Draft Ordinance. (Initial Study provided separately.) Approved: City M an-a ger

Transcription

1 City of Laguna Beach AGENDA BILL No. Meeting Date: 5/29/2014 SUBJECT: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER OF THE LAGUNA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION OF VIEWS SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIRED BY VEGETATION, AND ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION Background: At a special meeting held on March 25, 2014, the City Council received a presentation regarding the draft View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance. At the conclusion of the meeting, a City Council subcommittee composed of Councilmembers Boyd and Dicterow was asked to consider the public input and City Council comments and to consider and propose refinements to the draft ordinance. The City Council subcommittee met with staff, including the City Attorney, on April 1 and May 6, 2014, and finalized the draft ordinance. The subcommittee is now recommending adoption of this latest version of the draft View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance. Proposed Ordinance: The proposed ordinance presented to the City Council this evening does not make any change whatsoever to the existing hedge height regulations contained in Chapter The proposed ordinance is limited to a major re-write of the existing View Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 12.16). The primary provisions of the proposed amendment involve the following elements: Section has been amended to simplify the process of property owners to preserve existing views. The process to preserve existing views incorporates an application to the City to establish a "record of views." Staff initially makes a site visit to photographically document the view from the property owner's selected viewing locations or areas. This photographic documentation then becomes the official "record of views." Property owners within a distance of 500 feet that may be affected by the "record of views" and the associated maintenance responsibilities are notified. The maintenance of an established "record of views" is enforceable by City code enforcement procedures. Significant view impairment determinations made by staff RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended by Councilmembers Boyd and Dicterow that the City Council: Introduce the Ordinance amending Chapter12.16 (View Preservation and Restoration) and adopt Negative Declaration by 1) asking the City Clerk to read the title of the Ordinance, and 2) approving a motion to waive further reading of the Ordinance and to pass it to a second reading. Appropriations Requested: $ Attachments: March 25, 2014 Agenda Bill and Minutes; Process Flow Diagrams; Draft Fee Resolution; and Submitted by: Councilmembers Boyd and Dicterow Coordinat Deed with: Director of Community velopment and City Attorney Draft Ordinance. (Initial Study provided separately.) Approved: City M an-a ger

2 View Ordinance May 29, 2014 Page 2 may be appealed to City Council. A right of property owners to restore pre-existing views is established. The process of restoring views is limited to pre-existing views that can be established after the date of property purchase or November 4, 2003, which is the effective date of the current ordinance (No.1430) relating to view preservation, whichever is earlier, and can only affect vegetation within 500 feet of the subject property. A View Restoration Committee is established to make determinations regarding restored view claims, and Committee decisions are appealable to the City Council. Various terms used in the ordinance are defined. Criteria for evaluating and determining significant view impairment are provided. The costs of the process and view restorative actions are assigned. Exemptions from the ordinance are specified. Enforcement provisions are established. Major Substantive Issues: Restoration Claim Date Threshold: The proposed ordinance allows a restoration claim to be made with reference to the views that existed as of the date of the claimant's purchase of the affected property or November 4, 2003 (the effective date of Ordinance No relating to view preservation), whichever is earlier. The further back in time the affected property was purchased may make it more difficult to adequately prove the nature and extent of the views at the time of such purchase. The pros and cons of the threshold date, legal and otherwise, were debated, and it was determined that as long as any view restorative action does not mandate involuntary complete vegetation removal, a meritorious "takings" claim, which could expose the City to costly liability, is unlikely. The proposed ordinance does not provide for complete vegetation removal without consent of the vegetation owner. Significant View Impairment Determination: Significant view impairment means the obstruction or diminishment of a view to such a substantial extent that the desirable features of a view are blocked from viewing, and such obstruction is attributable to vegetation growth, lack of appropriate vegetation maintenance and/or inappropriate vegetation location. Criteria for determining significant view impairment is established in the proposed ordinance and includes, but is not limited to: 1) the quality and veracity of the evidence provided in support of establishing the extent of the view; 2) the nature and extent to which the vegetation obstructs a view; 3) the location of the obstruction within a view frame; 4) the nature and quality of the view being obstructed, including obstruction of landmarks, vista or other unique features; 5) the extent that the view has diminished over time; 6) the selected vantage point(s); and 7) whether the vegetation has been properly maintained or is in a state of overgrowth. Applicable Vegetation Distance Threshold: The vegetation subject to the provisions of the proposed ordinance is established. However, the applicable distance threshold has been debated, ranging from 300 feet to an unlimited distance from the view claimant's property. By way of example, the Rancho Palos Verdes ordinance specifies 1000 feet. The proposed ordinance establishes a 500-foot distance limitation.

3 View Ordinance May 29, 2014 Page 3 Viewing Location: The Rancho Palos Verdes ordinance specifies a process for determining a primary viewing location from which to base a view claim. An earlier version of the Laguna Beach draft ordinance did likewise. However, there was public input that protected views should be able to be taken from multiple locations. Although this will add to the complexity of analysis of a view claim, the proposed ordinance allows multiple viewing locations. Applicable Vegetation Vegetation Height Exemption: The proposed ordinance provides that any vegetation more than 6 feet in height is subject to either the hedge height claim process or the view preservation/restoration process. Rancho Palos Verdes and the view ordinances of other cities usually have a higher vegetation height as the threshold of view ordinance applicability. For example, Rancho Palos Verdes uses vegetation that is a minimum of 16 feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower. Applicable Vegetation Hedges: Previous drafts of the ordinance either repealed or amended the City's Hedge Height Limitations Ordinance. Public testimony was received indicating that the hedge claim process seemed to be effectively working. Therefore, the draft ordinance was revised to retain the Hedge Height Limitations Ordinance as is, and no amendments whatsoever are proposed to the hedge height regulations. Ordinance Exemptions: The following matters are exempted from the proposed ordinance: Vegetation that does not significantly impair views or is less than 6 feet in height; City-maintained vegetation; Heritage Trees; Vegetation that has been approved through the design review process and in which vegetation height limits were established; Vegetation that has been approved through the hedge height claim process; and Vegetation that was approved by a previous view claim process. Mediation: One of the main premises of the proposed ordinance is based on the success that Rancho Palos Verdes has had with the mediation process, in that a majority of the view issues in that city are resolved with cityfacilitated mediation sessions and the resulting private agreements between the view claimant and vegetation owners. The resulting mediation agreements are private agreements and are enforced by the parties not the City. Therefore, it is thought that the establishment of the mediation process in Laguna Beach will be critical to the success of effectively resolving view issues with minimal City involvement or appeals to the City Council. Indemnity: The indemnity provisions contained in a previous version of Section (C)(g) have been eliminated from the proposed ordinance. Cost Apportionment: Section (B) has been amended to initially require the claimant to pay for the first restoration pruning. However, if the View Restoration Committee determines that the vegetation owner has not been properly maintaining the vegetation, then the vegetation owner shall be held responsible for the first and

4 View Ordinance May 29, 2014 Page 4 ongoing pruning. In addition, previous subsection (D), which related to cost entitlement of prevailing parties in any civil action, has been eliminated. Implementation Costs: City staff would be heavily involved with the provisions of implementing the proposed ordinance. Staff time will be required to educate the public regarding the process and to administer claims. Claim administration will include the following time-consuming events: (1) processing "record of views" applications and any appeals, (2) advising the claimant and the vegetation owner about the ordinance and the various processes, (3) requesting mediation with the tree/vegetation owner, (4) arranging the preparation of an arborist's report for the trees that are the subject of the claim, if necessary, and (5) coordinating mediation sessions for the parties. The estimated annual implementation costs are summarized below. It should be noted that these estimated costs do not include or account for expenses relating to additional City Attorney services, new code enforcement activities, and any required new City tree maintenance costs. On January 21, 2014, the City Council approved additional funding that increased the total budgeted funding for a possible new City view preservation and restoration program to $325,000 a year. View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance Estimated Implementation Costs First Year Estimated Costs Contract Mediator Services (40 claims/year times x 6 hrs. per claim = 240 hours x $200/hour) Contract Arborist (30 claims/year x 3 hours per claim = 90 hours x $180/hour) Two (2) full-time Associate Planners with benefits (each at $92,367/year) One (1) full-time Administrative Assistant with benefits One (1) Prius vehicle One (1) vehicle operating cost Three (3) sets of office furniture (each at $2,000) Three (3) computers (each at $1,700) One copier machine Three phones (each at $250) First Year Total $48,000 $16,200 $184,800 $71,500 $28,000 $1,200 $6,000 $5,100 $3,000 $800 $365,000

5 View Ordinance May 29, 2014 Page 5 Second Year and On-Going Estimated Costs Contract Mediator Services (40 claims/year times x 6 hrs. per claim = 240 hours x $200/hour) Contract Arborist (30 claims/year x 3 hours per claim = 90 hours x $180/hour) Two (2) full-time Associate Planners with benefits (each at $96,326/year) One (1) full-time Administrative Assistant with benefits One (1) vehicle operating cost Second Year Total $48,000 $16,200 $192,700 $74,400 $1,200 $333,000 Fees: The City Council subcommittee is recommending the following fees regarding hedge and view claim processing. (See attached draft Resolution.) All fees, except for one, are presently existing and are repeated in the draft Resolution simply for topic-grouping purposes. The view preservation or view restoration appeal fee to City Council is proposed to be increased from $650 to $2,500 because of increased processing costs: View Preservation or View Restoration $2,500 Appeal Fee to City Council Hedge Height Claim Appeal Fee to City $650 Council Hedge Height Claim Application $630 View Preservation or Restoration Claim or $630 Application View Mediation (Paid by the claimant unless $500 Minimum alternative agreement is reached among the Plus Actual Costs parties.) over Minimum CEQA Environmental Review: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed ordinance and its associated implementation have been analyzed for potentially significant environmental effects. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the proposed project were prepared and circulated for public review. Based on the information and materials available to the City, it has been determined that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed ordinance and its implementation will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The City has received CEQA review comment letters, but staff has determined that none of the criteria for recirculation described in State CEQA Guidelines Section is present. Therefore, it is proposed that the City Council adopt Negative Declaration No The Initial Study is available for public review on the City's website, the City Clerk's office and the City Council's office.

6 View Ordinance May 29, 2014 Page 6 Delayed Effective Date Recommendation The City Council subcommittee and City staff are recommending that the City Council delay the effective date of the proposed ordinance for six months to allow for the following: Hire additional staff to process the hedge and view applications, claims and appeals. Purchase office equipment and vehicle for view implementation staff. Process a Request for Proposals and finalize contracts for arborist services. Process a Request for Proposals and finalize contracts for mediation services. Develop a community education program (including detailed procedures and forms) regarding hedge and view applications, process, claims and appeals. Conclusion: After over a year-long process, the City Council subcommittee is recommending that the City Council; Introduce the Ordinance amending Chapter12.16 (View Preservation) by 1) asking the City Clerk to read the title of the Ordinance, and 2) approving a motion to waive further reading of the Ordinance and to pass it to a second reading. (Included with this Agenda Bill are process flow charts that help explain the proposed ordinance provisions regarding view preservation and view restoration.)

