Staff Report - April 2, 2002 - Agenda Item

On January 13, 2004, the City Council held a public hearing to consider adoption of an Interim Development Control Ordinance (IDCO) that would have temporarily restricted the development of certain types of multiple family residential projects. The Council did not adopt the proposed IDCO, and instead continued the public hearing to January 20, 2004 and directed staff to return with options for modifying the existing Development Review (DR) process to add required compatibility findings for projects in multifamily zones. On January 20, the Council voted to direct staff to return with an emergency ordinance that would add such findings to the requisites for DR approval. This report recommends that the Council adopt the proposed emergency ordinance to preserve the public peace and welfare.

The DR process as it pertains to multiple family residential development was discussed in the staff report dated January 20, 2004 (attached as Exhibit 1). As stated in that report, the Burbank Municipal Code does not currently allow the Community Development Director to consider a proposed multifamily project�s compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed ordinance would amend the DR process such that any project in a multifamily zone could not receive DR approval unless the Director finds that the project would be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. The Planning Board and City Council would also be required to make the findings of compatibility if the Director�s decision is appealed.

Projects subject to DR are divided into three general categories for the purposes of the DR process:

The proposed ordinance would create a fourth category of projects that would encompass any project located in an R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, MDR-3, MDR-4, or MDR-5 zone. The additional required findings would then apply to this particular class of projects. Some of the projects in this fourth category would also fall under the second category above if they were located within 500 feet of a single family zone. For such a project, the additional findings already required by the DR ordinance would still apply; the proposed ordinance would not modify or replace those findings. The proposed project would then be subject to both sets of additional findings.

Through the comprehensive study of multifamily development authorized by the Council, staff intends to work with a consultant to develop compatibility standards and guidelines to provide direction to architects in designing their projects and to staff in reviewing projects and making compatibility findings. However, with the proposed ordinance, the compatibility findings would be implemented without any accompanying compatibility guidelines. While compatibility review will be highly subjective in nature until such guidelines are in place, staff has attempted to create compatibility findings that focus the compatibility issues into specific aspects of the project. The issues identified in the proposed ordinance are those that staff believes can have the greatest impact on compatibility and can also be practically reviewed and modified as needed for a particular project to achieve compatibility.

The findings proposed by staff address project compatibility in several areas including:

Many cities with neighborhood compatibility ordinances include aesthetic characteristics such as architectural style and quality, materials, and colors in their compatibility findings. However, such cities typically have compatibility design guidelines and/or utilize a staff architect or urban designer to review projects. Although all of the project characteristics listed above involve some degree of subjectivity, architectural and design quality can be even more subjective and involve a high degree of personal preference and taste. Without guidelines or a professional staff member trained in architectural review, staff believes that the compatibility findings should not include those specific types of characteristics and should instead focus on issues that are easier to identify.

In comparing these project characteristics to surrounding development, staff proposes to identify the �surrounding neighborhood� as all properties and structures located on both sides of the street on which the project site is located between the nearest adjacent cross streets, and properties located within the same block as the project site including those on the closest side of the adjacent street to the rear of the project site (all properties shown in gray on the diagram at right). For projects located on corner properties or near the ends of a block, the proposed ordinance would authorize the Community Development Director to consider additional properties, including those on adjacent blocks, as part of the �surrounding neighborhood.�

In developing the proposed findings, staff reviewed the findings that were used in the Site Plan Review process, the forerunner of the current Development Review process. Staff also reviewed neighborhood and design compatibility ordinances and guidelines from several cities throughout California and other states including:

As discussed in the January 20 staff report (see Exhibit 1, pages 2-3), the Burbank City Charter provides that an emergency ordinance may be adopted by a four-fifths vote of the Council upon a finding that the measure is necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, safety, or welfare. On January 20, four Council members voted to direct staff to prepare an emergency ordinance. Because it is an emergency measure not subject to the typical zone text amendment process, a public hearing before the Planning Board is not required, and the City Council may adopt the ordinance also without holding a public hearing. If approved, the proposed ordinance would become effective immediately upon adoption.

