Arborist shalt be as set forth in Section mizo3o H.
S. Public Posting and Input: AU City trees affected bya. view claim shall be individually taggedbythe City
within five (S) w, ovkIng days of receipt of a view claim. Such notices shelf be posted in clear view of
passersby, and shall contain the phone number which citizens can call to obtain information regarding
the view claim. AR written public input received by the City shall be considered.
4. Restorative Action: All view claims found by the City to be valid shaA be subject to restorative action in
accordance with subsection C -g, subparagraphs " d - ofthis Section. Restmtive action shall be as
recommended by sad performed ander the daily supervision of an Arborist selected by the (Sty and
under City ,, action including the costs of the Arborist services shall bo paid
by the claimant.
1x.xzogo ENFORCMVIMT AND pENALTMS
A. The first violation Of any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be chargeable as an hAractio ��a
time not exceeding one hundred doliars ( too). Subsequent violations by the same a e cbmTeable as a
misdemeanor. Every violation dshetmiraed to be a misdemeanor is a e oat exceeding one thousand
dollars 0.4000) far each offense.
13. The City Manageror any iguated by the CityManager is authorized and directed to issue a stop
work r to �ordeto be removing or altering a protected tree without the authority required bythis
Cha
(Ordinance history: Orde. 812, W, 10510, 1107,1114,'1122)
CE-- NO, I ( 4 (�
f--)2 A -M g -W 6 6,6 W(* --b i e-4c=j
�=- SSC- c idrJ {{.12,&50
http://ci.sausalito.ca.ustindex.aspx?page-125 9/3/2010
ORDINANCE NO. 1146
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAUSALITO AMENDING CHAPTER 11.12 OF
THE SAUSALITO MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAEUNG TO ENFORCEMENT AND
PENALTIES FOR THE TREES AND VIEWS ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of Sausalito does hereby ordain as fiollaws:
Section 1. Fin ' and Pumose.
a. This Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the authority granted by Government Code
Section 63069.4, which provides in pertinent part: "The legislative body of a local agency ...
may by ordnance make any violation of any ordinance enacted by the local agency subjoct to an
administrative fine or penalty. The local agency shall set fords by ordinance the administrative
procedures that sha11 govern the imposition, .�..,� „�.y,e�, collection, and eve review
by the local agency of -those administrative fines or peraides."
b. The City Council fords and determines that offective enforcement of the Sausalito
Trees and Views Ordinance is essential to achieving its objectives. In recent years, the City has
encountered situations where private r�„r:,.ty owners illegally remove or alter protected trees, to
the detriment of the Sausalito community. The City's current enforcement mechanisms have
proven to be an insufficient determent to such mmthorized activities, which if allowed to
continue would threaten to adversely affect the ebaracter and scenic beauty of the City and
increase the risk of erosion, earth n... and drainage problems.
Section 2. Section 11.12.450, entitled "Enforcement," of Chapter 11.12, entitled
`.'reservation of Trees and Views," of the Sausalito Municipal Code is hereby amended, to read
in full as follows:
A_ BVD Work Order.
The enforcement officer is authorized to issue a stop work order to any person found to
be removing or altering a protected tree without proper authorization pursuant to Chapter 11.12..
B. Administrative Fines and Rerneslial Orders.
In addition to all other civil and criminal remedies available to the City to address
violations of this Chapter, the City may impose an eve fine and/or a remedial order
upon any person who is foul to have committed a violation of any provision of Section
11. 12.030 pursuant to the administrative procedures set forth in this Section. Tho determination
whether to impose an administrative fine and/or remedial order shall be at the sole discretion of
the City and shall not preclude the City from pursuing other available legal remedics.
b
Page 1
1. De£nitimm As used in this Section, the following terns shall have the
meanings set forth below, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
Person Any individual or entity found to be responsible for a violation,
including but not limited to the owner or lessee of the property upon which the violation takes
place, as well as any contractor or employee who is hired to perform alteration or removal of any
tree.
Enforcement Officer: Any employee or agent of the City with the authority to
enforce any provision of this Cbaptcr, as designated by Section 1.05.060B or by the City
Manager.
2. Administrative Citations. When an enforcement officer determines that there has
been an unauthorized removal or alteration of a protected tree in violation of any provision of
Section 11.12.03U, the en&rcement officer is authored to issue an administrative citation to the
person responsible for the violation.