7 City of Laguna Beach AGENDA BILL No. Meeting Date: 3/25/2014 SUBJECT: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS AND OF THE LAGUNA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION OF VIEWS SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIRED BY VEGETATION, AND ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION Background: On January 15, 2013, the City Council reviewed a report prepared by staff and considered public testimony about the City's view preservation programs/ordinances. During the course of City Council comments, then-mayor Boyd said he would like to create a committee consisting of himself, one Planning Commissioner (Roger McErlane), one Design Review Board member (Ken Sadler), and six members of the public (Bob Borthwick, Sue Kempf, Larry Nokes, Morris Skenderian, Chris Toy and Susan Whiten) at large to review the current ordinances relating to view preservation and hedge heights and report back to City Council with the goal of amending the ordinances to better preserve views. The City Council supported Mayor Boyd's proposal and requested a status report in 90 days. On May 21, 2013, the City Council received a three-month status report from the View Equity Committee that was established by former Mayor Boyd. The chairman of the committee reported that six public meetings had been held and that work on a possible ordinance had started. He also discussed the framework of the draft ordinance. (See attached minutes from that City Council meeting.) Since that time, there have been a series of additional View Equity Committee public meetings. A subcommittee of the View Equity Committee then met with City staff, including the City Attorney; and, as a result of those meetings, City staff prepared a revised ordinance that addressed legal and other concerns raised in response to the provisions of the first draft ordinance. A public meeting with staff and the City Attorney was then held on December 3, 2013 to consider the revised draft ordinance. Public comments on that version of the ordinance were received; and, based on those comments, additional revisions to the draft ordinance were prepared by City staff. The View Equity Committee then met, reviewed the latest version of the draft ordinance, and determined to recommend this latest version for City Council consideration. (continued) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended by Councilmember Boyd that the City Council: 1) Receive a presentation regarding the efforts and recommendations by the View Equity Committee for the proposed view ordinance; 2) Consider public input; and 3) Schedule the matter for another City Council meeting to further consider adoption of a view ordinance. Appropriations Requested: $ Attachments: Submitted by: Councilmember Boyd Coordinated with: Approved: City Manager

8 View Ordinance March 25, 2014 Page 2 View Preservation Ordinance History: After eight years of Planning Commission and City Council review, which encompassed extensive public input regarding the benefits of both views and trees/vegetation, the current "View Preservation Ordinance" was adopted in 2003 as Chapter of the Municipal Code. (Ordinance 1430 had an effective date of November 4, 2003, and an attached memo summarizes the ordinance development history.) The current View Preservation Ordinance establishes a process for property owners seeking to preserve a reasonable amount of a view and/or sunlight that they, as property owners, enjoyed on or after the effective date of the ordinance or the date they purchased their property, whichever is later. While this process is overseen by the City, it ultimately is dependent on voluntary cooperation and private enforcement. The ordinance acknowledges the value of both trees and views and sets forth a hierarchy of tree/vegetation maintenance solutions in an attempt to balance and protect interests in trees and views. The ordinance does not apply to views that benefitted prior owners or to views that benefitted current owners prior to the effective date of the 2003 ordinance. Because the then-proposed ordinance was not retroactive, properties that had experienced view impairment when the 2003 ordinance was adopted were not immediately eligible to seek view restoration. The current View Protection Ordinance includes a process for private mediation and/or arbitration. City staff administers and coordinates the program, the cost of which is paid by the complaining party. A complainant may pursue civil litigation, if the view issue is not satisfactorily resolved through mediation or arbitration. While a tree/vegetation owner is not compelled to participate in the program, a failure of the tree/vegetation owner to participate in mediation or arbitration shifts the burden of proof in any future civil litigation from the complainant to the tree/vegetation owner. Hedge Height Limitations Ordinance History: The City Council adopted a Hedge Height Claim process in December 2002, to reduce adverse view/sunlight impacts from vegetation that forms a continuous physical barrier, equivalent to a fence. These provisions, which were added to Title 25 (the City's Zoning Code), are applied to hedges that are located around the perimeter of a property within front, side and/or rear yards. Because the Municipal Code defines hedges as encompassed by the term "fence," the City may require hedges that are determined to obstruct views and/or sunlight to be reduced to the maximum allowable fence height. The first amendment to the Hedge Height Claim provisions was adopted by the City Council in November The amendment modified the claim process to: (1) prevent the alteration of the landscaping that is the subject of a claim until the claim is resolved, (2) reduce the public hearing noticing distance from 300 feet to 100 feet, (3) eliminate the appeal step to the Design Review Board and provide for direct appeal to the City Council and (4) allow 50% of the claim fee to be refunded if the claim was determined to be valid. In April 2011, the City Council adopted a Hedge Height Limitations Ordinance, which relocated the Hedge Height Claim provisions from the Zoning Title into Chapter of the Municipal Code and modified the definition of "hedge." In addition, a recital was added to the ordinance declaring the benefits of views and sunlight, as well as the benefits of vegetation that forms hedges. The ordinance amendment also strengthened the code enforcement process for violations relating to the disposition of prior hedge height claim actions.

9 View Ordinance March 25, 2014 Page 3 Proposed Ordinance: The proposed ordinance presented to the City Council this evening retains the existing hedge regulations with minor amendments and proposes a major re-write of the existing View Preservation ordinance. The major provisions of these amendments involve the following elements: A right of property owners to preserve existing views is established. The process to preserve existing views incorporates an application to the City to establish a "record of views." Property owners within a distance of 500 feet that may be affected by the application are notified. Staff initially makes determinations regarding the "record of views," and these determinations are appealable to City Council. The maintenance of an established "record of views" is enforceable by City code enforcement procedures. A right of property owners to restore pre-existing views is established. The process of restoring views is limited to pre-existing views that can be established after the date of property purchase and can only affect vegetation within 500 feet. Staff determinations regarding restored views are appealable to City Council. Various terms used in the ordinance are defined. Criteria for evaluating and determining significant view impairment are provided. The costs of the process and view restorative actions are assigned. Exemptions from the ordinance are specified. Enforcement provisions are established. Major Substantive Issues: Restoration Claim Date Threshold: The current draft ordinance allows a restoration claim to be made with reference to the views that existed as of the date of the claimant's purchase of the affected property. It should be recognized that the further back in time the affected property was purchased will likely make it more difficult to adequately demonstrate and prove the nature and extent of the views at the time of such purchase. An alternative would be to add a time limitation of no earlier than November 4, 2003, which corresponds to the date of adoption of the first View Preservation Ordinance discussed above. The pros and cons of this threshold date, legal and otherwise, were debated, and it was determined that as long as any view restorative action does not mandate involuntary vegetation removal, there should not be a meritorious "takings" issue, which could expose the City to costly liability. The draft ordinance does not mandate complete vegetation removal without consent of the vegetation owner. Significant View Impairment Determination: Significant view impairment means the obstruction or diminishment of a view to such a substantial extent that the desirable features of a view are blocked from viewing and such obstruction is attributable to vegetation growth, lack of appropriate vegetation maintenance and/or inappropriate vegetation location. Criteria for determining significant view impairment is established in the draft ordinance and includes, but is not limited to: 1) the quality and veracity of the evidence provided in support of establishing the extent of the view; 2) the nature and extent to which the vegetation obstructs a view; 3) the location of the obstruction within a view frame; 4) the nature and quality of the view being obstructed, including obstruction of landmarks, vista or other unique features; 5) the extent that the view has diminished over time; 6) the selected vantage point(s); and 7) whether the vegetation has been properly maintained or is in a state of overgrowth.

10 View Ordinance March 25, 2014 Page 4 Applicable Vegetation Distance Threshold: The vegetation subject to the provisions of the draft ordinance is established. However, the applicable distance threshold has been debated, ranging from 300 feet to an unlimited distance from the view claimant's property. By way of example, the Rancho Palos Verdes ordinance specifies 1000 feet. The draft ordinance proposes a 500-foot distance limitation. Viewing Location: The Rancho Palos Verdes ordinance specifies a process for determining a primary viewing location from which to base a view claim. An earlier version of the Laguna Beach draft ordinance did likewise. However, at the December 3, 2013 View Equity Committee public meeting, there was public input that protected views should be able to be taken from multiple locations. Although this will add to the complexity of analysis of a view claim, staff does not oppose a view claim proposed from multiple viewing locations. The draft ordinance allows multiple viewing locations. Applicable Vegetation Vegetation Height Exemption: The Laguna Beach draft ordinance proposes that any vegetation more than 6 feet in height is subject to either the hedge height claim process or the view preservation/restoration process. Rancho Palos Verdes and the view ordinances of other cities usually have a higher vegetation height as the threshold of view ordinance applicability. For example, Rancho Palos Verdes uses vegetation that is a minimum of 16 feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower. Applicable Vegetation Hedges: A previous draft of the ordinance repealed the City's Hedge Height Limitations ordinance. However, at the December 3, 2013 View Equity Committee, there seemed to be a public consensus to retain the ordinance and the associated claim process. It was previously thought that having two separate processes for view-related claims could be confusing to the public. Public testimony was received that indicated that the hedge claim process seemed to be effectively working. Therefore, the draft ordinance was revised to retain the Hedge Height Limitations ordinance, but amendments were made to clarify the definition of a hedge as "a row of closely planted, dense shrubs or grasses so aligned to form a physical barrier, boundary or fence." The term "grasses" and "shrubs" are also defined in the ordinance, and trees are specifically not included in the definition of a "shrub." Ordinance Exemptions: The View Equity Committee has not, as of yet, proposed an ordinance regarding view issues related to City-maintained trees. This is important because the current draft ordinance exempts various vegetation and the process to deal with view issues concerning City-maintained vegetation that will have to be addressed in the future. The following are exempted from the draft ordinance: Vegetation that does not significantly impair views or is less than 6 feet in height; City-maintained vegetation; Heritage Trees; Vegetation that has been approved through the design review process and in which vegetation height limits were established; Vegetation that has been approved through the hedge height claim process; and Vegetation that was approved by a previous view claim process.

11 View Ordinance March 25, 2014 Page 5 Mediation: One of the main premises of the current draft ordinance is based on the success that Rancho Palos Verdes has had with the mediation process, in that a majority of the view issues in that city are resolved with cityfacilitated mediation sessions and the resulting private agreements between the view claimant and vegetation owners. Therefore, it is thought that the setup of the mediation process in Laguna Beach will be critical to the success of effectively resolving view issues with minimal City involvement or appeals to the City Council. Implementation Costs: City staff would be heavily involved with the provisions of implementing the currently proposed draft ordinance. Staff time will be required to educate the public regarding the process and to administer claims. Claim administration will include the following time-consuming events: (1) processing "record of views" applications and any appeals, (2) advising the claimant and the vegetation owner about the ordinance and the various processes, (3) requesting mediation with the tree/vegetation owner, (4) arranging the preparation of an arborist's report for the trees that are the subject of the claim, if necessary, and (5) coordinating mediation sessions for the parties. The estimated annual implementation costs are summarized below. It should be noted that these estimated costs do not include or account for expenses relating to additional City Attorney services, new code enforcement activities, and any required new City tree maintenance costs. On January 21, 2014, the City Council approved additional funding that brought the total budgeted funding for a possible new City view preservation and restoration program to $325,000 a year. View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance Estimated Implementation Costs First Year Estimated Costs Contract Mediator Services (40 claims/year times x 6 hrs. per claim = 240 hours x $200/hour) Contract Arborist (30 claims/year x 3 hours per claim = 90 hours x $180/hour) Two (2) full-time Associate Planners with benefits (each at $92,367/year) One (1) full-time Administrative Assistant with benefits One (1) Prius vehicle One (1) vehicle operating cost Three (3) sets of office furniture (each at $2,000) Three (3) computers (each at $1,700) One copier machine Three phones (each at $250) First Year Total $48,000 $16,200 $184,800 $71,500 $28,000 $1,200 $6,000 $5,100 $3,000 $800 $365,000