In order to adopt the proposed ordinance as an emergency measure, the Council must make the finding required by the City Charter. Staff believes that the proposed ordinance is needed as an emergency measure to preserve the public peace and 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, nearly all new multifamily development occurs by necessity through the recycling of existing multifamily properties. The City contains certain neighborhoods that have been planned and zoned for various types 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 intensity development. Some of these neighborhoods have maintained a separate and distinct character of development, and the residents of the area have come to expect that the character will be preserved and not harmed by new development.

As conditions become conducive for properties to recycle, the replacement development is typically different from the existing development. The Municipal Code does not currently provide the authority to require that a project be designed so as to be sensitive to, or compatible with, the surrounding neighborhood. Conformance with the development and design standards of the Burbank Municipal Code does not assure that neighborhood compatibility is achieved. Without the compatibility criteria established by this ordinance, the character of neighborhoods is unprotected and threatened by the encroachment of new development. The character and nature of these neighborhoods could potentially be irreversibly damaged by a project of incompatible or detrimental design. As such, it is necessary to promote and require quality design that is appropriate given the established character of the surrounding neighborhood.

Due to the unpredictability of economic conditions, it is difficult to predict whether the current pace of development will continue. The 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. The high volume of development projects currently being processed poses a direct and immediate threat to the public peace and welfare through the potential for irreversible damage to neighborhood and community character caused by incompatible project design. Incompatible projects impact the quality of life and general welfare of residents living in the surrounding neighborhood by creating projects with impacts related to aesthetics, traffic and pedestrian circulation, parking, noise, shade and shadow, neighborhood views and privacy, and open air and space.

It is necessary to adopt this ordinance as an emergency measure to immediately establish compatibility criteria for those projects currently in process, such that no more projects can be approved that would be incompatible with their surrounding neighborhood.

Per Council direction on January 20, the requirements of the proposed ordinance would apply to all projects that have not yet received DR approval from the Community Development Director, and those that have received Director approval but have been appealed. As of the publication of this report, DR applications were in process for multifamily projects as follows:

Under the proposed ordinance, the 22 applications with DR approval would not be subject to the new compatibility requirements. The two additional projects still in their appeal periods would not be subject to the new requirements unless an appeal is filed before the end of their respective appeal periods. The three applications with appeals pending and the 17 applications still in process would be subject to review under the new compatibility findings.

Projects in multifamily zones that are not located within 500 feet of a single family zone are currently processed through a ministerial DR process, where no discretion is exercised in deciding to approve or deny a project. Ministerial projects are exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed ordinance would require the Community Development Director to exercise discretion to determine a project�s compatibility with the neighborhood. Therefore, all projects in multifamily zones would be considered discretionary projects and would be subject to CEQA review.

However, the State CEQA Guidelines provide exemptions for certain types of projects that would otherwise be subject to CEQA review. Further environmental review is not required for those particular types of projects. The Guidelines exempt multifamily projects in urban areas with six or fewer units. Of the multifamily DR applications received in 2003, about 55 percent (24 out of 44 projects) were for the construction of six or less units. These projects would be automatically exempted from CEQA review. The Guidelines also exempt �in-fill� development projects, including multifamily residential in-fill projects, provided the following criteria are satisfied:

The remaining 45 percent (20 out of 44 applications) of the multifamily DR applications received in 2003 were for the construction of more than six units. In most cases, the above criteria are satisfied by these projects and they can be exempted from further review. Some environmental review and research is needed to determine whether the above criteria can be satisfied, but a full Initial Study is not required. Although all projects in multifamily zones would be discretionary under the proposed ordinance and subject to CEQA review, most of the projects would still be exempted from further review due to these specific exemptions provided by CEQA. However, staff would be required to determine on a case by case basis whether the above exemptions apply to a particular project.

Adoption of the proposed ordinance, although acted upon as an emergency measure, is considered a project subject to environmental review under CEQA. However, staff believes that the proposed ordinance is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). This provision of the Guidelines states that project can be exempted from environmental review �where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.�

The proposed ordinance would modify an existing procedure for the processing of project applications and create additional requirements for project approval, but would not result in any new development. The proposed ordinance would in no way promote new development or cause any development that would not have otherwise occurred. The proposed ordinance will likely result in a reduction of environmental impacts, as projects are required to be more compatible with existing development and maintain the character of the community. There is no possibility that the proposed ordinance in and of itself would result in any significant environmental impacts. As such, an Initial Study is not required and further CEQA analysis is not necessary.

