Meredith, Alyssa
From:
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 5:55 AM
To: Schultz, Nick
Subject: Re: New Chain - Coffee Next Year
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Nick,
I am sorry a month has gone by. I got very busy, and I'm realizing | didn't update you, I really forgot, and was engaged in some wishful thinking that I'd have time sooner. I apologize for leaving you hanging. Do you have any time this Thursday or Friday? If not, can Monday work? Ordinarily I can do weekends if you like, but this Saturday is my son's birthday. If you are very busy this week, I was hoping to meet with you about the upcoming City building law changes generally, but also after they are introduced on Feb 8th.
With a few exceptions, they are mostly pretty bad (and some are contradictory to their supposed goals), but since different information has been put forth each time they were presented, and still lacking requested explanations - l'd like to be able to discuss Staff's exact "final" presentation... whatever that ends up being. They have, frankly, ignored the most pressing issues causing the slowness in plan check along with the most obvious, direct, and ordinary solutions. They also appear to have (especially the Planning Board) a very selective memory about the reasons massive public citywide desire for the guidelines, process, and increased enforcement came to be. We can provide a reminder. It should be noted there was huge public outcry when this began, and there is very little other than the developers and rightfully upset honest owners waiting in line longer than most other cities that have even more strict rules than Burbank's design guidelines (we don't ever make people erect story poles, like Glendale, for example). It's not the rules. In fact, in regards to unlimited low price-plan check, it begs the question: How can people believe this is being seriously addressed for the supposed purposes claimed, without any effort or research about the lack of a serious price system policy that respects and supports the professional labor of our frontline City staff (along with honest architects waiting their turn)?
I am applying for the Charter review commission and would like to meet with you about that sooner (I think you choose on the 8th)..so perhaps we could meet briefly this week and also after the 8th. Would that work for you? I spoke with Konstantine during his goal setting meeting, and he seemed receptive to the changes and improvements I'd like to see, which I also think will lead to a change in some of the building issues, indirectly. In seeking a nomination for that position I'd like to find out what, if any, specific changes individual council members are seeking to explore/ research those in addition to my own - which seem popular among my peers.
Hope all is well with you and your family -
Best,
Simon
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 1:00 PM Schultz, Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
1 Hi Simon,
I hope that this message finds you and the family doing well! Thanks for sending over both of those messages. With regards to setting up a coffee meeting, please send me your availability for a few dates in January and we'll get something on the calendar ASAP. Looking forward to connecting with you very soon. Happy New Year! Nick
From: Simon H.
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 11:15 PM
To: Schultz, Nick <[email protected]>
Subject: New Chain - Coffee Next Year
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Nick,
Thanks for the email, 1 am a little behind on my replies as well! No trouble at all, I didn't have anything particularly urgent, but I'd like to meet with you at least once before the zoning rules come up in February. I will forward you the email I just sent to the building department regarding the original building project | appealed in a separate email.
Although it is possibly time sensitive for them to act, there is no pressure for you to read it (it's alot) now or really at any time, but I think if this particular project and the related issues reach a public discussion that you might have an interest. It cannot be appealed (it's built) so 1 am comfortable sharing it with council members.
Elaine, Owen, Louie and I hope you enjoy your trip with your family! We can look for a time after the new year that's good for you.
Happy Holidays!
2 Simon
Meredith, Alyssa
From: Christopher Rizzotti
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2022 4:46 PM
Subject: Single-family home guidelines zone text amendment Attachments: SFH Guildlines.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links on open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thank you again for your time, attached are some notes from our discussion Christopher John Rizzotti, Broker
Voted Areas Best 4 Years Running
2013 Realtor of the Year
RizzottiRealtor.com
@RizzottiRealtor
Bre. No. 01298167
1 - Changed the code 5 years ago and made it very subjective. - We have heard from the public that the current system is not working with 18 mo. wait times to get simple permits, with costly delays and thousands of dollars in plans from homeowners.
- We started the process to stop mansionisation by eliminating bulk and size, which was done by our property development standards, controlling (height, mass, set backs, FAR and bulk), but then design review and neighborhood compatibility was added and destroyed our planning department.
- What makes no sense is that you can tear down a house and build a new one at .35 (2362 house) and there is not design review compatibility. But, if you add 600 sqft. onto a 900 sqft house (1500 sqft.) or .22 FAR you are stuck with design review compatibility and 20 months before you get a permit.
- The process has completely bogged down the planning department. It was bulk and size that was the concern and we controlled that with our development standards.
- What is being proposed is no design review and keep the development standards to control bulk and size and moving the FAR to .40, which is 2700 sqft. which is not a mansion.
- People are adding ADU's because they can get enough square footage under one roof. If you let people build 2700 sqft, they will keep everything under one roof, instead of building a second structure, thus taking away building material resources, removing green space from yards and adding to the homeowners expense and adding to more staff time. - The difference in .35 and .40 on a standard 6750 lot is 337 sqft., you are already allowed to build a 1000 sqft. ADU by right, so our rules are out of date.
- Please, please keep in mind when people talk about mansion's and homes that do not match the neighborhood, its always been controlled by our development standards, not neighborhood compatibility. There is no reason to go through neighborhood compatibility, especially when you can tear a house down and build a new house without having to go through compatibility now, but if you add 505 sqft to your house you have to go through 18 months of compatibility.
Please adopt staffs recommendations- Thanks
Meredith, Alyssa
From: Barbara Stoliker <
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2022 10:10 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Eliminating Dozens of Protections to "Streamline New Construction." CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
As a member of the Burbank community I feel the need to speak out and Remind the City Council of what we want Burbank to be and we need THE SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES to be kept. 12-15 of new homes go up each year and if the staff does not have the time to properly evaluate each. Members of Preserve Burbank have witnessed ongoing violations of these Design Guidelines and have had little or no assistance from Staff or Law Enforcement when egregious code violations have continued to occur. The City should raise the building permit fees and charge for any more than two plan check reviews per project. WITH EACH OF THESE HOMES, it affects a dozen existing homes next door, across the street, and behind. These changes are not being initiated by the community or by the State. Design Guidelines are one of the last areas that the local community can control the growth and disruption of our neighborhoods, the green of our city is disappearing, the appeal of the small-town community is disappearing.
Barbara Stoliker
Meredith, Alyssa
From:
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2022 12:58 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Please Vote No on Agenda J 2/08/2022
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
Just wanted to let you know that I support the following information in this copied and pasted body information.
I hope residents don't hear City's hands are tied.
