Staff Report - April 2, 2002 - Agenda Item

This report recommends that the City Council approve a zone map amendment to change the zoning designation of the above-described properties from the R-3 Residential Multiple Low Density zone (with an allowed density of one dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area) to the R-2 Residential Two Family (duplex) zone (with an allowed density of one dwelling unit per 3,000 square feet of lot area), and approve a related zone text amendment to allow for the maintenance and reconstruction of non-conforming multifamily structures under certain circumstances.

History: At the City Council meeting of April 20, 2004, Council directed staff to initiate a zone map amendment to change the zoning of the subject blocks from the R-3 Residential Multiple Low Density zone to the R-2 Residential Two Family zone. This direction came following the Council�s consideration of a multifamily project proposed on a vacant lot at 637 North Fairview Street. The Council granted an appeal and denied the application to construct the project, which began as a four-unit complex and was later reduced to a three-unit complex. The Council expressed concern that the proposed project would be out of character with the existing duplex nature of Fairview Street. The goal of the downzoning would be to limit density and control future development so as to preserve the neighborhood character and help to ensure that future development is compatible with surrounding properties.

Property Location: The properties that would be affected by the proposed zone map amendment are located on Rosemary Lane, Fairview Street, and Niagara Street between Verdugo and Clark Avenues (Exhibit A-1) (Lots 2-19 and 23-37, Tract 13180, M.B. 256-33-34; Lots 3-21 and 24-40, Tract 13174, M.B. 252-42-43; Lots 23-41 and 44-62, Tract 13123, M.B. 251-21-22).

Zoning: The subject properties are zoned R-3 Residential Multiple Low Density. The end parcel on each of the three streets along Verdugo and Clark Avenues and abutting parcels on Catalina Street to the east are zoned R-1 Residential Single Family. Abutting parcels on California Street to the west and at the south end of Rosemary Lane are occupied by Verdugo Park and are zoned OS Open Space (Exhibit A-2).

General Plan Designation: The affected properties are designated Multiple Family Low Density by the General Plan Land Use Element, which allows for a maximum density of 29 units per acre, equivalent to the R-3 zone. The zoning is consistent with this land use designation.

Property Sizes: Most of the affected properties are rectangular parcels. Some of the properties are irregularly shaped due to the curvature of the streets at both ends of the blocks. Properties on Fairview and Niagara Streets range in size from 6,040 to 7,720 square feet. Properties on Rosemary Lane are larger with sizes ranging from 9,910 to 14,400 square feet.

Street Classification: Rosemary Lane, Fairview Street, and Niagara Street are all designated as local streets in the General Plan Circulation Element.

Paved Width of Street: All three streets have 60-foot rights-of-way with a paved street width of 36 feet.

Sidewalk/Parkway Width: All three streets have sidewalks and landscaped parkways on both sides of the street with a combined width of 12 feet on each side.

City staff conducted a survey of existing development on the 107 parcels that would be affected by the proposed zone change. All properties on Rosemary Lane are developed with four dwelling units each, with the exception of two lots that have three units each. All properties on Fairview Street and Niagara Street are developed with two dwelling units each, except for three lots on Fairview Street that are vacant. These vacant properties are or were owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and contain water utility infrastructure. One of these vacant lots was the subject of the proposed development project and appeal discussed above. In total, there are 272 existing dwelling units on the three streets (Exhibit B-1).

The R-3 zone has a permitted density of one dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area, which generally allows four units on a standard single lot. None of the affected parcels is built out to its maximum possible density under the current R-3 zoning. Additional units could be added to all of the lots to take advantage of the allowed density, subject to compliance with all current development standards. The properties on Rosemary Lane could be potentially developed with seven, eight, or nine total units (including existing units), depending upon the lot size. All properties on Fairview and Niagara Streets could potentially be developed with four units each (again including existing units).

If all of the existing lots were built out to their maximum allowed density under the existing R-3 zoning, the total number of units in the neighborhood would be 540 units, about double what currently exists (Exhibit B-2). If lot assembly occurred to take advantage of economies of scale and make the most efficient use of the available density, up to 556 units could be built.[1]

The building types on each of the three streets are distinct, with similar properties containing structures of similar or identical design, generally as follows:

Rosemary Lane: Except for one property with three units, the west side of Rosemary consists of four-plexes with two units in front, two units in the rear, and four-car garages in the middle, facing the side property lines and accessed from the street. Except for one property with three units, the east side of Rosemary consists of four-plexes with four units staggered front-to-rear, and four- and five-car garages at the rear accessed from the alley. All structures on Rosemary Lane are single story. (see Exhibit C-1)