3. Documentation. To the extent feasible, the enforcement officer issuing the
citation shall document the des surrounding the violation and assemble relevant
information such as photogmgbic evidence, witness statements, and notes regarding the
enforcement officer's ods.
4. Contents of Citation. The eve citation shall contain the hollowing
information:
(i) The date of the violation;
(u') The address or other dean of the location where the violation
occurred;
(iii) A brief demon of the administrative citation process as set forth in this
subsection, including a statement informing the violator of the Wil
penalties and that a decision regarding the citation will be made by either
the Trees and Views Committee or the Planuiag Commission, subject to
appeal to thse City Council;
(iv) A statement that judicial review of a final decision following an
admmistrative appeal regarding the cite tion must occur within the twenty -
day time f =w set forth in Govemment Code Section 53069.4(b); and.
(v) The name and signature of the enforcement officer.
5. Scheduling of Public Dgg : Notice: Dismal of Citation. The er&rcement
officer shall schedule a public blearing to take place not earlier than twerty--one (21) and not later
than sixty (60) days after the date of the citation. If the citation concerns activities on private
property and the owmr of the affected x...r .Ji has a development application pending before
the City, the planning Commission or City Council shall conduct the public wring depending to
Page 2
1=
whom the development application is behre. - If not, the Trees and Views Committee shall
conduct the public Ding. The person cited with the violation shall be given at least twenty-one F
(21) days prior notice of the public hearing. If the person cited for the violation fails to appear at 4:
the hearing, an administrative fine and/or order to perlbrm remedial work may be imposed in the
person's absence. f
G. Method of Service. All notioes required pursuant to this Section shall be served s
a. Notice shall be served by personal service or by oertifted mail, return receipt
requested. Notice shall be effective upon mailing.
b If personal service or service by certified mail is uosuccessiul, notice shall be
Provided by postapg at the property where the violation occurred. Notice shall be of ee ve upon
posting.
7. C2ndW- Public Hearina. During the lamming, relevant evidence regaarding
the unauthorized tree alteration or removal and the tree's value may be presented by the person
cited with the violation, the enf inenarat officer, a certified arborist, and any otbar persons with
knowledge or information regarding the violation or the tree's value. The tree's value may be
determined with reference to standards established by the International Society of Arbortift The
appropriate decision-making body, as detcm*ted pursuw%t to Section 11.12.050(8}(5), shall hear
the evidence and determine whether the violation occurred If it is determined that a violation
occurred, the decision-making body may impose on,: ...lr..:ateadminishidw ime andlor issue
an order to perform remedial work.
S. Talon of Administrative Fine: Remedial Order.
a The decisbn-making body may impose an administrative fine far the violation of
any provision of Section 11.12.030, in an amount not to exceed a maximum of one thousand
dollars ($1,000) for each illegal removal or alteration.
b. The decision-making body may order to violator to perform :. r . &: JJi *e remedial
work to mitigate the impact of the violation on the Sausalito community and affected properly
owners. Such remedial work may include installation of one or more trees or shrubs to replace
those illegally altered or removed. The remedial work shall include installation and maintenance
of trees of such size and number necessary to substantially restore the loss of privacy,
environmental. degradation and other damages which resulted from. the unauthorbW alteration or
removal The decision-making body may fashion an appropriate remedial order setting forth the
location, number, size and species of replacement trees or snubs, a schedule for completion of
remedial work, and such other matters determined to be necessary to mitigate the
impact of the violation. A per%rmance bond issued by a surety admitted in California shall be
required at the violator's sole expense and shall serve as security for the benefit of the City in an
amount equal to 100 percent of the estimated cost of the remedial work. A mafi&, once bond
issued by a surety admitted in California shall be required at the violator's sole expense upon
completion of the remedial work and shall serve as security for the benefit of the City for the
violator's Obligation to maintain the remedial work for a period of tea (10) years. The bond. shall
Page 3
be in an amount equal to 15 percent of the actual cost of the remedial work. The City may also
require a maintenance agreement between the violator and the City to set forth the terms of
maintaining the remedial work.
