Contac Pers Dept: Jose MendiVil/CDD . Phone Nu (310) 253-5757
DeportmentApproval:::.:-
SuSarrEvans(2/16/06),
City G.orit0iior Appsrova
, :
-
Martin R Cole
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Meetin Date 03/06/06
Item Number: A-1
AGENDA
ITEM: Introduction and
unicir)al Code Title 9, General
(Obstruction from Trees).
•First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend
Regulafions Regarding View Preservation
Fiscal Impact Yes
11
No
General Fund Yes
Public He ring
Action Item
Attachments:
Pubhc Notification On 0:i0;:::.:Hp;.::::::pps-rtooW cktio# was mailed to afl residents and
property owners within and generalLy adjacent to Baldwin Hills (including Hetzler Road
Tomkins Way, Blair Hills, Culver Crest, and Property Owners) A postcard
notice was also sent to the Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Business Association
and the Culver Ctty l-Iomeowners Association On 02/20/06, email notification was sent
to the Real Estate . . ...:.:.!B.tolOt0:.:ELi:01:::::00-4th0 --:-...-M-after.:.NO.tifitatideiftitt::'-'0'" On 02/16
106' a notice was published in the Culver City News
• • •••••-- •••••••••
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce, for first reading, Ordinance No.
2006-0 , to amend Title 9, General Regulations of the Culver City Municipal
Code (CCMC) by adding Chapter 9.12 to include procedures for View Preservation
(Obstruction from Trees).
BACKGROUND:
On July 26, 2004, the City Council held a public meeting to consider and discuss
the City's ability to adopt regulations to protect views. Pursuant to Council
direction, Planning Division staff conducted further research on the issue and the
Planning Commission held a Study Session on November 10, 2004 to discuss
staffs research, review the draft ordinance and provide input (Attachment 2). On
October 24, 2005, the City Council received public comments on a draft ordinance
regarding View Preservation, or obstruction from trees, applicable to the hillside
areas only (Attachment No. 3). However, they continued this item to November 7,
2005. At the November 7th City Council meeting, the Council continued the item to
a date uncertain after they requested that staff make revisions to the ordinance.
Changes went before the Council on January 23, 2006. Council continued theCity of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
matter after commenting on these further changes. Before the Council today is a
revised ordinance that staff believes addresses the Council's direction.
ANALYSIS:
The draft ordinance (Attachment No. 1) specifically outlines a procedure, or private
right action, for hillside area property owners who wish to restore views (blocked by
a neighbor's trees and foliage) they claim existed at the time they purchased their
property. This private right of action gives an individual a process that includes initial
discussions, mediation, arbitration, and court action if necessary, to address a view
obstruction caused by trees and foliage from his/her neighbor's property. This
ordinance does not require City involvement in a tree obstruction dispute and does
not provide a method for an individual to restore a view that may have existed prior
to that individual purchasing their property.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City Council Ordinance No. 2006-0 , View Preservation Ordinance
2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated 11/10/04 and Meeting Minutes Excerpt
3. Map of Hillside Areas in the City
MOTION:
That the City Council:
Introduce, for first reading, Ordinance No. 2006-0 , to amend Title 9, General
Regulations of the Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC) by adding Chapter 9.12 to
include procedures for View Preservation (Obstruction from Trees). |1013|
MEETING DATE 03/06/06
AGENDA ITEM Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend Municipal
Code Title 9, General Regulations, Regarding View Preservation
(Obstruction from Trees)
ATTACHMENTS
Pages|109| City Council Ordinance No 2006-0
View Preservation Ordinance|109| Planning Commission Staff Report dated 11/10/04
and Meeting Minutes Excerpt|109| Map of Hillside Areas in the City
,Attachment No 1
ORDINANCE NO 2006-
ORDINANCE NO 2006-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CULVER CITY,
CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 9 GENERAL REGULATIONS
BY ADDING CHAPTER 912 TO THE CULVER CITY
MUNICIPAL CODE (CCMC) REGARDING VIEW
PRESERVATION (OBSTRUCTION FROM TREES)
The City Council of the City of Culver City, California, DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN as follows
SECTION 1 Title 9 of the Culver City Municipal Code is hereby amended
by adding Chapter 9 12 thereto to read as follows
CHAPTER 912 VIEW PRESERVATION (OBSTRUCTION FROM TREES)
Section 9 12 003 Findings
The City Council finds and declares as follows
A Views, Trees and vegetation contribute to the aesthetic
value, quality of life, ambiance, and economic value of properties within
the City of Culver City (` City )
B Views, whether of the City, the Los Angeles Basin, the
surrounding hillsides and canyons or other natural and man-made
landmarks produce a variety of significant and tangible benefits for both
residents and visitors
C Trees and vegetation (defined in Section 9 12 010 as
"Tree(s)" and hereinafter collectively referred to as Tree(s)) produce a
wide variety of significant psychological and tangible benefits for both
residents and visitors to the community Trees provide privacy modify
-1-
I
I|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28temperatures screen winds, replenish oxygen to the atmosphere
maintain soil moisture mitigate soil erosion and provide wildlife habitat
Trees contribute to the visual environment and aesthetics by blending,
buffering and reducing the scale and mass of architecture Trees within
