PURPOSE:

This item has two purposes.  The first is to present a report (Exhibit A) by Moore, Iacofano, Goltsman (MIG) and their sub-consultant Robert Odland on the results of two community meetings held on February 19, 2004 and March 18, 2004 to discuss issues of view protection with the residents of the hillside area.  The intent of the meetings was to get input from the residents based on an informed understanding of the limitations of view protection regulations and their potential repercussions on property rights, and to determine if a consensus existed for establishment of view protection measures.  The meetings were very well attended with over 90 persons attending the first, and 65 at the second (Exhibit B).  The consultant report concludes that a consensus did exist at the community meetings to establish view protection measures.

The report goes on to discuss a number of options that might be included in a view protection ordinance, and make recommendations for proceeding with an ordinance designed to address the concerns voiced at the community meetings. Therefore, the second purpose of this item is to request direction from the City Council to draft a view protection ordinance that achieves a balance between the desire to protect views and the need for a reasonable development allowance and which also does not require additional staffing to administer new regulations.

BACKGROUND:

In 2002, in response to numerous requests and inquiries from various home and property owners, particularly in the hillside area, the staff presented the City Council with an extensive report on view protection ordinances[1].  This report was an informational report for the Council, and made no specific recommendations.  As the report stated, view protection can be a complicated undertaking with many repercussions and consequences.  It potentially involves a range of more or less overlapping sub-issues such as privacy protection; conserving air, light and open space; protection of trees and vegetation; architectural design review, etc.  The City Council directed the staff to provide an estimate of the cost of hiring a qualified consultant to research and develop a view protection ordinance.  In July 2003, the staff presented a report containing preliminary cost estimates based on informal input from a number of experienced planning consultants. 

Based on that report, the City Council authorized the staff to proceed with a consultant-assisted study.  However, the Council emphasized the importance of first getting broad based community input about whether view protections actually were widely desired in the affected areas, and if so, what level of restrictions, if any, would be acceptable.  The staff then issued a Request for Proposals for a two-phase study.  The first phase was intended to gain a sophisticated understanding of community concerns, and the second phase to produce a draft ordinance based on this understanding.  Phase Two was to proceed only after a report on Phase One was presented to the City Council, and the Council separately authorized proceeding with Phase Two.

Related Zone Text Amendments:

As the City Council is aware, the staff is simultaneously proceeding with a project to revise many of the existing development standards for the single-family zones (R-1, R-1E & R-1H) citywide.  This project is the result of a concern expressed by residents from many areas of the city regarding what is seen as the sometimes excessive height, size and architectural massiveness of new and reconstructed homes in residential neighborhoods, especially with respect to the scale of existing development, and their impact on general community character.  This issue, sometimes referred to as �mansionization�, came up repeatedly at the February and March community meetings.   Narrowly understood, this is a separate issue from view protection, however, the height, lot coverage and massiveness of a proposed structure can have considerable implications for obstruction of views, so there is a definite overlap.

�Mansionization� will be dealt with, to an extent, in the revised single-family zone development standards, which will apply to single-family zones throughout the city.  A view protection ordinance could separately address issues of structure height and size, if such have direct implications for obstruction of views, (although reducing size or height limits for single-family residences will support view protection by default).  Community meetings to explore possible revisions to the single-family development standards citywide were held on May 20 and July 14, 2004 (Exhibit D).  The issue is scheduled for a City Council discussion session on August 24, 2004, and the staff is tentatively projecting that an ordinance will be introduced to the City Council by mid-autumn.

Consultant Report:

The first part of the consultant report is a discussion of what was learned at the two community meetings.  The majority of persons present seemed to be willing to support extensive regulations to protect views, although a number of individuals preferred no, or only very limited further regulation.  The consultant report then goes into a discussion of general view protection issues including: the problem of defining what a view is (from where, to where); the property value impacts of view regulation; the costs of view protection to both the city and the property owner; and other related issues such as existing homeowner covenants.  The report discusses vegetation on both public and private property as a cause of view obstruction, and the difficulty of enforcing regulations on vegetation.  It continues with a discussion of built structures that obstruct views, and discussion of development standards, building placement and design and processes for reviewing proposed construction. 

