PURPOSE:

At the City Council meeting of November 18, 2003, the Council directed staff to return with several options for adopting an Interim Development Control Ordinance (IDCO) that would temporarily restrict the development of certain types of multiple family residential development.  The purpose of the IDCO would be to stop any multifamily development that may be inconsistent with amendments to the multifamily densities and/or development standards that would be studied by staff while the IDCO is in place.  This report provides a brief background on the current status of multifamily development in Burbank; discusses various options for the scope, timing, and applicability of the IDCO; and provides information about the costs that would be associated with studying and amending densities and development standards while the IDCO is in place. 

BACKGROUND:

Over the past 18 months, City Council members and Burbank residents have expressed increasing concern about the amount of multifamily housing development taking place across the City, and especially in the area east of downtown.  The concern is focused on the anticipated impacts of the new development and its effect on neighborhood character.  Although ongoing multifamily development is a citywide issue, the specific area that prompted the Council�s concerns is the area immediately east of downtown, bounded roughly by Glenoaks, Harvard, Kenneth, and the City boundary with Glendale.  This area has been the center of the majority of multifamily development for the past several years because it is the largest concentration of multifamily zoning in the City and because there are many opportunities for development in the area.  On November 18, staff provided Council with a report that provided information about current and historic multifamily trends in Burbank and specifically in the area east of downtown.  That report and all of the exhibits thereto are attached as Exhibit A.

Current State of Development

The attached report provides a picture of historic development trends over the past several years and some of the issues associated with that development.  Because of the large number of applications received in 2003 for multifamily projects, this report provides information about all of the multifamily Development Review (DR) applications received during 2003.  These applications provide information about the types and locations of development that are currently occurring or proposed throughout the City.[1]

Development Review Summary

Attached hereto as Exhibit B-1 is a table showing the 41 multifamily DR applications received in 2003.  The table includes all applications received through Friday, December 26, 2003.[2]  Staff will discuss any additional applications received between December 26 and December 31 as necessary at the public hearing.  The attached table includes the following information about each DR application through December 26:

• address

•  zone

•  whether the project is within 500 feet of an R-1 zone

• lot size

• number of units that would be allowed based only on zoning and lot size

• number of actual proposed units

• number of existing units on the site prior to the proposed development

• number of net new units that would result from the project

• project type (based upon the four categories discussed below)

• parking type (surface, semi-subterranean, etc.)

Exhibit B-2 is a map of the City with points representing the location of all multifamily DR applications received in 2003.  Out of the 41 applications received, 18 (about 44 percent) were for projects located in the area east of downtown discussed in the November 18 staff report (Exhibit A).  As shown on the attached map, other projects are located in multifamily neighborhoods throughout the City. The applications citywide represent a total of 388 newly constructed units, and a net increase of 296 units above the current number of units in the City.

Given fluctuations in the economy and the housing market, it is difficult to predict whether application submittals will continue at this rate.  In 2002, only 20 applications for multifamily projects were submitted, compared with the 41 applications so far in 2003.  It is therefore hard to say how many applications may be submitted in future years, or the number of new units that might be added.  Historical trends show that the rate of housing development is cyclical, so the number of applications received will undoubtedly decrease at some point.  Multifamily DR applications are typically processed within 60 days of the application being deemed complete, and in many cases are processed in as few as 30 to 45 days.  As of December 26, 2003, all multifamily DR applications submitted prior to December 1, 2003 had already been processed and approved by the Community Development Director.

Types of Development

For the purposes of studying multifamily development, staff has classified the development into four general categories.  These four categories, or variations thereof, represent the majority of development occurring in the City�s multiple family residential zones (R-3/MDR-3, R-4/MDR-4, and R-5/MDR-5).  These categories are used to describe each DR application in the attached summary table to provide an idea of where and how these various development types occur.

1. New units behind existing house or duplex: This category of project involves the addition of one or two new units (and in some less common cases as many as three or four new units) behind an existing structure, typically a single family home or duplex.  Parking is provided on grade, either uncovered, in a carport or garage, or beneath a second-story unit off the alley at the rear of the lot.  Common and/or private open space are usually provided on grade.  These projects are on multifamily lots that can typically be developed with additional units beyond what is actually built.  Property owners often elect to sacrifice additional units and retain the existing structure because it is their home and/or because of the added cost of demolishing the structure and starting from scratch as opposed to just adding units to the existing structure.  Approximately 24 percent of the DR applications (10 out of 41 applications) received in 2003 were for this type of development. 

2. Apartment style, no courtyard: This category of development typically occurs on single lots, where options for providing the necessary open space and parking are limited.  These projects are usually two or three stories of residential units over a semi-subterranean parking garage with access from the street and/or alley.  Due to the design limitations of these types of projects, units are usually accessed from the side yard, with a gate to an exterior walkway along the side of the building serving as the main pedestrian entrance to the project.  Units may be single story or two stories.  Private and common open space are provided on grade, on top of parking garage decks, on balconies, and/or on the rooftop where permitted.  Approximately 37 percent of the DR applications (15 out of 41 applications) received in 2003 were for this type of development.

3. Courtyard style: This category of development rarely occurs on single lots due to space limitations, and is most frequently found on multiple lots.  This type of project typically involves units surrounding a central courtyard area, with access to the units provided from the courtyard.  These projects are two or three stories, and typically have one level of semi-subterranean parking or in some cases, a level of fully subterranean parking beneath a level of semi-subterranean parking.  Common open space is provided in the courtyard area.  Private open space is typically provided with patios and balconies.  Approximately 29 percent of the DR applications (12 out of 41 applications) received in 2003 were for this type of development.

4. Townhouse/row house style: This category of development typically applies to larger projects that occur on multiple lots.  These developments may consist of multiple townhouses or similar buildings arranged together as a mini-community with open space around the buildings, or may consist of one or more rows of units sharing common walls along a line.  Parking in this type of project is often provided in individual surface garages rather than a common garage.  Private open space is provided as patios, gardens, or balconies, and common open space is provided in a centralized area or otherwise around the structures.  Examples of this type of development include the recently completed �Brownstones� on Kling Street, and the project on Olive Avenue at Kenneth Road.  In some instances, this type of project may be found on a small lot where a developer wishes to build a limited number of townhouses rather than a typical multifamily project.  Approximately 10 percent of the DR applications (4 out of 41 applications) received in 2003 were for this type of development.