the City provide botanical variety and a sense of history Trees also
create shade and visual screens and provide a buffer between different
land uses The benefits derived from Preexisting Views may sometimes
come into conflict with Trees The planting of Trees and their subsequent
growth particularly when such Trees are not properly maintained, can
produce unintended harmful effects both on the property on which they
are planted and on neighboring properties
D This ordinance shall be applicable to the affected hillside
areas in the City, including Hetzler/Tompkins, Blair Hills and Culver Crest,
as shown in gray shading on the map attached hereto and incorporated
herein as Exhibit A, and hereby made a part of this ordinance
Section 9 12 005 Purpose and Principles
A The purposes of this Chapter are to|109| Establish the right of a residential real property owner,
whose property is located within the affected hillside areas as
depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, to
preserve Preexisting Views from unreasonable obstruction by the
growth of Trees|109| Establish that real property owners are in need of a
process to resolve disputes among themselves concerning Views
-2-|101010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28within the immediate vicinity of their property that are unreasonably
obstructed by the growth of Trees and
3 Establish a process and evaluation criteria by which
real property owners may seek mutually acceptable resolution of
such View disputes
B The rights and the restoration processes are based upon the
following general principles|109| The City recognizes the desire of many of its
residents and real property owners for beautiful and plentiful
landscaping including Trees The City realizes this desire may
sometimes conflict with the preservation of Preexisting Views, and
disputes related to Views are inevitable,|109| The City also recognizes residents and real property
owners cherish their Views of and from the hills of the City The
City recognizes Views contribute greatly to the quality of life in the
City, and promote the general welfare of the entire community|109| Real property owners and residents should maintain
Trees on their property in a healthy condition for both safety
reasons and for preservation of Preexisting Views Before planting
Trees, real property owners and residents should consider the
potential for View blockage, both currently and at Tree maturity
Persons have the right to seek civil remedies when threatened by
dangerous Tree growth
-3-
34 The City shall establish a process by which a real
property owner may seek to preserve and restore Views from
unreasonable obstruction by the growth of Trees when those Views
existed at the time they purchased their property The City shall
also establish a list of factors to be considered in determining
appropriate actions to restore such Views|109| When a Preexisting View obstruction dispute arises,
the parties should act reasonably to resolve the dispute through
friendly communication thoughtful negotiation compromise, and
other traditional means, such as discussions with the appropriate
neighborhood or homeowner association Those disputes not
resolved through such means shall follow the procedure
established herein,|109| It is the intent of the City for the provisions of this
Chapter to receive thoughtful and reasonable application It is not
the intent of the City to encourage clear-cutting or substantial
denuding of any property of its Tree(s) by overzealous application
of provisions of this Chapter and|109| It is the intent of the City to discourage ill-considered
damage to Trees and promote proper use of Trees and
landscaping establishment and maintenance
Section 9 12 010 Definitions
For the purpose of this Chapter, the meaning and construction of words
and phrases is as follows
-4-|101010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28Arbitrator A neutral person who will conduct a process similar to a trial,
and who will hear testimony consider evidence and make a binding decision for the
disputing parties
Binding Arbitration A legal procedure as set forth in Section 1280 et seq
of the California Code of Civil Procedure
Complainant Any real property owner (or legal occupant with written
permission of the property owner) who alleges Trees located within the immediate
vicinity and on the property of another person are causing unreasonable obstruction of
his or her Preexisting Views
Crown Reduction/Shaping A method of comprehensive trimming that
reduces a Tree s height or spread Crown Reduction entails the reduction of the top
sides or individual limbs of a Tree by means of removal of leaders or the longest
portion of limbs to a lateral large enough to assume the terminal
Mediation A process in which a neutral third person or persons facilitate
communication between the disputants to assist them in reaching a mutually
acceptable agreement, as further defined in Section 1775 et seq of the California Code
of Civil Procedure
Mediator A neutral, objective third person that assists people in finding
mutually satisfactory solutions to their problem
Preexisting View A View which existed at the time a Complainant
became owner or occupant of a property
Primary Living Area The portion or portions of a residence from which a
View is observed most often by the occupants relative to other portions of the
-5-|101010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28residence The determination of Primary Living Area is to be made on a case-by-case
basis
Restoration Action(s) Any specific requirement to resolve a Tree dispute
as discussed in this Chapter
Stump Growth New growth from the remaining portion of the Tree trunk
the main portion of which has been cut off
Thinning The selective and systematic removal of branches from a Tree
so as to improve visibility through the Tree and/or improve the Tree's structural