Thank you,
Laura loanou
Burbank Resident
Agenda item J. Public Hearing:
Tuesday February 8t Council will be hearing an "Ordinance Amending Sections of Title 10 of Burbank Municipal Code Pertaining to Definitions, Standards for Single Family Residential Zones, and Nonconforming Structures"
What does this mean? Staff is proposing significant changes to the BMC, including the Elimination of the Single Family Design Guidelines and Single Family Special Development review process.
These changes will completely destroy the neighborhood protections which Burbank Residents had championed over the past several years and City Council unanimously approved in 2017.
Remember the IDCO?
Do you recall all of the time, resources and money spent (over quarter $$$ Million dollars) to develop the Single Family Design Guidelines? Members of the Community as well as Staff and Council members spent countless hours attending Community meetings, Walk shops, the City Council 1 meetings which lasted until to the wee hours of the morning? This was over period from 2015 thru 2017.
Now, the Community Development Director is attempting to wipe the SFD Guidelines off the map and completely eliminate them from the BMC.
While staff uses the term Streamline - These changes will not only eliminate the Single Family Design Guidelines, they will eliminate the review process and create new loopholes, developers will be given the green light to build more massive structures and fast track their projects with little oversight.
These changes were approved by the Planning Board and the CCD staff in a December meeting, right before the holidays, with NO community outreach. In addition to eliminating the SFD Guidelines they are proposing an additional 10% increase in the top plate height, 22 feet.
Please take a look at the RED LINE report to see the changes.
Urge City Council to Vote NO on the Proposed Changes to the Ordinance,
Urge Council to Vote No on the proposed amendments to the BMC and to table the item until it can be studied further, with community outreach and input on the changes. These changes are far reaching and require more thoughtful review of the facts.
2 Meredith, Alyssa
From: Cordray <
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2022 1:33 PM
To: City Council DL
Cc: Cordray
Subject: Planning Board
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links of open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To City Council Members,
Dear council members. I am under the understanding the Planning Board is in the process of eliminating and changing the Single Family Design Guidelines at the meeting scheduled tomorrow 2/8/22. I am totally against the oversized houses that are being approved in our City and developers going around the rules to build these unsitely homes. I have lived in Burbank for over 35 years and when I bought my home I stayed to the design that kept my house in line with others. I am very disappointed with the Bldg. Dept. and their not doing their jobs when doing their reviews and inspections. A house right down the street from me on Bel Air got away with building their home 2' higher than what was approved, and the inspector that inspected the home did nothing. I would hope that the City Council would consider putting this decision on hold until a better and more detailed review can be done.
PLEASE CONSIDER DELAYING ANY DECISION!!!
Charles Cordray
Meredith, Alyssa
From: thomas abrams <
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2022 2:06 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: SFD Guidelines
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council members -
I urge you to please vote NO on the proposed amendments to the BMC regarding Single Family Guidelines and to table the item until it can be studied further, with community outreach and input on the changes.
The city and community worked long hard hours establishing these guidelines for many reasons.
The proposed changes are far reaching and require more thoughtful review of the facts.
Thanks very much for your help!
Tom Abrams
Avon Street
Burbank
Meredith, Alyssa
From: jayne mckay <
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2022 2:26 PM
To: City Council DL
Cc: Angela Wiegand
Subject: Vote NO on amendments to the BMC!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
As a longtime resident of Burbank, 1 am vehemently opposed to the proposed amendments and the impacts that this action will have on single family residences. Voting on sweeping amendments such as these is not at all in keeping with our city guidelines. Many neighborhoods have fought hard and won battles to protect their homes from greedy developers desires. We all deserve a say in this, not just the council members and developers. Isn't it enough that Burbank charges developers and contractors the lowest fees of any community?
With the daily announcements of new housing and developments, we've got to try to retain some perspective! Are we really going to compete with Inglewood to be the best airport neighborhoods? Let's study these amendments and include community outreach before imputing changes and abandoning protections put in place for a purpose. Save Burbank Neighborhoods from overdevelopment and the loss of our community identity.
Thank you,
Jayne McKay
Burbank, Ca. 91505
Meredith, Alyssa
From: Julia Macinnes
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2022 4:33 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: DELAY ADOPTION OF THE PANNING BOARD
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization, Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I would ask the Council to delay, until there is sufficient time to review the adoption of the Panning Boards complete overhaul and elimination of the most important parts of Burbank's single family development codes.
As one who has lived in Burbank for 30 years, I would like to have ample time to review.
The charm of this city is what drives people to live here, to stay here. I refuse to allow you to tear that away.
All the best,
Julia Sandoval
Burbank, CA
Meredith, Alyssa
From: Kevin Muldoon
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2022 4:48 PM
To: City Council DL
Subiect: Agenda J-7
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear council
I hope you would deny agenda item J-7. Most of the restrictions being lifted were hard fought a decade ago when mansionazation was running rampant in Burbank. The new ordinance completely turns back the clock and the protections afforded to homeowners from overbuilding by neighbors not consistent with other dwellings. I know each of you have taken a stance on Sacramentos destruction of single family neighborhoods and approval of the change is tantamount to ignoring your previous promises to the community.
Regardless of staffs spin they as a most part don't live in the community and will not suffer the consequences of this giveaway to local developers. Deny.
Kevin Muldoon
Sent from the field forgive typos
Meredith, Alyssa
From:
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2022 8:51 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Please Delay
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Members of the City Council,
Please delay, until there is sufficient time to review the adoption of the Planning Boards complete overhaul and elimination of the most important parts of Burbank's single family development codes. I need enough time to get a fair review of the elimination of dozens of laws that will directly impact my everyday experience in Burbank.
Respectfully,
Randy Hayden
Meredith, Alyssa
From:
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2022 10:10 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Summary elimination of Single Family Design Guidelines CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
As a thirty year plus resident of Burbank, I am disturbed that substantial changes may be made to residential guidelines after so much time was spent by citizens developing plans to keep Burbank a livable city. And this is being done hastily and without input from residents who painstakingly worked out these plans.
The nature of the changes seem to be skewed to favor the development of large, quickly designed, permitted and built, "McMansions". These policy changes would not maintain the hometown quality Burbankers love about our city.
Glendale and Pasadena have effectively produced rules and policies which limit the damage this rampant development causes. What is it about Burbank that allows our city to be taken advantage of? Surely we can protect our community.
The Burbank City Council needs to examine any changes to the single family design guidelines and halt the destruction of the efforts of so many residents to keep Burbank livable.
Stephen Newman
1 -
2 Meredith, Alyssa
From: Noreen Reardon
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2022 10:45 PM
To: Talamantes, Jess; Anthony, Konstantine; Frutos, Bob; Springer, Sharon; Schultz, Nick Subject: Design Guidelines
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Council Members,
> I want to voice my opposition to the Planning Board and staff's attempt to eliminate the Design Guidelines put into place in January of 2017. Any consideration off the proposed recommendations need to be delayed until the public has time to understand them. > Noreen Reardon
> Burbank
>
> Sent from my iPad
Meredith, Alyssa
From: Yolanda Aumont <
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2022 11:27 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Proposed amendments to the BMC
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not dick links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
I am writing to you to Implore you to vote no on the proposed amendments to the BMC.
I have owned my home here in Burbank for the last 20 years. I realize that the state has taken a lot of control away from local government but our city needs to do anything and everything possible to stop developers from building and to have as much control as possible to control what and how they build. Not less control! If you read any comments from residents on any and all posts regarding developers and building in our city, it's a resounding at least 90% of residents are against any additional apartments or condos. Are residents supposed to sit by and just watch our beautiful city become ruined. The council is monitoring these posts by residents aren't they? Please don't tell us that residents in their own city have zero control.
Please vote NO to the proposed amendments to the BMC and table this item until it can be studied further with community outreach and input on the changes. These changes are far reaching and required more thoughtful review of the facts.
Thank you
Yolanda Aumont
Meredith, Alyssa
From: Kellie Dancho •
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2022 7:48 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: City council meeting 2/8- comment
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Madam Mayor and Council-members:
I wanted to express public sentiment in regard to two agenda items:
GUN SALES:
I support limiting the sale of guns so that it is not near residential areas and schools.
Honestly, I would love gun stores to be banned from our city. I find it unbelievable that tattoo shops are illegal, but we get new gun shops every few months.
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING/ PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION/RENOVATION:
It's no secret that the permit process is unnecessarily difficult, and unreasonably lengthy.
No new construction project should get priority over residents applying for renovation, addition, or ADU permits. It should also be noted that this can cause very dangerous wait times for those wishing to make urgent improvements.
Thank you,
Kellie Dancho & Ed Chavey
13 year Burbank residents, home owner and BUSD parents
Meredith, Alyssa
From: john ford ‹
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2022 5:38 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Vote NO on the proposed amendments to the BMC
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To The City Council,
As Burbank homeowners of nearly a decade, we are very dismayed with the proposed changes from the CD Director which serves to eliminate many of the protections we have on single-family homes and the neighborhoods we live in.
We urge you to please VOTE NO on the proposed amendments to Title 10 of the Burbank Municipal Code and at the least, please hold off any further discussions of amendments until further studies can be made. Too much influence from developers are coming in to radically alter the environment that makes Burbank the special place it is for families and businesses. The environmental and economic impacts to existing single- family homes and neighborhoods from "McMansion" type development also needs to be further studied.
Thank you and regards,
John & Audrey Ford
Burbank Homeowners
1 Meredith, Alyssa
From:
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2022 5:51 AM
To: Talamantes, Jess; Anthony, Konstantine; Frutos, Bob; Springer, Sharon; Schultz, Nick; City Council DL
Subject: Request to Delay or Continue Agenda J-7, Ordinance Changes for these reasons.
Attachments: Cypress House 2022.jpg; Alameda House 2022.jpg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Members of Council,
If you've already decided to delay and continue the Zone Text Amendment there is no urgency to read this long (sorry, but shortest I could cover) email. If not, I ask you to please consider my questions, which are considerably shorter than the phonebook size packet of changes some of the Planning Board and CDD senior staff have forced you to make with only two weeks notice.
I am writing to you to request that you give an opportunity to the public to have at least two workshops where voters can ask in-depth questions and follow up about our building code and problems before making the massive 60 plus page change that has been dumped before you. Two weeks to study and review laws that took two years to craft is unfair to you and extremely unfair to the public. I ask that if you find you are going to need to speak to staff extensively behind closed doors because you must clarify points of information just to try and understand the huge changes; that you also offer the public a chance to do the same, so they might trust the outcome of what is being done here.
The most participation possible during the planning board's "process" would have been 3 minute, one sided comment period phone call-ins. That is if the public even knew what was going on- as the big changes only came at the end of the second to last session.
My call was responded to with answers to questions I didn't ask and other parts of my question about a study to meet the real world demand with a price to realistically supply enough plan checkers and fully funded labor was totally ignored and is not on the recorded minutes. Additionally, as I mentioned the 60 page redline and discarded 50 page neighborhood review guidelines were not even known to the public until the last 10 minutes of the second to last meeting, the details of which were not provided on paper until December - and then in full with only TWO WEEKS to review..
Frankly, I would be insulted if Staff were to expect an answer so quickly from those of you who know how much time you carefully invested negotiating all positions between 2015-2017 to arrive at these rules to quickly now expect you to throw them out in this fashion. Please recall that almost every line of BMC code relates to a real-world scenario that was a problem or was a protection of long-term quality of life, and is important to different groups of voters.
The most important question I have is: How is our senior staff unable to bring their level of efficiency up to at least be on par with other cities that have design guidelines that are MORE restrictive than Burbank's? Glendale, for instance, requires story poles on most 2 story projects. Ours is only special development in Hillside. While in Glendale I'm told the wait is significant for a whole house, people are not waiting 20 months for a toilet. How do they do it and why are you or l asking this question when you have a CDD director on staff? After over 5 years, how in the world is the senior staff having to take follow-up questions on what they claim to be 40 percent of applications (of which I think I saw only 5 real world, verifiable projects in evidence). Clearly, based on the goings on...answers were there to be found. This would incur a review of management's training practices in a private business.
Do they mean to say that 40 percent of homes have a special unique problem they've never seen before, that only the supervisor can solve? In a real business each of those would be recorded and a training manual updated so that each was only addressed and solved ONCE. In most jobs I've had working for someone else, they gave me a huge book of examples of what to do when x,y, or z happens and I've been reprimanded for asking the same question twice. The City employs people running these departments a few hundred thousand dollars a pop, but citizens volunteering their time have to keep writing in asking for these reports to protect their homes - the taxes on which fund those paychecks.
The second most important question is why is no one talking about the price model part of the efficiency concern at all? I don't want to get into the weeds without having a back and forth workshop so I'll save it for then or when the public needs to put in work to get our quality of life back, should this pass without significant changes.
For the time being you cannot know the answer without a study (that isn't provided in all these documents), but what do you think the overwhelming answer would be to the survey question: If you could have paid 900 (or whatever it really costs) dollars more than what you paid a year ago at that time, but we could guarantee your plan could be checked if you have less than 4 items that need corrections and we could have you stamped and building in 20 days....would you take the deal? Would you still take the deal if each correction after those first 4 were made / reviewed by the hour at 200 dollars an hour, would you take the deal or would you want this situation to stay the same? Could you have a more democratic answer to the question of should you take that approach or is what is happening a natural result of the current price? This would encourage far more competent plan submission.