The last part of the report discusses eleven specific options (see next section) for regulations that could be included in an ordinance, as well as discussions of procedures for conflict resolution, design guidelines and city owned trees.  The section also incorporates the consultant�s recommendations to the Council suggesting: revisions to the existing hillside development regulations; establishment of a mediation process for disputes involving vegetation; development of design guidelines; and development of a policy for city owned trees. 

The last two are outside the scope of the current contract.

OPTIONS FOR A VIEW ORDINANCE:

On pages 12 and 13 of their report, the consultant discusses several �options� for revisions to the existing hillside regulations.  These options, if pursued, could take the hillside regulations well beyond their present scope.  Most of these �options� are actually general subject areas of regulation, and an ordinance could potentially respond to one or more of them.  However, within each subject area there is a wide range of possible specific alternatives from expansively, restrictive regulations on one end, to narrow, tightly focused protections on the other.  The following discussion is intended to put these options within the context of existing City regulations and practices, and to the extent possible analyze their impacts on City operations.

DEFINING VIEWS

Consultant Recommendation: Define views � from where, to where, and what exactly is protected, and degree of protection.

Current Burbank Municipal Code:   No definition in BMC.

            Discussion: Defining views seems basic, but in practice is one of the most complicated (and slippery) issues in view protection.  It is clearly not practical to protect every view from every window in every home in the hillside area (or anywhere else).  Thus it is necessary to say what views will be protected, both in terms of where the view is to, and where it is from.  The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, for example, defines three kinds of views: views of the ocean, views of the Los Angeles Basin and views of hillsides within the city.  In Burbank we will probably only have to deal with two views, i.e. views of the San Fernando Valley (and possibly surrounding areas), and views of the Verdugo Mountains.  Some cities define views even more specifically as being to certain landmarks (e.g. Tiburon which protects views of the Golden Gate and Bay bridges). 

At the same time, it is necessary to define where a protected view is from.  Most cities limit the number of views from one house that may be protected, or limit protections to views from major living spaces such as living rooms, family rooms (possibly master bedrooms).  Less or no protection is given to secondary views or views from secondary rooms. 

An overlapping issue is the degree of protection afforded.  Some cities limit the extent of a protected view by compass readings or degrees of azimuth, or percent loss, etc.  In many ordinances, the center of a panoramic view is afforded more protection than the periphery.  View regulations in existence run from expansive ordinances, which protect many or several panoramic views from different areas on a property, to severely limited regulations, which narrowly define a specific view or view corridor from a specific window (or other place) in a house.

FAR, BUILDING ENVELOPE and PLACEMENT:

Consultant Recommendation:  Reduce the maximum allowed floor area ratio (FAR), probably to a ratio within the range of 0.4 to 0.45 from the existing 0.6 and delete the provision that allows an FAR of 1.2 based on the level pad area.

Modify height standards to (1) account for the differences in upslope and downslope lots and (2) require that building heights generally follow the topography by stepping up or down slopes.

Review setback requirements and revise as necessary to minimize view blockage; setbacks may vary depending on adjacent development and upslope vs. downslope lots.

Current Burbank Municipal Code:  The development standards in the Burbank hillside areas (see Exhibit E) are generally the same as in all other single-family zones in the City with some exceptions.  For example, FAR in the hillside area is limited to the lesser of 0.6 times lot area or 1.2 times the area of the building pad.  Height limits are 35 ft. from the lowest point on the perimeter of the foundation to the roofline, rather than 27 ft. to the ceiling plate and 35 ft. overall.

Discussion:  The Planning Staff is currently working on revised development standards for the R-1 zones which (if adopted) will reduce the FAR to approximately the level recommended by the consultant.  Staff recommends reducing the hillside pad size FAR rather than eliminating it altogether as the consultant recommends.  Eliminating the pad size FAR limit could result in larger houses, as hillside lots run up to several acres in size.  Reducing pad area FAR to 0.8 (vs. 1.2) has been proposed as part of the revised general R-1 standards, along with reduced height limits, increased setbacks, etc.

However, many cities (Glendale and Pasadena, for example) have different � typically more restrictive - development standards for their hillside areas than for single-family zones in other areas of the city.  Pasadena for example has FARs as low as 0.25 in their hillside overlay zone. They also require larger side setbacks � especially for second stories - than in other areas of the city in order to preserve view corridors between the houses.  Such standards can be quite effective.  On standard size, rectangular, grid lots, there is usually basically only one place to put the house. But, hillside lots are typically larger than lots in other areas and are often irregularly shaped, thus offer more alternatives for placement.  