The Permit Streamlining Act and CEQA provide the following required timelines for project processing:

Projects exempt from CEQA (six or fewer units, or meeting �in-fill� exemption criteria)

*Note: This 30-day time limit to determine the completeness of an application is also required by the Burbank Municipal Code.

In an effort to provide complete information regarding the impacts of this ordinance on the overall planning process in the City, it is important to point out that the average process time for a multifamily DR application that is exempt from CEQA is currently about 45 to 60 days from the time the application is deemed complete, for a total of up to 75 to 90 days (when no appeal is filed). This process time does not include delays that are sometimes caused by a project applicant, such as revising a project while in process. Staff estimates that the average process time would be increased by up to 15 days if neighborhood compatibility review were required. Again, this estimate does not include additional time that could be added as the result of an applicant revising their project design while in process.

As is currently the case, those projects not exempt from CEQA and requiring preparation of a Negative Declaration would require an additional 60 to 90 days to process while staff prepares the environmental document. As noted above, many of the projects are anticipated to be exempt from CEQA and not require environmental study. Making an exemption determination requires some time, but does not cause a significant delay in the DR process.

As indicated by some Council members at the Council meetings of January 13 and 20, the proposed ordinance will also serve to strengthen the appeal process by broadening the scope of the Planning Board and City Council�s review beyond just code compliance. Staff believes that the number of appeals may increase as the community is made aware of the new compatibility requirement. From the time an appeal is filed, it typically takes 30 to 45 days before a public hearing is held in front of the Planning Board, and an additional 30 to 45 days before a public hearing is held in front of the City Council, if the project is further appealed.[1] The filing of an appeal could delay final action on a project by up to 90 days. If many appeals are filed on different projects, this time delay may increase. The Permit Streamlining Act exempts appeals from its time requirements. For the purposes of DR, the time limits stated above therefore apply only to the Community Development Director�s approval or denial of an application.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Fluctuations in the volume of DR applications and the difficulty in predicting the number of appeals that would be filed make it difficult to estimate the actual costs to the City of the proposed ordinance.

Although not a direct cost to the City, staff anticipates that processing DR applications would require additional staff time and resources above what is currently required as a result of the proposed ordinance. The proposed ordinance would expand the scope of multifamily project review to include neighborhood compatibility in addition to code compliance. This would require additional staff time to review plans, conduct additional fieldwork, make environmental determinations, and have greater and more frequent interaction with project applicants and interested residents as project designs are discussed. Particularly during the initial implementation period, staff anticipates greater involvement by senior staff members to ensure consistency in the compatibility findings.

As previously mentioned, staff believes that the number of appeals may increase as a result of the proposed ordinance. The time needed to prepare reports and presentations for Planning Board or City Council hearings would require additional staff time. Appeals also incur direct costs to the City in the form of printed staff reports, hearing notices, and postage that would not otherwise be required.

Pursuant to Council direction, staff has prepared an emergency ordinance to modify the DR process to require that projects in multifamily zones be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. Staff anticipates that the proposed ordinance would lengthen the amount of time needed to process a DR application and require additional staff time. Staff believes that the finding required by the City Charter for an emergency ordinance can be made and that the proposed ordinance is needed to preserve the public peace and welfare.

Staff recommends that the Council adopt the proposed emergency ordinance as presented in this report to add compatibility findings to the DR process.

[1] The Burbank Municipal Code requires that a City Council public hearing on a DR appeal be held within 30 days after an appeal of the Planning Board decision is filed. An appeal may be filed up to 15 days after the Planning Board decision. The Code does not establish any timeline requirements for Director approval of a DR application, or for the Planning Board hearing following an appeal of the Director�s decision. As mentioned earlier in this report, the Code does require that an application be deemed complete or incomplete within 30 days of submittal.

Council Agenda - City of Burbank

Tuesday, February 10, 2004

FISCAL IMPACT: