PURPOSE:

This report seeks direction from the City Council on proceeding with the second and third phases of the view protection ordinance.  The first phase was completed in May 2005 as part of the amendments to the single family development standards.  Staff recommends that the Council direct staff to proceed with the second phase of the view protection ordinance dealing with vegetation controls, and to review and consider the outcome of the first two phases prior to proceeding with the third phase.

BACKGROUND:

In July 2003, the City Council directed staff to proceed with a consultant-assisted study of options for adopting a view protection ordinance to preserve and protect scenic views in the hillside area of the City.  This was driven by input received during prior years from hillside residents that some City action to protect views in the hillside area was desired.

Staff retained the services of Moore, Iacofano, Goltsman (MIG) and their sub-consultant Robert Odland, a view protection expert, to work with the residents of the hillside area in determining what type of protection was desired and feasible.  Staff and the consultants conducted two community meetings on February 19, 2004 and March 18, 2004.  All property owners in the hillside area and additional persons who had requested to receive notice of meetings related to the view protection issue were mailed notices of the meetings.  The purpose of the first meeting was to discuss the current conditions in the Burbank hillside area and to look at the full spectrum of view protection options that the hillside residents wished to have considered.  The purpose of the second meeting was to discuss specific view protection options and to gauge residents� level of interest in the various options available.  Both community meetings were well attended, with over 90 hillside residents at the first meeting and 65 residents at the second meeting.

In July 2004, staff returned to the City Council to report on the outcome of the two community meetings.  Based upon the overwhelming support from those that attended the meetings, staff recommended that the Council direct staff to proceed with creating a view protection ordinance.  Although a vocal minority at both meetings opposed any restrictions on structures or vegetation, most residents at the community meetings expressed support for an ordinance that would protect views from private properties, including the following features:

• Limitations on house sizes

• Design guidelines for hillside homes

• Requirements to reduce the �massive appearance� of homes

• Vegetation height limits

• Mediation process for vegetation disputes

• Vegetation control for trees and plants on public property (i.e. streets, parks, and public hillside areas)

• City enforcement of private covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding view protection

The above features of a view protection ordinance can generally be divided into three categories: 1) limitations on structures, 2) limitations on vegetation, and 3) specific limitations on view obstruction.  The City Council in July 2004 directed staff to proceed with a view protection ordinance in three phases using these three general categories as the basis for phasing.

The first phase, limitations on structures, was completed in conjunction with the revisions to the development standards for the R-1 Single Family Residential zone.  In addition to community meetings held in January and February 2005 for the revisions to the R-1 standards, staff held a separate meeting on February 16, 2005 with hillside residents to specifically discuss the proposed standards that would be unique to the hillside area.  Again, all property owners in the hillside area and other interested parties were mailed notices of the meeting.  In May 2005, the City Council adopted the hillside development standards in conjunction with the amended standards for the R-1 zone Citywide.

The hillside development standards adopted by the Council do not constitute a view protection ordinance.  However, the development standards were created with the assistance of the City�s view protection consultant, and are intended to address those characteristics of a house that most often affect views from neighboring properties.  These include height, setbacks, and house size.  Further, all proposed houses in the hillside area over 3,000 square feet in size or 24 feet in height are required to receive approval of a discretionary hillside development permit before they are issued a building permit.  One of the required findings for approval of a hillside permit is that the proposed house would not unnecessarily or unreasonably encroach upon scenic views from neighboring properties.  All hillside development permit applicants are required to submit a view study with their permit application documenting how their proposed structure would impact views from neighboring properties.  The Community Development Director (or Planning Board or City Council if appealed), may require changes to the design of a proposed project or deny a proposed project if it is determined to unreasonably impact views from neighboring properties.

ANALYSIS:

The hillside development standards adopted by the Council in May 2005 provide the City with substantial discretion to deny a proposed hillside house project if it would obstruct scenic views from neighboring properties.  However, the standards do not constitute a view protection ordinance, in that they do not clearly define views or provide direction on which views or portions thereof are to be protected.  The standards also deal strictly with structures and do not address trees or other vegetation in any way.  At the February 2005 community meeting with hillside residents, many residents expressed disappointment that the hillside standards did not include controls on vegetation.  Some residents perceived the height and thickness of vegetation to be as much or greater of a concern than structures and expressed their concern that such issues would not be addressed in the standards.  Most meeting attendees continued to express their desire for a full view protection ordinance, inclusive of the second and third phases mentioned above.