On the other hand, it should be noted that no hillside development standards or view protection ordinance can guarantee view protection in all possible cases.  FARs may not be reduced, nor permissible heights limited to the extent that development of a particular lot becomes impossible or economically unfeasible.  In some circumstances, it is possible that even building a modestly sized, single story residence could wind up blocking a view.  Even restrictive cities guarantee the right to build a certain minimum height (e.g. 12 ft. in Rancho Palos Verdes, 18 ft. in Malibu).

CRITERIA FOR CUPs:

Consultant Recommendation: Develop a set of written criteria for view protection that could be used for the review of conditional use permits (CUPs) in the hillside area.  Criteria could deal with having the building follow the hillside contour, breaking large walls into smaller elements, locating new dwellings so they interfere minimally with views from adjacent dwellings, locating windows so they do not provide a direct view into windows of adjacent dwellings, and designing decks so they do not look down on the decks or hot tubs of adjacent buildings.

Current Burbank Municipal Code:  The Hillside Development Standards in BMC �31-674 et seq. already contain a number of criteria (see particularly �31-680) such as extra parking, requirements for �skirting� below living spaces, etc.  However, none have to do with view protection as such except for the rather indefinite statement in BMC �31-680(c) that �concern shall be given for the preservation of views�.  The current Code also only requires a CUP for certain hillside projects (i.e. on lots with a slope over 20% and without a prepared pad).  This is discussed more in the following section.

Discussion:  The title of this section of the consultant report is somewhat ambiguous.  Most of the �CUP criteria� suggested could indeed be required for approval of a CUP, but they could also be applied in other contexts, such as development standards applicable with or without a CUP.  On the other hand, while the requirements of BMC �31-680 (Minimum Hillside Development Standards) are referred to as �development standards�, they are in effect CUP criteria, because they have to be met before a hillside CUP is issued. 

Either way, using these types of special criteria for view protection could be explored including such recommendations as requiring breaking up of large walls into smaller elements; requiring setbacks to follow hillside contours; reviewing the location of dwellings on the lot; and possibly even location of windows, decks, etc.  Many cities with hillside ordinances do this - although most do it as a part of a design review process.  Elsewhere in this report, the staff recommends against establishing a design review process as such is usually understood.  Codifying such standards may limit their flexibility, but many of the same kinds of standards (e.g. breaking up wall mass and requiring extra setbacks) are successfully used in Burbank�s multiple family design standards (BMC �31-1113) without resort to architectural review.

APPLY [CUPs] TO ALL LOTS:

Consultant Recommendation:  Apply the hillside provisions to all lots within the hillside area.

Current Burbank Municipal Code:  The BMC Hillside Development Standards currently only apply to lots with a slope over 20% and which do not have a prepared building pad on them.

Discussion:  If the CUP requirement were expanded to all hillside lots, as the consultant recommends, we would in effect be requiring discretionary review for all hillside development.  This would greatly increase permit processing times as well as add enormously to city costs and staff time.  However, this does not have to be an all or nothing proposition.  CUPs could be required only for (for example): two-story houses, or second story additions; or construction over a certain height; or for expansions greater than a certain square-footage or over a certain valuation or some similar criteria.   The impact of this on both staff time and resources and on application processing time is discussed below, and also under the Fiscal Impact section below.

Requiring CUPs would address the concern expressed in the two community meetings, about lack of notice about what is happening in their neighborhoods, since CUP procedures require notices to nearby property owners and residents.  Another alternative might be to require something similar to an Administrative Use Permit or Development Review for all or some single-family development in the hillside.  This would considerably reduce processing and staff time over the CUP alternative since no hearing is required (except on appeal), but would still require noticing of nearby property owners.  However, care should be taken to avoid the problem experienced with multi-family DR appeals (at least before the recent adoption of neighborhood compatibility review) where the Planning Board or City Council could listen sympathetically to neighborhood concerns, but could do nothing unless there was an actual code violation.

