|
Council Agenda - City of BurbankTuesday, December 16, 2003Agenda Item - 10 |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
PURPOSE: To consider a resolution expressing the City of Burbank�s opposition to Assembly Bill 1160 (Steinberg) (Exhibit A) currently before the California State Assembly. Also, to authorize the staff to contact other cities in the name of the Burbank City Council to urge them to pass similar resolutions, and to phone, visit, write letters, etc. to their respective State Legislators and take other appropriate actions to oppose AB 1160.
BACKGROUND: AB 1160, currently before the Assembly�s Committee on Housing and Community Development and Committee on Local Government, essentially expands on the requirements of last year�s AB 1866 (Wright) which itself necessitated extensive changes to Burbank�s second dwelling unit regulations.
Section 1 changes �65583 of the California Government Code (CGC) which requires general plan housing elements to identify sites where low income housing can be built �by right�. AB 1160 changes the definition of �by right� to mean without requiring a CUP or Planned Development or other discretionary permit. This section only applies if the city has not designated sufficient areas available for low income housing in their General Plan, and will probably not affect Burbank significantly.
Section 2 changes CGC �65852.2 regarding second dwelling units to: 1) Require second units be allowed in all residential zones, (although standards may vary from zone to zone). Burbank currently does not allow second units in the R-1H zone. 2) Prohibit second unit standards which are not �objective�, or �appropriate� (as this is defined in CGC �65913.1(a)(1)) or which have the effect of rendering the development not financially feasible at market rate rents. This could potentially affect Burbank�s architectural standards for second dwelling units, and possibly other architectural standards if the city were to implement design review. 3) Prohibit local agencies from requiring occupants of second units be owner occupants or dependents or caregivers thereof, or restricting the rent or income or age of second unit occupants (unless the city controls rents generally). Burbank currently requires second unit properties be owner-occupied. 4) Require that maximum size restrictions on second units must allow units up to 1200 s.f. or 40% of the floor area of the main unit. Burbank currently limits second dwelling units to 500 s.f. 5) Prohibit local agencies from requiring second unit parking be covered, and apparently to require that second units parking shall be permitted in front setbacks, and in tandem if the applicant agrees, and that on-street parking shall be permitted unless the local agency makes specific findings of substantial adverse impact to public health or safety based on specific topographical, fire or life-safety conditions. Burbank currently requires only one extra space per unit, but it may not be tandem or in a front setback, and on-street parking cannot be used to meet the requirement. 6) Require local agencies to reduce the parking standard for second units located within � mile of transit nodes by 33% if the developer so requests. Burbank currently does not have reduced parking standards for second units based on proximity to transit nodes. It is unclear how much effect this will have. Most transit nodes are located in commercial or multi-family areas.
Section 3 AB 1866 changed CGC �65915 to require cities to grant density bonuses or other concessions to developers of low income housing projects, and to prohibit imposing development standards that would preclude development at these densities. AB 1160: 1) Broadens the definition of �development standards� for this purpose to include site, construction and use standards. This could affect, among other things, any design standards Burbank might adopt. 2) Requires that in addition to density bonuses cities must also grant a 25% parking reduction to such projects and a 50% reduction if the qualified development is within � mile of a transit node. Burbank considers parking reductions for low income projects on a case-by-case basis, and has in most cases granted them, but does not grant parking reductions by right for low-income projects.
Section 4 adds new CGC �65917.1 allowing single and multi-family residential use on any parcel zoned and developed for a school, and establishes a density for such parcels equal to the highest density allowed on any parcel within 300 ft. or on the nearest residential parcel if none are within 300 ft. Burbank does not employ a �schools� or �public facilities� zone, and most school sites are zoned residential anyway. There are several schools (e.g. Miller, Emerson, Roosevelt) that while zoned R-1 are within 300 ft. of higher-density zones, and we would apparently have to allow redevelopment of these sites at the higher density. It does not appear that any Burbank school sites are likely to become available for development in the near future.
The League of California Cities has prepared its own synopsis of AB 1160 which is attached as Exhibit B. The League sent a request to all member cities to send letters in advance of a hearing before the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee originally scheduled for November 18. Because of the short time frame, the staff prepared a letter opposing AB 1160 for the Mayor�s signature which is attached as Exhibit C. However, the League, and Burbank�s own legislative analyst Ken Emanuels have suggested that a resolution from the City Council would also help, and also that Burbank should contact other local cities to urge them to take similar actions. The Assembly committee hearings on this legislation were postponed and are tentatively rescheduled for January.
CONCLUSION: Staff finds that AB 1160 is a very poorly conceived piece of legislation which will likely have serious negative consequences for the City of Burbank not only because of its potential direct effects of: a) increasing the number, size and prevalence of second units; b) negatively affecting parking, traffic, urban design, etc.; and c) removing public input from the land-use decision making process, but more importantly because it represents a serious intrusion by the State into an area of regulation heretofore reserved to local jurisdictions. For the State to dictate local zoning and land-use regulations with this degree of specificity is unprecedented. The staff certainly recognizes that additional affordable housing is needed in Burbank - as it is throughout the State of California � and that second units, judiciously used, can be a source. Burbank, in notable contrast to several neighboring and nearby cites, has allowed them since 1983.
FISCAL IMPACT: Staff does not anticipate that approval of this Resolution will have any significant fiscal impact on the City. However, if AB 1160 passes it could have several negative fiscal impacts for the City - if nothing else, the necessity of again amending the Zoning Code. However, a full analysis of the potential fiscal impacts of AB 1160 is beyond the scope of this report.
RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends the City Council adopt the resolution entitled �A Resolution of the Council of the City of Burbank Expressing Opposition to Assembly Bill 1160 (Steinberg)�
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A: AB 1160 (Steinberg) with Most Recent Amendments
Exhibit B: Synopsis of AB 1160 Prepared by the League of California Cities
Exhibit C: October 27, 2003 Letter from Mayor Murphy to Senator Scott, Assemblyman Frommer et al.
|