The DR applications received in 2003 represent all different types of projects, and are located in different neighborhoods with different character and existing development patterns.  One of the concerns with ongoing development, as discussed later in this report, is the compatibility of new development with the character and style of existing development.  An analysis of the projects proposed by these DR applications and their consistency with surrounding development is beyond the scope of this staff report, but could be studied as part of the analysis of densities and development standards to be conducted through the IDCO process.

Concerns with Ongoing Development

The two central components of residential development are density and design.  Density is generally the number of dwelling units per acre of land.  Design can refer to a wide variety of issues concerning a project�s layout, architecture, and other aesthetic attributes, and is not easily defined.  When people express concern about multifamily development, it is generally in the form of opposing �density� and a desire for �lower� densities.  Denser developments generally have increasing impacts in certain areas such as traffic generation and utility consumption.

Other impacts that people perceive as being the result of denser development, such as parking, building height and bulk, and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods, are often related to project design rather than simply the density.  What follows is a brief discussion of some of the issues most frequently associated with multifamily development, classified by their relation to either density or design.  In many cases, the issue may be related to both density and design, but the issues are separated here to show that density is not the only factor behind these issues.

This report is intended only to introduce these issues for the Council members� consideration during their deliberations.  It is not intended to analyze these issues with respect to varying density levels or design practices.  All of these issues would be studied in greater detail as part of the analysis of multifamily development densities and standards if the Council decides to initiate such an effort.

Impacts of Density

These issues are generally related directly to density more so than design.

• Traffic: Increased vehicle trips cannot be avoided as housing units are added to a neighborhood in a suburban setting.  Although mixed use and transit-oriented developments can reduce trips by allowing people to walk to work, shopping, and transit, these developments are not always possible or practical in all-residential areas.  While fewer trips are generated per housing unit as densities increase, additional units still mean more trips.  The City accounts for allowed residential densities in its transportation planning efforts, and identifies needed infrastructure improvements.  However, there may be a point at which the needed improvements become undesirable in a residential neighborhood.  If allowed densities would result in certain streets or intersections operating above capacity, or the needed improvements are undesirable, one solution may be to decrease densities in certain areas or shift density to other areas of the City.

• Public utilities and services: As with traffic, a greater number of housing units will result in greater consumption of public utilities such as water, electric, and sewer, and greater use of public services such as fire, police, parks, and libraries.  Developers pay development impact and other fees to support the cost of the additional infrastructure and services that are required, and City departments plan years in advance for the capital and personnel requirements to meet the increasing population of the City.  However, there may be a point at which the necessary capital or other improvements are undesirable, and certain resources could some day become strained or limited. 

• Increasing in-fill development: The higher the permitted density, the more profit a developer can generally make from recycling a property.  Higher densities are therefore more likely to increase the rate of in-fill development during housing booms.  Properties that contain one or a few units of older development are more likely to be recycled with new in-fill development if the developer can build a new project with a substantially greater number of units.  If the number of units that could be built under current densities is the same as or not much greater than the number of existing units, an owner would often rather continue to collect rent on existing units rather than incur the cost of building an entirely new project with the same number of units.  Increasing rates of in-fill development, as currently underway in Burbank, can result in rapid neighborhood and community change and raise people�s concerns about multifamily development.

Design Issues

These issues, although they can be linked to density, are typically more so the result of project design.

• Parking: Current code requirements for multifamily parking are greater than they have ever been in the past.  New developments today are therefore built with more parking spaces per unit than most older developments.  These older projects do not provide adequate parking to meet the demand of the residents or guests, which results in spillover parking onto public streets.  New developments arguably improve the parking situation in most areas by providing off-street parking that better satisfies the demand.  Although new projects may bring additional units into a neighborhood, additional off-street parking is also provided, and the units that are replaced are parked at a higher ratio than the previous units.  The number of units or density of a particular project does not in theory directly impact on-street parking, since an adequate number of off-street spaces is provided.  The current code also requires guest parking to be provided, a feature lacking in many older projects, which further reduces the demand for on-street parking.

It may be argued that the City�s existing parking standards are not high enough, especially for auto-dependent Southern California.  However, this is still an issue of project design, not density.  The problem with parking is often its location and accessibility.  In some projects, guest parking is located within a secured garage, off the alley at the rear of the building, or in another location that is otherwise inconvenient or inaccessible to guests.  Tenant parking is frequently tandem and sometimes compact, which may discourage full-capacity use by households with multiple vehicles and large vehicles, respectively.

• Building bulk/massing: Although often associated with density, the perceived bulk of a project is frequently related to the project�s architecture.  Wall and setback variations, use of textures and colors, and other aesthetic features typically have a greater impact on the perceived mass of a building than the number of units within the building.  Building size is affected by the lot size, number of units, and size of units, but size is not the only factor that determines the appearance of the project.  Concerns about building mass may also be more directly related to compatibility with existing neighborhood character, discussed below. 

• Compatibility with existing development: One of the concerns expressed by residents is the incompatibility of new development with existing neighborhood character, and the potential for changing the character of neighborhoods with mostly older development.  Some streets, although zoned for higher density, still contain mostly single story duplexes and triplexes, while others are already largely built out with multistory development.  Some areas are a mix of different housing types, with no clear dominating style.  When recycling occurs, the new buildings are typically two or three stories, often with semi-subterranean parking.  The character of the new buildings is often different from older existing development, including height, architectural style, and parking location and access.

As discussed above, new in-fill development typically occurs when a substantial number of new units can be added.  However, density is not necessarily the driving issue.  An ongoing DR appeal of a project on Fairview Street just south of Clark is an example of this issue.  The predominant development in the area is single-story duplexes, triplexes, and garden apartments.  The density of many of these older projects is equivalent to current R-3 densities at one unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area.  A new project has been proposed on a vacant lot that would also be of R-3 density, consistent with surrounding development.  However, the project would be two stories of units over a story of semi-subterranean parking, very different from the existing development in the area.

• Compatibility with nearby R-1 properties: As shown in the above example, even relatively �low� density projects are not necessarily consistent with surrounding development.  The same concept could be applied to compatibility with single-family residential properties.  In addition to differences in scale from single-family homes, multifamily projects are often associated with increased noise and light and loss of privacy for nearby single-family properties.  However, these issues can be resolved through project design features such as roof type and pitch, window size and location, and location of outdoor areas and access points.

• Design challenges and limitations on small lots: Single lots present particular design challenges due to their limited space and the strict development standards that apply to small projects in the same way as larger multiple-lot developments.  This issue is also related to density, as project designers are challenged with meeting permitted densities within the limitations of the single lot.  The zoning sometimes allows multiple units on a single lot, and providing the needed parking, open space, and other features for those units is difficult given the limited space.  Single lot developments present issues that are different, or more distinct, than those of larger projects, often because of the permitted densities and the uniformity of the development standards that dictate the design of both types of projects.

Public Outreach

Many in the community have expressed concerns about many of the above issues, and have a vested interest in this matter.  The development community, on the other side of this issue, also has a clear interest in the outcome of this process.  Pursuant to the Council�s direction on November 18, staff initiated several public outreach efforts in an attempt to make members of the multifamily development community aware of the pending IDCO and the public hearing.  In early December, staff placed notices of the IDCO and hearing at the Planning and Building Division public counters along with a mailing list sign-up sheet, and posted notice on the Planning Division web site with an opportunity for people to sign-up for a mailing and/or email list.  In late December, staff mailed notice of the pending IDCO and January 13 hearing to the following:

• All persons who had signed up for the mailing list

• All applicants and property owners for all multifamily DR applications received in 2003

• Other local developers of multifamily projects

• All members of the Blue Ribbon Committee for Affordable Housing

• Burbank Unified School District

• Burbank Chamber of Commerce

• Burbank Association of Realtors

The notices invited people to provide their input on this matter in writing to the City Council or in person at the public hearing.  Staff has received numerous phone calls and inquiries at the public counter regarding this issue.

ANALYSIS:

This report has provided a discussion about ongoing development in Burbank and some of the concerns related to that development.  Due to current economic conditions and high levels of housing demand, new multifamily residential development is occurring at a relatively rapid pace compared with that of recent years past.  If the Council decides to initiate a study of current densities and development standards to determine if changes are warranted, it may be desired to halt some or all of this ongoing development.  Stopping development would prevent the construction of additional projects that may be inconsistent with amendments to the current densities or development standards that may result from the study.

California Government Code Section 65858 provides the City Council with the authority to adopt an urgency ordinance with a four-fifths vote for the purpose of protecting the public health, safety, and welfare to prohibit any uses that may be in conflict with a contemplated zoning ordinance amendment.  Such an ordinances is typically referred to as an Interim Development Control Ordinance, or IDCO.  If the ordinance has the effect of limiting all of a particular type of development or use, it is considered a moratorium.

IDCO Options

On November 18, the Council requested that staff return with several options for an IDCO.  This section of the report discusses various aspects of the IDCO for the Council to consider, and offers various options and staff�s recommended course of action for each aspect of the IDCO.

Scope of IDCO

As the Council started to discuss on November 18, there are numerous options for determining the types of projects to which the IDCO will apply.  The Council�s consideration of these options should be based upon the ultimate goal of preventing development that may be inconsistent with the revised densities and/or development standards that could result from the IDCO process.  The options vary depending upon whether the Council is concerned with densities, with project design or neighborhood character issues, or with both aspects of development.  Staff has identified the following options.  These are separated by category, but combinations of these categories may also be used.

1. Prohibit all multifamily development: This option is a true moratorium that would restrict all multiple family residential development in the City.

Staff recommends that the Council adopt a moratorium to restrict all multifamily residential development in all multifamily zones other than R-2 (see discussion in item no. 2 below).  The issues facing the community as discussed in this report are related to both density and project design and are complex and interrelated.  Staff believes that the most effective means of stopping development that may be inconsistent with future amended densities and development standards is to halt all multifamily development and to not let any projects go forward.  In addition to being the most comprehensive and effective means of controlling development, this approach is also the most straightforward and simple to administer.

2. Restrict development by zone: Multiple family development occurs in the R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, MDR-3, MDR-4, and MDR-5 zones.  Residential development and mixed-use development with a residential component are also permitted in certain commercial zones with a conditional use permit.  Development could be restricted only in certain zones and not others if the Council believes that densities and/or development standards should only be studied as they apply to certain zones.

The R-2 zone allows a maximum density of one unit per 3,000 square feet of lot area, basically a duplex on a single lot.  Because of this limited density, this development is typically in character with surrounding development, whether single family homes or duplexes.  Any changes to densities or development standards are likely to have minimal impacts on projects in the R-2 zone.  Staff therefore recommends that the R-2 zone be excluded from the IDCO.  Because other multifamily development is occurring in all of the other zones listed above, staff recommends that all of the other multifamily residential zones be included in the IDCO.  Because all-residential development in multifamily residential zones is the focus of the issues discussed in this report, staff recommends that residential or mixed use development in commercial zones not be included in the IDCO.

3. Restrict development by density: This option would apply if the Council desires to allow development up to a certain density.  Development up to the chosen density would then be allowed in any zone (where that density would otherwise be permitted), and development in any particular zone would not be prohibited.

As discussed earlier in this report, many of the issues of concern are driven more so by project design than by density alone.  Therefore, staff recommends against using density as the only restricting factor in the IDCO.  However, if the Council is concerned only with density and is not concerned with neighborhood character or project design, this may be an appropriate alternative to the staff-recommended complete moratorium.  If the Council decides to use density as a restricting factor, staff would recommend not allowing any development higher than the current R-3 density of one unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area due to the uncertainty over what the final amended densities might be.  For single lot development, staff would recommend an even lower density of one unit per 2,000 square feet of lot area due to the additional limitations of small lot development.

4. Restrict development by design feature: This option would apply if the Council were concerned about a particular project design or feature.  For example, if the Council were concerned about semi-subterranean parking garages, the IDCO could prohibit semi-subterranean parking from being included in any project while the IDCO is in place.