Why is this not done by the hour, and why aren't there triple the number of plan checkers to meet demand? If the answer is cost, the problem is INSTANTLY fixable. Where cost = x, price = x. DONE, and I don't even have a degree in business or City Planning, and I'm bad at math.
Clearly, a lack of correct, realistic pricing is hurting everyone. But mostly, where are all the reports on this and why hasn't there been a workshop on this? I have seen people verbally abuse both inspectors and frontline plan checkers who must make review after review for people who won't take no for an answer paying the exact same total price as applicants who show up with diligently completed plans. The abusive applicants pay the same low price and steal the time (and money) from honest applicants. Even more disturbing, why are you hearing this from me, and not on the record from the CDD director who should be looking out for morale of front line staff AND protecting the will of the Council (by extension voters).
I have quite a few notes on these issues, but there is not time to get into all of them. I will provide examples one way or another going forward, but I've found it is better to put these issues in the public because calling Planning Board does not produce results, and we get the same miniscule sliver of time in CC meetings with absolutely no rebuttal or follow up until after the vote or it's so far advanced in the process. Meanwhile, senior Staff, many of whom don't live here, get hours of off-the-record facetime to make rules about where they don't live.
But for now just a few individual examples to question about OBJECTIVE rules changes: how does increasing the second story bulk by raising the second story walls 2 feet higher in the sky not increase the bulk and mass of the structure? Even worse, how is this good for the environment? On one hand, you will need more air conditioning without increasing livable floor space, and on the other the height threatens to block out any lower single story solar panels making them less efficient in the daytime, requiring them to also burn more fossil fuel. And as anyone with eyes can see - two story houses have been built all over town since 2017, so why make a change for a minority of structures when other building solutions exist?
I can tell you it's frustrating to hear responses about roof heights (the smaller part of upper story bulk) when one asks a question about the height of the actual second story top of plate( the larger bulk-set to be increased). That doublespeak would not be tolerated in private sector jobs, and it has made me permanently question the truthfulness 2 and earnestness of other answers given or coached by CDD senior staff. I would not tolerate that from anyone I'd hire or continue to work with.
Another example is this driveway expansion. How is more concrete, keeping more water from the ground table a good idea? Why would having less beautiful old growth (less water hungry) trees be worth expanding driveways when there seems to be no problem getting cars into garages in our old code. They simply ignore it as it is now, so you can imagine once it's open season. I can provide visual examples of this. If anyone tells you differently that this won't happen. Please meet with me for an hour or two before voting to pass this. The public will be interested in what I can show you, and now appears to be the right time.
These are just two of dozens of individual changes that ALL deserve debate with the public, but there's so many, the only responsible thing I can do with the time I have is ask you to please hold interactive workshops and split the changes into actual meaningful individual improvements, especially if speed is truly the issue of the moment.
Charging people the right amount to meet the economic demand is the most responsible and ethical answer, no matter how many rules you have. There is serious abuse of the price system as is. People pay extension fees while they wait for other applicants to make round after round of corrections, often basic in nature. I have real world examples of this to show going forward as well.
No matter the result of tomorrow please DELAY the huge changes and explore all avenues of reducing wait times. I would be happy to meet with any of you privately to show you more real world examples, including internal staff memos / building plans, and photos etc.
Best regards,
Simon Hammel
ps Attached are two photos of homes built (one still under construction) : permitted under current rules + design guidelines. The smaller home (split), still being built, blends in so well you might wonder if it was always there, it's on Alameda. The other; the beautiful Mediterranean style-influenced home is included to show that there was no appeal to this house, there was no public outcry nor anyone protesting the style of this modern two story home sitting right between two older single / split story homes. It's on Cypress by Bel Aire, on a street lined with 20s and 30s craftsmen and the like. It's fantastic looking work, so please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Examples of these kinds of new buildings are going up all over town
Meredith, Alyssa
From: ROY WIEGAND < >
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2022 9:02 AM
To: City Council DL
Cc: Roy Wiegand
Subject: Urgent: Agenda item J 7
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning,
we are asking that you vote NO or at the very least delay your decision on agenda item J7, Regarding the ordinance amending sections of Title 10 of BMC pertaining to definitions, standards for single-family residential zones and non-conforming structures. 1) This ordinance was created by the ENTIRE community, including residents, staff, builders and realtors. It was unanimously approved by city Council.
More time is needed for thoughtful review, community community outreach and input. (I have been on social media trying to spread the word about this and very, very few people are aware of these possible pending changes.
If you decide to vote yes or go forward with this, all the hours, input, and money spent to craft what we currently have will be wiped away.
Let's go forward in a slow, methodical process taking all stakeholders concerns into account.
Also, please explain with the term "intentionally deleted" means in the proposed ordinance changes.
Thank you,
Roy and Angela Wiegand
Sent from my iPhone
Along With Apologies for any talk to text screw ups!
1 Meredith, Alyssa
From: Christopher Rizzotti <
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2022 9:27 AM
Subject: Zone Text Amendment for Single Family Home Guidelines Attachments: SFH Guildlines.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning! Please find attached a revised outline of our discussion to clarify a couple of points. Thank you
CHRISTOPHER
RIZZOTTI REALTOR®
Broker Associate
[email protected]
RizzottiRealtor.com
VOTED 2016
BURBANK'S 2017
BEST 2018
I sent as 2019
2013 Realtor of the Year
Broker Associate DRE# 01298167
- Changed the code 5 years ago and made it very subjective. - We have heard from the public that the current system is not working with 18 mo. wait times to get simple permits, with costly delays and thousands of dollars in plans from homeowners.
- We started the process to stop large homes "mansions" by eliminating bulk and size, which was done by our property development standards, controlling (height, mass, set backs, FAR and bulk), but then design review and neighborhood compatibility was added and destroyed our planning department.
- What makes no sense is that you can tear down a house and build a new one at .35 (2362 house) and there is not design review compatibility. But, if you add 600 sqft. onto a 900 sqft house (1500 sqft.) or .22 FAR you are stuck with design review compatibility and 20 months before you get a permit.
- The process has completely bogged down the planning department. It was bulk and size that was the concern and we controlled that with our development standards.
- What is being proposed is no design review and keep the development standards to control bulk and size and moving the FAR to .40, which is 2700 sqft. which is not a mansion.