Fairview Street: Except for three vacant lots, the west side of Fairview consists of duplexes with one unit in front of the other and a two-car garage in the rear accessed from the alley. The east side of Fairview consists of duplexes with one unit in front of the other and a two-car garage in the rear facing the street and accessed from a driveway leading to the street. There is one two-story structure located mid-block on the west side of the street; all other structures are single story. (see Exhibit C-2)

Niagara Street: Both sides of Niagara consist of duplexes with one unit in front of the other and a two-car garage in the rear facing the street and accessed from a driveway leading to the street. There is one two-story structure located mid-block on the west side of the street; all other structures are single story. (see Exhibit C-2)

The majority of the units on all three streets have one off-street parking space per unit. On a few lots, there are one or more additional parking spaces provided. Most of the parking spaces are provided in enclosed garages, with duplexes having two-car garages and four-plexes having four-car (and in a few cases five-car) garages.

An alley runs along the rear of the properties between Rosemary Lane and Fairview Street. All of the properties along the alley take vehicular access from the alley. All other affected properties take access from the street.

All of the duplexes are laid out similar to single family homes and have open space in the front and rear yards. Some of the duplexes are built as a matched pair with the neighboring property similar to a �U� shape, resulting in a shared front/side yard area between the structures. Some of the four-plexes are built in a similar manner, with most of the open space provided in the front/side yard area between the structures and in the rear yard. The four-plexes with parking access from the street have some front and side yard open space, but much of the open area is occupied by driveways leading to the garages. Exhibits C-1 and C-2 show these typical layouts.

Project Description: The proposed zone map amendment would change the zoning of the affected properties from R-3 to R-2. The most significant effect of this change would be a lowering of the permitted density on the properties from one unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area (29 units per acre) to one unit per 3,000 square feet of lot area (14 units per acre). The only other difference between the R-3 and R-2 zones is the amount of off-street parking required; the R-3 zone requires varying numbers of spaces based upon the number of bedrooms per unit whereas the R-2 zone requires a flat rate of two spaces per unit.[2] Both zones require guest parking at a rate of one space per five units. The required height, setbacks, open space, and other development standards are identical between the two zones, and the multifamily design standards apply to both zones (see Exhibits D-1 through D-3).

The proposed zone text amendment would amend Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) Section 31-1810 pertaining to non-conforming structures.[3] The code currently allows legal non-conforming single family homes in any residential zone to be rebuilt to their prior configuration (including size, height, lot coverage, floor area ratio, and parking) following accidental destruction upon approval of an administrative use permit (AUP). The proposed amendment would expand this allowance to include multifamily structures in all residential zones (Exhibit D-4). This provision would allow for non-conforming structures that would result from the proposed map amendment to be rebuilt with an AUP in the event they are destroyed. The proposed amendment would also add a provision to the code that would provide for structures to not be considered non-conforming solely on the basis of having too many units. This would allow property owners to improve and expand the existing units and enjoy other advantages of having the units considered as conforming rather than legal non-conforming. This issue is discussed further in the analysis section below.

Municipal Code Conformance: Staff did not conduct a comprehensive review of each affected property to determine the degree to which it conforms to current development standards. As discussed above, most units in the area are provided with one off-street parking space. As noted above, the code currently requires more than one parking space each for all dwelling units and the required number varies depending upon the number of bedrooms in each unit. Therefore, most if not all of the properties in question are considered non-conforming with regard to parking. It is likely that some of the properties, especially the four-plexes with street access, do not provide adequate open space per today�s standards. Given the complexity and specificity of other multifamily development standards, it is likely that at least some of the properties do not comply with the full complement of present-day standards.

As mentioned above, all of the properties in question are built at a lower density than what the existing R-3 zoning would allow. However, if the properties are rezoned to R-2, the majority of affected lots would then already be developed at their maximum density, and no additional units could be added. Further, 18 properties would be built at a density higher than that allowed by R-2, with each lot having one more unit that would be permitted. The three vacant lots on Fairview could be developed with two units each, consistent with other lots on the block.

So long as the structures in question are properly permitted and were legal when they were first built, they are considered legal non-conforming. In the event any of the structures are destroyed, they would have to be rebuilt pursuant to the non-conforming structure provisions in the code (BMC Section 31-1810). As recently amended by Ordinance No. 3643, these requirements are as follows:

Public Correspondence: Pursuant to the BMC, zone map amendments require noticed public hearings before the Planning Board and the City Council. Notice of both hearings must be provided at least 10 days prior to the hearing by the following means:

The City Council expressed concern to staff that the entire neighborhood affected by the amendment be notified so that everyone who might be affected by the proposed zone change would have an opportunity to provide input. As such, staff took the following actions in addition to the noticing required by the Code:

Exhibits E-1 and E-2 are copies of the two public notices mailed respectively to owners and tenants of the affected properties and to owners and tenants of properties within a 1000-foot radius.

Staff believes that the above actions provide adequate notice to all property owners and tenants potentially affected by the zone change, and provide them with the information needed to understand the zoning proposal and the related issues. Staff considered giving advance notice to the owners and residents and/or providing some other forum for them to provide input on this matter outside of the hearing process. However, staff believes that the two public hearings offer adequate opportunity for interested parties to provide their input on this matter. Noticing all owners and tenants of the hearings and including additional information prior to the hearings gives interested parties ample notice of the issue and the proposed action, and affords them two public forums in which to share their opinions on this matter.

Staff received several telephone calls regarding the proposed action prior to and after the Planning Board hearing. One call was from Tony Rondinella, the owner of several properties on Rosemary Lane. Mr. Rondinella shared his opinion that it is not appropriate to downzone multifamily properties, particularly when the demand for housing is so high. He believes that Rosemary Lane is adequately buffered from surrounding R-1 properties and is within walking distance of the Media District, traits which make it an ideal location for the R-3 density. Mr. Rondinella stated that the four-plexes on Rosemary were built in a hurried fashion to house Lockheed employees and are of low quality and poor design as they were not intended to be in place as long as they have been. As such, he believes they are not worth preserving.[4] Mr. Rondinella stated that he is unable to rehabilitate his existing buildings and would have to tear them down to build a higher quality product, but if the properties are downzoned he could not rebuild without losing a unit on some properties, which would make any improvement economically unviable. Another call was received from David Augustine, another owner of properties on Rosemary. He too expressed his opposition to the downzoning of Rosemary Lane.

Staff received several phone calls from property owners and residents of the affected properties and single family properties located nearby. One call was from a resident of Rosemary Lane concerned that the proposed zoning would require the demolition of existing structures in the neighborhood and force existing residents to relocate. Staff explained that the proposed zone change would not require any physical changes to the neighborhood and would prevent the recycling of properties to higher densities. As of the publication of this report, staff had received five additional calls from property owners and tenants supportive of the proposed zone change.

In addition to the calls, numerous letters regarding the proposed action were submitted during and after the Planning Board public hearing by property owners and tenants. Letters in opposition to the proposed zone change as it applies to Rosemary Lane were received from Mr. Rondinella, Mr. Augustine, and Gerald Hungerford, all owners of properties on Rosemary Lane. Property owners and tenants of affected properties and other properties located nearby submitted a total of 32 letters in support of the proposed downzoning. All correspondence received as of the publication of this report is attached as Exhibit E-3. At the request of the Planning Board, staff has prepared maps identifying those affected properties for which the owner and/or tenant(s) have provided input in support of or in opposition to the proposed action either in writing, over the telephone, or in person at the Planning Board hearing (Exhibits E-4 and E-5).

No other calls or correspondence were received regarding this project. Any correspondence received prior to the public hearing will be forwarded to the Council.

Options and Implications: Although the Council directed staff to initiate a downzoning from R-3 to R-2, staff looked at various options for achieving the goal of maintaining the existing densities and development patterns in the neighborhood in an effort to preserve the neighborhood character. If the permitted densities are too high, additional development may occur that could damage the neighborhood character, but if densities are reduced too much, some properties could become non-conforming (notwithstanding the proposed zone text amendment).

With these parameters in mind, staff identified three alternatives to leaving all of the affected properties zoned R-3:

Because downzoning all of the properties to R-2 would create non-conforming properties, staff explored the other two options as ways of avoiding that outcome to eliminate the need for the accompanying text amendment. For each of the above scenarios, staff calculated the number of additional units that could be developed or conversely, the number of units over-density, on each parcel. Exhibits F-1 through F-3 are maps of the affected properties showing the number of existing units and the number of additional (or fewer) units that would be accommodated under each zoning scenario. Exhibit B-2 (referenced previously) shows the number units that could be built if all of the properties remain zoned R-3. After looking at the general implications of each of the above options, staff selected the recommended option of downzoning the entire neighborhood to R-2.

Option 2, downzoning Fairview and Niagara while leaving Rosemary zoned R-3, would preserve the duplex atmosphere of the first two streets but would not prevent the potential development of seven-, eight-, or nine-unit projects on Rosemary. This option would not protect the four-plex character of Rosemary and would allow for substantial additional development. Staff therefore believed that this option did not further the Council�s goal of preserving the existing character of the area by maintaining current density levels.[5]

Option 3 is similar to option 2, except that a new zoning designation/density would be created for Rosemary as an alternative to leaving the properties as R-3. Staff identified a density of one dwelling unit per 2,500 square feet of lot area (17 units per acre) as the density that would prevent the creation of non-conforming overbuilt lots while minimizing the number of additional units that could be built. Under this density, two of the parcels on Rosemary could accommodate one additional unit each. Staff does not believe that this option is ideal because it would establish an entirely new residential density not currently used in Burbank. This would require the creation of an entirely new residential zone, or a special overlay zone for Rosemary to supplement the underlying R-3 zone. Further, this option still provides for the possibility of additional units being constructed on Rosemary.

At the direction of the Council and as part of the ongoing General Plan Land Use Element update, staff and the City�s consultant are studying the multifamily densities and development standards throughout the City. The outcome of this study may include recommendations to decrease the permitted residential densities Citywide and amend the existing development standards. With this study ongoing, staff believes that it would not be appropriate to create a new zone or density to address this specific situation. There are other neighborhoods in the City under similar circumstances that are zoned for substantially higher density than what is currently built. The multifamily study will look at these areas in general and on an area-specific basis and include recommendations for ways to preserve the character of those neighborhoods, if so desired. The neighborhood that is the subject of this report is included as one of the study areas, and recommendations for changes to the densities and standards in this and other neighborhoods will likely be included in the study. Staff therefore recommends a zone change at this time to an existing zone with a permitted density that is a known quantity already in use in other neighborhoods.

Non-Conformity Implications: Staff�s recommended option of downzoning all of the properties to R-2 would have the effect of making 18 properties on Rosemary Lane legal non-conforming with respect to the number of units on the properties. Each of the 18 parcels would have one more unit than what would be permitted under the R-2 zoning. It is important to note that all of these properties are already legal non-conforming with respect to one or more other zoning standards, including parking and open space. The proposed zone map amendment would not therefore create newly non-conforming properties where such properties are now conforming to all aspects of the Zoning Ordinance, but would create one additional way in which they are non-conforming.

This could potentially impact a property owner�s ability to make certain improvements on the lot, such as adding square footage to an existing unit. The code prohibits the expansion of non-conforming structures in any way that would increase the non-conformity. Under staff�s current interpretation of the code, a structure with more than the allowed number of dwelling units could still be added to and improved so long as no additional units were added and no bedrooms were added so as to increase the amount of required parking. However, the code could also be interpreted such that any expansion of a structure with more than the allowed number of units could be considered an increase in non-conformity.

To address these issues and clarify staff�s intent to avoid any future changes in interpretation, staff is proposing a zone text amendment that would:

This proposed amendment would allow all of the properties affected by the zone map amendment to retain their conforming status with regard to the number of residential units, and retain the benefits of improving and expanding the existing units, pursuant to other code requirements. This would also allow the owners of all of the properties, including the overbuilt properties, to rebuild their structures to the current size and number of units with approval of an AUP.[6] In this manner, the same single story structures with garages in the rear could be rebuilt so as to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood rather than compelling owners to meet current zoning requirements that may change the neighborhood character through efforts to provide the currently required amount of parking and open space.

Impacts on Built Environment: As discussed earlier, all of the affected properties could have additional units under the current R-3 zoning than what currently exists. It would not be possible, however, to add units to the existing developments. Each new unit would be required to provide parking and open space pursuant to current code requirements. Given the configuration of the existing structures, there is not adequate space for the necessary parking and open space. As such, any additional units would require the demolition of existing structures and construction of entirely new multifamily projects. In order to meet current zoning criteria while providing the desired number of units, these projects would likely be two stories tall and may include semi-subterranean parking. This type of development is substantially different from the existing development patterns and would alter the neighborhood character.

With the zone change to R-2, none of the affected properties, with the exception of the three vacant parcels, would be able to add any additional units. There would therefore be little to no incentive for a property owner to demolish an existing structure and replace it with another structure with the same number of units. The zone change would help to preserve the existing neighborhood character to the extent practical by removing any benefit of building an entirely new multifamily project. However, staff acknowledges that the proposed zone change would not ensure that the neighborhood remains in exactly its current configuration, particularly with regard to the number of stories. As noted above, the development standards of the R-2 zone are nearly identical to the R-3 standards, with the exceptions being the permitted density and number of required parking spaces. Because two-story development is permitted in the R-2 zone, the proposed zone change would not prohibit the construction of new two-story projects on the vacant lots or the addition of second stories to existing buildings.

Since all but two of the affected properties are developed with single story structures, it may be argued that any two-story development would threaten the neighborhood character. While the three vacant parcels would be able to accommodate only two units each under the R-2 zoning, it is likely that any development on those lots would be two-story so as to maximize the use of the lot. It would also be possible for second stories to be added to existing structures, so long as the addition did not add bedrooms so as to require additional parking.

