PURPOSE:

This report recommends that the City Council approve a proposed zone text amendment that would reduce multiple family residential densities and implement new multiple family residential development and design standards.  These proposed changes to the existing standards in the Zoning Ordinance respond to the City Council�s concerns about residential densities and the quality and compatibility of new residential development.

BACKGROUND:

The existing multiple family residential development standards are the result of a series of code changes adopted from 1989 to 1991 that added new or strengthened existing requirements regarding open space, building orientation, amenities, landscaping, fa�ade treatment, roof design and other issues.  These code changes implemented Measure One, the voter initiative passed in 1989.  Measure One was a growth control measure and was intended to improve the compatibility of future multiple family development with adjacent land uses, particularly in single family residential areas.

In 1998, the City Council took another step to further enhance compatibility between multiple family and single family residential land use by adopting an ordinance that reduced the allowed height (from 50 feet to 35 feet at the top of the roof) and lot coverage (from 70% to 60%) on multiple-family developments within 500 feet of a property zoned R-1.

In January of 2004 the City Council considered adopting an interim development control ordinance (IDCO) that would have restricted multiple family development in response to growing concerns about multiple family development being out of character with existing neighborhoods.  The City Council ultimately decided not to adopt the IDCO but did appropriate $50,000 to hire a consultant to undertake a study of multiple family densities and development standards.  In February of 2004, the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance to amend the Development Review process to require compatibility findings to ensure that new multiple family residential development would be compatible with existing neighborhood character while the new standards were being developed.

At the November 9, 2004 City Council meeting, staff presented proposed new multiple family densities to the City Council for consideration.  These densities were about 30% lower, on average, than the existing multiple family densities.  City Council gave staff a preliminary endorsement of these proposed new densities.  At this same meeting, the City Council indicated that the preparation of new multiple family development standards was a top priority and directed staff to prepare the necessary zone text amendments for reducing residential densities and implementing new multiple family residential development and design standards. Staff has focused its efforts on the preparation of new development standards, which in conjunction with the reduced densities presented to the City Council, seek to achieve the desired compatibility.

The City contracted with the consulting firm of EIP Associates to work with staff on the preparation of draft development standards that would incorporate additional design elements.  EIP provided the City with information about standards in several other cities in Southern California and suggested new standards to achieve compatibility and design goals. Community Development Department staff from the Planning and Building divisions tailored these proposed standards to address the perceived shortcomings of the existing multiple family standards.

Staff conducted three public meetings with the community to receive comments on the draft standards. The initial meeting was held on February 3, 2005 and was geared toward the local development community. Staff hosted this special meeting for local developers intending to ask the development community to help determine the adequacy of these development standards and to perhaps suggest other standards that might achieve the same design goals.  Letters had been sent to twelve local developers, inviting them to the meeting and notifying them of two subsequent meetings that would be held later in the month.  Unfortunately none of the invitees attended the meeting.

On February 10^th and 17^th staff hosted two public meetings to share the proposed development standards with the general public; the first meeting was held at the Buena Vista Library and the second in the new Burbank High School Library.  Both meetings were widely advertised by means of utility bill inserts, several display ads in the Burbank Leader, flyers at the Planning and Building counters, in all libraries and on the cable channel scroll, as well as announcements at City Council and Planning Board meetings.  There were twenty people at the first meeting and sixteen at the second.  Unfortunately no multiple family residential developers attended either of these meetings, although several owners of multiple family properties did attend.  A complete description was given of each of the proposed changes to the development standards, and staff together with the consultant team answered questions and responded to comments. Input was taken from the attendees and incorporated into the proposed development standards where appropriate.  These comments are attached as Exhibit A.  Following the public meetings, staff revised the proposed development standards to reflect ideas gleaned from the pubic input.  The proposed standards are outlined in a table attached as Exhibit B.

On April 26, 2005 the City Council held a study session to discuss the proposed changes to the multiple family residential development standards.  In general, the City Council was pleased with the standards and supported proceeding with a zone text amendment that would codify these proposed new standards; there were some changes recommended that will be discussed later in this report. The City Council indicated that they are anxious to proceed with the adoption process as expeditiously as possible.

ANALYSIS

There has been ongoing concern in the community about the perceived change of character and impacts resulting from the recycling of older single and multiple family residential developments.   The concern relates to both density and design factors.  Reducing multiple family residential densities can have a positive effect on reducing traffic and parking impacts and improving compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. By making changes in the design of some of the new developments, the ambiance of Burbank�s multiple family residential neighborhoods would be further improved. Making changes to either density or design alone, without making complimentary changes to the other, may not have the desired result of improving the quality of multifamily development while minimizing its impacts on the community and neighborhood character; therefore, it is important to look at both aspects of development together.

The character of Burbank�s multiple family residential neighborhoods are influenced as much by the physical attributes of development � the development standards � as by the density. Development standards are the tools that shape the physical configuration and aesthetic quality of the residential density allowed on a site.  Development standards have important implications with regard to building appeal and neighborhood compatibility.  However, mitigation of impacts in the multiple family residential areas - impacts such as parking, building mass, incompatibility of scale and style with neighboring structures - must be addressed in terms of both density and development standards.

There is a critical relationship between development standards and achievable densities; therefore, in conjunction with the proposed reduction in multiple family densities, staff proposes several changes and additions to the multiple family development standards that will support the new lowered densities and reduce some of the perceived impacts of the increasing build-out of the multiple family residential areas.  The goal of the new standards is to maintain the quality, integrity and distinct character of the City�s multiple family neighborhoods while continuing to allow needed new housing development to occur.

A delicate balance is required between too much design control and not enough.  Too many requirements, and too much specificity in these requirements, can act as a disincentive to creative design and architecture; it can create a cookie cutter type of development in the community.  On the other hand, insufficient development and design controls allow for a poorly designed housing product that can have a negative effect on adjacent properties and on the City as a whole.

THE PROPOSED CODE CHANGES

The Table in Exhibit B is a comprehensive matrix of all existing and proposed multiple family development standards.  Some of the standards are proposed to be retained as is, some are proposed to be modified, and several new standards are proposed that currently do not exist in the code. The proposed standards are discussed in more detail below.  These proposed standards are generally of two types: traditional development standards such as height, setbacks, and open space (numbers 1.0 � 7.4 and 9.0 � 10.1 in the  table) and standards that incorporate design elements such as materials, colors, and architectural features (numbers 8.1 - 8.9).

The proposed changes to the zoning code (Exhibit B) are either:

1. Substantial modifications to existing standards, such as no semi-subterranean garage encroachment into required side yards, no tandem parking, fa�ade variation to achieve improved building elevations, enhanced landscaping in parking areas, no rooftop open space, elimination of    compatibility findings;  or

2. Introduction of new standards which will codify design elements, such as  building orientation, windows and doors, entries and porches, materials and colors, and roof design.

The intent of adding standards that require specific design elements is to achieve a higher quality multiple family housing product that is compatible with surrounding development.  In other cities, this is often achieved through the design review process, which is time consuming, costly and problematic in that it is a purely subjective process.  In December of 2003, staff presented a report to the City Council regarding the pros and cons of design review as a way of addressing the quality and compatibility of multiple family and other developments.  Inasmuch as the City Council expressed opposition to a design review process, staff is endeavoring to achieve similar goals by codifying, where possible, design elements that will create a more aesthetically pleasing and compatible multiple family housing product. In an effort to achieve better design without resorting to design review, City Council asked staff to look into codifying design elements, as standards, where possible.  The goal is to take as much subjectivity as possible out of the approval process and to ensure consistency in implementation. The implementation of design related standards will always include some degree of subjectivity inasmuch as the zoning code is always subject to some interpretation.  However, codifying such design elements as standards, and using very specific criteria for these standards, will minimize the degree of subjectivity in the approval process.

Each of the proposed changes and additions to the multiple family residential development standards are summarized in the table in Exhibit B.  The full text of the proposed changes to the Burbank Municipal Code can be found in the Ordinance which is attached as Exhibit C. 

The following is a discussion of some of the most significant changes proposed.  Where applicable, the discussion includes comments received from the City Council at the April 26 study session regarding the proposed standard.

Multiple Family Residential Densities

Reason for the Proposed Change

The proposed lowering of multiple family residential densities was directed by City Council in response to growing concern by both the City Council and the community at large about the amount and density of multiple family development that has been occurring and the effect this new development has had on the quality and character of the multiple family residential neighborhoods.  The proposed density changes are a significant reduction of about 30%; current densities have been in place for more than 40 years.  The reduced multiple family residential densities (Exhibit B, 1.1) were first presented to City Council in November of 2004 and staff was told to proceed with their implementation.  The proposed development standards detailed in this report have been developed to work with these reduced densities.

Effect

Lower multiple family densities will make it easier to comply with the more stringent development standards proposed.  Whereas lower densities alone will reduce the number of cars and people in a given neighborhood thereby reducing the impacts associated with traffic congestion, parking and noise, the combination of reduced densities and the variety of design standards proposed are intended to ensure compatibility of new development with the surrounding neighborhood.

Community Input

When the reduced residential densities were presented to the City Council in November 2004, some property owners and developers expressed concern about the detrimental effect this would have on the development potential of multiple family residential property in Burbank.  They also mentioned that reduced densities would increase the cost of housing in Burbank.