12 View Ordinance March 25, 2014 Page 6 Second Year and On-Going Estimated Costs Contract Mediator Services (40 claims/year times x 6 hrs. per claim = 240 hours x $200/hour) Contract Arborist (30 claims/year x 3 hours per claim = 90 hours x $180/hour) Two (2) full-time Associate Planners with benefits (each at $96,326/year) One (1) full-time Administrative Assistant with benefits One (1) vehicle operating cost Second Year Total $48,000 $16,200 $192,700 $74,400 $1,200 $333,000 CEQA Environmental Review: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed ordinance for view preservation and restoration and its associated implementation have been analyzed for potentially significant environmental effects. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the proposed project were prepared and circulated for public review. Based on the information and materials available to the City, it has been determined that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed ordinance and its implementation will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The City has received CEQA review comment letters, but staff has determined that none of the criteria for recirculation described in State CEQA Guidelines Section is present. Therefore, it is proposed that the City Council adopt Negative Declaration No The Initial Study is available for public review on the City's website, the City Clerk's office and the City Council's office. Conclusion and Delayed Effective Date Recommendation: After about a year-long process, the View Equity Committee is recommending that the City Council 1) Receive a presentation regarding the review efforts and proposed view ordinance; and 2) Consider public input and the need for possible further refinement. Included with this Agenda Bill are process flow charts which help explain the proposed ordinance provisions regarding view preservation and view restoration. City staff is also recommending that the City Council delay the effective date of any new view ordinance for at least six months to allow for a community education effort and to provide staff with the time necessary to prepare for the additional personnel needs, procedures and forms, and contractual mediation and arborist services required for implementation of the ordinance. Staff will have to prepare and forward recommended fees for City Council consideration and adoption for the public services proposed in the ordinance to at least partially compensate for the additional expenses to be incurred by the City. For instance, Rancho Palos Verdes charges some of the following fees related to view preservation and restoration: View Permit $5,100 View Permit Follow-up $653 Vegetation Analysis $198 Site Visit Fee (View Owners) $338 Non-Compliance Fine (Vegetation Owners) $338 View Determination Appeal Fee $2,275

13 Laguna Beach City Council Minutes March 25, 2014 PUBLIC COMMUNICATION *************************** Jean Raun said she was concerned about the condition of the criminal justice system. She said she and several others had formed an ad-hoc group "Advocates of Cost Effective Justice," and she said too much money was being spent and lives were being harmed. Raun announced that Steve Kea, Assistant Sheriff of Orange County, would be speaking at an event Saturday, March 29, at 10:00 a.m., at 429 Cypress Drive, Laguna Beach. She noted that he would be speaking about the current jail conditions and how Orange County responded to the transfer of incarcerated persons from State facilities to the counties. COUNCIL AND STAFF REPORTS ****************************** Councilmember Steve Dicterow said he had received several phone calls about the resurfacing in North Laguna and he asked City Manager Pietig if he could have staff follow up on the work. City Manager John Pietig said he and Director of Public Works Steve May went by the area a couple of months ago, and he said May hired a specialist to evaluate the work and will report back to the Council. Councilmember Kelly Boyd thanked the Women's Club for the outgoing Mayors luncheon, and he said he had a great time. Councilmember Toni Iseman said she enjoyed attending the meeting in the Council Chambers where an urban planner discussed his vision of Laguna Beach, and she said it became evident as to why so many people made the decision to live in Laguna Beach. REGULAR ORDER OF BUSINESS ********************* 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS AND OF THE LAGUNA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION OF VIEWS SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIRED BY VEGETATION, AND ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION View Preservation Committee member Larry Nokes introduced the following members of the View Equity Committee: Chris Toy, Planning Commissioner Ken Sadler, Architect Morris Skenderian, Design Review Board member Roger McErlane, Landscape Architect Robert Borthwick, Disaster Preparedness Committee member Susan Kempf and Landscape Architect Susan Whitin. He thanked the public who attended the Committee's eight public hearings and provided great input toward a workable ordinance. Nokes said the view ordinance they were asked to tackle was one that was adopted by the City Council in 2003, which established a process for property owners seeking to preserve a reasonable amount of view or sunlight that -2-

14 Laguna Beach City Council Minutes March 25, 2014 they enjoyed after the effective date of the ordinance. He said the ordinance was decent; however, he said people were frustrated because it depended almost entirely on voluntary cooperation. Nokes said the ordinance did not have much enforcement value and did not benefit owners prior to the institution of the view ordinance. He said the City Council decided that the residents needed a better tool to use and asked the Committee to come up with a revision to the ordinance that "had some teeth." Nokes explained the following process the Committee went through to prepare the draft ordinance: Reviewed and analyzed the existing ordinance Reviewed and analyzed ordinances from the cities of Tiburon, Rancho Palos Verdes, Malibu and Newport Beach Conducted site visits : Held eight public hearings Met with City staff and the City Attorney Prepared numerous drafts of potential provisions and submitted for public input Gathered information and data and prepared a final draft Sue Kempf said she along with Susan Whitin, Roger McErlane and Chris Toy formed a subcommittee and visited the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. She said the attendees at the meeting were Director of Community Development Joe Rojas, Director of Community Development John Montgomery, two Rancho Palos Verdes planners, Principal Planner Carolyn Martin and two former Rancho Palos Verdes mayors. Kempf said Rancho Palos Verdes had 42,000 residents and 15,000 homes. She said Rancho Palos Verdes' ordinance was passed in 1989 and revised in 1996 and 1997 to make it more equitable, give more privacy protection, slope stability, tree replacement and the word "significant" was added which applied to views. Kempf said Rancho Palos Verdes created a separate ordinance to address City trees similar to Laguna Beach. She said the appellate court determined the ordinance was constitutional and enforceable in Kempf said that after visiting Rancho Palos Verdes, the Committee held another public meeting, reviewed the findings with the community and asked residents to submit pictures of their view issues to the Committee. She showed photos of the following sites that the Committee and Councilmember Boyd visited: 832 La Vista Drive 917 La Mirada Street 1047 Katella Street rd Avenue rd Avenue rd Avenue rd Avenue 1455 Bounty Way 1475 Bounty Way 581 Dunnegan Drive -3-

15 Laguna Beach City Council Minutes March 25, 2014 Larry Nokes discussed the public hearing and explained the following drafting process: Use of other legal ordinances Public comments on drafts Testing concepts and provisions with the public Received input from staff and the City Attorney Harmonized the ordinance with existing statutes Fees and allocation of costs were priced in a way to cover frivolous issues and expenses He noted that the Committee was not making a recommendation as to how the City should cover the expenses. Nokes said the Committee used the Rancho Palos Verdes system as a guide for fees and allocation of costs. He said Rancho Palos Verdes' philosophy was that the fees should discourage frivolous use of the statute and cover the City's cost. He said one of the first things the Committee looked at was the Hedge Height claim provision. Nokes said staff suggested possibly incorporating the hedge height issue into the new view ordinance; however, he said the draft proposal was incredibly unpopular with the public. He noted that if the Hedge Height Ordinance worked, there was no need to get rid of it. Nokes stated that after several meetings the Committee came up with a proposed amendment to the existing view ordinance vegetation statute that would give property owners the right to preserve existing views and right to restore pre-existing views. Nokes said the proposed amendment provided the following: Provided terms and definitions Established criteria for view impairment evaluation Assigned the costs of the process and view restorative actions Specified exemptions from the ordinance Established enforcement provisions He said the major substantive issues were: Restoration claim date threshold Significant view impairment determination Applicable vegetation vegetation height exemption Applicable vegetation hedges Ordinance exemptions Mediation Implementation costs (Budgeted $325,000 per year) Nokes explained the following view preservation process and the mediation process: The property owner files an application to establish an official record of views with the City Staff conducts a site visit and photographically documents the existing views selected by the property owner -4-

16 Laguna Beach City Council Minutes March 25, 2014 Staff sends a written notice to the affected vegetation owners within 500 feet informing them of the requested views, the associated maintenance responsibilities (There is an opportunity to respond within 14 calendar days) The Director of Community Development considers all information and comments, makes a determination and notifies the parties involved. Opportunity to appeal the Director's determination Record of views approval Record of views enforcement Nokes said Rancho Palos Verdes solved 90 percent of view issues through mediation because they had a very skilled mediator, and she said Rancho Palos Verdes strongly recommended that the City hire a very skilled mediator. He listed the methods by which the views needed to be restored. Nokes said the Committee recommended a one-year moratorium on the enactment of the enforcement clauses leaving only the mediation provision as a pilot program for one year with the understanding that the ordinance would go into effect one year after the mediation provision was implemented. He said the Committee worked to achieve a workable ordinance with the help of staff and the public, and he said it was now up to the City Council to fine tune how the ordinance would be implemented. Questions of Staff: Councilmember Toni Iseman said the City Council received numerous s over the last few weeks regarding the proposed ordinance. She said she was surprised that the Hedge Height Ordinance was proposed to be changed, which she said was a good tool. Iseman asked whether the Council wanted to address the hedge height issue so that precious time was not spent during Public Testimony on an issue that might be resolved. Mayor Pearson said that previously the Hedge Height Ordinance related only to the setback area and the proposal was to fold the Hedge Height Ordinance into the new vegetation ordinance. She confirmed with Nokes that the Hedge Height Ordinance would only relate to the setback area as proposed. She questioned how 'hedge' was defined in the proposed ordinance. Pearson said that if the Council had in the past defined a hedge as any vegetation that formed a wall that blocked a view, she confirmed that a hedge would be enforceable by however the Council defined the term "hedge." She said the definition had to be more than one tree; she said a hedge could be formed by the top or bottom of vegetation. She reiterated that the City Council would determine the definition of a hedge. Nokes stated that "a hedge was a row of closely planted dense shrubs or grass as so aligned as to form a physical barrier boundary or fence." Chris Toy said the existing hedge ordinance included the word tree as part of the definition which had been dropped from the proposed ordinance. The Councilmembers agreed to not change the definition of a hedge. Nokes clarified that the Council's intent for the definition of a hedge was "any portion of trees growing together that would create a view blockage." -5-

17 Laguna Beach City Council Minutes March 25, 2014 Mayor Pearson asked why a hedge could only be in the setback area and why it could not be created in the middle of a lot. She said a hedge should be considered anywhere on a property as long as the vegetation created a wall. Mayor Pearson stated that the City Council would not make a decision on the proposed ordinance tonight and she urged the public to provide constructive input. Public Testimony: The following people provided the below input on the proposed view ordinance. Chris Toy, Katie Koster, Walker Reed, Mimi Healy, Ganka Brown, Charlotte Masarik, Don Komorous, Sandra Desmond, John Dorr, Bob Hartman, Marlene Bram, Annette Huling, Dave Adelsohn, Joann Sutch, Liza Stewart, Ginger Osborne, John Thomas, John Keith, Amy Hundhausen, Margarita Martin, Kathleen Kane, Catherine Hall, Greg Gilroy, Roger Davis, David Adams, Stephanee Freedman, Bob Chapman, Bob Carblil, Ron Wisecup and Ruben Flores The City had said that the property owners shall indemnify and defend the City which Chris Toy said was not acceptable and should be removed. Remove the requirement that you have to prove you had a "pre-existing" view when you purchased your home. Support the provisions that allow "multiple viewing areas" to be considered for view protection. Remove the language that omits guest houses from view protection. Fees excessively high, $6,000 is too much and would disenfranchise individuals that were not wealthy. + The "loser pays" method would incentivize both parties to work toward solutions rather than creating barriers, delaying the process and creating more costs. + Mediation costs should be split A fair ordinance should address view preservation needs of multiple neighbors. Do not lose sight of the beauty and character of Laguna Beach that came from views and trees. Should be put to a public vote. Address juvenile growth of vegetation. If someone was unable to talk to or contact a property owner there should be another way to correspond such as providing proof that a registered letter was mailed. Real Estate Agent Bob Hartman said every one of his clients would like to have a view. Growth that had been allowed to grow for 20 to 30 years should be addressed. Determine a fair effective date of a property owner's view. Not when a property was purchased. The effective date should go back as far as possible. -6-

