City Council Agenda 10-09-2017MINUTES OF
A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
OCTOBER 9, 2017
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Black at
7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Dieringer, Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Black.
Councilmembers Absent: None.
Others Present:
Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager.
Natalie Karpeles, Assistant City Attorney.
Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director.
Yvette Hall, Interim City Clerk.
William Hassoldt, 10 Pine Tree Lane.
Arun Bhumitra, 13 Buggy Whip Drive.
Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West.
John Nunn, 1 Crest Road West.
Fred Lorig, 1 Spur Lane.
Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive.
Roger Hawkins, 37 Crest Road West.
John Blazevich, 1 Buggy Whip.
Michael Sherman, 33 Crest Road East.
Mike Shoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive.
Elliot Brunner, M.D., 26 Cinchring Road.
Monika Malone, 7 Chuckwagon Road.
Kathy Nichols, 14 Crest Road West.
Hank Pickar, 11 Bowie Road.
Burt Balch, 6 Hackamore Road.
Christine Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road.
Daniel Marco, 26 Georgeff Road.
V'Etta Virtue, 4 Maverick Lane.
Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West.
Jill Smith, 10 Georgeff Road.
Ann Murrell, 6 Packsaddle Road East.
OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME
Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West, thanked the Planning Commission (PC) for the work they did with
the Ad Hoc Committee's draft of the view preservation ordinance. Mr. Colyear opined that the draft was
a good modification to the City's Municipal Code as it relates to views.
Mayor Black informed Mr. Colyear that this section of the agenda was for matters not on the agenda and
that Mr. Colyear could comment during the public hearing on the view preservation ordinance.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request
removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions.
A. Financial Statements for the Months of July and August 2017.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
B. Payment of Bills.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council approve the items on the Consent Calendar as
presented. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried without objection.
-1-
COMMISSION ITEMS
CONSIDERATION OF AN EQUESTRIAN SERVICE DRIVEWAY APPROACH AT 1
MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH.
Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz presented
the staff report stating that the project was a request for a service driveway for equestrian access and
equestrian facilities. Planning Director Schwartz indicated that the Traffic Commission and Traffic
Engineer reviewed the project. She stated that the Traffic Engineer recommended approval of the project.
Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council approve the Traffic Commission's recommendation
in support of the applicant's request for a service driveway for equestrian access and equestrian facilities
as presented. Councilmember Dieringer seconded the motion, which carried without objection.
Mayor Black requested that Item 6-C be taken out of order and discussed at this juncture. Hearing no
objection, Mayor Black so ordered.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
WAIVE FULL READING AND INTRODUCE ON FIRST READING ORDINANCE NO. 354 —
CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS TO AMEND THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION
17.12.220 OF CHAPTER 17.12 (DEFINITIONS); AND TO REPEAL AND REPLACE
CHAPTER 17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION) IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A PROCESS FOR
THE RESTORATION OF VIEWS OBSTRUCTED BY VEGETATION, IN ZONING TEXT
AMENDMENT NO. 2017-01.
Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated this
is a public hearing and first reading of an ordinance that City Council requested to be brought back from
the September 25, 2017 City Council meeting. She stated that the PC is recommending an ordinance that
replaces the existing view preservation ordinance, and in the proposed ordinance from the PC the
recommendation is that the role of the City be advisory and not quasi-judicial. She indicated that the
revised ordinance, as presented, is recommending that the role of the City be quasi-judicial. She reviewed
the additional modifications that were made by the PC as follows: 1) Removal of a disjointed view and
addition of a panoramic view; 2) Inclusion of definitions for views; and 3) Definitions of methods of
trimming such as lacing, crown reduction and others. Planning Director Schwartz further stated that at the
aforementioned meeting the City Council requested that staff bring back the same ordinance that the PC
recommended except for the removal of the advisory role of the City and the addition of a quasi-judicial
role of the City. Planning Director Schwartz explained that there were two items presented in the staff
report, the ordinance that was recommended by the PC with a strike -through of modifications as requested
at the last meeting, and a clean version of the same ordinance.
Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive, commented on a past resident's view preservation case that occurred
on Saddleback Road in 2012. Ms. Schoettle expressed concern for this resident who lost a view
preservation case filed against her and subsequently had her trees cut down. She indicated that residents
were most concerned with the City's role in view disputes and were in support of an advisory role for the
City. She expressed concern with the financial consequences of lawsuits and the use of residents' tax
monies to give views to other people. Ms. Schoettle commented that a successful compromise was
reached between the PC and the residents; therefore, the residents expect the proposed ordinance to be
adopted.
Ann Murrell, 6 Packsaddle Road East, commented that a view complaint was filed against her by the
Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) and that she has cut many trees in an effort to create a
view for her neighbors. She commented on the $500,000 judgment payment that was paid by the RHCA
for losing the view complaint lawsuit filed against her. She recommended that the City not get involved
financially in any view preservation cases as it affects every taxpayer. Ms. Murrell commented that if
there is a City Councilmember who would profit from the City supporting their personal view complaint,
the City Councilmember should recuse himself from any City Council support.
Roger Hawkins, 37 Crest Road West, commented that he is opposed to the proposed ordinance for the
following reasons: 1) It is not fiscally responsible to potentially indebt the community with a huge
litigation expense; 2) Residents will be more apt to engage in litigation if the City is paying for it; and 3)
Minutes
City Council Meeting
10-09-17
-2-
Litigation will cause resentment among neighbors and the City. Mr. Hawkins expressed support for the
City to adopt an advisory role as recommended by the PC.
John Blazevich, 1 Buggy Whip, commented that he reviewed the pamphlets and both opposing arguments
and noticed that the acquisition of title was an issue. He commented that the acquisition of title and
"mature" need to be more defined. Mr. Blazevich recommended that new residents take photographs on
the day they move in and both the owner of the property and the City should keep copies. Mr. Blazevich
stated that the photographs will show exactly what is there and from that point on that is what should be
kept as a guideline for any tree trimming that needs to be done in the future. Mr. Blazevich stated he is
not in favor of litigation.
Michael Sherman, 33 Crest Road East, questioned why residents did not complain decades ago about their
views. He commented on the importance of preserving the soil supporting trees whose removal would
geologically weaken the soil and predispose residents' property to landslides from rainfall. He commented
on his view preservation case and stated that his legal expenses to defend his property between 2014 and
2015 exceeded $100,000. He expressed opposition to allowing an unlimited number of viewpoints in or
near his property, various accessory structures and to Measure C.
Arun Bhumitra. 13 Buggy Whip Drive, commented that he highly values trees. He commented on his
view preservation case and explained that he tried to work with his neighbor; however, he was not
successful. Mr. Bhumitra expressed support for the City to take a quasi-judicial approach.
Mike Shoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive, commented on values, trust and transparency within the community.
He stated that he believed the City Council has taken the side of the view seeker in past cases. He stated
that the PC's recommendation came from an open process and that their proposal takes the City out of the
dispute and encourages the affected community members to work it out. Mr. Shoettle expressed support
for the City acting in an advisory role.
Elliot Brunner, M.D., 26 Cinchring Road, commented on the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' (RPV) view
ordinance and indicated that their ordinance is more restrictive than what the City Council is considering.
He discussed the differences between the City of RPV's ordinance and the City of Rolling Hills. He
expressed support of the PC's proposed ordinance with the City acting in an advisory role. Dr. Brunner
expressed opposition to Measure C.
Monika Malone, 7 Chuckwagon Road, expressed opposition to the ordinance that City Council is
considering with the City acting in a quasi-judicial role. Ms. Malone indicated that if the proposed
ordinance is adopted and the City bears the cost of having trees trimmed to enhance her view, she is in
support of this action. Ms. Malone commented that litigation may be costly for the City.
Kathy Nichols, 14 Crest Road West, referred to an exhibit in the staff report that discussed a study
regarding ninety percent of Cities rejected an enforcement role. She expressed opposition to the City's
consideration of a quasi-judicial role in view preservation cases.
Hank Pickar, 11 Bowie Road, commented that his neighbors informed him that some of his trees were
blocking their view and he was successful in resolving the matter without further legal action. Mr. Pickar
expressed opposition to the City's consideration of a quasi-judicial role in view preservation cases.
Burt Balch, 6 Hackamore Road, expressed opposition to the Measure C. He stated that he believed that
the City has sided with viewseekers many times. He commented that trees are an asset to the City. Mr.
Balch indicated that he has a sizeable view because all the trees died on his property. He expressed
concern with growing his trees because his neighbors may have an issue with the trees blocking their
view. Mr. Balch expressed opposition to the City's consideration of a quasi-judicial role in view
preservation cases.
Christine Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road, stated that she submitted a letter to the City Council. She
read a portion of her letter regarding the reason's why she feels the City Council would like to continue to
pay for litigation and view expenses due to their view that there is a financial disparity among residents.
She commented on her and her neighbor's view case. She commented that if the City takes a quasi-
judicial role in view preservation cases this would create an unlevel playing field for residents. Ms.
Greenberg expressed opposition to the City's consideration of a quasi-judicial role in view preservation
cases.
William Hassoldt, 10 Pine Tree Lane, commented that he did not support the City Council's decision to
Minutes
City Council Meeting
10-09-17
-3-
place on a ballot measure on the special election after the Ad Hoc Committee and Planning Commission
proposed a plan for improving Measure B that would be equitable to all members of the City. He
discussed his view preservation case. Mr. Hassoldt expressed opposition to the City's consideration of a
quasi-judicial role in view preservation cases and Measure C.
Daniel Marco, 26 Georgeff Road, commented that if the City Council does not adopt the PC's
recommendation of an advisory role this action demonstrates a lack of leadership and trust in the
appointed commissioners. Mr. Marco expressed opposition to the City's consideration of a quasi-judicial
role in view preservation cases.
V'Etta Virtue, 4 Maverick Lane, commented on the history of the City beginning with the City's
incorporation. She stated that she has lost most of her view over the years and that history was repeating
itself with the proposed ballot measure. Ms. Virtue expressed opposition to giving residents a view from
any place in their yard.
John Nunn, 1 Crest Road, commented that when the original ordinance was in place, there were virtually
no arbitrated settlements because view seekers knew they could get whatever they asked for. He
commented on Measure B's set limits. He expressed opposition to allowing an unlimited number of
viewing points. Mr. Nunn expressed support of the City adopting an advisory approach to the view
ordinance.
Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West, expressed opposition to Measure C. He commented that Measure
B should be preserved to ensure that view cases are resolved fairly.
Fred Lorig, 1 Spur Lane, commented on Councilmember's Dieringer letter that was mailed to the
community. He stated that the letter had an effect on the community and that she requested residents who
opposed Measure C and support Measure B to attend the City Council meeting this evening. He
commented that there is a lot of misunderstanding of the ordinance that should be clarified. Mr. Lorig
discussed the history of the view preservation ordinance. He referenced the General Plan and stated the
plan requires preservation of both trees and views. Mr. Lorig stated that Measure B as a matter of law
cannot override the City's General Plan and that the City should not be concerned with lawsuits as they
have not occurred for 24 years.
Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West, commented that the ordinance as written was good. He commented that
the proposed ordinance goes further than the original ordinance by allowing views from anywhere on the
property. He noted that there are over 19,000 incorporated cities in the United States and very few have
any type of view ordinance.
Jill Smith, 10 Georgeff Road, concurred with Mr. Lorig's previous comments. She stated that the Trees &
Views Committee agonizes over view preservation decisions for both the viewseeker and tree keeper. She
stated that she felt Measure B made it difficult for the Trees & Views Committee to make decisions. Ms.
Smith commented that the proposed ordinance is a compromise to satisfy both proponents and opponents
of the issue. Ms. Smith asked that the City Council carefully consider the new ordinance.
Mayor Black closed the Public Hearing.
Councilmember Pieper commented that the proposed ordinance is not perfect; however, the majority of
the ordinance is placed in the right direction and noted that it can be refined over time. Councilmember
Pieper stated that many hours of work and effort were put into the ordinance, as well as several meetings
with the PC, community, and Ad Hoc Committee.
Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 354 amending the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code Section 17.12.220 of Chapter 17.12 (Definitions); Repeal and Replace Chapter 17.26
(View Preservation) in Order to Establish a Process for the Restoration of Views Obstructed by
Vegetation, in Zoning Text Amendment No. 2017-01; act in an advisory role in view obstruction cases;
and if Measure C fails to pass at the Municipal Election on November 7, 2017, this ordinance is null and
void and will not take effect. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson seconded the motion.
Councilmember Dieringer commented that one of the major issues is whether the City should pay for
enforcement costs. She expressed concerns with staffing levels. She would like the ordinance to protect
the residents and offer a fair process where residents can come and resolve issues related to views and
trees. She indicated support of adopting an advisory role for view cases. She discussed the past legal fees
incurred totaling $55,000. She stated that she does not support unlimited viewpoints. She recommended
Minutes
City Council Meeting
10-09-17
-4-
that the City Council extend the view preservation moratorium until the proposed ordinance can be
modified further. Councilmember Dieringer noted that other cities have opposed paying for legal costs
except for Cities that have an ordinance voted on by the electorate.
Mayor Pro Tem Wilson concurred with Councilmember Pieper's comments regarding the importance of
how much work and effort was put into the ordinance. He stated that he believed that a majority of the
public comments made were in support of the original document. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson stated that the
ordinance is balanced enough and should be passed sooner rather than later due to the upcoming election
and that it is only fair to the voters to have something in place that can be relied upon, based on the results
of the election.
Discussion followed concerning the addition of amendments, view preservation moratorium, number of
viewpoints and conducting a cost assessment to hire additional staff.
Councilmember Mirsch stated that this ordinance was a complicated issue. She discussed the
collaboration process of the Ad Hoc Committee and the PC and that there were comprises on both sides.
She stated that she believes there is a majority of residents in support of the final document that was
recommended by the PC with the City Council acting in an advisory role. Councilmember Mirsch stated
for the record that she never supported the advisory position and she has never changed her opinion. She
addressed concerns with the costs associated with an advisory body and stated that the majority of the
funds that have been expended by the City were not for enforcement or to defend a position, they were for
hearing cases that came before City. She commented that she does not agree that additional staff would
be needed based on historical fact. Councilmember Mirsch stated that she had no financial involvement
with any of the cases that have come before the City Council and expressed concern with not supporting
an ordinance that was recommended by PC.
Mayor Black commented on the regulation policy differences between the City and the RHCA. He
clarified that the Murrells' view issue was reviewed by the RHCA. He stated that he believed the City
was much less likely to be open to lawsuits versus the RHCA. He indicated that the lawsuits that occurred
since the original ordinance went into effect were two lawsuits totaling $55,000 in legal fees. Mayor
Black discussed past view preservation cases that came before the City and that a majority were settled in
mediation. He indicated that he has observed many views diminish and that he is not aware of a resident
creating a view by going to the City and demanding a view. Mayor Black expressed opposition to the
City's role as an advisory body.
In response to Councilmember Dieringer's inquiry, City Attorney Jenkins provided clarification on a
resident's vested right to have a proceeding under an ordinance if the ordinance changes midstream. He
stated that if the ordinance changes during a case, the resident would not have a vested right to have their
view application adjudicated based on the language in the ordinance that was in place at the time they
applied.
Discussion ensued concerning the ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission and provisions
that were stricken from this ordinance.
Councilmember Pieper restated his motion. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council adopt
Ordinance No. 354 amending the Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.12.220 of Chapter 17.12
(Definitions); Repeal and Replace Chapter 17.26 (View Preservation) in Order to Establish a Process for
the Restoration of Views Obstructed by Vegetation, in Zoning Text Amendment No. 2017-01; act in an
advisory role in view obstruction cases; and if Measure C fails to pass at the Municipal Election on
November 7, 2017, this ordinance is null and void and will not take effect. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson
seconded the motion. The motion was previously seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Wilson.
Discussion ensued concerning whether to adopt the PC's recommended ordinance or to amend the
ordinance.
Mayor Black called for a roll call vote on the aforementioned motion. The motion carried by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Dieringer, Pieper, and Wilson.
NOES: Councilmember Mirsch and Mayor Black.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
10-09-17
-5-
City Attorney Jenkins clarified that this ordinance cannot take effect unless Measure B is repealed and that
Measure B can only be repealed if Measure C passes on November 7, 2017. He stated that the reason that
this ordinance cannot take effect if Measure C fails is because it is inconsistent with Measure B, and that
the City cannot adopt an ordinance that is inconsistent with Measure B because Measure B was adopted
by the vote of the people. City Attorney Jenkins advised that a new section would be added to the very
end of the ordinance that will state that if Measure C fails this ordinance shall be null and void and not
take effect.
ORDINANCE NO. 356 - CONSIDERATION OF AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS EXTENDING A PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE TO
TEMPORARILY PLACE A MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE AND/OR
PROCESSING OF ANY APPLICATION SOUGHT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER
17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION) OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE AND
DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF.
Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz presented
the staff report and stated this matter is a public hearing to consider extending the moratorium on the
acceptance and/or processing of view preservation applications. She indicated that on November 28, 2016
the City Council passed a moratorium because there was a need to adopt a new view preservation
ordinance, and further stated that an Ad Hoc Committee was formed. Planning Director Schwartz stated
that the moratorium ordinance was approved for 45 days, then on January 9, 2017 the moratorium was
approved for an additional ten months and 15 days as allowed per law, and expires on November 28,
2017. She stated that the ordinance as presented provides an opportunity to adopt it again for an extension
of one year as allowed by law. Planning Director Schwartz indicated that the moratorium could only be
extended two times up to a total of two years, which would extend the moratorium to November 2019 and
could be repealed at any time.
There were no members of the public who requested to make a public comment.
Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council take no action on extending the moratorium on the
acceptance and/or processing of view preservation applications and not adopt Ordinance No. 356. Mayor
Black seconded the motion. Further discussion followed this motion.
Councilmember Dieringer recommended that this matter be postponed to the October 23, 2017 City
Council meeting to allow time for this issue to be discussed. She expressed concern with the unknown
amount of view complaints that could be filed. Councilmember Dieringer recommended that the City
evaluate whether additional staff would be needed if a significant number of view complaints are filed.
Councilmember Mirsch commented that since 1988 there have not been a significant number of view
preservation complaints filed and she does not expect a large amount to be received.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Wilson's question, Planning Director Schwartz stated that one resident
inquired about filing a view impairment case since the moratorium has been in effect.
Mayor Black called for a roll call vote on the aforementioned motion. The motion carried by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Black.
NOES: Councilmember Dieringer.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
WAIVE FULL READING AND INTRODUCE ON FIRST READING ORDINANCE NO. 355 —
CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE NO. 355 AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND
17.16.020 AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 17.29 TO TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS
MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL MARIJUANA ACTIVITIES,
ALLOW FOR THE DELIVERY OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA, AND TO REGULATE THE
CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA FOR PERSONAL AND MEDICAL USE WITHIN THE
CITY, IN ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2017-02.
Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated this
item is a public hearing to consider the Planning Commission's (PC) recommendation to adopt an
ordinance regarding a new law that passed in June of 2017 allowing the use of marijuana for personal use.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
10-09-17
-6-
She indicated this is a first reading and introduction of Ordinance No. 355. She explained that the law
allows cities to develop their own ordinance. She stated that the City needs to be specific when adopting
an ordinance and should include items such as whether the City would like to prohibit commercial use and
commercial activities such as transportation and mobile delivery. She indicated that the City is required to
notify the state what type of ordinance was adopted, otherwise, as of January 1, 2018 the state will be able
to issue licenses to residents in the City unless an ordinance is adopted that specifically states that the City
does not allow commercial marijuana or transportation of marijuana. Planning Director Schwartz also
explained that there are certain provisions that must be allowed and that the PC is recommending an
ordinance that would allow the minimum that could be adopted based on state law. Planning Director
Schwartz reviewed the proposed ordinance as follows: 1) A new Title was added to the Zoning Ordinance
on Marijuana Use; 2) Included section that specifies that certain activities are prohibited, which are
commercial cultivation, dispensation, and mobile dispensing of marijuana related to the commercial
aspect of it; 3) Definitions were added and taken directly from the state law; 4) Medical marijuana and
personal use are allowed based on state law which states that anyone over 21 years of age or older can
possess, process, purchase, transport, and obtain a certain amount of marijuana which is 28.5 grams of un-
concentrated and 8 grams of concentrated; 5) Engaging in personal cultivation indoor and outdoor — The
state does not dictate whether a City allows indoor or outdoor cultivation; however, this recommendation
came about from a previous City Council ordinance that allowed outdoor marijuana; however, the City
does not have to allow it; 6) The City must allow a maximum of six plants; 7) The City can limit the area
of where the plants are grown as this is allowed by the state. The minimum is 50 square feet; however,
the recommendation is for 100 square feet; and 8) The area where the plants are grown should be
contiguous. Planning Director Schwartz indicated that the State Water Board is creating their own rules
and regulations and one of their regulations will require that the area be contiguous. She stated that this
provision is included in the proposed ordinance. She discussed another regulation that is being imposed
prohibits planting on slopes that are more than ten percent to mitigate water and runoff. She stated that
the recommendation is to allow this only on parcels with residential units and not on vacant lots. She
stated that the plants cannot be visible from the easements, trails, or any other property. She stated that
another recommendation is to keep the plants in a locked area if they are kept outdoors or if it is kept in an
accessory structure that it be locked. Planning Director Schwartz further stated that if the plants are kept
outdoors they must be enclosed by a five-foot wall.
Councilmember Dieringer commented that she received the legal memo from the City Attorney. She
indicated that in the memo the City Attorney made it clear that the City could ban all outdoor cultivation
and adopt reasonable regulations. She recommended that a condition be considered for residents to notify
the City of indoor or outdoor cultivation and obtain a permit. She stated that a -provision could be added
to conduct an inspection to ensure the resident is complying with fire, electrical, ventilation, water usage,
health and building codes. She recommended that the City place limits on the plant height and width
because currently under the statute there is no size limitation to the six plants. Councilmember Dieringer
indicated that it would be helpful for the City to have knowledge of which residents have a permit in case
a complaint is received.
Planning Director Schwartz stated that when this item was brought to the PC staff did include registration;
however, the PC did not support this recommendation and felt the provision could not be enforced.
Discussion ensued concerning residential structure requirements, number of plants allowed, indoor and
outdoor cultivation, plant height, and wall enclosures.
There were no members of the public who requested to make a public comment.
Following discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council waive full reading, introduce
on first reading the ordinance as presented with an amendment to allow cultivation indoors only, and to
bring the ordinance, as amended, for a second reading and adoption. Councilmember Dieringer seconded
the motion.
In response to Mayor Black's question, City Attorney Jenkins advised that there is no provision in the
state law to determine if a person is impaired by marijuana.
Mayor Black called for a roll call vote on the aforementioned motion. The motion carried by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Black.
NOES: Mayor Black.
ABSENT: None.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
10-09-17
-7-
ABSTAIN: None.
OLD BUSINESS
NONE.
NEW BUSINESS
NONE.
MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION ON ALLOWANCE OF CONSTRUCTION
FENCING ONLY WHEN REQUIRED OR APPROVED BY THE CITY OR COUNTY
BUILDING OFFICIAL. (ORAL)
Mayor Black indicated that he requested a discussion on this matter. He expressed concern that there
were no regulations for construction fencing, in particular when there is no construction taking place.
Planning Director Schwartz recommended that a standard condition be included in the resolutions of
approval and not amend the zoning ordinance.
Discussion followed concerning construction related fencing versus aesthetic fencing, consideration of
adopting a standard condition to not allow construction fencing, except for specific purposes, with
Planning Commission approval.
Mayor Black opened the public discussion.
Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West, commented that he concurs with the City Council's concerns related to
construction fencing. He recommended that construction fencing be required around the construction area
only not the entire property.
Councilmember Dieringer commented that the City should not prohibit residents from having a
construction fence. She indicated that there could be safety issues, such as a hole in the ground that would
require fencing. Councilmember Dieringer stated that prohibition of fencing could create a liability issue
for the City.
Planning Director Schwartz stated that it would be difficult not to put a fence around the entire property
because more room is needed for staging on the property and to prevent storm water runoff. Planning
Director Schwartz did not recommend a restriction to allow fencing in the construction area only.
Discussion followed concerning the adoption of an ordinance for one property and the process for
extending construction permits.
By City Council consensus, no action was taken on this matter.
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION ON JOINING TAKING BACK OUR
COMMUNITY COALITION. (ORAL)
Councilmember Dieringer presented information on joining the Taking Back Our Community Coalition
organization. She indicated that the coalition is comprised of local governments to provide public
education and advocacy related to the unintended adverse public safety impacts of recent changes to
California's criminal law. Councilmember Dieringer indicated that the City would be required to
contribute membership dues.
Discussion ensued concerning the administration, funding and objectives of the program.
Mayor Black moved that the City Council join the Taking Back Our Community Coalition organization
and contribute membership dues. Councilmember Dieringer seconded the motion. Mayor Black called
for a roll call vote on the aforementioned motion. The motion failed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmember Dieringer and Mayor Black.
NOES: Councilmembers Mirsch, Pieper and Wilson.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
10-09-17
-8-
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
MATTERS FROM STAFF
City Manager Cruz indicated that he would not be in attendance at the next City Council meeting due to
his attendance at the International City/County Management Association's conference. City Manager
Cruz provided an update on the City of Rolling Hills vs. California Water Service case. He indicated that
a preliminary hearing was held with the Public Utilities Commission and that another hearing was
scheduled for December 18, 2017.
ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Black adjourned the meeting at 9:59 p.m.
The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, October 23, 2017 at 7:00
p.m. in the Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California.
Respectfully submitted,
Approved,
Patrick Wilson
Mayor
Yveite Hall
City Clerk
Minutes
City Council Meeting
10-09-17
-9-
Christine Greenberg ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
32 Portuguese Bend Rd. Agenda Item No: 6-C
Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Mtg. Date: 10/09/17
Home phone: 310.541.6271
Rolling Hills, City Council
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Rd.
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
10/07/2017
RE: View Complaint -Related litigation and expenses
Dear Council Members,
RECEIVED
OCT 0 9 2017
ByCitytLandndHiils. c(
P�(;c 1�'2ce
I-2: to roil
On 09/25/2017, the city council voted 4-1 to amend the view ordinance and
replace the "Advisor Opinion" process with the prior view complaint
process to use city tax dollars to pay for the litigation costs of individual
residents. The reason given for this decision was that it would help residents
that were at a financial disadvantage. While on the surface it appears
compassionate, it has the opposite effect. It also opens the city up for
unknown costs and unlimited future financial liabilities. There is no.
evidence to support that this is how this ordinance has been applied in the
past, or will be applied in the future. In fact, the history shows quite the
opposite effect. It is the tree owners that have been the victims of the city
backing of the view seekers. By using the full force of the city's funds and
resources, the tree owner is at a financial disadvantage because they have to
pay for the full cost of their experts and legal representation.
How can this be a level playing field when the city backs one resident/view
seeker against another resident/tree owner? The claim of a level playing
field does exactly the opposite. For example, my neighbors the Reis never
had a view. This was a sub -division that was built at a lower elevation and
behind my fully grown trees. Plus I had documented proof that the Reis
never had a view. Because of the view ordinance, (prior to measure B) and
with the full financial backing of the city, the city ordered 72 mature trees to
be cut in halt destroying my property value. How can this be a level
playing field when the city is paying for all the costs, including staff
preparation, expert reportsitestimony, complying with various
legalicounty/state laws and regulations), while I had to pay all the expenses
to defend myself against which I believed to be a unlawful taking of my
property.
For Example, in my case the city paid for: 1). Staff preparation of 2- CEQA
filings and 2- revisions; 2) City hired mediator; 3) City paid Arborist 2-3
site visits and report preparation ; 4) Bolton Engineering on site evaluation
and reports; 5) 2 years of planning staff preparation and work on view
ordinance ; 6) City Attorney and staff. How is it fair or compassionate •if the
city pays all expenses for view seekers, while the tree owner has to pay all
their own expenses associated with defending their property?
This went on for two years because my neighbor, the Reis/view seeker had
no incentive to settle because the city was paying for all their costs
associated with the view ordinance. The cost to me and the city tax payers
was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and this was before we went to
court. I believe this could have been settled by mediation if the city had not
been paying for all the costs. When the city pays there is a NO incentive to
settle, because the view seeker knows they can hold out for the maximum
benefit, because the city is paying and not the view seeker.
Mayor Black stated that he looked at the costs of litigation for the past two
cases, and determined that he was okay with legal costs to the city. What
were the actual costs? I believe the last two cases he used were mine and
Howard Hall's. This is faulty data, because both cases ended with the
passage of voter approved measure "B". If those cases had continued
through the legal system, the costs would have been considerably higher.
I believe the City Council has a fiduciary responsibility to avoid exposing
the city to potential litigation and open ended costs. Or to put it another way,
not directly involve city residents in costly litigation that they will ultimately
have to pay for.
Beside the council's fiduciary responsibility to the residents/taxpayers, what
is the amount of loss/cost to the city picking sides in this view ordinance?
What costs can the city sustain before it impacts the city's ability to maintain
services?
I would encourage the City council to adopt the planning commission
recommended plan, the "Advisor opinion model".
I also am opposed to the inclusion of wording that allows any view that
resulted from a neighbor trimming their tree, to be enforced. All views
should be based on the view they originally purchased with their property.
I believe that any council member who might fmancially benefit from any
council approval of this or any ordinance, recuse themselves and not vote or
take a position on the ordinance.
I would also like to thank you for your interest and efforts in making this a
better community. Having the city exposed to unlimited cost and litigation
does not make Rolling Hills better.
Your consideration is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Christine Greenberg
Monday, October 9, 2017 at 12:5 /it
acietkoPf)
Subject: View Preservation Ordinance - 2017 our comments
Date: Monday, October 9, 2017 at 12:55:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Elliott Brunner <t _ ,> City of Rollinl Hills
To: Yvette Hall <yhall@cityofrh.net>, Ewa Nikodem <enikodem@cityofrh.netty //I 61" P1"C"
OCT 0 9 2017
My name is Dr Elliott Brunner. I live at 26 Cinchring Rd with my wife, Dr
Nourit Korzennik.
Life, liberty, and the' pursuit of my view. Most cities do not have a View
Ordinance; those that do have Ordinances that define the role of their City
Councils as strictly advisory. This is what your own Planning Commission
recommended, which you disregarded. A rare exception is Rancho Palos
Verdes. But their View Ordinance is much more restrictive than what you
propose. It regulates one vantage point inside the view seeker's dwelling and
limits the impact to one neighbor at no more than 1000 feet distance. Yet, they
employ 2 full-time staff and spent $370,000- last year to adjudicate around 80
cases. Your new View Ordinance specifies any number of viewpoints from
anywhere on the 'view seeker's' property for any distance at any point in time
since the property was purchased. The amount of extra staff time and added
personnel that will be required will be enormous. The potential cost to the City
of Rolling Hills could easily bankrupt it.
To the City Council Please return to and adopt our own Planning
Commissions proposal.
To all Voters and Members of Rolling Hills: Vote No on Ballot Proposition
C.
Problems with proposed Ordinance:
1. By law any City Ordinance must provide for the general welfare of its
inhabitants and not benefit solely a select few persons
2. There will be greatly increased financial exposure because of the City's
role as a quasi-judicial dispute resolution process instead of an advisory
role as recommendation by the Planning Commissions version of the
resolution
3. Establishes increased inequality of 'view seekers' vs 'vegetation owners'
4. The new ordinance creates the moral hazard wherein the litigation costs
of 'view seekers' is borne by the city but not those of the 'vegetation
owner'
We support and endorse the following content, as expressed by Councilwoman
Bea Dieringer and we urge the City Council to return to the Proposal of our
Planning Commission (9/25/17 Exhibit 1) and adopt it instead of their current
proposal:
On 9/25/17 the Council voted 4-1 to disregard the views expressed by almost all the residents who
spoke on this issue at the Planning Commission hearings, namely, that the City should not pay the
litigation costs for the
parties who elect to go to court after participating in the City's view complaint process. In so doing, the
Council majority also ignored the recommendation of its own Planning Commission.
The Council's proposed amendment, which is to be voted on at the Council meeting on 10/9/17, would
change the process outlined in the Commission's recommended ordinance, which had been modeled
after the ordinances of almost all cities with view ordinances. Under this model, the City would render
an advisory opinion regarding the view complaint (and contribute some money toward the arbitration
costs for those interested in binding arbitration), but would not incur any of the costs for litigation,
since the parties would
be responsible for their own litigation costs if either party was dissatisfied with the results of mediation,
city view committee review, city council appeal and/or arbitration or wanted to obtain court
enforcement of the City's advisory opinion.
Instead of voting for this predominantly used model, the Council majority voted to go back to the
system whereby the City not only pays for the costs of having our small staff investigate and prepare
reports for these
complaints but also pays for all the costs associated with enforcing whatever decision is reached.
Consequently, the City would incur all the legal costs, without any mechanism for reimbursement, of
filing an action in civil court to enforce its decisions and would also have to pay all the legal fees in
defending its decisions in court if the decisions are. challenged by a party. If a party prevails against the
City, our tax dollars would also be used to pay these prevailing parties' expensive attorney's fees and
costs in addition to the City's legal fees and costs. In addition to the above civil costs, the City would
pay to enforce its decisions by prosecuting any noncomplying residents in criminal court for their
"crimes" and for their creation of a "public nuisance."
As you probably know, our City's resources are very limited. We only receive a small portion of the
property taxes collected from residents and some service -related fees; these are our primary sources of
revenue with which we fund all city services to our residents. The litigation costs from the proposed
Council majority's amendment could cost the City tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars
that we cannot afford to pay if we are to continue providing the City services that residents are
accustomed to
receiving.
In addition to the above financial hardship, under the proposed new ordinance, the City would be
required to expend additional resources and staff time to investigate these view complaints than they
did under the previous longstanding ordinance, which limited a view complaint to one view point that
was within or adjacent to one's residence. The proposed new ordinance permits a view complainant to
request views from an unlimited
number of viewpoints in or near their residence or accessory structures. Plus, complaints can be filed
against an unlimited number of neighbors who have vegetation in any of the requested views.
Moreover, the proposed new ordinance permits a view complainant to petition for a view based not
only on the views they had when they first acquired their property, but also based on any views that
they ever had during the entire ownership period. Consequently, Rolling Hills tree owners who had
been kind enough to allow their neighboring view seeker to pay for the trimming of their trees to
enhance the view seeker's view, can now be forced by the City to pay for providing the best view,
(including a panoramic view), that the view seeker ever had and to pay for maintaining that view in
perpetuity every two years.
The City generally also records a condition on a tree owner's deed that provides. notice to all subsequent
buyers of the tree owner's property that these buyers would be required to pay for maintaining the view
seeker's
view. This condition can negatively affect the value of the tree owner's property and his ability to sell it
with such a costly maintenance condition attached.
This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here to
report this email as spam.
Monday, October 9, 2017 1:36 PM
Subject: FW: VIEW question
Date: Monday, October 9, 2017 1:36 PM
From: Yvette Hall <yhall@cityofrh.net>
ECEIVED
From: < >>
Date: October 9, 2017 at 11:16:52 AM PDT
To: <rcruz@cityofrh.net>
Subject: VIEW question
OCT 092017
City of Rolling Hills
By
Dear. Ray Cruz,
Because I may not be able to attend the meeting this evening, I want to let you
know my views on the view question.
My son and I agree that the Council adopt the unanimous recommendation of the
Planning Commission that the City NOT incur any legal liability nor have to pay the
litigation and other enforcement costs of individual view complaint parties.
Verna Balch
6 Hackamore Road
310-377-3288
Page 1 of 1
Monday, October 9, 2017 at 3:43:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Subject: FW: URGENT MESSAGE
Date: Monday, October 9, 2017 at 3:29:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Ray Cruz <rcruz@cityofrh.net>
To: Yvette Hall <yhall@cityofrh.net>
CC: Ewa Nikodem <enikodem@cityofrh.net>
Please place on the dais.
Raymond R. Cruz
City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274
310 377-1521 F: 310-377-7288
RECEIVED
OCT 0 9 2017
City of Rolling Hills
By
This is a transmission from the City of Rolling Hills. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the
employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please
advise the sender by reply email and delete the message.
WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence
of viruses. The CITY OF ROLLING HILLS accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
From: "i r_,>
Date: Monday, October 9, 2017 at 12:12 PM
To: Raymond Cruz <rcruzPcitvofrh.net>
Cc: Bea Dieringer <bdieringerPcityofrh.net>
Subject: URGENT MESSAGE
To Ray Cruz and the Rolling Hills City Council:
I strongly urge that the Rolling Hills City Council adopt the unanimous recommendation of the Rolling Hills Planning
Commission that the City NOT incur any legal liability nor have to pay the litigation and other enforcement costs of individual
view complaint parties.
Inez L. Foye
32 Caballeros Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
(Resident since 9/1/1961)
Monday, October 9, 2017 4:37 PM
Subject: View Ordinance
Date: Monday, October 9, 2017 4:20 PM
From: Nancy < _
To: Yvette Hall <yhall@cityofrh.net>
City of Rolling Hills Council,
RECEIVED
OCT 0 9 2017
City of Rolling Hills
By
We are sorry to not be able to attends tonight's meeting as we have another commitment.
1. We support the proposed new view ordinance.
As homeowners who have lost our view up the coast to Malibu and the lower part of the Los
Angeles basin, we are in support of people being able to retain or reinstate their views no
matter who owns the property. Prospective owners will be encouraged to buy here as they
know that their views will also be protected.
2. We are encouraging the City Council to adopt the "advisory opinion" so the City would not
be held legally liable if someone sued the City pertaining to views.
Thank you all for your gift of time and expertise in helping our City.
Ralph and Nancy Schmoller
4 Middleridge Lane South
Page 1 of 1
10-9-2017
We are the Shermans and we reside at 33 Crest Road East. Standing before you
tonight feels like Groundhog Day and, as most of you know, we know what it is like to
buy a "dream home" in Rolling Hills and suddenly be sued by two neighbors who make
unreasonable, selfish demands with the sole motivation to obtain a view from about 40
years ago ( well before our house was even built) and about 20 years ago no
matter what. Our question has always been , "Why didn't they complain decades ago??
We know what it is like to fight to preserve the removal of soil supporting trees, whose
removal would geologically weaken and predispose our property to devastating
landslides from rainfall. Our geologist confirmed this potential condition.
We know,what it is like to bear the burden of huge legal expenses to defend what
should be rightfully ours and then be forced to pay for all future maintenance, instead of
shared maintenance costs, just so that our neighbors will be satisfied with their acquired
views. We continue to cooperate with our neighbors and cut our hedges and trees to the
ridge line top of our house. It is an ongoing process at our expense.
The legal expenses of defending our property in 2014and 2015 well exceeded
$ 100,000 .
We know what it is like to have a recording on our property deed that will negatively
affect the value of our home forever and our ability to sell it in the future, especially with
a complainant able to " request views from an unlimited number of viewpoints in or near
their residence and various accessory structures." , rather than just " one view point "
as above.
We know the stress, the agony, the frustration and although many of you may think that
it can't possibly happen to you THINK AGAIN if the new ordinance passes .
VOTE NO ON C .
You too may walk in our footsteps and we ALL will all be walking in a city that will be on
the verge of financial ruin and collapse .
Michael Sherman
RECEIVED
i
Sandy Sherman) . UCT 0 9 2017
Ci y of troll ,
ng dills
By �_:
October 9,2017
Rolling Hills City Councilpersons:
I refer you to Exhibit F and page 75 of Planning Commission Document 2/21/2017 (attached).
Of the 21 cities studied, 90% rejected view enforcement or accepting liability for litigation.
50% put in specific liability protection clauses for their city. A third of these cities did not
even have a view ordinance. Yet 4 out of 5 of you stated that you want to enforce the
proposed view ordinance and pay for litigation and staff time in support of the view
complainant. You liked the provisions which will make taxpayers pay for litigation and
staff time for each complainant homeowner against multiple residents, both near and far;
and let that same homeowner return multiple times with more taxpayer funded view
complaints, either; 1) to cut others trees when the complainant finds the view is still
impaired or 2) to begin the process over and over again to get a view from multiple other
locations on the same property.
You propose to saddle our tiny community with the liabilities and hatred that will result
from a few people on the City Council supporting a few individuals financially to destroy
their neighbors property values, privacy, and enjoyment based on family and friends
testimony that 20 to 40 years ago they had a view, over photos that show the opposite is
true.
With 685 homes and no commercial businesses, we are little more than an incorporated
housing development. But you want us to assume liabilities and costs that economically
prosperous/large cities like Beverly Hills, Berkeley, Brentwood, Malibu, Oakland and
Santa Barbara will not even consider. Even the Planning Commission, after months of
serious study, unanimously concluded that this is a very bad idea. You are asking us to
assume these unreasonable financial risks at a time when we are facing multiple threats
such as aging infrastructure (eg asbestos in our water pipes),, a major earthquake, or
landslides on tree stripped hillsides from typhoon level rainfall created by rising ocean
temperatures (currently being forecast by climate scientists). We need a financially
responsible City Council. You talked about a moral responsibility to enforce this ordinance.
What about your moral responsibility to protect us from bankruptcy! And to protect this
beautiful city that you were elected to govern, not to destroy.
This proposed ordinance is deeply flawed. You should drop consideration of it. If you do
not, please modify this ordinance to, for instance: 1) require irrefutable proof, not mere
testimony, that the view sought existed when the property owner purchased the property; 2)
balance restoration of a view with consideration of the harm associated with stripping
significant vegetation and privacy from another's property, eg view corridors only, leaving trees
that provide shade to reduce the increasing heat in our homes and yards; 3) do not enforce the
ordinance, involve city staff, or pay litigation or processing costs; 4) incorporate a liability
protection clause; 5) Avoid any action that encourages one neighbor to instigate a lawsuit
against another; 6) Do not allow a homeowner to file a view complaint with the City for multiple
locations on the property; 7) Do not allow a purchaser to ask for a view that occurred after
purchase for reasons such as wind, storms, diseased tree cutting, fire, etc.
Sincerely,
Cathy Nichols
RECEIVED
14 Crest Rd W, Rolling Hills, CO 2EM 2017
City of Rolling Hills
JAN 0 6 2017
CITIES WITH VIEWS
City of Rolling Hills VIEW ORDINANCES
By — Advisory v. Quasi -Judicial
Release of City from Liability v. Liable for Litigation
/7
/1
20
�l
CITY
ADVISORY +
LIABILITY
PROTECTION
CLAUSE
QUASI-3UDICIAL
+ LIABILE FOR
LITIGATION
NO VIEW
ORDINANCE
Berkeley
X
Beverly Hills
X
X
Belvedere
No Clause
Brentwood
X
Carmel -By -The -Sea
_
X
Corte Madera
X
El Cerrito
X
Hidden Hills
X
LaCanada-Flintridge
X
Laguna Beach
X
Malibu
X
Oakland
X
Orinda
X
Palos Verdes Estates
X
Rancho Palos Verdes
Ballot Measure
Rolling Hills Estates
X
San 3uan Capistrano
X
San Luis Obispo
X
Santa Barbara
X
Sausalito '
X
Tiburon
X
TOTALS
12
2
8
1 l b+, t1 e
s
Planning Commission
DATE: OCTOBER 9, 2017
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROCESSING VIEW PRESERVATION CASES
This is in response to Councilmember Dieringer's and Mayor Black's request for
information regarding:
1. Staffs time and City's cost for processing view preservation cases in the
past few years;
2. Request for an estimate of attorney's fees in the two cases that were
pursued through the court system.
1. As was reported to members of the City Council last week, staff estimated
that the processing of a typical view case (including mediation, CTV and City
Council, on appeal) may take between 100 to 250 hours of staffs time, depending on
the complexity of the case, number of trees involved and other factors.
It is estimated that the cost of processing a case for 100 hours of staff's time would
be $7,705
and in the most lengthy case of 250 hours - $19,263
This assumes 60% of the hours spent by the Planning Director
15% of the hours spent by the City Clerk and Administrative Assistant, each
and 10% spent by the City Manger
2. City has incurred $55,227 in attorney's fees in the two lawsuits brought
under the view ordinance; (these were the only lawsuits brought since 1988, when
the first View Preservation Ordinance became effective).
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
ss
I am a citizen of the United States. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the
within proceeding; my business address is 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California.
On the 6th day of October, 2017, I serve the within
City Council Meeting 10/09/2017
Regular Meeting
a copy of which is annexed hereto and made a part hereof, and the person, or persons, named
below were emailed or mailed the agenda:
E -MAILED MAILED DropBox DELIVERED
Interested City Attorney City Manager
RH Web site listSery Parties CouncilMembers City Council
Interested parties Dieringer, Pieper,
Black, Mirsch and Wilson
. Assistant City Attorney
Also posted at City Hall, at www.Rolling-Hills.org and PDF in DropBox.
I declare under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on the 6th day of October, 2017 at Rolling Hills, California.
Ewa Nikodem
Administrative Assistant
gerf 0/ Ral,14,9 qice.6
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
MONDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2017 7:00 P.M.
Next Resolution No. 1217
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME
Next Ordinance No. 354
This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding the items on the
consent calendar or items not listed on this agenda. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will take
place on any items not on the agenda.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may
request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council
Actions.
A. Financial Statements for the Months of July and August 2017.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
B. Payment of Bills.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
5. COMMISSION ITEMS
A. CONSIDERATION OF AN EQUESTRIAN SERVICE DRIVEWAY APPROACH AT 1
MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. ORDINANCE NO. 356 - CONSIDERATION OF AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS EXTENDING A PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED
ORDINANCE TO TEMPORARILY PLACE A MORATORIUM ON THE
ACCEPTANCE AND/OR PROCESSING OF ANY APPLICATION SOUGHT UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION) OF THE
ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE AND DECLARING THE URGENCY
THEREOF.
Page 1
B. WAIVE FULL READING AND INTRODUCE ON FIRST READING ORDINANCE
NO. 355 CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE NO. 355 AMENDING
SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 17.29 TO
TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER TO PROHIBIT
COMMERCIAL MARIJUANA ACTIVITIES, ALLOW FOR THE DELIVERY OF
MEDICAL MARIJUANA, AND TO REGULATE THE CULTIVATION OF
MARIJUANA FOR PERSONAL AND MEDICAL USE WITHIN THE CITY, _IN
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2017-02.
WAIVE FULL READING AND INTRODUCE ON FIRST READING ORDINANCE
NO.. 354 — CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS TO AMEND THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTION 17.12.220 OF CHAPTER 17.12 (DEFINITIONS); AND TO REPEAL
AND REPLACE CHAPTER 17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION) IN ORDER TO
ESTABLISH A PROCESS FOR THE RESTORATION OF VIEWS OBSTRUCTED BY
VEGETATION, IN ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2017-01.
7. OLD BUSINESS
NONE.
8. NEW BUSINESS
NONE.
9. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS
A. . DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION ON ALLOWANCE OF
CONSTRUCTION FENCING ONLY WHEN REQUIRED OR APPROVED BY THE
CITY OR COUNTY BUILDING OFFICIAL. (ORAL)
B. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION ON JOINING TAKING BACK OUR
COMMUNITY. COALITION. (ORAL)
10. MATTERS FROM STAFF
NONE:
11. ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: Monday, October 23, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Rolling Hills
City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California.
Public Comment is welcome on any item prior to City Council action on the item.
Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for
review in the City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered
City Council Agenda
10/09/17 . Page 2
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to
participate in this meeting due to your disability, please contact the City Clerk at (310) 377-1521 at
least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure
accessibility and accommodation for your review of this agenda and attendance at this meeting.
City Council Agenda
10/09/17 Page 3
CITY OF ROLLING I11LLS
BALANCE SIII;ET
July 31, 2017
ASSETS
MUNICIPAL.
GENERAL & DEPOSIT COPS & COMMUN. SELF- REFUSE TRAFFIC TRANSIT UTILITY
CAPITAL FUND FUND CLEEP FACILITIES INSUR. COLLECT. SAFETY PROP A, C, M FUND
& TDA
Cash & cash equivalents 5 4,559.181 5 1,771 $ 77,119 5 15,951 5 260,374 $ 611,590 $ (163) $ 40,595 $ 1,486,044
Cash & cash equivalents Capital Project Fund -
Poppy Trail Grading Bond - 305,000 -
Accounts receivable 161,833 83.082
Prepaid expense & deposits 28,859
•
TOTAL ASSETS $ 4,749,$73 5 306.771 $ 77,119 $ 15,951 $ 260,374 $ 694,672 5 (.163) $ 40,595 5 1,486,043
LIABILITIES
FUND BALANCE
Accounts & Contract payable $ 13,058 $ - $ b $ -• $ 445,321 5 • $ $ 5,344
Employee Benefits Payable 1,689
Deposits 18,852 306.771 - -
Deferred revenues - - -
TOTAL LIABILITIES 33,599 306,771 - 445,321 5,344
•
Unassigned Fund Balance 4,716.274
77,119 15,951 260,374 249,351 (163) 5 40,595 1,480.700
TOTAL UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE 4,716.274 77.119 15,951 260.374 249.351 (163) 40.595 1.480,700
TOTAL UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE & LIABILITIES
COMPOSITION OF CASII
5 4,749,873 $ 306,771 5 77,119 $ 15,951 $ 260,374 $ 694,672 5 (163) S 40,595 5 1,486.044
Petty Cash $ 1,500 •
OPUS 13ank - Checking Account 29,938
OPUS Bank - Money Market 53,554
OPUS I3ank Checking Account 1,011.660
Calif State Local Agency Investment Fund 5.460,801
Malaga Bank /Preferred - CD's 495.000
$ 7,052,462
Prepared .
erry Sh• a, . nance Director
Appro•d By:
RayTnond P.. Cruz, City Manager
Date
Date
/ Q. 1
PRECLOSING
BEGINNING
Y1'D OF YEAR
TOTAL TOTAL
$ 7,052,462 $ 7,144,199
305,000 305,000
244.913 40,586.
28,859 37,954
5 7,631,236 5 7,527,739
$ 463,723 $ 398,718
1,689 452
325,623 325,623
791.035 724,793
6.840,201 6,802,946
6.840,201 6,802,946
$ 7,631,236 $ 7,527,739
CITY 01? ROLLING HILLS
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
Actual Compared to Annual Budget
July 1, 2017 to July 31, 2017
Fund
GENERAL
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
CITIZENS' OPTION FOR
PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS)
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
MUNICIPAL SELF-INSURANCE
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
REFUSE COLLECTION
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
TRAFFIC SAFETY
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
TRANSIT - PROPOSITION A, C & M
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
UTILITY FUND
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
. Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
This Year
Last Year
This Year
Better
(Worse)
Adjusted
Annual
Budget
Remaining
Budget
$ 10,561
$ 23,512
$ (12,951)
1,935,250
$ 1,924,689.
91,555
77,443
(14,1121
2,097,250
2,005,695
(80,994)
(53,931)
(27,063)
(162,000)
(81,006)
2,000
2,000
-
(212,450)
(214,450)
- (78,994)
(51,939
(27,063)
(374,450)
(295,456)
-
-
140,125
140,125
-
-
-
156,500
156,500
-
-
-
(16,375)
(16,375)
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
(16,375)
(16,375)
-
-
-
195,000
195,000.00
-
-
-
(195,000)
(195,000.00)
-
-
-
195,000
195,000.00
-
-
-
100
100
-
-
-
12,700
12,700
-
-
-
(12,600)
(12,600)
(12,600)
(12,600}
-
-
-
3,000
3,000.00
-
-
-
(3,000)
(3,000.00)
-
-
-
(3,000)
(3,000.00)
64,100
64,855
(755)
771,100
707,000
64,567
63,459
(1,1081.
774,800
710,233
(467)
1,396
(1,863)
(3,700)
(3,233)
(2,000)
(2,000)
-
(24,000)
(22,000)
4671.
(604)
(1,863)
(27,700)
(25,233)
-
-
50
50
163
(163)
41,500
41,337
(163)
(163)
(41,450)
(41,287)
-
-
41,450
41,450
(163)
-
(163)
-
163
5,790
5,677
113
113,275
107,485
5,790
5,677
113
113,275
107,485
5,790
5,677
113
113,275
107,485
-
-
-
150,000
150,000.00
-
-
-
(150,000).