Reduced multiple family residential densities were presented again at two community meetings during which a full description was given of this and other proposed changes to the City Code.  Staff and the consultant team were available to respond to comments and answer questions.  Several people attending the community meetings mentioned that decreasing residential densities could drive up housing costs thereby reducing opportunities for affordable housing and making it more difficult for people to find housing in Burbank.

City Council Comment

The City Council supported the proposed density reduction and did not have any specific comments on this proposed change to the Code.  Staff notes that the proposed densities in this report are slightly different from the original proposal shown to the City Council.  The density gap between the R-3 and R-4 zones was decreased such that densities were decreased for smaller lots in the R-4 zone.

Implementation

The densities allowed in multiple family zones will be reduced in accordance with the table shown on the previous page.  Inasmuch as the City Council directed staff to eliminate the R-5 zone completely, there are no new densities for the R-5 zone.  Rather than eliminating the R-5 from the zone map at this time, and rezoning all R-5 property to R-4, staff has included in the current proposed Ordinance wording that will make all R-5 property subject to the new R-4 development standards, rather than what is currently in the Code.  Following the adoption of the Land Use Element (anticipated for the fall of 2005) a zone map amendment will be processed to effect all the zone changes necessary to implement the newly adopted Land Use Element; these changes are likely to include areas where R-4 will be down zoned to R-3 (in proximity to single family neighborhoods) as well at the areas of R-5 that will be rezoned to R-4.

City Council requested Code Changes

The following changes relate to development issues previously identified by the City Council as being in need of further study and possible revision.

Parking

Two changes are proposed for parking standards, one prohibiting tandem parking and the other requiring unfettered access to guest parking.

Tandem Parking

Reason for Proposed Change

Whereas tandem parking spaces often provide greater flexibility in parking layout and in overall project design by allowing more spaces to be fit into a smaller area, tandem parking spaces are often underutilized because of the inconvenience associated with them.  Rather than having to move out one car to access another, many people choose instead to not use the tandem pair of spaces and instead park one car on the street.  This increases on-street parking impacts and defeats the purpose of requiring the additional space.  Eliminating tandem spaces for projects over three units will help to ensure that all off-street parking spaces are utilized and that on-street parking impacts are minimized.

Effect

Tandem parking can create conflicts in circulation and access to parking spaces.  The lower densities proposed will facilitate the design of parking areas without the need for tandem spaces.  With the proposed decrease in density, the maximum number of units and hence the number of parking spaces required for a given project will be lower than under current standards.  Tandem spaces would no longer be necessary to be able to maximize the allowed density, since project designers would have fewer spaces to fit into the same area.  For projects of three units or less on a single lot, staff has found that prohibition of tandem parking can severely limit design options for a project.   As such, staff recommends that the smallest projects still be permitted to have tandem parking to maintain design flexibility.  If the tandem spaces are not properly utilized, the impact to on-street parking would be minimal due to the small number of units.

Community Input

Three community meetings were held in which a full description was given of this proposed change to the City Code.  Staff and the consultant team were available to respond to comments and answer questions.  During the community meetings there were no comments specifically directed at this proposed requirement.

City Council Comment

The City Council supported the proposed elimination of tandem parking and did not have any specific comments on this proposed change to the Code.

Guest Parking

Reason for Proposed Change

The issue of guest parking for multiple family residential developments arose from the expressed concern that when guest parking is combined with tenant parking in a secured subterranean or semi-subterranean parking garage, the guest spaces aren�t directly accessible, and guests tend to park on adjacent streets.  The thought was that if guest parking was unrestricted and easier to access then guests would not use street parking.  The Municipal Code requires that one guest parking space be provided for every five dwelling units.  In the case of surface parked projects, the provision of unrestricted access to guest parking is typically not an issue.  However, when parking is provided in a subterranean or semi-subterranean garage structure, with a security gate, it does become an issue.  Pushing the security gate back into the underground structure to allow unfettered access to the guest parking requires that the necessary back-up and turning radius be provided, both for the guest parking spaces in front of the security gate, and for the required tenant parking behind the security gate.  After much deliberation, staff is of the opinion that from a design perspective, this does not become feasible until the parking structure covers a minimum of two lots, and this would occur when a minimum density of twelve units is proposed which requires two guest parking spaces.  Therefore, staff recommends that unrestricted access be required for all surface parked multiple family projects, and unrestricted access be required for full and semi-subterranean garage structures when two or more guest parking spaces are required (Exhibit B, 5.4).

Effect

Guest spaces are often unused because they are located behind security gates and inaccessible to guests.  This proposed standard would facilitate the use of guest parking in an effort to reduce on-street parking impacts.  For small developments with only one guest space, the single space required is not significant enough to warrant special design to separate the space, as it can add costs and limit design options.

Semi and full subterranean garage structures will be required to move the security gates to the interior of the garage structure and there may be an incremental increase in the cost of construction.  However, as the attached diagram (Exhibit D) illustrates, the provision of unobstructed access to the guest parking can be accomplished, and the allowable density can be achieved.

Community Input

Three community meetings were held in which a full description was given of this proposed change to the City Code.  Staff and the consultant team were available to respond to comments and answer questions.  During the community meetings there were no comments specifically directed at this proposed requirement.

City Council Comment

The City Council supported the proposed requirement for unrestricted access for guest parking when two or more guest parking spaces are required; they did not have any specific comments on this proposed change to the Code.

Semi-Subterranean Garages 

Reason for Proposed Change

Semi-subterranean garages detract from the aesthetic quality of multiple family residential developments, especially those on smaller lots.  As they are currently allowed, they can encroach into the side yard and impact adjacent properties.  The proposed changes and additions to the existing standards for semi-subterranean garage structures are intended to reduce the impacts on adjacent properties and to promote a more attractive housing product (Exhibit B, 5.1).  The proposed standard reduces the height that a semi-subterranean garage can extend above ground.  Current code allows the garage to extend up to 5 feet above the average grade; the proposed standard would limit it to five feet above the natural abutting ground surface and this change will prevent a semi-subterranean garage structure from rising well above five feet on sloped lots.  Whereas current code allows for encroachment of semi-subterranean garages into the side yards in certain instances, such as in the Downtown and Lake Street areas or where abutting buildings have similar encroachments, the proposed standards do not allow for any encroachment of a semi-subterranean garage into a side yard.  Two additional proposed standards directly affect the aesthetic impacts of the semi-subterranean garage: requiring that the garage be designed as an architectural element that is an integral part of the building design with similar materials and colors, and that where the garage extends above ground on a street facing elevation, it must be completely screened by a landscaped berm and/or wall.

Effect

Allowing a semi-subterranean garage to encroach into a side setback can provide flexibility to a project designer by providing five additional feet in which to layout a parking area, but the impacts on adjacent properties has been a growing concern.  However, as noted above, the proposed reductions to the maximum permitted densities would result in fewer units in a given project and fewer required parking spaces.  Hence, the additional flexibility provided by the side yard encroachment will not be needed.  The side yard encroachment is most critical on single-lot projects, where the additional five feet provides substantial benefit.  However, the proposed densities would allow substantially fewer units on a single lot, such that it would not likely be necessary to construct semi-subterranean parking to provide the required number of spaces.  Because of the costs associated with semi-subterranean parking, it would not likely be economically feasible for single lot developments to consider parking other than on-grade, given the fewer units that could be built.

Community Input

Three community meetings were held in which a full description was given of this proposed change to the City Code.  Staff and the consultant team were available to respond to comments and answer questions.  During the community meetings there were no comments specifically directed at this proposed requirement.

City Council Comment

The City Council supported the proposed changes relating to semi-subterranean garages and did not have any specific comments on this proposed change to the Code.

Fa�ade Treatment

Reason for Proposed Change

Often the street fa�ade of a building is attractive and includes variations in plane and materials and has a decorative architectural treatment while the side and rear fa�ades , visible from neighboring properties and side views are plain with minimal treatment.  The proposed standard (Exhibit B, 8.2) requires that the architectural theme be applied to all elevations and that any architectural element, material and/or color used on one fa�ade of a building be continued around the corners of the building and extends down the adjacent side fa�ade.  Several other proposed standards enhance the pedestrian orientation of development by requiring street orientation and pedestrian scale; the intent of this is to make it more pleasant to walk down these streets.  The aesthetic quality of multiple family developments is addressed in the proposed standards that deal with architectural features such as windows and door, roofs and balconies. The proposed change for required fa�ade breaks is intended to increase the flexibility in project design and provide greater opportunities to project designers to design a high quality product.

Effect

These standards would create visual interest on all building fa�ades yet allow for flexibility to accommodate any architectural style.  This standard avoids rigid patterns and allows for design flexibility on larger lots.

Community Input

Three community meetings were held in which a full description was given of this proposed change to the City Code.  Staff and the consultant team were available to respond to comments and answer questions.  During the community meetings there were no comments specifically directed at this proposed requirement.

City Council Comment

The City Council supported the proposed changes relating to building fa�ades.  One Council member requested that the original wording requiring that fa�ade treatment �shall continue around the corners of the building and extend down the adjacent side fa�ade of the building� be reworded to clearly require that fa�ade treatment be continued around the building on all exterior facades.  Staff has modified the proposed language accordingly.

