PURPOSE

Over the past 18 months there has been increasing concern expressed by both residents and the City Council members about the amount of multiple family residential development taking place citywide and especially in the area east of the downtown.  The concern focuses on the perceived and anticipated impacts of this new development as well as on the effect of this intensification of land use on the neighborhood character.  On September 16^th of this year, the City Council asked staff to bring back information on this issue for deliberation by the City Council in order to better define the nature of the problem and decide on appropriate action.

This report is intended to present information about the amount and type of new development occurring specifically in the area east of the downtown and generally throughout the City, as well as analyze the development in this area in terms of the local and citywide land use issues. As with all land use issues and decisions, there are competing goals and priorities which must be compared and weighed.  The information in this report will provide the City Council the background necessary to consider this issue.

BACKGROUND

The issue of multiple family residential development, densities and design is a citywide issue.

The specific area that prompted the City Council�s concerns, however, is that bounded by Glenoaks Blvd., the City boundary with Glendale, Kenneth Road and the rear property line of the north side of Harvard Road (see Exhibit A).  This is the multiple family area directly east of downtown. This 48 block multiple family residential area has had 85% of the net new residential development in the City between 2000 and the present. The reason that so much of the new multiple family development is occurring in this area is that it has the biggest concentration of multiple family zoning and there remains numerous opportunities for additional development.   The multiple family residential uses in this area are designated in the General Plan Land Use Element for multiple family densities which are more dense adjacent the downtown and decrease in density as they get closer to the single family areas (see Exhibit B).  These same land use designations and densities have been in place for at least 40 years.

A related issue having to do with multiple family density and design is seen in other areas of the City where R3 and R4 zoned areas are currently built to a lower density.  In these areas, residents have a strong desire to preserve the lower density garden style development; they are opposed to the currently allowed development which often means taller buildings and a change in the traditional traffic or access patterns for the area.[*]

DEVELOPMENT DATA

The tables below give a clear picture of the residential capacity of the study area east of downtown as it is currently planned and what the potential is for additional units (Table 1), as well as how many units have been built in this area since April 20000 and now exist in this area (Table 2).  A detailed table of building permit activity in the study area over the past 3 years, shown in terms of new units, can be found in Exhibit C. Exhibit D is a map that shows where in the study area this new development is occurring and when during the past 3 years.

TABLE 2

DOWNTOWN ADJACENT MULTIPLE FAMILY STUDY AREA

CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT 2000 -2003

As of November 6, 2003, plans for 237 new units (in 10 developments) are undergoing plan check; permits have not yet been issued for these developments.  Of these, 81 units are in the area east of downtown and 141 units are a mixed-use Planned Development for Village Walk development on the �Old Police Block�.

ANALYSIS

Some of the specific issues raised in conjunction with the new development include lack of adequate on-street parking, excess traffic, and changing neighborhood character.

Parking:   New residential developments are parked at the current code requirement which includes guest parking.  The Code currently requires more parking for new developments than anytime in the past.  It is likely that the older housing that is being replaced by the new development does not have sufficient parking in that earlier parking standards were lower and did not require guest parking.   The continued recycling of older residential neighborhoods could actually improve the parking situation in those areas.  The lack of street parking is increasingly felt as the densities in an area increase.  On single or double lot developments, the ingress/egress to the project parking takes up a large part of the street frontage; projects on larger lots benefit from the economies of scale which leave more of the street frontage for additional parking. 

Current parking requirements for multiple family residential max out at two parking spaces for two or more bedrooms.  While this is more than in earlier versions of the code, it still may not be enough. In an area such as Los Angeles County, where it is common for each member of a household to have a car, this requirement may not be sufficient for residential developments with more than two bedrooms per unit.  The guest parking requirement � one parking space for every five units � may also be insufficient, especially in an area where street parking is limited.  A seven unit apartment would only be required to have one guest parking spot and a twelve unit apartment would only be required to have two.  One possible way to improve the parking shortage in existing multiple family areas would be to increase the parking requirements.  It is also possible to have different parking requirements for different areas of the City or in response to different development patterns.