- People are adding ADU's because they can get enough square footage under one roof. If you let people build 2700 sqft, they will keep everything under one roof, instead of building a second structure, thus taking away building material resources, removing green space from yards and adding to the homeowners expense and adding to more staff time. - The difference in .35 and .40 on a standard 6750 lot is 337 sqft., you are already allowed to build a 1000 sqft. ADU by right, so our rules are out of date.
- Please, please keep in mind when people talk about mansion's and homes that do not match the neighborhood, its always been controlled by our development standards, not neighborhood compatibility. There is no reason to go through neighborhood compatibility, especially when you can tear a house down and build a new house without having to go through compatibility now, but if you add 505 sqft to your house you have to go through 18 months of compatibility.
- Staff is asking for the top plate to increase 24 inches to account for homes on raised foundations, this DOES NOT increase the height of the roof. It's 30 feet now and will be 30 feet with he changes.
Please adopt staffs recommendations- Thanks
Meredith, Alyssa
From:
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2022 9:49 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Proposal to change the Burbank Single Family Design Guidelines CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council Members,
Tonight you are being asked to consider a proposal on the "Ordinance Amending Sections of Title 10 of Burbank Municipal Code Pertaining to Definitions, Standards for Single Family Residential Zones, and Nonconforming Structures"
These codes were implemented after a great deal of time, effort and expense. Years were spent studying the issues, meeting with parties on all sides and the residents. The codes were implemented to help preserve the quality of life we all moved to Burbank to enjoy.
Some may feel they are "inconvenient" or "take too much time" to follow - but they were a balanced compromise, not intended to make it impossible or easy, but the goal was to maintain the feel of Burbank and allow new homes while maintaining quality of life in the neighborhoods. The proposal before you says it is being done to "streamline" the zoning but it will gut the protections that Burbank worked so hard to implement only 5 years ago.
I urge you to vote NO on the proposal or at least table the motion to allow time for study and community input as this affects everyone in Burbank.
Thank you.
John Beam
Meredith, Alyssa
From:
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2022 5:58 AM
To: Anthony, Konstantine
CC: ROY WIEGAND
Subject: Konstantine - More Specific J-7 Zone Text issue Questions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Konstantine -
Roy Wiegand suggested I mail you questions to ask in your meetings today and during the hearing. In addition to the longer (sorry) general council email I sent, I'd ask that you please investigate the following concerns that l've heard you speak passionately about and are in line with positions that I know that people (and me) are concerned with broadly.
Firstly, thanks for taking the time to do this. If you'd like to speak before next week or hopefully further in the future if this is responsibly continued until after a public feedback workshop I would be happy to show you a number of examples that there isn't time for right now.
Ordinarily I am not a fan of the government interfering with wages / labor of private business. But this is not a private business, and in a way we are owners of the same company because we live here. I believe frontline workers (planners and inspectors) in this company are not treated as well as they should be (horribly at times), and that our City is not adequately funding the tools they need to incentivize respect for what they do and cover the full cost of providing enough labor to make their work experience rewarding and meaningful. Their direct supervisor, the CDD director advocates well for increasing his own salary but I've never heard any support for bringing in money to help his workers conditions....not necessarily pay, but in the form of pricing that makes their work more bearable and efficient - resulting in faster turnaround.
Our frontline workers experience / morale seems to be a disposable factor in these discussions. No one seems to be advocating for charging enough to hire more people to take the load off, or to give them a financial tool to encourage more complete, and diligent submissions. I can show examples of STATE laws that have been neglected on Burbank projects (like a wood burning chimney, as opposed to an obscure Burbank only code) on a real plan that didn't get taken out of a house until at least 4 or 5 rounds of plan check in 2018. This eats up time, and I've seen applicants screaming at the workers and the frontline folks have no recourse but to simply keep rechecking the plans even if their boss tells them they were correct in the first place.
Charging by the hour or for an appeal type process to cover the cost of this behavior would be a morale boost for our staff, and a simultaneous increase in speed AND protect the popularly drafted existing codes created between 2015- 2017. Please advocate for that price change BEFORE changing laws that have been recently and popularly approved.
Recall how difficult it was to pull teeth to get the Staff to discuss DIFs or get it on the schedule. I do not think it is happenstance this sort of solution has been left out of staff reports related to this issue.
I will produce the photos and plan examples, like the Chimney, as time permits moving forward on this issue. I would be interested in showing them to you in person/ zoom.
Finally, a question that needs to be asked on the record by council members concerned with DEl initiatives would be: have these changes been equally applied (the exact same rules) across all neighborhoods to ensure they align with 1 the diversity ordinance that the last council passed? In other words, now that they are broadly being addressed after the ordinance has passed, do certain neighborhoods retain any different protections or restrictions and what is the overall background of the beneficiaries of these rules in those areas? If there is disparity, is there a particular group that is being exposed to more or less restrictive conditions, even if the disparity is supposedly about geography? Recall that the City has pledged to align new laws/ rules with a spirit of equity and inclusion. It would be notable if not applied to such a broad sweeping law change but used in some smaller context. To me this process does not seem fully inclusive by having so little chance for public input, nor have I seen data on the backgrounds of persons living in each area (Hillside, Rancho, Flats, etc.) - based on census data collected, this can be known.
Finally, please ask on the record for this and any other building changes: are any changes being made that will be irreversible given any clause or code of the State of California SB 9 or SB 10.
When/if SB 9 changes are suggested, please ask if they are required only by 9 and to comply with 9 alone.
When that particular item is raised we'd like you to also ask if any Cities have any laws on their books that restrict adoption of SB 9 provisions, what those are, and do any apply to Burbank. If the answer is yes, why were these not provided to the public and council prior to adoption of the law.
I have copied Roy on this email.
Best regards,
Simon Hammel
2 Meredith, Alyssa
From: Joseph Massimini
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2022 4:00 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Rules on Single Family Residences
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
City Council,
It is my understanding that in 2017, the council set guidelines on single family residences. I see no need for there to be an update to these relatively recent guidelines that were deliberated about by council and residents and recommended with outside consultants. I know that deploring bigger houses falls under the moniker of NIMBY, which has taken on a negative connotation, but I don't see how a municipality can enforce an agreed upon character for the neighborhood without having some rules for what that neighborhood looks like. The city of Burbank has the power to control, its standards of what houses look like and I think it should exercise that power to limit the size of houses. If people want bigger houses than Burbank allows, there are other nearby municipalities that welcome them if they can afford those areas in the LA metro.
Thank you for considering my input,
Joseph Massimini
Meredith, Alyssa
From:
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2022 10:31 AM
To: Talamantes, Jess
Subject: Single Family Home Guidelines
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Councilmember Talamantes,
I know there is an important recommendation coming to you tonight at the City Council Meeting. I would think this is one of the easiest decision you have had in a long time. Practicality dictates that you need to approve the recommendation from staff and the Planning Board to make getting faster, easier and more efficient.
I wanted to share my story. About a year ago my wife and I thought about adding to our family. At first we thought let's go and buy and new home that fits our needs. After looking around we realized we wanted to stay in our current neighborhood because this has been my home for more than 15 years and we love it here. Financially adding on was a huge savings over buying a new home.
10 months later and a baby on the way we are still waiting on the City of Burbank to give us approved plans for an under 500 sq. ft. addition that requires no set back variances or special considerations. Just adding onto the back of the home.
Something people have done for decades here in Burbank. It just seems strange that my wife and I can create a new child in less time than it takes the City of Burbank to approve simple straight forward plans.
Now we have to make a decision! Do we move out before the baby is born and hope the city approves the plans in a timely fashion and risk losing thousands of dollars in rent on a home that does not have a permit or put off our dream of remodeling until well after the baby is born and settled in after about 6 months. The inconvenience, uncertainty and laborious nature of this process has added an enormous amount of unneeded stress to my pregnant wife.
Please approve the staff's recommendations to streamline the process for all those who need to make changes to their homes. By making changes it will help all people who are looking to enhance their living situation here in our great city.
Eric Benz
Sales Manager
Dilbeck Real Estate
Ericbenz.com
La Canada, CA 91011
Burbank, CA 91502
Meredith, Alyssa
From: Lorry Izor
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2022 11:19 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Request for delay
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I ask the Council members to delay, until there is sufficient time to review the adoption of the Planning Boards' complete overhaul and elimination of the most important parts of Burbank's single-family development codes. I request enough time for me to get a fair review of the elimination of dozens of laws that will directly impact my everyday experience in Burbank.
Sincerely,
Lorry Izor
Burbank Resident
1 Meredith, Alyssa
From:
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2022 11:40 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Item before the council today
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council.
At this evenings council meeting, it is scheduled for you to hear: Ordinance Amending Sections of Title 10 of Burbank Municipal Code Pertaining to Definitions, Standards for Single Family Residential Zones, and Nonconforming Structures.
The city of Burbank spent over a quarter of a million dollars, almost two years and many, many hours working with the public to create the Single Family Design Guidelines. Guidelines that direct the design process. The goal of this agenda item is to get rid of those guidelines, as well as to allow additional height, which would move even further away from those guidelines.
I argue that we still need the review process, and that getting rid of Single Family Design Guidelines is a slap in the face of the citizens of this city. The SFDG are there to preserve a look for our city. These changes were approved by the Planning Board and the CCD staff in a December meeting, right before the holidays, with NO community outreach.
I ask you to Vote No on the proposed amendments to the BMC and to table the item until it can be studied further, with community outreach and input on the changes.
These changes are far reaching and require more thoughtful review of the facts.
Lynne Palmer
22 year home owner in Burbank
Meredith, Alyssa
From: Dave Hanson
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2022 12:07 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: City Council to consider eliminating guidelines on single family homes CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
Burbank is a warm, wonderful, lovely town, for one reason in particular — it feels more like a neighborhood than a city. So I implore you: before taking away restrictions and allowing contractors and overbuilders to run roughshod over our town with no concern for the people who already live here, please consider the effects. What kind of Burbank do we want to leave our children - one that values the rights and happiness of longtime residents, or one that's sold out to contractors? I live in the Burbank hills, and we've battled for years to protect our views from people who want to arbitrarily build tall, view blocking houses in front of us. I walk a lot around town, and everywhere | go | see neighborhoods of 1300 square foot houses that suddenly live in the shadows of "McMansions" and "Power Villas." Like me, these people in the smaller houses cherished the beautiful California sunshine and the light around us. It made me proud when our city leaders protected us from these blights - and it absolutely terrifies me to think you may stand by and pave the way for someone with a fat wallet to steal not only the atmosphere and ambience we love, but the value of our lifetime investment.
And how does it make a longtime resident of this town feel to know this may happen? This is how I feel: In the 25 years my wife and I have lived and worked in Burbank, we've worked hundreds of hours at the Burbank Temporary Aid Center. We've volunteered at Burbank's Emergency Preparedness Drills.
We've paid taxes. We've supported local businesses, given money to local charities, attended city council meetings, gone to school plays, encouraged friends to move here, and told countless people what a wonderful, underrated city this is. We've done all the things that people need to do to make theirs a city to be proud of. So to hear that you may be ready to sell out longtime residents in favor of developers is absolutely nauseating.
The spirit of the Constitution is to protect its citizens' rights. Financial rights, yes, because our houses are our lifetime investments. But also emotional rights. No one in Burbank wants to see their harmonious neighborhood turn into an overbuilt hodge-podge, ugly from above and ugly from below and seething with resentment. I implore you to protect the rights of residents from overbuilding developers.
Thank you,
Dave Hanson
1 Meredith, Alyssa
From:
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2022 1:45 PM
To: Talamantes, Jess; Frutos, Bob; Springer, Sharon; Anthony, Konstantine; [email protected]; City Council DL
Subject: Revisions to the Single Family Design Guidelines...
Importance: High
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
Because several of you were not on the council in 2015 and 2017 when the Interim Development Construction Ordinance (IDCO) and New Design Guidelines for Single family Homes were discussed and approved (both UNANIMOUSLY by the City Council) I wanted to share with you some history and some of our concerns about the changes being proposed. I will try to be brief.
In 2009, the owners of the Rock House, Greg Franklin and Kirk Solomon, started Preserve Burbank as a way to encourage Historic Preservation in Burbank. Until their involvement, Burbank had a process for designating historic resources that was so complicated, no one had pursued it. With their help, Amanda Landry, a city planner who has since moved on to the City of Pasadena, streamlined the application process and together over the course of a few short years, NINE homes were designated in Burbank with several achieving Mills Act status. Since their departure from Burbank in 2015 only one other home has been designated.
In 2012, with great encouragement from Greg and Kirk, I was appointed to the Heritage Commission in hopes of helping to grow the number of designated homes in Burbank. My wife and I own a home on the National Historic Register of Homes in Minnesota. I served just over 3 years on the Commission but was forced to resign when the Community Development Department attempted to deny one historic homeowner a permit to add on to the home, and started harassing the owners of the Rock House to resubmit another 10 year work plan to maintain their Mills Act Tax Status (this is not required anywhere in California).
In 2014 members of Preserve Burbank began noticing the construction of ENORMOUS homes on the hillside that were towering over neighbors homes, blocking daylight, views and privacy. These homes looked as if they been dropped from the sky with absolutely no rhyme or reason and no consideration for the original character of the neighborhoods. IT WAS AT THIS TIME WE DISCOVERED A LONG FORGOTTEN HILLSIDE ORDINANCE that was created during the development of the hillside in the 1980's. In it, were incredible protections that would prevent one homeowner from blocking others' views and insured the continuity of the neighborhoods for future generations. There were provisions limiting the size of homes and requirements of COMPATABILITY for architectural design elements. We took these guidelines with us to recommend that not only should these ordinances be enforced, but expanded to protect the rest of Burbank.
In 2015 we made a request to City Council to enact an IDCO so that staff and the community could consider changes to our single family guidelines to get more community input and to temporarily stop the construction of these enormous homes. It is important to note that in our efforts, WE NEVER IDENTIFIED SPECIFIC ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS AS BAD AND NEVER SOUGHT TO STOP THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY ONE KIND OF HOME. Our concern was over the loopholes that were allowing over-sized homes to be built on smaller lots. Our concerns were focused on mass and scale and compatibility with the existing neighborhood environment. I made a five minute presentation at City Council illustrating 1 with a model how loopholes were being used in combination to create enormous structures that exceeded the Floor Area Ratios (FAR) of the current codes. Here is a link to that five minute presentation: https://youtu.be/YQi cCqESJA AGAIN, I want to emphasize that our concerns were not about specific features of homes, but on the size and scale of these projects. At the end of the meeting, Council voted unanimously to impose a 2 year IDCO.
During the IDCO, Preserve Burbank represented two parties in bringing appeals against two projects on the hillside on Joaquin and Mesa Verde. Both projects had been approved by the Planning Board. Both appeals utilized the Hillside Ordinance to reduce the size and scope of both projects and the City Council voted unanimously in favor of the appeals. Both projects were revised, reduced in scale and are built. City staff sent multiple representatives to defend the approval of both projects, even hiring outside architects AT CITY EXPENSE to help the builders revise their plans. The mayor told staff never to use public funds to assist home builders again.
In 2017 after multiple public hearings, the new SFD Guidelines were approved. It wasn't until weeks later that Preserve Burbank discovered staff had also revised elements of the Hillside Ordinance to reduce the compatibility requirements that had been a part of the ordinance since it's origination. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE that no one had authorized staff to make changes to the Hillside Ordinance. They were not disclosed in the summary of changes to the SFD Guidelines. They were snuck in. One can only assume it was done to pave the way to stopping future appeals and to allow for larger and larger homes on the hillside.
In 2018 Preserve Burbank brought an appeal against an enormous home that had been approved on Grinnell. The home included a 1600 square foot basement which, if added to FAR, pushed the square footage over 70% of the lot size. There was a huge public hearing and staff sent a half dozen representatives to defend the project approval. The appeal failed because, as one City Council member stated, "It looks like Preserve Burbank failed to consider basements as part of the new design guidelines." As if Preserve Burbank was responsible for the drafting of the SFDG's...
We discovered just days before the appeal that staff had increased the Appeal Fee by NINE TIMES. It had gone from $120 to over $1,100. None of the City Council members, including the Mayor were aware that they had approved the fee increase and it was discovered after viewing the video from the City Council meeting that staff had intentionally not disclosed that one fee change claiming that the average change to fees across the board were between 3-5%. A meeting was held to discuss this fee increase and it was discovered that Burbank was the only city in California that had appeals fees higher than the building permit fees which were about $700 at the time. It took another year before the building permit fee was raised to what it is today, which is still lower than any surrounding cities. Staff included a report of all the appeals that were filed over the past two years and instead of focusing on the addresses of the properties, the summary of the appeal and the result, STAFF CHOSE TO INCLUDE THE LAST NAMES OF THE APPLICANTS AND APPELANTS IN AN EFFORT TO SUGGEST THERE WAS AN ETHNIC OR RACIAL BIAS AGAINST THE APPLICANTS. The City Attorney weighed in to assure Council and the community that all of the appeals had merit and reminded Council that they had voted unanimously in support of both of our appeals.
Fast forward to October 25, 2021. At the Planning Board meeting there was a great deal of discussion on the proposal you are being asked to approve today. Much of the discussion was concern over maintaining protections while streamlining the permitting process. Late into the meeting one of the Planning Board members asked if this whole thing was started simply because some people objected to columns and huge front porches. The Vice Chair replied, "Yes, 100% yes!" That's when my phone started ringing.
Members of Preserve Burbank have had less than a week to look over 60+ pages of red-lined items which at first glance appear to be the complete elimination of the design guidelines. Further investigation shows recommendations to increase the top plate height of two story homes an additional 2 feet and to widen driveway aprons. What these two items have to do with "streamlining the approval process" makes no sense to us. It reminds of me of Congress members sneaking "Pork" into a bill that has nothing to do with the intention of the bill. Adding 2 feet to the top plate of a two story home is a direct increase in the mass of the box because it adds two feet of wall without adding any livable space. The waste of materials, and natural resources to heat and cool these spaces runs completely against our city's push for sustainability. Widening driveway aprons reduces natural absorption of rain water and decreases street parking and room for trash receptacles on garbage collection days. Remember, construction of ADUs does not require off-street parking. Our streets are already seeing more and more cars parked on them and it's only going to get worse.
BOTTOM LINE: We believe the Design Guidelines are being used as a smoke screen to hide the incompetence of our Community Development Department. Right now it is common knowledge that the massive surge of ADU requests and Whole House Tear-Downs is dominating the Planning Department's time. The ADU issue is the State's fault. The prioritization of Tear Down projects is the Staff's fault and is completely in line with the Planning Department's history of favoring developers and builders over the interests of homeowners who simply want to put on a small addition or remodel their existing homes. Staff told one City Council member that the compatibility survey requirement was taking up staff time and slowing the process. IN FACT, the compatibility survey is required to be completed by the BUILDER, not staff. This begs the question: Who are these changes trying to benefit? Please do not allow the Planning Board and Staff to push through all these changes without a modicum of public outreach and feedback. There is simply not enough time in a week or two to assess all these changes and to understand the long term impacts. We respectfully request that you postpone a decision on this proposal until there has been time to digest all of the changes and for staff to better explain how this will streamline the process for the hundreds of Burbank residents who have been waiting over a year for simple permits to make reasonable changes to their homes without throwing out the design guidelines.