However, staff believes that two-story structures would not necessarily be out of character with the neighborhood. On the vacant parcels, two-unit projects could be constructed that would be very similar in character to the existing duplex development in the neighborhood, and could be designed to be compatible with the area. The compatibility findings that are now required as part of the development review process for multifamily projects would help to ensure that new development is compatible with the existing neighborhood character to the extent practical.[7] The same compatibility findings would also apply to any additions of more than 300 square feet to existing structures in the neighborhood pursuant to the development review ordinance.

The proposed zone text amendment could help to preserve the existing neighborhood character by allowing destroyed structures to be rebuilt in their original configuration with an AUP. This proposed code provision would not allow any increases in height or size from a previously existing structure to a rebuilt structure. If the previous structure were single story, the rebuilt structure would also have to be single story to take advantage of the non-conforming parking, open space, and other such standards that existed with the previous building. Any such increases would cause the property to lose the option of rebuilding to the previous configuration, and the owner would have to build a fully code compliant project that would be subject to the development review compatibility requirements.

Owners opting not to pursue the AUP option and build a code compliant project would face substantial challenges. Even with the decreased number of permitted units, projects built under today�s standards could require substantial alterations from existing project designs to provide the needed parking and open space. Rebuilding to current code would be a particular challenge for those parcels that abut R-1 zoned properties at the ends of the blocks and along the east side of Niagara Street. The code now requires a 20-foot wide buffer area to be provided between the R-1 lot line and the multifamily structure, which essentially makes an area 20 feet deep along the rear of the Niagara lots and along the side of the lots at the ends of all three streets unable to be built upon. With this restriction, building a new project with the same character as the existing development would be extremely difficult if not impossible. In many cases, it would be more practical and cost effective for the owner to apply for an AUP to rebuild to the previous configuration, which would help to preserve neighborhood character.[8]

In summary, the proposed zone change would not be a guarantee that the neighborhood character would remain unchanged. The R-2 zoning would still allow for new two-story structures to be built and for second stories to be added to existing structures. Financial and other considerations may make it most feasible for many properties to remain as single story structures, and to be rebuilt as single story structures in the event they are destroyed. Further, the compatibility requirements of the development review process would help to ensure that any two-story structures would be designed so as to be as compatible as possible with the neighborhood character.

Staff believes that decreasing the permitted density as proposed is the most effective option to preserve the existing neighborhood character. Although it would not prevent two-story development or the construction of larger structures, it would cap the density at its current level and provide a disincentive for the recycling of properties to larger structures of a design that would be entirely incompatible with the neighborhood. Lower density projects with fewer units and lower parking and open space requirements can be more easily designed to be compatible with existing development patterns.

General Plan Implications: Appendix C of the General Plan establishes consistency relationships between zones and land use designations. Per the appendix, both the R-2 and R-3 zones are considered consistent with the Multiple Family Low Density General Plan designation. Although the density allowed by the General Plan is the same as that of the R-3 zone, the intent of the General Plan is to allow densities up to, but not necessarily the same as, the permitted density. The R-2 zone has a lesser density than the maximum permitted and is therefore also consistent with the General Plan. As such, no General Plan amendment is required.

The only existing General Plan land use designation with a lower density than Multiple Family Low Density is Single Family Low Density. This designation establishes the single family density of one unit per 6,000 square feet of land, or 7 units per acre. Although the R-2 zone is considered compatible with the Single Family Low Density designation, it is a policy of the General Plan to not create new R-2 zones in areas designated for single family residential except in very limited circumstances where other R-2 zoning is already in place. These criteria would not apply in this case, and staff therefore recommends that the underlying General Plan designation remain unchanged. The R-2 zoning would control the allowed densities on the properties, and no additional development would be permitted under the zoning even though the underlying General Plan would still allow for an R-3 zone with a higher density.

As part of the multifamily density study and Land Use Element update mentioned above, staff is exploring the possibility of modifying the existing residential land use designations and perhaps creating new designations with new density levels. This neighborhood will be evaluated along with other multifamily neighborhoods in the City to determine if a modified or new different General Plan designation would be more appropriate for the area.

The General Plan Housing Element identifies existing and projected housing needs and establishes goals and policies for the preservation, improvement, and development of different housing types to meet the needs of all members of the community. The proposed zone map amendment would result in a loss of 278 units from the City�s total housing capacity (556 absolute maximum minus 272 existing units and six units from potential duplexes being built on the vacant lots). However, this number represents only about one-half of one percent of all housing units in the City (42,847 per the 2000 Census with some increase since that time). This reduction in capacity does not conflict with any Housing Element goals or policies and would not significantly impact the City�s ability to provide housing.