Due to the complexity of multifamily development and the comprehensive study of development standards that would be part of the IDCO process, staff believes that in general it would be difficult to identify particular design features and determine at this time whether or not they are acceptable.  A possible exception to this would be semi-subterranean parking.  This design feature can be especially damaging to neighborhood character in areas where all existing development has surface parking.  However, requiring surface parking can in effect reduce the allowed density, and can create unintended negative impacts on project design.  If any particular design feature is a concern for the Council, staff recommends that the Council consider prohibiting projects with that feature while the IDCO is in place (if the Council opts not to adopt a complete moratorium per the staff recommendation).

5. Restrict development by rate or amount: Concerns have been expressed about both the rate of project development in some neighborhoods and the number of construction projects occurring simultaneously.  The IDCO could restrict the number of projects occurring simultaneously and/or the number of projects allowed per month or per year on a given block or street or within a particular area.

Staff believes that the other options discussed herein, or combinations thereof, would be more effective in restricting development that may conflict with future amended densities or development standards.  Slowing the rate of development or number of simultaneous projects may be an effective long-term solution to mitigate certain impacts, but would not prevent the continued development of potentially conflicting projects in the short-term.  Staff therefore recommends against this approach.

6. Restrict development geographically: The area of east of downtown has been discussed as the area perhaps most affected by the trends discussed in this report.  On November 18, it was suggested that perhaps the IDCO should restrict development in this area only, or in this and other specifically identified areas rather than applying citywide.

Staff believes that the issues discussed in this report are of citywide concern.  While much attention has been focused on the area east of downtown, there are other multifamily neighborhoods where development is occurring that could be incompatible with existing neighborhood character or inconsistent with future amended densities and development standards.  The impact of new densities and development standards should be carefully studied for all areas of the City, and staff believes that potentially inconsistent development should be halted in all areas.  Staff recommends that any IDCO be applicable to all multifamily zones (except R-2) citywide, and not limited geographically.

In addition to prohibiting new development subject to the above options, staff recommends prohibiting the addition of any additional bedrooms or units to existing projects.  Added bedrooms trigger additional parking requirements, and additional units trigger parking, open space, and other requirements that could substantially alter the appearance of an existing project.  The potential for inconsistent development with this type of project is in some cases the same as with a new project.

Further, some cities that have adopted IDCOs for multifamily development have excluded affordable housing projects from the IDCO restrictions.  Although affordable housing projects may conflict with future amended densities or development standards the same as market rate projects, staff recognizes the continuing need for affordable housing in Burbank.  To stop all potentially conflicting development, staff recommends that all projects, including affordable projects, be captured under the IDCO.  However, if the Council believes that the need for affordable housing overrides the intent behind the IDCO, staff would recommend that projects with all units set aside for affordable housing be exempted from the IDCO.  These types of projects are not common, so any such projects that may occur during the IDCO would be minimal and would not substantially conflict with the intent of the IDCO process.  However, staff would recommend that projects with only a portion of the units set aside for affordable housing be captured under the IDCO and not exempted.

As discussed on November 18, staff strongly recommends against using a limited IDCO under which multifamily development would be processed through a conditional use permit (CUP), Planned Development, or other discretionary process while the IDCO is in place.  Until the current concerns about multifamily development are studied, there would be no criteria by which to approve or deny a multifamily project other than the existing code.  With no means by which to judge a proposed development, projects would continue to be built that might be inconsistent with the amended densities and development standards.  Staff believes that using a CUP or Planned Development to approve a standard multifamily project would be an inappropriate use of those entitlement mechanisms and would not slow or stop multifamily development, defeating the purpose of enacting an IDCO.

Regardless of which options are selected by the Council, staff recommends that the following types of projects be excluded from the IDCO:

• Additions or modifications to single family homes, or construction of new single family homes (at a density no greater than one unit per 6,000 square feet of lot area), in multifamily zones

• Conversion of existing apartment buildings to condominiums where any physical modifications to the existing building would not result in the addition of any bedrooms or housing units

• Demolition, rehabilitation, and similar work to an existing multifamily project where the work would not result in the addition of any bedrooms or housing units

• Mixed-use projects, with approval of a Planned Development, where the underlying General Plan land use designation is for commercial use

These types of projects are not directly related to the density and design concerns discussed in this report, and staff believes that allowing such projects to continue would not result in any inconsistencies with future densities or development standards.

Applicability of IDCO to Projects in Process

In adopting an IDCO, the Council has various options for how to handle project applications that are currently in process.  Those project applicants that possess building permits and have begun work based upon those permits are generally considered to have vested rights in their project.  Even if work has not physically begun, a project applicant with a permit may have a significant investment in demolition or other site preparation work, or other aspects of preparing for construction.  As such, staff strongly recommends against stopping projects through the IDCO that have received all necessary DR and plan check approvals and have active building permits to construct their project.  Other than those projects with vested rights, however, the Council may draw the line for IDCO applicability at any point.  The following list includes each major step in the project approval process at which the line may be drawn, in order from application submittal up to building permit issuance:

1. DR application submittal: The applicant has submitted a DR application to the Planning Division.  At this point, the application has not yet been reviewed for completeness.

Staff recommends against using application submittal as a threshold.  Some applications that are submitted for DR are inadequate or incomplete, and may be for proposed projects that are substantially out of compliance with code or otherwise need significant revisions.  If for whatever reason the IDCO is not adopted right away and there is any delay between the Council�s decision and the formal adoption of the IDCO, staff is concerned that this threshold would result in a rush of applications for projects that may be incomplete or ill conceived in an effort to get any type of project submitted prior to the effective date of the IDCO.

2. DR application complete: Staff has deemed the DR application to be complete and ready for processing.  This step would apply to any complete application in process until the point of DR approval (step 3).

Staff may deem an application incomplete or complete at any time within the first 30 days after it is submitted.  The date at which this decision is made varies, as some applications are deemed complete at the end of the 30-day period, while others are deemed incomplete and additional information is requested from the applicant prior to the end of the 30-day period.  Staff therefore believes that this may not a consistent or equitable means of determining IDCO applicability.

3. DR application approval: The Community Development Director has approved the DR application, and the official approval letter has been issued to the applicant.

Staff believes that DR application approval is the best and most easily identified threshold for establishing IDCO applicability.  When the Director approves a DR application, an official letter is sent to the applicant, and the date of the approval is recorded.  This is typically the formal conclusion of the DR process, and marks a clear distinction between those applications still in process and those applications that have completed the process.  As shown in the table below, there are a total of 25 projects that have received DR approval but have not yet received building permits.  This means that if this is used as the cutoff, these 25 projects could potentially be built after the IDCO is in place, and may conflict with future amended densities and/or development standards.  However, at the point that a project has received DR approval, the applicant has spent a substantial amount of time and money, and the applicant has a certain expectation that their project will be allowed to go forward based upon that DR approval.  Staff therefore believes that it would be most fair to project applicants to allow those with DR approval to be allowed to proceed with their projects.

4. DR approval appeal: The Director�s decision to approve the DR application has been appealed to the Planning Board, or a Planning Board decision on appeal has been further appealed to the City Council.  The DR approval is held in abeyance pending final action by the Board or Council.

As discussed above under item no. 3, staff believes that DR approval by the Community Development Director is the most equitable cutoff point.  Although an appeal holds that approval in abeyance, staff believes that applicants whose projects have been appealed should not fall under a different requirement than applicants who may have received approval at the same time but were not appealed.  Staff therefore recommends that Director approval be used as the only cutoff, whether or not the approval is appealed to the Planning Board or City Council.  If the Board and Council are in the position of considering the appeals after the effective date of the IDCO, they would be considering the appeals based upon the existing code prior to IDCO adoption, and voting to approve or disapprove the DR as if the IDCO were not in place.  This would allow these applicants to have their projects judged on the same grounds as those who applied at the same time but were not appealed.  As shown in the table below, there are three DR applications that are currently on appeal to the Planning Board or City Council.  These appeals will not be heard by the Board or Council prior to January 13.

5. Plan check: Following DR approval (including appeals if applicable), the proposed project is submitted for plan check.  Following several rounds of plan check during which corrections are made, building permits would be issued.

Once the Director approves the DR application, staff does not believe that submittal for plan check represents a significant step in the project process.  Plans submitted for plan check may still require additional revisions or otherwise be incomplete.  Staff therefore recommends against penalizing applicants who have received DR approval but have not yet submitted for plan check, while allowing others to go forward simply because they have submitted plans for plan check.  This approach is also inequitable to those whose DR approvals are appealed and whose progress is delayed as a result of Board or Council hearings.

6. Building permit: Following final plan check approval and sign-off by all necessary City departments, a building permit is issued to construct the project.

Using permit issuance as the cutoff would be the most restrictive approach.  Those who have received DR approval and even submitted for plan check would be captured under the IDCO if they have not yet received a permit.  This approach would be the most effective in stopping all development that may be inconsistent with future densities and development standards, since any project not already under construction or about to begin construction would not be allowed to go forward.  If the Council is strongly concerned about any additional potentially incompatible development, this option may be an appropriate choice.  However, as noted above, a substantial amount of time and money has been spent by the applicant by the time of DR approval, and the applicant has a certain expectation that their project will be allowed to go forward based upon that approval.

The following table shows the number of projects at the various points in the DR, plan check, and permitting process as of Friday, December, 26, 2003.  These are total numbers and not only representative of applications submitted this year.  Staff notes that DR approval, plan check approval, and building permits all expire if they are not used within the specified period of time (12 months for DR, 6 months with an optional 6-month extension for plan check, 6 months with an optional 6-month extension for building permits).  Therefore, it is possible that some projects with DR or plan check approval or building permits may not be built if they are not constructed in a timely manner and their previous approvals expire.  If a project has an active building permit or valid plan check approval, the DR approval is still considered valid even after the 12-month period has passed.  However, if the plan check approval or building permits lapse after the 12-month DR period has passed, the DR approval expires and the applicant must start over again by submitting a new DR application if they wish to proceed with their project.

Length of IDCO

California Government Code Section 65858 dictates the length of time that an IDCO may be in place.  Following adoption by a four-fifths vote of the City Council, the IDCO would be in effect for an initial period of 45 days.  After the initial 45 days, the Council would have the option of holding a public hearing and extending the IDCO up to an additional 22 months and 15 days, for a total period of two years.[3]

Project Schedule

The amount of time required to study densities and/or development standards during the IDCO process will depend upon the scope of work requested by the Council.  Based upon preliminary discussions with consultants, staff estimates that a comprehensive study of the existing densities and development standards would take approximately four to six months.  Depending upon the results of that study and the scope of the resulting amendments, staff estimates that an additional four to six months would be required to fully develop the revised densities and development standards.  If work on this effort commenced immediately, staff would anticipate completion around October 2004.  This is also the anticipated completion date of the General Plan Land Use Element update.  Because the results of this IDCO effort may have significant impacts upon the Land Use Element, it is ideal for these two closely related projects to track simultaneously.

Recommended IDCO Length

Within 45 days, staff will return to the Council with a recommendation for extending the IDCO.  Although the Council would have the option of extending it for up to 22 months and 15 days, staff anticipates recommending that the IDCO be extended for 10 months and 15 days such that the total effective period would be one year.  Staff anticipates completing the IDCO effort within that one-year period, and the Council would have the ability to repeal the IDCO sooner than its original sunset date if the process is completed in less than one year.  Should the process take longer than one year due to unforeseen circumstances, the Council would be able to extend it for up to 12 additional months, for a total period of two years.

CEQA Schedule Concerns

Any amendments to the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance that result from the IDCO process, including density or development standard amendments, are subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is already being prepared for the Land Use Element update, which will analyze the environmental impacts of the residential densities and development described in the General Plan.  Because the densities and development policies resulting from the IDCO process would be included in the Land Use Element, it will likely be possible to utilize that EIR to also analyze any amendments resulting from the IDCO process.

As discussed above, the IDCO process and the Land Use Element update could occur on the same schedule, which would facilitate use of the same EIR to analyze both efforts as parts of the same overall project.  However, if the scope of the IDCO process is such that it can be completed before October 2004, prior to the completion of the EIR for the Land Use Element update, a separate environmental document would need to be prepared to analyze the impacts of whatever density and/or development standard amendments result from the IDCO process.  Preparation of a separate CEQA document would add time and cost to the IDCO process, possibly resulting in the CEQA document being completed simultaneously with the Land Use Element EIR and eliminating the advantage of preparing a separate document.

