2015-24 RESOLUTIQN NO. 2015-24
RESOLUT�ON OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDiNG THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
1NTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS D�ES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. In June 1988,the City adopted a View Preserv�ation Ordinance. The
ordinance established preser�ation of views as a primary value of the comrnututy and
created a process by which a property owner could seek to abate an obstructed view. In
November 2003,the oxdinance was modified relative to the composition of the
Commattee on Views and Trees,the body designated to consider view applications.
Section 2, In March 2413,the residents of Ro�ling Hi11s passed Measure B to amend
#he View Preservation Ordinance. The principal effect of Measure B was to shift the
profection of the ordinance from views that are capabde 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:
� On�y a view that existed when the current property owner"actually acquired"the
properiy may be restored;
• Abatement of view impairm�nt is limited to o�structions caused by trees that were
"maturing"at the date of acquisition and trees thaf were"mature" at the time of
property acquisition are excluded froan consideration;
• Measure B specified that abatement of view impairment is intended to create
"view corridors" and views through trees, and not unobstructed views;
; Measure B specified that its pro�crisions are to�e applied retroactively.
Section 3. Measure B contains various ambiguities that have resulted in uncertainty
in its application in view obstruction cases subrnitted ta the City's Comrnittee on Trees �
and View for consideration. Measure B can only be amended by the voters; however,the
City may adopt administrative regulations providing guidance and interpreting
ambiguities in voter initiatives. Based on this authority,the City Council directed the
Planning Comtriission to review, discuss and develap a policy inferpreting Measure B.
Section 4. The Planning Corrunission finds that the attached Administrative
Regulations Interpreting Measure B Relating to View Preservation clarify the initiative
and recommends their adoption by the City Counci�. :
Resolution No. 201.5-24 1
Measure B Interpreta.ton
PASSED,APPRQVED AND ADOPTED T.HIS ISth DAY OF DECEVIBER 2015.
CHEL ,
ATTEST:
� .
�
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the pub�ic
hearing on this applicarion 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 �ection
1094.6.
Resolution No. 2015-24 2
Measure B Interpretaton
Attachment A
City of Rolling Hills
Administrative Regula�ions Interpreting Measure B
Relating to View Preserv�tion
Chapter 1 Date of Properiy Acquisition
Chapter 2 "Mature"versus"Maturing"Trees
Chapter 3 Retroactivity of Measure B
Chapter 1
DATE OF PROPERTY ACQUISITION
Section 1001, Interpretation of the Date of�cquisition of Property.
Measwre B provides that a person may only apply to restore the view existing from the
date that the current owner of the property act:ually acquired the property. Zn determining
whether a transfex of property has resulted in an acquisition affecting the view that a
person may apply to have restared,the City sha11 generally appl��lie ruies applicable to
reassessment of properry taxes in the County of Los Angeles.
The impacts of cammon transfers of property are illustrated below:
A. The acquisition date of property acquired through inl�eritance shall be the da#e
that the pre�ious owner acquired the property,not the date of the transfer by
inheritance.
B. The acquisidan date of property acquired from a third party through an arms-
length purchase and sale shail be#,he date of the sa1� as evidenced by a de�d.
C. When praperty is placed into a re�ocable trust, the acquisition date of property
shall not change. When property is placed into an irrevocable hust, or a revocable
trust becomes irrevocable,the acquisition date shall be the date that the property
was placed into the irrevocabie t�rrust or t�ie revocable trust became irrevocable.
Resolution No. 2015-24 3
Measure B Interprei�atan
Chapter 2
"MATURE"VERSUS "MATURYNG" TREES
Section 2001. Definition of"Mature" Trees
The International Society of Aarboriculture defines maturity by "mature height," which
means the"maxi.mum height that a plant is likely to reach if i�he conditions of the planting
site are favorable." The Sunset Western Garden Book is a trusted reference guide on
trees, plants and other vegetation present in the region and defines a plant species'
"maturity" as the�ime at which a plant achieves a certain height range and displays otliex
characteristics. The Sunsefi Western Garden Book provides maximum height ranges for
species of plants typically invo�ved in View Preservation cases in the City.
Far purposes of the View PrEservation Qrdinance and Measure B, a plant is "matwre"
when it reaches the rna�mum height for the species specified in the Sunset Western
Garden Book. However, arborists agree that plants that have been regular�y cut ma.y
never reach thei� maximum potential height, and several alternative methodologies are
recognized to determine the age of such tre�s. However, the alternative methodologies
are complex and require reliance on a professional arborist. Further, the proponents of
Measure B testified befoxe the Plannulg Commission that�the intent of Measure B was to
exempt trees that have reached their fult species height prior to acquisition af a
complainant's property. Therefore, trees tha.t show evidence of regzaiar cutting and are
therefore unlikely to reach their maximum potential height sha11 not be considered
"mature" far purpo�es of t1�.e View Preservation Ordinance and shail not be exempt from
restorative action.
Section 2402. Defmition of"Maturing" Trees
Trees and other vegetatian that are not "mature" as specified in these regulations are
"maturing."
Section 2003. Presumption that Trecs were not"Mature"
If evidence is presented, such as historical aerial photographs, showing that none of the
offending trees or vegetation subject to a complaint was planted at ar araund the time that
the complainant acquired the property from which a view is claimed, the complainant
shall be entitled to a presurnption that the offending trees and vegetation were not
"mature" at the date of acquisition and are therefore subject to xestoxative action.
Resolution No. 2015-24 4
Measure B �nterpretaton
Chapter 3
RETR�ACTIVITY OF MEASURE B
Section 3001. Retroactive Appiication.
Any resalution af the City of Rolling Hills adjudicating any complaint regarding view
impairments adopted by the Committee on Trees and Views, or the City Council on
appeal, prior to Maxch 18, 2013, is hereby considered void and will not be enforced by
the City.
Resolu�ion No. 2015-24 $
Measure B Interpreta.ton
�TATE OF CALIFORNIA}
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES } §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2015-24 entitled:
RESOLUTION OF TI�PLANNING COMMISSTON RECOArIlvIEENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting af the Planning Commission on
December 15, 2015 by the following ro11 ca11�ote:
AYES: Commissioners Cardenas,Kirkpatrick, Gray, Smith and
Chairman Chelf
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in comp�iance with the laws of California was posted at the fallowing:
Administrative Offices. ��d�
ia
HEIDI LUCE
CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 2015-24 b
Measure B Interpretaton