Surrounding Properties: One of the concerns expressed by the Council and shared by staff is the subject neighborhood�s presence in the center of a single family residential area. The neighborhood is completely surrounded by R-1 zoned properties along Clark Avenue, Catalina Street, and Verdugo Avenue. Because of this proximity and close relationship with these R-1 properties, the permitted density in this area could have impacts on the R-1 properties with regard to traffic, noise, and other issues. Changing the zoning as proposed would reduce by one-half the number of units that could otherwise be constructed on the three streets. This reduces the number of vehicle trips and people in the area, and reduces the demands upon public resources shared with the nearby R-1 neighborhoods, such as the adjacent Verdugo Park. Staff believes that the proposed amendment would maintain a neighborhood that is more compatible with its single family surroundings.

Department Comments: A description of the proposed zone change was routed to City departments and divisions for review and comment. No departments or divisions had any comments regarding the proposed action.

Environmental Review: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study was prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action. The Initial Study found that the proposed zone map and text amendments would not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative Declaration was accordingly prepared (Exhibits G-1 and G-2).

Because the proposed zone change would substantially reduce the number of residential units that could be constructed, most environmental impacts of the proposed action would be positive, such as reduced traffic and demands on public services from that permitted under the current zoning. The most notable negative impact is the loss of 278 units of housing capacity from the City. As noted above, however, this number represents only about one-half of one percent of all housing units in the City, and the loss of this capacity would not significantly impact the City�s ability to provide housing.

Density: The Planning Board considered this item at a public hearing on July 12, 2004 (minutes attached as Exhibit H-1). Some Board members expressed concern about staff�s recommended option because it would create non-conforming properties on Rosemary and would affect property owners� ability to construct additional units or in some cases replace existing units. The Board ultimately voted to recommend the alternative option of downzoning Fairview and Niagara to R-2 and rezoning Rosemary to a new zone with a density of one unit per 2,500 square feet, as discussed earlier in this report (Exhibit H-2). This option would not create any non-conforming properties with regard to number of units, and would allow for two properties on Rosemary to construct one additional unit each. For the reasons stated earlier in this report, staff continues to recommend that Rosemary be changed to R-2, and that a new zoning designation or density not be created.

AUP for Rebuilding: The Board also voted to recommend that non-conforming multifamily structures be allowed to rebuild to their pre-existing configuration with an AUP when destroyed by any means, including voluntary demolition. The Board acknowledged the aging housing stock in the subject neighborhood and a desire to allow property owners to upgrade or replace aging structures while still striving to maintain the neighborhood character. Staff had recommended that the AUP option be available only when the structure was destroyed by fire or natural disaster, and that any newly built structures be required to comply with current standards. In this situation, the compatibility standards of the development review process would be utilized to ensure preservation of neighborhood character to the extent possible. The Board recommended that the AUP provision for both voluntary and involuntary demolition apply only to the subject neighborhood, whereas staff had recommended that the option be available for multifamily structures Citywide, consistent with single family structures.

Staff continues to recommend that the AUP option be available only for structures destroyed by fire or natural disaster and not apply to voluntary demolition. Staff believes that the structures in this neighborhood and others, while perhaps old and in need of repair in some cases, can be adequately repaired and maintained consistent with single family and other structures in the community, and do not need to be demolished and reconstructed. Neighborhood character issues aside, staff is concerned about setting a general precedent for allowing structures to be voluntarily demolished and then rebuilt to their previous non-conforming status, since this is inconsistent with the general goals of zoning to enhance and improve neighborhoods and create a desired community character through development standards. Staff recognizes the desire to preserve the neighborhood character in this area but believes that maintenance of existing structures is the preferred solution.

Neighborhood Character: As discussed earlier in this report, some Board members pointed out that the proposed downzoning would not guarantee that the current neighborhood character would remain intact. While the compatibility findings of the development review process would help to preserve the neighborhood character, changing the zoning would not prevent second stories from being added to existing structures or new two-story structures from being built. The Board pointed out that the only way to truly guarantee preservation of neighborhood character would be to completely change the zoning including creating new development standards that reflect the desired character of the neighborhood. Creating new development standards for this area is beyond the scope of this zone change effort as originally directed by the Council. However, staff notes that the ongoing study of multifamily densities and development standards will identify neighborhoods throughout the City that possess a particular character and make recommendations about creating unique standards to preserve that character when appropriate.