condition
Topping Elimination of the upper portion of a Tree's trunk or main leader
Tree(s) Any woody plant with the potential to obstruct views, including
but not limited to trees, shrubs, hedges, bushes and other vegetation References to
"Tree" shall include the plural
Tree Claim The written basis for Mediation, Binding Arbitration or court
action under the provisions of this Chapter
Tree Owner Any person owning real property in the City upon whose
land is located a Tree alleged by a Complainant to cause an unreasonable obstruction
to a Preexisting View
Tree Removal The elimination of any Tree from its present location
Trimming The selective removal of portions of branches from a Tree so
as to modify the Tree s shape or profile or alter the Tree's appearance
View(s) A scene from the Primary Living Area of a residence The term
"View(s)" includes both upslope and down slope scenes but is generally medium or
long range in nature as opposed to short range View(s) include but are not limited to|1010| -6-
I|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28skylines, landmarks, distant urban settings distinctive geologic features, hillside
terrains ridges and bodies of water The term View(s) does not necessarily include
an unobstructed panorama of these features
Windowing A form of Thinning by which openings or "windows" are
created to restore Views
Section 9 12 015 Rights Established
A A real property owner shall have the right to preserve and
seek restoration of a Preexisting View, when such View is from the
Primary Living Area and has subsequently been unreasonably obstructed
by the growth of one or more Trees, provided that such action has not
been initiated against the same real property by the Complainant with
respect to the same Tree within a two year time period prior to the
initiation of the most recent action
B In order to establish such rights pursuant to this Chapter, the
person must follow the process established in this Chapter In addition to
the above rights private parties have the right to seek remedial action for
imminent danger caused by Trees
C Nothing contained in this Chapter is intended to provide any
authority or process for the permitting of alterations to or the removal of
City owned and maintained Trees
Section 9 12 025 Criteria for Determining Unreasonable Obstruction
The following criteria are to be considered (but are not exclusive) in
determining whether unreasonable obstruction has occurred
-7-
7|101010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28A The extent of obstruction of a Preexisting View from the
Primary Living Area of the Complainant both currently and at Tree
maturity
B The quality of the Preexisting Views being obstructed,
including obstruction of landmarks vistas, or other unique View features
C The extent to which the Trees have grown to obscure the
enjoyment of the View from the Complainant s property compared with the
View which was available at the time the Complainant acquired or
occupied his or her home
D The extent to which the Complainant's Preexisting View has
been diminished over time by factors other than Tree growth
E The deleterious effect of the Trees upon the Complainant's
vegetation through loss of heat and light except that the dropping of
leaves or maintenance factors shall not be considered a criterion under
this Chapter
Section 9 12 030 Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action
When it has been determined per Section 9 12 025 of this Chapter that an
unreasonable obstruction has occurred, the following unweighted factors shall be
considered in determining the appropriate Restoration Action
A The hazard posed by a Tree to any person or structure on
the property of the Complainant Party including, but not limited to, fire
danger and the danger of falling limbs or Trees
B Variety of the Tree its projected rate of growth and
maintenance requirements
(6
-8-
I|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28C Aesthetic quality of the Tree including but not limited to
species characteristics size growth form and vigor
D Location with respect to overall appearance, design, or use
of the Tree Owner's property (i e blending, buffering or reduction in the
scale and mass of adjacent architecture)
E Soil stability provided by the Tree considering soil structure,
degree of slope and extent of the Tree's root system
F Privacy (visual and auditory) and wind screening provided by
the Tree to the Tree Owner and to neighbors
G Energy conservation and or climate control provided by the
Tree
H Wildlife habitat provided by the Tree
I The extent to which the Tree provides historical context due
to the age of the Tree and rare and interesting botanical species
Section 9 12 035 Hierarchy of Restoration Actions
A If an unreasonable obstruction of a Preexisting View exists,
a Mediator shall recommend or an Arbitrator or Court shall order
Restorative Action based only on this Chapter Restorative Action may
include written directions as to appropriate timing for such Restorative
Action to be taken Restoration action shall be structured and
implemented in accordance with the hierarchy established herein
Restoration Action includes but is not limited to the following|109| Trimming|109| Thinning or Windowing,
-9-
67
I|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28To|109| Crown Reduction|109| Topping|109| Removal with replacement plantings, and|109| Removal without replacement plantings
B In each case, Restorative Action shall only be required to the
extent a Preexisting View is proven by the Complainant based on
documentable evidence
C Restorative Action may include written conditions (including
ongoing maintenance), and directions as to appropriate timing of such
actions as well as recordation of an agreement containing covenants or
other documentation to memorialize the conditions and make them
