PURPOSE:

To request direction from the City Council to proceed with a plan to systematically solicit public input concerning view protection regulations for the hillside residential areas of the City and - if indicated - to develop and implement a view protection ordinance.

BACKGROUND:

On July 9, 2002, the Community Development Department, in response to inquires from homeowners, and requests from the Council and the Planning Board, brought a report to the Council which discussed: a) current view protection provisions in the General Plan and Municipal Code; b) view protection ordinances in other cities; and, c) technical issues and difficulties involved with view protection ordinances.

The report was intended to acquaint the Council with general issues involved in view protection.  The report did not discuss what would be necessary for the City to actually develop and adopt view protection measures, except to say that such an effort could cost up to $100,000.  This figure was a very rough high-end estimate that assumed a consultant would completely handle all aspects of developing an ordinance including community input, professional technical research (such as providing real-estate, topographic and GIS expertise), environmental analysis, and writing and adopting a complete ordinance that dealt with all aspects of view protection including both built structures and vegetation.

At the July 9 meeting, the Council requested the Staff return with a plan to systematically solicit input from all potentially affected property owners and other parties that might be affected, including those who might have alternative positions on view protection before moving forward with an ordinance.  Council also requested more definite cost estimates for outside consultant assistance, and for an estimate of what would be required to accomplish these objectives using City Staff.

ANALYSIS:

To this end, the Planning Staff contacted several planning and environmental consultants.  In the event, Staff met informally with representatives from three companies to sound them out on how they would go about developing and implementing a view ordinance or regulations and to get a better idea of the likely costs involved.

Consultant Estimates:

Two of the consultants interviewed submitted preliminary estimates outlining an approach to the task.  They are LSA Associates (LSA) of Irvine and Moore Iacofano Goltsman Inc. (MIG) of Pasadena.  The two proposals are similar in some respects, noticeably that both essentially foresee a two-phase approach.  The first phase would solicit public input concerning view protection provisions in view of both the pros and cons and whether there is community interest in an ordinance.  The second phase would actually develop an ordinance or amendments to existing ordinances.  However, the two proposals also have very significant differences, especially concerning the amount of technical research and assistance proposed.  Note that Staff asked for, and received, preliminary proposals and general cost estimates only.  The attached proposals and the discussion below should not be understood as reflecting final proposals.

LSA Estimate:

LSA submitted a complete proposal for both phases of the project.  The specifics of the LSA proposal are laid out in Exhibit A.  LSA�s Phase One proposal includes three tasks. �Task 1.0� includes extensive background technical research including an analysis to evaluate the level of protection afforded under existing City regulations, and an examination of topography, elevations, etc. necessary for a detailed understanding of exactly who is affected by view issues and how.  LSA apparently proposes using GIS technology to develop a model to generate computer simulations showing the affected properties developed as allowed under the current development regulations or under any given set of proposed regulations.  The data could also be used to determine, for example, the number or proportion of lots potentially vulnerable to view obstruction, etc.

Tasks 2.0 and 3.0 in the LSA proposal deal with community outreach and input.  In Task 2.0 the consultant will work with City Staff to identify issues and stakeholders for the public meeting, information that will be provided to attendees, etc.  In Task 3.0 LSA proposes to conduct one or two community meetings to discuss the issues involved, possible approaches and gain community consensus.

Note that LSA proposes to have representatives from the Real Estate and Development community present at the meeting(s).  The consultant proposed and the Planning Staff agreed that it is important that the Phase One meeting(s) should be a two-way exchange of information, that is not just gathering community input on whether a view ordinance is desirable, but also educating property owners on the potential consequences and limitations of a view protection ordinance.  View regulations will likely result in further limitations on the height, size, location, etc., of what owners may build (or grow) on their properties, beyond the already existing limitations of the Mansionization Ordinance.  Homeowners should be aware of the implications of this. 

To conduct Phase One, LSA estimates a cost of around $15,000 to $20,000 including performing the technical research and providing real-estate and development community representatives.  LSA estimates Phase One should take about ten weeks.