Traffic:  The City�s Traffic Engineer analyzed the expected traffic impacts in the area adjacent downtown as they would be if the study area built-out at current allowed densities. Assuming a total of about 8,000 units at full development (25% more than at present), and a traffic distribution similar to existing distribution:

�        Olive Avenue would grow to about 10,000 vehicles per day, which it can handle, but traffic signals would have to be installed where there are currently 4-way stop signs west of Kenneth.

�        Kenneth should be within acceptable levels; however, this assumes that by-pass traffic from Glenaoks Blvd. does not increase.

�        Sixth Street will be close to capacity at about 5,000 vehicles.

�        Local streets will operate within acceptable ranges.

�        Collector streets (Magnolia, Harvard, Walnut, Verdugo and Angelino) between Sixth Street and Glenoaks will operate near practical capacity � the point where residents feel uncomfortable or unsafe.

�        Collector streets east of Sixth Street should operate satisfactorily.

Changing Neighborhood Character:  The past 3 years have seen a significant amount of new development in the downtown adjacent study area, as can be seen above.  In most cases, this new development has altered the prevailing height, building mass and scale of development on the streets where it has occurred.  The result of this recent development is that there are no longer any remaining streets with a prevailing single family or low density character in the study area.  There are scattered single family homes, duplexes and triplexes but these are regularly interspersed with two to three story R4 developments between Glenoaks and Sixth Street.  In the area between Sixth and Kenneth, conventional R3 multiple family development � two stories starting at the 15 foot setback � has replaced much of the previous lower density type of development that looked like single family homes in front and had 2-4 units added on behind. In other areas of the City however, there are blocks that are zoned or general planned for a higher density but which have not yet built out to the planned density.  In these areas, there is a possibility of changing density allowances and/or design standards to retain what is increasingly being viewed as a preferred low density multiple family garden apartment type of development.  This would be especially appropriate where these multiple family areas abut or are surrounded by single family residential neighborhoods.

The character of the downtown-adjacent study area has changed; it has become denser.  This change, however, is not as a result of increased allowed densities but rather, due to the building out of the neighborhood as it is currently zoned.  The downtown-adjacent study area has long been designated for the highest residential densities in that it is perceived to be an appropriate place for this type of density.  This area is within walking distance of downtown, the civic center and major shopping areas and is well served by public transit; residents can access this area without driving through single family neighborhoods.  This area is planned to be a multiple family residential area that decreases in density from high to low as it gets further from the downtown (see Exhibit B).  The changing character reflects this planned land use pattern.  The impacts of this density, functionally and aesthetically, can be minimized and possibly eliminated with proper design and development requirements.

Eighty percent of all the residential land in the City is set aside for single family use. That means that all future development must occur through the recycling of the remaining 20% of residential land that is planned for multiple family residential development.  The use of existing single family areas or undeveloped hillside land for multiple-family has never been an option in this community.  The question, therefore, is how to accommodate anticipated growth while protecting that which makes Burbank specia l- that which Burbank residents� value. 

It has been asked �Why do we have to plan for additional growth? For so many new people?�   The State of California, and especially the Southern California region, is expecting a huge growth in population over the next 2-3 decades � mostly from natural population increase but also from in-migration.  Burbank, which has traditionally functioned as a regional employment center and is the center of the entertainment industry, is expected to house a portion of the new people who will be working in our City.  Burbank�s adopted 2001 General Plan Housing Element recognizes the need to meet Burbank�s share of the regional growth.  In addition, it is a policy of the Housing Element to �encourage and facilitate the creation of urban housing types in the downtown urban core�..� in an effort to meet the goal of promoting the development of a housing stock that varies in cost and tenure to meet the economic and physical needs of existing and future Burbank residents. The number of jobs in Burbank is expected to grow by 15-20% by 2030. There are definite advantages to providing more housing in the City in proportion to the number of new jobs being created.  Traffic congestion and air pollution concerns are major impacts of people having to travel to get to their jobs; the greater the distance between home and work, the more significant these impacts are.   The availability of suitable housing is an important consideration for businesses wanting to locate in Burbank.  Additional housing is also necessary to meet the needs of existing Burbank residents.  Burbank seeks to provide housing for Burbank households whose housing needs change or members of existing households who need separate living quarters and want to stay in the Burbank community. Not only does Burbank need more housing, but it also needs new types of housing.  Housing preferences and trends are changing as are urban patterns to reflect society�s changing demographics; there are an increasing number of older people, more single professionals and single parents.  In addition, there is an increasing desire to enable physically challenged people to live and function within the community.