(150,000.00)
150,000)
- 150,000.00)
80,451 94,044
(13,593)
2,959,900
2,879,449
156,285 140,902
(15,383)
3,430,750
3,274,465
(75,834) (46,858)
. (28,976)
(470,850)
(395,016)
$ (75,834) $ (46,858)
$ (28,976)
$ .
(470,850)
$ (395,016)
2/4
ASSETS
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
BALANCE SHEET
August 31, 2017
MUNICIPAL
GENERAL & DEPOSIT COPS & COM.MUN. SELF- REFUSE TRAFFIC TRANSIT rTrILITY
CAPITAL FUND FUND . CLEEP FACILITIES INSUR. COLLECT. SAFETY PROP A,C.M FUND
& TDA
Cash & Cash Equivalents 5 4,512.381 5 1.771 $ 67,536 $ 15.951 $ 260,374 $ 613.633 $ (337) $ 48,318 $1.480.700
Cash & Cash Equivalents - Capital Project Fund
' Poppy Trail Grading Bond - -
Accounts Receivable 151,978 144.881
Prepaid Expense & Deposits 26,235
LIABILITIES
TOTAL ASSETS $ 4,690,594 $ 1,771 5 67,536 $ 15,951 5 260,374 $ 758,514 $ 337) 5 48,318 51,480,700
Accounts & Contract Payable $ 1.257 $ $ 8 - $ - $ 509.888 5 $
Employee Benefits Payable 3,411 - -
W • Deposits 18.852 1.771 - -
Deferred Revenues - - -
TOTAL LIABILITIES 23,520 1,771 - 509,888
FUND BALANCE
Unassigned Fund Balance 4,667,074 -
67,536 15,951 260.374 248,626 (337) 48 313 1,480,700
TOTAL. UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE 44667,074 '67,536 15,951 260,374 248.626 (337) 48,318 1,480,700
TOTAL. tiNAS81GNED FUND BALANCE &LIABILITIES $ 4,690,594 5 1,771 $ 67,536 $ 15,951 $ 260,374 $ 758,514 $ (337) $ 48,318 51,480,700
COMPOSITION OF CASH
Petty Cash $ 1.500 Prep Date
OPUS Bank - Checking Account 49,168, (6 ---4...-17
• OPUS Bank - Money Market • • 288.244 Terry Sh
Opus Bank. Interest Checking 1,012,61.4
Calif. State Local Agency Investment Fund 5,153,801 Appr By: Date
Malaga Bank - Preferred Bank - CD's 495,000 ------( i ivLiC t
$ 7,000,327 ' Raymon R. Cruz, City Manager
I'RECLOSING
BEGINNING
YTD OF YEAR
TOTAL TOTAL
7,000,327 $ 7,144,199
305,000
296,859 40,586
26,235 37,954
$ 7,323,421 $ 7,527,739
$ 511,145 $ 398,718
3,411 452
20,623 325,623
535,179 724,793
$ 6,788,242 6,802,946
6,788,242 6,802,946
$ 7,323,421 $ 7,527,739
• CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
Actual Compared to Annual Budget
July 1, 2017 to August 31, 2017
GENERAL
Fund
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
CITI7.FNS' OPTION FOR
PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS)
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
MUNICIPAL SELF-INSURANCE
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
-REFUSE COLLECTION
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
TRAFFIC SAFETY
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
TRANSIT - PROPOSITION A, C & M
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
UTILITY FUND
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue before transfers
Transfers in (out)
Net Revenue
This Year
Last Year
This Year
Better
(Worse)
Annual
Budget & Adj.
Remaining
Budget
$ 67,190
199,102
$ 52,918
240,677
$ 14,272
41,575
1,935,250
2,097,250
$ 1,868,060
1,898,148
(131,912)
4,000
(187,759)
4,000
55,847
-
(162,000)
(212,450)
(30,088)
(216,450)
(127,912)
(183,759)
55,847
(374,450)
(246,538)
-
9,583
-
9,683
-
100
140,125
156,500
140,125
146,917
(9,583)
-
(9,683)
100
-
(16,375)
-
(6,792)
0
(9,583)
(9,683)
100
(16,3752
(6,792)
-
-
195,000
195,000
- -
-
(195,000)
195,000
(195,000)
195,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
100
12,700
100
12,700
(12,600)
(12,600)
-
-
-
(12,600)
(12,600)
-
-
-
3,000
3,000
-
-
-
(3,000)
(3,000)
-
-
-
(3,000)
(3,000)
129,942
129,134
132,668
126,918
(2,726)
(2,216)
771,100
774,800
641,158
645,666
808
(4,000)
5,750
(4,000)
(4,942)
-
(3,700)
(24,000)
(4,508)
(20,000)
(3,192)
1,750
(4,942)
(27,700)
(24,508)
-
337
-
465
-
128
50
41,500
50
41,163
(337)
(465)
-
128
-
(41,450)
41,450
(41,113)
41,450
(337)
(465)
128
i
337
13,512
13,248
264
113,275
99,763
13,512
13,248
264
113,275
99,763
13,512
13,248
264
113,275
99,763
-
-
-
- 150,000
. 150,000
-
-
-
(150,000)
(150,000)
-
-
-
(150,000)
(150,000)
210,644 198,834
338,156 377,743.
11,810
39,587
2,959,900
3,430,750
2,749,256
3,092,594
(127,512) (178,909)
51,397
(470,850)
(343,338)
$ (127,512) $ (178,909)
$ • 51,397
$ (470,850)
$ (343,338)
RH Income Statement FY 2017-18
10/4/2017 11:57 AM
4/4
CHECK CHECK
NO. DATE
* EFT 10/6/2017
CALPERS
25037 10/09/2017 BLACKBOARD INC.
city oeo ll aSJJi/I
Agenda Item No: 4-B
Mtg. Date: 10/09/17
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
PAYEE
25038 10/09/2017 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO.
25039 10/09/2017 CITY OF LOMITA
25040 10/09/2017 COX COMMUNICATIONS
25041 10/09/2017 EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICES, INC.
25042 10/09/2017 FOUNTAINHEAD CONSULTING INC.
25043 10/09/2017 GOVT STAFFING SERVICES INC
25044 10/09/2017 GWMA
25045 10/09/2017 HASLER
25046 10/09/2017 MIKE MAXCY
25047 10/09/2017 NEOPOST USA INC
25048 10/09/2017 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
25049 10/09/2017 TOTAL COMPENSATION SYS, INC.
25050 10/09/2017 USCM
25051 10/09/2017 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS -
25052 10/09/2017 WILLDAN INC.
25053 10/09/2017 XEROX CORPORATION
* PR LINK 9/29/2017 PR LINK - PAYROLL PROCESSING
* PR LINK 9/29/2017 PR LINK - PAYROLL 20 & PR TAXES
10/9/2017 - CHECK RUN
DESCRIPTION
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
RETIREMENT FOR SEPTEMBER 2016
EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION SYSTEM ANNUAL MAINTENANCE FEE
WATER SERVICE 8/25/17-9/26/17
SBCCOG CMA MEETING 9/20/17
PHONE/INTERNET 9/26 - 10/25/17
JANITORIAL SERVICES SEPTEMBER 2017
IT CONSULTING OCTOBER 2017
STAFF SERVICES WEEK ENDING 9/17/17
STORM WATER MGMT MONITORING
1ST CLASS POSTAGE 10/2/17
PEAFOWL TRAPPING SEPT 2017
FOLD MACHINE ANNUAL MAINTENANCE 17/18
ELECTRICITY 8/23/17 TO 9/22/17
GASB 75 - 2ND INSTALLMENT
DEFERRED COMP 9/29/17
DEFERRED COMP 9/29/17
INSPECTION SERVICES AUGUST 2017
COPIER LEASE SEPTEMBER 2017
PROCESSING FEE
PAY PERIOD - SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 26, 2017
I, Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager of Rolling Hills, California certify that the above demands
are accurate and there is available in the General Fund a balance of $53,577.03 or the payment
of ab
* Previously Disbursed
AMOUNT
$ 7,416.65
600.00
581.83
40.00
410.94
490.00
516.00
4,303.00
13,327.17
1,500.00
2,800.00
777.00
1,758.88
1,200.00
1,402.00
182.00
1,113.75
41.00
54.95
15,061.86
$ 53,577.03
38,460.22
Printed on Recycled Paper
aiReffai9 qte6
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No. 5-A
Mtg. Date: 10/09/17
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN EQUESTRIAN SERVICE DRIVEWAY
APPROACH AT 1 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH
ATTACHMENT: SITE PLAN
TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S LETTER
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the Traffic Commission's
recommendation in support of the applicant's request for retain an existing service driveway for
equestrian access and equestrian facilities access at 1 Middleridge Lane South.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On 9/28/2017 The Traffic Commission reviewed and considered the comments of the City's
Traffic Engineer and recommended approval of the existing access for horses and for servicing
the stable and a newly constructed dressage arena located near the corner of Middleridge Lane
North and South. The apron and the driveway is 18 ft wide and is has a decomposed granite
(D.G.) surface, which will remain. Pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance, all driveway aprons,
regardless if paved, must be reviewed by the Traffic Commission. The apron and driveway are
proposed to be used for horses and for servicing the equestrian facilities on the property only.
The property address at 1 Middleridge Lane South has a paved driveway to the residence along
Middleridge Lane South.
The centerline of the apron is located 42 ft. to the centerline of the nearest adjacent driveway and
42 ft. to the centerline intersection of Middleridge Lane South and Middleridge Lane North.
The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the plans for the proposed driveway apron, visited the
site and per the attached report and found the proposed new driveway apron acceptable.
NOTIFICATION
The applicant, their representative, the Rolling Hills Community Association; and the
neighboring property owners have been forwarded a copy of the agenda.
-1-
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the attached request and approve the
Traffic Commission's recommendation.
RRC
1MiddlerigdeLaneSouthDrivewayAccess.docx
-2-
►ND ADRIAHA POPOVICH
ERIDGE LANE SOUTH
40 HILLS, CA 90274
DRIVEWAY EXHIBIT
Memorandum
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager
Vanessa Munoz, PE, TE, City Traffic Engineer
September 14, 2017
1 Middleridge Lane South Stable Service Driveway
WI LLDAN I
Engineering
This memorandum is in response to the request by the City to review and provide input on the
driveway being proposed by the residents at 1 Middleridge Lane South for the stable service
driveway. The proposal consists in maintaining the location and width of the existing 18 -foot
stable service driveway apron, located on the southwest corner of Middleridge Lane N/Middleridge
Road and Middleridge Lane S.
On September 14, 2017, a field review of existing conditions was performed to assess the existing
driveway location with regards to existing condition and review the adequacy of the sight distance.
The sight distance at a minimum should be 155 -feet for a 25 -mph roadway. The existing
driveway meets and exceed the minimum sight distance requirement, furthermore the existing
driveway apron width is adequate. Based on the field observations and engineering judgement,
the existing driveway location and width is acceptable and I recommend it remain.
a/ Rd.fie, qler4
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
SUBJECT:
NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 6-A
Mtg. Date: 10/09/17
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER
ORDINANCE NO. 356 - CONSIDERATION OF AN INTERIM
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS EXTENDING A
PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE TO TEMPORARILY PLACE
A MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE AND/OR PROCESSING
OF ANY APPLICATION SOUGHT UNDER THE. PROVISIONS OF
CHAPTER 17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION) OF THE ROLLING HILLS
MUNICIPAL CODE AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF.
DATE PUBLISHED: SEPTEMBER 29, 2017
ATTACHMENT:
ORDINANCE NO. 356
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 356 to extend the
previously adopted Ordinance No. 349 to temporarily place a moratorium on the
acceptance and / or processing of any application sought under the provisions of
Chapter 17.26 (View Preservation) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and declare the
urgency thereof, to allow the City Council time to continue reviewing and ultimately
adopt a new View Preservation Ordinance.
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
The adoption of Measure B in March 2013 by the electorate has led to practical
difficulties in the application of the City's view preservation ordinance (RHMC Chapter
17.26). The City Council has appointed a subcommittee' to work collaboratively with a
group of residents to rewrite the view preservation ordinance in order to address the
ambiguities and uncertainties that hamper its effective application and enforcement.
-1-
Pending the conclusion of that process, it is possible that application of the current view
preservation ordinance will result in determinations and decisions that are inconsistent
with the new ordinance being prepared.
On November 28, 2016 with a four -fifths vote the City Council adopted an interim
urgency Ordinance No. 348 to immediately suspend the utilization of Chapter 17.26 of
the Rolling Hills Municipal Code for 45 days.
An urgency moratorium ordinance may remain in effect for only 45 days unless it is
extended by another four -fifths vote. On January 9, 2017 after notice and a public
hearing the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 349 extending the moratorium for ten
months and 15 days. It was noted at the January 9, 2017 meeting that after notice and a
public hearing, should the City Council wish to extend the moratorium, the City
Council would have to reconsider this item at a duly noticed public hearing by
November 28, 2017.
In August 2017, the City Council directed staff to bring an Ordinance extending the
moratorium on processing any view obstruction application for their review and
consideration in October 2017.
At the November 2016 meeting, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to
commence the review of the concepts and ideas set by the subcommittee and the
residents with the goal to develop an amended View Preservation Ordinance. The
Planning Commission held several public forums and public hearings regarding this
topic and at its September 19, 2017 meeting adopted a Resolution recommending that
the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending the Rolling Hills Municipal Code to
replace Chapter 17.26 (View Preservation) and amend pertinent Sections of the Zoning
Ordinance. The City Council held its first duly noticed public hearing on the proposed
View Preservation Ordinance at their meeting of September 25, 2017 and continued the
public hearing to the October 9, 2017 meeting.
At tonight's public hearing the City Council by a four -fifths vote may extend the
moratorium on processing view obstruction complaints for up to one year. In other
words, pursuant to Government Code Section 65858,_Ordinance No. 349 may be
extended so that its full duration is up to a maximum of two years. City Council would
have the option to repeal the moratorium ordinance at any time prior to its expiration.
Staff prepared an ordinance for City Council's consideration to extend the moratorium
for 12 months. It is anticipated that a new View Preservation Ordinance will be adopted
in the very near future and that the moratorium could then be repealed.
ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives available to the City Council include:
1. Adopting the proposed Ordinance (for one year extension of Ordinance No. 349);
-2-
2. Declining to adopt the proposed Ordinance; allowing the moratorium to expire
on November 28, 2017; or
3. Providing staff with an alternative direction.
NOTIFICATION
Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Breeze on September 29, 2017
and posted at City Hall. In addition, the City Council meeting agenda was included in
latest City Newsletter. The agenda and staff report were posted on the City's website
and notification of this item was sent to those residents who signed up for automatic
notifications of "Pending Ordinances". The staff report and the agenda was also
provided to the RHCA.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ORDINANCE NO. 356
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS EXTENDING
A PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE TO TEMPORARILY PLACE A
MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE AND/OR PROCESSING OF ANY
APPLICATION SOUGHT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 17.26
(VIEW PRESERVATION) OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE AND
DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF.
The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Interim Ordinance Extended. Ordinance No. 349, adopted on January 9, 2017, is
hereby extended for 12 months. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858, subsection b, this
Ordinance shall become effective on November 28, 2017, 10 months and 15 days after adoption of
Ordinance No. 349. This ordinance No. 356 may not be further extended, and shall expire on November
28, 2018, unless repealed.
SECTION 2. Purpose. The general plan of the City acknowledges the contribution of
both trees and views to the character and beauty of the City. Recognizing that that trees and views and
the benefits derived from each may come into conflict, the City's 1988 View Preservation Ordinance
was established to create a process whereby a property owner could seek to abate an obstructed view
balancing tree- and view -related values.
In March 2013, the residents of Rolling Hills passed Measure B to amend the View Preservation
Ordinance (Chapter 17.26 of the City's Municipal Code). The principal effect of Measure B was to shift
the protection of the ordinance from views that are capable of being enjoyed from a property to views
that were actually enjoyed from a property when the property owner acquired the property. In
particular, the initiative amended the ordinance as follows: (i) only a view that existed when the current
property owner "actually acquired" the property may be restored; (ii) abatement of view impairment is
limited to obstructions caused by trees that were "maturing" at the date of acquisition and trees that were
"mature" at the time of property acquisition are excluded from consideration; (iii) abatement of view
impairment is intended to create "view corridors" and views through trees; and (iv) Measure B specified
that its provisions are to be applied retroactively.
Implementation of Measure B revealed various ambiguities in language, resulting in uncertainty in its
application. Specifically at issue were the definitions of "mature" and "maturing" trees; the
interpretation of the date of acquisition of property; and the retroactive application of Measure B. On
February 22, 2016, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 346 amending portions of the View
Preservation Ordinance that were unaffected by Measure B and adopted Resolution No. 1182, which
adopted administrative regulations interpreting Measure B.
In mid -2016, proponents of a new initiative measure began circulating a petition in order to propose a
wholesale rewrite of the View Preservation Ordinance. The City Council appointed an ad hoc
subcommittee of its members to meet with the proponents in an effort to collaboratively craft a new
ordinance that could be adopted by the Council without a vote of the electorate.
At the November, 2016 meeting, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to commence the
Ordinance No. 356 1
review of the concepts and ideas set by the subcommittee and the residents with the goal to develop an
amended View Preservation Ordinance. The Planning Commission held several public forums and
public hearings regarding this topic and at its September 19, 2017 adopted a Resolution recommending
that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending the Rolling Hills Municipal Code to replace Chapter
17.26 (View Preservation) and amend pertinent Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. The City Council
held a noticed public hearing on the proposed View Preservation Ordinance at their meeting on
September 25, 2017 and continued the public hearing to October 9, 2017 meeting.
SECTION 3. Urgency fmdings. On October 9, 2017 the City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing. In light of the evidence submitted and testimony received during the public hearing, the City
Council finds as follows:
A. The adoption of Measure B in March 2013 by the electorate has led to practical
difficulties in the application of the City's view preservation ordinance (R MC Chapter 17.26);
B. As noted in Section 2, the City Council is currently actively conducting public hearings
to rewrite the view preservation ordinance in order to address the ambiguities and uncertainties that
hamper the effective application and enforcement of the current ordinance and Measure B;
C. Pending the conclusion of that process, it is possible that application of the view
preservation ordinance will result in determinations and decisions that are inconsistent with the
ordinance being prepared, and that considerable time, expense and resources will be devoted to
evaluating applications under an ordinance that may soon become obsolete;
D. Adoption of this interim ordinance is necessary to prevent inconsistent application of the
City's view preservation ordinance during the pendency of this process and to avoid a threat to public
health and safety;
E. This interim ordinance is necessary to protect the public safety, health, and welfare, by
prohibiting the acceptance, processing, and/or consideration of any application sought under the City's
current view preservation ordinance.
SECTION 4. Interim Zoning Regulations. Notwithstanding any provision of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code to the contrary, no applications for the protection of views and abatement of view
obstructions under Chapter 17.26 shall be processed, considered or acted upon by the Committee on
Trees and Views or the City Council during the pendency of this Ordinance.
SECTION 5. Exceptions. Enactment of this Ordinance shall not preclude the City from processing
an application under Chapter 17.26 filed and accepted as complete prior to November 28, 2016.
Furthermore, enactment of this Ordinance shall not preclude the City from enforcing the provisions of
Section 17.26.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code as to any failure or refusal of any person to
comply with a final decision made under Chapter 17.26 between March 2013 and November 28, 2016.
SECTION 6. Severability. If any part or provision of this Ordinance or the application to any
person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the application of
such part of provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected and shall continue in full
force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.
Ordinance No. 356 - 2 -
SECTION 7. Conflicting Laws. For the term of this Ordinance, or any extension thereof, the
provisions of this Ordinance shall govern over any conflicting provisions of any other City code,
ordinance, resolution or policy.
SECTION 8. Adoption. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to California Government Code
Section 65858 and shall take effect on November 28, 2017, 10 months and 15 days after adoption of
Ordinance No. 349, upon adoption by a four -fifths vote of the City Council. This ordinance shall be in
full force and effect for a period of 12 months from the date it becomes effective, and may not be further
extended as it reached its maximum duration of two years. City Council would have the option to repeal
the interim ordinance at any time prior to its expiration in accordance with the provisions of California
Government Code Section 65858.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2017.
JAMES BLACK, M.D., MAYOR
ATTEST:
YVETTE HALL, INTERIM CITY CLERK
Ordinance No. 356 - 3 -
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
) §§.
I certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 356 entitled:
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS EXTENDING
A PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE TO TEMPORARILY PLACE A
MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE AND/OR PROCESSING OF ANY
APPLICATION SOUGHT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 17.26
(VIEW PRESERVATION) OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE AND
DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on , 2017 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
YVETTE HALL, INTERIM
CITY CLERK
Ordinance No. 356 4
er4 a/Rolla/if geek
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 6-B
Mtg. Date: 10/9/17
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
NATALIE C. KARPELES, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER ALL -
SUBJECT: WAIVE FULL READING AND INTRODUCE ON FIRST READING
ORDINANCE NO. 355 - CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE NO.
355 AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING
A NEW CHAPTER 17.29 TO TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS
MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL
MARIJUANA ACTIVITIES, ALLOW FOR THE DELIVERY OF
MEDICAL MARIJUANA, AND TO REGULATE THE CULTIVATION
OF MARIJUANA FOR PERSONAL AND MEDICAL USE WITHIN
THE CITY, IN ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2017-02.
DATE PUBLISHED: SEPTEMBER 28, 2017
ATTACHMENTS:
A. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2017-17
B. DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 355
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council waive full reading and introduce on first
reading the ordinance, open the public hearing and following public testimony direct
staff to bring the Ordinance for a second reading and adoption; or direct staff to prepare
some other draft ordinance amendment regulating the cultivation and dispensing of
medical and personal marijuana within the City.
BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS ACTION BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND
CITY COUNCIL
-1-
In 2015, the California legislature adopted the Medical Marijuana Regulation and
Safety Act (MMRSA) to comprehensively regulate medical marijuana. The MMRSA
recognized and preserved local control to regulate or ban medical cannabis cultivation,
delivery, dispensing, and distribution. However, it also contained language that
required medical marijuana cultivation and delivery services to be expressly prohibited
by local ordinance, if the City wished to do so, or the State's regulations would become
effective in March 2016.
Therefore, if the City wished to ban certain marijuana activities, there was an
urgency to adopt such an ordinance. In January 2016 the Planning Commission held a
public hearing and adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council amend
the Municipal Code allowing delivery of medical marijuana, with certain conditions,
and prohibiting cultivation of medical marijuana for personal use. However, following
testimonies from residents, members of the Planning Commission expressed concern
with prohibition of all cultivation, but felt that this provision could be amended at a
future date. Just prior to March 1, 2016, the Governor signed a bill removing the
urgency. Given that the urgency to adopt an ordinance by a March date no longer
existed, when the City Council heard the matter, staff provided the City Council with
two versions of the ordinance, one banning cultivation and one, (addressing the
Commissions concern), allowing cultivation (indoor and outdoor) of small quantities
for medicinal uses. In March 2016, the City Council introduced the ordinances and
selected the ordinance allowing cultivation for discussion and public input (with one
dissenting vote).
Ultimately, the Council moved to table consideration of the Ordinance, as it
became evident that a Proposition (Proposition 64) would qualify for a ballot in the
November 2016 Statewide Election, which included provisions for allowing marijuana
activities for any personal use.
On November 8, 2016, California voters passed Proposition 64 the Control,
Regulate, and. Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA). The AUMA establishes a
comprehensive system to legalize, control, and regulate the cultivation processing,
manufacture, distribution, testing, and sale of nonmedical cannabis, including cannabis
products. As of November 9, 2016, adults 21 years of age or older are allowed to smoke
or ingest cannabis or cannabis products; possess, process, transport, purchase, obtain, or
give away to persons 21 years of age or older up to 28.5 grams of un-concentrated
recreational cannabis and up to 8 grams of concentrated cannabis; and possess, plant,
cultivate, harvest, dry, or process up to six (6) living marijuana plants per residence for
personal use. The AUMA divides state licensing and enforcement into three agencies:
(1) the Department of Consumer Affairs, which will issue licenses for the
transportation, storage, distribution and; sale of cannabis; (2) the Department of Food
and Agriculture, which will be responsible for issuing cannabis cultivation licenses; and
(3) the Department of Public Health, which will issue licenses for cannabis
manufacturers and testing laboratories. Each of these state licensing authorities is
tasked with creating regulations governing their respective areas of responsibility, and.
will begin issuing licenses for these activities by January 1, 2018.
-2-
In June 2017, the Governor signed SB 94 (the Medicinal and Adult -Use
Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) to consolidate the provisions providing for the
licensure and regulation of commercial medicinal cannabis activity and commercial
recreational cannabis activity under a single regulatory scheme. The MAUCRSA
allows cities to retain local control over commercial marijuana activities - including the
ability to ban them - and creates a more streamlined system for state licensing agencies
to work with local governments to ensure that licensees are operating in compliance
with local laws (including building and fire safety standards, and any local.
amendments thereto). However, one notable lingering difference remains: while
recreational cannabis can only be purchased and used by persons 21 years of age or
older, medical cannabis remains available for patients 18 years of age or older. The
licensing regulations for all of the various cannabis activities authorized under the
MAUCRSA are still being developed by the state and will be adopted through
emergency rulemaking processes later this year.
While the language of the City's code currently by default prohibits medical and
nonmedical marijuana uses; such blanket prohibitions are now preempted by state law
furthermore, the AUMA contains provisions which encourage express marijuana
regulations despite the fact that the City prohibits uses not listed in its zoning code.