Required Findings for IDCO Adoption and Extension

Finding for IDCO Adoption

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(c), the City Council must make specific findings in adopting or extending an IDCO:

The legislative body shall not adopt or extend any interim ordinance pursuant to this section unless the ordinance contains legislative findings that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for use which is required in order to comply with a zoning ordinance would result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare.

A combination of factors including land value, the cost of financing, economic conditions, and housing demand have resulted in rapid and continued development of multifamily housing throughout the City of Burbank.  Because the City is fully built-out, with very few and scattered vacant lots remaining, new multifamily development by necessity occurs through the recycling of existing multifamily properties.

The City contains certain neighborhoods that have been planned and zoned for various densities of multifamily development for many years.  However, due to various factors, some of these areas have remained developed with single family homes, duplexes, and other such low density and low intensity development.  Exhibit C is a map showing those parcels in the City that are underdeveloped based upon the number of units existing on the site versus the number of units that could potentially be built on the property based on its General Plan land use designation and zoning.  Some of these neighborhoods have maintained a specific character of development, and the residents of the area have come to expect that the character will be preserved and not threatened by future development. 

As conditions become conducive for properties to recycle at a higher density, the replacement development is typically different from older, lower density development.  Modern parking, open space, and other standards are substantially different from those in place at the time the older development was built.  As such, the easiest way to meet new standards is to build multiple stories, often with semi-subterranean parking, and to occupy a greater percentage of the lot.  In many cases, vehicle access is taken from the street, threatening pedestrian safety and circulation in neighborhoods where access was previously taken from the alley.  New development that is not compatible with existing development is permitted under current development standards.

Multiple family densities in Burbank are among the highest of similar cities in the region, with densities ranging from 29 to 87 dwelling units per acre.  Although the anticipated impacts of these densities were analyzed in the last General Plan Land Use Element, Burbank and its environment are substantially different today than they were when these densities were last comprehensively studied.  As a regional employment, retail, and entertainment center, Burbank is today experiencing traffic and other external regional impacts that are changing the dynamic of the City.

As some multifamily neighborhoods begin to build out at permitted densities, the community is fully realizing the potential impacts and affects of those permitted densities on traffic, neighborhood character, and the �small town� atmosphere community character.  In the current environment, these types and densities of development fit differently with the rest of the community and impact the community in potentially different ways than when they were originally considered.  While these densities and standards were appropriate for Burbank at one time, they are perhaps no longer, and potentially inappropriate development needs to be halted until its place in the community can be determined.

As the City grows, it has become aware of alternative options to traditional apartment development, such as mixed use and transit oriented development.  These emerging types of development provide opportunities for shifting densities around the City and providing higher densities in the downtown area, near transit corridors, and at other appropriate locations.  With these new density options, densities could potentially be reduced in traditional multifamily neighborhoods to relieve the impacts of higher density development in those areas.  These options were not widely used or known at the time that current densities were considered.

These issues are all being studied as part of the ongoing General Plan Land Use Element update, but the relatively rapid pace and intensity of new multifamily development has reached a point of affecting the public welfare, and an interim ordinance is necessary to prevent continued development that threatens to forever change the face of the City.  Neighborhood character can be irreversibly changed by unfriendly designs and densities, affecting the quality of life of the people who call that neighborhood home.

Development at certain densities may be inappropriate in some areas, and continued development with existing densities and standards may substantially impact street systems, pedestrian circulation, and other quality of life issues such as sunlight exposure, privacy, noise, and neighborhood views.  The sensitivity of certain areas to new development and the substantial impacts that such development may have upon the lives of the people living there necessitates that this development be stopped while its impacts are thoroughly studied and changes to densities and development standards are considered.

Due to the unpredictability of economic conditions, it is difficult to say whether the current pace of development will continue.  This past year has seen a sharp increase in the volume and rate of multifamily development, and this trend may continue for some time.  As this development continues, the threat to the community's character and the quality of life in some neighborhoods continues, and may increase as new development concentrates in certain areas.  An interim ordinance would ensure that regardless of market conditions, potentially inappropriate and incompatible development would not occur.

Findings for IDCO Extension

Government Code Section 65858(c) requires additional findings to be made upon the extension of an IDCO affecting multifamily development:

In addition, any interim ordinance adopted pursuant to this section that has the effect of denying approvals needed for the development of projects with a significant component of multifamily housing may not be extended except upon written findings adopted by the legislative body, supported by substantial evidence on the record, that all of the following conditions exist:

1. The continued approval of the development of multifamily housing projects would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.  As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the ordinance is adopted by the legislative body.

2. The interim ordinance is necessary to mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1).

3. There is no feasible alternative to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1) as well or better, with a less burdensome or restrictive effect, than the adoption of the proposed interim ordinance.

Although the Council is only required to make these additional findings upon extension of the IDCO and not upon its initial adoption, the above findings require the identification of conditions in existence upon the date of ordinance adoption.  As such, staff believes it important to discuss the evidence needed to support these findings in this report so that the Council is aware of the findings upon adoption of the ordinance.

Before discussing the findings, staff notes that these additional findings were added to the law in 2001 by Senate Bill 1098 (Alarcon).  Prior to that time, only the first finding discussed above was required to adopt or extend an IDCO for any type of development, including multifamily residential projects.  Because it is fairly new, these findings have not been extensively used or tested.  As such, staff is uncertain about the level of detail and amount of evidence that is required to support these findings.  Staff notes that these additional findings refer only to the public health and safety, not the public welfare, and as such are held to a higher standard than the first finding.  As discussed below, staff believes that the necessary findings can be made, but is nonetheless advising the Council about the nature of the findings and their significant difference from the initial finding regarding the public health, safety, or welfare.

Multifamily development, even at higher densities, would not generally be considered a threat to the public health or safety.  Under certain circumstances, any type of development could pose a potential threat to health and safety in the form of excessive traffic, pedestrian safety concerns, air pollution, demands on emergency services, and the like, but even those impacts typically do not rise to the level of threatening the public health or safety.  The concern with the ongoing development in Burbank is the length of time that has passed since densities and development policies were comprehensively studied, and that the impacts resulting from the development are different or more severe than those anticipated at the time the densities were established.

As discussed above for the first finding, the environment of Burbank today, including population, work force, housing demand, traffic patterns, and regional influences, is far different than it was in 1988 when the Land Use Element was last updated.  As part of the ongoing Land Use Element update process, densities and development policies were to be studied and their appropriateness analyzed.  However, the rapid pace of development and the increasing concerns of the community have signaled the point at which the development and its impacts are substantially diverging from the community�s original expectations.  Because the environment today is very different from when these densities and development standards were enacted, current densities and development patterns pose potential threats to the public health and safety due to the unknowns about the actual effects these projects are having on the community.

A quick and simple traffic analysis was recently performed to analyze the traffic impacts of potential development in the multifamily area east of downtown (see Exhibit A, page 3).  The analysis determined that based upon current allowed densities, several streets in the area are expected to operate near capacity at a level where residents may feel unsafe.  The levels of traffic that are now expected may pose a threat to the safety of people living and walking in that neighborhood, and the traffic impacts of current densities must be analyzed closely to determine whether such a threat exists.  Certain intersections in the same area were identified in the analysis to eventually need traffic controls to continue effective and safe operation.  Because a comprehensive analysis of existing and projected development has not been performed, the safety of pedestrians at those intersections may be impacted due to vehicle volumes.  Although traffic analyses were performed when the Land Use Element was last adopted, local and regional traffic patterns are very different today, and local multifamily developments may impact the street system differently than originally thought.

Other impacts of allowing multifamily development to continue at current levels may also be unknown.  A draft Community Facilities Element of the General Plan was prepared in the early 1990s to analyze the expected demands upon City services in the coming years.  Preparation of that Element was driven by concerns over the inability of City utilities and services to serve multifamily development.  A comprehensive review of expected impacts on City services has not been conducted since that time.  Future threats to the public health and safety may exist if buildout is allowed to occur at current density levels in the form of inadequate utility services, inadequate City facilities, and strained public safety services.  These issues and their potential impact on the public health and safety remain unknown until a study is conducted.

These issues and others are intended to be addressed as part of the Land Use Element update.  However, the time has come where development should not be allowed to continue until densities and development policies are analyzed and their impacts are known.  The cumulative environmental impacts of multifamily development at current densities were last analyzed in 1988, when the environmental setting was very different.  Given current concerns about air quality, wastewater and storm water runoff, solid waste, and other health-related issues, the cumulative effects of ongoing development must be examined to identify and alleviate any potential health and safety impacts.  For some current residential projects, no environmental review is conducted.  For others, environmental review is required, but is generally limited to the impacts of that project alone or the cumulative effects of projects going forward around the same time.  The cumulative effects of established densities on a citywide basis can only be examined through a comprehensive review process.

An IDCO to restrict multifamily development is the only effective means of addressing these concerns.  As long as development is allowed to continue, potentially harmful cumulative impacts continue to go unidentified.  Lowering densities or taking another interim approach may not address all of the issues, and would only serve as an arbitrary stopgap measure that may or may not mitigate potential impacts.  An IDCO would stop all development as the only effective means of ensuring that further individual or cumulative impacts are not levied upon the community.  Once the existing and potential future densities have been thoroughly analyzed and their impacts studied, the City can make educated decisions about mitigating potential threats to the public health and safety.  Until such time that information is available to determine whether new density levels are warranted, stopping all development is the only fully effective solution.

Alternatives to IDCO

In addition to the various IDCO alternatives discussed above, staff is providing the Council with two alternatives to adopting an IDCO, should the Council wish to consider alternatives. 

1. Adopt an ordinance to decrease densities citywide for an interim period.  Such an ordinance would not function as a true IDCO or moratorium, but would instead essentially rezone all of the multifamily property in the City to a lower density, such as the current R-3 density or lower.  Because current development standards would still apply, this approach might not prevent all incompatible development.  However, this approach would allow any project to go forward so long as it was at or below the specified density.  Because this would be adopted as a standard zone text amendment ordinance, it would be subject to environmental review under CEQA.  Preparation of the required CEQA document would take at least several months, delaying adoption of the ordinance.

2. Do not adopt an IDCO and proceed as quickly as possible with a study of densities and development standards.  This option would allow multifamily development to continue at its current rate under existing densities and development standards, while density and standard amendments are being considered.  This option would be the safest course of action from a legal standpoint, as development would be allowed to continue unabated and no findings would be required as with an IDCO.  Staff�s efforts with regard to studying densities and development standards would proceed the same as with an IDCO.  However, this option has the downfall of allowing any development that is consistent with current densities and development standards to go forward.  This approach may result in additional projects that are incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood or otherwise constructed so as to be in appropriate or inconsistent with future densities and standards.

Staff continues to recommend adoption of an IDCO to stop all multifamily development.  If the Council wishes to pursue one of the above options in lieu of an IDCO, staff would recommend the second approach of taking no action and proceeding with the study.  Although development would be allowed to continue, staff believes that the delays caused by CEQA review make the first approach a less than optimal choice.

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS

As part of whatever approach is ultimately taken and whether or not an IDCO is adopted, staff recommends that any effort include an examination of the current DR process.  This analysis would identify opportunities for adding discretion or other additional powers related to multifamily development to the existing DR process.  DR provides limited discretion in directing project design or ensuring neighborhood compatibility.  As discussed throughout this report, project design and compatibility is a significant issue to be studied through the IDCO process.

In addition to looking at ways to modify standards, staff believes it is also beneficial to look at ways to modify project review processes.  As the Council is aware from its consideration of past appeals, the DR process is ministerial if the property is located more than 500 feet from an R-1 zone, and the City does not have the ability to look beyond code requirements in approving or denying an application.  Even for those properties within 500 feet of R-1, the discretion is limited to determining compatibility with nearby R-1 properties, not with other multifamily properties or the neighborhood in general.  Increasing the amount of discretion in the DR process to allow the implementation of design and compatibility standards is one possible option for addressing design issues that staff intends to explore further.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Any study of the City�s existing densities and development standards would require the hiring of consultants to supplement City staff.  The Planning Division has only a few planners who work on advance planning projects such as land use studies and General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments.  Due to the current high workload levels, outside help would be needed to augment staff resources.  Further, staff does not have the needed expertise in economic analysis and urban design/architecture that would be required to comprehensively study existing multifamily densities and standards and make recommendations for needed changes.