DENSITY OR DESIGN

Increased residential densities do impact adjacent residences and public infrastructure; badly designed higher density projects exacerbate negative public perception.  Planners have long been aware that higher densities work much better on larger lots; larger lots provide a better opportunity to maximize the positive aspects of the required development standards and still provide for neighborhood friendly design and amenities (e.g. ample parking, landscaping, interesting building design).   

These photographs are examples of R4 development on a single lot.

                            These photographs are examples of large lot R4 developments.

A drive through the study area reveals that much of the older R4 multiple family development, built under earlier development standards, is unattractive, uninviting and under-parked; the great majority of these older buildings are on single lots.  When compared with newer developments being built on larger lots, the aesthetic quality of the newer development, and the amenities provided, are generally better.   This leads staff to recommend that allowable densities be more closely linked to lot size and amenities, rather than uniformly distributed to all lots in an area regardless of size. A possible example would be a single lot in an R4 zone being allowed to build only 4 units (1 unit per 1500 sq. ft. of lot area), whereas a triple-wide lot in the same zone area might be allowed 18 units (1 unit for every 1000 sq. ft of lot area). Due to the economies of scale, larger lots are better able to provide useable open space and amenities such as pools or spas. Should the City Council so desire, staff can bring back a recommended adjustment of allowed densities to reflect a linkage to lot size and amenities.  Burbank�s zoning code currently does this to a certain extent, but it can be further adjusted to increase the design benefits and limit the impacts of density.

Density � the number of dwelling units per area of land � has both important benefits and drawbacks. 

            Benefits of Density

�         Makes it more feasible to produce some affordable units;

�         Increases the opportunity for new housing prototypes such as town houses, mixed use;

�         Provides a general plan capacity that helps the City meet State and regional housing requirements;

�         Resulting population density supports public transit stops and nodes;

�         Provides workforce housing options;

�         Increases the opportunity for a wide variety of residential options;

�         More efficient use of local, regional and state-wide urban infrastructure.

            Drawbacks of Density

o       Increased traffic, noise, and visual intrusion;

o       Loss of older garden apartments;

o       Introduces a more urban environment into the more traditional suburban area;

o       Changes the community�s character.

CAPACITY AND GROWTH

The City�s General Plan realistically provides capacity for about 55,000 residential units � about 12,000 more than today, if all the residential land were built out at planned densities.  This is not likely to happen for many years, if at all.  The regional governing body, SCAG, projects a population of about 120,000 in the year 2030 for Burbank, with about 53,000 residential units � about 10,000 more units than we have today.  To achieve this rate of growth, Burbank would have to average about 350 net new units a year until 2030.  In light of past trends and recent development, this is not likely to happen.  As can be seen in Exhibit E, the average residential growth over the past 5, 10 and 15 years is 104, 89 and 208 net new units per year respectively.  Aside from the year 2001 when 374 net new units were permitted (80% of which can be attributed to Belmont Village and the Cusumano senior development), there has not been a single year with over 156 net new units permitted since 1989. Residential development is a factor of demand, local development conditions and the economy. Whereas it is important to plan for future growth, the rate of this growth is to some extent out of the City�s control. 

COMPARISON OF BURBANK�S RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES WITH OTHER CITIES

Burbank�s residential land use densities have been fairly consistent over the years, though zoning code amendments have made it more difficult to achieve these densities. Burbank�s Residential Growth Management Ordinance implements a 1989 Measure One voter initiative passed by Burbank residents.  It was the intent of Measure One, and the subsequent implementing ordinance, to coordinate the rate of residential growth with the availability of public facilities and services, to avoid overextending existing facilities and to allow for the proper planning of future facilities and services.  Among other things, this ordinance included a revamping of the City�s multiple family residential development standards.  This included adding guest parking, on-site open space requirements and landscaping � all of which effectively lowered the achievable density on all but the largest of lots.  In 1998 residential development standards were again changed to limit the height and lot coverage of multiple family developments within 500 feet of single family property.  The intent of these changes was to reduce the impacts of multiple family development on adjacent single family homes. These changes effectively reduced the achievable density of most of the affected R4 developments to that of R3 (from 1 unit per 1000 sq. ft. to 1 unit per 1,500 sq. ft.).  The economies of scale resulting from the assemblage of several lots, however, can enable a developer to achieve the full allowable density even with the limitations imposed within 500 feet of single family.  The zoning for multiple family properties directly abutting a single family zone has additional restrictions which in many cases reduce the achievable density by 50%.