As with the other �options� discussed, current practices in other cities vary considerably.  They run from requiring formal discretionary review (such as a CUP) for all hillside development, through administrative review to simple heightened development standards for hillside areas.  The major drawbacks of requiring discretionary review include longer permit processing times as well as increased costs.  Processing a CUP usually takes around 3-4 months, as opposed to administrative review which typically takes less than half as long. 

CC&Rs:

Consultant Recommendation: Take no action on CC&Rs (conditions, covenants and restrictions) under the assumption that the actions taken for the entire hillside area would address the sub-areas that have CC&Rs.

Current Burbank Municipal Code: The City has no authority to enforce private covenants (i.e. between private entities such as a developer and a buyer) and staff is aware of no other jurisdiction that does.  The city will enforce covenants to which it is signatory because we can control the subject of such covenants and ensure they are written to be objectively enforceable.

Discussion:  Some property owners have complained to City staff about lack of enforcement of the private covenants, which came with their properties.  Some, by no means all, of the lots in the hillside are supposed to be protected by covenants with view obstruction restrictions.  However, in some cases the homeowner associations originally set up for these developments have ceased to operate, leaving the owners with no recourse except civil (court) action.  The City has no legal standing to enforce private covenants, and staff is aware of no other jurisdiction that will enforce private covenants. 

It is theoretically possible to adopt ordinances that more or less mirror the standards found in these covenants. However, the covenants the staff has reviewed so far are not very specific about view protection.  For example, the covenants for the Lennar (Burbank Hill) development read �No building shall be constructed � in such a location or to such a height as, in the opinion of the Architectural Committee, to unreasonably obstruct the view from any other Lot�.  The phrase �unreasonably obstruct� is simply not a specific enough standard on which to base objective decisions by City staff.  The Lennar covenants are among the most recent and detailed of any staff has read.  An ordinance adopted by the City could offer as much or more protection for views as the CC&Rs (or at least could be more objectively enforceable), but the existing CC&Rs do not appear to be a likely source of specific language for such an ordinance.

TREE HEIGHT LIMITS & TREE SPECIES:

Consultant Recommendation: Review the feasibility of setting height limits for trees and make revisions as appropriate.

Review the feasibility of having an approved list of trees for the hillside area that meet multiple objectives for view protection, fire protection, screening and shading.

Current Burbank Municipal Code:  The Trees and Vegetation section of the BMC (Chapter 28, see Exhibit F) deals with street trees (i.e. on City property).  It does not place any limitations on trees or vegetation on private property, except for when these could endanger public health or safety, or damage public property (including infecting city trees).  It does not require particular species or set height limits.

The Burbank Fire Prevention Code Section 15-1-1103.2.4 contains general regulations regarding brush and vegetation clearance and removal.  It does not specify particular preferred or prohibited species.  It has requirements for maintenance or thinning of certain species (conifers, eucalyptus, acacia, palms) that apparently present particular hazards.  It does not specify any height limits but it does require trimming of trees over 18 ft. high and requires trimming the bottoms of trees.  It limits the size (volume) and spacing of some shrubs.

Discussion: Burbank does not currently significantly limit trees on private property.  Some other cities (e.g. Sausalito and Laguna Beach) have tree and view polices which prefer certain species and discourage or prohibit others.  Burbank also does not place limits on height of private trees but some jurisdictions do this also.  The CC&Rs for the Lennar development supposedly limit trees to 30 ft.[2]   The Burbank Municipal Code�s Trees and Vegetation section authorizes a Master Street Tree Plan, (BMC �28-103) which specifies species, spacing and location of trees on streets, parks and other public lands.  According to the City Forester many species specified in the plan (e.g. Camphor and Liquidambar) grow very high (50 to 80 ft.).  If the city were to limit tree height or require or prefer certain species and extend such regulations to include street trees, this could entail considerable rethinking of the Master Street Tree Plan.  Polices on tree species should also take into consideration California Department of Fish and Game regulations, which encourage native species including oaks, and sycamores which can also grow to considerable heights. 

MEDIATION PROCESS FOR VEGETATION:

Consultant Recommendation:

A new ordinance establishing a mediation process for resolving disputes between private landowners could be established.  The process could also include arbitration, which is binding, as opposed to mediation, which is advisory.  The process could be set up to require minimal involvement of City officials (some processes adopted by other cities involve only keeping a log of private actions and have insignificant cost impacts on the city).  Minimal city involvement can also take the dispute resolution decisions out of the political arena.