With regard to neighborhood character, the Board also discussed the threshold for two-story construction in this neighborhood. The Board asked staff to provide information to the Council about the number of units at which two-story development would be required to comply with current development standards. Given the number of variables that go into designing a multifamily project, it is difficult to provide a definitive answer to this question. As discussed earlier in this report, any new code compliant project would face various challenges in this neighborhood. However, staff estimates that a new project of up to about four or five units could theoretically be built in a single story structure on a single lot with alley access on Rosemary Lane. This accounts for tenant and guest parking and common and private open space being provided at grade level. This would be possible largely because the lots on Rosemary Lane are much deeper than typical lots elsewhere in the City, with depths of 180 to 200 feet.

Because they occupy ground area, open space and parking are typically the driving factors in this determination. Because of parking configuration and access requirements, properties with alley access can easily accommodate parking at the rear of the lot. This allows the balance of the lot to be used for open space and structures. Lots without alley access are much more limited in their options. Uncovered parking must be located at the rear of a lot, and there are limitations on the amount of enclosed parking that can be placed at the front of a lot. Therefore, the only feasible means of providing required parking when no alley is present is to have a driveway running the full length of the property, which reduces the area available for open space. Because of backup distances and other parking design requirements, such parking arrangements typically occupy more of the lot, which then limits the area available for open space and structures.

Another limiting factor is open space exposure from dwelling units. Per code standards, each dwelling unit must have a view onto either a public street or onto 20 linear feet of open space. For five or fewer units, the minimum dimensions for common open space are eight feet by ten feet. Depending upon the lot size and parking configuration (parking areas cannot be used to meet this requirement), it is sometimes difficult to provide 20 contiguous feet of open space. With two story structures, more units can face the street to meet this requirement.

In summary, when the lot is deep enough, and more often if alley access is available, it would be possible to construct a multi-unit single story project on a single lot and still comply with current code standards. However, staff notes that limiting structures to one story would also limit the size of the units. Shortly before the Planning Board hearing on this item, a development review application was submitted to add a second story to an existing single story duplex on Niagara Street on one of the properties that would be affected by the proposed zone change. The applicant is not proposing to add more units, but rather to double the size of the existing units by adding a second story to both. This application demonstrates the trend toward larger units, which in many cases would not be possible in single-story development.

City Resources: The proposed zone map and text amendments would have minimal impacts on City resources. Administering the development standards of the R-2 zone would require the same resources as administering the R-3 zone. Because changing the zoning to R-2 would prohibit additional development that would possibly otherwise occur under the R-3 zoning, it may be argued that changing the zoning to R-2 would result in fewer development review applications for that area in the future.

The proposed zone text amendment would allow multifamily property owners to apply for an administrative use permit to rebuild a destroyed structure to its previous configuration. Administrative use permits require City resources to process including staff time and public noticing. However, given the uncommon circumstances under which this would apply, the number of such applications would be minimal and there would be very little impact on City resources.

Property Values: A full analysis of the impacts of the proposed zone change on property values is beyond the scope of this report. There are two sides to this fiscal issue, in that reducing the number of units that can be built on a multifamily property may have the effect of lowering property values, while taking steps to preserve a desired neighborhood character and prevent over-development may have the effect of maintaining or raising property values. The residents who spoke at the appeal hearing regarding the project on Fairview and the Planning Board hearing for the proposed zone change, many of which were also property owners, expressed their fondness for the current character of development in the area and the neighborhood atmosphere that it created. This suggests that some individuals purchased the properties with the intent of keeping the existing structures with the existing number of units, and did not intend to recycle them to higher densities.

U.S. Census data on housing tenure (owner-occupied versus renter-occupied) is available on the block level. Because of the single family properties at the end of each of the blocks containing the subject multifamily properties, and because only occupied units are counted, it is difficult to calculate an exact number of owner-occupied units. Further, because of the presence of condominiums in other multifamily areas, it is difficult to compare owner-occupancy rates for this neighborhood to other multifamily neighborhoods. In looking at the composition of the affected blocks, the block bounded by Verdugo, Clark, Fairview, and Niagara is the most consistent in that all of the affected properties are occupied by duplexes and only four R-1 lots are included in the block. Data from the 2000 Census indicates that about 30 percent of the housing units in that block are owner-occupied.[9] Accounting for two units per R-3 lot and assuming that all four of the R-1 properties are owner occupied, this correlates to approximately one-half of the R-3 lots in the block being owner-occupied. Although imprecise anecdotal evidence, this data shows that a substantial number of properties in the neighborhood are occupied by owners who have a dual interest of maintaining a desirable neighborhood character while maintaining or increasing their property values.