The City of Glendale has down-zoned twice in the past 2 decades, once in 1986 and again in 1993. The reason for the 1986 down-zoning was that the zoning at that time allowed for a much higher population than called for in the Glendale�s general plan.  In 1993 it was again found that due to changing demographics, the zoning in place still allowed for a significantly larger population than the maximum in the general plan.  Glendale�s general plan was based on a population capacity whereas Burbank�s general plan has a maximum capacity for residential units. Both Burbank and Glendale have allocated about 20% of their total residential land for multiple family uses

A result of Glendale�s down-zoning of many of the multiple-family area in the City, existing development in these areas exceeds that which is currently allowed.

 The impacts of intensifying residential densities are not unique to Burbank; other cities are grappling with similar issues.  Other cities are also looking at ways to encourage the recycling of older housing and creating new housing while preserving stable neighborhoods and preserving the unique feel of the community.  Should City Council so request, staff will undertake a survey of how other cities are addressing these issues.

It was suggested that Burbank�s densities and development standards may be less restrictive than other cities, specifically Glendale, and perhaps that may be the reason for the increase in the amount of multiple family residential development occurring in Burbank. Staff planners contacted other cities to compare densities and requirements for multiple family development and found that whereas the formulas were quite different, the multiple family densities in these cities were generally lower than those in Burbank.  Glendale�s densities in most of their multiple family areas appear significantly lower than Burbank�s however, specifics in the Glendale code allow for added density on larger lots which reduces the disparity somewhat; high densities equal to or exceeding Burbank�s are permitted in areas of their downtown.  Glendale occasionally grants use variances to allow for higher densities.  In general, Glendale starts with lower by right densities and adds to what is allowed in response to certain performance standards, such as larger lots or the provision of affordable housing.  Conversely, in Burbank, our densities appear much higher than they really are.  An example of this is Burbank�s R4 zoning which ostensibly allows for up to 58 dwelling units per acre.  In practice, however, this density is almost impossible to achieve except on very large lots located more than 500 feet from any R1 zone.  On R4 lots with less than 10,000 sf the allowed density is reduced to 43 dwelling units per acre, and when in proximity to, or adjacent, a single family zone, the achievable density is further reduced by

30-50% (to between 22-30 units per acre).  Burbank�s highest allowed density is 87 dwelling units per acre (R5) which must be developed through the PD process, and is allowed only on lots greater than 20,000sf. Glendale allows for the same density, 87 dwelling units per acre, to be developed by right, on any lot size, in their East Broadway Zone and they are considering allowing the same density by right in their Downtown area.

The following comparison of Glendale�s multiple family zoning densities with those in Burbank is in response to specific questions raised at the September 16^th City Council meeting and illustrates the difference in allowed densities.  It is important to remember that in addition to the zoned density, lot size and configuration, proximity to R1 zoning, and Burbank�s development standards determine the actually density achievable on a particular piece of property.

         GLENDALE                                                 BURBANK

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW

The Development Review (DR) process is intended to �coordinate growth and to control the erection of structures so that compatibility is maintained between new development and existing residential neighborhoods, and so that the performance standards of this chapter are maintained and implemented�.  Whereas the DR process does allow for very limited discretion when the proposed development is within 500 feet of a single family zone, there is no discretion for projects at a greater distance from single family.  As part of the DR process, public notice is given of the project and the directors pending approval.  The proposed project is widely noticed by direct mailing to neighbors within 300 feet and to the neighborhood at large by means of a large sign on the property.  Interestingly, there are very few public responses to these notices, and when there is opposition or concern it is not necessarily regarding those projects that are the biggest or tallest or densest.  An example of one of these letters of opposition is for a 3-story (one is for tuck-under parking), two unit building in an R3 zone which is being added to an existing single family home on Jackson Street.  The opposition centers around the height of the new building, compared to the existing 2-story buildings on the street and the lack of street parking on Jackson Street.

To date, there have been few appeals of planning director�s DR approvals.  In 2000, the approval of a 33 unit apartment (maximum density was 35 units) at 270-300 East Providencia was appealed to both Planning Board and City Council on the grounds that the project would result in problems related to traffic, noise, fire department access, aesthetics and view shed; the appeal was denied in both instances.  Currently there is a DR appeal pending regarding a 2-story, 4-unit building over semi-sub parking, in an R3 neighborhood (see footnote on page 2).

Strengthening the Development Review process to allow for some discretion on all multiple family projects could possibly mitigate some of the problems associated with multiple family residential development.  By adding standards and criteria for design and compatibility, Development Review could be a tool for addressing the impacts of new multiple family development.

OPTIONS

If the City Council sees a need for change in the type of multiple family residential development occurring in the City there are two options:

            1) Study and address the land use issues associated with residential density and design as part of the current update of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which is a policy   document, and then implement the adopted policy by means of zone text and/or map amendments.  This option allows for a thorough analysis of how the densities and residential development types fit into the overall growth and development pattern of the whole City.  This option, however, will take at least 18 months to 2 years to achieve.  The land use element is scheduled for adoption in the second half of 2004 and a zone text amendment would take an additional 5-6 months.  It is likely that infill development will continue to occur during this time; though it is also possible, as the economic climate changes, that there will be a slow down in development as is typical of   the cyclical nature of the housing market.

            2) Immediately stop all multiple family developments Citywide by means of an Interim Development Control Ordinance (IDCO), while staff undertakes a careful study of the issues of density and design, and then, if the City Council so directs, process a zone text/map amendment. No further multiple family development would be allowed until the issue of residential densities and design have been carefully studied and any necessary new zoning regulations are in place. This is the quickest solution to slowing the amount of development that is occurring throughout the City, and especially in the area adjacent downtown. It is important to analyze how changes in design can mitigate some of the perceived problems.  Should the City Council choose this option, it would be necessary to either hire a consultant to carry out the study and to process any zone   text/map changes or change the current work program priorities, due to the exceptionally heavy workload of staff.

An IDCO is carefully regulated by state law.  It is a process designed to ensure the orderly transition when zoning standards are being changed.  California�s Government Code Section 65858 provides that the local jurisdiction may adopt an interim zoning ordinance as an urgency measure without following the procedures otherwise required by the Government Code, where the interim measure will prohibit uses that may be in conflict with a zoning proposal the jurisdiction is considering, or studying, or intends to study within a reasonable time.  The interim ordinance must include a specific finding by the legislative authority that approval of additional permits, etc. would result in a threat to the public health, safety or welfare.  In the case of multiple family development, State law requires additional findings to be made.

An urgency measure requires a four-fifths vote of City Council to pass and is effective for forty-five days.  After that time, it may be extended for an additional twenty-two months and fifteen days with another four-fifths votes of the City Council.

It has been suggested that perhaps a limited IDCO would be possible � an option that would allow for some continued development by means of a CUP or other discretionary permit during the time that the density/design issue is being studied and changes to the code considered.  Staff strongly recommends against this for the following reasons:

-         Until a study is done of the density/design issues there are no criteria by which to  evaluate which projects should be permitted and/or which conditions should be applied;

-         This would significantly increase the workload at a time when staff already is processing a large number of high priority projects such as the Airport IDCO, the Land Use Element update and the Transportation Element.  Resources would be needed to process the CUPs in addition to studying the density/design issues.  It would be necessary to either reprioritize the Planning Division�s workload or hire outside consultants to process the discretionary permits.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to prepare a Citywide IDCO prohibiting all new multiple family residential development until such time as the current multiple family residential development standards can be reviewed, evaluated and any necessary changes made.

Staff requests that the City Council authorize the hiring of outside consultants to augment the staff and provide additional planning resources and the necessary land use economics and design expertise.

ATTACHMENTS

Exhibit A          Map of Study Area

Exhibit B          Map of General Plan Land Use in the Study Area

Exhibit C          Residential Building Permits 2000-2003 in Study Area

Exhibit D          Map of Permitted Developments in the Study Area 2000-2003

Exhibit E           Residential Building Permits Citywide 1974-2003

go to the top