Compatibility

Reason for Proposed Change

An important addition to the multiple family development standards is the proposed new standard (Exhibit B, 10.1) that deals with the compatibility of new development within the multiple family residential neighborhoods.  This new standard would eliminate the need for the formal findings of compatibility with surrounding properties that are currently required under the current code as part of the development review (DR) process.  The proposed requirement would allow the Director to require changes to a multiple family project if it is deemed incompatible with the neighborhood character or would impact single family homes in the area. 

Effect

The proposed standards are collectively intended to ensure compatibility with multifamily neighborhoods.  Codification of this requirement would eliminate the need for formal findings of compatibility with surrounding multifamily properties and nearby R-1 properties, as required under the current Code through the DR process.  The proposed requirement would allow the Director to require changes to a project in the event that a proposed project would be inconsistent with the neighborhood character or otherwise impact single family homes.  The decision of the Director to require changes to the project could be appealed by the applicant.

Community Input

Three community meetings were held in which a full description was given of this proposed change to the City Code.  Staff and the consultant team were available to respond to comments and answer questions.  During the community meetings there were no comments specifically directed at this proposed requirement.

City Council Comment

The City Council supported the proposed addition to the Code which would allow the Director to require changes to a multiple family project if it is deemed incompatible with the neighborhood character or would impact single family homes in the area.

CITY COUNCIL INPUT ON PROPOSED CODE CHANGES

On April 26, 2005 the City Council held a study session on the proposed changes to the Multiple Family residential development standards.  Whereas the City Council endorsed most of the proposed changes, the following modifications were discussed:

Council Member Campbell questioned the adequacy of our current landscaping requirements that called for the installation of 24� box trees. He questioned whether a larger tree might provide better and more immediate buffering.  Staff referred this question to the forestry supervisor in the City�s Park, Recreation and Community Services Department.  The response was that larger trees are less available and the cost difference is significant; the difference between a 24� and 48� box tree is approximately $1,500.  Also, since side yards are generally five feet wide it would be difficult to plant a 36� or 48� box tree.  Staff recommends that the current tree size requirement not be increased.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study was prepared to examine the potential environmental impacts of the proposed zone text amendment.  The Initial Study indicates that the proposed amendment to the Code will not have a significant environmental impact, and a Negative Declaration was prepared.  The environmental documents are attached as Exhibits E and F.

FISCAL IMPACT

Because the proposed development standards are more comprehensive than the existing standards and address design issues that are not included in the current standards, the staff time required to review and process development review applications for multifamily projects would increase as a result of the proposed amendments.  Staff does not expect this to have a significant impact on staff resources in the long term, but additional staff time will be required to process multifamily applications, especially in the short term as staff adjusts to the new standards.  While some of the proposed development standards are likely to increase the cost of developing multiple family housing, the proposed standards are in line with the standards in neighboring communities and should not unreasonably hinder the continued development of new multiple family housing.

ORDINANCE APPLICABILITY

The Council has various options for how to handle project applications that are in process at the time new standards become effective.  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 recommends that projects not be subjected to the new standards and densities if they have received all necessary development review (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 to apply the new standards and densities at any point.  Further, the Council may elect to set the threshold date as the date the ordinance is adopted by the Council, or the date that the ordinance becomes effective.  The following list shows 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. As of June 1, 2005 there were 46 multiple family residential projects at various stages of the approval process:  8 multiple family projects that have submitted applications for Development Review, 13 projects with Development Review approval and 25 multiple family projects in Plan Check.

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.  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 new standards.

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

Staff must deem an application incomplete or complete within 30 days after it is submitted.  Staff believes that this would provide a good threshold because an application would have been reviewed by staff and rejected if it is incomplete as a result of being quickly thrown together in an effort to beat the deadline.  By the time an application is deemed complete, a substantial amount of time and effort may have been invested by the applicant.  Staff recommends that the cutoff for applicability of the new standards be that the DR application has been deemed complete as of the effective date of the ordinance.  Because it can take up to 30 days for staff to deem an application complete, this would require an application to be submitted about one month prior to the effective date in order to be eligible for the existing densities and standards.

If the City Council approves the proposed standards on June 21 and conducts the second ordinance reading on June 28, the ordinance could be published as early as July 2, resulting in an affective date of August 2.  In order to have an application deemed complete by August 2, it would have to be submitted by Friday, July 1.  Staff believes that this relatively short time frame between ordinance adoption and the DR submittal deadline will help to minimize a last minute rush of applications.