Lastly, the state licensing regulations are still being drafted; it is unclear, at this time,
whether the state will require some proof of compliance with local laws before a state
license is issued. Therefore, the City must have an ordinance in place before January 1,
2018, detailing exactly which cannabis activities are (or are not) permitted in the City;
otherwise the state may issue a license for marijuana activities in .the City that the City
may not want.2
Given the new law, it is desirable to adopt an ordinance that is in compliance
with State Law, but also one that is relevant to the City of Rolling Hills. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing on the use of marijuana at their September 19, 2017
meeting and adopted a Resolution recommending that the . City Council adopt an
Ordinance related to this topic. This recommendation includes provision for allowing
outdoor and indoor cultivation of up to 6 plants, and is based on the City Council's
discussion in 2016, at which time four out of the five Councilmembers favored outdoor
cultivation. The cultivation would be limited to 6 plants, cumulative.
PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
The following is a summary of the proposed amendments:
1 Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (the City's Zoning Ordinance) lists specifically permitted uses within
the City's various zones. As marijuana uses are not permitted by right or with a conditional use permit, they are
prohibited.
2 While the City may wait to enact its ordinance, doing so increases the chance that state licenses may be issued for
commercial cannabis activities within the City; if state licenses have been issued for activities later prohibited by the
City's ordinance, it will be exceedingly difficult to terminate these licensed operations quickly
-3-
A. Section 17.08.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) will be
amended to prohibit commercial marijuana activities by adding subparagraph B. This
section will read as follows:
17.08.050 - Zoning compliance required.
A. Except as provided in this title, no building shall be erected,
reconstructed or structurally altered, nor shall any building or land
be used for any purpose except as specifically provided for and
allowed by this title. Any use or structure not specifically permitted
by this title shall be prohibited.
B The commercial cultivation, dispensation, and mobile dispensing of
marijuana are expressly prohibited in all zones of the City (per
Section 17.16.020 B and Chapter 17.29). Accordingly, the City shall
not issue any permit, license, or other entitlement for the
commercial cultivation, dispensation, and mobile dispensing of
marijuana.
B. Section 17.16.020(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code will be amended by
adding subparagraphs 3 and 4 to read as follows:
17.16.020 — Permitted and prohibited uses.
A. Uses permitted in the RA -S zone as primary uses include:
1. Single-family residences;
2. Tree, bush or field crops provided there is no retail sale from the
premises and provided the activity does not cause undue traffic not
normally associated with residential use.
B. The following uses are prohibited in the RA -S zone:
1. It shall be unlawful for any person to offer or make available for
rent or to rent (by way of a rental agreement, lease, license or any other
means, whether oral or written) for compensation a residential dwelling
or a room in a dwelling for occupancy of less than thirty days.
2. It shall be unlawful for any person to occupy a residential
dwelling or a room in a dwelling for less than thirty days pursuant to a
rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral or
written, for compensation.
3. Dispensing of Cannabis and non -medicinal Cannabis delivery by
any mobile marijuana dispensary (as those terms are defined in section
17.29.020).
4. Commercial cannabis activities, (as those terms are defined
in section 17.29.020). Notwithstanding the foregoing, this section does
not apply to the delivery of medical marijuana to qualified patients or
-4-
their Primary Caregivers, as those terms are defined in section
17.29.020).
C. A new Chapter, Chapter 17.29 will be added to the RH Municipal Code
Section 17.29.010 Purpose.
The AUMA and MAUCRSA require a state license to engage in commercial
cannabis activity. Neither the AUMA nor MAUCRSA prevent cities from adopting and
enforcing local ordinances regulating or completely prohibiting commercial cannabis
activities. If operation of a commercial cannabis activity would violate local ordinance,
the AUMA prohibits the state from issuing such a license.
In order to ensure that the state departments responsible for licensure are clear
on the City's prohibitions and to prevent the inadvertent issuance of commercial
cannabis licenses, section 17.29.010 expressly states that the purpose of the City's
ordinance is to prohibit all commercial cannabis activities within the City. However, it
is also intended to apply reasonable regulations to personal indoor or outdoor
cultivation as authorized under state law and to allow delivery of medical marijuana to
individuals in the city that may be unable to travel to locations outside the city to obtain
the marijuana.
Section 17.29.020 Definitions.
The definitions in the proposed resolution have been taken from the Acts, the AUMA
and the MAUCRSA in order to foster clarity and consistency between the City and the
state. In so doing, there should be no confusion as to .which state -licensed activities the
City is prohibiting, regulating or permitting such that the state will not inadvertently
license an activity which is prohibited by the City.
Section 17.29.030 Prohibited uses and activities.
The AUMA and MAUCRSA create a comprehensive regulatory structure in
which every cannabis business is overseen by a specialised state agency known as the
Bureau of Marijuana Control, housed in the California Department of Consumer
Affairs. The Department of Consumer Affairs is responsible for licensing and
overseeing cannabis retailers, distributors, and microbusinesses. The Department of
Food and Agriculture will license and oversee cannabis cultivation, ensuring it is
environmentally safe. The Department of Public Health will license and oversee
manufacturing and testing, ensuring consumers receive a safe product..
In order to promote clarity and ensure that each state agency is aware of the
City's position on commercial marijuana uses, this section expressly prohibits
commercial cannabis activities in all zones within the City for which a state license
would be required. This section explains that delivery of nonmedical marijuana is
-5-
prohibited within the- City; but delivery of medical marijuana is permitted. The
prohibition is for marijuana activities for both, profit and non-profit.
Section 17.29.040 Exceptions to listed prohibited uses/activities.
Under the AUMA generally, individuals 21 years of age or older are allowed to
(1) smoke or ingest marijuana or marijuana products; (2) possess, process, transport,
purchase, obtain, or give away to persons 21 years of age or older up to 28.5 grams of
un-concentrated recreational marijuana and up to 8 grams of concentrated marijuana;3
and (3) possess, plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, or process -up to six (6) living marijuana
plants per residence for personal use, without a state license.4 This section exempts
those uses which are permitted under state law and explains that marijuana cultivation
for personal use - while allowed - will be regulated in section 17.29.050.
Secondly, while the AUMA allows cities to ban deliveries within their territorial
limits, the Planning Commission and City Council during the 2016 ordinance review.
have indicated that deliveries of medical marijuana should be available to qualified
patients residing in the City. Section 17.29.040 expressly exempts from the City's
prohibitions the delivery of medical marijuana - while expressly prohibiting the
delivery of recreational marijuana.
Lastly, this section allows the outdoor cultivation of marijuana with certain
limitations.
Section 17.29.050 Conditions regarding personal cultivation.
Local governments may regulate or ban all personal and commercial outdoor
cultivation.5 The proposed ordinance allows outdoor and indoor cultivation and
reasonably restricts the cultivation of no more than six marijuana plants, total, in a
residence, fully -enclosed accessory structure or enclosed lockable outdoor area of no
more than 100 sq.ft.; if outdoors or in an accessory structure, said use may only be
located in the rear yard, be contiguous (all in one location), and not on slopes greater
than 20%. Reasonable .restrictions proposed by this section include requirements that
cultivation activities be obscured from view; comply with electricity, ventilation and
security requirements; and do not contribute to nuisance conditions such as odor, light,
noxious gases, vibration or other impacts.
Section 17.29.060 Public nuisance.
Any violation of chapter 17.29 shall be deemed a public nuisance and may be
abated pursuant to Chapter 8.24 of the RHMC.
3 Any person possessing an amount over these limits may be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor.
4 Health & Safety Code §§ 11362.1(a) & 11362.2(a)
5 The AUMA includes language that any ordinance that bans personal outdoor cultivation could be repealed upon
the California Attorney General's determination that nonmedical use of cannabis is lawful under federal law.
-6-
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND NOTIFICATION
Only one resident was present at the Planning Commission public hearing, and another
had inquired about the proposed ordinance, but had not testified or provided written
comments. No inquiries or correspondence was received prior to the writing of this staff
report.
A notice of this public hearing was published in the Peninsula News on September 28,
2017 and posted at City Hall. In addition, the City Council meeting agenda was
included in latest City Newsletter. The agenda and staff report were posted on the
City's website and notification of this item was sent to those residents who signed up
for automatic notifications of "Pending Ordinances". The staff report and the agenda
was also provided to the RHCA.
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
AMEND SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADD A NEW
CHAPTER 17.29 TO TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING ' HILLS
MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL
(MEDICAL AND NON -MEDICAL) MARIJUANA ACTIVITIES,
ALLOW FOR THE DELIVERY OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA, AND TO
REGULATE THE CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA FOR PERSONAL
USE WITHIN THE CITY.
The Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills does find, order and resolve as follows:
Section 1. Commercial marijuana activities, including commercial cultivation, can adversely
affect the health, safety and general welfare of the public.
Section 2. Rolling Hills Municipal Code ("RHMC") Section 17.08.050 provides that uses not
specifically permitted in the RHMC are prohibited. Section 17.16.020 provides a list of permitted uses
and prohibited uses. Commercial uses are not specifically permitted; therefore, they are prohibited.
However, the City has determined that recent developments in State Law regarding the regulation of
marijuana make it necessary to clarify that uses such as the commercial cultivation and dispensing of
marijuana are expressly banned in the City of Rolling Hills, while other activities such as delivery of
medical marijuana to patients, outdoor personal cultivation and indoor personal cultivation are
permitted.
Section 3. The Planning Commission does hereby find as follows:
A. On October 9, 2015, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 243, Assembly Bill 266, and
Senate Bill 643 into law, which was collectively known as the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety
Act (MMRSA). The MMRSA established a state licensing scheme for commercial medical cannabis
uses, while protecting local control by requiring that all such businesses have a local license or permit to
operate in addition to a state license. The MMRSA allowed the City to completely prohibit commercial
medical cannabis activities.
B. On November 8, 2016, California voters approved the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult
Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA). The AUMA added Division 10 to the California Business and
Professions Code, sections 26000, et seq., which grants state agencies the authority to create, issue,
renew, discipline, suspend, or revoke licenses for cannabis businesses. The AUMA provides that the
state shall begin issuing licenses to cannabis businesses under Division 10 of the California Business
and Professions Code by January 1, 2018. California Business and Professions Code section 26055(e)
provides that a state licensing authority shall not approve an application for a state license for
commercial non -medical cannabis activity if approval of the state license will violate the provisions of
any local ordinance.
C. On June 27, 2017, the Governor signed into law Senate Bill 94, which created a single
regulatory scheme for both medical and nonmedical cannabis known as the Medicinal and Adult -Use
Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA). SB 94 created one regulatory structure for medical
and nonmedical cannabis use and commercial cannabis activities. The MAUCRSA retains the
provisions in the MMRSA and the AUMA that granted local jurisdictions control over whether
commercial cannabis activity could occur in a particular jurisdiction. Specifically, California Business
and Professions Code section 26200 provides that the MAUCRSA shall not be interpreted to supersede
or limit the authority of a local jurisdiction to adopt and enforce local ordinances that completely
prohibit the establishment or operation of one or more businesses licensed under the state, within that
local jurisdiction. Furthermore, the MAUCRSA provides that a state licensing authority shall not
approve an application for a state license for a business to engage in commercial cannabis activity if
approval of the state license will violate the provisions of any local ordinance or regulation. The AUMA
and MAUCRSA require that a state licensing authority begin issuing licenses to marijuana businesses
beginning January 1, 2018.
D. Commercial marijuana activities can adversely affect the health, safety, and well-being of
City residents.
Resolution No. 2017-17
E. The Rolling Mills Municipal Code (RHMC) does not currently expressly and separately
regulate the commercial marijuana activities within the City. In order to ensure full local control over
regulation of commercial marijuana activities in the City is preserved, the AUMA and MAUCRSA
encourage the City to adopt an ordinance expressly regulating commercial marijuana activities, if the
City wishes to do so.
F, The Zoning Ordinance text amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and
objectives of the General Plan because the proposed ordinance is in the public interest and there are
community benefits resulting from the regulation of marijuana.
Section 4. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the
environmental impacts of the action be assessed. This project was assessed in accordance with the
authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines (the Guidelines), and the environmental regulations of the City. The Planning Commission
hereby finds that under Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this project is exempt from
the requirements of CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that the provisions contained herein
would not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. No possibility exists
that the proposed zone text amendment would have a significant effect on the environment. This
ordinance prohibits uses that are currently not allowed in the City but due changes in state law, is
expected to proliferate throughout the state in areas where local agencies permit the uses. So this
ordinance clarifies an existing ban to cover new cannabis related activities and uses that are now
permitted through recent changes in state law. This ordinance continues the status quo and will not
result in changes to the environment To the extent that state law allows personal cultivation of cannabis
limited to six plants, this ordinance imposes reasonable restrictions to make sure the activity is done in a
safe manner and complies with Titles 8, 15 and 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. As a result, this
ordinance will not result in changes to the environment.
Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills
hereby recommends that the City Council approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 2017-02.
Section 6. Section 17.08.050 of Chapter 17.08 of Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
17.08.050 - Zoning compliance required.
A. Except as provided in this title, no building shall be erected, reconstructed or
structurally altered, nor shall any building or land be used for any purpose except
as specifically provided for and allowed by this title. Any use or structure not
specifically permitted by this title shall be prohibited.
B. The commercial cultivation, dispensation, and mobile dispensing of marijuana are
expressly prohibited in all zones of the City (as set out in Section 17.16.020 B and
Chapter 17.29). Accordingly, the City chal1 not issue any permit, license, or other
entitlement for the commercial cultivation, dispensation, and mobile dispensing of
marijuana.
Section 7. Section 17.16.020(B) of Chapter 17.16 of Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code is amended by adding new subparagraphs 3 and 4 to read as follows:
17.16.020 — Permitted and prohibited uses.
B. ' The following uses are prohibited in the RA -S zone:
3. Dispensing of Cannabis and non -medicinal Cannabis delivery by any mobile
marijuana dispensary (as those terms are defined in section 17.29.020).
4. Commercial cannabis activity, (as those terms are defined in section
17.29.020). Notwithstanding the foregoing, this section does not apply to the
delivery of medical marijuana to Qualified Patients or their Primary Caregivers,
as those terms are defined in 17.29.020.
Section 8. A new Chapter 17.29, "Marijuana Prohibitions and Regulations" is added to Title 17
of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code to read as follows: '
Resolution No. 2017-17 2
Marijuana Regulations
Title 17
Chapter 17.29 Marijuana Prohibitions and Regulations
Sections:
17.29.010 Purpose.
17.29.020 Definitions.
17.29.030 Prohibited uses and activities.
17.29.040 Exceptions.
17.29.050 Personal Marijuana Cultivation — conditions.
17.29.060 Public nuisance.
Section 17.29.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this Chapter is to expressly prohibit the establishment of commercial cannabis
uses in the City. The City Council finds that prohibitions on commercial cannabis activity are necessary
for the preservation and protection of the public health, safety and welfare of the City. The prohibition
of such uses is within the authority conferred upon the City Council by state law and is an exercise of its
police powers to enact and enforce regulations for the public health, safety and welfare of the City. This
Chapter is also intended to apply reasonable regulations to personal indoor or outdoor cultivation as
authorized under state law and to allow delivery of medical marijuana to individuals in the city that may
be unable to —travel to locations outside the city to obtain the marijuana. Nothing in this chapter shall be
interpreted to conflict with state law, including without limitation the Compassionate Use Act, the
Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) and the MAUCRSA, as may be
amended.
Section 17.29.020 DeSnitions.
As used in this chapter:
Cannabis, or Marijuana, shall mean all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa Linnaeus, Cannabis
indica, or Cannabis ruderalis, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin, whether crude
or purified, extracted from any part of the plant and every compound, manufacture, salt,
derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin. "Cannabis/Marijuana" also
means the separated resin, whether crude or purified, obtained from cannabis.
"Cannabis/Marijuana" also includes cannabis that is used for medical, non -medical, or other
purposes. However, "Cannabis/Marijuana" does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber
produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound,
manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the mature stalks (except the resin
extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of
germination. "Cannabis/Marijuana" also does not include industrial hemp, as defined in
California Health and Safety Code section 11018.5.
Cannabis Accessories mean¢ any equipment, products or materials of any kind which are
intended for use, or designated for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting,
manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing,
packaging, repackaging, storing, smoking, vaporizing, or containing cannabis, or for ingesting,
inhaling, or otherwise introducing cannabis or cannabis products into the human body.
Cannabis Product means cannabis that has undergone a process whereby the plant material has
been transformed into a concentrate, including, but not limited to, concentrated cannabis, or an
edible or topical product containing cannabis or concentrated cannabis and other ingredients.
Commercial Cannabis Activity means cultivation, manufacture, processing, storing, laboratory
testing, packaging, labeling, transporting, distribution, or sale of cannabis or a cannabis product
for medical, non -medical, or any other purpose and includes the activities of any business
licensed by the State or other government entity under Division 10 of the California Business
and Professions Code, or any provision of State law that regulates the licensing of cannabis
businesses.
Concentrated Cannabis means manufactured cannabis that has undergone a process to
concentrate one or more active cannabinoids, thereby increasing the product's potency. Resin
Resolution No. 2017-17 3
Marijuana Regulations
from granular trichomes from a cannabis plant is a concentrate.
Cultivation means any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing,
grading, or trimming of cannabis.
Delivery means the commercial • transfer of cannabis or cannabis products to a customer.
"Delivery" also includes the use by a retailer of any technology platform owned and controlled
by the retailer. The term "delivery" does not include the distribution of cannabis from a mobile
marijuana dispensary.
Detached accessory structure shall mean a building completely detached from a residence that
complies with the California Building Code and has a complete roof enclosure supported by
connecting walls extending from the ground to the roof, a foundation, slab or equivalent base to
which the floor is secured by bolts or similar attachments, is secure against unauthorized entry,
and is accessible only through one or more lockable doors.
Director means the Planning Director or his/her designee.
Distribution means the procurement, sale, and transport of cannabis and cannabis products
between entities licensed under Division 10 of the California Business and Professions Code, as
they may be amended from time to time.
Manufacture means to compound, blend, extract, infuse, or otherwise make or prepare a
cannabis product.
MAUCRSA means the Medicinal and Adult -Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act as codified
in Division 10 of the Business and Professions Code, as the same may be amended from time to
time.
Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries means any dispensary, cooperative, association, club, business,
collective, operator, or provider that does not have a fixed storefront and which operates solely
as a mobile retail outlet which transports or delivers, or arranges the transportation or delivery, of
cannabis to a person.
Person means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, corporation, limited
liability company, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, syndicate, or any other group or
combination acting as a unit, and the plural as well as the singular.
Personal Marijuana Cultivation means Cultivation of six or fewer live Cannabis plants within a
single private residence, fully enclosed accessory structure or small outdoor area in accordance
with Health & Safety Code § 11362.2.
Primary Caregiver shall have the same definition as Health and Safety Code section 11362.7, as
may be amended and which means a Person who takes care of a Qualified Patient, as defined
below.
Private Residence means a house or other similar dwelling that is lawfully used as a residence.
Quaked Patient shall have the same definition as Health and Safety Code section 11362.7, as
may be amended, and which means a Person who is entitled to the protections of Health and
Safety Code section 11362.5. For the purposes of this Article, Qualified Patient shall include a
Person with an identification card, as that term is defimed by Health and Safety Code section
11362.7 et seq.
Section 17.29.030 Prohibited uses and activities.
A. Commercial cannabis activity, whether or not for profit, is prohibited in all zones,
specific plan areas, and overlay zones of the City. No person shall establish, operate,
maintain, conduct, allow, or engage in commercial cannabis activity anywhere within the
City.
B. A property owner shall not rent, lease, or otherwise permit any person or business that
engages in commercial cannabis activity to occupy real property in the City. A property
Resolution No. 2017-17 4
Marijuana Regulations
owner shall not allow any person or business to establish, operate, maintain, conduct, or
engage in commercial cannabis activity on any real property owned or controlled by that
property owner that is located in the City,
C. Subsection A, above, shall prohibit all activities for which a State license is required
pursuant to the MAUCRSA, as the same may be amended from time to time.
Accordingly, the City shall not issue any permit, license or other entitlement for any
activity for which a State license is required under the MAUCRSA, as the same may be
amended from time to time. The City shall also not issue any local license for any activity
for which a state license is required under the MAUCRSA to a non-profit entity pursuant
to California Business and Professions Code section 26070.5.
D. To the extent not already prohibited by Subsection A, above, all deliveries of cannabis or
cannabis products for non -medicinal purposes, to or from any location are expressly
prohibited. No person shall conduct or perform any delivery of any cannabis or cannabis
products for a non -medical purpose, which delivery either originates or terminates within
the City. This subsection shall not prohibit any person from transporting cannabis
through the jurisdictional limits of the City for delivery or distribution to a person located
outside the City, where such transport does not involve delivery or distribution within the
jurisdictional limits of the City. This subsection shall also not prohibit a delivery of
cannabis or cannabis products for medicinal purposes as set forth in Section 17.29.040.A.
Section 17.29.040 Exceptions.
A. Notwithstanding Section 17.29.030, above, the delivery of medical cannabis to Qualified
Patients with valid identification cards or a verifiable written recommendation from a physician for
medical cannabis, and Primary Caregivers with a valid identification card, is permitted from a
dispensary (licensed under the MAUCRSA) with a fixed location operating outside of the City or a
Primary Caregiver cultivating within the boundaries of the City. This exception does not include
deliveries made by mobile marijuana dispensaries, as the term is defined in Section 17.29.010.
B. To the extent that the following activities are permitted by State law, nothing in this
Chapter shall prohibit a person 21 years of age or older from:
1. Possessing, processing, purchasing, transporting, obtaining or giving away to
persons 21 years of age or older, without compensation whatsoever, not more than
28.5 grams of cannabis not in the fonn of concentrated cannabis;
2. Possessing, processing, purchasing, transporting, obtaining or giving away to
persons 21 years of age or older, without compensation whatsoever, up to 8 grams
of cannabis in the form of concentrated cannabis;
3. Smoking or ingesting cannabis or cannabis products except as prohibited by
California Health and Safety Code section 11362.3;
4. Possessing, transporting, purchasing, obtaining, using, manufacturing, or giving
away cannabis accessories to persons 21 years of age or older without
compensation whatsoever; or
5. Engaging in the personal cultivation, indoor or outdoor, of six or fewer live
cannabis plants pursuant to the requirements outlined in Section 17.29.050 of this
Chapter.
C. Any commercial cannabis activity that the City. is required by state law to permit within
its jurisdiction shall not be prohibited by the provisions of this Chapter.
D. A Qualified Patient or Primary Caregiver, who cultivates, possesses, stores,
manufactures, or transports cannabis exclusively for his or her personal medical use, or the personal use
of the Caregiver's Qualified Patient, but who does not provide, donate, sell, or distribute cannabis to any
other person is not thereby engaged in Commercial Cannabis Activity. Nothing in this Chapter shall be
interpreted to prohibit a Qualified Patient or Primary Caregiver from using, possessing, purchasing,
obtaining, cultivating or receiving delivery of cannabis for medicinal purposes as allowed under state
law.
Section 17.29.050 Personal Marijuana Cultivation — conditions.
Non-commercial cultivation of small amounts of marijuana for personal use is only permitted in
Resolution No. 2017-17 5
Marijuana Regulations
the Residential Agriculture -Suburban (RA -S) zones when all of the following conditions and standards
are met
A. Generally.
1. Property. Personal Marijuana Cultivation is permitted only on parcels developed with
a residential unit. A person engaging in Personal Marijuana cultivation shall not participate in marijuana
cultivation in more than one location within the City. Marijuana cultivation activities may only occur
within a residential unit, garage, fully -enclosed detached accessory structure or fully fenced and
lockable outdoor area. If in the garage, adequate space shall be provided in the garage for the required
number of parking spaces, pursuant to Section 17.16.160(B) of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Visibility. There shall be no exterior evidence of or visibility of marijuana cultivation
from any street, public easement, designated trail or neighboring property.
3. Security. Any structure or outdoor area used for personal marijuana cultivation shall
be secured with locks to prevent imanithorized entry and/or theft and shall remain secure at all times.
4. Code Compliance. The personal Marijuana cultivation area shall not adversely affect
the health or safety of the nearby residents by creating dust, glare, excessive light, heat, noise, noxious
gases, odors, smoke, traffic, vibration, or other impacts, and shall not be hazardous due to the use of
storage of materials, processes, products or waste. The cultivation site shall be in full compliance with
the City building code, electrical code, mechanical code, plumbing code, fire code, zoning code and any
other applicable requirement found in Title 8, Title 15 and Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
5. Number of plants. Cultivation (indoor or outdoor) shall not exceed a cumulative total
of six (6) living marijuana plants of any size per parcel. The maximum number of plants shall be limited
regardless of the number of Qualified Patients or Primary Caregivers residing on the property.
6. Cultivation area. Marijuana cultivation may only occurwithin a cumulative area
totaling no larger than 100 square feet per parcel.
7. Electricity use. The collective draw from all electrical appliances at the Personal
marijuana cultivation site shall not exceed the maximum rating of the approved electrical panel for the
primary legal residence at the marijuana cultivation site. Gas products (including, without limitation,
CO2, butane, propane, and natural gas) or generators shall not be used for the cultivation of marijuana.
Any lighting fixture used for indoor marijuana cultivation shall not exceed the rated wattage and
capacity of the circuit breaker and shall be shielded so as to completely confine light and glare to the
interior of the private residence or fully -enclosed detached accessory structure.
8. Ventilation. Any indoor location used for personal marijuana cultivation must have a
ventilation and filtration system installed that shall prevent marijuana plant odors from exiting the
interior of the structure and shall comply with all applicable building code regulations. Personal
Marijuana cultivation shall not create humidity or mold within the private residence or fully -enclosed
detached accessory structure in violation of Title 8 or 15 of this Code.
9. Residential structure. The residential unit on the parcel where Personal Marijuana
Cultivation occurs shall, at all times, maintain a kitchen, bathroom, and primary bedroom(s) for their
intended purpose, and shall not be used for marijuana. cultivation where such cultivation will prevent
their primary use for cooking of meals, sleeping, and bathing.
10. Accessory structure. A fully -enclosed detached accessory structure, as defined
herein, shall be located within the rear yard area of any legal parcel or premises. The structure shall
meet the minimum setback requirements as set by the City's Zoning Code and shall be secured as
required in A3 above. The building official shall consult with the Director
in consideration of any building permit application seeking a building permit for the construction or
alteration of any detached accessory structure to be used for personal marijuana cultivation.