Current Burbank Municipal Code: No remedy is available in the BMC, so no process is provided.

Discussion: Most ordinances actually titled �view protection� (or view preservation, or view restoration), as opposed to being called hillside development standards or suchlike, deal with the issue of views being blocked by trees and vegetation.  Most cities that have a process for restoring views blocked by trees and vegetation do so through referral to arbitration or mediation.  That is, rather than the city or city officials themselves making determinations about whether trees are blocking views and/or their subsequent removal, thinning, etc., the parties involved are referred to a mediator or arbitrator.  The ordinance may set decision criteria and standards for the mediator in their ordinance, which may include procedures such as noticing and posting, but a private mediator hired by the disputing parties makes the actual decision.  Typically, the party seeking restoration of their view is responsible for the mediator�s fee.  He/she is usually also responsible for the cost of producing an arborists report and other information if required, for public noticing and for the cost of tree removal, thinning, topping etc. sometimes on an ongoing basis. 

Even if virtually all responsibility for actual operation/enforcement of such an ordinance is put into private hands, the City will still have to develop and adopt the ordinance.  An ordinance would have to specify criteria to be considered by a mediator/arbitrator and will have to include certain procedural requirements such as public noticing and posting.  Developing such an ordinance could be an extensive process[3] which possibly should be the object of a separate study rather than be addressed at this time.

As with most of the other options discussed herein, there is a range of possible alternatives.  Depending on the particular criteria selected, such ordinances can aggressively favor view restoration such as in Rancho Palos Verdes which has, in a few high profile cases, ordered large numbers of trees removed in order to restore a view, or they can favor methods with the least impact on trees.  Sausalito, for example, has a �Tree and View Preservation Ordinance� which as the title implies tries to protect both trees and views.  Typical criteria include: the extent of view blockage; quality of the view; whether the main view from the property is being blocked, or whether it enjoys other views; other benefits of the tree(s) such as shading, privacy, or energy conservation; whether the proposed remedy is the least destructive or damaging alternative; the value of the tree as habitat; whether it is a desired or rare or unusual species, or a particularly fine example, and many others.

POLICY FOR TREES ON CITY LANDS:

Consultant Recommendation: The City could revisit its policy on tree trimming and topping on city-owned lands.  The policy could involve a periodic survey of such lands or could respond to specific complaints regarding view blockages.

Current Burbank Municipal Code:  The BMC Trees and Vegetation section (Ch. 28) sets out the City�s current requirements for removal and thinning of trees, and does not include any provisions for view preservation or restoration (see Exhibit F). 

Discussion:  The current Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department practice is set out in BMC Ch. 28.  They do not remove, thin, trim, shape, or top trees specifically for view protection/restoration purposes, although they do trim for other purposes such as the health or appearance of the tree, safety considerations, to clear utility lines, etc.  The PRCSD has substantial concerns about the negative effects of trimming, topping, etc. on the health, appearance, and value of the trees, especially in light of the particular species prevalent in Burbank�s hillside areas.  PRCSD also does not have the staff or budget to do the thinning or trimming themselves, and would have to impose strict qualifications (including liability) on private contractors hired to work on city trees.

The mediation process described above is usually reserved for disputes between private parties.  Most cities do not subject themselves to mediation or arbitration when the offending tree is a city or street tree.  Rather they have some specific procedure such as applications to a responsible official (e.g. city forester) or to a city tree commission or suchlike.  Generally, more or less the same criteria (e.g. extent of blockage; size, condition and species of tree; type of remediation necessary, etc.) are considered when deciding requests for view restoration regarding city trees as for decisions about privately owned trees, but the procedures and decision makers are different.  The Burbank City Forester and Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department advise that current City policies (i.e. the Master Street Tree Plan) will make integration with a view protection or restoration ordinance problematic at best.  As pointed out above, simply developing and adopting a tree and view preservation and/or restoration ordinance will be an extensive undertaking even if Burbank were to rely mainly on mediation for disputes over private trees. 

PREPARING AN ORDINANCE:

The community potentially affected by a hillside or view protection ordinance has consistently demonstrated a high level of interest and involvement as witnessed by the amount of correspondence received, and turnout at the February and March meetings.  Although, as the consultant correctly notes, there was substantial community consensus that some sort of view protection was desired, working out the details, particularly with regards to the degree of acceptable restrictions on private property (both built and vegetative) will likely be quite challenging.