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

As noted above, by the time an applicant has submitted a DR application and that application has been deemed complete, a substantial amount of time and money has been invested in a project.  While DR application approval is a clearly identified threshold for establishing applicability of the new standards, this threshold also places the burden on City staff to try to process as many submitted DR applications as possible to be fair to all applicants.  When DR submittal or completeness are used as thresholds, the burden is entirely upon the applicant to submit their application within the time frame necessary to have the benefit of the existing standards.  Once the application is deemed complete, however, the burden is upon staff to process the application in a timely manner in a way that is equitable for all applicants.  Due to the large volume of applications, it currently takes up to two months for staff to process a DR application.  This means that anyone submitting for DR after the first week of June may ultimately have their application rejected and be subject to the new standards because their application may not be approved before the effective date.  Staff believes that it is more appropriate to place the burden with the applicant.

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.

For the same reasons discussed in item no. 3 above, staff recommends against using DR approval as a cutoff point, including where an appeal has been filed.

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.

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.  Using plan check submittal as a cutoff would again place the burden upon the applicant to submit their plans within the required time frame.  However, because plan check submittal is not allowed unless and until a DR application has been approved, the burden would still be on staff to approve all submitted DR applications before the deadline in a way that would be equitable to all applicants.

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 subject to the new standards if they have not yet received a permit.  This approach would be the most effective in stopping all development that may be inconsistent with the new 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 development under the existing densities and standards, 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.  Staff finds that the vast majority of multifamily project applications would not comply with the new densities or standards.  As such, using permit issuance as the cutoff would force most, if not all, applicants with DR approval to redesign their projects and go through the DR process a second time with the new project.

INTERIM DEVELOPMENT CONTROL ORDINANCE OPTIONS

At the City Council meeting of June 7, 2005, Councilmember Golonski requested that staff bring back information on the Council�s options for adopting an Interim Development Control Ordinance (IDCO) to temporarily restrict multiple family development until the new standards become effective. 

Findings for IDCO Adoption and Extension

Pursuant to state law, the Council may adopt an IDCO as an urgency measure by a four-fifths vote.  An IDCO is effective for 45 days and then expires, unless extended by the City Council.  In January 2004, the Council considered adopting an IDCO to restrict multiple family residential development.  At that time, staff presented the Council with information about the findings required to adopt and extend an IDCO.  California Government Code Section 65858(c) provides that the Council must find that there is a �current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare� resulting from continued development of multiple family projects.  However, to extend the IDCO beyond the initial 45 days, the Council must find that there is a �specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety� that would be caused by the continued development of multifamily housing.  �Specific, adverse impact� is defined to mean a �significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions.�  At that time, several Council members stated that while they could make the finding required to initially adopt the IDCO based upon a threat to the public welfare, they would be unable to make the finding required to extend the IDCO beyond the initial 45 days.  The proposed IDCO was not adopted by the Council.

Effective Date and Expiration of IDCO

If the City Council decides to adopt the proposed ordinance regarding the multiple family standards at their June 21 meeting, the Council could adopt an IDCO on July 12 when the second reading of the ordinance occurs.  There would be no gap between the IDCO expiration (August 25) and the effective date of the new standards (August 16).  However some permits for multifamily projects could be issued between June 21 and July 12; these projects would be subject to the existing standards rather than the new ones.   At the public hearing on June 21, staff will be prepared to provide information to the Council about the number and type of projects that could potentially be ready to receive a building permit between June 21 and July 12. 

Applicability of New Standards

If the Council supports the idea of adopting an IDCO to halt multifamily development that may be inconsistent with the new standards until the new standards are effective, staff would recommend that the Council set the threshold for applicability of the new standards at the issuance of a building permit.  This would mean that any project for which a building permit had not been issued before Tuesday, August 16 would be subject to the new standards.  The effective result of this approach is that any project that has not already submitted for plan check before the end of June would be subject to the new standards.  Because it takes at least six weeks to complete the plan check process, projects that are not submitted for plan check before the end of June would not be able to complete the plan check process and have a building permit issued prior to the ordinance effective date.  As noted above, it takes up to about two months to process a project through the DR process, so the additional effect would be that any project that had not submitted for DR by early- to mid-May would be subject to the new standards.  While this approach would ensure that many projects now in process would be subject to the new standards, staff notes that as of June 1, there were 25 projects already in the plan check process that could have permits issued subject to the old standards, depending upon the Council�s decision with regard to the IDCO adoption.

Generally any ordinance, upon its effective date, applies to all projects except to those projects which have vested rights under the law; this means those projects which have a building permit and have initiated construction. Staff recommends that any applicant that has a building permit in hand as of effective date of the ordinance be exempt from complying with this ordinance.

In the past, the City has allowed projects that have received DR approval to be exempt from new development related ordinances/changes. While using DR approval as of the effective date of the ordinance would be advantageous to project applicants, this would result in more projects approved and built that do not conform to the new standards. Because building permits for such projects would be issued after the effective date of the ordinance, such projects would be allowed to go forward subject to the old standards when they would not otherwise be permitted.  This is why using building permit issuance as the cutoff as of the effective date is the most restrictive approach.

Summary of Options

In summary, the options available to the Council are as follows:

1. Introduce multifamily ordinance on June 21^st and do not pursue an IDCO; or

2. Introduce multifamily ordinance on June 21st and consider adopting an IDCO on July 12 (resulting in a gap between June 21 and July 12 where current standards would still apply, but eliminating gap between IDCO expiration and ordinance effective date)

PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION:

The Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the proposed densities and standards at its regular meeting on May 23, 2005.  The minutes from that meeting were not complete as of the publication of this report and are therefore not attached hereto.  However, all of the substantive comments from the Planning Board members and the speakers at the public hearing are discussed below.  At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Board unanimously adopted Resolution No. 2987 (Exhibit G) recommending approval of the multiple family standards as proposed by staff with no modifications.

At the May 23^rd Planning Board meeting, the following concerns were raised during the public hearing and during Planning Board discussion:

• One Board member questioned the proposed requirement to use the same primary material on multiple structures in a townhouse type of development where it may be desirable to encourage a variety of materials or architectural styles.

Staff has amended the proposed standards to address this concern by allowing the  Community Development Director to approve different materials and palettes to encourage variety in townhouse projects.

• A speaker during the public hearing expressed concern about requiring guest spaces to be unsecured, especially when they are located in a semi-subterranean or fully subterranean garage, as this can pose a security and safety concern for people exiting their vehicles in an unsecured area. 

Staff acknowledges that this is a valid concern. The benefits of accessible guest parking must be weighed against the security risks associated with such unsecured parking.  Staff notes that the proposed standards would not require unsecured guest spaces to be located in a semi-subterranean or subterranean garage with the tenant parking.  If safety is a concern for a developer, guest parking may be provided at grade in an open area separate from the tenant parking garage.

• A concern was expressed during the public hearing about the ability to meet the proposed open space exposure requirement, which would require a view from every unit onto a common open space area or equivalent open space in lieu of the existing requirement for a view onto 20 linear feet of open area.

Staff is of the opinion that it will still be possible to satisfy the open space exposure requirement with the proposed new dimensions.  The proposed new dimensions better ensure that the intent of the open space exposure requirement is satisfied; this was not always the case with the existing standard where builders are able to meet the letter of the law in providing 20 linear feet of open space, but not always meet the original spirit and intent of the law.

• Some Board members expressed concern about allowing any balconies  on elevations facing R-1 zoned property, even with the proposed five foot privacy wall.  This was discussed and the Board ultimately decided to recommend the standard, as proposed, with balconies allowed if enclosed with a five foot opaque enclosure.    The Board believed that the five foot enclosure would adequately address privacy concerns, although it still presented some aesthetic concerns for the design of the multifamily structure.  Staff notes that this issue was also discussed by the City Council at the April 26 study session, and the same concerns were raised.

• A speaker during the public hearing suggested that a better alternative to the proposed changes that would apply to all multifamily zones citywide would be to look at different areas of the City separately, specifically corridor areas, and determine if different densities and standards would be appropriate for these areas. 

Staff and some of the Board members explained that staff would be looking at standards for the corridor areas, and other special areas, in conjunction with the ongoing Land Use Element update, but that it was beyond the scope of this zoning effort which looks only at standards and densities for existing multifamily zones and does not change the zone map.
 

CONCLUSION

The proposed changes to the multiple family development standards follow in the footsteps of previous efforts to improve the quality and compatibility of multiple family developments in the community.  Previous attempts focused on the compatibility of multiple family developments with adjacent single family homes; this is the first time that compatibility with surrounding development and neighborhood character within the multiple family areas is the focus of the changes.  The proposed standards and code modifications are a significant step forward toward reducing the impacts of new multiple family developments on the surrounding properties and ensuring compatibility with the neighborhood.

Development standards are intended to establish the minimally acceptable level of project design and quality, while still providing enough flexibility to achieve a variety of building styles.  The goal of the proposed revisions to the multifamily standards is to "raise the bar" of what constitutes the minimally acceptable multifamily project in Burbank and to require a higher quality housing product.  Staff believes this will be achieved by the increased focus on aesthetics, project orientation and functionality, architectural features, materials, and overall quality of design.