applicable Where Tree Removal is required, replacement by appropriate
species should be considered The Tree Owner may elect Tree Removal
with replacement plantings as an alternative to Trimming, Thinning, and
Topping
D In cases where Trimming, Windowing, or other Restorative
Action may affect the health of a Tree that is to be preserved such
actions should be carried out in accordance with standards established by
the International Society of Arboriculture for use in the State of California
E A Tree, which has been subject to Restorative Action under
the terms of this Chapter is exempt from being part of another Tree Claim
for a period of two years after the date of the satisfactory completion of
the Restorative Action
-10-|101010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28Section 9 12 040 City Guidelines Concerning Restoration Action
The City provides the following general guidelines concerning Restorative
Actions
A Stump Growth Stump Growth generally results in the
hazard of weak limbs, and its protection is not desirable When
considering Restorative Action for Stump Growth, aggressive action is
preferred Restorative Action which will result in future Stump Growth,
should be avoided
B Tnmming Trimming is the most minor form of physical
Restorative Action This option is recommended when minor
unreasonable obstruction has occurred, provided that ongoing
maintenance is guaranteed
C Thinning or Windowing When simple Trimming will not
resolve the unreasonable obstruction, Thinning or Windowing may be
necessary This action should be supervised by a certified arbonst
D Crown Reduction Crown Reduction may be necessary
when Thinning and Windowing will not resolve the unreasonable
obstruction However as with Thinning and Windowing, Crown Reduction
should be supervised by a certified arbonst
E Topping Topping as a Restorative Action should be used
with caution Topping can have deleterious effects on a Tree's health
appearance, and cost of maintenance Topping frequently results in
Stump Growth Tree Removal, with replacement plantings, may be a
preferable alternative
-11- If)
I|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28F Tree Removal Tree Removal may be required where it is
essential to preserve Preexisting Views While normally considered a
drastic measure, Tree Removal can be the preferred solution in certain
circumstances
G Maintenance Ongoing Tree maintenance requirements are
strongly recommended as part of Restorative Action in order to achieve
lasting preservation of Preexisting Views
H Permanence Conditions of Restorative Action should be
memorialized in a recordable document, for all affected properties to help
notify subsequent real property owners of their applicability
SECTION 9 12 045 Process For Resolution Of Obstruction Disputes
The following process shall be used in the resolution of Preexisting View
disputes between parties
A Initial Discussions|109| Complainant who believes Tree growth on the
property of another has caused unreasonable obstruction of a
Preexisting View from the Primary Living Area shall first notify the
Tree Owner in writing of such concerns,|109| The notification should if possible, be accompanied
by personal discussions to enable the Complainant and Tree
Owner to attempt to reach a mutually agreeable solution and shall
be followed up with a written confirmation of any agreed-upon
resolution and schedule for the required work of View restoration
-12-
I|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28If personal discussions fail then neighborhood associations may
be willing to assist with the resolution of the obstruction dispute|109| The initial notification from the Complainant to the
Tree Owner shall provide a copy of this ordinance In the initial
notification the Complainant shall invite the Tree Owner to view the
alleged obstruction from the Complainant property and the Tree
Owner is urged to invite the Complainant to view the situation from
the Tree Owner s property Failure of the Tree Owner to respond
to the written request for Initial Discussion within thirty-(30) days
after the date of the posting shall be deemed a refusal by the Tree
Owner to participate in the Initial Discussion phase of the process
and|109| After the Initial Discussion, if the parties do not agree
as to the existence and nature of the Complainant s obstruction or
to the appropriate Restoration Action or if the Initial Discussion is
refused the Complainant may proceed with the subsequent
dispute resolution process outlined herein with respect to Tree
Claim preparation, Mediation, Binding Arbitration, and litigation
B Tree Claim Preparation
In the event the Initial Discussion process fails to resolve the
dispute the Complainant must prepare a Tree Claim and provide a copy
to the Tree Owner, in order to pursue Mediation, Binding Arbitration or
litigation under the authority established by this Chapter
A Tree Claim shall consist of all of the following
-13-
) ;1 Evidence of Preexisting View A written description of
the nature and extent of the alleged obstruction, including pertinent
and documentable physical evidence Evidence may include, but
is not limited to photographic prints, negatives or slides as well as
written testimony or declarations from residents living in the area
Such evidence must prove the absence of the obstruction at any
documentable time during the tenure of Complainant Evidence
confirming the ownership and the date of property acquisition of the
Complainant s property must be included,|109| Evidence Regarding Unreasonable Tree Blockage
The location of all Trees alleged to cause the obstruction, the
address of the property upon which the Trees are located and the
present Tree Owner's name and address,|109| Evidence of Attempted Resolution Evidence that an
Initial Discussion, as described in Section 9 12 045 (A), to resolve