The LSA proposal includes a preliminary discussion of Phase Two.  Tasks identified for Phase Two include drafting an Ordinance, preparing required California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents, and making presentations at public hearings.  Discussion of Phase Two is necessarily tentative because what is involved, indeed whether it will proceed at all, depends on the results of Phase One. This is reflected in the rather broad estimates LSA provides for Phase Two � $30,000 to $35,000 and about four to six months.

MIG Estimate:

The MIG proposal outlined in Exhibit B is comparatively brief.  It is an estimate for Phase One only.  Consistent with Council direction, the first phase includes outreach tasks to solicit and obtain systematic input from all individuals and groups potentially affected by view protection regulations.  MIG sees three sub tasks:

a) identifying goals of the outreach and what information needs to be presented and obtained;

b) identifying and contacting the target groups through publicity and public meetings;

c) collection of input from the meeting(s) (and other sources if appropriate) and organizing it into a report to the City, formulating recommendations for the Council.

These tasks correspond roughly to Tasks 2.0 and 3.0 of the LSA proposal except that MIG does not appear to propose the level of input from the Real Estate and Development communities that LSA does.  The MIG proposal also includes developing what is essentially a proposal for Phase Two, including a process flowchart and timeline.

For these tasks MIG estimates a cost of  $4,360. The MIG proposal assumes the City will primarily identify who the affected local stakeholders are, meaning not just residents, but also real-estate and development industry representatives.  The major elements MIG would contribute are a professional with experience in view shed issues to help explain the issues and problems associated with viewshed regulations and implementation (for the benefit of both Staff, and the community), and their expertise at conducting community workshop type meetings to elicit and analyze stakeholder input.  MIG does not include a time estimate in their proposal, but Planning Staff estimates these tasks would take five to eight weeks.

�In-house� Estimate:

Staff was also asked to discuss the possibility of developing view protection regulations using only City Staff and resources. The work proposed for Phase One in the MIG estimate, or in Tasks 2.0 and 3.0 of the LSA estimate can be accomplished by Planning Division Staff.  Some of them, such as researching ordinances in other cities have already been (at least partially) done.  Publicizing and conducting one or more public meetings is certainly within Staff capabilities along with preparing a report summarizing community input.  The major advantage to having a consultant prepare a viewshed ordinance is the high level of expertise they could offer in viewshed ordinances which will significantly aid in effectively communicating all relevant issues to the community. 

The level of experience needs to be considered even with respect to the first (community input) phase, as it must be expected that stakeholders attending the community meeting(s) will have extensive questions about how such ordinances work in practice.  Even if all the logistical and administrative aspects of the meeting can be conducted by CDD Staff, Staff recommends having at least one professional present with actual experience implementing and/or administering a viewshed ordinance.  Planning Staff may also require outside assistance from a real estate economist (or possibly a qualified broker) to address stakeholder questions at a community meeting regarding the economic consequences of view protection regulation, and to provide advice to the City Staff. 

Having Planning Staff prepare the ordinance should also be considered in light of other staff commitments particularly, but not limited to preparing new development standards and procedures for airport related land uses.  An estimate of staff time to conduct the community input phase (Phase One) has been prepared (Exhibit C-1).   Phase One is estimated to take about five to eight months given the division staffing level and current caseload.

Phase Two:

As with the consultant proposals, estimates for Phase Two are complicated by the fact that Phase One is essentially meant to determine if there is community support for such an ordinance and what form it might take. As was pointed out in the July 9, 2002 Staff Report, some view protection ordinances are very complex and thorough, others are fairly simple.  Depending on variables such as the geographical extent of the area involved, and the particular types of development standards in the recommendations from Phase One, staff estimates developing an ordinance, preparing the environmental documents and preparing public presentations could take from one to two years and require several hundred hours of staff time.