The staff and consultant expect that once the City Council has given approval and directions for Phase Two of the project, that development of an ordinance will take about four to six months.  An approximate schedule would be: 1) have proposed ordinance options available for a first public input meeting within 90 days; 2) have a revised draft ordinance for a second public meeting about 30 days after the first meeting; and, 3) have a final draft ordinance ready for consideration by the Planning Board and City Council about 45 to 60 days after the second community meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Phase Two of the view protection study including producing a draft ordinance, associated CEQA documentation, conducting public workshops and attending public hearings before the Planning Board and City Council is projected to cost $25,700.  This is in addition to the $14,645 already expended for Phase One.  Funding for Phase Two is available in the Community Development Department budget and already allocated for this purpose.

As was pointed out in the initial staff study and the attached consultant report, there will also be ongoing enforcement and administration costs to the City if an ordinance is implemented.  Depending on exactly what requirements are in it, these could be considerable.  Even a general estimate of costs will depend almost entirely on what is included in an ordinance.  On the one hand, if the City adopts something similar to the existing BMC �31-1113 development standards for multi-family residential developments, except tailored for hillside developments, then increased direct costs may be modest.  There could be a minor increase in applications for variances from the tighter standards, and possibly some extra staff time involved in explaining and implementing the new standards.  More complex standards might also marginally increase permit processing time.

On the other hand, if revised hillside regulations were to expand the currently rather limited circumstances where a hillside CUP is required, or were to introduce other administrative review procedures such as, or similar to, an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) or Development Review, then costs could be somewhat higher.  The staff has elsewhere estimated that the cost of processing a discretionary permit such as CUP averages around $5,000 and administrative permits such as Development Review average around $1,900.[4] This figure is inclusive of staff time and overhead, but does not include costs outside the Community Development Department such as mailing costs, staff review time by other departments, etc. 

Estimates of how many more CUPs or other permits might be processed will depend entirely on how far the CUP requirements are expanded.  To give an estimate, last year (C.Y. 2003) the Building Division issued 97 building permits for either new construction or additions or alterations valuated at over $100,000 for single family homes in all of Burbank.  The area potentially affected by a hillside development ordinance (i.e. the Mountain Fire Zone) contains slightly less than one-tenth of all the single-family lots in Burbank (about 1,770 lots out of approximately 18,000 single-family lots citywide).  If we assume that this area accounts for a proportional share of such permits, then it should have received 9 to 10 permits.  If the Hillside Ordinance�s CUP requirement were expanded to more or less these parameters (i.e. either new home construction or additions or alterations over $100,000)[5], then we should expect permit processing costs will increase by around $50,000. 

Generally, use of discretionary procedures such as CUPs should be judicious rather than expansive, and administrative procedures such as AUPs or Development Review should be preferred where possible.  If we relied completely on administrative approvals (AUPs or DRs) rather than discretionary approvals (CUPs), increased permitting costs might only be $19,000.  If we limited administrative review further (say to only two-story construction or second-story additions) the cost increase could be lower, and of course there is always the option of not expanding the CUP requirement at all, in which case there would be no anticipated additional costs or staff time or only minimal increases as discussed above.  Any draft ordinance will, of course, be accompanied by an estimate of the cost of implementation, broken down to the extent possible, by individual components.

The cost of implementing an ordinance for trees and view protection is even more difficult to estimate.  The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, for example, has two planners who work on nothing but view protection/restoration issues. This would quite conservatively cost the City at least $150,000 per year.  However, there are several unusual features of the RPV ordinance and procedures, which make it a poor example.  As was noted above, most such ordinances operate so as to require the individual requesting view restoration to assume most of the costs, such as mediator/arbitrator fees, cost of arborist studies, cost of actual removal (if any).  This may even include ongoing costs such as annual trimming or thinning.  However, if City trees are involved there will inevitably be at least some direct costs to the City.  For example, even if the applicant requesting view restoration were required to provide an arborist�s report, the Parks and Recreation staff would have to review the report for accuracy and completeness.  This is not including the up-front staff time and costs (from both CDD and PRCSD, and possibly other departments such as Fire and Public Works) needed to develop a revised tree ordinance.  As noted below, the staff is not recommending proceeding with a tree/view ordinance at this time.