C In cL-l"r..L:..g the amount of an administrative fine and the scope and carteirts of
a remedial order, the decision making body may take any or all of the following factors into
consideration:
(� The seriopwas of the violation, including the value of the tree;
(ii) The impact of the violation on the Sausalito c.environment and }
afkcW,,.,,r"L,# owners;
E�
(iii) The duration of the violation; n
(iv) The fiequs ncy, recurrence and number of violations by the same violator;
(v) The economic impact of the fine and/or remedial order on the violator;
(vi) The good faith efforts ofthe violator to coin into compliance, if
applicable; and
(vii) Such other factors as fairness and justice may dictate.
d. The decision-making body shall have the authority to impose an administrative
fine, remedial order, or both, as determined appropriate after considering the factors set forth in
Section 11.12.05OB(SXc).
e. If the violation concerns activities on private property and while the owner of the
affected properly has a development application pending before the City, the Planning
Commission, or the City Council as the case may be, may suspend processing of the
development application to the mdent permitted under 0. y "---.ant Code Section 65950 et seq.
and other state law governing the processing of development applications, and defer any final
decision on the merits of the application until the violating party agrees to pay any administrative
fine and comply with any remedial order issued by the Planning Commission or City Coumcil. If
the development application requires review by the Planning Commission or City Council, they
may also attach conditions of approval as determined necessary to ensure compliance.
£ The decision of the Planning Commission or the 'frees and Views Committee
regarding whether a violation bat occurred and the imposition of any administrative fine and/or
remedial order sball be appealable to the City Council by any interested person Any such
appeal shall be in writing and shell be fired with the City Clark no latex thaw, ten (10) days
following the date ofthe decision, stating the reasons far the appeal and providing the appeal fee
as established by the City.
9. Collection of Administrative Fines: Ex6rcemma dQWlience Orders.
Page 4 (91
a. Unless otherwise specified by the decision -nuking body or by the City Council
on appeal, an administrative fine shall be due and payable thirty (30) days following the date of
the final administrative decision Unpaid amounts shall accrue interest at the Yate of ten percent
(10%) per annum from that date forward. The amount of the administrative fine shall be deemed
to be increased by the amount of accrued interest and any recoverable administrative costs, as
specified in Section 11.12.050(B)(10). All modes collected shall be deposited in a separate
account to be designated for tree purposes by the City Council.
b. The City shall collect administrative fines and enforce remedial orders �by
utilizing any and all available legal remedies, including but not limited to the following:
() Administrative fines are a debt owed to the City and are enforceable as a
personal obligation of the violator.
(ii) If the violator is a, properly owner, the City may invoke the lien procedures
specified in Section 11.12.050(C)(1 l) against the property on which the
violation occurred.
(iii.) The City may pursue any available legal action to enforce compliance
with a remedial order or fine including without limitation seeking
declu-story and/or injunctive relief.
10. Administrative Costs. The City may collect its administrative costs from any
violator who fails to pay all administrative fines when due or fails to comply with any provision
contained in a remedial order. The administrative casts shall include all expenses reasonably
incurred in the City's efforts to collect administrative fines and/or enforce a remedial order,
including but not limited to staff time, legal fees, and out-of-pocket costs.
11. Lien Procedumes.
a. Whenever the amount of any administrative fine, together with accrued s Aerest
and administrative costs, has not been satisfied in full within ninety (90) days after following the
date of the final administrative decision and has not been successfully challenged by a timely
writ of mandate, the unpaid amount shall constitute a lien against the real property on which the
violation occurred.. The lien provided herein shall have no foroa and effect until recorded with
the office of the Marin County Recorder.
b. Prior to recording a lien, the Community Development Director shall fila with the
City Clerk a report stating the amounts due and owing. The City Clerk shall fix a time, date and
place for hearing the report and any protests or objections thereto before the City Council. The
property owner shall be given at least ten (10) days prior notice of the public hearing. Notice
shall be served as provided in Section 11.12.050(B)(6). The notice shall, at a minimum, set forth
the record owner or possessor of the property, the last known address of the record owner or
possessor, the date upon which the lien was created, a description of the property subject to the
lien and the amount of the lien. The property owner may protest the imposition of the lien either
in writing or orally. After the /nearing, the City Council shall adopt a resolution order
confirming, discharging or modifying the amount of the lien.
Page 5 (EO)
C. A City Council resolution oonfirimting or modifying the amount of a lien shall be
filed in the office of the Maria County Recorder and shall have the same force and effect as a
judgment lien pumoant to Section 697.340 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Upon receipt of
payment in full pursuant to the lien, a notice of satisfaction of the lien shall either recorded by
the City or provided to the property owner to record. The notice of satisfactign shall cancel the
City's lien.
... ___ .. __ . _.-..._.12.,.... _ ._ J •� ..-peva. ,_.---- - At�.3�.--mon-ag�i�ned-b�..ar -.decision.�mpo$ing..�n_......._...__ ...............__.
administrative fine may obtain judicial review pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section
53069.4(b) of the Government Code Any person aggrieved by a decision imposing a remedial
order may obtain judicial review by filing a petition for writ of eve mandate within the
time limits set forth in Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Section 3. SevernbiMy Clause, The City Council declares that each section,
paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this Ordinance is severable and
independent of every other section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentme, clause or
phrase of this Ordinance. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentweei clause
or phrase of this Ordinance is held invalid, the City Council declares that it would have adopted
the remaining provisions irrespective of the portion held inve id and farther declares its express
mtent that the remaining portions of this Ordinaruce should remain in effect after the invalid
portion has been eHmkw ted.
Section 4. Publication and Effective Date. Px rno t to Government Code 36937, this
Ordinance shall take effed thirty (30) days after its adoption. Within fifteen (15) days after its
adoption, this Ordinance shall be published in a of general circulation, published and
circulated in the City of Sausalito.
The foregoing Ordinance was duly introduced with reading waived at a meeting of the
City Council of the City of Sausalito held on the 2Pd day of May, 2000, and thereafter wan
adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 1 day of May, 2000, by the
following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Albritton, tWw, Roberts, St ratigos, Mayor Bushmaker
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Cowrcilmembers: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None
ATTEST:
Isl Debbie PaRliaro
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Is/ Sandra L Bushmaker
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAUSALITO
SOI
Page 6
THIS PAGE IN rENTIO NALLY LEFT BLANK
OW2-
Municode http:llllbrary.MUnu7oQe.00mlpnntAspx lh=-&CUentJlJ= i W.11...
Tiburon, Califomia, Code of Ordinances » TITLE IV - LAND IMPROVEMENT AND USE >s Chapter 15 -
VIEW AND SUNLIGHT OBSTRUCTION FROM TREES »
Chapter 15 - VIEW AND SUNLIGHT OBSTRUCTION FROM TREES
Sections:
15-1 - Pumose and orindDles.
15-& - Definitions.
15-3 - Riahts established.
15-4 - Unreasonable obstruction 212hihio.,
15-5 - Criteria for determinina unreasonable obstruction.
15& -_Criteria for deterrninina appropriate restorative action.
15-7 - TvDes of restorative action.
I5&, Town guidelines concerning restorative aeon;
15-9 - Process for resolution of obstruction disputes.
15-10 - TrPe claim nreDar kQ=
15-11 - Bindina arbitration.
r-
15-13 - ADoortionment of costs.
15-14 - Liabilities.
15-15 - Limitations.
15-16 - T
15-1 - Purpose and principles.
(a) The purposes of this chapter are to:
(1) Establish the right of persons to preserve views or sunlight which existed at any time
since they purchased or occupied a property from unreasonable obstruction by the
growth of trees.
(2) Establish a process by which persons may seek restoration of such views or sunlight
when unreasonably obstructed by the growth of trees or other vegetation (see
definition of "Tree").
(b) The rights and the restorative process are based upon the following general principles:
(1) The town recognizes that residents, property owners and businesses cherish their
outward views from the Tiburon Peninsula, and that they also cherish the benefits of
plentiful sunlight reaching their buildings and yards. The town recognizes that both
outward views and plentiful sunlight reaching property contribute greatly to the quality
of life in Tiburon, and promote the general welfare of the entire community.
(2) The town also recognizes the desire of many of its residents, property owners and
businesses for beautiful and plentiful landscaping, including trees. The town realizes
that this desire may sometimes conflict with the preservation of views and sunlight,
and that disputes related to view or sunlight obstruction are inevitable.
(3) Owners and residents should maintain trees on their property in a healthy condition
143
1 of 9 712112 8:26 AM
MUnAXN!G
:�u�r:rncurn�y.u�utuvwo.uuiur�rr iu�.uaHn : u=o[.V1roa�ua� i cxr.r r ..,
for both safety reasons and for preservation of sunlight and outward views. Before
planting trees, owners and residents should consider view and sunlight blockage
potential, both currently and at tree maturity. Persons have the right to seek civil
remedies when threatened by dangerous tree growth.
(4) The town shall establish a process by which persons may seek to preserve and
restore views or sunlight which existed at any time since they purchased or occupied
property from unreasonable obstruction by the growth of trees. The town shall also
establish a list of factors to be considered in determining appropriate actions to
restore views or sunlight.
(6) When a view or sunlight obstruction dispute arises, the parties should act reasonably
to resolve the dispute through friendly communication, thoughtful negotiation,
compromise and other traditional means, such as discussions with the appropriate
neighborhood or homeowner association. Those disputes which are not resolved
through such means shall follow the procedure established herein.
(6) It is the intent of the town that the provisions of this chapter receive thoughtful and
reasonable application. It is not the intent of the town to encourage clear -cutting or
substantial denuding of any property of its trees by overzealous application of
provisions of this chapter.
(Ora! No. 379 N.S., § 3 (part))
15-2 - Definitions.
For the purpose of this chapter, the meaning and construction of words and phrases is as
follows:
"Active use area" means the most frequently occupied portion or portions of a commercial
building from which views are available.
"Arbitrator" means a neutral person who will conduct a process similar to a trial, and who will
hear testimony, consider evidence, and make a binding decision for the disputing parties.
"Binding arbitration" means a legal procedure as set forth in section 1280 et seq. of the Code
of Civil Procedure.
"Complaining party" means any property owner (or legal occupant with written permission of
the property owner) who alleges that trees located on the property of another person are causing
unreasonable obstruction of his or her pre-existing views or sunlight.
"Mediator" means a neutral, objective third person who assists people in finding mutually
satisfactory solutions to their problem.
"Person" means any individual, corporation, partnership, firm or other legal entity, excluding
the Town of Tiburon.
"Primary living area" means the portion or portions of a residence from which a view is
observed most often by the occupants relative to other portions of the residence. The determination
of primary living area is to be made on a case-by-case basis.
"Protected tree" means any of the following:
2 of 9 7/2112 8:26 AM
Municode
3of9
nap:ttizorary.mumcoae.comrpruu.aspx : n=azcnenuu=i ooj i...
"Heritage tree," meaning any tree which has a trunk with a circumference exceeding sixty
inches, measured twenty -lour inches above the ground level.
"Oak tree," including coast five oak, blue oak, California black oak, interior live oak, canyon
live oak, Engelmann oak or valley oak tree.
"Dedicated tree," meaning a tree of special significance so designated by resolution of the
town council.
"Removal" means the elimination of any tree from its present location.
"Restorative action" means any speck requirement to resolve a tree dispute.
"Stump growth" means new growth from the remaining portion of the tree trunk, the main
portion of which has been cut off.
"Sunlight" means the availability of direct or indirect sunlight to the primary living area of a
residence.
"Thinning" means the selective removal of entire branches from a tree so as to improve
visibility through the tree and/or improve the tree's structural condition.
"Topping" means elimination of the upper portion of a tree's trunk or main leader.
"Tree" means any woody plant with the potential to obstruct views or sunlight, including but
not limited to trees, shrubs, hedges, and bushes. References to "tree" shall include the plural.
"Tree claim" means the written basis for arbitration or court action under the provisions of this
chapter.
"Tree owner" means any person owning real property in Tiburon upon whose land is located
a tree or trees alleged by a complaining party to cause an unreasonable obstruction.
"Trimming" means the selective removal of portions of branches from a tree so as to modify
the tree(s) shape or profile or alter the tree's appearance.
"View" means a scene from the primary living area of a residence or the active use areas of
a nonresidential building. The term "view" includes both upslope and downslope scenes, but is
generally medium or long range in nature, as opposed to short range. Views include but are not
limited to skylines, bridges, landmarks, distant cities, distinctive geologic features, hillside terrains,
wooded canyons, ridges and bodies of water.
Some additional examples are:
(1) San Francisoo Bay (including San Pablo Bay, Richardson Bay, and islands therein);
(2) The San Francisco -Oakland Bay Bridge;
(3) The Golden Gate Bridge;
(4) The Richmond -San Rafael Bridge;
(5) Mount Tamalpais;
(6) The Tiburon Peninsula or surrounding communities (including the city of San
Francisco).
7/2112 8:26 AM
htLp://Iibraryinunloode.com/pnntAspx'lh=&chentil)---166.')'/...
"Windowing" means a form of thinning by which openings or "windows" are created to
restore views and or sunlight.
(Ord No. 379 N. S., § 3 (part))
15-3 - Rights established.
(a) Persons shall have the right to preserve and seek restoration of views or sunlight which
existed at any time since they purchased or occupied a property, when such views or
sunlight are from the primary living area or active use area and have subsequently been
unreasonably obstructed by the growth of trees.
(b) In order to establish such rights pursuant to this chapter, the person must follow the process
established in this chapter. In addition to the above rights, private parties have the right to
seek remedial action for imminent danger caused by trees.
(c) All persons are advised that the alteration, removal, and planting of certain trees requires a
permit under chanter 15A of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Trees). The applicability of chanter
1514 should be determined prior to any action on trees.
(Ord No. 379 N.&, § 3 (part))
15-4 - Unreasonable obstruction prohibited.
(a) No person shall plant, maintain or permit to grow any tree which unreasonably obstructs the
view from, or sunlight reaching, the primary living area or active use area of any other parcel
of property within the Town of Tiburon.
(b) Because the maintenance of views and sunlight benefits the general welfare of the entire
town, any unreasonable obstruction of views or sunlight from the primary living area or active
use area shall also constitute a public nuisance.
(Ord No. 379 N S., § 3 (pari))
15-5 - Criteria for determining unreasonable obstruction.
The following criteria are to be considered (but are not exclusive) in determining whether
unreasonable obstruction has occurred:
(a) The extent of obstruction of pre-existing views from, or sunlight reaching, the primary
living area or active use area of the complaining party, both currently and at tree
maturity.
(b) The quality of the pre-existing views being obstructed, including obstruction of
landmarks, vistas, or other unique features.
(c) The extent to which the trees interfere with efficient operation of a complaining party's
pre-existing solar energy systems.
(d) The extent to which the complaining party's view and/or sunlight has been diminished
over time by factors other than tree growth.
(Ord. No. 379 N.S., § 3 (pari))
15-6 - Criteria for determining appropriate restorative action.
When it has been determined that unreasonable obstruction has occurred, then the following
4 of 9 7/2112 8:26 AM
Municode
nttp:tiitm ey municonc,mwprint.aspx-rn=azcuenuij=iow i...
unweighted factors shall be considered in determining appropriate restorative action:
(a) The hazard posed by a tree or trees to persons or structures on the property of the
complaining party including, but not limited to, fire danger and the danger of falling
limbs or trees;
(b) The variety of tree, its projected rate of growth and maintenance requirements;
(c) Aesthetic quality of the tree(s), including but not limited to species characteristics,
size, growth, form and vigor;
(d) Location with respect to overall appearance, design or use of the tree owner's
property;
(e) Soil stability provided by the tree(s) considering soil structure, degree of slope and
extent of the tree's root system;
M Privacy (visual and auditory) and wind screening provided by the tree(s) to the tree
owner and to neighbors;
(g) Energy conservation and or climate control provided by the tree(s);
(h) Wildlife habitat provided by the tree(s);
(i) Whether trees are "protected trees," as defined in section 5�- of this chapter.
(Did. No. 379 N. S., § 3 (part))
15-7 - Types of restorative action.
(a) Restorative actions include but are not limited to the following:
(1) Trimming;
(2) Thinning or windowing;
(3) Topping;
(4) Removal with replacement plantings;
(5) Removal without replacement plantings.
(b) In all cases, the documentable extent of view or sunlight existing at any time during the
tenure of the present owner or legal occupant is the maximum limit of restorative action
which may be required.
(c) Restorative action may include written conditions (including ongoing maintenance), and
directions as to appropriate timing of such actions, and may be made to run with the land
and apply to successors in interest. Where removal is required, replacement by appropriate
species should be considered.
(d) In cases where trimming, windowing or other restorative action may affect the health of a
tree which is to be preserved, such actions should be carried out in accordance with
standards established by the International Society of Arboriculture for use in the state of,
California.
(Ord. No. 379 N. S., § 3 (part))
15-8 - Town guidelines concerning restorative action.
The Town of Tiburon provides the following general guidelines concerning restorative
actions:
(a) Undesirable trees. By reason of their tall height at maturity, rapid growth, dense
-
5 of 9 7/2112 8:26 AM
MIMICOGe
6of9
flup:ri izvrdry.munit;uuc.4AJUUprnu.abk)L rn=0WJI0iJuu=a uv -7 i ...
foliage, shallow root structure, flammability, breakability or invasiveness, certain types
of trees have been deemed "undesirable" by the town, including Blue Gum
Eucalyptus, Coast Redwood, Monterey Pine, Monterey Cypress trees, or any other
tree which generally grows more than three feet per year in height and is capable of
reaching a height of over thirty-five feet at maturity. When considering restorative
action for "undesirable" trees, aggressive action is preferred.
(b) Protected trees. The Town of Tiburon has designated certain trees to be "protected
trees," defined in section 15-2. Any alteration or removal of protected trees will require
a permit from the town's planning director pursuant to chanter 15A of the Tiburon
Municipal Code.
(c) Stump growth. Stump growth generally results in the hazard of weak limbs, and its
protection is not desirable. When considering restorative action for stump growth,
aggressive action is preferred. Restorative action which will result in future stump
growth should be avoided.
(d) Trimming. Trimming is the most minor form of physical restorative action. This option
is recommended when minor unreasonable obstruction has occurred, provided that
ongoing maintenance is guaranteed.
(e) Thinning or windowing. When simple trimming will not resolve the unreasonable
obstruction, thinning or windowing may be necessary. These should be supervised by
a certified arborist.
(f) Topping. Topping as a restorative action should be used with caution. Topping can
have deleterious effects on a tree's health, appearance and cost of maintenance.
Topping frequently results in stump growth. Tree removal, with replacement plantings,
may be a preferable alternative.
(9) Removal. Tree removal may be required where such removal is essential to preserve
pre-existing views or sunlight. While normally considered a drastic measure, tree
removal can be the preferred solution in many circumstances.
(h) Maintenance. Ongoing tree maintenance requirements are strongly recommended as
part of restorative action in order to achieve lasting preservation of pre-existing views
or sunlight.
(i) Permanence. Conditions of restorative action should be recorded and run with the
land to help guarantee permanent preservation of pre-existing views and sunlight.
(Orth. No. 379 N.S.. § 3 (Part))
15-9 - Process for resolution of obstruction disputes.
The following process shall be used in the resolution of view and sunlight obstruction
disputes between parties.
(a) (1) Initial reconciliation. A complaining party who believes that tree growth on the property
of another has caused unreasonable obstruction of views or sunlight from the primary
living area or active use area shall notify the tree owner in writing of such concerns.
(2) The notification should, if possible, be accompanied by personal discussions to
enable the complaining party and tree owner to attempt to reach a mutually agreeable
solution. If personal discussions fail, neighborhood associations may be willing to
assist with the resolution of the obstruction dispute.
(3) For trees located on town -owned property, see section 15-16
�a
7/2/12 8.26 AM
MUDICOde
nup:lf �eurttry.uluu�wuGA vuupl lll[ i7a�lA ! U=M%AJVil[11J"1 V W I ...
(b) Mediation. If the initial reconciliation attempt fails, the complaining party shall propose
mediation as a timely means to settle the obstruction dispute.
(2) Acceptance of mediation by the tree owner shall be voluntary, but the tree owner shall
have no more than thirty days from service of notice to either accept or reject the offer
of mediation. If mediation is accepted, the parties shall mutually agree upon a
mediator within ten days.
(3) It is recommended that the services of a professionally trained mediator be employed.
The county of Marin provides professional mediation services at a nominal cost.
(4) The mediation meeting may be informal. The mediation process may include the
hearing of viewpoints of lay or expert witnesses, and shall include a site visit to the
properties of the complaining party and the tree owner. Parties are encouraged to
contact immediate neighbors and solicit input.
(5) The mediator shall consider the purposes and policies set forth in this chapter in
attempting to help resolve the dispute. The mediator shall not have the power to issue
binding orders for restorative action, but shall strive to enable the parties to resolve
their dispute by written agreement in order to eliminate the need for binding arbitration
or litigation.
(Orr. No. 379 N.S., § 3 (part))
15-10 - Tree claim preparation.
(a) In the event that the initial reconciliation process fails, and mediation either is declined by the
tree owner or fails, the complaining party must prepare a tree claim, and provide a copy to
the tree owner, in order to pursue either binding arbitration or litigation under the authority
established by this chapter.