Comparison of Estimates:

The MIG Estimate � A �Bare Bones� Proposal:

MIG suggests that Phase One can be accomplished for less than $5000.  LSA estimates Phase One at $15,000 to $20,000.  At face value, this is quite a difference, but these  estimates while comparable in some ways, also have very significant differences.  The MIG estimate can be seen as a �bare-bones� proposal.  Fundamentally, they are proposing, with staff assistance, to conduct and report on one community meeting at which the issues of viewsheds and view protection regulations will be discussed and at which hopefully a consensus can be reached.  Apart from their acknowledged experience in conducting such meetings and helping to work out consensus, the major asset MIG would contribute is planners with actual prior experience helping communities assess, analyze and implement viewshed issues.  The MIG proposal assumes City Staff will undertake a certain amount of the organizing and background work itself including providing public notices, and general information and logistics for a community meeting. The City would also be responsible to have an inclusive meeting with real-estate and building industry professionals, etc. present.

The LSA Estimate � A �Full Service� Proposal:

By comparison, the LSA proposal for Phase One is estimated to cost from $15,000 to $20,000 and is very comprehensive. LSA proposes considerable background investigation including some on-the-ground research in selected neighborhoods before going into the community meeting and will be able to closely define the extent of areas affected and provide photos, topographics, visual simulations and other technical information at or before the meeting to outline the extent and characteristics of the area(s) affected by view obstruction issues.  This is the largest expense in the LSA proposal.  It could account for as much as half of the total for a high-end estimate, and is the greatest cost difference between the proposals.  LSA also includes bringing viewshed and real-estate economics professionals to the community meeting(s), and obtaining their professional input in their estimate.

A Possible Compromise:

If Planning Staff is called upon to prepare a viewshed ordinance �in-house� then, Staff recommends a compromise approach that includes all of the tasks in the MIG proposal with some additions.  Even given an �in-house� ordinance, Planning Staff recommends having some outside assistance with experience in viewshed ordinances and real-estate economics as noted.  This estimate also includes providing some background information and GIS based topographical analysis within the capabilities of the Planning Division Staff.  Such analysis would consist of exemplary and/or hypothetical cases, but would fall short of the �lot by lot� analysis proposed by LSA.

Obviously, stakeholders have to be provided with a certain amount of geographic information including at a minimum aerial photographs and topographic maps, to help them understand how view protection regulation works, and its practical limitations.  LSA�s proposal includes a very high level of such work as part of Phase One � as they put it, �on a lot-by-lot basis�.  This level of data may be appropriate when developing an ordinance, but is not absolutely necessary for the first phase.

Burbank�s GIS Division has indicated that to provide the full equivalent of LSA�s Task 1.0 in-house will require purchasing some equipment, such as a GPS station, and would probably cost in excess of $20,000 (including both purchase of equipment and the cash equivalent of Staff time).  This is in addition to Planning Division costs.  Given their current level of other commitments, GIS has indicated they may have to hire extra help to accomplish all these tasks.  Planning Division Staff � on the other hand � are capable of providing the minimum GIS support required for conducting the first phase along the lines proposed by MIG.

The following table gives a generalized comparison of the three estimates for the first phase:

Staff has made some assumptions about the task by task breakdown of the consultant estimates.  In the table, estimates and totals provided by the consultants are in italic type, task breakdown estimates by Planning Staff are in regular type.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Phase One:

Consultant Cost:

Based on the estimates received, Planning Staff finds the cost of having a consultant complete Phase One would range from $5,000 to $20,000, depending largely on the level of technical information and professional participation a consultant was asked to provide.  Note, however, that the lower end estimates assume a certain amount of City Staff time and expenditures for graphics, mailing, public notice, etc.  As was noted above, view protection is a complex and often highly nebulous issue with which few planners have extensive experience.  Both companies that submitted Phase One proposals have staff with experience explaining view protection issues and problems to the public. 

�In- house� Alternative:

Based on the attached estimates, Staff finds that City Staff could accomplish the tasks outlined in MIG�s proposal or in Tasks 2.0 and 3.0 of the LSA proposal.  For City Staff to perform these tasks �in-house� would require about 150 hours of staff time (see Exhibit C-1).  If the work were done �in-house� Planning Staff finds it would still be necessary to provide outside consultants with real-estate economics and view shed expertise at an estimated cost of from $2,500 - $4,000.