Although also anecdotal, staff notes that at least six of the properties affected by the proposed zone change have sold over the past two years.[10] These properties have sold at prices similar to nearby single family homes that have sold during the same period. The trend in multifamily property sales and development over the past 18 to 24 months has been that of purchasing property and immediately seeking approval to demolish existing units and construct a new complex at a substantially higher density than what previously existed. Persons who have owned multifamily properties for many years have also been seeking approval of denser projects as interest rates have remained low and property values have continued to increase. This issue has become significant and resulted in the initiation of the ongoing multifamily density and development standard study. However, aside from the application to develop a vacant lot, no applications have been filed to demolish any existing structure or increase the density on any of the lots affected by the proposed zone change.

Staff acknowledges that decreasing the permitted density on any property may have the effect, at least initially, of lowering the property value, since fewer units would be able to be built on the property. Calculating the specific anticipated impacts of this proposed zone change is beyond the scope of this report. The above information is intended to show that the subject neighborhood does have a number of property owners who like the character of the neighborhood as it is today and may be willing to have their property downzoned in an effort to maintain that character. Preserving an existing neighborhood character that is desired by property owners can therefore also have the effect of maintaining higher property values.

Changing the zoning of the subject neighborhood from R-3 to R-2 would freeze the neighborhood at the number of units currently existing, and would allow only duplexes to be built on the three remaining vacant lots. The zone change would not prevent two-story development on the vacant lots or prohibit second stories from being added to existing single-story structures. However, the change would help to protect the existing neighborhood character by maintaining the duplex and four-plex development patterns and preventing additional units from being added. Further, the compatibility findings required as part of the development review process would help to ensure that any two-story development is designed to maintain the neighborhood character. Although some parcels would be overbuilt for the R-2 zone as a result of the zone change, their status would be protected through the proposed zone text amendment dealing with maintenance and replacement of non-conforming structures in multifamily zones.

Although the Planning Board recommended a different course of action to avoid the creation of non-conforming properties and allow buildings to be demolished and reconstructed to their previous configuration, staff is not supportive of either approach for the reasons discussed above.

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance to approve the zone map amendment and zone text amendment presented in this report.

Exhibit A-1 Vicinity map identifying affected parcels and indicating public notice and

Exhibit F-1 Map showing maximum number of units that could be built on each parcel

[1] For example, at the R-3 density of one unit per 1,500 square feet, an 8,000 square foot lot could have five units and a 7,000 square foot lot could have four units for total of nine units, since all fractions are rounded down for density calculations. If the two lots were assembled into a single lot of 15,000 square feet, a total of 10 units could be built.

[2] The number of required parking spaces in the R-3 zone (and all other multifamily zones except R-2) is 1.25 spaces per efficiency unit, 1.75 spaces per one bedroom unit, and 2 spaces per unit with two or more bedrooms.

[3] This code section was recently amended by Ordinance No. 3643 adopted by the City Council on June 22, 2004. The changes proposed herein would expand the existing requirements to apply to multifamily structures in addition to single family structures and would not change or undo any requirements established by Ordinance No. 3643.

[4] Staff notes (and shared with Mr. Rondinella) that the purpose of preserving neighborhood character is not to save structures of historic significance or architectural quality. Neighborhood character is created by the physical structures, but it does not necessarily matter when or why the structures were built. What matters is that there is some desire today to maintain the structures or require new structures to be of a similar design in order to maintain the desired environment and atmosphere.

[5] As discussed later in this report, even downzoning the entire neighborhood to R-2 does not absolutely protect the neighborhood character, since two-story development is still allowed under the R-2 zoning.

[6] Section 65852.25 of the California Government Code requires cities to allow multifamily dwellings involuntarily damaged or destroyed by fire, catastrophic event, or the public enemy to be rebuilt to their previous size and number of dwelling units, even when not otherwise permitted by current zoning standards. However, as a charter city, the City of Burbank is exempt from this provision.

[7] The only option to ensure that no two-story development occurs would be to prohibit such development under the zoning. Such a restriction is not currently found in any residential zone, and staff does not believe that it would be practical or prudent to restrict the development potential of property to that extent.

[8] Staff notes that this approach to preserve the exact character of existing development has a tradeoff of allowing structures to be rebuilt with substandard parking and open space. The goal of providing adequate off-street parking to avoid neighborhood parking problems must be weighed against the goal of preserving neighborhood character.

[9] Source: 2000 U.S. Census: QT-H2. Tenure, Household Size, and Age of Householder: 2000; Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data; Geographic Area: Block 1006, Block Group 1, Census Tract 3115, Los Angeles County, California.; taken from U.S. Census Bureau website, www.census.gov

[10] Source of sales information: Los Angeles County Assessor website, www.lacountyassessor.com

Council Agenda - City of Burbank

Tuesday, August 31, 2004