11. Outdoor cultivation. Area used for outdoors marijuana cultivation shall be located
within the rear yard area of any legal parcel and shall be fully enclosed by a 5 -foot high solid lockable
fence. The fenced area shall meet the minimum setback requirements as set by the City's Zoning Code.
Additionally, lighting for outdoor cultivation shall not be permitted, except as permitted pursuant to
Section 17.16.190(E) of the Zoning Code. The outdoor personal cultivation shall comply with Chapter
8.32 of this Code as applicable.
B. The City Manager and his/her designee is hereby authorized to promulgate and enforce
administrative regulations in the implementation and enforcement of this chapter.
Section 17.29.060 Public Nuisance.
A. A violation of this Chapter or noncompliance with any of the requirements of this
Chapter shall be subject to any criminal or civil enforcement remedies available under the law and the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, no conduct which is
protected from criminal liability pursuant to state law shall be made criminal by this Chapter.
Resolution No. 2017-17 6
Marijuana Regulations
B. Any person violating any provision or failing to comply with any of the mandatory
requirements of this Chapter is declared to be a public nuisance and may be abated by the City pursuant
to Chapter 8.24 of this Code:
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017.
ATTEST:
YVE 1-Tl; HALL
INTERIM CITY CLERK
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this
application must be filed within the time limits set forth in section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
Resolution No. 2017-17 7
Marijuana Regulations
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No.2017-17 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND SECTIONS 17.08.050
AND 17.16.020 AND ADD A NEW CHAPTER 17.29 TO TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING
HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL (MEDICAL
AND. NON -MEDICAL) MARIJUANA ACTIVITIES, ALLOW FOR THE DELIVERY OF
MEDICAL MARIJUANA, AND TO REGULATE THE CULTIVATION OF
MARIJUANA FOR PERSONAL USE WITHIN THE CITY.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on SEPTEMBER 19, 2017
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Cooley, Kirkpatrick, Seaburn and Chairman Chelf.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Cardenas
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
Resolution No. 2017-17 8
Marijuana Regulations
INTERIM CITY CLERK
ORDINANCE NO. 355
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 17.29
TO .TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER TO PROHIBIT
COMMERCIAL (MEDICAL AND NON -MEDICAL) MARIJUANA ACTIVITIES, ALLOW
FOR THE DELIVERY OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA, AND TO REGULATE THE
CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA FOR. PERSONAL AND MEDICAL USE WITHIN THE
CITY, IN ZONING CODE AMENDMNET NO. 2017-02.
The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Commercial marijuana activities, including commercial cultivation, can adversely
affect the health, safety and general welfare of the public.
Section 2. Rolling Hills Municipal Code ("RI-IMC") Section 17.08.050 provides that uses not
specifically permitted in the RHMC are prohibited. Section 17.16.020 provides a list of permitted uses
and prohibited uses. Commercial uses are not specifically permitted; therefore, they are prohibited.
However, the City has determined that recent developments in State Law regarding the regulation of
marijuana make it necessary to clarify that uses such as the commercial cultivation and dispensing of
marijuana are expressly banned in the City of Rolling Hills, while other activities such as delivery of
medical marijuana to patients, outdoor personal cultivation and indoor personal cultivation are
permitted.
Section 3. The City Council does hereby find as follows:
A. On October 9, 2015, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 243, Assembly Bill 266, and
Senate Bill 643 into law, which was collectively known as the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety
Act (MMRSA). The MMRSA established a state licensing scheme for commercial medical cannabis
uses, while protecting local control by requiring that all such businesses have a local license or permit to
operate in addition to a state license. The MMRSA allowed the City to completely prohibit commercial
medical cannabis activities.
B. On November 8, 2016,. California voters approved the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult
Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA). The AUMA added Division 10 to the California Business and
Professions Code, sections 26000, et seq., which grants state agencies the authority to create, issue,
renew, discipline, suspend, or revoke licenses for cannabis businesses. The AUMA provides that the
state shall begin issuing licenses to cannabis businesses under Division 10 of the California Business
and Professions Code by January 1, 2018. California Business and Professions Code section 26055(e)
provides that a state licensing authority shall not approve an application for a state license for
commercial non -medical cannabis activity if approval of the state license will violate the provisions of
any local ordinance.
C. On June 27, 2017, the Governor signed into law Senate Bill 94, which created a single
regulatory scheme for both medical and nonmedical cannabis known as the Medicinal and Adult -Use
Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA). SB 94 created one regulatory structure for medical
and nonmedical cannabis use and commercial cannabis activities. The MAUCRSA retains the
provisions in the MMRSA and the AUMA that granted local jurisdictions control over whether
Ordinance No. 355
commercial cannabis activity could occur in a particular jurisdiction. Specifically, California Business
and Professions Code section 26200 provides that the MAUCRSA shall not be interpreted to supersede.
or limit the authority of a local jurisdiction to adopt and enforce local ordinances that completely
prohibit the establishment or operation of one or more businesses licensed under the state, within that
local jurisdiction. Furthermore, the MAUCRSA provides that a state licensing authority shall not
approve an application for a state license for a business to engage in commercial cannabis activity if
approval of the state license will violate the provisions of any local ordinance or regulation. The AUMA
and MAUCRSA require that a state licensing authority begin issuing licenses to marijuana businesses
beginning January 1, 2018.
D. Commercial marijuana activities can adversely affect the health, safety, and well-being of
City residents.
E. The Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC) does not currently expressly and separately
regulate the commercial marijuana activities within the City. In order to ensure full local control over
regulation of commercial marijuana activities in the City is preserved, the AUMA and MAUCRSA
encourage the City to adopt an ordinance expressly regulating commercial marijuana activities, if the
City wishes to do so.
F. The Zoning Ordinance text amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and
objectives of the General Plan because the proposed ordinance is in the public interest and there are
community benefits resulting from the regulation of marijuana.
Section 4. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the
environmental impacts of the action be assessed. This project was assessed in accordance with the
authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines (the Guidelines), and the environmental regulations of the City. The Planning Commission
hereby fmds that under Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this project is exempt from
the requirements of CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that the provisions contained herein
would not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. No possibility exists
that the proposed zone text amendment would have a significant effect on the environment. This
ordinance prohibits uses that are currently not allowed in the City but due changes in state law, is
expected to proliferate throughout the state in areas where local agencies permit the uses. So this
ordinance clarifies an existing ban to cover new cannabis related activities and uses that are now
permitted through recent changes in state law. This ordinance continues the status quo and will not
result in changes to the environment. To the extent that state law allows.personal cultivation of cannabis
limited to six plants, this ordinance imposes reasonable restrictions to make sure the activity is done in a
safe manner and complies with Titles 8, 15 and 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. As a result, this
ordinance will not result in changes to the environment.
Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills hereby
adopts Ordinance No. 355, Zoning Text Amendment No. 2017-02, as follows:
Section 6. Section 17.08.050 of Chapter 17.08 of Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
17.08.050 - Zoning compliance required.
A. Except as provided in this title, no building shall be erected, reconstructed or
Ordinance No. 355 2
structurally altered, nor shall any building or land be used for any purpose except
as specifically provided for and allowed by this title. Any use or structure not
specifically permitted by this title shall be prohibited.
B. The commercial cultivation, dispensation, and mobile dispensing of marijuana are
expressly prohibited in all zones of the City (as set out in Section 17.16.020 B and
Chapter 17.29). Accordingly, the City shall not issue any permit, license, or other
entitlement for the commercial cultivation, dispensation, and mobile dispensing,of
marijuana.
Section 7. Section 17.16.020(B) of Chapter 17.16 of Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal.
Code is amended by adding new subparagraphs 3 and 4 to read as follows:
17.16.020 — Permitted and prohibited uses.
B. The following uses are prohibited in the RA -S zone:
3. Dispensing of Cannabis and non -medicinal Cannabis delivery by any mobile
marijuana dispensary (as those terms are defined in section 17.29.020).
4. Commercial cannabis activity, (as those terms are defined in section
17.29.020). Notwithstanding the foregoing, this section does not apply to the
delivery of medical marijuana to Qualified Patients or their Primary Caregivers,
(as those terms are defined in section 17.29.020).
Section 8. A new Chapter 17.29, "Marijuana Prohibitions and Regulations" is added to Title 17
of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code to read as follows:
Title 17
Chapter 17.29 Marijuana Prohibitions and Regulations
Sections:
17.29.010 Purpose.
17.29.020 Definitions.
17.29.030 Prohibited uses and activities.
17.29.040 Exceptions.
17.29.050 Personal Marijuana Cultivation — conditions.
17.29.060 Public nuisance.
Section 17.29.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this Chapter is to expressly prohibit the establishment of commercial cannabis
uses in the City. The City Council finds that prohibitions on commercial cannabis activity are necessary
for the preservation and protection of the public health, safety and welfare of the City. The prohibition
of such uses is within the authority conferred upon the City Council by state law and is an exercise of its
police powers to enact and enforce regulations for the public health, safety and welfare of the City. This
Chapter is also intended to apply reasonable regulations to personal indoor or outdoor cultivation as
Ordinance No. 355 3
authorized under state law and to allow delivery of medical marijuana to individuals in the city that may
be unable to travel to locations outside the city to obtain the marijuana. Nothing in this chapter shall be
interpreted to conflict with state law, including without limitation the Compassionate Use Act, the
Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) and the MAUCRSA, as may be
amended.
Section 17.29.020 Definitions.
As used in this chapter:
Cannabis, or. Marijuana, shall mean all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa Linnaeus, Cannabis
indica, or Cannabis ruderalis, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin, whether crude
or purified, extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt,
derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin. "Cannabis/Marijuana" also
means the separated resin, whether crude or purified, obtained from cannabis.
"Cannabis/Marijuana" also includes cannabis that is used for medical, non -medical, or other
purposes. However, "Cannabis/Marijuana" does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber
produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound,
manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the mature stalks (except the resin
extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of
germination. "Cannabis/Marijuana" also does not include industrial hemp, as defined in
California Health and Safety Code section 11018.5.
Cannabis Accessories means any equipment, products or materials of any kind which are
intended for use, or designated for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting,
manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing,
packaging, repackaging, storing, smoking, vaporizing, or containing cannabis, or for ingesting,
inhaling, or otherwise introducing cannabis or cannabis products into the human body.
Cannabis Product means cannabis that has undergone a process whereby the plant material has
been transformed into a concentrate, including, but not limited to, concentrated cannabis, or an
edible or topical product containing cannabis or concentrated cannabis and other ingredients.
Commercial Cannabis Activity means cultivation, manufacture, processing, storing, laboratory
testing, packaging, labeling, transporting, distribution, or sale of cannabis or a cannabis product
for medical, non -medical, or any other purpose and includes the activities of any business
licensed by the State or other government entity under Division 10 of the California Business
and Professions Code, or any provision of State law that regulates the licensing of cannabis
businesses.
Concentrated Cannabis means manufactured cannabis that has undergone a process to
concentrate one or more active cannabinoids, thereby increasing the product's potency. Resin
from granular trichomes from a cannabis plant is a concentrate.
Cultivation means any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing,
grading, or trimming of cannabis.
Delivery means the commercial transfer of cannabis or cannabis products to a customer.
Ordinance No. 355 4
"Delivery" also includes the use by a retailer of any technology platform owned and controlled
by the retailer. The term "delivery" does not include the distribution of cannabis from a mobile
marijuana dispensary.
Detached accessory structure shall mean a building completely detached from a residence that
complies with the California Building Code and has a complete roof enclosure supported by
connecting walls extending from the ground to the roof, a foundation, slab or equivalent base to
which the floor is secured by bolts or similar attachments, is secure against unauthorized entry,
and is accessible only through one or more lockable doors.
Director means the Planning Director or his/her designee.
Distribution means the procurement, sale, and transport of cannabis and cannabis products
between entities licensed under Division 10 of the California Business and Professions Code, as
they may be amended from time to time.
Manufacture means to compound, blend, extract, infuse, or otherwise make or prepare a
cannabis product.
M4 UCRSA means the Medicinal and Adult -Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act as codified
in Division 10 of the Business and Professions Code, as the same may be amended from time to
time.
Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries means any dispensary, cooperative, association, club, business,
collective, operator, or provider that does not have a fixed storefront and which operates solely
as a mobile retail outlet which transports or delivers, or arranges the transportation or delivery, of
cannabis to a person.
Person means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, corporation, limited
liability company, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, syndicate, or any other group or
combination acting as a unit, and the plural as well as the singular.
Personal Marijuana Cultivation means Cultivation of six or fewer live Cannabis plants within a
single private residence, fully enclosed accessory structure or small outdoor area in accordance
with Health & Safety Code § 11362.2.
Primary Caregiver shall have the same definition as Health and Safety Code section 11362.7, as
may be amended and which means a Person who takes care of a Qualified Patient, as defined
below.
Private Residence means a house or other similar dwelling that is lawfully used as a residence.
Qualified Patient shall have the same definition as Health and Safety Code section 11362.7, as
may be amended, and which means a Person who is entitled to the protections of Health and
Safety Code section 11362.5. For the purposes of this Article, Qualified Patient shall include a
Person with an identification card, as that term is defined by Health and Safety Code section
11362.7 et seq.
Ordinance No. 355 5
Section 17.29.030 Prohibited uses and activities.
A. Commercial cannabis activity, whether or not for profit, is prohibited in all zones,
specific plan areas, and overlay zones of the City. No person shall establish, operate,
maintain, conduct, allow, or engage in commercial cannabis activity anywhere within the
City.
B. A property owner shall not rent, lease, or otherwise permit any person or business that
engages in commercial cannabis activity to occupy real property in the City. A property
owner shallnot allow any person or business to establish, operate, maintain, conduct, or
engage in commercial cannabis activity on any real property owned or controlled by that
property owner that is located in the City.
C. Subsection A, above, shall prohibit all activities for which a State license is required
pursuant to the MAUCRSA, as the same may be amended from time to time.
Accordingly, the City shall not issue any permit, license or other entitlement for any
activity for which a State license is required under the MAUCRSA, as the same may be
amended from time to time. The City shall also not issue any local license for any activity
for which a state license is required under the MAUCRSA to a non-profit entity pursuant
to California Business and Professions Code section 26070.5.
To the extent not already prohibited by Subsection A, above, all deliveries of cannabis or
cannabis products for non -medicinal purposes, to or from any location are expressly
prohibited. No person shall conduct or perform any delivery of any cannabis or cannabis
products for a non -medical purpose, which delivery either originates or terminates within
the City. This subsection shall not prohibit any person from transporting cannabis
through the jurisdictional limits of the City for delivery or distribution to a person located
outside the City, where such transport does not involve delivery or distribution within the
jurisdictional limits of the City. This subsection shall also not prohibit a delivery of
cannabis or cannabis products for medicinal purposes as set forth in Section 17.29.040.A.
Section 17.29.040 Exceptions.
A. Notwithstanding Section 17.29.030, above, the delivery of medical cannabis to Qualified
Patients with valid identification cards or a verifiable written recommendation from a physician for
medical cannabis, and Primary Caregivers with a valid identification card, is permitted from a
dispensary (licensed under the MAUCRSA) with a fixed location operating outside of the City or a
Primary Caregiver cultivating within the boundaries of the City. This exception does not include
deliveries made by mobile marijuana dispensaries, as the term is defined in Section 17.29.020.
B. To the extent that the following activities are permitted by State law, nothing in this
Chapter shall prohibit a person 21 years of age or older from:
1. Possessing, processing, purchasing, transporting, obtaining or giving away to
persons 21 years of age or older, without compensation whatsoever, not more than
28.5 grams of cannabis not in the form of concentrated cannabis;
2 Possessing, processing, purchasing, transporting, obtaining or giving away to
persons 21 years of age or older, without compensation whatsoever, up to 8 grams
of cannabis in the form of concentrated cannabis;
Ordinance No. 355 6
3. Smoking or ingesting cannabis or cannabis products except as prohibited by
California Health and Safety Code section 11362.3;
4. Possessing, transporting, purchasing, obtaining, using, manufacturing, or. giving
away cannabis accessories to persons 21 years of age or older without
compensation whatsoever; or
5. Engaging in the personal cultivation, indoor or outdoor, of six or fewer live
cannabis plants pursuant to the requirements outlined in Section 17.29.050 of this
Chapter.
C. Any commercial cannabis activity that the City is required by state law to permit within
its jurisdiction shall not be prohibited by the provisions of this Chapter.
D. A Qualified Patient or Primary Caregiver, who cultivates, possesses, stores,
manufactures, or transports cannabis exclusively for his or her personal medical use, or the personal use
of the Caregiver's Qualified Patient, but who does not provide, donate, sell, or distribute cannabis to any
other person is not thereby engaged in Commercial Cannabis Activity. Nothing in this Chapter shall be
interpreted to prohibit a Qualified Patient or Primary Caregiver from using, possessing, purchasing,
obtaining, cultivating or receiving delivery of cannabis for medicinal purposes as allowed under state
law.
Section 17.29.050 Personal Marijuana Cultivation — conditions.
Non-commercial cultivation of small amounts of marijuana for personal use is only permitted in
the Residential Agriculture -Suburban (RA -S) zones when all of the following conditions and standards
are met:
A. Generally.
1. Property. Personal Marijuana Cultivation is permitted only on parcels developed with
a residential unit. A person engaging in Personal Marijuana cultivation shall not participate in marijuana
cultivation in more than one location within the City. Marijuana cultivation activities may only occur
within a residential unit, garage, fully -enclosed detached accessory structure or fully fenced and
lockable outdoor area. If in the garage, adequate space shall be provided in the garage for the required
number of parking spaces, pursuant to Section 17.16.160(B) of the Zoning Ordinance. The cultivation
area shall be contiguous (all located in one area).
2. Visibility. There shall be no exterior evidence of or visibility of marijuana cultivation
from, any street, public easement, designated trail or neighboring property.
3. Security. Any structure or outdoor area used for personal marijuana cultivation shall
be secured with locks to prevent unauthorized entry and/or theft and shall remain secure at all times.
4. Code Compliance. The personal Marijuana cultivation area shall not adversely affect
the health or safety of the nearby residents by creating dust, glare, excessive light, heat, noise, noxious
gases, odors, smoke, traffic, vibration, or other impacts, and shall not be hazardous due to the use of
storage of materials, processes, products or waste. The cultivation site shall be in full compliance with
the City building code, electrical code, mechanical code, plumbing code, fire code, zoning code and any
other applicable requirement found in Title 8, Title 15 and Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
5. Number of plants. Cultivation (indoor or outdoor) shall not exceed a cumulative total
of six (6) living marijuana plants of any size per parcel. The maximum number of plants shall be limited
regardless of the number of Qualified Patients or Primary Caregivers residing on the property.
6. Cultivation area. Marijuana cultivation may only occur within a cumulative area
totaling no larger than 100 square feet per parcel.
Ordinance No. 355 7
7. Electricity use. The collective draw from all electrical appliances at the Personal
marijuana cultivation site shall not exceed the maximum rating of the approved electrical panel for the
primary legal residence at the marijuana cultivation site. Gas products (including, without limitation,
CO2, butane, propane, and natural gas) or generators shall not be used for the cultivation of marijuana.
Any lighting fixture used for indoor marijuana cultivation shall not exceed the rated wattage and
capacity of the circuit breaker and shall be shielded so as to completely confine light and glare to the
interior of the private residence or fully -enclosed detached accessory structure.
8. Ventilation. Any indoor location used for personal marijuana cultivation must have a
ventilation. and filtration system installed that shall prevent marijuana plant odors from exiting the
interior of the structure and shall comply with all applicable building code regulations. Personal
Marijuana cultivation shall not create humidity or mold within the private residence or fully -enclosed
detached accessory structure in violation of Title 8 or 15 of this Code.
9. Residential structure. The residential unit on the parcel where Personal Marijuana
Cultivation occurs shall, at all times, maintain a kitchen, bathroom, and primary bedroom(s) for their
intended purpose, and shall not be used for marijuana cultivation where such cultivation will prevent
their primary use for cooking of meals, sleeping, and bathing.
10. Accessory structure. A fully -enclosed detached accessory structure, as defined
herein, shall be located within the rear yard area of any legal parcel or premises. The structure shall
meet the minimum setback requirements and conditions for accessory structures, as set by the City's
Zoning Code and shall be secured as required in A3 above. The building official shall consult with the
Director in consideration of any building permit application seeking a building permit for the
construction or alteration of any detached accessory structure to be used for personal marijuana
cultivation.
11. Outdoor cultivation. Area used for outdoors marijuana cultivation shall be located
within the rear yard area of any legal parcel and shall be fully enclosed by a 5 -foot high solid lockable
fence. The fenced area shall meet the minimum setback requirements as set by the City's Zoning Code.
No part of the disturbed area for cultivation may be located on land with a slope greater than 20 percent.
Additionally, lighting for outdoor cultivation shall not be permitted, except as permitted pursuant to
Section 17.16.190(E) of the Zoning Code. The outdoor personal cultivation shall comply with Chapter
8.32 of this Code as applicable.
B. The City Manager and his/her designee is hereby authorized to promulgate and enforce
administrative regulations in the implementation and enforcement of this chapter.
Section 17.29.060 Public Nuisance.
A. A violation of this Chapter or noncompliance with any of the requirements of this
Chapter shall be subject to any criminal or civil enforcement remedies available under the law and the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, no conduct which is
protected from criminal liability pursuant to state law shall be made criminal by this Chapter.
B. Any person violating any provision or failing to comply with any of the mandatory
requirements of this Chapter is declared to be a public nuisance and may be abated by the City pursuant
to Chapter 8.24 of this Code..
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017.
Ordinance No. 355 8
JAMES BLACK, M.D., MAYOR
ATTEST:
YVETTE HALL
INTERIM CITY CLERK
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this
application must be filed within the time limits set forth in section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
Ordinance No. 355 9
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
) §§
I certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 355 entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING A NEW
CHAPTER 17.29 TO TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE IN
ORDER TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL (MEDICAL AND NON -MEDICAL)
MARIJUANA ACTIVITIES, ALLOW FOR THE DELIVERY OF MEDICAL
MARIJUANA, AND TO REGULATE THE CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA FOR
PERSONAL AND MEDICAL USE WITHIN THE CITY, IN ZONING CODE
AMENDMNET NO. 2017-02.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on October , 2017 by
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
YVETTE HALL
INTERIM CITY CLERK
Ordinance No. 355 10
ger, al Rai14,9qeela INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 6-C
Mtg. Date: 10/09/17
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR 1>
NATALIE C. KARPELES, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 354. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING IN
CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ROLLING
HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.12.220 OF CHAPTER 17.12
(DEFINITIONS); AND TO REPEAL AND REPLACE CHAPTER 17.26
(VIEW PRESERVATION) IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A PROCESS FOR
THE RESTORATION OF VIEWS OBSTRUCTED BY VEGETATION, IN
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2017-01.
DATE NOTICE PUBLISHED: SEPTEMBER 14, 2017
EXHIBITS:
1. STRIKED-THRU DRAFT ORDINANCE FROM SEPTEMBER 25, 2017
SUBMITTAL (p. 5-22)
2. FINAL DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 354 (p. 23-36)
3. CURRENT VIEW PRESERVATION ORDINANCE (p. 37-44)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council introduce the ordinance and waive full reading,
direct staff to make a brief presentation of the staff report and the proposed provisions in the
draft Ordinance, take public testimony and, following. discussion provide direction to staff.
BACKGROUND
At the November 28, 2016, City Council meeting, the City Council directed the
Planning Commission to commence discussion and public hearings relative to a Zoning Code
Amendment of the View Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 17.26), taking into consideration
the draft ordinance prepared by Mr. Spencer Karpf and the concepts and ideas that were
collaboratively developed between the City Council ad hoc committee members (Mirsch and
Pieper), Planning Commission Chairman (Chelf), and several residents (who were the
original proponents of Measure B in 2013) (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Ad Hoc
Committee").
Following much compromise and discussion, the Ad Hoc Committee prepared a
memo, dated November 2016, which outlines the major areas of agreement between the
committee and the residents, as well as those issues which remain unresolved. Following the
Ad Hoc Committee report to the City Council at their November 28, 2016 meeting, the City
Council felt that the Ad Hoc Committee and residents attained sufficient ground for the
Planning Commission to commence evaluation and formulation of a new view preservation
ordinance.
At the January 17, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission began its discussions
regarding the potential revisions 'to the city's View Preservation Ordinance, taking into
consideration the language of the City's original view preservation ordinance, the issues
presented by the inclusion of Measure B, the memorandum from the Ad -Hoc Committee,
various ordinances prepared by several residents, various other cities' ordinances, various
information and materials presented by the public during the public hearing proceedings
and public oral testimony.
The Planning Commission held four public forums and two public hearings and on
August 15, 2017 the Planning Commission considered the draft resolution and approved
Resolution No. 2017-15B, recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance repealing
the existing View Preservation Ordinance and adopt . a new Ordinance. The Resolution
included recommendation that the City's .involvement in,view preservation complaint cases
be advisory and any outcome resulting from the view complaint not be enforceable by the
City.
DISCUSSION
On September 25, 2017, the . City Council held a public hearing in this matter and
following public input and discussion, directed staff to make universal changes to the
proposed ordinance, as four out of the five Councilmembers were not in favor of the City
taking on an advisory role in the proceedings and resolution of view obstruction complaints.
Included with this staff report is a strike-thru version of the ordinance provided to the
Council at the September 25, 2017 meeting, as recommended by the Planning Commission,
and a "clean" version of the proposed ordinance, according to the City Council direction.
The revised ordinance, includes provisions for a process, procedures and time line the
complainant and the tree owner must follow to obtain a written determination from the
Committee on Trees and Views, (CTV) or City Council, on appeal. Such order would be
memorialized in a form of a recorded document and be enforceable by the City. The process
includes a requirement for initial reconciliation, mediation, request for a hearing before the
CTV and, upon appeal, request for a hearing before the City Council. The CTV and Council
would act in a quasi-judicial role and not in an advisory role and their decision would be
final and enforceable, unless appealed through the Court system.