Phase Two:

Because the tasks involved in Phase Two will to a certain extent depend on the results of Phase One, estimates for this phase are more preliminary, but the Planning Staff considers LSA�s estimate of $30,000 to $35,000 to be reasonable.

Continuing Costs:

If the consensus at the completion of Phase One is to proceed with preparation of an ordinance, then a number of other costs will be incurred, in addition to the consultant fees to prepare the ordinance, environmental documentation, etc. There will also be a long-term annual cost for additional staff to process applications resulting from the view protection restrictions.  In most of the cities Planning Staff surveyed for the July 9 report, a majority of the time of at least one staff person was required to administer permit applications and appeals.  Rancho Palos Verdes, where a voter initiated ballot proposition resulted in an ordinance that includes trees and vegetation as well as built structures, has two full-time staff planners handling view protection issues only.

The additional work necessary to address permits and discretionary actions subject to a view protection ordinance may require an additional full time staff planner.  It should be noted that in addition to updating the General Plan Land Use Element and overhauling Chapter 31 of the BMC, the Council has recently directed Planning Division Staff to develop new development standards for the airport prior to expiration of the IDCO. Drafting, adopting and administering a view protection ordinance will further impact resources available to serve other advanced and current planning responsibilities.  Staff also notes that due to budget constraints, the Community Development Department along with all the other City departments has had to reduce expenditures including staff, programs, outside consulting, etc. for the coming year by 10%.

Availability of Funds:

No source of funds has been identified for this project.  Should the City Council desire to proceed with this study, funds would have to be taken from the un-appropriated fund balance which would have a negative impact on the PERS and budget stabilization funds.  These funds were established in the 2003 budget to address future PERS costs and necessary expenditure reductions.

CONCLUSION:

Staff finds that probably the best available approach to Phase One combines elements of the two consultant proposals.  Phase One should include all of the tasks MIG proposed in their estimate, including developing an estimate with flow-chart and time-line for Phase Two.  Additionally, the first phase should include having a real-estate economics professional familiar with the Burbank market participate in a public meeting. 

However, Planning Staff finds that Phase One need not include the level of technical research and information proposed by LSA.  The first phase should include a Power Point (or similar) presentation along with wall graphics that outline both the physical and practical effects and limitations of view protection, and potential economic considerations.

Staff notes that while this recommendation corresponds essentially with the tasks included in the �In-house� estimate above, that does not mean Planning Staff is recommending the project be accomplished in house.  The �in-house� alternative would at minimum require approximately 150 hours of CDD Staff time which would take Staff away from other established projects and ongoing core functions, and could require more Staff time depending on how much support from other Departments, such as IT, was required.  Based on the above analysis, Planning Staff estimates that consultant proposals/estimates for Phase One substantially equivalent to the �In-house� proposal should be around $5,000 to $7,500.

If the first phase results in a recommendation to prepare a view protection ordinance then

the second phase will be to actually develop an ordinance based on the input received in Phase One, including regulations, standards and procedures, and the necessary CEQA documentation.  The second Phase may include the additional technical research into topography, three-dimensional analysis, etc. recommended by LSA and will include community meetings to help further define the specifics of an ordinance.  The second phase would proceed if and only if the City Council determines based on the results of Phase One that such an ordinance is desirable.

RECOMMENDATION:

Based on Council direction, Planning Staff recommends the Council authorize the Community Development Department to develop and issue a Request for Proposals from qualified planning/environmental consultants for a two phase proposal to:

1. systematically solicit public input regarding the appropriateness of a view protection ordinance at an estimated cost of $5,000 to $7,500; and,

2. prepare an ordinance (if desired by the community) at an estimated cost of $30,000 to $35,000. 

Staff recommends retaining the services of a consultant as this offers a high level of expertise in view protection ordinances, and project completion in 6 to 8 months as compared to 1 to 2 years for in-house Staff.

List of Exhibits

Exhibit A:         Preliminary Estimate from Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc.

Exhibit B:          Preliminary Estimate from LSA Associates Inc.

Exhibit C:         Preliminary Estimate of Planning Division Staff Time

go to the top