Vegetation Controls

The second phase of the view protection ordinance could include a variety of controls on vegetation including limitations on tree and bush height and species selection.  Vegetation is considerably more difficult to address than structure limitations because structures are known quantities that do not change once they are built.  Vegetation, however, continues to grow throughout its life, as trees grow taller and shrubs grow bigger and thicker.  Maintaining and cutting back trees and vegetation is not always straightforward.  Some tree species, for example, may be severely injured or killed if they are topped.  Vegetation also varies greatly by species and by the seasons.

Another issue that must be addressed by vegetation controls is vegetation and trees on private property versus those on public land.  Much of the land in the hillside area is owned by the City of Burbank, used either as public park space or open hillside area.  Some hillside residents have complained that City-owned trees in parks, along public streets, and in other hillside areas obstruct views just as much as privately-owned trees.  Current City policy is that trees are not topped, trimmed, thinned, or shaped for the purpose of preserving or restoring views from private properties.  Such activities are performed only for the health of the tree.  Any consideration of vegetation requirements that would affect trees on public property would require extensive involvement from the Park, Recreation, and Community Services Department.

Another approach to vegetation issues is the creation of a mediation or arbitration process for property owners to resolve disputes about vegetation.  Some cities use such a process in addition to, or instead of, actual controls on vegetation height or species.  A mediation process would be advisory only, while an arbitration process would be binding upon the owners.  Either process would likely have no involvement by City staff.  The City would establish the process and require owners in vegetation disputes to participate in the process, but would not conduct the process.  Property owners would be required to attend mediation or arbitration on their own and would pay for the cost of the process, and inform the City of the outcome.  While mediation or arbitration may be used as an alternative to detailed vegetation controls, some guidelines would still have to be created to guide the mediators or arbiters in making their decision.

Staff recommends that the City proceed with the second phase to study options for vegetation controls.  As with the first phase, staff recommends an initial community meeting to identify residents� general concerns and introduce all available options, and a follow-up meeting where specific options are discussed in detail and input is received about those options.  Following the community meetings and discussions with the Park, Recreation, and Community Services Department, staff would return to the Planning Board and City Council with recommendations for the creation of vegetation regulations, a mediation process, or some combination of options.

View Protection Regulations

The most significant aspect of the third phase, creating view protection regulations, would be to define the views to be protected, and to set limitations on the amount of view obstruction that would be considered acceptable.  This is perhaps the most complicated and controversial issue in view protection.  Since it is often not practical to protect every view from every window of every home, view protection ordinances often identify specific views (e.g. views of a specific place or feature) that are to be preserved or provide guidelines for identifying primary and secondary views.  Another aspect to be considered is from where the view originates.  Views may be from windows of common living spaces such as living rooms or from more private areas such as bedrooms.  Views may also be from porches, decks, or yard areas.  View protection regulations may prioritize different views or differentiate those views that must be protected from those that may not.  Finally, view protection regulations may specify the degree to which a view may be obstructed.  In some cases, it may not be feasible to say that a view cannot be blocked at all.  In these cases, some ordinances allow certain amounts of certain views to be obstructed based upon compass direction, percentage of view blockage, and segments of panoramic views.

The recently adopted hillside development standards require every hillside development permit applicant to submit a view study with their application.  The view study must use photographs, photo simulations, drawings, story poles, topographic maps, or any combination of media to demonstrate how a proposed house project would or would not obstruct views from neighboring properties.  Because the hillside standards do not include definitions of which views must be protected or the extent to which obstruction can occur, determinations must be made on an individual project basis to determine the degree of view obstruction that is appropriate or practical for a specific project to achieve.  Although this approach has some limitations in that it requires each project to be looked at individually, staff believes that it may be premature to proceed with adopting additional standards that define the view or the degree of view obstruction that is permitted.  Due to the wide variety of property locations, orientations, and corresponding views across the hillside, it would be very difficult to define and designate views to be protected, or to assign higher values to one view over another.

Staff is currently processing two hillside development permit applications.  As of the publication of this report, staff was still reviewing the two applications and related view studies and had not yet reached a decision on whether to approve or deny the applications.  Before proceeding with any additional view protection regulations, staff would prefer to gain experience processing these and additional future hillside development permit applications.  After processing several applications that present different circumstances, staff will be better prepared to make recommendations about whether view definitions or more detailed view protection regulations are needed.  Staff notes that the Community Development Director�s decision to approve or deny a hillside development permit can be appealed to the Planning Board and City Council.  Therefore, any disagreements about the value of existing views, or the degree to which a proposed project would affect those views, can be worked out through the public hearing process when necessary.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Staff received an estimate from MIG for completion of the second and third phases of the view protection ordinance process.  The estimated total cost for the second and third phases is $54,180, itemized as follows:

Phase 2 � Vegetation Control

Initial community meeting                                  $  6,480

Drafting vegetation control standards              $  9,090

Follow-up community meeting                          $  6,480

Planning Board and Council hearings             $  5,040

Phase 2 Total                                                    $27,090

Phase 3 � View Protection Regulations

Initial community meeting                                  $  6,480

Drafting view protection regulations                 $  9,090

Follow-up community meeting                          $  6,480

Planning Board and Council hearings             $  5,040

Phase 3 Total                                                    $27,090

Phase 2 and 3 Total                                       $54,180

The Planning Division currently has funds available to fund both phases that have been diverted from other projects.  First, $30,000 was allocated in the Planning Division budget this fiscal year for the purpose of updating the Housing Element of the General Plan.  Staff had anticipated needing to update the 2001 Housing Element by June 2006, consistent with state Housing Element law.  However, recent changes in the law have extended the current Housing Element cycle such that an updated Housing Element will not be required until June 2008.  The purpose of the extension is to allow the Southern California Association of Governments to prepare the Regional Housing Needs Assessment for each City in its jurisdiction (including Burbank) based upon the upcoming 2007 Regional Transportation Plan.

In addition, staff has canceled a Professional Services Agreement with EIP Associates for oversight of the update to the General Plan Land Use and Mobility Elements.  The main purpose for EIP�s oversight of the Elements update was to provide expedited assistance to the efforts of the Planning and Transportation Divisions to complete the Elements.  Subsequent to the initiation of the contract, the City Council directed staff to delay the completion of the Elements to complete a zone text amendment that reduced the densities and changed the development standards for the multiple family residential zones.  With the extended timeline and the completion of other projects, staff has been able to continue the work on the draft Elements without the need for third party consultants.  The cancellation of this contract has resulted in an additional $50,477 becoming available for other purposes.  When combined with the $30,000 earmarked for the Housing Element update, adequate funding is available this fiscal year for the second and third phases of the view protection study.

Although these funds are not currently allocated for other projects, staff has identified at least two projects that may require funding this fiscal year.  As discussed with the City Council at the September 20, 2005 study session on General Plan related issues, the implementation of the Land Use and Mobility Elements through the Zoning Ordinance may require substantial assistance from consultants with expertise in preparing form-based zoning codes, specific plans, and other planning and zoning documents, depending upon the policies and implementation measures that are ultimately adopted by the City Council.  As noted in the September 20 staff report, a specific plan or form-based code for a limited area of the City would not be expected to cost less than $100,000, and is likely to cost more.  Specific plans or zoning code revisions covering larger areas of the City could cost up to several hundred thousand dollars.  At a minimum, the Council has previously directed staff to prepare zoning regulations and development standards for mixed use and small-lot residential development, both of which would also implement General Plan goals and policies.  Depending upon the date that the Land Use and Mobility Element updates are adopted by the Council, funding may be needed this fiscal year to begin the implementation process.

In addition to the General Plan, the Council has directed staff to look at options for assembling a Blue Ribbon Committee to study the issue of fence regulations.  Depending upon the direction given by the Council, staff may recommend that a consultant with experience in communications and consensus building be retained to work with the Blue Ribbon Committee and the community.  If the funds discussed above are allocated to the view protection effort, additional funding may be required this fiscal year for the General Plan implementation program and/or fence standards project.

Staff�s recommendation to proceed at this time with the second phase while holding off on the third phase would result in a cost of less than $30,000.  If the Council directs staff accordingly, staff would recommend using the $30,000 originally intended for the Housing Element update to pay for the second view protection phase.  This would leave the remaining $50,477 available for General Plan implementation and/or the fence issue if needed.  Based upon the outcome of the second phase and additional experience with the results of the first phase development standards, staff may be prepared to recommend proceeding with the third phase of the view protection effort in the second half of 2006.  Staff would request funding for the third phase of the view protection effort in next year�s budget.

CONCLUSION:

Based upon input received at the community meetings on view protection, many hillside area residents would like the City to adopt a full view protection ordinance, including controls on trees and other vegetation.  Staff believes that it would be appropriate at this time to proceed with the second phase of the view protection effort to create vegetation controls.  Funding is available for this effort, and staff is prepared to begin working again with MIG to schedule community meetings and study various options for vegetation controls and dispute mediation.  Staff anticipates that the first community meeting would be held in early 2006 with a second meeting two to three months later, and staff returning to the Planning Board and Council with recommendations in the spring or early summer.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to proceed with the second phase of the view protection effort to study the creation of vegetation controls.  This process would be funded using monies originally allocated for the update of the Housing Element, which are no longer needed for that project.  Staff recommends that the Council direct staff to delay proceeding with the third view protection phase, and to further evaluate the results of the first phase and to complete the second phase prior to making a decision about continuing with the third phase.

go to the top