18 Laguna Beach City Council Minutes March 25, 2014 The ordinance lacks a higher purpose and focuses of two parties. "Saving the unique views of Laguna Beach, irreplaceable natural resources and an asset in need of protection for the benefit of current residents, visitors and future generations alike." + The ordinance needed to be written more clearly, the proposed ordinance left a lot of room for interpretation. Blending the hedge ordinance with an applicable vegetation height exemption. Concerned about not having an arborist or horticulturist on the panel. The purchase date of a home is important and they urged new buyers to document their views and to do their homework. + The ordinance should be a balance between the trees and views. There was concern that the City would spend so much money that other City programs would be eliminated. The process being proposed was for the benefit of one specific property owner at the expense of another specific property owner which was a forced transfer of property rights. Council discussion regarding South Laguna Heritage Trees concluded that the City did not have the authority to tell a property owner what he can or cannot do with a tree on his property. The ordinance takes the exact opposite position and gives the City authority to tell a property owner what he can and cannot do with vegetation on his property. Seems inconsistent. Appointed administrators or an enforcement committee would be inherently biased. If the ordinance resulted in massive elimination of vegetation Citywide, there was concern that the City could lose character as a whole which could cause a loss of overall economic value to all property owners in the City and outweigh individual gains. Other impacted property owners should be noticed as well as the claimant and vegetation owner. Too subjective, not a lot of transparency and lacked guidelines. Gives too much power to staff by authorizing the Director of Community Development to record an existing view. + Clearly specify how photographs of views should be taken. There are many ways to distort views on cameras. Implement the ordinance as soon as possible; one year is too long of a trial period. Not in favor of the preexisting view requirement because some property owners might not care or maintain their views. This would affect new owners who would like to have a view. : When projects go before the Design Review Board, require that the vegetation be maintained at a certain height. Proposed draft not fair, not reasonable, does not have teeth. Expand definition of Hedge Height Ordinance to include all vegetation on all areas of the property. The Council should adopt the philosophy that views are important to the City as a whole. -7-

19 Laguna Beach City Council Minutes March 25, 2014 Laguna Beach should adopt the exact same ordinance as Rancho Palos Verdes which has been successful. The foliage and trees in the way are above rooflines and the proposed ordinance would establish a discretionary review process where the City would end up with subjective decisions based on objective criteria. Do not change the existing hedge ordinance. Consider the height of the trees that are 14 feet and above. The proposed noticing requirement was 500 feet and the City should follow Rancho Palos Verdes' noticing requirement of 1000 feet. Reconsider the 100-foot notice limitation. Need an ordinance for City trees. City trees are in poor care and maintenance might be needed more than once a year. + Came down to community and love thy neighbor, sometimes a six-foot tree is a view blocker, needs to be more bite in the hedge ordinance and enforcement. Enforcement needs to be quicker. Councilmember Dicterow confirmed with Nokes that a maintenance schedule would be required when someone goes through the hedge or view preservation process. Mayor Pearson said the hearing was one of the most civil and efficient hearings she had been to in a long time and she thanked everyone for their constructive input and questions. Bob Borthwick said he, Susan Whitin and Chris Toy formed a subcommittee regarding City trees. He said privately planted trees on public property would be treated the same as private trees because they were not part of a City tree planting program. Borthwick said public trees would be trees that in public parks, City property or City maintained street trees. He said Rancho Palos Verdes found that it would be better to have two separate ordinances for City maintained trees and private trees. Nokes said the level of civility was consistent throughout the entire process. He thanked the public for their continued efforts. Nokes thanked Bob Chapman for all his help and for being generous with his time. He said the law was very clear that the City had the right to legitimately exercise police powers to advance aesthetic processes. Nokes said the proposed ordinance did not itself compel the physical invasion of anyone's property. He said that only when someone refused to comply with the proposed resolution the ordinance would kick in. Nokes said a person could grow and maintain anything on their property that they desired; however, he said if the vegetation interfered with somebody else, the person affected could then start the claim process. Chris Toy stated that trees planted in the public right-of-way must be maintained by those who planted them.

20 Laguna Beach City Council Minutes March 25, 2014 Council Comments: City Manager Pietig thanked the committee for their outstanding work and for the meaningful comments by the public. He noted that the Committee was not involved with the issue of the indemnification language, and he said that clearly the language missed its mark and there were unintended consequences. Pietig recommended that Council direct staff to take another look at the language. He said a lot of work had been done and there were still some things that needed more work which was why the Committee did not recommend that anything be approved tonight. Pietig said that on the hedge ordinance issue, Rancho Palos Verdes did not have a hedge claim process that he was aware of so there were issues trying to incorporate a view preservation and restoration ordinance with an existing hedge ordinance. He said there were perceived benefits associated with the mediation provisions of the view preservation and restoration process that did not exist in the hedge claim process. Pietig stated that he was very happy to hear that so many people believed the hedge ordinance was working and were supportive of it. He said the bad news was the cost associated with documenting, writing reports, taking pictures, holding mediations, writing follow up actions, providing code enforcement and going to litigation which were real expenses that at some point would need to be presented to the City Council with recommendations to accommodate them. Pietig said the good news was that the Council had already had the foresight to set aside $325,000 a year to cover staffing, vehicles, mediation, enforcement, etcetera. He said the City had an obligation to maintain City trees and the Committee agreed that an ordinance was needed and a draft was prepared to address City trees. Pietig noted that there would be a cost associated with maintaining the trees. Councilmember Boyd thanked the Committee for all of their work. He said phase one was complete and he appreciated all the input. Boyd said he would like to request that he and Councilmember Dicterow work together as a subcommittee, and said he would like to be able to call on Larry Nokes, Sue Kempf and Bob Chapman for their expertise and input. He said that from this point on if the Council would agree, he and Councilmember Dicterow would review all the documentation from the meeting tonight, and he said they would come back to the Council with their recommendations. Councilmember Iseman thanked the Committee for their work on the proposal. She said she appreciated the skill set and detail that was put into the report. Iseman thanked Councilmember Boyd for bringing the item forward and making it happen. She said she did not know she had a view blockage until she could not see the fireworks on Fourth of July. Iseman noted that one of the important details she heard was that more Code Enforcement was needed. She said Laguna Beach was not a planned community and that's what made the proposed ordinance so difficult. Iseman said it was possible for a 10-foot tree to be more offensive than a 20-foot tree, depending on where the tree was located. She said she was concerned about the distribution of the expense, and she said $6,000 upfront was a lot of money. Iseman said she was concerned that the City might start losing trees because it would be less expensive to cut down a tree rather than trim and maintain a tree. She mentioned the importance, value and benefit of trees to the community. Iseman said trees needed to be property trimmed, and she said a recognized arborist in the community might be more reasonably priced. She said she was concerned about the $6,000 fee and she would prefer to see the cost go toward trimming the trees. Iseman said she did not want people to feel pressured to cut their trees down due to the cost. -9-

21 Laguna Beach City Council Minutes March 25, 2014 Mayor Pro Tern Whalen said the Committee did a great job and the public input was valuable. He said he agreed that the indemnity item needed to be removed. Whalen discussed the timing issue, which was the date of purchase or an earlier date, and he said he would like to figure out a way for the City to concede that there might be a view right that predates the date of purchase when drafting the ordinance. He said he wondered if there was a concept of really egregious view blockage that might have another standard that could go back further than the date of purchase. Whalen said he was concerned about the cost upfront and the proposed fee was too expensive. He said a guest house should not be exempt from view preservation. Whalen stated that the keys to making the proposed ordinance work would be a great mediator and enforcement. Councilmember Dicterow thanked Councilmember Boyd, the Committee and the public. He said the City Council would approve something as far as amending the view ordinance and he was absolutely sure that no one would be 100 percent satisfied; however, he said the Council would have the ability to make changes and change course quickly if needed. Dicterow said he expected that in the first several years there would be high levels of activity and more cost for the City in terms of applications and litigation and at some point the activity and costs would taper off. He said all the hard work had already been done by the Committee, and he said he and Councilmember Boyd would work together to tighten up and clarify the proposed ordinance and report back to the City Council. Dicterow noted that as far as the indemnity, if he were the City Attorney, he would insist on the indemnity but as a policy maker he was really against it. He stated that the proposed ordinance was intended to be for the general benefit of the City as a whole. Dicterow said that as far as the date determining the view, he said he liked what Councilmember Whalen said about the idea of having a different set of rules for egregious situations in order to go back before the date of purchase. He said he would look into including guest houses in the ordinance, and he said it was not fair to have the claimant pay $6,000 upfront. Dicterow said that he and Councilmember Boyd would discuss the initial fee to get the process started and who should pay the balance of the fees if the claimant wins. He stated that strengthening the maintenance schedule and having a contact person at the City were important issues. Dicterow said he was not sure if he agreed with the Committee on waiting a year to implement certain parts of process, and he said he would like to get the proposed ordinance in full force as soon as possible. He indicated that he would make sure vegetation on City property was addressed and handled, and he said he and Councilmember Boyd would discuss and come up with a proper distance for the vegetation. Dicterow stated that having the right person to conduct mediation would make a big difference. Councilmember Boyd said the first thing that bothered him was the $6,000 cost which was way too much. He said the individual that was blocking the view, if they lose, should pay the cost of trimming the vegetation, or in worst case scenario, split the cost. Boyd said he did not want to wait another year to get the process going and he would take everything said into consideration in order to move forward as quickly as possible.

22 Laguna Beach City Council Minutes March 25, 2014 Mayor Pearson said one of the things she learned from being 18 years with the City was that everyone tends to put energy and resources into the things that they value, and she noted that the City had put over $300,000 a year into this particular value. She said that when people move to Laguna Beach and buy a home, she said many people buy a home for the view and pay a premium for their view. Pearson indicated that it was important to preserve the Hedge Height ordinance, and she said the City needed to have a clear definition in order to properly enforce and handle legal issues. She said the City needed a point person on the issues, and she realized that the job would almost be fulltime. Pearson noted the importance of documenting the view at the time a property was purchased, and she said if the documented view changed overtime because of someone else's vegetation, then that would be grounds for a claim. She said the person that caused the problem should pay and it was not right for the person that made the claim and had their view obstructed to bear the entire cost. Moved by Mayor Pearson seconded by Councilmember Iseman and carried unanimously 5/0 to appoint Councilmember Boyd and Councilmember Dicterow as a subcommittee to take the View Ordinance as it relates to the City and the residents to the next level. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:43 P.M. TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2014, TO THE JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AT 9:00 A.M., SATURDAY, MARCH 29, 2014, AT THE SENIOR/COMMUNITY CENTER COMMUNITY ROOM 380 THIRD STREET, LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA Approved April 22, Elizabeth Pearson, Mayor Lisette Chel-Walker, City Clerk

23 Laguna Beach Hedge Height Claim Process Initial Communication Claimant makes a cooperative attempt to resolve the hedge view or sunlight conflict with the hedge owner. Hedge Height Claim Aoolication If initial communication does not resolve the hedge issue, an impacted owner can prepare and file a Hedge Height Claim application with the City. (Once an application is filed, hedge owners are prohibited from altering or removing the vegetation that is subject to the Hedge Height Claim application.) Staff Review Staff (including the landscape architect or arborist under contract with the City to review claims) reviews the Hedge Height Claim application, visits the site in question and determines application validity. Administrative Hearing and Resolution Determination Staff sends a written notice not less than 10 calendar days prior to an administrative public hearing to property owners within 100 feet of the claimant's property. The City holds a public hearing and considers all information and comments, and makes a determination for resolution of the Hedge Height Claim application. (Staff sends a written determination to the applicant and affected hedge owners. If an appeal is not filed within 14 calendar days, the Director's determination becomes final.) Appeal of Director Determination If an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days after the decision by the City landscape architect acting on behalf of the Director of Community Development, the City Clerk sets a date for the City Council appeal public hearing. Staff sends the affected property owners a public hearing notice 14 calendar days prior to the hearing. At the appeal hearing, the City Council makes a final determination regarding the Hedge Height Claim application. Height Claim Resolution If it is determined that a hedge higher than the allowable fence height in a setback area is blocking a view or sunlight, the resolution determined by the Director of Community Development or City Council on appeal is specified. Usually the hedge height must be reduce to a certain specified height limit. Staff sends a written notice to affected hedge owners informing them of the I required restorative actions and any associated maintenance requirements. Hedge Height Claim Resolution Enforcement If the approved hedge height limits are not maintained as required, staff starts code enforcement in order to obtain compliance.

24 Laguna Beach View Preservation Process Property Owner Files Application Property owner files an application to establish an official record of views with the City. Once a record of views is officially established, those established views cannot become significantly impaired by future vegetation growth and are subject to code enforcement protection. Site Visit and Documentation Staff conducts a site visit and photographically documents the existing views selected by the property owner. Notice to Vegetation Owners Staff finalizes the photographic documentation as the official record of views. Affected vegetation owners within 500 feet are sent a letter informing them of the established record of views and associated maintenance responsibilities. Record of Views Approval If a record of views is established, staff maintains it in the applicable property address files, and notes it within any Real Property Report required by Municipal Code Chapter Record of Views Enforcement If the approved record of views becomes significantly impaired in the future, staff starts code enforcement in order to obtain compliance of unimpaired views of record. Staff's determination of whether or not views of record are significantly impaired can be appealed to City Council within 14 calendar day's of staff's determination by any of the affected parties.

25 Laguna Beach View Restoration Process Initial Communication and Mediation 1st Phase Initial Communication Claimant makes a cooperative attempt to resolve the view conflict with vegetation owner without City involvement. No agreement is reached. Agreement is reached. Claimant submits for a Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Claim. Vegetation owner agrees to a mediation meeting. Mediation Staff sends a Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Claim to affected vegetation owners requesting a mediation meeting response within 14 days. Vegetation owner fails to respond.-- Staff schedules for a mediation meeting. A mediation meeting is held with affected persons, staff and mediator to discuss the view restoration process, and an effort is made to achieve a mutually acceptable resolution of the view issue. Vegetation owner does not attend mediation meeting-- or a resolution agreement is not reached. Resolution agreement. Staff prepares a written agreement outlining the agreed upon view restoration and maintenance provisions that is signed by the affected persons. View restoration agreements are privately maintained and implemented without City involvement. View is restored. Claimant applies for a View Restoration Claim.

26 Laguna Beach View Restoration Process View Restoration Claim 2" d Phase View Restoration Claim Claimant applies for a View Restoration Claim. (Application is allowed only after completion of required initial communication and mediation phase). Claimant must provide adequate proof of a pre-existing view. After application is deemed complete, staff prepares a staff report, which may include an arborist report. Staff prepares and sends out a View Restoration Claim public hearing notice to the claimant and affected vegetation owners 14 days prior to the View Restoration Claim public hearing. No determination of significant view impairment of a pre-existing view. View Restoration Hearing After the View Restoration Committee (VRC) members visit the site to view the claimant's view and vegetation at issue, a public hearing is held. At the hearing, the VRC considers all testimony and information, and then determines whether or not there is significant view impairment of a pre-existing view per the definitions and criteria set forth in the View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance. Staff sends the claimant a written notice that the View Restoration Claim is denied and the explanation of the process for an appeal to City Council. The decision of the VRC is final unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Significant view impairrnent of a pre-existing view is determined. Claimant files an appeal. Staff sends all parties a follow-up transmittal letter with a View Restoration Order containing the required findings, required specific view restorative actions and future vegetation maintenance conditions and responsibilities. An explanation of the appeal process to City Council by any party is also sent. The decision of the VRC is final unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Appeal is filed. Appeal If an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days after the decision by the VRC, the City Manager sets a date for the City Council appeal public hearing. Staff sends the affected property owners a public hearing notice 14 calendar days prior to the hearing. City Council Decision At the appeal hearing, the City Council makes a final determination regarding the View Restoration Claim. Staff sends all parties the appropriate follow-up transmittal letters with required attachments.

27 Laguna Beach View Restoration Process View Restoration Order 3 rd Phase View Restoration Order Staff sends the view claimant and vegetation owners the View Restoration Order (VRO), which outlines the required specific view restorative actions and future vegetation maintenance conditions and responsibilities. Bid and Deposit The VRO contains the notification of and condition that the view claimant is required to obtain bids for the required restorative action, from a licensed, bonded and insured tree service contractor and post a deposit for that cost with the City within 30 days. Vegetation Trimming After the view claimant establishes a deposit trust account with the City and deposits the funds to pay for the required restorative action, staff sends the vegetation owner a 90-day notice to contract with the tree trimming service and to perform the required restorative action. After the required restorative action is performed and staff verifies all of the terms of the VRO, the vegetation owner is paid for the cost of the work from the funds held in the deposit trust account. View is Restored Enforcement If there is any VRO noncompliance issue, either initially or long-term in regardsi to on-going vegetation limits or property access issues, City staff starts the processes to obtain the appropriate legal access authorization and code I enforcement and/or nuisance abatement in order to authorize and obtain compliance. Liens or assessments recorded against the vegetation owner's property are allowed.

28 RESOLUTION NO. 14. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH ESTABLISHING FEES RELATING TO THE PROCESSING OF CLAIMS AND APPEALS REGARDING HEDGE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS (LAGUNA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 12.14) AND VIEW RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION (LAGUNA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 12.16) WHEREAS, the City Council has enacted Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 12.14relating to Hedge Height Limitations; WHEREAS, on June, 2014, the City Council voted to approve second reading and adopt an Ordinance amending Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter relating to View Preservation and Restoration); and WHEREAS, Section (f) and Section of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to establish fees for processing applications and requests filed under the provisions of Chapter (Hedge Height Limitations) and Chapter (View Preservation and Restoration); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Laguna Beach hereby resolves and establishes the following fees for processing applications and requests filed under the provisions of Chapter (Hedge Height Limitations) and Chapter (View Preservation and Restoration): View Preservation or View Restoration $2,500 Appeal Fee to City Council Hedge Height Claim Appeal Fee to City $650 Council Hedge Height Claim Application $630 View Preservation or Restoration Claim or $630 Application View Mediation (Paid by claimant unless an $500 Minimum alternative agreement is reached among the Plus Actual Costs parties.) over Minimum

29 ADOPTED this day of June, Elizabeth Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk I, LISETE CHEL-WALKER, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 14. was duly adopted at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of said City held on June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER(S) NOES: COUNCILMEMBER(S) ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER(S) City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, CA 2

30 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA AMENDING CHAPTER OF THE LAGUNA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION OF VIEWS SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIRED BY VEGETATION, AND ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION The City Council of the City of Laguna Beach does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter (entitled "View Preservation") is hereby retitled and amended to read in its entirety as follows: Chapter View Preservation and Restoration Intent and Purpose Definitions Criteria for Determining Significant View Impairment View Preservation View Restoration Cost Apportionment City Immunity; No Mandatory Duty Exemptions Legal Access Requirement View Decisions Binding on Future Owners Disclosure Obligations Violations Penalties Fees Intent and Purpose. (A) The City Council declares that the peace, health, safety and welfare of the community will be served by the adoption of this Chapter. The City Council recognizes that residents, property owners and businesses cherish their outward views, and that they also cherish the benefits of plentiful sunlight reaching their buildings and yards. The City Council further recognizes that both outward views and plentiful sunlight reaching property contribute greatly to the quality of life in Laguna Beach, and promote the general welfare of the entire community. The City Council also recognizes the desire of many of its residents, property owners and businesses for beautiful and plentiful landscaping, including trees. The City Council realizes that this desire may sometimes conflict with the preservation of views and sunlight, and that disputes related to view or sunlight obstruction are inevitable. Owners and residents should maintain trees on their property in a healthy condition for both safety reasons and for preservation of outward views and sunlight.

31 (B) It is a purpose of this Chapter to establish a right for property owners to determine and to preserve those selected viewing locations or areas from significant view impairment by the growth of trees or other vegetation. (C) It is a further purpose of this Chapter to establish a right for property owners to restore pre-existing views that have been significantly impaired by trees or other vegetation. (D) The determination of a significant view impairment is intended to attain an equitable balance between the right to reasonable use and enjoyment of one's property (landscape vegetation), including the maintenance of privacy, and the right to protection against unreasonable loss of views. (E) In order to establish rights pursuant to this Chapter, persons must follow the processes set forth in this Chapter. (F) This Chapter is not intended to encourage or result in the clear-cutting or substantial denuding of any property of its trees or other vegetation by overzealous application of provisions of this Chapter. It is not the intent or purpose of this Chapter for the City to supersede, limit, supplant or otherwise affect any obligations imposed by private covenants, conditions and restrictions, any deed restrictions, any easements or other similar enforceable private agreements that place more restrictive controls on the growth or placement of trees or other vegetation. It is also not the intent or purpose of this Chapter to rescind, modify or otherwise alter any prior City-issued tree or vegetation height entitlement, including without limitation a landscape plan in which vegetation height limits were approved through the design review process specified in Section , or a completed hedge claim pursuant to Chapter 12.14, or a completed view claim pursuant to Chapter that was processed prior to (the effective date of this Ordinance). (G) This Chapter applies to all properties within the boundaries of the City and the City's permitting jurisdiction, excluding property owned by the State of California or the County of Orange Defmitions. The following definitions shall apply for purposes of this Chapter. "Alter" means to take action that changes the vegetation, including but not limited to, pruning of the canopy area, cutting, girdling, changing the water supply, applying chemicals or re-grading around the feeder root zone of the vegetation. "Authorized agent" means a person who has been designated and approved in writing by the property owner of record to act on his, her or its behalf in matters pertaining to view preservation or view restoration pursuant to this Chapter

32 "Burden of proof' means the obligation of a claimant to produce substantial evidence supporting a description of the nature and extent of the alleged view impairment of preexisting views. Substantial evidence means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from such information that a fair argument can be made on the basis of the entire record to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Substantial evidence may include, but is not limited to, documented and date stamped photographic prints, slides, negatives or movies. In addition, written testimony from persons with actual knowledge about pre-existing views may be provided regarding the extent to which pre-existing views have been significantly impaired by vegetation. Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or evidence that is clearly erroneous or inaccurate shall not constitute substantial evidence. "Certified arborist" means a person with an education and experience in arboriculture or horticulture and is a Registered Consulting Arborist (RCA) of the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) and/or International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist. The certified arborist shall be chosen by staff from a list of qualified and professionally trained persons with whom the City has a contract to provide arborist services. "Canopy" means the umbrella-like structure created by the overhead leaves and branches of a tree or shrub. "City" means the City of Laguna Beach and its City Council, employees and staff and those designated by the City Council or City staff to act on behalf of the City. "City-maintained vegetation" means vegetation designated for maintenance by the City. Such vegetation includes vegetation in City parks, on City properties, and City maintained street trees within rights of way. City-maintained vegetation is exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. "City property" means any real property of which the City is the fee simple owner of record. "Claimant" means any residential property owner or authorized agent who alleges that applicable vegetation located within the 500-feet of their property is causing a significant view impairment. "Hedge" means generally dense vegetation so aligned as to form a physical barrier or fence. "Heritage tree" means any tree or stand of vegetation that have been placed on the Heritage Tree list by the City Council pursuant to Chapter Any designated Heritage Tree is exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. "Mediator" means a neutral, objective third party professional negotiator or facilitator to help disputing parties reach a mutually satisfactory solution regarding a view claim. The mediator shall be chosen by staff from a list of qualified and professionally trained

33 mediators with whom the City has a contract to provide mediation services. "Person" means any individual, individuals, corporation, partnership, firm or other legal entity. "Pre-existing views" means one or more visual scenes from selected viewing locations or areas that are not significantly impaired by vegetation and that existed on or after either the date of acquisition of the claimant's property or November 4, 2003 (the effective date of Ordinance No relating to view preservation), whichever is earlier. It shall be the claimant's responsibility to sustain the burden of proof for establishing and substantiating pre-existing views. "Principal residence" and "principal residential structure" means the primary residential structure located on a lot. Guest houses, granny flats, second units and vacant lots or parcels shall not be considered principal residences or principal residential structures. "Privacy" means reasonable protection from intrusive visual observation. "Privately maintained vegetation in right of way" means private property owners adjacent to vegetation in the public or private right-of-way areas along developed or undeveloped "paper street" roadways, which are responsible for vegetation maintenance not specifically designated by the City for City maintenance. Privately maintained vegetation in right of way is subject to the provisions of this Chapter. "Record of views" means the photographic documentation of the selected views from a particular site, established pursuant to this Chapter and kept on file by the City. "Removal' means the destruction or displacement of vegetation by cutting or other mechanical method, which results in physical transportation of the vegetation from its site and/or death of the vegetation. "Restoration action" means steps undertaken to eliminate a significant impairment of views, and may include, but is not limited to, removal or alteration and maintenance of vegetation at a designated maximum height by trimming, thinning or reducing the height or width of vegetation on a vegetation owner's property or privately maintained vegetation in right of way. "Selected viewing locations or areas" means one or more locations or areas chosen by the property owner(s) from an owner's principal residential structure which are used to observe one or more views. Hallways, closets, mechanical rooms, bathrooms and garages shall not be considered or used as selected viewing locations or areas. "Shall" and "May." "Shall" is mandatory and "may" is permissive

34 "Significant view impairment" means the obstruction or diminishment of a view to such a substantial extent that the desirable features of the view are blocked from viewing, and such obstruction is attributable to vegetation growth, lack of appropriate vegetation maintenance and/or inappropriate vegetation location. Section establishes criteria for determining significant view impairment. "Street" means the entire dimension of ownership (right of way) along developed roadways, including vehicular paving, sidewalks and planted or natural areas. "Vegetation" means woody type plants or grasses taller than six (6) feet in height with the potential to obstruct views. "Vegetation" includes without limitation trees, shrubs, grasses, hedges and bushes. However, "vegetation" shall not include any type of vegetation affected by a prior City tree or vegetation height entitlement, such as a landscape plan in which vegetation height limits were approved through the Design Review process specified in Section or finalized hedge or view claim. In addition, "vegetation" shall not include Heritage Trees or City-maintained vegetation. "Vegetation owner" means a person owning property, including underlying fee-ownership of privately maintained vegetation in right of way, containing vegetation that a claimant alleges is causing a significant view impairment. "View" means a sight of a visual scene from a fixed vantage point or location from a property owner's principal residential structure. The term "view" does not mean an unobstructed panorama of the features in a visual scene. "View dispute" means a disagreement between neighbors regarding vegetation that may be significantly impairing views. "View preservation" means the establishment and maintenance of views as they exist when a record of views has been established pursuant to the provisions of Section "View preservation claim or view restoration claim" means an application submitted to the City by a claimant who alleges that a view has been significantly impaired by vegetation. "View restoration" means the re-establishment of pre-existing views as they existed on or after either the claimant's property acquisition date or November 4, 2003 (the effective date of Ordinance No relating to view preservation), whichever is earlier. "View restoration committee" means the five-member committee appointed by the City Council to determine view restoration claims brought by a claimant under the provisions of this Chapter. "View restoration order" means a directive issued by the City, requiring restorative action to be performed taken regarding vegetation located on a vegetation owner's property in order to restore a claimant's view

35 "Visual scene" means the arraignment of features that form the scenic environment and may include, but is not limited to, bodies of water, beaches, white water, coastlines, skylines, islands, ridges, hillside terrains, canyons, geologic features or landmarks Criteria for Determining Significant View Impairment. The determination of a significant view impairment shall be made by evaluating and balancing the types and benefits of the view to be protected and the nature and significance of the vegetation benefits. The following criteria shall be considered in determining whether a significant view impairment has occurred: (A) The quality and veracity of the evidence provided in support of establishing the extent of the view. (B) The nature and extent to which the vegetation obstructs a view. (C) The location of the obstruction within a view frame. Vegetation located within the center of a view is more likely to be found to create significant impairment than vegetation located on the outer edge of a view. (D) Some view frames contain a combination of different view components, such as a view of the ocean and downtown area (multi-component view); while some view frames consist entirely of one component, such as only a view of the ocean (single-component view). Vegetation that entirely obscures one of the components of a multi-component view is more likely to be found to create a significant view impairment than vegetation that impairs a portion of view of a single-component view. (E) The nature and quality of the view being obstructed, including obstruction of landmarks, vistas or other unique features. (F) The nature and extent to which the view has been diminished over time by factors other than vegetation growth, such as new neighboring structural additions or residences. (G) The nature and extent to which the view contributes to the enjoyment of the claimant's property. (H) The selected viewing areas or locations may make a vantage point difference in determining the significance of the view impairment. (I) The nature and extent of the vegetation obstructing a view and whether that vegetation has been properly maintained or has transitioned into a state of overgrowth

36 View Preservation. (A) Establishment of a protected or preserved view. A property owner may establish a protected or preserved view by filing for a record of views with the City. Once a record of views is established by the City pursuant to subsection (B), the protected or preserved views shall not become subject to significant view impairment. Established record of views may not be changed unilaterally by the property owner; provided, however, that upon application by the property owner to do so, the City may change an established record of views in the event there is a subsequent remodel or physical change to the selected viewing locations or areas. (B) Record of views. Upon the filing for a record of views, City staff shall conduct a site visit and photographically document the significantly unimpaired view of the property owner from the property owner's selected viewing locations or areas. A record of views shall be prepared, maintained in the applicable property address files, and noted in any Real Property Report required by Chapter Staff shall send written notice to affected vegetation property owners within 500 feet informing them of the record of views and their associated maintenance responsibilities. (C) Record of views enforcement procedure. If a significant view impairment of an established record of views occurs, the property owner shall notify the City. If a significant view impairment is confirmed, City staff shall inform the affected vegetation owner(s) of a potential view restoration order and allow the vegetation owner 30 days to perform the necessary restorative action. If the vegetation owner(s) does not perform the necessary restorative action, then the City may issue a view restoration order and require the restorative action to be completed within 90 days. If compliance is not obtained within 90 days, then the noncomplying vegetation may be declared to be a public nuisance, and the procedures of Chapter 7.24 shall be followed, including the issuance of a formal Notice and Order to Abate. Any determination of a significant view impairment decision made by City staff may be appealed to the City Council. Appeals shall be addressed to the City Council on a form prescribed by the City and shall state all grounds for the appeal. Any appeal must be filed with the City Clerk within fourteen (14) calendar days of the notice to the vegetation owner regarding the required restorative action. Appeals shall be accompanied by the filing fee as adopted by resolution of the City Council. The City Manager shall set the date for an appeal public hearing before the City Council and shall not be limited by the time period specified in Section (B)(6). Notice shall be provided to the claimant and the record owners and occupants of all properties on which the vegetation at issue in the significant view impairment decision fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the date of the City Council hearing of the appeal. If an appeal to the City Council is filed and is heard and decided by the City Council, then the nuisance abatement appeal provisions (Sections through ) shall not be applicable

37 View Restoration. (A) Re-establishment of pre-existing views. A property owner may make an application to re-establish pre-existing views. Once preexisting views are re-established, the applicable vegetation owners shall maintain the vegetation to preserve the pre-existing views. (B) View restoration claim limitations. Subject to the other provisions of this chapter, a real property owner in the City may initiate a view restoration claim process to re-establish pre-existing views as outlined below. However, a claim to remedy obstruction of views from neighboring properties may only be made regarding vegetation that: 1) is six (6) feet or higher; 2) is located on real property that is within five hundred (500) feet of the claimant's real property boundary; 3) is a claim pertaining to the same vegetation that has not been initiated and acted upon by the City against that real property by the same complainant(s) or subsequent owner(s) of the complainant's property; and 4) is not one of the types of vegetation exempt from the provisions of this Chapter pursuant to Section (C) Process to re-establish pre-existing views. (1) Initial Communication. A claimant shall first attempt to make a cooperative attempt to informally contact and have a discussion with the vegetation owner to resolve the claimant's view dispute issue. If this initial discussion does not occur or is not successful in resolving the view dispute issue, then the claimant may prepare and apply for a Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Claim. The application shall recite the claimant's intent to pursue a view restoration claim with regard to the affected vegetation owner(s) in accordance with this Chapter. The application shall include photographs of the obstructing vegetation and shall apprise the affected vegetation owner(s) of the particular view or views the claimant wishes to restore. The application shall include a signed statement from the claimant agreeing to meet with a mediator, City staff and each vegetation owner that is to be named in the pending view restoration claim to attempt to resolve the view dispute issue between the parties. (2) Mediation. (a) Upon the filing of the application for a Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Claim set forth in subsection (B)(1), staff will review the application for completeness and verify the lot or lots on which the allegedly obstructing vegetation is located is within 500 feet of the property boundary line of the claimant. When the application is deemed complete, the City shall send by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested the Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Claim to the affected vegetation owner(s). The City's transmittal of the Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Claim shall request that the vegetation owner(s) attend a preapplication mediation meeting to discuss the City's view restoration process with City staff and the claimant. The transmittal shall contain multiple

38 possible meeting times from which the vegetation owner(s) may select. The transmittal shall request that the vegetation owner(s) respond back to the City in writing within 14 calendar days of the mailing of the transmittal with a selected date. The transmittal shall explain the consequences of a failure to respond or to not attend a pre-application mediation meeting. (b) If the vegetation owner(s) responds, the City shall arrange a meeting between the claimant and the vegetation owner(s), City staff and a City mediator. Written notice of the meeting shall be provided by the City to all parties at least seven (7) calendar days prior to the meeting date. The mediator shall be guided by the provisions of this Chapter. The mediator shall strive to enable the parties to resolve the view dispute by written agreement in order to eliminate the need for an application for a view restoration claim, but the mediator shall not have the power to issue binding orders for restorative action. The mediator and City staff shall make a site visit prior to the meeting to view the claimant's obstructed view from the selected view locations or areas and the vegetation at issue. If desired by all parties, additional mediation meetings may be held. (c) Any agreement reached between the parties as a result of the preapplication mediation meeting shall be reduced to writing and signed by the claimant and the vegetation owner(s). Mediation agreements shall be private agreements, which may have private enforcement provisions, and shall not be made part of the City-maintained property address files. (d) Failure of the vegetation owner(s) to respond to the City's transmittal or failure to attend an agreed-upon mediation pre-application meeting shall be deemed to be a refusal of the mediation process. If there is a refusal of the mediation process by the vegetation owner(s) or the mediation was unsuccessful in resolving the view dispute, the claimant may then file an application for a view restoration claim. If there is a refusal of the mediation process by the claimant, the claimant may not file and the City shall not process an application for a view restoration claim. (3) View Restoration Claim. If the provisions of subsections (B)(1) and (B)(2) are exhausted and do not produce a satisfactory result to the claimant, the claimant may submit an application for view restoration claim to the City requesting restoration of pre-existing views. (a) Application and notice. Upon the filing of an application for a view restoration claim, staff will review the application for completeness and the application shall include the information determined to be required by the Community Development Director. This information shall include evidence of the pre-existing views, and it shall be the claimant's responsibility to sustain the burden of proof for establishing and substantiating the pre-existing views. When the application is deemed complete, the City shall mail a public notice to the claimant and the record owners and occupants of all properties on which the vegetation at issue in the view restoration claim is located not less than 14 calendar days before the public hearing

39 (b) Public hearing. The view restoration claim shall be heard by the view restoration committee at a noticed public hearing. (c) Site visit and view restoration hearing. Prior to the view restoration claim hearing, each member of the view restoration committee shall make a site visit to view the claimant's obstructed view from the selected view locations or areas and the vegetation at issue. At the view restoration committee hearing, the committee shall allow the presentation of both verbal and written evidence and arguments from all parties. The view restoration committee shall then consider and determine whether or not there is significant view impairment of preexisting views in accordance with the criteria specified in Section If the view restoration committee determines there is not significant view impairment of pre-existing views, then the view restoration claim shall be deemed denied, and a written notice of that decision shall be prepared and sent to the claimant. If the view restoration committee determines the existence of a significant view impairment, then the committee shall issue a view restoration order for restorative action. (d) Findings required for a view restoration order. The view restoration committee shall issue a view restoration order to require restorative action regarding vegetation that obstructs pre-existing views, if the committee makes all of the following findings: (i) The claimant has provided evidence of a cooperative attempt at initial communication and mediation. (ii) The vegetation at issue is not exempt from the provisions of this Chapter pursuant to Section (iii) There is substantial evidence to support the decision that there is a pre-existing view with significant view impairment according to the criteria specified in Section (iv) Alteration or removal of the vegetation will not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy or other vegetation benefits of the occupants of the property upon which the vegetation is located. (v) Alteration or removal of the vegetation will not have a substantial adverse impact on a hillside, drainage or erosion control. (vi) If the recommended restorative action includes removal, all other restorative actions are ineffective in restoring the preexisting view while preserving the health and aesthetic value of the vegetation, provided that the vegetation owner consents to the removal. (vii) The recommended restorative action is the minimum action required to restore the claimant's pre-existing views

40 (e) Restorative Action Limitations. If the view restoration committee is able to make all of the mandatory findings set forth in subsection (d), then the committee must determine the restorative action that must be taken to restore the pre-existing views. Such actions may include culling, lacing, trimming or removal of the vegetation that is significantly impairing the view from the selected viewing locations or areas. (i) "Culling" shall mean the removal of dead, decayed or weak limbs or vegetation. (ii) "Lacing" shall mean a comprehensive method of pruning that systematically removes excess vegetation, but maintains its shape. (iii) "Trimming" shall mean the removal of limbs or vegetation. Trimming includes, but is not limited to, crown reducing and crown raising. (iv) "Crown reducing" means a comprehensive method of pruning that reduces the height and/or spread of vegetation. Crown reduction entails the reduction of the top, sides or individual limbs by means of removal of the leaders or the longest portion of limbs to a lateral branch large enough to assume the terminal. (v) "Crown raising" means a comprehensive method of pruning that removes limbs and vegetation from the lower part in order to raise the canopy over a view. (vi) "Removal" means the removal and disposal of vegetation by sawing or grinding the limbs, leaves, trunk and stump to the existing grade or a depth below existing grade as determined by the view restoration committee on a case-by-case basis. Removal shall not include or require the removal and disposal of a plant's root system. If any tree or shrub that is ordered to be culled, laced or trimmed dies within two (2) years of the initial work being performed and there was no negligence in appropriate vegetation maintenance, the claimant or any subsequent owner of the claimant's property shall be responsible for providing a replacement tree or shrub to the vegetation owner. This time period may be extended by the view restoration committee, if evidence is provided by a certified arborist that a longer monitoring period is necessary for a specific type of tree or shrub. However, if the City arborist determines that culling, lacing or trimming the vegetation will in all probability cause the vegetation to die, and the vegetation owner chooses not to accept removal and replacement as an option, either in writing or in public testimony at the public hearing, then the claimant shall not be responsible for providing a replacement vegetation to the vegetation owner. If the work is performed by the vegetation owner, the vegetation owner shall forfeit the right to replacement vegetation, if the trimmed vegetation dies. If the vegetation dies, it may be subject to the nuisance abatement provisions of Chapter

41 Complete removal of any vegetation shall only be ordered if the owner of the property on which the vegetation is located consents to such removal of the vegetation, and the view restoration committee finds: (i) That upon the advice of the City's arborist, culling, lacing or trimming the vegetation to an unobstructing view height (six feet or higher as determined by the view restoration committee) is likely to kill the vegetation or threaten the public health, safety and welfare; or (ii) That upon the advice of the City's arborist, culling, lacing or trimming the vegetation to an unobstructing view height (six feet or higher as determined by the view restoration committee) will destroy the aesthetic value of the vegetation that is to be trimmed, laced or reduce in height. Replacement Vegetation. The view restoration committee may also order the claimant to replace vegetation that have been removed, if the owner of the property where the vegetation is located consents to the replacement of the vegetation and the view restoration committee finds that removal without replacement vegetation will cause significant adverse impact on: The public health, safety and welfare; The privacy of the owner of the property on which the vegetation is located; Shade provided to the dwelling or the property on which the vegetation is located; The energy-efficiency of the dwelling on the property on which the vegetation is located; The health or viability of the remaining landscaping on the property on which the vegetation is located; The integrity of the landscaping of the property on which the vegetation is located; or The function of the landscaping as screening of an unfinished wall or structural elements of a deck or other similar structure on an adjacent property. The view restoration committee shall ensure that replacement vegetation is reasonably comparable to the vegetation removed in terms of function and/or aesthetics while understanding the replacement vegetation will not be the same height, size and breadth as the pre-existing mature vegetation. Replacement trees or shrubs should be of a 15-gallon size and shall not be larger than a 24-inch box size, unless warranted by the need to reasonably protect privacy or exceptional circumstances, and the tree or shrub that is being replaced is substantially larger than a 24-inch box size. The view restoration committee shall not be obligated to order replacement of every tree or shrub ordered to be removed with a new tree or shrub. The selection of the type of replacement vegetation may be made by the vegetation owner, subject to the approval of the view restoration committee

42 (g) Conditions. In approving a view restoration order for restorative action, the view restoration committee may impose such restrictions or conditions as deemed necessary or proper to restore a pre-existing view, to protect the vegetation owner's privacy and/or to protect the public health, safety or welfare. The view restoration committee may require that a long-term vegetation maintenance schedule be incorporated into the conditions of approval of an approved view restoration order. The purpose of the maintenance schedule is to mandate the minimum frequency of future trimming (i.e., semi-annual, annual or biennial) based on the growth rate of the subject vegetation so as to not to significantly impair the pre-existing view in the future. Alternatively, the view restoration committee may specify the amount of allowable growth as measured with respect to a fixed point of reference that will not significantly impair the pre-existing view and require that when this point is reached, the vegetation owner shall be required to trim the vegetation back to the height established by the committee. Periodic inspections by the City may occur to ascertain long-term compliance with the view restoration order conditions of approval for restorative action. Claimant shall select an ISA certified tree trimmer or accredited arborist to perform the restorative action and subsequent maintenance unless the vegetation owner prefers to select the ISA certified tree trimmer or accredited arborist. If the vegetation owner selects the arborist, the vegetation owner shall pay the Claimant the difference between the fee charged by the Claimant's arborist and the vegetation owner's arborist unless a different allocation of cost is required by this Chapter or by mutual agreement of the parties. The view restoration committee shall also require that the claimant submit one (1) to three (3) itemized estimates to the City for carrying out work required by an approved view restoration order. The work estimate shall include tree or shrub trimming/removal and replacement costs. Said estimate shall be submitted within 30 days after the adoption of the view restoration order and shall include the cost to have an ISA certified tree trimmer or accredited arborist on site to perform or supervise the work being done. Said estimates are to be supplied by licensed landscape or licensed tree contractors, acceptable to the City, which provide insurance in an amount and form acceptable to the City, and shall include all costs of cleanup and removal of debris. Said insurance shall identify the vegetation owner and the City (and its officers, agents and employees) as additionally named insured. The claimant shall pay to the City an amount equal to the lowest of the estimates, and such funds shall be maintained by the City, in a City deposit trust account until completion of the work as verified by city staff. (h) Compliance Time Limit. The City shall require that the vegetation owner trim or remove vegetation within 90 days from a date specified in the view restoration order. The view restoration order shall be sent to the vegetation owner by the City once a deposit trust account has been established by the claimant for the cost of the

43 trimming/removal and vegetation replacement. Once the vegetation trimming/removal and any required replacement work is performed to the satisfaction of City staff site inspection, so that compliance with the view restoration order has been achieved, including any conditions of approval, then the City shall pay the vegetation owner the cost of said work. If evidence is provided to the City or the view restoration committee that it is less harmful to trim certain vegetation during the vegetation's dormant period, then the City or the view restoration committee may require that the subject vegetation be trimmed within 90 days from a specified future date. If evidence is provided to the City or the view restoration committee that the vegetation, subject to trimming or removal, contains nests (or eggs) of birds that are designated under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Department of Fish and Game Code, the City staff or the view restoration committee may require that the subject vegetation be trimmed within 90 days following a determination by a qualified biologist or ornithologist that the nest is inactive. (i) Enforcement. If the restorative action required by a view restoration order is not satisfactorily completed, as verified by City staff, within the specified time period, then the City may utilize its code enforcement and/or nuisance abatement process to authorize a bonded tree service to perform the work at the subject property at the vegetation owner's expense, and the claimant's deposit shall be refunded. In the event that the City is required to perform the work, the vegetation owner will be billed for all City expenses incurred in enforcing the view restoration order. If the vegetation owner fails to pay the invoice, a lien or assessment may be recorded against the vegetation owner's property pursuant to Section (4) Effective Date. Any decision of the view restoration committee made pursuant to this section takes effect fourteen (14) calendar days following the adoption of a resolution unless an appeal is filed pursuant to subsection (B)(5). (5) Appeal. Any decision of the view restoration committee may be appealed by the claimant or the vegetation owner to the City Council. Appeals shall be addressed to the City Council on a form prescribed by the City and shall state all grounds for the appeal. Any appeal must be filed with the City Clerk within fourteen (14) calendar days of the view restoration committee's decision regarding a view restoration claim. Appeals shall be accompanied by the filing fee as adopted by resolution of the City Council, and shall be processed and noticed in the same manner as the original view restoration claim. The City Manager shall set the date for an appeal public hearing before the City Council and shall not be limited by the time period specified in Section (B)(6)

44 Cost Apportionment. (A) Cost of the mediator shall be borne by the claimant, unless the parties involved expressly agree otherwise in writing. (B) The claimant shall be responsible for paying the cost of any required restorative action, unless the parties involved expressly agree otherwise in writing; provided, however, the vegetation owner shall be responsible for paying the cost of the portion of any restorative action that is required because the vegetation has not been properly maintained or has transitioned into a state of overgrowth, as determined by the view restoration committee, unless the parties involved expressly agree otherwise in writing. (C) The vegetation owner shall be responsible for paying the cost of any required subsequent maintenance on the subject vegetation, unless the parties involved expressly agree otherwise in writing City Immunity; No Mandatory Duty. (A) The City shall not be liable for any damages, injuries, costs or expenses that are the result of any action, determination or decision of a City body, employee or official or any agreements or determinations resulting from mediation or litigation concerning a view preservation claim or a view restoration claim or a claimant's or vegetation owner's assertions pursuant to this Chapter. (B) This Chapter is not intended to and shall not be construed as creating a mandatory duty of the City to enforce or seek any legal redress, civil, criminal or otherwise, with regard to any action, determination or decision pursuant to this Chapter concerning a view preservation claim or a view restoration claim Exemptions. The following types of vegetation are exempt from the provision of this Chapter. (A) Vegetation that does not significantly impair a view. (B) Vegetation that is less than six (6) feet in height or situated more than 500 feet from the boundary of a claimant's property. (C) City-maintained vegetation that is designated for maintenance by the City. Such vegetation includes vegetation in City parks, on City properties and designated City maintained street trees within rights of way. (D) Heritage trees that are on the official Heritage Tree list established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter (E) Vegetation that was approved through the design review process and in which vegetation height limits were established pursuant to Section (F) Vegetation that was approved by a hedge claim processed pursuant to Chapter (G) Vegetation that was approved by a view claim processed pursuant to Chapter prior to (the effective date of this Ordinance)

45 Legal Access Requirement. If at any point in the implementation or enforcement of the provisions of this Chapter, the vegetation property owner either verbally or in writing prohibits or restricts property access, the City Attorney is authorized to seek the necessary appropriate inspection or abatement warrant, injunction or other judicially granted authority that is necessary to enter onto private property for inspection or abatement View Decisions Binding on Future Owners Disclosure Obligations. Decisions made by City staff and the view restoration committee regarding view restoration and view preservation run with the land and shall be binding on the claimant and the vegetation owner and their heirs, successors and assigns. Such decisions, to the extent permitted, shall be recorded in the official records of the County of Orange. In addition, such decisions shall be set forth in any Real Property Report required by Chapter and should be disclosed by each owner to prospective purchasers of their properties Violations - Penalties. (A) Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of a view restoration order or view preservation requirements shall constitute a violation punishable in accordance with Chapter 1.15, and is subject to the administrative penalty provisions of that Chapter. Each day that a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. (B) To the extent any vegetation violates the terms and conditions of a view restoration order or view preservation requirements, the violation shall constitute a public nuisance and shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter (C) Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as preventing an interested party from commencing a civil action against a vegetation owner to enforce the terms of a view restoration order or view preservation requirements Fees. Before accepting for filing any request or application submitted relative to Chapter of this code, the Department of Community Development shall charge and collect a filing fee for each such request or application as determined by resolution of the City Council. SECTION 2: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project (View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance adoption and implementation) has been analyzed for potentially significant environmental effects. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared and circulated for public review. It has been determined that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Based on the whole record, there is no substantial evidence that the Municipal Code Amendments will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. None of the criteria for reconsideration described in State CEQA Guidelines Sections or are present. Therefore, the City

46 Council hereby adopts Negative Declaration No Documents related to this Negative Declaration are located in the Community Development Department of the City of Laguna Beach. SECTION 3: All ordinances and provisions of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code and sections thereof inconsistent herewith shall be hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency. SECTION 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of this entire Ordinance or any of the remaining portions hereof The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. SECTION 5: The City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner required by law in the City of Laguna Beach. This Ordinance shall become effective on the expiration of 180 days from and after the date of its adoption. ADOPTED this day of,2014. ATTEST: Elizabeth Pearson, Mayor City Clerk I, Lisette Chel-Walker, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on, 2014 and was finally adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on, 2014 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER(S): NOES: COUNCILMEMBER(S): ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER(S): ABSENT: C OUNC LLMEMBER( S) : City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, CA

47 Chel, Lisette CC From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Charlotte Masarik Tuesday, May 27, :58 AM Chel, Lisette CC RECET MAY 2r eti City Clerk 's ovi ofta!map _ Pietig, John CM; 'Elizabeth Pearson'; 'Kelly Boyd'; 'Robert Whalen'; Steve Dicterow; 'Steve Dicterow'; 'Toni Iseman' City Council 5/29 - Agenda Item #11 re-write View Preservation Ordinance CC 2nd reading of Tree Ordinance.doc TO: City Clerk (Ichel@lagunabeachcity.net - City Council COPY: Mayor Elizabeth Pearson and Council Member Kelly Boyd, Robert Whelan, Steve Dicterow and Toni Iseman. John Pietig, City Manager FROM: Charlotte Masarik - Citizen of Laguna Beach REF: Council Meeting on 5/29 fu Agenda Item #1 re-write of View Preservation Ordinance Dear City Council: With regret, I shall be out of town on 5/29. Regardless of revisions in this second reading of the View Ordinance before you on 5/29, I believe it will give many homeowners a false sense of entitlement and a new frustration by promising a more 'unobstructed' view when in reality it can't be given, and will further pit neighbor against neighbor. I believe no-one has 'the right' to a view when they buy a home and I believe it is against the law for even a very limited ' taking'. It is a potential scenario for legal action against the city and could be a costly mistake if this ordinance is approved. Rancho Palos Verdes has indicated that they have two dedicated staff persons for View Claim processing and coordination. These salaries are expensive to the city, and do not include the consulting professional arbitrators that will also be paid by the City to meet with the claimants, (not to mention the litigation costs that will be faced by the City for lawsuits that this Ordinance will surely foster). To try and cover these costs, I understand that RPV charges approximately $7,000 per claim. RPV requires this filing fee to cover expenses, as well as to limit frivolous claims that waste City time and money. At the last Laguna City Council meeting on this topic, a number of the view proponents asked that this cost be reduced, and some Councilmembers seemed to agree. It is not fair for all residents to subsidize such an expensive endeavor for the benefit of a few. If enacted, it needs to pay its own way. Lowering the fee could be a financial nightmare for the City. I appreciate and thank the View Committee for their exemplary hard work but I hope we can solve the problem of a few bona fide, truly obstructed views without this new ordinance by modifying the Hedge Height Ordinance to include trees rather than just big shrubs. At the last City Council meeting on 3/25/14, I believe the passage of this view ordinance was/is being driven by only a few, certainly not by the majority of LB citizens. To that end I would request, as I did at the last hearing, that regardless of the city staff's first reading and this upcoming review, and if the Council should adopt this latest version of the ordinance, it should be placed on the ballot for a vote of the electorate. Thank you, Charlotte Masarik 1

48 Citizen of Laguna Beach Charlotte Masarik Land Mobile char lottemasari This is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

49 Chel, Lisette CC From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: RECEIVED MAY er s ce Hall, Ligia (Leah) CM Ci of La una Beach, CA Tuesday, May 27, :12 PM Montgomery, John CD; Chel, Lisette CC Pietig, John CM FW: I encourage the City Council to place the proposed View Ordinance on the November ballot for City Manager. Ligia 'Leah" Oaf( Executive Assistant City Manager's Office (949) From: John Thomas [mailto:johnthomas@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, :07 PM To: kellyboyd2006@gmail.com ; elizabethpearson2@cox.net; tiseman2@aol.com ; bobwhalen1@gmail.com ; sdicterow1121@yahoo.com Cc: Pietig, John CM; Hall, Ligia (Leah) CM Subject: I encourage the City Council to place the proposed View Ordinance on the November ballot To the Mayor and members of the City Council: I am opposed to the proposed View Ordinance for a number of reasons (listed below), and (in spite of the well-organized and vocal support expressed by proponents) I believe that the majority of Laguna citizens are also opposed to an ordinance that could have such far reaching impact on the character of the City, but the only way we can truly find out what the citizens of Laguna want is to have this issue decided by the voters. So, I encourage the City Council to place the proposed View Ordinance on the November ballot. Thanks John Thomas For what it's worth, the reasons I oppose the ordinance include... (Since I know I tend to be long-winded, I have two versions of my reasons the long version (further below) and the short version:) SHORT VERSION: 1. The Ordinance is not for the benefit of the general public; it is for the benefit of one specific property owner at the expense of another specific property owner. 2. The Ordinance represents Inconsistent Policy when compared to the City decision regarding the South Laguna Heritage Tree Inventory -- the City either does or does not have the power and authority to tell a property owner what it can or cannot do with the vegetation on his property. 3. The Council appointing a View Restoration Committee results in there being no fair way to administer the ordinance.

50 4. The ordinance may result in a potential Loss of Aggregate Economic Value to the Community 5. Public input should be considered in making determinations. 6. Differences in facts compared to the RPV ordinance could mean that this ordinance may not withstand a challenge in court. 7. The proposed fee structure may bias the process in favor of view claimants. 8. With the indemnity provision removed, if the litigation results in damages or litigation expenses, the City could be at substantial economic risk which has not been quantified. 9. To date, rather than solving the problem, the RPV process has generated well over 500 cases which would imply that at least neighbors have argued over trees and views since their ordinance was adopted. LONG VERSION:: While I am sympathetic with the plight of people who have lost views, and I applaud Councilman Kelly Boyd for initiating the effort to try to help, and I believe the View Preservation Committee has worked long and hard to come up with as fair and as workable an ordinance as they could, never-the-less there are still a number of questions about whether any View Ordinance is the appropriate way to address the issue of loss of views. View Committee Chairman Larry Nokes did his best to set reasonable expectations when he explained more than once that there is no intrinsic right to a view under the law. Since that is the case, the strategy has been to see if the police powers of the government can be stretched to accomplish the same end. 1. Transfer of Property Rights: The process being proposed is for the benefit of one specific property owner at the expense of another specific property owner. It is not for the benefit of the general public. It is a forced transfer of property rights from one owner to another. A sort of shotgun marriage. Whereas a "taking" has to be for the benefit of the general public, this is not for the benefit of the public, it is only for the benefit of one specific party. And that is an important distinction. The heart of the concept is that the City would have the power to force one property owner with a tree to give a property right to one specific view claimant, not to the public. 2. Inconsistent Policy: A recent Council discussion regarding the South Laguna Heritage Tree Inventory concluded, in essence, that without the concurrence of the individual property owner, the City did not have the power or authority to tell that property owner what he can or cannot do with a tree on his private property. The proposed View Ordinance takes the exact opposite position and is predicated on the belief that the City does have the power and authority to tell a property owner exactly what he can and cannot do with vegetation on his private property. It would seem that the City either does or does not have the power and authority to tell a property owner what it can or cannot do with the vegetation on his property. 3. There is no fair way to administer the ordinance: If the ordinance passes, and the Councilmembers voting in favor each appoint a member to the View Restoration Committee, the composition of the enforcement committee will likely be biased in favor of views. Unless the candidates for the View Restoration Committee run for popular election, or their names are drawn from a hat there is no way to avoid this. 4. Potential Loss of Economic Value to the Community: While a major argument of ordinance proponents is that they will derive economic benefit if views are restored, if the ordinance results in massive elimination of vegetation citywide it is likely that the loss of character to the city as a whole may cause a loss of overall economic value to all property owners in the city that could outweigh the individual gains. I suppose this could be characterized as a transfer of value from many to a few. Robin Hood in reverse. 5. Does public input enter into a determination? Under the notice provision of a View Restoration Claim, only the claimant and vegetation owner are noticed. Shouldn't other impacted property owners be noticed and heard? It would seem that the process should include the impact on the public and that public input should be considered in making a determination. 6. The proposed ordinance may not withstand a challenge in court. The Rancho Palos Verdes ordinance has been challenged and upheld in court at the Appellate Court level though it has not been to the Supreme Court and 2