(b) A tree claim shall consist of all of the following:
(1) A description of the nature and extent of the alleged obstruction, including pertinent
and corroborating physical evidence. Evidence may include but is not limited to
photographic prints, negatives or slides. Such evidence must show absence of the
obstruction at any documentable time during the tenure of the complaining party.
Evidence to show the date of property acquisition or occupancy by the complaining
party must be included;
(2) The location of all trees alleged to cause the obstruction, the address of the property
upon which the tree(s) are located, and the present tree owner's name and address;
(3) Evidence of the failure of initial reconciliation, as described in section 15-9, to resolve
the dispute. The complaining party must provide physical evidence that written
attempts at reconciliation have been made and have failed. Evidence may include, but
Is not limited to, copies of and receipts for certified or registered mail correspondence;
(4) Evidence that mediation, as described in section '15-9, has been attempted and has
failed, or has been declined by the tree owner;
(5) Specific restorative actions proposed by the complaining party to resolve the
unreasonable obstruction.
(Oral No. 3799 N.S., § 3 (part))
15-11 - Binding arbitration.
(a) In those cases where the initial reconciliation process fails and where mediation is declined
7 of 9 712112 8:26 AM
Muntbode
8 of 9
nup:!! 11UCAly.lIlInlICUUG.W�[]lE7iln�.anpa : n=acc[►Cnulr— i w� � ...
by the tree owner or has failed, the complaining party must offer in writing to submit the
dispute to binding arbitration, and the tree owner may elect binding arbitration.
(b) The tree owner shall have thirty days from service of notice to accept or reject binding
arbitration. If accepted, the panties shall agree on a specific arbitrator within twenty-one days,
and shall indicate such agreement in writing.
(c) The arbitrator shall use the provisions of this chapter to reach a fair resolution of the tree
claim and shall submit a complete written report to the complaining party and the tree owner.
This report shall include the arbitrator's findings with respect to sections 15-5 ander of this
chapter, a pertinent list of all mandated restorative actions with any appropriate conditions
concerning such actions, and a schedule by which the mandates must be completed. A copy
of the arbitrator's report shall be filed with the town attorney upon completion. Any decision
of the arbitrator shall be enforceable pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure
section 1280 et seq.
(Ord. No. 379 N.S., § 3 (part))
15-12 - Litigation.
(a) In those cases where binding arbitration is declined by the tree owner, then civil action may
be pursued by the complaining party for resolution of the view or sunlight obstruction dispute
under the rights and provisions of this chapter.
(b) The litigant must state in the lawsuit that arbitration was offered and not accepted, and that a
copy of the lawsuit was filed with the town attorney. A copy of any order or settlement in the
lawsuit shall also be filed with the town attorney.
(Ord No. 379 N.S., § 3 (part))
15-13 - Apportionment of costs.
Cost of mediation and arbitration. The complaining party and tree owner shall each pay fifty
percent of mediation or arbitration fees, unless they agree otherwise or allow the mediator or
arbitrator discretion for allocating costs.
Cost of litigation. To be determined by the court or through a settlement.
Cost of restorative action. To be determined by mutual agreement, or through mediation,
arbitration, court judgment or settlement.
(Ord. No. 379 N.S., § 3 (part))
15-14 - Liabilities.
(a) The issuance of mediation findings, an arbitration report or a court decision small not create
any liability of the town with regard to the restorative actions to be performed.
(b) Failure of the town to enforce provisions of this chapter shall not give rise to any civil or
criminal liabilities on the part of the town.
(Ord. No. 379 N.S., § 3 (part))
15-15 - Limitations.
It is not the intent of the town in adopting this chapter to affect obligations imposed by an
V--
7/2/12 8:26 AM
Muni6oda
nup:llll0iaiyMUKI1CDM.CUnNpnUL.Uxpa[ f11 ---OWI CnuJJ--ivv3 r...
existing easement or a valid preexisting covenant or agreement.
(Ord No. 379 N.S., § 3 (part))
15-16 - Trees on town -owned property.
Trees located on town -owned property are exempt from the provisions of this chapter.
Requests or complaints regarding trees located on town -owned property should be made in writing
to the superintendent of public works for consideration in accordance with policies adopted by the
town.
(Ord. No. 379 N. S., § 3 (part))
9 of 9 7/7/12 8:26 AM