DEPARTMENT OF CITY PlANNING 200 N. SPRING STREET, RooM 525 Los ANGELES, CA 90012~4801 AND 6262 VAN Nuvs BLVD., SuiTE 351 VAN Nuvs, CA 91401 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION WILLIAM ROSCH EN PRESIDENT REGINA M. FREER VKE~PRtS.IOENT SEAN 0. BURTON DIEGO CARDOSO MATT EPSTEIN BARBARA ROMERO MICHAEL K. WOO VACANT VACANT JAMES WILLIAMS COMMISSION EXECUfiVE ASSISTANT (213) 978-1300 CITY OF LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA MAYOR EXECUTIVE OFFICES MICHAEl). LOGRANDE OlREdOR (213) 978~1271 ALAN BELL, AICP DEPUTY DIRECfOR (213) 978 1272 EVA YUAN-MCDANIEL DEf"UlY DIRECTOR (213) 978--1273 VACANT DEPUTY QjRECTOR (213) 978 1274 FAX: (2131 978~1275 INFORMATION www.planning.lacity.org October 24, 2011 City Council of the City of Los Angeles Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee 200 North Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Re: Report on Ridgeline Protection Council File 11~1441 (Koretz, Huizar) Honorable Members of the Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee: On August 17, 2011, Councilmember Koretz introduced a motion (CF 11-1441) requesting that the Department of City Planning prepare a report on possible approaches to ridgeline protection, and what resources would be needed to complete a citywide Ridgeline Ordinance. BACKGROUND Community concerns were raised throughout the development of the Baseline Hillside Ordinance, regarding the need for protection of the City's ridgelines. When the City Planning Commission issued its recommendation for new hillside regulations at its May 27, 2010 meeting, it identified this issue as one that the Department needs to address in the future, and encouraged the creation of citywide protections for ridgelines. While staff recognized the need for ridgeline protection on a citywide basis, it was determined that the Baseline Hillside Ordinance would not be the appropriate vehicle for such efforts. Moreover, the Department did not include ridgeline protection as a part of that Ordinance because it was not a part of the discussion during the public hearing process. However, staff did explore concepts that could be a starting point in the future. Those concepts are outlined in this report. Ridgeline protection is not new to the City of Los Angeles; there are a few area-specific regulations currently in place that identify and protect ridgelines: Mulholland Scenic
Report on Ridgefine Protectior, ( CF 11-1441) Page 2 Parkway Specific Plan, San GabrieiNerdugo Mountains Scenic Preservation Specific Plan, Hollywoodland Specific Plan, and the Northeast Los Angeles Hillside Ordinance: However, the scenario of a citywide ridgeline ordinance has proven to be somewhat of a daunting task. In the past, the ability to accurately identify the City's true ridgelines did not exist; however, with today's technology, this particular issue has been resolved. The discussion would now need to focus on which ridgelines need protection, and what level of protection is needed. Trying to accomplish this in one measure will prove to be quite difficult as not every community can agree on a single approach. This task becomes more feasible when you break up the discussion to the Community Plan level. PRELIMINARY RIDGELINE PROTECTION CONCEPT Staff recommends that a ridgeline ordinance be developed in two parts with the implementation to follow during the Community Plan update/revision process. Part 1 - Ridgeline Map Adopt a citywide Department of City Planning Ridgeline Map, already developed by our Geographic Information System (GIS) staff, which would include potentially significant ridgelines as a starting point. The figure below is an example of the potentially significant ridgelines in the Santa Monica Mountains region of the City. These potentially significant ridgelines would then be redesignated during a Community Plan update/revision process to the appropriate level of protection. Part 2 - Ridgeline Provisions Adopt a set of ridgeline protection provisions; preferably including two levels of protection and one designating no special protection. The following theoretical proposals were developed based on the typical approach used by other jurisdictions, and are not meant to be an official recommendation. The policies and/or numerical values are likely to change during the public outreach and hearing process. Protected Ridgelines Grading: No grading shall occur within 50 feet of a Primary Ridgeline, as measured horizontally on a topographic map, or within 25 vertical feet, as measured
Report on Ridge line Protectiot, ( CF 11-1441) Page 3 Structure Location: Height: from the designated Protected Ridgeline. No structure or improvements shall occur within 50 feet of a Protected Ridgeline, as measured horizontally on a topographic map. No Project shall be constructed so that the highest point of the roof, structure, or parapet wall is less than 25 vertical feet from the designated Protected Ridgeline directly above the highest point of the building or structure. Developed Ridgelines Grading: Structure Location: Height: The Natural Elevation of a Ridgeline shall not be altered by more than 5 feet as measured from the designated Developed Ridgeline and shall be retained in its natural state to the greatest extent possible. Structures are permitted on a ridgeline, as long as they comply with the height requirements. No structure shall be constructed so that the highest point of the roof, structure, or parapet wall wi ll protrude more than 18 feet above the highest point of the segment of a designated Developed Ridgeline on the subject property. 25 feet 1 l Protected Ridgeline: Buffer limi tations....... 50 feet 50 feet,.-----i~...,oiii4--------'----jio~ 0 0 0 0. 0 l Greater than I I L Developed Ridgeline: 18-fo ot height limit 18 feet. ::::.(((:I ~:i:e~:~~;d ~ ->:->: : slope of h1l l "'---------' No st ructure allowed wit hin dotted area Unprotected Ridgelines Grading: Structure Location: Height: No special requirements. No special requirements. No special requirements. Implementation Due to the Department's limited resources, the only feasible method for applying the resulting ridgeline provisions is with additional staff assigned to the Community Plan Update/Revision process.
on Protuctioi 1 \ CF / "/ i L!4 /) As each Community Plan is being revisited, staff would incorporate community-level discussion regarding ridgeline protection needs. With help from planning staff, the community would identify those ridgelines contained within the Plan boundaries that are considered as "Protected" or "Developed" ridgelines. Pilot Program: After developing the provisions for protected, developed, and unprotected ridgelines, staff recommends conducting a Pilot Program as part of the development of a Ridgeline Ordinance, which would focus on one Community Plan Area. This would enable staff to test the effectiveness of the preliminary provisions and ensure that the approach does not place an undue burden on the Community Plan work program. The Pilot Program would first identify protected, developed, or unprotected ridgelines using the citywide ridgeline map, and then apply the relevant protections. WORK PROGRAM Staff has developed a three-phased approach to deliver the potential Ridgeline Ordinance for adoption over the course of two years from project initiation: Phase 1 : Preliminary Research and Analysis 1.1 Identify issues and opportunities for Code Simplification with ridgelines by reviewing existing code provisions and Department policies as well as by conducting a series of initial public outreach meetings to gather input 1.2 Research and analyze current Best Practices used by similar jurisdictions 1.3 Develop key objectives for the Ridgeline Ordinance Phase 2: Code Development and Public Review 2.1 Develop a preliminary proposal of provisions for protected, developed, and unprotected ridgelines 2.2 Conduct a Pilot Program for ridgelines focusing on one Community Plan Area in order to test the effectiveness of the proposed provisions, including the necessary public outreach meetings and workshops throughout its development 2.3 Revise provisions based on Pilot Program testing; conduct a series of public workshops for the proposed Ridgeline Ordinance, offering opportunity for public review and involvement 2.4 Develop preliminary recommendation using input gathered from public workshops Phase 3: Adoption Process 3.1 Prepare the Initial Study for environmental review, and publish CEQA documents; expected to be more technical & labor-intensive than normal to conduct the appropriate level of analysis needed to identify potential impacts 3.2 Conduct Public Hearing with the Department of City Planning and Complete a Staff Recommendation Report
3.3 Schedule the Ordinance for City Planning Commission Hearing and prepare all presentation materials 4 3.4 Transmit Determination Letter to PLUM and prepare all presentation materials FISCAL IMPACT Given the work program above, the estimated cost for the potential Ridgeline Ordinance is projected, broken down by year, in the table below (based on the pay levels in place as of September 2011 ). FTE% Year 1 ($) Year 2 ($) City Staff Senior City Planner 0.05 6,100.00 6,100.00 ~-... City Planner 0.25 i"' City Planning Associate 1.50 GIS Supervisor I 0.50 u Graphics Designer II 0.10 Deputy City Attorney 0.05 Senior Structural Engineer 0.05 3,425.00 City Staff Total 458,846.50 474,090.75 Overtime Per hour City Planner $75.00 2,250.00 1,800.00 City Planning Associate $63.00 1,890.00 1,512.00 Overtime Total 4,140.00 3,312.00 Miscellaneous Expenditures Printing 500.00 500.00 Supplies & Materials 200.00 200.00 Mise total 700.00 700.00 Subtotal 463,6s6.so 1 478,102.75 Total- Two Years $ 941,789.25
Repc 111 on RiUgt::line P1 otect/oi, 1 CF 11-1 '141) RECOMMENDATION If the City Council decides that this is an issue that they would like to address and devote the necessary resources to do so, staff recommends the execution of the work program outlined above. The Department of City Planning understands the need to keep City costs at a minimum. If all plans were to be done at once, it would require significant investment from the City. Such a large-scale approach would make it difficult to reach a consensus and wou ld lengthen the project timeline beyond two years. Therefore, staff recommends adopting the Ridgeline Ord inance and implementing it through the Community Plan Update/Revision process in order to complete the project in a timely manner at minimal cost to the City. For further information, please contact Erick Lopez of my staff at (213) 978-1323, or email him at erick.lopez@lacity.org. Alan Bell, AICP Deputy Director of Planning