CONCLUSION:

At the end of their report, the consultants set out five recommendations.  The following presents a brief discussion of whether the staff agrees with the consultant recommendation, and why or why not.

Revised Hillside Ordinance:

The staff concurs with the first recommendation by the consultant to develop revised hillside development regulations.  As mentioned, the staff is currently proposing more restrictive standards for the single-family zones generally, including height, setback and FAR limitations, which could certainly favorably affect view preservation, but there is nothing in these proposals that deals with the specific characteristics of hillside construction.   Development standards particular to hillside construction and which encourage, for example, houses to be stepped down the slope or set back into hillsides should be explored.  An ordinance will also have to address other issues such as: how to define the protected view and degree of protection afforded; expanded review requirements such as broadening the scope of or criteria for CUPs or administrative review; also procedures for hillside developments (e.g. noticing requirements, use of story poles, etc.).  Based upon input received at the community meetings and the experience of the consultant, staff believes that this item would provide the greatest benefit for view protection at this time.

Vegetation Mediation:

The second consultant recommendation is for the city to establish a mediation process for resolving vegetation disputes.  This is certainly possible, and several cities have successfully established processes for resolving disputes between property owners.  On the other hand the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department has serious concerns with subjecting city street trees to removal, topping, shaping, thinning, trimming etc. for the purpose of view preservation.  At the two community meetings, while most of the concerns expressed about trees referred to trees on private lands, there were definitely at least a few individuals concerned with city trees.   The staff cannot recommend adoption of an ordinance regarding view blockage by trees unless it can be integrated with existing city policies and plans regarding street trees.

Design Guidelines:

The staff does not recommend developing or implementing design guidelines, as this term is usually understood.  Design guidelines, as the consultant report notes, are different from development standards in that they typically include example graphics and pictures of what is preferred (or not preferred) as well as text.  They are usually used as part of a design or architectural review process.  Historically, Burbank has not used design review, and has preferred to implement development standards via the Zoning Code.  The Planning staff presented a report on design/architectural review to the City Council last December.  Unquestionably using a design review process can allow more flexibility than using codified development standards, but design review can slow down approvals considerably and can represent an enormous strain on city staff time and resources.  In the presentation last December, the staff observed that the City of Glendale employed the equivalent of 4.5 planners to implement their design review process.  Therefore, staff recommends that efforts be focused upon developing new and/or revised codified development standards rather than design/architectural guidelines.

Street Tree Policy:

This issue was partly discussed under the vegetation mediation section above.  Integrating a process for view restoration or protection into current city policies and plans for street trees would be a considerable undertaking in terms of staff time and resources.  For instance, the particular species of trees the city has historically chosen for its Master Street Tree Plan do not easily lend themselves to these options and the plan would likely have to be extensively rethought.  The staff recommends concentrating on view obstruction from the built environment at this time.

Moratorium:

Finally, the staff also does not recommend a moratorium on new development in the hillside areas at this time.  Although existing homes may currently be expanded and, under certain circumstances, new homes built without discretionary review, staff does not believe that the current levels of development in the hillside area warrant adoption of a moratorium.

RECOMMENDATION:

The staff recommends the City Council authorize the staff and consultant to proceed with Phase Two of the view protection project to develop a draft ordinance that would include new or revised hillside development regulations and to present the ordinance to the Planning Board and City Council at public hearings as provided in the scope of services.
 

EXHIBIT LIST

Exhibit A:         Moore, Iacofano, Goltsman Inc. and Robert Odland Consulting; �Hillside View  Protection Project�; Phase One

                         Report; July 27, 2004

Exhibit B          Sign-in Sheets from Public Meetings at Joaquin Miller School to Discuss View  Protection

Exhibit C:         Public Correspondence Received Regarding Hillside View Protection

Exhibit D:         Notice of Community Meeting on July 14, 2004 Re: Changes to Single-family  Development Standards

Exhibit E:          Burbank Municipal Code: Chapter 31, Article 6, Division 12 (�� 31-674 to 31-682) �Hillside Development

                           Standards, Guidelines and Procedures for Single Lots or Parcels (Non-subdivision)�

Exhibit F:          Burbank Municipal Code: Chapter 28 �Trees and Vegetation�

go to the top