SCOPE AND COST OF IDCO PROCESS

Staff contacted a consultant that is well known for his work on General Plans, density analysis, multifamily development policies, and other planning issues.  Based upon staff�s discussions with him, he preliminarily estimated that the cost to complete a comprehensive review of Burbank�s existing multifamily densities and development standards, identify areas where change is needed or desired, and identify the impact of varying potential densities on the City�s overall housing capacity, would be approximately between $53,000 and $65,000.  The following table itemizes the tasks included in the initial scope of work and the cost ranges for each task.  The table also includes a list of additional tasks that may be necessary or desired depending upon the ultimate scope of the IDCO process.  As shown in the table, the potential total cost for the project with all optional tasks is estimated at $131,000 to $172,000.

As discussed earlier in this report, the initial scope of work for this process, identified above as costing $53-65,000, is estimated to take four to six months.  This means that this initial phase of work would be completed this fiscal year in the current budget cycle.  Any additional tasks, including creating new development standards if needed, would occur in the next fiscal year.  Because of the speculative nature of this initial cost estimate and the uncertainty over the full scope of work, staff believes that the cost of the initial scope of work will likely be toward the high end at $65,000.  Because all of the additional tasks of work are not likely to be necessary, staff believes that the actual cost of the additional work beyond the initial scope will likely be around $80,000.

Current Budget (FY 03-04)

The Planning Division�s �Planning, Survey, and Design� account currently has approximately $131,000 in unencumbered funds.  Out of this money, staff has set aside certain funds for Work Program items as follows:

• $40,000 � first and second phases of view protection ordinance, assuming second phase is authorized by Council

• $20,000 � Media District Specific Plan revisions

• $30,000 � additional work to complete Land Use Element update

• $5,000 � additional work to complete wireless master plan ordinance

• $5,000 � additional work to complete Chapter 31 update

• $10,000 � for miscellaneous environmental assessments, studies, or other tasks that may arise between now and the end of the fiscal year

Assuming allocation of that money, the amount remaining in the account and potentially available for use in the IDCO process this fiscal year is $21,000.  As discussed above, the anticipated cost for this fiscal year is up to $65,000.  If the Council wishes for staff to utilize a consultant as part of this process, staff requests that the Council allocate $44,000 to supplement the existing Planning Division budget for funding this project.

Next Budget (FY 04-05)

In the next budget cycle, staff anticipates funding requirements for this account as follows:

• $80,000 � additional tasks related to this IDCO effort, if so authorized by the City Council

• $30,000 � annual contract with Clayton environmental consultant for the Environmental Oversight Committee

• $5,000 � annual contract with RTKL architecture for miscellaneous architectural review

• $20,000 � for miscellaneous environmental assessments, studies, or other tasks

• $40,000 � updates to General Plan Open Space and Conservation Elements

These anticipated projects result in a total request of $175,000.  If the IDCO process were removed from this list, the budget request would not be inconsistent with previous Planning Division requests and allocations.

Future Budgets

Staff notes that funds are allocated each year for anticipated projects and other tasks that may arise during the year.  Based upon the above information, the budget needs for this and next fiscal year would be above normal due to the costs associated with the IDCO process.  Due to the timing of the IDCO process, this funding is required at a specific time, and the cost of the project is therefore spread over only two fiscal years.  However, if the cost of this project could be spread over several fiscal years, the overall budget request would be consistent with past budget requests, given the additional annual allocation for anticipated projects.  If the Council desires, this additional funding could be reduced in future fiscal years, or specific projects could be postponed (such as the Open Space and Conservation Element updates listed above for FY 04-05), in order to offset the up-front cost of this IDCO process.

OVERLAP WITH LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE

Several of the tasks that would be completed as part of the IDCO process would link to and overlap with issues that would otherwise be considered through the Land Use Element update.  Because the Land Use Element must include multifamily densities, several of the issues that will be central to the IDCO process will also affect the Land Use Element process.  There is currently $40,000 remaining in the Land Use Element budget (not including the separate EIR budget).  Staff had anticipated needing all of that money and about $30,000 in additional funding (as noted above) for various tasks including economic analysis of density alternatives and density redistribution; preparation of mixed use and small lot development locations, densities, and policies as alternatives to traditional multifamily development; and other miscellaneous analysis.

However, several of these tasks will overlap or duplicate tasks to be completed through the IDCO process, as included in the above table.  If the same consultant is utilized for the additional Land Use Element tasks and the IDCO process, staff estimates a savings of approximately $30,000 between the two projects because of the elimination of duplicate tasks.  This $30,000 savings would be realized partially in the initial scope of work for this fiscal year, and partially in the next fiscal year.  Because of this and because of the speculative and tentative nature of these cost estimates, staff recommends allocating funding as discussed above, and using whatever savings result from this overlap to cover potential cost overruns or other unforeseen costs related to these projects.  If so authorized by the Council, staff intends to hire a single consultant to assist with all issues related to the IDCO process and Land Use Element update to allow for a comprehensive and coordinated approach to both projects.  Staff�s conversations with the consultant mentioned above indicate that his firm is ready and willing to assist the City with these efforts, and staff intends to utilize his services if so authorized by the Council.

CONCLUSION:

Multifamily development continues to occur at a rapid pace throughout the City.  The community has expressed numerous concerns regarding the ongoing development, including issues related to density and project design, and threats to neighborhood and community character.  The most effective means of preventing any additional development while density and development standards are analyzed and amendments are considered is to adopt an IDCO restricting all multifamily development in the multifamily residential zones.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt an Interim Development Control Ordinance that would prohibit multifamily development in multifamily zones citywide with certain exceptions as recommended in this report.

LIST OF EXHIBITS:

Exhibit A         City Council staff report dated November 18, 2003 and exhibits thereto

Exhibit B-1      Table of all multifamily DR applications received in 2003

                         B-2      Map showing location of all multifamily DR applications received in 2003

Exhibit C         Map showing development potential of multifamily properties

go to the top