As requested by the City Council, an intermediary step has been added, where the
parties, at any time during the proceedings, could pursue the resolution of the case by
binding arbitration. This provision explains that if the parties were to avail themselves of this
step prior to the case being appealed to the City Council, the City would reimburse the
parties certain amount of the cost of the binding arbitration. Members of the City Council
discussed a contribution of $5,000 to each party. If this is the amount the City Council choses,
staff will prepare a Resolution for council's adoption to memorialize this step and the
amount.
In addition, staff has added a provision, that the complaining party has 30 -days from
the completion of the restorative action to challenge the sufficiency of the restorative action.
Whether the City acts in an advisory role or a quasi-judicial role in view obstruction
complaint cases, should the initial reconciliation or mediation fail to result in an acceptable
solution, the applicants could apply to the CTV for resolution of the issue, and to City
Council on appeal. Staff proposes that the City keep the current fee schedule for this process.
Currently the fee to request a hearing before the CTV is $2,000; and the appeal to City
Council is 2/3 of the original fee (consistent with any other appeal of a discretionary case). In
addition, currently a fee of $1,000 is collected from the complaining party towards the cost of
a mediator, which is selected by the City and the City enters into an agreement with the
mediator. The proposed ordinance stipulates that the parties will select a mediator, and if one
cannot be agreed upon, the City will select one for them. However, the City would not enter
into an agreement with the mediator to provide the services. Therefore, it is recommended
that the current fee collected for a mediator, ($1,000), be eliminated. Should the City Council
agree, staff would bring an amendment to the City's fee schedule Resolution.
ALTERNATIVES
The following alternative actions are available to the City Council:
1. Waive full reading, hold a public hearing and adopt on first reading Ordinance No.
354: staff would bring the ordinance back for a second reading at the next City Council
meeting; or
2. Following public hearing, continue the item with direction to staff to provide further
modifications or information.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Exhibit 1
ORDINANCE NO. 354
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
TO AMEND THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.12.220 OF
CHAPTER 17.12 (DEFINITIONS); AND TO REPEAL AND REPLACE
CHAPTER 17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION) IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH AN
ADVISORY PROCESS FOR THE RESTORATION OF VIEWS OBSTRUCTED
BY VEGETATION, IN ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2017-01.
The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Rolling Hills Municipal Code ("RUNIC") Chapter 17.26 governs the
process by which a property owner whose views have become impaired by vegetation growing
on another property may obtain abatement of the view impairment. Section 17.12.220 defines a
view. Collectively, RHMC Chapter 17.26 and Section 17.20.220 make up the City's "View
Ordinance."
Section 2. The adoption of Measure B in March 2013 by the electorate has led to
practical difficulties in the application of the City's View Ordinance (Chapter 17.26). ;The City
Council appointed an Ad -Hoc Committee to work collaboratively with a group of residents to
rewrite the view preservation ordinance in order to address the ambiguities and uncertainties that
hamper its effective application and enforcement.
Section 3. On November 20, 2016, the City Council directed the Planning
Commission to commence discussions and public hearings relative to the concepts and ideas that
were developed by the Ad -Hoc Committee and the residents. From January 17, 2017 to April
18, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted public forums and accepted and considered all of
the public testimony on this issue. Following the public forums, between June 2017 and August
2017 the Planning Commission held public hearings, at which specified changes to the view
preservation ordinance were being considered. Notice of the public hearings was provided as
required by law.
Section 4. On August 15, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
2017-15B. At its duly noticed public hearing on September 25, 2017, the City Council
considered the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding Resolution No. 2017-15B
and, after consideration of public comment, directed staff to draft the attached Ordinance.
Section 5. The City Council fmds that this ordinance is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the following sections of the CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3: (i) Section 15031(b)(3) (CEQA only applies
to activities which have the potential for having a significant effect on the environment); (ii)
Section 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378); and. Section
15061(b)(3) (the proposed amendments will not in itself result in any environmental impacts nor
will the amendment result in any changes in the physical conditions that exist in the City).
1v
Section 6. After considering the information presented during public hearings on this
matter, the City Council finds that the proposed Zoning Text amendments comply with the
requirements of the City of Rolling Hills General Plan and State Planning and Zoning Laws
(Government section 65000 et seq.) and will preserve the public health, safety and general
welfare, while balancing property rights. Notice of the public hearings was provided as required
by law.
Section 7. The City Council hereby adopts an Ordinance amending Section 17.12.220
and repealing and replacing Chapter 17.26 of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code, which is attached hereto as Attachment A.
Section 8. The ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its passage and
shall not be retroactive.
Section 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall
cause the same to be published as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 2017.
JAMES BLACK, M.D., MAYOR
ATTEST:
YVETTE HALL, INTERIM CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
)§§
I certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 354 entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
TO AMEND THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.12.220 OF
CHAPTER 17.12 (DEFINITIONS); AND TO REPEAL AND REPLACE CHAPTER
17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION) IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH AN —ADVISORY
PROCESS FOR THE RESTORATION OF VIEWS OBSTRUCTED BY
VEGETATION, IN ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2017-01.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on , 2017 by
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
YVETTE HALL, INTERIM CITY CLERK
3
ATTACHMENT A
Section 1. The list of alphabetical defmitions of Section 17.12.220 ("V" words, terms
and phrases) of Chapter 17.12 (Definitions) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code is hereby amended to remove the definitions for "View," "View Corridor," and "View
Impairment."
Section 2. Chapter 17.26 (View Preservation) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rolling
Hills Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety, and replaced with the following
language:
Chapter 17.26 - VIEW PRESERVATION
Sections:
17.26.010
17.26.020
17.26.030
17.26.040
17.26.050
17.26.060
17.26.070
17.26.080
17.26.090
17.26.100
Principles and Intent
Definitions
Committee on trees and views
View impairment complaint considerations
View impairment dispute resolution
Considerations for applying the view preservation ordinance
Restorative action
Notification of subsequent owners
Litigation
Enforcement and Liability
17.26.010 Principles and intent.
The City recognizes the contribution of views to the overall character and beauty of the
City. Views of the Pacific Ocean, Catalina Island, City lights and Los Angeles Harbor are a
special quality of property ownership for many residential lots in the City. The City also
recognizes the desire of many of its residents and property owners for beautiful and plentiful
landscaping, including trees; and to preserve the landscaping that existed on a property at the
time the property was purchased. The City realizes that this desire may sometimes conflict with
the preservation of views, and that disputes related to view obstruction are inevitable. Owners
and residents should maintain vegetation 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. By this ordinance, the City establishes a process by
which persons may seek to preserve and restore views which existed at any time since they
purchased the property from unreasonable obstruction by the growth of vegetation trees. By this
ordinance the City also establishes a list of factors to be considered in determining appropriate
actions to restore views while preserving the rights of property owners by not unreasonably
reducing privacy or shade or other benefits provided by vegetation on a property. When a view
obstruction dispute arises, the parties should act reasonably to resolve the dispute through
friendly communication, thoughtful negotiation, compromise and other traditional means, such
4
as discussions with the appropriate neighbors. Those disputes which are not resolved through
such means shall follow the procedure established herein.
17.26.020 — Definitions.
"Crown" means the upper part of a tree, measured from the lowest branch, including all
the branches and foliage.
"Crown raising" means the selective removal of lower limbs from a tree crown to
provide clearance.
"Crown reduction" means the method of reducing the height and/or spread of a tree
crown by making appropriate pruning cuts. This definition also includes reducing the top, sides
or individual limbs of a tree by means of removal of the longest portion of limbs to a lateral limb
large enough to assume the tree's growth.
•
"Heading back" means cutting a shoot back to a bud or cutting branches back to buds,
stubs, or lateral branches not large enough to assume apical dominance.
iyh
"Lacing" means the selective removal of live branches to provide light or air penetration
through the tree or to lighten the weight of the remaining branches.
Before and After
Lacing
"Maintenance" means pruning a tree with the primary objective of preserving or
improving tree health and structure and enhancing aesthetics.
"Pre -Existing View" means the view that existed at any time since the complainant's
property was most recently purchased for fair market value through an arm's length purchase or
sale, as evidenced by a deed. The pre-existing view cannot be the result of a natural disaster or
illegal activities.
"Pruning" removing branches (or occasionally roots) from a tree or other plant using
approved practices, to achieve a specified objective.
"Topping" means cutting back a tree to a predetermined crown by cutting back large
diameter branches to stubs and/or truncating the main stem/trunk in order to limit or reduce tree
size.
"View" means a visually impressive scene or vista, such as the Pacific Ocean, off -shore
islands, mountains, lights of the Los Angeles basin, the Palos Verdes Hills and canyons, the Los
Angeles Harbor and/or Long Beach Harbor, and similar, as observed from a viewing point. A
view may include structures or vegetation in the foreground or background of the view seeker's
property. A "view" may be observed from one or more viewing point, and may be panoramic.
"View impairment" means any obstruction of a pre-existing view by vegetation on
another property within the City that significantly diminishes that pre-existing view.
"Viewing point" means any view from the primary living area or active use area of a
primary residence, excluding views from minor rooms, such as garages or closets, and also
includes views from accessory buildings or structures, including pool decks and gazebos, but
excluding animal pens, aviaries, corrals, greenhouses, porte cocheres, riding rings, run-in sheds,
sheds, stable/barns, free-standing storage rooms, and tack rooms.
17.26.030 - Committee on trees and views.
A Committee on Trees and Views is established for the purpose of administering the
provisions advisory recommendations pursuant to section 17.26.040(C) of this chapter. The
Committee shall be composed of three members of the Planning Commission appointed by the
Commission annually at the same time as the Commission selects its officers, or whenever a
vacancy occurs. Committee meetings shall be scheduled as adjourned or special meetings of the
Commission. The Committee is authorized to consult with City officials and with specialists
such as landscape architects and arborists as required, but shall not incur any expense on behalf
of the City without prior approval of the City Council.
17.26.040 — View impairment complaint considerations.
Subject to other provisions of this Chapter, a property owner may initiate a view
impairment complaint by way of the process set forth in section 17.26.050. A person shall not be
precluded from filing a view impairment complaint on grounds that vegetation located on the
complainant's property contributes to impairment of the requested view. A person who has
obtained an order recommendation abating impairment of a view against a property shall not be
precluded from filing a subsequent complaint to abate impairment of the same view by
vegetation on another property.
7
17.26.050 - View impairment dispute resolution process.
The complainant shall follow the process established by this Chapter in seeking
preservation or restoration of a pre-existing view.
A. Initial Reconciliation.
1 A complainant whose preexisting view is impaired shall first seek to informally
resolve the impairment with the vegetation owner. The initial notification to the
vegetation owner must be in writing, include a link to this Chapter and contain the
following language: "Failure of the vegetation owner to respond to the written
request for initial reconciliation within sixty (60) days from the date on the
notification shall be deemed formal refusal by the vegetation owner to participate
in the initial reconciliation." Additionally, any written notification. to the
vegetation owner must include any supporting evidence of the view obstruction
(as described by Section 17.26.060) and any requested remediation action.
Remediation action may include an offer on behalf of the view seeker to perform
continued maintenance, or to assist with replanting.
2. During the initial reconciliation, the parties may request assistance from a
certified arborist. The City may provide a link to the_International Society of
Arboriculture to allow residents to search for a certified arborist. If the parties
reach an agreement, the signed agreement may be submitted to the City at the
discretion of the parties; however, there is no need to file anything with the City
once an agreement between the parties is reached. If initial reconciliation is
refused, or if the parties do not agree as to the existence and nature of the
complainant's obstruction and the appropriate restorative action, the complainant
may proceed with mediation.
B. Mediation.
1 If the initial reconciliation doesnot yield a resolution of the complaint, and the
complainant wishes to further utilize the procedures under this Chapter, then the
complainant must request, in writing, that the vegetation owner enter into
mediation. The vegetation owner shall have sixty (60) days from the date of the
request for mediation to accept or reject the request in writing. The vegetation
owner's failure to respond within sixty (60) days will be deemed a formal refusal
of mediation and the complainant may proceed to an advisory hearing before the
Committee on Trees and Views.
2. The participants will have sixty (60) days from the date of the filling of
acceptance of mediation to select a mediator. If they cannot agree on a mediator
within sixty (60) days, they may jointly request that the City select a mediator.
Any mediator which is selected pursuant to this subsection shall be provided with
a link to a copy of this Chapter.
3. The mediator shall be guided by the provisions of this Chapter, including the
evaluation criteria set forth in Section 17.26.060, and the hierarchy of restorative
actions set forth in Section 17.26.070, respectively, in attempting to resolve the
8
�z
view impairment complaint. The mediator shall also consider the
recommendations of any arborists or experts regarding landscape techniques
and/or maintenance procedures.
4. The mediator's recommendation shall be advisory. Any agreement reached by
the parties as a result of the mediation process described herein shall be reduced
to writing and shall include steps for maintenance measures and any associated
costs. An agreement reached through mediation shall be reflected in an executed
contract and implemented in accordance with the terms of the agreement The
agreement shall be signed by all of the parties and may be submitted to the City.
C. Hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views. If the
complainant is not satisfied by the recommendation outcome of the mediaterion, the complainant
may request a public hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views.
1. View Impairment Complaint — Required Information. A view impairment
complaint must be on a form provided by the City and shall consist of, but not be
limited to, the following:
a. A description of the nature and extent of the view, as well as of the alleged
obstruction. If multiple views are identified, each must be disjointed and
observable from a separate viewing area. Evidence of the views and alleged
obstructions must be pertinent and may include, but is not limited to,
documentary evidence as described by Section 17.26.060, dated photographs,
or written declarations. Evidence must include the date the property was
purchased by the complaining party.
b. A description of the type and location of all vegetation alleged to cause
obstruction, the address of the property upon which the obstructing vegetation
is located, and the present vegetation owner's name and address.
c Documentary evidence establishing that attempts at initial reconciliation (as
described in Section 17.26.050(A)) and mediation (as described in Section
17.26.050(B)) have been made and have failed to resolve the dispute.
d. The view impairment complaint fee in the amount established by resolution of
the city council.
2. View Impairment Complaint — Processing. City staff will review the complaint.
If staff determines that the complaint is incomplete, a letter will be mailed to the
complainant stating what is needed to complete the complaint within sixty (60)
days from the date of the letter. If the complaint is deemed complete, staff will
process the complaint and prepare a notice pursuant to the requirements in Section
17.26.050(C)(4)(a)-(b), below. If the parties to a complaint voluntarily elect to
resolve the issue privately at any time following the filing of the complaint, and
notify the City of same, the City shall suspend the hearing before the Committee
on Trees and Views until such time as the parties notify the City that they have
resolved the issue (thereby eliminating the need for a hearing) or that they are
unable to resolve the issue and wish to proceed with the hearing.
3. View Impairment Complaint — Withdrawal. A complaint shall be deemed
withdrawn and all proceedings shall be terminated with respect thereto, without
prejudice, if:
a. The parties to a complaint notify the City that it has been voluntarily resolved;
b. The complainant fails or refuses to provide supplemental information requested
by the City;
c. The complainant fails or refuses to pay the cost of the expert services;
d. The complainant requests a delay of the proceedings for more than one
hundred eighty (180) days (unless good cause exists for the delay); or
e. The hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views is suspended by the
parties to a complaint for more than one hundred eighty (180) days.
4. View Impairment Complaint — Hearing before the Review by Committee on Trees
and Views.
a. Notice Required. The City shall provide notice of the hearing a minimum of
fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. The hearing shall not proceed unless
proof is shown that the vegetation owner received notice of the hearing as
provided herein:
i. Notice shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the
owner of the tree or other obstructing vegetation and to the complainant;
ii. Notice shall be given by first class mail to all property owners within one
thousand feet of the exterior boundary of the property on which the tree or
other obstructing vegetation are located and to other persons who, in the
Committee's judgment, might be affected.
b. Content of Notice. The notice shall state the name of the complaining party or
parties, the name of the property owner against whom the complaint is filed, a
brief description of the tree(s) or other vegetation at issue, 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
hearings. At the hearing, the Committee shall consider all written and oral
testimony and evidence presented in connection with the complaint. If during
the course of the proceedings it is discovered that information submitted in a
complaint is inaccurate or incomplete such that it could be misleading, or a
significant change has occurred impacting either the pre-existing view or the
obstruction, an applicant may be directed to amend the complaint or submit
supplemental information. In the event the Committee requires expert advice in
consideration of the matter, the cost of obtaining such evidence shall be borne
by the complainant, pursuant to written agreement with the City. The City shall
select such expert and enter into an agreement only upon receipt of a payment
for the selected service from the party. If the City determines that an arborist's
testimony is required, said arborist shall either be a consulting or certified
arborist.
d. Findings. The Committee shall be guided by the provisions of this Chapter,
including the evaluation criteria set forth in Section 17.26.060, and the
hierarchy of restorative actions set forth in Section 17.26.070, respectively, in
attempting to resolve the view impairment complaint. Based on the evidence
received and considered, the Committee shall make any of the following
findings and adopt „ advis r y resolution ; fthe f regoing
i. That no view exists within the meaning of this chapter;
ii. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter, but that the view is
not significantly impaired; or
iii. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter and that it is
significantly impaired.
The Committee shall .,.take cifc writte„ findings ; ort fthe f regoing
11111 �Vlllllll llF+V� o
determinations.
e. Action. If the Committee finds that a pre-existing view
exists within the meaning of this chapter and that it is significantly impaired
pursuant to the conditions outlined in Section 17.26.060, it shall recommend
order such restorative action as is necessary to abate the view impairment,
pursuant to section 17.26.070 of this Chapter. The Committee may
recommend impose conditions as are necessary to prevent future view
impairments.
f. As described in Section 17.26.070(B), the complainant shall bear the cost of
the initial restorative action, unless otherwise required pursuant to any final
arbitration agreement or court order. 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 otherwise required
pursuant to any final arbitration agreement or court order.
share the costs in some other manner. The City shall not be responsible for
enforcement of the Committee's advisory resolution.
g. The Committee's decision shall be final on the date the Committee adopts a
resolution setting forth its decision. The decision shall become effective thirty
days after adoption of the resolution, unless an appeal has been filed to the
City Council pursuant to the provisions of Section 17.26.050(D), below; or
unless the parties notify the City that they have elected to enter into binding
arbitration. Within sixty(60) days of the date of the advisory resolution, if
either or bot1, pa ties disaggre 1with the advisory res„l„tio„ ara . is1, to p
trl{.11V1 Vl VVGll fJGl1 l.1V SC11�R e
a review hearing before the City Council, the disagreeing party must notify
the City in writing that they wish to proceed with a review hearing bcforc the
City Council.
D. Review Hearing before the City Council. If either party is not satisfied by the
recommendation -resolution of the Committee TV, said party may request a public hearing before
the City Council to review the Committee's decision of the CTV pursuant to the appeal
provisions of Chapter 17.54. For purposes of such an appeal, references to the Planning
Commission in Chapter 17.54 shall be interpreted as inclusive of the Committee on Trees and
Views. The City Council shall utilize and consider the criteria of Chapter 17.26 in rendering its
decision on appeal.
1. Required Information. Requests for City Council review of a CTV decision must be in
writing e11 a f rm provided by the City and shall consist of, but not be limited to, those r asons
d. Findings. The Council shall be guided by the provisions of this Chapter, including the
evaluation criteria set forth in Section 17.26.050, and the hierarchy of restorative actions set forth
review hearing shall be conducted as a de novo hearing. The Council may act to uphold,
overturn, or otherwise modify the CTV's original recommendation and shall make specific
written findings in support of its determination.
c. Recommendation. If the Council finds that a prc existing view exists within thc meaning
shall recommend such restorative action as is necessary to abate the view impairment, pursuant
to section 17.26.060 of this Chapter. The Council may recommend conditions as are necessary
to prevent future view impairments. The City Council's recommendation is purely advisory and
does not impose any obligation or requirement on the parties.
f. If the parties agree with the Council's advisory resolution, they must notify the City in
requested the review before the City Council may bear the cost of the initial restorative action,
unless the parties agree to share the costs in some other manner. The City shall not be
date of the advisory resolution, if either or both parties disagree with thc advisory resolution and
proceed with arbitration.
E. Arbitration. If the vegetation owner does not participate in mediation or
mediation is unsuccessful or if either or all of the parties disagree with the resolution of the
Committee an advisory opinion of the City, and the parties voluntarily pursue resolution by
binding arbitration before the City Council takes jurisdiction over the matter on appeal then City
will reimburse a portion of the parties' arbitration costs pursuant to City Council resolution. The
following provisions establish the procedures required of the parties prior to any City
reimbursement related to arbitration.
1. The parties shall have sixty (60) days from delivery of the request for arbitration
to either accept or decline binding arbitration. Failure to respond within sixty (60)
days shall be deemed formal refusal of arbitration. If binding arbitration is
accepted, the parties shall agree in writing to the selection of an individual
arbitrator within sixty (60) days of such acceptance. If the parties are unable to
agree on a specific arbitrator within sixty (60) days, they may jointly request that
City staff randomly select an arbitrator.
2. The arbitrator shall be guided by the provisions of this chapter in attempting to
resolve the view impairment complaint. The decision of the arbitrator shall be
submitted to the parties in writing and shall include the arbitrator's findings with
respect to Sections 17.26.060 and .17.26.070 of this Chapter. A copy of the
arbitrator's report shall be filed with the City. Any decision of the arbitrator shall
be fmal and enforceable pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure
section 1280, et seq.
3. The complainant and vegetation owner shall each pay fifty (50) percent of the
costs of arbitration (unless the parties agree otherwise or allow the arbitrator
discretion in allocating costs); at the conclusion of binding arbitration, the City
13
shall reimburse the parties up to a uniform predetermined amount established by.
City Council resolution.
17.26.060 - Considerations for applying the view preservation ordinance.
A. The following nonexclusive factors, for which the parties can prove by a
preponderance of the evidence, are to be considered in determining whether a pre-
existing view has been obstructed:
1. The viewing point(s) from which the view is observed;
2. The extent of the view obstruction, both currently and at the maximum height the
tree/vegetation is likely to reach (as described by the most current edition of the
New Sunset Western Garden Book);
3. The quality of the view, including the existence of landmarks, vistas, or other
unique view features;
4. The extent to which trees and/or vegetation have grown to obscure the enjoyment
of the view from the claimant's property since the claimant acquired his/her
property;
5. The extent to which the vegetation on the property preserves privacy (visual and
auditory), wind screening, energy conservation, and/or climate control;
6. The extent to which the vegetation owner can establish the earliest known date
when the complained of vegetation was planted or existed on the vegetation
owner's real property; and
7. The degree to which the complainant diligently tried to protect and maintain their
view through informal agreements with the vegetation owner or prior vegetation
owner(s) and to initiate initial discussions with the current vegetation owner; and
the degree to which the current vegetation owner has reasonably participated in
initial discussions.
B. 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. The following applicable,
nonexclusive factors, for which the parties can prove by a preponderance of the evidence,
may be considered in determining the appropriate restorative action, if any is necessary:
1. The variety of tree, its projected rate of growth (as described by the most current
edition of the New Sunset Western Garden Book) and maintenance requirements;
2. The aesthetic quality of the tree(s), including but not limited to species
characteristics, size, growth, form and vigor;
3. Location with respect to overall appearance, design or use of the tree on the
vegetation owner's property, including, but not limited to blending, buffering, or
reduction in the scale or mass of a structure;
4. Soil stability provided by the tree(s), considering soil structure, degree of slope
and extent of the tree's root system;
5. Privacy (visual and auditory) and wind screening provided by the tree(s) to the
tree owner and to neighbors;
6. Energy conservation, shade and/or climate control provided by the trees; and
7. Wildlife habitat provided by the trees.
14
17.26.070 - Restorative action.
A. Restorative 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. Crown Raising.
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. Heading Back. 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 in sections (A) through (C) of this section will not accomplish the
determined preservation action and the subsequent growth characteristics will not
create a future obstruction of greater proportions.
5. Topping. Topping is only to be permitted for trees/vegetation species for which it
is appropriate.
6. Removal. Removal may be considered when the above -mentioned restoration
actions are judged to be ineffective and may accompanied by replacement
plantings or appropriate plant materials to restore the maximum benefits lost due
to vegetation removal.
B. Restorative action shall include written conditions (including ongoing maintenance),
directions, and a schedule by which the mandates must be completed, and may be
made to run with the land and apply to successors in interest. The complainant may
shall bear the cost of the initial restorative action, unless otherwise required pursuant
to any final arbitration agreement or court order unless the parties agrec to sharc the
costs in some other manner. Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation in question
may shall be performed at the cost and expense of the owner of the property on which
the vegetation is growing, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties or required
pursuant to any final arbitration agreement or court order. The vegetation shall be
maintained so as not to allow for future view impairments.
C. In cases where restorative action may affect the health of a tree, such actions should
be carried out in accordance with standards established by the International. Society of
Arboriculture for use in the state of California. Severe pruning (heading back and/or
topping) should be avoided due to the damage such practice causes to the vegetation's
form and health. Where removal is required, replacement by appropriate species
should be considered.
D. If the Committee or City Council on appeal finds that a view exists within the
meaning of this chapter and that it is significantly impaired, and orders restorative
action the nro osed order shall be reviewed b Ci taff to determine the appropriate
level of environmental review. If the action is determined to be exempt from the
15
C��
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") it shall be so stated in the written
findings of the resolution adopted by the City. If the action is determined not to be
exempt from CEQA, the complainant shall bear the City's reasonable costs of
environmental review and CEQA compliance, including consultant fees.
E. 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 ualified contractors for performance of the work, as well as cash deposit in the
amount of the lowest bid. In order to qualify, the contractors must provide insurance,
which protects and indemnifies the City and the complainant from damages
attributable to negligent or wrongful performance of the work. Any such insurance
shall be sub'ect to the approval of the Ci 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 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 sixty days from receipt of the cash deposit or if additional
time is necessary due to weather or unique conditions of the vegetation, at the earliest
date recommended by the contractor, but no later than six months, and shall be
approved by the City Manager.
F. Upon conclusion of any restorative action ordered by either the Committee or the
City Council on appeal, the complainant has thirty (30) days to challenge the
sufficiency of said restorative action to the City.
17.26.080 - Notification of subsequent owners.
Within thirty days of Immediately following the final decision of the Committee, or the
City Council on appeal, a document shall be recorded against the title of the property on which
the offending vegetation exists and the complainant's property, on a form provided by the City,
which shall run with the land and be binding upon all successors in interest. Within thirty days
following the conclusion of any restorative action, or the resolution of any challenge thereto, the
complaining pa shall contact the City to schedule a site visit to allow City staff to document
the established view. following which a supplemental document shall be recorded attachin a
photograph of the restored view for the purpose of establishing the level of restorative action for
future maintenance.
17.26.090 — Litigation.
This section creates a private right of action for the view seeker against the vegetation
owner 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 plaintiff shall provide a copy of the complaint to the city.
The prevailing party in any civil action brought pursuant to this chapter shall be entitled
to recover its reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred in the litigation.
17.26.100 — Enforcement and liability.
2o0
16
A. Failure or refusal of any person to comply with a final decision under this chapter or
to comply with any provision of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall
be punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars or six months in County Jail, or both.
Failure or refusal of any person to comply with a final decision under this chapter
shall further constitute a public nuisance which may be abated in accordance with the
procedure contained in Chapter 8.24.
B. A final decision rendered under this chapter may be enforced civilly by way of action
for injunctive or other appropriate relief, in which event the prevailing party may be
awarded attorney's fees and costs as determined by the court.
C. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the prosecution of any civil cause of action
under the law by any person with respect to the matters covered herein.
legal redress, civil or cri i 1, fo , decisio., that a ther e„tity makes
concerning a view impairment complaint.
BD. The issuance of mediation findings, an arbitration award, or a court decision shall
not create any liability of the City with regard to the restorative actions to be
performed.
C. A failure to comply with the provisions of this Chapter is not a violation of this code,
private parties.
17
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
18
ORDINANCE. NO. 354
EXHIBIT 2
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS TO
AMEND THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.12.220 OF
CHAPTER 17.12 (DEFINITIONS); AND TO REPEAL AND REPLACE CHAPTER
17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION) IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A PROCESS FOR THE
RESTORATION OF VIEWS OBSTRUCTED BY VEGETATION, IN ZONING TEXT
AMENDMENT NO. 2017-01.
The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Rolling Hills Municipal Code ("RHMC") Chapter 17.26 governs the process by
which ,a property owner whose views have become impaired by vegetation growing on another
property may obtain abatement of the view impairment. Section 17.12.220 defines a view.
Collectively, RHMC Chapter 17.26 and Section 17.20.220 make up the City's "View Ordinance."
Section 2. The adoption of Measure B in March 2013 by the electorate has led to practical
difficulties in the application of the City's View Ordinance (Chapter 17.26). The City Council
appointed an Ad -Hoc Committee to work collaboratively with a group of residents to rewrite the view
preservation ordinance in order to address the ambiguities and uncertainties that hamper its effective
application and enforcement.
Section 3. On November 20, 2016, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to
commence discussions and public hearings relative to the concepts and ideas that were developed by
the Ad -Hoc Committee and the residents. From January 17, 2017 to April 18, 2017, the Planning
Commission conducted public forums and accepted and considered all of the public testimony on this
issue. Following the public forums, between June 2017 and August 2017 the Planning Commission
held public hearings, at which specified changes to the view preservation ordinance were being
considered. Notice of the public hearings was provided as required by law.
Section 4. On August 15, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2017-
15B. At its duly noticed public hearing on September 25, 2017, the City Council considered the
Planning Commission's recommendation regarding Resolution No. 2017-15B and, after consideration
of public comment, directed staff to draft the attached Ordinance.
Section 5. 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,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3: (i) Section 15031(b)(3) (CEQA only applies to
activities which have the potential for having a significant effect on the environment); (ii) Section
15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378); and Section 15061(b)(3).(the
proposed amendments will not in itself result in any environmental impacts nor will the amendment
result in any changes in the physical conditions that exist in the City).
Section 6. After considering the information presented during public hearings on this
matter, the City Council fmds that the proposed Zoning Text amendments comply with the
requirements of the City of Rolling Hills General Plan and State Planning and Zoning Laws
(Government section 65000 et seq.) and will preserve the public health, safety and general welfare,
while balancing property rights. Notice of the public hearings was provided as required by law.
Section 7. The City Council hereby adopts an Ordinance amending Section 17.12.220 and
repealing and replacing Chapter 17.26 of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rolling Hills Municipal. Code, which
is attached hereto as Attachment A.
Section 8. The ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its passage and shall
not be retroactive.
Section 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the
same to be published as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 2017.
JAMES BLACK, M.D., MAYOR
ATTEST:
YVETTE HALL, INTERIM CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 354 entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS TO AMEND
THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.12.220 OF CHAPTER 17.12
(DEFINITIONS); AND TO REPEAL AND REPLACE CHAPTER 17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION)
IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A PROCESS FOR THE RESTORATION OF VIEWS OBSTRUCTED
BY VEGETATION, IN ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2017-01.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on , 2017 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
YVETTE HALL, INTERIM CITY CLERK
ATTACHMENT A
Section 1. The list of alphabetical definitions of Section 17.12.220 ("V" words, terms and
phrases) of Chapter 17.12 (Definitions) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is
hereby amended to remove the definitions for "View," "View Corridor," and "View Impairment."
Section 2. Chapter 17.26 (View Preservation) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety, and replaced with the following language:
Chapter 17.26 - VIEW PRESERVATION
Sections:
17.26.010 Principles and Intent
17.26.020 Definitions
17.26.030 Committee on trees and views
17.26.040 View impairment complaint considerations
17.26.050 View impairment dispute resolution
17.26.060 Considerations for applying the view preservation ordinance
17.26.070 Restorative action
17.26.080 Notification of subsequent owners
17.26.090 Litigation
17.26.100 Enforcement and Liability
17.26.010 Principles and intent.
The City recognizes the contribution of views to the overall character and beauty of the City.
Views of the Pacific Ocean, Catalina Island, City lights and Los Angeles Harbor are a special quality
of property ownership for many residential lots in the City. The City also recognizes the desire of
many of its residents and property owners for beautiful and plentiful landscaping, including trees; and
to preserve the landscaping that existed on a property at the time the property was purchased. The City
realizes that this desire may sometimes conflict with the preservation of views, and that disputes
related to view obstruction are inevitable. Owners and residents should maintain vegetation 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. By this ordinance, the City
establishes a process by which persons may seek to preserve and restore views which existed at any
time since they purchased the property from unreasonable obstruction by the growth of vegetation. By
this ordinance the City also establishes a list of factors to be considered in determining appropriate
actions to restore views while preserving the rights of property owners by not unreasonably reducing
privacy or shade or other benefits provided by vegetation on a property. When a view 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 neighbors. Those disputes which are not resolved through such means shall follow the
procedure established herein.
17.26.020 — Definitions.
"Crown".means the upper part of a tree, measured from the lowest branch, including all the
branches and foliage.
"Crown raising" means the selective removal of lower limbs from a tree crown to provide
clearance.
"Crown reduction" means the method of reducing the height and/or spread of a tree crown by
making appropriate pruning cuts. This definition also includes reducing the top, sides or individual
limbs of a tree by means of removal of the longest portion of limbs to a lateral limb large enough to
assume the tree's growth.
y j. jy;
,
vJ ,.' • f
r� `.`;
"Heading back" means cutting a shoot back to a bud or cutting branches back to buds, stubs, or
lateral branches not large enough to assume apical dominance.
"Lacing" means the selective removalof live branches to provide light or air penetration
through the tree or to lighten the weight of the remaining branches.
5
Before and After
Lacing
"Maintenance" means pruning a tree with the primary objective of preserving or improving
tree health and structure and enhancing aesthetics.
"Pre -Existing View" means the view that existed at any time since the complainant's property
was most recently purchased for fair market value through an arm's length purchase or sale, as
evidenced by a deed. The pre-existing view cannot be the result of a natural disaster or illegal
activities.
"Pruning" removing branches (or occasionally roots) from a tree or other plant using approved
practices, to achieve a specified objective.
"Topping" means cutting back a tree to a predetermined crown by cutting back large diameter
branches to stubs and/or truncating the main stem/trunk in order to limit or reduce tree size.
"View" means a visually impressive scene or vista, such as the Pacific Ocean, off -shore islands,
mountains, lights of the Los Angeles basin, the Palos Verdes Hills and canyons, the Los Angeles
Harbor and/or Long Beach Harbor, and similar, as observed from a viewing point. A view may
include structures or vegetation in the foreground or background of the view seeker's property. A
"view" may be observed from one or more viewing point, and may be panoramic.
"View impairment" means any obstruction of a pre-existing view by vegetation on another
property within the City that significantly diminishes that pre-existing view.
"Viewing point" means any view from the primary living area or active use area of a primary
residence, excluding views from minor rooms, such as garages or closets, and also includes views from
accessory buildings or structures, including pool decks and gazebos, but excluding animal pens,
6
aviaries, corrals, greenhouses, porte cocheres, riding rings, run-in sheds, sheds, stable/barns, free-
standing storage rooms, and tack rooms.
17.26.030 - Committee on trees and views.
A Committee on Trees and Views is established for the purpose of administering the provisions
of this chapter. The Committee shall be composed of three members of the Planning Commission
appointed by the Commission annually at the same time as the Commission selects its officers, or
whenever a vacancy occurs. Committee meetings shall be scheduled as adjourned or special meetings
of the Commission. The Committee is authorized to consult with City officials and with specialists
such as landscape architects and arborists as required, but shall not incur any expense on behalf of the
City without prior approval of the City Council.
17.26.040 — View impairment complaint considerations.
Subject to other provisions of this Chapter, a property owner may initiate a view impairment
complaint by way of the process set forth in section 17.26.050. A person shall not be precluded from
filing a view impairment complaint on grounds that vegetation located on the complainant's property
contributes to impairment of the requested view. A person who has obtained an order abating
impairment of a view against a property shall not be precluded from filing a subsequent complaint to
abate impairment of the same view by vegetation on another property.
17.26.050 - View impairment dispute resolution process.
The complainant shall follow the process established by this Chapter in seeking preservation or
restoration of a pre-existing view. •
A. Initial Reconciliation.
A complainant whose preexisting view is impaired shall first seek to informally resolve
the impairment with the vegetation owner. The initial notification to the vegetation
owner must be in writing, include a link to this Chapter and contain the following
language: "Failure of the vegetation owner to respond to the written request for initial
reconciliation within sixty (60) days from the date on the notification shall be deemed
formal refusal by the vegetation owner to participate in the initial reconciliation."
Additionally, any written notification to the vegetation owner must, include any
supporting evidence of the view obstruction (as described by Section 17.26.060) and
any requested remediation action. Remediation action may include an offer on behalf
of the view seeker to perform continued maintenance, or to assist with replanting.
2. During the initial reconciliation, the parties may request assistance from a certified
arborist. The City may provide a link to the International Society of Arboriculture to
allow residents to search for a certified arborist. If the parties reach an agreement, the
signed agreement may be submitted to the City at the discretion of the parties. If initial
reconciliation is refused, or if the parties do not agree as to the existence and nature of
the complainant's obstruction and the appropriate restorative action, the complainant
may proceed with mediation.
B. Mediation.
1. If the initial reconciliation does not yield a resolution of the complaint, and the
complainant wishes to further utilize the procedures under this Chapter, then the
complainant must request, in writing, that the vegetation owner enter into mediation.
The vegetation owner shall have sixty (60) days from the date of the request for
mediation to accept or reject the request in writing. The vegetation owner's failure to
respond within sixty (60) days will be deemed a formal refusal of mediation and the
complainant may proceed to a hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views.
2. The participants will have sixty (60) days from the date of the filling of acceptance of
mediation to select a mediator. If they cannot agree on a mediator within sixty (60)
days, they may jointly request that the City select a mediator. Any mediator which is
selected pursuant to this subsection shall be provided with a link to a copy of this
Chapter.
3. The mediator shall be guided by the provisions of this Chapter, including the evaluation
criteria set forth in Section 17.26.060, and the hierarchy of restorative actions set forth
in Section 17.26.070, respectively, in attempting to resolve the view impairment
complaint. The mediator shall also consider the recommendations of any arborists or
experts regarding landscape techniques and/or maintenance procedures.
4. The mediator's recommendation shall be advisory. Any agreement reached by the
parties as a result of the mediation process described herein shall be reduced to writing
and shall include steps for maintenance measures and any associated costs. An
agreement reached through mediation shall be reflected in an executed contract and
implemented in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
C. Hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views. If the complainant is not satisfied
by the outcome of the mediation, the complainant may request a public hearing before the Committee
on Trees and Views.
1. View Impairment Complaint — Required Information. A view impairment complaint
must be on a form provided by the City and shall consist of, but not be limited to, the
following:
a. A description of the nature and extent of the view, as well as of the alleged
obstruction. Evidence of the views and alleged obstructions must be pertinent and
may include, but is not limited to, documentary evidence as described by Section
17.26.060, dated photographs, or written declarations. Evidence must include the
date the property was purchased by the complaining party.
b. A description of the type and location of all vegetation alleged to cause obstruction,
the address of the property upon which the obstructing vegetation is located, and the
present vegetation owner's name and address.
c. Documentary evidence establishing that attempts at initial reconciliation (as
described in Section 17.26.050(A)) and mediation (as described in Section
17.26.050(B)) have been made and have failed to resolve the dispute:
d. The view impairment complaint fee in the amount established by resolution of the
city council.
2. View Impairment Complaint — Processing. City staff will review the complaint. If staff
determines that the complaint is incomplete, a letter will be mailed to the complainant
stating what is needed to complete the complaint within sixty (60) days from the date of
the letter. If the complaint is deemed complete, staff will process the complaint and
prepare a notice pursuant to the requirements in Section 17.26.050(C)(4)(a)-(b), below.
If the parties to a complaint voluntarily elect to resolve the issue privately at any time
8
following the filing of the complaint, and notify the City of same, the City shall suspend
the hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views until such time as the parties
notify the City that they have resolved the issue (thereby eliminating the need for a
hearing) or that they are unable to resolve the issue and wish to proceed with the
hearing.
3. View Impairment Complaint — Withdrawal. A complaint shall be deemed withdrawn
and all proceedings shall be terminated with respect thereto, without prejudice, if:
a. The parties to a complaint notify the City that it has been voluntarily resolved;
b. The complainant fails or refuses to provide supplemental information requested by
the City;
c. The complainant fails or refuses to pay the cost of the expert services;
d. The complainant requests a delay of the proceedings for more than one hundred
eighty (180) days (unless good cause exists for the delay); or
e. The hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views is suspended by the parties to
a complaint for more than one hundred eighty (180) days.
4. View Impairment Complaint — Hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views.
a. Notice Required. The. City shall provide notice of the hearing a minimum of fifteen
(15) days prior to the hearing. The hearing shall not proceed unless proof is shown
that the vegetation owner received notice of the hearing as provided herein:
i. Notice shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the owner of
the tree or other obstructing vegetation and to the complainant;
ii. Notice shall be given by first class mail to all property owners within one
thousand feet of the exterior boundary of the property on which the tree or other
. obstructing vegetation are located and to other persons who, in the Committee's
judgment, might be affected.
b. Content of Notice. The notice shall state the name of the complaining party or
parties, the name of the property owner against whom the complaint is filed, a brief
description of the tree(s) or other vegetation at issue, 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 hearings. At
the hearing, the Committee shall consider all written and oral testimony and evidence
presented in connection with the a complaint. If during the course of the proceedings it
is discovered that information submitted in a complaint is inaccurate or incomplete
such that it could be misleading, or a significant change has occurred impacting
either the pre-existing view or the obstruction, an applicant may be directed to amend
the complaint or submit supplemental information. In the event the Committee
requires expert advice in consideration of the matter, the cost of obtaining such
evidence shall be borne by the complainant, pursuant to written agreement with the
City. The City shall select such expert and enter into an agreement only upon receipt
of a payment for the selected service from the party. If the City determines that an
arborist's testimony is required, said arborist shall either be a consulting or certified
arborist.
d. Findings. The Committee shall be guided by the provisions of this Chapter, including
the evaluation criteria set forth in Section 17.26.060, and the hierarchy of restorative
actions set forth in Section 17.26.070, respectively, in attempting to resolve the view
impairment complaint. Based on the evidence received and considered, the
Committee shall make any of the followin fmdings:
9
i. That no view exists within the meaning of this chapter;
ii. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter, but that the view is not
significantly impaired; or
iii. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter and that it is significantly
impaired.
e. Action. If the Committee fmds that a pre-existing view exists within the meaning of
this chapter and that it is significantly impaired pursuant to the conditions outlined
in Section 17.26.060, it shall order such restorative action as is necessary to abate
the view impairment, pursuant to section 17.26.070 of this Chapter. The Committee
may impose conditions as are necessary to prevent future view impairments.
f. As described in Section 17.26.070(B), the complainant shall bear the cost of the
initial restorative action, unless otherwise required pursuant to any final arbitration
agreement or court order. 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 otherwise required pursuant to any final arbitration
agreement or court order. -
g. The Committee's decision shall be fmal on the date the Committee adopts a
resolution setting forth its decision. The decision shall become effective thirty days
after adoption of the resolution, unless an appeal has been filed to the City Council
pursuant to the provisions of Section 17.26.050(D), below; or unless the parties
notify the City that they have elected to enter into binding arbitration.
D. Hearing before the City Council. If either party is not satisfied by the resolution of the
Committee, said party may request a public hearing before the City Council to review the Committee's
decision pursuant to the appeal provisions of Chapter 17.54. For purposes of such an appeal, references
to the Planning Commission in Chapter 17.54 shall be interpreted as inclusive of the Committee on
Trees and Views. The City Council shall utilize and consider the criteria of Chapter 17.26 in rendering
its decision on appeal.
E. Arbitration. If the vegetation owner does not participate in mediation or mediation is
unsuccessful or if either or all of the parties disagree with the resolution of the Committee, and the
parties voluntarily pursue resolution by binding arbitration before the City Council takes jurisdiction
over the matter on appeal then City will reimburse a portion of the parties' arbitration costs pursuant to
City Council resolution. The following provisions establish the procedures required of the parties prior
to any City reimbursement related to arbitration.
1. The parties shall have sixty (60) days from delivery of the request for arbitration to
either accept or decline binding arbitration. Failure to respond within sixty (60) days
shall be deemed formal refusal of arbitration. If binding arbitration is accepted, the
parties shall agree in writing to the selection of an individual arbitrator within sixty (60)
days of such acceptance. If the parties are unable to agree on a specific arbitrator within
sixty (60) days, they may jointly request that City staff randomly select an arbitrator.
2. The arbitrator shall be guided by the provisions of this chapter in attempting to resolve
the view impairment complaint. The decision of the arbitrator shall be submitted to the
parties in writing and shall include the arbitrator's findings with respect to Sections
17.26.060 and 17.26.070 of this Chapter. A copy of the arbitrator's report shall be filed
with the City. Any decision of the arbitrator shall be fmal and enforceable pursuant to
the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1280, et seq.
3. The complainant and vegetation owner shall each pay fifty (50) percent of the costs of
arbitration (unless the parties agree otherwise or allow the arbitrator discretion in
10
allocating costs); at the conclusion of binding arbitration, the City shall reimburse the
parties up to a uniform predetermined amount established by City Council resolution.
17.26.060 - Considerations for applying the view preservation ordinance.
A. The following nonexclusive factors, for which the parties can prove by a preponderance
of the evidence, are to be considered in determining whether a pre-existing view has been
obstructed:
1. The viewing point(s) from which the view is observed;
2. The extent of the view obstruction, both currently and at the maximum height the
tree/vegetation is likely to reach (as described by the most current edition of the New
Sunset Western Garden Book);
3. The quality of the view, including the existence of landmarks, vistas, or other unique
view features;
4. The extent to which trees and/or vegetation have grown to obscure the enjoyment of the
view from the claimant's property since the claimant acquired his/her property;
5. The extent to which the vegetation on the property preserves privacy (visual and
auditory), wind screening, energy conservation, and/or climate control;
6. The extent to which the vegetation owner can establish the earliest known date when the
complained of vegetation was planted or existed on the vegetation owner's real
property; and
7. The degree to which the complainant diligently tried to protect and maintain their view
through informal agreements with the vegetation owner or prior vegetation owner(s)
and to initiate initial discussions with the current vegetation owner; and the degree to
which the current vegetation owner has reasonably participated in initial discussions.
B. 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. The following applicable, nonexclusive factors,
for which the parties can prove by a preponderance of the evidence, may be considered in
determining the appropriate restorative action, if any is necessary:
1. The variety of tree, its projected rate of growth (as described by the most current edition
of the New Sunset Western Garden Book) and maintenance requirements;
2. The aesthetic qualityy of the tree(s), including but not limited to species characteristics,
size, growth, form and vigor;
3. Location with respect to overall appearance, design or use of the tree on the vegetation
owner's property, including, but not limited to blending, buffering, or reduction in the
scale or mass of a structure;
4. Soil stability provided by the tree(s), considering soil structure, degree of slope and
extent of the tree's root system;
5. Privacy (visual and auditory) and . wind screening provided by the tree(s) to the tree
owner and to neighbors;
6. Energy conservation, shade and/or climate control provided by the trees; and
7. Wildlife habitat provided by the trees.
17.26.070 - Restorative action.
A. Restorative actions may include, but are not limited to, the following, in order of
preference, assuming no countervailing health or safety interest(s) exist:
11
1. Lacing. Lacing is the most preferable pruning technique that removes excess foliage
and can improve the structure of the tree.
2. Crown Raising.
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. Heading Back. 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 in
sections (A) through (C) of this section will not accomplish the determined preservation
action and the subsequent growth characteristics will not create a future obstruction of
greater proportions.
5. Topping. Topping is only to be permitted for trees/vegetation species for which it is
appropriate.
6. Removal. Removal 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 benefits lost due to vegetation
removal.
B. Restorative action shall include written conditions (including ongoing maintenance),
directions, and a schedule by which the mandates must be completed, and may be made to
run with the land and apply to successors in interest. The complainant shall bear the cost of
the initial restorative action, unless otherwise required pursuant to any final arbitration
agreement or court order. 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 otherwise required pursuant to any fmal arbitration agreement or court
order. The vegetation shall be maintained so as not to allow for future view impairments.
C. In cases where restorative action may affect the health of a tree, such actions should be
carried out in accordance with standards established by the International Society of
Arboriculture for use in the state of California. Severe pruning (heading back and/or
topping) should be avoided due to the damage such practice causes to the vegetation's form
and health. Where removal is required, replacement by appropriate species should be
considered.
D. If the Committee or City Council on appeal finds that a view exists within the meaning of
this chapter and that it is significantly impaired, and orders restorative action, the proposed
order shall be reviewed by City staff to determine the appropriate level of environmental
review. If the action is determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA") it shall be so stated in the written findings of the resolution adopted.by the
City. If the action is determined not to be exempt from CEQA, the complainant shall bear
the City's reasonable costs of environmental review and CEQA compliance, including
consultant fees.
E. Within thirty days of a final decision ordering restorative action, the complainant shall
obtain and present to the owner of the obstructing vegetation three bids from licensed and
qualified contractors for performance of the work, as well as cash deposit in the amount of
the lowest bid. In order to qualify, the contractors must provide insurance, which protects
and indemnifies the City and the complainant from damages attributable to negligent or
wrongful performance of the work. Any such insurance shall be subject to the approval of
12
the City. 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 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 sixty days from receipt of the cash
deposit or if additional time is necessary due to weather or unique conditions of the
vegetation, at the earliest date recommended by the contractor, but no later than six months,
and shall be approved by the City Manager.
F. Upon conclusion of any restorative action ordered by either .the Committee or the City
Council on appeal, the complainant has thirty (30) days to challenge the sufficiency of said
restorative action to the City.
17.26.080 - Notification of subsequent owners.
Immediately following the final decision of the Committee, or the City Council on appeal, a
document shall be recorded against the title of the property on which the offending vegetation exists
and the complainant's property, on a form provided by the City, which shall run with the land and be
binding upon all successors in interest. Within thirty days following the conclusion of any restorative
action, or the resolution of any challenge thereto, the complaining party shall contact the City to
schedule a site visit to allow City staff to document the established view; following which a
supplemental document shall be recorded attaching a photograph of the restored view for the purpose
of establishing the level of restorative action for future maintenance.
17.26.090 — Litigation.
This section creates a private right of action for the view seeker against the vegetation owner
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 plaintiff shall provide a copy of the complaint to the city.
The prevailing party in any civil action brought pursuant to this chapter shall be entitled to.
recover its reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred in the litigation.
17.26.100 — Enforcement and liability.
A. Failure or refusal of any person to comply with a final decision under this chapter or to
comply with any provision of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be
punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars or six months in County Jail, or both. Failure
or refusal of any person to comply with a final decision under this chapter shall further
constitute a public nuisance . which may be abated in accordance with the procedure
contained in Chapter 8.24.
B. A final decision rendered under this chapter may be enforced civilly by way of action for
injunctive or other appropriate relief, in which event the prevailing party may be awarded
attorney's fees and costs as determined by the court.
C. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the prosecution of any civil cause of action under the
law by any person with respect to the matters covered herein.
D. The issuance of mediation fmdings, an arbitration award, or a court decision shall not create
any liability of the City with regard to the restorative actions to be performed.
13
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
14
EXHIBIT 3
ROLLING HILLS ZONING ORDINANCE -DEFINITIONS
17.12.220 "V" words, terms and phrases.
"Variance" means permission,, granted in accordance with the provisions of this
chapter, to depart from a literal provision of this title when, because of special
circumstances applicable to the property, strict application of title provisions deprives
such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical
zoning. Any variance granted will assure that the adjustment granted will not constitute a
special privilege.
'View" means a view from a principal residence, but not including from garages or
closets, and any immediately adjoining patio or deck area at the same elevation as the
residence which consists of a visually impressive scene or vista not located in the
immediate vicinity of the residence, such as a scene of the Pacific Ocean, off -shore
islands, city lights of the Los Angeles basin, the Palos Verdes Hills or Los Angeles
Harbor.
'View corridor" means a view from a designated viewing area broken into segments
by vAcrfation.
"View impairment" means a significant interference with and obstruction of a view by
landscaping, trees or any other planted vegetation.
(Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993).
(Ord. No. 346, § 6A, 2-8-2016)
VIEW PRESERVATION ORDINANCE (LATEST AMENDMENTS ADOPTED BY
ORDINANCE NO. 346, FEBRUARY 8, 2016)
Chapter 17.26 VIEW PRESERVATION
Sections:
17.26.010 Intent and purpose.
17.26.020 Committee on trees and views.
17.26.030 Desirable and undesirable trees.
1726.040 Abatement of view impairment —Procedure.
17.26.050 Hearing procedure and findings.
17.26.060 Implementation of restorative action.
17.26.070 Enforcement.
17.26.080 Notification of subsequent owners.
17.26.090 Preservation of views defined.
17.26.010 Intent and purpose.
The City recognizes the contribution of views to the overall character and beauty of
the City. Views of the Pacific Ocean, Catalina Island, City lights and Los Angeles Harbor
are a special quality of property ownership for many residential lots in the City. These
views have the potential to be diminished or eliminated by maturing landscaping located
on private property. The .purpose of this chapter is to protect this important community
asset by establishing procedures for the protection of views and abatement of view
obstructions created by landscaping, while at the same time protecting natural
vegetation from indiscriminate removal.
(Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993).
(Ord. No. 346, § 6B, 2-8-2016)
17.26.020 Committee on trees and views.
A Committee on Trees and Views is established for the purpose of administering the
provisions of this chapter. The Committee shall be composed of three members of the
Planning Commission appointed by the Commission annually at the same time as the
Commission selects its officers, or whenever a vacancy occurs. Committee meetings
shall be scheduled as adjourned or special meetings of the Commission. The Committee
is authorized to consult with City officials and with specialists such as landscape
architects and arborists as required, but shall not incur any expense on behalf of the City
without prior approval of the City Council.
(Ord. 292 §4, 2003: Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993).
17.26.030 Desirable and undesirable trees.
The Committee is authorized and directed to prepare lists of types of desirable and
undesirable trees for planting within the City. The list shall be based upon tree size and
shape, rate of growth, depth of roots, fall rate of leaves or bark or fruit or branches, and
other factors related to safety, maintenance and appearance. The purpose of this
provision is to make information available to property owners which may serve to avoid
future occasion for permits, complaints, and other proceedings authorized by this
chapter.
(Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993).
17.26.040 Abatement of view impairment —Procedure.
Any person who owns or has lawful possession of a residence from which a view is
impaired, pursuant to the definition of "view impairment" in Section 17.12.220 of this title,
by vegetation growing on property other than their own may seek abatement of the view
impairment under the following procedure:
A. Mediation Application. The complainant shall submit a complete application for
abatement of view impairment by mediation on a form provided by the City. The
application shall be accompanied by a fee as provided for in Section 17.30.030
of this title. The complainant shall describe in the application what efforts have
been made by the complainant to resolve the view impairment prior to filing the
mediation application. An application shall not be accepted for filing unless the
complainant can demonstrate that the owner of the view -impairing vegetation
has been given notice of the impairment and a reasonable opportunity to abate
it, but has refused to do so.
B. Eligibility. A person shall not be precluded from filing an application for
abatement of view impairment on grounds that vegetation located on the
complainant's property contributes to impairment of the requested view. A
person who has obtained an order abating impairment of a view against a
property shall not be precluded from fling a subsequent application to abate
impairment of the same view by vegetation pn another property. An application
may be filed to abate impairment of one or more distinct views listed in Section
17.12.220 "View;" however, if multiple views are identified, each must be
disjointed and observable from a separate viewing area.
C. Mediation. Upon receipt and acceptance of an application as complete, the City
Manager shall refer the matter to a mediator for conduct of a mediation session
to abate the view impairment. The mediator shall be responsible for notifying
the property owner of the view -impairing vegetation. of the application and for
scheduling and managing the mediation process. At the conclusion of
mediation, the mediator shall advise the City Manager as to whether the
complaint has been resolved. Agreement reached through mediation shall be
reflected in an executed contract and implemented in accordance with the
terms of the agreement.
D. Public Hearing Application. In the event mediation fails to achieve agreement,
the complainant may submit an application and accompanying fee as provided
for in Section 17.30.030 of this title for a public hearing. Upon receipt and
acceptance of an application for a public hearing as complete, the City Manager
shall schedule the matter for a public hearing before the Committee on Trees
and Views. If a complete application for a public hearing is not received within
sixty days of the mediator's notification set forth in Section 17.26.040(C), the
City shall terminate, without prejudice, all proceedings related to the application.
(Ord. 292 §5, 2003; Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993).
(Ord. No. 346, § 6C, 2-8-2016)
17.26.050 Hearing procedure and findings.
A. Notice Required. Public notice of the hearing shall be given a minimum of fifteen
days prior to the hearing. The hearing shall not proceed unless proof is shown that
the owner of the tree or other obstructing vegetation received notice of the hearing
as provided herein:
1. Notice shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the owner of
the tree or other obstructing vegetation and to the complainant;
2. Notice shall be given by first class mail to all property owners within one
thousand feet of the exterior boundary of the property on which the tree or other
obstructing vegetation are located and to other persons who, in the
Committee's judgment, might be affected.
B. Content of Notice. The notice shall state the name of the complaining party, the
name of the property owner against whom the complaint is filed, the location of the
tree or other vegetation, and the time and place of hearing. The notice shall invite
written comments to be submitted prior to or at the hearing.
C. Conduct of Hearing. The Committee shall adopt rules for the conduct of required
hearings. At the hearing, the Committee shall consider all written and oral testimony
and evidence presented in connection with the application. If during the course of
the proceedings it is discovered that information submitted in an application is
inaccurate or incomplete such that it could be misleading, or a significant change
has occurred impacting either the view or the obstruction, an applicant may be
directed to amend the application or submit supplemental information. In the event
the Committee requires expert advice in consideration of the matter, the cost. of
obtaining such evidence shall be borne by the complainant, pursuant to written
agreement with the City. The City shall select such expert and enter into an
agreement only upon receipt of a payment for the selected service from the party.
An application shall be deemed withdrawn and all proceedings shall be terminated
with respect thereto, without prejudice, if the parties to a complaint notify the City
that it has been voluntarily resolved, or if the complainant fails or refuses to provide
supplemental information requested by the City or fails or refuses to pay the cost of
the expert services, or the complainant requests a delay of the proceedings for more
than one hundred eighty days unless good cause exists for the delay.
D. Findings. Based on the evidence received and considered, the Committee may find
any of the following:
1. That no view exists within the meaning of this chapter,
2. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter, but that the view is not
significantly impaired; or
3. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter and that it is significantly
impaired.
4. The Committee shall make specific written findings in support of the foregoing
determinations.
E. Action. If the Committee makes finding of subsection (D)(3) of this section, it shall
order such restorative action as is necessary to abate the view impairment,
including, but not limited to, removal, pruning, topping, thinning or similar alteration
of the vegetation. Such order is not intended to create an unobstructed view for
applicants. Instead it is intended to create view corridors and a view through trees.
The Committee may impose conditions as are necessary to prevent future view
impairments. In no event shalt restorative action be required if such action would
adversely affect the environment or would unreason -ably detract from the privacy or
enjoyment of the property on which the objectionable vegetation is located. If
restorative action is precluded by the existence of one or more such limiting factors,
the Committee shall make specific written findings to that effect.
F Environmental Review. If the Committee makes finding of subsection (D)(3) of this
section and orders restorative action, the proposed order shall be reviewed by City
staff to determine the appropriate level of environmental review. If the action is
determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), a
resolution containing the Committee's written findings shall be presented for
adoption at the Committee's next meeting. If the action is determined not to be
exempt from CEQA, the complainant shall bear the City's reasonable costs of
environmental review and CEQA compliance, including consultant fees.
G. Finality . of Decision. The Committee's decision shall be final on the date the
Committee adopts a resolution setting forth its decision. The decision shall become
effective thirty days after adoption of the resolution, unless an appeal has been filed
to the City Council pursuant to the •provisions of Chapter 17.54. For purposes of
such an appeal, references to the Planning Commission in Chapter 17.54 shall be
interpreted as inclusive of the Committee on Trees and Views.
(Ord. 295 §7 (Exh. B (part)), 2004; Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993)
(Ord. No. 333 (Measure B), 3-18-2013; Ord. No. 346, § 6D, 2-8-2016)
17.26.060 Implementation of restorative action.
A. The complainant shall bear the cost of the initial restorative action. Within thirty days
of a final decision ordering restorative action, the complainant shall obtain and
present to the owner of the obstructing vegetation three bids from licensed and
qualified contractors for performance of the work, as well as cash deposit in the
amount of the lowest bid. In order to qualify, the contractors must provide insurance,
which protects and indemnifies the City and the complainant from damages
attributable to negligent or wrongful performance of the work. Any such insurance
shall be subject to the approval of the City.
B. The owner of the obstructing vegetation may select any licensed and qualified
contractor to perform the restorative action (as long as the insurance requirements
of subsection A of this section are satisfied), but shall be responsible for any cost
above the amount of the cash deposit. The work shall be completed no more than -
ninety days from receipt of the cash deposit or if additional time is necessary due to
weather or unique conditions of the vegetation, at the earliest date recommended by
the contractor, but no later than one year, and shall be approved by the City
Manager.
C. Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation in question shall be performed at the
cost and expense of the owner of the property on which the vegetation is growing.
The vegetation shall be maintained in accordance with the final decision so as not to
allow for future view impairments.
(Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993).
(Ord. No. 346, § 6E, 2-8-2016)
17.26.070 Enforcement.
A. Failure or refusal of any person to comply with a final decision under this chapter or
to comply with any provision of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and
shall be punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars or six months in County Jail, or
both. Failure or refusal of any person to comply with a final decision under this
chapter shall further constitute a public nuisance which may be abated in
accordance with the procedure contained in Chapter 8.24.
B. A final decision rendered under this chapter may be enforced civilly by way of action
for injunctive or other appropriate relief, in which event the prevailing party may be
awarded attorney's fees and costs as determined by the court.
C. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the prosecution of any civil cause of action
under the law by any person with respect to the matters covered herein.
(Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993).
17.26.080 Notification of subsequent owners.
Within thirty days of the final decision of the Committee, or the City Council on
appeal, a document shall be recorded against the title of the property on which the
offending vegetation exists and the complainant's property, on a form provided by the
City, which shall run with the land and be binding upon all successors in interest.
(Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993).
(Ord. No. 346, § 6F, 2-8-2016)
17.26.090 Preservation of views defined.
Notwithstanding any other provision of Chapter 17.26.010 to 17.26.080 inclusive,
the following provision shall apply and supersede in priority any other provision.
1. A view is defined in Chapter [Section] 17.12.220 and only applies to that view
existing from the date any current owner of a property in the City of Rolling
actually acquired the property.
2. Chapter [Section] 17.26.010 provides that the intent of the Ordinance is to
protect views from "maturing" vegetation. As such, in addition to the limitations
otherwise set forth in Chapter 17.26, including but limited to this Section
17.26.090, any vegetation which is already mature at the time any party
claiming a view impairment actually acquired the property shall be exempt from
Chapter 17.26. "Mature" versus "Maturing" shall be defined by industry
standards predominantly accepted by arborists.
3. The burden of proof to show that any view is impaired shall be upon the party
claiming such impairment, and the standard shall be by "clear and convincing
evidence". Evidence shall be weighted in the following order of priority:
a. Photographs;
b. Expert testimony; and lastly
c. Other evidence.
(Ord. No. 333 (Measure B), 3-18-2013)
Editor's note-- Ord. No. 333 (Measure B) which added the provisions set out herein,
was adopted March 18, 2013, as a result of a vote of the electorate and thus cannot be
changed except by another vote. Said ordinance states, "This Section 17.26.090 shall be
effective retroactively to the date Chapter 17.26 was first made an Ordinance to the City
of Rolling Hills."
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Additional Information Agenda Item No. 6-C
Mtg. Date: 10-09-17.
BEA DIERINGER
ROLLING HILLS COUNCILMEMBER
bdi eri nger@ citvofrh. n et
EcE:vD
OCT 0 6 2017
City of Rolling Hills
By e P VP' ai-
URGENT Message re 10/9/17 Proposed Council Final Approval Vote of View Ordinance requiring
Costly, Unbudgeted City Subsidies of View Complaint -Related Litigation and other Expenses
Dear Rolling Hills Friends and Neighbors,
The Council's proposed decision on 10/9/17 is both COMPELLING AND URGENT, as it will have an
IMPACT ON ALL RESIDENTS AND HOMEOWNERS who pay taxes or city fees and those who expect
reliable, expeditious city services to continue. This important background information is being provided
to you in the hopes that you will please attend and provide your input at the Council meeting this
Monday, 10/9/17 at 7pm. If you are unable to attend, hopefully, after reading this letter, you will send
an email urging the Council to adopt the unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission
that the City NOT incur any legal liability nor have to pay the litigation and other enforcement costs of
individual view complaint parties.
Most of us in Rolling Hills purchased property with beautiful views that we would like to preserve or
restore. It is very important for residents to have a City view ordinance that provides a fair process by
which Rolling Hills neighbors can resolve disputes that can arise when one neighbor's trees obstruct the
views of another neighbor. Without such an ordinance or other legally enforceable agreement, such
residents would have no legal means to protect their views. On the other hand, there is no law that
requires any City to enact a view ordinance; in fact, most cities do not have one.
Of the few cities that have enacted view ordinances, almost all of them have chosen to draft their
ordinances according to the "advisory opinion" model. This model prevents cities from being legally
required to defend and enforce their view decisions, which causes cities to incur huge litigation costs in
these often contentious view battles between two neighbors. The "advisory opinion" model was
unanimously recommended by our Planning Commission, following several lengthy public hearings.
Under this model, the City would investigate and evaluate the view complaint and then render an
advisory opinion. The City would contribute some money toward the arbitration costs for those
dissatisfied with that advisory opinion and interested in binding arbitration. However, the City would
NOT be held legally liable to anyone who sued the City. The City would NOT have to pay any legal
fees and costs to enforce or to defend its advisory opinion. Rather, the parties would be responsible
for their own litigation costs if an individual party was dissatisfied with the results of mediation, City
view committee review, City Council appeal and/or arbitration or wanted to obtain court enforcement
of the City's advisory opinion.
Instead of voting for the overwhelmingly -used "advisory opinion" model, however, on 9/25/17, the
Council voted 4-1 to disregard the views expressed by almost all the residents who spoke on this issue
at the Planning Commission hearings. These residents maintained that the City should not be using the
community's tax dollars to pay for the litigation costs of an individual resident who can refuse binding
arbitration but still require the City to use its own City -retained lawyers and money to enforce view
decisions that benefit only that one view resident's property. In making this decision, the Council
majority also ignored the unanimous recommendation of its own Planning Commission, which arrived at
its "advisory opinion" recommendation after reviewing the pros and cons, the residents' views and the
decisions of almost all other cities that have enacted view ordinances.
The Council majority voted to have an amended ordinance prepared for their approval on 10/9/17.
This amended ordinance would replace the "advisory opinion" process with the prior view complaint
process whereby the City not only pays for the costs of having our small staff investigate and prepare
detailed reports for these complaints, but also pays for all of the costs associated with enforcing and
defending whatever decision is reached. If a party prevails against the City, our tax dollars would be
used to pay these prevailing parties' expensive attorney's fees and costs over and above the payment
of the City's own legal fees and costs. In addition to the above civil costs, the City could pay to enforce
its decisions by prosecuting any noncomplying residents in criminal court for these misdemeanor
"crimes" and for their creation of a "public nuisance."
As you may know, our City's resources are very limited. It receives only 6.5 cents out of every dollar of
property taxes collected from residents and recover some fees for services; these are the primary
revenue sources with which the City funds all city services to its residents. The litigation costs from the
proposed Council majority's amendment could cost the City tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands
of dollars, which is not sustainable for our small city. The City cannot afford to pay such costs if it is to
continue providing the City services that our residents need and are accustomed to receiving. The City
already paid tens of thousands of dollars in defending two previous view cases; the legal fees would
probably have been greater if these cases had not been resolved based on Measure B. For example, in
the Hall case, BS136694, the City's view remediation decision requiring removal of five trees was
challenged by Hall. The court ruled against the City, finding that this decision was not supported by
substantial evidence, as required.
In addition to the above financial hardship, to process the cases submitted under the proposed new
view ordinance, the City would probably have to hire at least one other full-time planner. However,
no additional staff person has been budgeted or approved. If the City doesn't have sufficient money to
hire another staff person, it would have to raise fees or taxes or both. After operating the City for
most of its existence with only four employees, the City recently was required to hire an additional
planner because we had so many more construction -related matters needing service. Under this
proposed ordinance, however, our staff would have to spend much more time investigating these view
complaints than they did under the previous longstanding ordinance, which limited a view complaint
to only one view point that was either within or adjacent to one's residence. The proposed ordinance
permits a view complainant to request views from an unlimited number of viewpoints in or near their
residence or non -excluded accessory structures. Plus, complaints can be filed against an unlimited
number of neighbors who have vegetation in any of these unlimited view areas. In a previous lengthy
view complaint involving numerous trees, staff had to spend over 200 hours of work just on that one
complaint, even though this complaint involved only one viewpoint and one tree owner's property.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) is the only known city that pays for full enforcement and
defense of its view ordinance, but it is a much larger city than Rolling Hills, with many more sources of
revenue. RPV employs two full-time planners just for view cases, has an annual view case budget of
$357,000 and, in the last yearly period recorded on their website, it was handling 48 view -related cases
between neighbors. Their view budget is more than the salaries (without benefits) that Rolling Hills pays
out for all five of its employees. Cities such as Malibu, Laguna Beach and Rolling Hills Estates, which
have more money available than Rolling Hills, have all chosen the "advisory opinion" model, thereby
preventing these cities from having to pay huge litigation costs for view cases that could cause the city
to have a financial strain or crisis.
Moreover, the proposed new ordinance permits a view complainant to petition for a view based not
only on the views they had when they first acquired their property, but also based on any views that
they ever had during their entire ownership. Consequently, Rolling Hills tree owners who had been
kind enough to allow their neighboring view seeker to pay for the trimming of their trees to enhance
the view seeker's view, can now be forced by the City to pay for providing the best view that the view
seeker ever had (including a panoramic view), and to pay for maintaining that view every two years
forever. The City generally also records.a condition on a tree owner's deed that provides notice to all
subsequent buyers of the tree owner's property that such buyers would be required to pay for
maintaining the view seeker's view. This condition can negatively affect the value of the tree owner's
property and his ability to sell it with such a costly maintenance condition attached.
These are some of the issues associated with the Council's proposed new view ordinance. If you want to
learn more about these matters, you can go to the City's website www.rolling-hills.org and click on the
"government" tab, then the "view preservation" tab. The language of the Planning Commission's
proposed ordinance is under the date of 9/25/17, Exhibit 1. Exhibit 4 is the current view ordinance that
was recently amended before the Council issued a moratorium on view complaints pending resolution
of the amendments to the view ordinance.
Please come to the next Council meeting, this Monday, 10/9/17, at 7pm to express your views on
these important issues affecting our City. You can contact the City at 310-377-1521 to request a copy of
the newly amended view ordinance that the Council majority asked staff to be prepared for their
approval at the 10/9/17 meeting. Unless the Council majority vote changes, this meeting would be
your last opportunity to voice your opinion regarding the Council majority's proposed ordinance.
Thanks,
Bea Dieringer
Councilmember
City of Rolling Hills
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COALITION MEMBERS
IRWINDALE
SGVCOG
-1887-
TEMPLE
CITY';
STATE CHANGES AFFECTING OUR COMMUNITV INCLUDES:
4i
00
ASSEMBLY BILL 109
COALITION OBJECTIVES
• To raise public awareness of why
crime is increasing in our state.
• To provide a consistent message
surrounding the facts and
impacts of AB 109, Prop 47, and
Prop 57.
• To advocate for State legislative
changes to improve law
enforcement's ability to respond
to crime.
HOW TO JOIN
Contact us at (626) 932-5571 or
email bmello@ci.monrovia.ca.us for
more information on how to join.
PROPOSITION 47
Agenda Item No: 9-B
Mtg. Date: 10/09/17
City or
STAN MARINO
CAWORYiA
PROPOSITION 57
REASONS TO JOIN
• Official Taking Back Our Community branding with your agency's
logo
• Infographic video summarizing the issue and impactful stories
told by the community
• In-depth legislative tracking
• Customizable outreach material including:
• Comprehensive Fact Sheet
• Sample letter to State
legislators
• Informational brochure
MEMBERSHIP DUES
$1,500 per year
Find out more at www.TakingBackOurCommunityCA.com
t
MOH
OUEMii
Following the implementation of AB 109 & Prop 47,
communities across California are experiencing increases in
violent and property related crimes.
Across the State...
In California, crime rates have also sky -rocketed. A report released in 2015 by former California
Attorney General Kamala Harris depicted similar disturbing statistics of increasing crime in the State:
166,500 victims of violent crimes
Violent crimes include homicide, rape, assault.
This represents a 10% increase (15,163 more
victims) in violent crime.
1,023,020 victims of property crimes
Property crimes include burglary, car theft, and larceny.
This represents an 8.1% increase (77,146 more
victims) in property crimes.
In Los Angeles County...
PROPERTY CRIME
2013: 228,419 (Before Prop 47)
2016: 252,224 (After Prop 47)
23,005 more property crime victims
VIOLENT GRIME
2013: 40,384 (Before Prop 47)
2016: 56,351 (After Prop 47)
15,967 more violent crime victims
In our Communities...
ASSULT INCREASE
Montebello 28%
Culver City 29%
Gardena 27%
BURGLARY INCREASE
Whittier 48%
Irwindale 21%
Redondo Beach 23%
Alhambra 38%
West LA 26%
Pomona 23%
Arcadia 37%
La Canada Flintridge 38%
San Marino 24%
Monrovia 28%
ROBBERY INCREASE
Pasadena 34%
Culver City 43%
Montebello 37%
Claremont 87%
Bell Gardens 21%
Taking Back Our Community is a coalition of local governments dedicated to public education and
community advocacy surrounding the unintended adverse public safety impacts of recent changes to
California's criminal law.
For more information, contact us at (626) 932-5571 or email bmello@ci.monrovia.ca.us.
WWW.TAI(INGBAOI(OUROOMMUNITVOA_OOM
`✓
IESERIP
BEACH ?
CAR
September 13, 2017
Hello!
Thank you for your interest in joining an important new statewide coalition called Taking Back Our Community.
Taking Back Our Community is a growing coalition of Califomia cities coming together to establish a unified message
to advocate for common sense changes to California's criminal justice system to help address the public safety
impacts resulting from Assembly Bill 109, Proposition 47, and Proposition 57. This coalition aims to engage and
educate our constituents on the reasons why crime is increasing and build public support for legislative changes at
the State level.
Similar to many jurisdictions in the San Gabriel Valley, the cities of Arcadia, Glendora, and Monrovia have all been
experiencing significant increases in crime during the past few years. As we worked to develop a response to the
public safety issues at hand, we came to the conclusion that unless State legislative changes are made, we are
facing an uphill climb when it comes to reducing crime levels — no matter how many more police officers we hire.
Given the scale and scope of the public safety challenges we face in Califomia, we felt it was important to invite all
cities and other stakeholders across Califomia to join our efforts.
Included on this USB drive is a flyer with more information on reasons to join the Taking Back Our Community
Coalition (see "Join the Coalition Fiver"). There are two ways a city may join the Taking Back Our Community
coalition, depending on whether or not City Council authorization is required.
To assist you in your review of the program, we have prepared the following template documents for your
consideration:
1. Sign the Taking Back Our Community Coalition Agreement (see "City Manager Authorization — TBOC
Agreement"); or
2. Ask your City Council to adopt a formal resolution authorizing your City to join the coalition. A sample
staff report and related attachment is included for your reference and use (see "Sample Staff Report —
TBOC" and "Sample Staff Report - Exhibit A - TBOC Resolution").
Cities wishing to join the coalition will be mailed an invoice for $1,500 / year to further the coalition's objectives.
These membership dues will be used to coordinate the development of an overall public education and outreach
campaign.
Currently, the majority of the funds will be used to fund our initial outreach efforts through a public relations firm to
create the following:
• An infographic video that provides an overview of the public safety issues impacting communities and
directs individuals to the www.TakingBackOurCommunityCA.com website that will have Calls to Action
to contact your State representatives
IJ
• Multiple in-depth videos interviewing individuals and businesses impacted by the adverse effects
related to this legislation
• A stand-alone coalition website for residents and businesses to leam about these issues to ensure
consistent, fact -based messaging across agencies
• A coalition logo
• Setting up social media accounts on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and organizing campaign posts
to raise awareness
Additionally, the funds will be used for outreach materials to assist at future conferences and related events.
The Taking Back Our Community Coalition is quickly growing to include many cities in our region, as the response to
the initiative has been overwhelming and positive. To date, we have 19 agencies that have agreed to join the
coalition, including:
1. Alhambra
2. Arcadia
3. Claremont
4. Covina
5. Duarte
6. Glendora
7. Irwindale
8. La Canada Flintridge
9. La Verne
10. Monrovia
11. Monterey Park
12. Pasadena
13. San Marino
14. Sierra Madre
15. West Covina
16. Whittier
17. San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
18. Califomia Police Chiefs
19. Association of Deputy District Attorneys
You can leam more about this coalition by visiting www.TakingBackOurCommunityCA.com. If you have any
questions, please feel free to let us know directly, or you can contact Brittany Mello, Senior Management Analyst, at
bmelloRci.monrovia.ca.us or (626) 932-5571.
We hope that you will be interested in participating in this important venture, and appreciate your time and
consideration!
Best regards,
Chris Jeffers
City Manager
City of Glendora
cieffersna,ci.glendora.ca.us
(626) 914-8201
Dominic Lazzaretto
City Manager
City of Arcadia
domlazz(a arcadiaca.gov
(626) 574-5401
Oliver Chi
City Manager
City of Monrovia
ochieci.monrovia.ca.us
(626) 932-5585