349 ViewMoratoriumUntil 11 28 2017 ORDINANCE NO. 349
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, EXTENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 349, WHICH TEPVIPORARII..Y PLACES A MORATORIUM ON
THE PROCESSING AND CONSIDERATION OF ANY APPLICATION SOUGHT
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 17.2b {VIEW PRESERVATIOIV� OF THE
ROLLING HILLS MUIVICIPAL CODE, AND DECLARING THE URGENCY
THEREOF.
The City Council of the City of Rolling Hi11s daes hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. �nterim Ordinanc� Extended. Ordinance No. 348, adopted on Navember 28, 2016, is
hereby extended for 10 months and IS days. Pursuant to Government Code Section G5858, subsection
b, this Ordinance shall become effective on January 12, 2Q17, 45 days after adoption of Ordinance No.
348. This ordinance No. 349 may be further extended for one moxe year.
SECTION 2. Purpose. The general plan of the City acknowledges the contribution af
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 praperty owner cou�d 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
Ordiriance (Chapter 17.2b 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 ta views
that were actually enjoyed from a property when the property owner acquired the property. In
particular, the initiative amended the ordinanc� as fallows: (i) only a view that existed when the current
property owner "actua�ly acquired" �he property rnay be restored; (ii) abatement of view impairment is
limited fo obstructions caused by trees that were"�naturing"at the date of acquisition and trees that were
"mature" at the time of property acquisition are excluded from consideration; (iii} abat�ment of view
impairment is intend�d to create "view corridors" and views thraugh trees; and (iv}Measure B specified
that its provisions are to be applied rettaactively.
�znplementation of Measure B revealed various ambiguities in language, resulting in uncertainty in its
application. Specifically at issue were the definitions of "matare" and "maturing" t�rees; the
interpretation of the date of acquisitian of property; and the retroactive application of Measure B. On
February 22, 20�6, the City Council approved �rdinance No. 346 amending partions of the View
Preservation Ordinance that were unaffected by Measure B and adopted Resolution Na. 1�$2, which
adopted administrative regulations interpreting Measure B.
In mid-2016, proponents of a new znitiative measure began circulating a petition in order to propose a
wholesale rewrite of the View Preservation Ordinance. The City Cou.ncil 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 CounciZ without a vote of the electorate.
SECTTON 3. Urgency findings. On November 28, 2016, the City Council held a duly noticed
public hearing. In light of the evidence submitted and testimony received during the public hearing, the
City Council finds as foilows:
A. The adaptian of Measure B in March 2013 by the electorate has led to practical
difficulties in the applicatian of the City's view preservation ordinance(R�IMC Chapter 17.26);
B. As noted in Section 2, the City Council is currently actively studying the City's current
view preservation ordinance and has determined to work with City residents collaboratively to rewrite
the view preservation ordinance in order to address #1ie ambiguities and uncertaindes fhat hamper its
effective application and enforcement;
C. Pending the conclusion of that process, it is possible that application of the view
preservation oxdina.nce will result in determinations and decisions that are inconsistent with the
ardinance being prepared, and that considerable tirne, expense and resources will be devoted to
evaluating applications under an ordinanc�that may soon became abso�ete;
D. Adoption of this interim ordinance is necessary to prevent inconsistent application of the
Ordinanc�No. 349 (10 mos 15 days} - 1 -
City's view presexvation ordinance during the pendency of this process atzd 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 axry application sought under the City's
current view preservation ordinance.
SECTION 4. Interim Zoning Regulations. Natwithstanding any provision of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code to the contrary, no applications for the protection af views and abatement of view
obstructions under Chapter 17.2b shall be process�d, considered or acted upon by the Committee on
Trees and Views or the City Council during the pendency of this 4rdinance or any extension thereof.
SECTION 5. Exceptions. Enactment of this Ordinance shali not preclude the City frorn processing
an application under Chapter 17.26 filed and accepted as complete prior to November 28, 20 f 6.
Furthermore, enactment of this Ordinance shall not preclude the City from enforcing the pro�visions of
Section 17.26.Q70 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code as to any failure or refusal of any person to
comp�y with a fir�al decision made under Chapter 17.26 between March 2013 and November 28, 20�6.
SECTION 6. Severability. If any part or provision of tl�is Ordinance or the application to any
person or circumstance is heid invalid, the rernainder of this Ordinance, including the application of
such part of provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected and shall continue in fia11
force and effect. To this end,the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.
SECTION 7. Conflicting Laws. For the ternn of this Ordinance, or any extension thereof, the
provisions of this Ordinance sha.11 govern aver any conflict�ng provisions of any other City code,
ordinance,resolution or policy.
SECTTON 8. Adoption. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to California Government Code
Section 65858 and shall take effect on 7anuary 12, 20I7, 45 days aft�r adoption of Ordinance No. 348,
upon adoption by a four-fifths vote of the City Council. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect
for a pe;riod of�0 months and 15 days from the date it becomes effective, and may be extended for one
more year sa that its full duration is up to a maximum of two yeazs. City Councii would have the option
to repeal the interim ardinance at any time prior to its expiration in accordance with the provisions of
Califomia Government Code Secdon 65858.
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of January, 2017.
� ,
A DIERiNGER,MAY
ATTEST:
���������_� �
4� �,�
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
�rdinance No. 349 (10 rnos 15 days} -2 -
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY QF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certafy that the foregoing Ordinance No. 349 entit�ed:
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF �OLLING HILLS, EXTENDING
_ ORDINANCE NO. 349, WHICH TEMPOR.ARILY PLACES A MORATORIUM ON
THE PR4CESSING AND CONSIDERATION OF ANY APPLICATION SOUGHT
UNDER 'THE PROVISION� OF CHAPTER 17.26 (V�W PRESERVATIQl� OF TI�
ROLLING HILLS MUN�CIPAL CODE, AND DECLARING THE URGENCY
TI�REOF,
was approved and adapted at a regular meeting of the City Council on January 9, 2017 by the fo�lowing
roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Black, Mirsch,Pieper and Wilson.
NOES: Mayor Dieringer.
A.BSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the fallowing:
Administrative Offices.
_. ��
HEIDI LUCE
CITY CLERK
Ordinance No. 349 (10 mas 15 days) - 3 -