the dispute has been made and has failed The Complainant must
provide physical evidence that written attempts at reconciliation
have been made and have failed Evidence may include, but is not
limited to, copies of and receipts for certified or registered mail
correspondence and
4 Desired Action Specific View Restoration Actions
proposed by the Complainant to resolve the unreasonable View
obstruction
-14-|101010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 LtC Mediation|109| If the Initial Discussion attempt fails then the
Complainant shall send to the Tree Owner a written request to
participate in a Mediation process as a timely means to settle the
obstruction dispute,|109| Acceptance of Mediation by the Tree Owner shall be
voluntary, but the Tree Owner shall have no more than thirty (30)
days after service of notice to either accept or reject the offer of
Mediation Failure to respond shall be deemed formal refusal of
the Mediation process If Mediation is accepted, then the parties
shall mutually agree in writing to the selection of a Mediator|109| It is recommended the services of a professionally
trained Mediator be employed,|109| The Mediation meeting may be informal The
Mediation process may include the hearing of viewpoints of lay or
expert witnesses, and shall include a site visit to the properties of
the Complainant and the Tree Owner Parties are encouraged to
contact immediate neighbors and solicit input, and|109| The Mediator shall consider the purposes and policies
set forth in this Chapter in attempting to help resolve the dispute
The Mediator shall not have the power to issue binding orders for
Restorative Action, but shall strive to enable the parties to resolve
their dispute by written agreement in order to eliminate the need for
Binding Arbitration or litigation
-15-
i -5--1 b
D Binding Arbitration|109| In those cases where the Initial Discussion process
fails and where Mediation is declined by the Tree Owner or has
failed to resolve the Complainant s complaint, the Complainant
must offer in writing to submit the dispute to Binding Arbitration|109| Acceptance of Binding Arbitration by the Tree Owner
shall be voluntary The Tree Owner shall have thirty -(30) days
after service of notice to accept or reject Binding Arbitration
Failure to respond shall be deemed a formal refusal of Binding
Arbitration If accepted, the parties shall agree on a specific
Arbitrator and shall indicate such agreement in writing, and|109| The Arbitrator shall use the provisions of this Chapter
to reach a fair resolution of the Tree Claim and shall submit a
complete written report to the Complainant and the Tree Owner
This report shall include the Arbitrator's findings with respect to
Sections 9 12 025 and 9 12 030 of this Chapter a pertinent list of
all mandated Restoration Actions with any appropriate conditions
concerning such actions and a schedule by which the actions must
be completed A copy of the Arbitrator's report shall be filed with
the City Clerk upon completion Any decision of the Arbitrator shall
be enforceable pursuant to the provisions of California Code of
Civil Procedure Section 1280 et seq
-16-
I|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28E Litigation|109| In those cases where Binding Arbitration is declined
by the Tree Owner, then civil action may be pursued by the
Complainant for resolution of the View obstruction dispute under
the rights and provisions of this Chapter, and|109| The litigant must state in the lawsuit Binding
Arbitration was offered and not accepted, and a copy of the lawsuit
was filed with the City Clerk A copy of any order or settlement in
the lawsuit shall also be filed with the City Clerk
Section 9 12 050 Apportionment of Costs
A Cost of Mediation and Arbitration Unless the parties agree
otherwise the costs and fees for Mediation and Arbitration shall be
subject to provisions of section 1284 2 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure which states among other things, that parties to an arbitration
should pay their own costs and a pro rata share of the Arbitrators fees
and costs
B Cost of Litigation To be determined by the Court or through
a settlement
C Cost of Restorative Action To be determined by mutual
agreement or through Mediation, Binding Arbitration, court judgment or
settlement
D Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to deny
compensation to a Tree Owner to which a Tree Owner would be entitled
under any other provision of law
-17-
(7|101010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28Section 9 12 055 Liabilities
The issuance of Mediation findings a Binding Arbitration report or a court
decision shall not create any liability of the City with regard to the Restorative Actions to
be performed Failure of the City to enforce provisions of this Chapter shall not give
rise to any civil or criminal liabilities by or against the City
Section 9 12 060 Enforcement
A A violation of this Chapter is not a misdemeanor or
infraction The enforcement of this Chapter shall be by the private parties
involved The Complainant shall have the right to bring injunctive action to
enforce any Restorative Action ordered pursuant to this Chapter
B Under no circumstances shall the City have any
responsibility or obligation to enforce or seek any legal redress, civil or
criminal, for any decision made concerning a Tree Claim
Section 9 12 065 Limitations
A It is not the intent of the City in adopting this Chapter to
affect obligations imposed by an existing easement, already existing City
Council and/or Planning Commission entitlements or a valid preexisting
covenant or agreement
B It is the intention of the City that all other portions of this
Chapter shall remain in effect in the event a portion of it is invalidated by
court action
Section 9 12 070 Trees Owned and Maintained By the City
[ K
-18-|101010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28Trees owned or maintained by the City are exempt from the provisions of
this Chapter Requests or complaints regarding Trees owned or maintained by the City
should be made in writing to the Public Works Director for consideration in accordance
with policies adopted by the City
SECTION 2 The Mayor of the City shall sign and City Clerk shall
attest to the passage of this ordinance The effective Date of this ordinance shall be
(30) days from the date of its adoption and prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days
from the adoption hereof the City Clerk, pursuant to Government Code Section
36933(c)(1), shall cause a summary of this ordinance to be published in The Culver City
News along with the record of the vote for approval and adoption and shall post at City
Hall a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the record of the vote
thereon Additionally the City Clerk shall post a summary of this Ordinance in at least
three public places within the City pursuant to Section 517 of the City Charter
APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 2006
ALBERT VERA, Mayor
City of Culver City California
ATTEST APPROVED AS TO FORM
CHRISTOPHER ARMENTA
CAROL A SCHWAB
City Clerk
City Attorney
lin
-19-
17
I|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28Attachment No 2
Agenda Item No 6 November 10, 2004
Staff Report
STUDY SESSION DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED VIEW
PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Study Session is to present and discuss the
result of staffs research, and to seek comment from both the
Planning Commission (the 'Commission ) and the public on a
proposed ordinance providing a procedure to address conflicts
when opportunities for those views are obstructed by trees The
proposed ordinance would amend Article 9, General Regulations of
the Culver City Municipal Code by adding Chapter 9 12
BACKGROUND
On July 26, 2004, the City Council held a public meeting to consider
and discuss the City s ability to adopt regulations to protect views
At that meeting, staff provided an overview of existing City policies
and regulations, and presented the following five options for City
Council consideration
1 Rely on Existing Standards Prepare a General Plan
Amendment that clarifies that the views identified in the General
Plan are adequately protected by building zoning and fire
regulations, or
2 View Restoration - Private Right of Action Formulate an
ordinance to allow property owners to seek restoration of views
ttranty-namtnaFulty-inve vemeat---oi ,
3 View Protection - Establish More Restrictive Development
Standards Devise modifications to the Zoning Code and
development review process and regulations, or,
4 Private Right of Action and Establish More Restrictive
Development Standards (This is a combination of Option 2Agenda Item No 6
November 10, 2004
Page 2 of 6
and Option 3, above, that involve view issues for both
landscaping and buildings) or
5 View Preservation and Restoration - Establish City-Enforced
Building and Vegetation Standards Present an ordinance that
requires City staff to actively use its police powers to protect
views and remove offending landscape or structures, or,
6 Take a different or alternative action from any of options listed
above
The City Council staff report outlining th — e - issues and a- ptioti§ relafdd
to view protection, view preservation, and view restoration was
provided to the Commission under separate cover on October 25,
2004 At the conclusion of their discussion, the City Council
directed staff to undertake Option No 2 and prepare a View
Preservation' ordinance that sets out a procedure for property
owners located within hillside areas of the City to seek restoration of
views blocked by landscaping through a 'private right of action'
process
The City Council also asked staff to investigate the possibility of this
same private right of action process related to views obstructed by
buildings
DISCUSSION
Based on the City Council s direction, staff conducted further
research on the issue of private right of action pertaining to both
landscaping and buildings
Private Right of Action- Views Obstructed by Landscaping
In regard to views obstructed by landscaping example ordinances
with the private right of action were found in the Town of Tiburon
City of Berkeley and City of Santa Barbara (Attachment Nos 1, 2,
a •)
Simply defined a private right of action' is a progressive process
created by the City to enable a property owner/resident to resolve
conflicts pertaining to views obstructed by landscaping at a civil
level and without City involvement
-Agenda Item No 6
November 10 2004
Page 3 of 6
The primary concepts of the proposed View Preservation ordinance
are summarized below (Attachment No 4 proposed View
Preservation ordinance)
Intent The intent of proposed View Preservation ordinance
(through a private right of action' process) is to provide direction to
property owners/residents seeking to protect or reclaim a view and
set out procedures for mediation and arbitration (and possible
litigation) All costs would be borne by private parties The City
would not have any obligation to enforce the view preservation
provisions of the code
The proposed ordinance is crafted in a way that prevents Culver
City from being compelled to enforce the regulations but allows an
affected owner/occupant to seek legal redress in accordance with a
defined process The rationale for proposing this specific type of
ordinance is that it creates a means to address a problem with little
to no involvement of City resources
One of the issues that staff considered in developing this ordinance
was the amount of information contained in the ordinance to
effectively resolve view concerns through the proposed process
Specifically, detailed information such as the provision of design
standards, methods, illustrative information, and specifications
Staff believes that this subject can be handled adequately through
very simple and direct ordinance/procedures This is in line with
City Council intent of simplicity
Process The proposed ordinance seeks to provide guidance and
options to property and landscape owners as well as mediators and
arbitrators in order to avoid wholesale landscape removal when
trimming is possible Specific steps must be taken and documented
to restore the view
• A complaining party must first notify the offending owner of
landscape or tree-owner of the problem and attempt to work it
out • If this is not successful then the complaining party must propose
mediation
• If mediation is not accepted or fails, binding arbitration must be
offered
• If this arbitration is not accepted, then the complaining party may
bring an action in court
2.3Agenda Item No 6
November 10 2004
Page 4 of 6
Applicability The proposed View Preservation ordinance applies
to hillside areas in the City such as Blair Hills and Culver Crest
Staff conducted site visits in Blair Hills and Culver Crest to assess
the areas that had a view Photographs were taken from various
residences in both areas illustrating some of the views and views
that are obstructed by trees (Attachment No 5) The hillside areas
to be governed by this ordinance are illustrated on the attached
map (Attachment No 6)|109| In regard to timing, the proposed ordinance states that a person
may seek to preserve or restore certain views that existed at any
_
time since that person purchased or occupie- d a property (thi§ - —
requires documentation by the view seeker)
Private Right of Action - Views Obstructed by Buildings
Staff did not find a sample ordinance where a City granted a private
nght of action process for views obstructed by buildings or
structures In consulting with both the City Attorney for Culver City
and offices of the City Attorney for various other cities, it was
determined that a private right of action process for views
obstructed by buildings would cause numerous problems for the
City as it could be seen as ceding an aspect of the City s police
powers
The California Constitution grants cities certain police powers such
as control of zoning regulations, issuance of building permits, and
the right to establish regulations defining property maintenance
standards The Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure of the
State defines how and when disputes between neighbors can be
adjudicated
Unless a City uses its police powers to define views as important to
the City as a whole, obstruction of views is not a violation of law If
a City law does not specifically provide for private enforcement of
that law, then even if that City adopts regulations that prohibit view
obstruction no civil action between neighbors can be initiated based
o -1 • III n
an attempt to compel it to enforce its own regulations
Theoretically, an ordinance with a private right of action process
could be created related to buildings However, an applicant for a
building permit relies on a City's proper use of its police powers
when a building permit is issued It would create tremendous
problems if the City, in good faith, issued a building permit, and a
gAgenda Item No 6
November 10, 2004
Page 5 of 6
neighbor had the right to sue the builder due to view obstruction
after the building was built
Many cities control the issue of views blocked by buildings through
the development review process a process which can be quite
contentious Culver City has a major emphasis on speedy permit
processing which could be obviated by adding view protection
review to that process Therefore the City Council did not seem
inclined to add any new steps to permit processing
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The Land Use and Open Space Elements of the General Plan
contain various policy statements reflecting the need to protect the
views from and of hillside property Two examples of these policies
include
• The Open Space Element, Objective 6, Policy 6A
'Establish view shed guidelines which protect the views of
and from Culver City Park, Blair Hills, and Culver Crest'
• The Land Use Element, Objective 26, Policy 26E Protect
views of and from Culver Crest by establishing view shed
guidelines'
These policies call for the City to take action to establish view shed
guidelines, in part, the proposed ordinance implements some of
these policies
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed View Preservation ordinance is not a project as
defined by Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines The proposed
activity is general procedure making and will not result in issuance
o en i lements—The—activity—does—noi— hdve—the—potcuttaLfor______
resulting in direct physical change in the environment Therefore
the proposed View Preservation ordinance is not subject to CEQA
and no environmental analysis is requiredAgenda Item No 6
November 10, 2004
Page 6 of 6
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
This Study Session was noticed in the Culver City News and
postcards were mailed to homeowners associations, property
owners and occupants within Culver Crest and Blair Hills area and
other parties who have expressed interest in this topic In addition,
Ms Bobbi Gold, a resident of Blair Hills has expressed an interest in
this subject and has submitted her comments (Attachment No 7)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
_
Commissioner Sheila Thomas has a conflict of interest on this item
as she is a property owner within 500 feet of the limited area that
this ordinance would apply
NEXT STEPS
Based on input provided by the Planning Commission staff
anticipates returning to the City Council for a duly noticed Public
Hearing on this item
Prepared by
Approved by
4kezioni G/vvi----
Susan Yun
Associate Planner
(310) 253-5755
\ k ck ,), ;L, j
Mark Ward law
Deputy Community Development
Director
Attachments
|99| T-own-uf—T-tburom_rogulattons 2 City of Santa Barbara regulations
3 City of Berkeley regulations
4 Proposed City of Culver City View Preservation Ordinance
5 Photographs of Views in Blair Hills and Culver Crest
6 Map of Hillside Areas in the City
7 Email comments from Ms Bobbi Gold Resident dated 9/20/04
)-, C""... -•--- __••• -•
• W •".1 '" • 11
AYES
NOES
ABS
iggs, Muranaka, Lamm, Maim
None
T Thomas
Planning Commis- siori Meeting Minutes
November 10 2004
Page 10 of 13
ommissioner Muranaka
-2 Definitions Arterial Street might include an opening sentence that indicate
a trial street includes both primary and secondary arterial streets
• Clan he language in 1-a of Street Wall Requirements
Chair Malsin
• Clarify the lang. -ge under Use Regulations to indicate permitted ses shall be subject
to all requisite enti ment processes
Vice-Chair Lamm
• The entire
commercial
ctre on
Jefferson
hraiimPP Ch/Prlanri arid Cep!Ilwaria And the
- area -along East Washington ith larger par s that are not adjoining residences
should be considered for addition
• Advisable to mention affordable hous • help eliminate questions and criticisms and
remind people it is a consideration
A royal of Plannin Commissio esolution No 4-P007
Vice-Chair Lamm moved, se ded by Commissione uranaka, to adopt Resolution No
2004-P007 as amended
The motion carried the following roll call vote
•
6 Study Session Discussion of Proposed View Preservation Ordinance
Ms Yun presented the staff report and introduced Brian McNabb, Planning Consultant who
assisted with the project
Chair Malsin called on persons who submitted comment cards
Bobbi Gold
• re- F-6§-1-t - ave-c
a view
• Suggested the language be balanced between the rights of tree owners as well as view
holders
Charles Stephens
• Indicated trees are destroying people s views and there is currently no way to address
the problem
Chair Malsin read correspondence from the following authors
2:7-
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
November 10 2004
Page 11 of 13
Betty Tolin, Elston and Bertha Bernly, and Ed Ensleer expressed support for the proposed
ordinance to protect people who own view properties from view obstruction caused by
foliage and landscaping
Joddy Boyer and Howard Glickman expressed concerns about view obstruction related to
second-story additions and decks
Chair Malsin requested comments from staff
Ms Yun
• Clan fled that this ordinance deals specifically with views obstructed by landsca ping not
those impacted by buildings or structures- -
Vice-Chair Lamm
• A hillside ordinance to supplement the City's existing building and zoning codes is worth
considering
• The basic approach should be to establish a process including a series of steps
beginning with neighbors trying to resolve the issue on their own before proceeding to
mediation, et cetera
• The value of trees should be front and center along with the value of views
• Supportive of starting with the least drastic measures such as trimming and thinning
• Suggested reversing No s 1 and 2 on Page 2 of 10 to provide recognition of the value
of good landscaping
• Initially was concerned trees were not being adequately considered, but the proposed
ordinance as discussed seems to be a reasonable approach
Commissioner Muranaka
• Include language to indicate the least drastic measures can accommodate restoration
of an obstructed view
• The reference to "active use area' should be removed throughout the entire ordinance
• A provision for voluntary agreement between the parties should be included
• Under A-3 suggested less invasive methods of view restoration such as crown
reduction be employed since topping is sometimes very destructive to trees
• The tree claim preparation should apply immediately after the initial reconciliation
process fails
-
-
Chair Malsin
• The ordinance seems very reasonable
• Appropriate to provide property owners a mechanism to protect a valuable part of the
experience of their homes
• Language should be included to emphasize that trees are a great benefit to the
community
• The least aggressive solutions should be attempted before demanding removal of
trees•
ther Business
Mr Wa law advised the Commission of the upcoming meetings and agenda de
Chair Malsin
topics
8 Adjournment
mmended staff for their excellent job presenting some ry complicated
•
Vice-Chair Lamm moved, seconded by
12 18 am to December 8, 2004 at 7 00
City Hall The motion was unanimously ap
mmissi er Muranaka, to adjourn the meeting at
n the Mike Balkman Council Chambers at
D SCOTT MALSIN, CHAIRPE- ON
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CULVER CITY, CALIFORNI
2 9
Planning CoMmisslon Meefing Minute
November 10 2004
Page 12 of 13
• In Section B modify the language 'such evidence must show absence to must
prove the absence to indicate photographic evidence is not necessary
• What is Culver City s policy if a complaint of this nature is made against it'?
• Should trees in the public right-of-way which are part of an orderly program intended to
create a specific aesthetic for the City be considered differently from trees that grow in
a park'?
• The proposed ordinance is reasonable, it places a high value on trees and recognizes
view preservation is a fair concept
Mr Wardlaw
• Staff discussed how to deal with trees in the public nght-of-way because street trees
provide varous benefits to the pub lic good arid a decisyn was made to exempt #17e
Citk in that-regard
• A City park serves a very different purpose, so the trees in public parks should be
considered differently than the effects of a private party's trees when considering view
impacts
The consensus of the Commissioners was to forward the discussed revisions to the City
Council