Staff believes that the recommendation to exempt all projects with a completed DR application from the new standards strikes a fair balance between allowing applicants with substantial investment in their projects to go forward while not facilitating a last minute rush on applications of people seeking to avoid the new standards.  This approach would limit the number of additional projects that would be able to go forward under the current densities and standards and would place the burden on project applicants to meet the required deadlines.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that City Council adopt the proposed ordinance to approve Zone Text Amendment No. 2005-46 and amend the densities and development standards for the multiple family residential zones.

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit A - Community Input from February 10^th and 17^th public meetings

Exhibit B - Table of Proposed Multiple Family Development Standards

Exhibit C - Text of Zone Changes as they appear in Ordinance

Exhibit D - Diagram of Semi-Subterranean Garage with Accessible Guest Parking

Exhibit E - CEQA Documents � NOA, Negative Declaration, and Initial Study

Exhibit F - Public Notice of Environmental Decision

Exhibit G - Planning Board Resolution #2987 dated May 23, 2005

EXHIBIT  A

Summary of Public Input

Multifamily Development Standards

Community Meeting #1

February 10, 2005

Project Size and Type

�        Proposed standards and accompanying photos and diagrams are not representative of Burbank�s development patterns

o       Most development is not on multiple lots

o       Most projects are on land area less than 10,000 square feet

o       Most projects are on single lots; these standards are too restrictive for single-lot developments

�        Do the new standards encourage multi-lot developments by making single-lot developments too difficult or impossible to design?

�        There should be different standards for single-lot developments

Character and Design

• Open space requirements dictate character

  • Older buildings built in the 40s and 50s had great character because no open space requirements

  • Measure One adopted in early 90s added open space requirements which changed how buildings looked

  • Counterpoint: not all buildings from the 40s and 50s have good character

• Visual impact is the key issue with developments; need some appeal process to address visual impact

• Should provide bonuses for good design such as increased number of units, increased height, etc.

Apartments vs. Condominiums

• Should have different development standards for apartments and condos

  • Condominiums are more valuable so standards should require higher quality product

  • Burbank needs �beautification�

• Counterpoint: requiring higher standards for condos may discourage condo development; this is bad; condos are important entry-level ownership opportunity

  • But, with decreased densities, condos will become more valuable and increase in price and won�t be entry-level

• One ramification of this would be no conversion ever from apartments to condos; once built, the project would be locked in as apartments due to different standards

Density/Intensity

�        Should use FAR for multifamily as with single family to control development intensity

Setbacks

• Disallowing equipment to be located in side yard areas forces equipment onto roof or forces indentations to made in building to provide room for equipment

  • Noise of operating equipment is still a concern

• Should require additional front setbacks for upper stories

Parking

• Guest parking is not practical to provide (at all) on single lot developments; no room for any parking other than tenant parking

• Not fair to require guest parking for any multifamily project; single family does not have guest parking requirements and single family homeowners receive guests just as multifamily tenants do

• New requirement prohibiting unit entries directly from parking areas: make sure that attached garages are exempted from this requirement

• Screening/berming requirement for semi-sub garages: space between berm and structure poses a security hazard

Landscaping

• Increased landscaping not good for apartments; owners do not maintain trees or vegetation and it becomes overgrown; no trees or very few trees is better than overgrown trees that are not maintained; okay in condos because homeowner�s association pays for landscape maintenance

Economic Impacts

• Property values are affected by changes in allowed density and development standards; is decreased density and new standards a taking?

Summary of Public Input

Multifamily Development Standards

Community Meeting #2

February 17, 2005

General

• Existing and proposed standards are too restrictive; make it too difficult to build a multifamily project in Burbank

Character and Design

• Requiring porches on front fa�ade is good but could require ADA ramps which would have unintended adverse impact on project design and appearance

• Should have different standards for different areas of the City to address character in those areas, not one set of standards citywide

Parking

• City should enforce on-site parking; too much on-street parking occurring

Economic Impacts

• Decreasing densities drives up housing costs and reduces opportunities for affordable housing for first-time buyers; makes it more difficult for people to live in Burbank

Housing and School Impacts

• Decreasing densities reduces housing opportunities for people who work in Burbank

• Schools should be considered; any new multifamily development will impact schools

Traffic and Environmental Impacts

• Traffic and parking concerns are not addressed in new standards; new development creates more traffic and on-street parking

• Burbank is already overbuilt with studios and traffic, why allow any more to be built?

Existing Development

• Maintenance of existing older buildings is a bigger concern; rather than focusing on requirements for new buildings we should be enforcing maintenance on existing buildings

• Should be time limits imposed in which someone has to clean up their property

• Possible to require conversion of older existing buildings to meet new standards?

go to the top