Thank you for your time and your service,
Jim Casey
James P. Casey
Preserve Burbank
PRESERVE BURBANK
3 Meredith, Alyssa
From: JUSTIN WORSHAM <
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2022 1:58 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Single Family Development Permits
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Council Members,
I have owned my 3 bed 1 bath 1,105 sf home in Burbank since 2013. When we got it was all my family of 4 could afford.
In 20191 submitted plans to add less than 500 sf to my home and make it a 3 bed 2 bath 1,600 sf home. It took 23 months to get permit approval. In the time it took to do that the construction bid for my work went from $180k to $300k.
We recently considered to expand our plan to a 4 bed 3 bath home and learned the requirements for the Single Family Development permit which would require that we wait a year before starting the approval process.
It is my belief that this Singe Family permit has bogged down the planning department and effecting approval for even permits that don't fall under that category.
We had 2 architects tell us they would draw our plans but not deal with Burbank planning department because it is too confusing and inconsistent. I had a friend who submitted to add on to their home because they were expecting a child and their child was almost a year old by the time they go the permits approved.
I bought my house for less than $500k in 2013. For me to buy the house I can build now would cost closer to $1.5. Why would I do that when I can add on to my starter home and take advantage of buying in the area I love and stay near my neighbors that have become like family? Please make it easier for families like mine to stay in their neighborhoods and invest in their communities and add on to their homes instead of being forced to buy new homes they can barely afford.
I would appreciate it if you could take the staff recommendation to simplify the process for adding on to single family homes.
Thank you,
Justin Worsham
1 Meredith, Alyssa
From: Sharon Lord Greenspan
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2022 2:11 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: please do not loosen restrictions on McMansions! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
My family of five just moved to Burbank from Sherman Oaks in December. One of the reasons we wanted to move here - and why we love our new neighborhood - is that the city government has not allowed Burbank to be overrun with McMansions. Our neighborhood in Sherman Oaks was filled with traditional post-war homes dwarfed by huge, ridiculous looking houses featuring turrets, Mediterranean fountains, subterranean parking and modern glass and steel facades. They made our block look haphazard, un-cared-for and, frankly, ridiculous. As brand new Burbankers, we love the old fashioned charm of Burbank and believe the city's quaintness is one of the reasons the property values are so high here. Please don't make the same mistake LA City did by giving developers free reign to ruin one of Burbank's most valuable characteristics.
Thank you,
Sharon Greenspan
91506
Meredith, Alyssa
From:
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2022 2:19 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Proposed Amending Tonight
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Feb. 10, 2022
Dear Council Members,
The "Ordinance Amending Sections of Title 10 of Burbank Municipal Code Pertaining to Definitions, Stamdards for Single Family Residential Zones, and non-conforming Structures" that you are being asked to consider tonight, if passed will be a boon to developers and real estate agents but will destroy what is left of the charm and quality of life in Burbank. Already R-1 property is being impacted by developers who are building second homes on the R-1 lots without requiring a spaces for the cars of the occupants on the property. R-1 property was purchased to give homeowners breathing room and a good quality of life. Look at some of the cities around us and see what over building and disregard to the Definitions, Standards for Single Family Residential Zones, and Nonconforming Structures has done.
I ask you to please vote NO on this proposal and to care about your responsibility to your city. Think of the care, cost and time that went into preparing these codes and how they have preserved Burbank up to now. Please do not let this pass without a true study and give the community a chance to know what this "ordinance Amending sections of the Title 10 Burbank Municipal Code Pertaining to Definitions, ....." really is and how it will affect everyone and to meet and have discussions on it with you.
Thank you.
Anna May Nelson
Burbank, CA 91501
1 Meredith, Alyssa
From: Alexa Brodsky <
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2022 3:25 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Agenda 7
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Ny husband and I are Burbankians through and through. We both went through Burbank schools, been homeowners here and now raising 4 kids here. We love it. But the nightmare that was our design and planning review to remodel our crumbling 1926 home made us rethink living here. If I had more time I would list out all the ways our remodel was made beyond difficult because of the city. The process took our family 2 years for approval and would have been longer if I didn't stay on top of calling. When I called I was met with apathetic employees that could care less we were frustrated, and even once told of we complain again they would move our plans to the end of the pile.
The first 9 months of design plan we were subcontracted out to a private firm where the lead city planner of Burbank confessed most plans have been forgotten. During the design review we had subjective criticisms and corrections that had nothing to do with code and everything to do with their personal opinions of what we should do. Not only did the entire process cause stress but it ended up costing us hundreds of thousands of dollars in increased prices with such a long timeline than we were originally quoted when we had plans drawn up. Plus we had put off work that needed to be done immediately like reroofing our home or dealing with sewage, but shouldn't be done until construction. My fear is that if Burbank city council doesn't do away with or completely rethink the planning process you will deter people from improving our homes (and our city) or simply do it all unpermited, which takes revenue away from the city.
I am in complete support of agenda number 7.
-Alexa Brodsky
Meredith, Alyssa
From: BC Support 1
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2022 3:36 PM
To: City Council DL
Cc: Frutos, Bob; Springer, Sharon; Schultz, Nick; Anthony, Konstantine; Talamantes, Jess Subject: Change of Municipal Codes - Single Family Development CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Burbank City Council
Re: Change of Municipal Codes - Single Family Development To Whom It May Concern,
My name is John Brennan. I am a lifelong Burbank Resident, homeowner, parent and Building Contractor in the City of Burbank. I have had the pleasure of being on many sides of the building process over the past 19 years. I believe this gives me a unique perspective to speak on the issues at hand.
I have had the pleasure of working with many building inspectors, building and planning plan checkers, permit staff, public works employees, and numerous other departments of our great city. The number one thing I hear the most from all departments, is that they have numerous files on their desk and not enough time to process them. This has been the case for several years. We need to allow the great staff the opportunity to do their jobs efficiently.
The municipal code is incredibly detailed, precise, and for the most part fair. When designers, architects, and/or homeowners draw up plans and follow the approved code, this is a systematic straightforward way to do business. What is not simple and straightforward is applying to build a home, addition, or sometimes a simple addition and then to be placed for review in the Single-Family Special Development Permit Process (the Design Review Process). The Design Review process is not straightforward and allows for multiple opinions to mis-interpret the municipal code. The plan now gets routed to additional departments throughout the city who do not comment on building permits, i.e. police department and park & rec. The departments who have comments like fire, public works, and BWP, are already included in a regular plan check process. Design review is costly and time consuming to the homeowner. It requires additional fees to the homeowner and mandates that notice be sent to the surrounding 300- foot radius of their home, a 4x8 sign in their front yard for everyone to see and question, and an additional 1-2 years for planning approval; Then comes the opportunity to sit in building plan check for 3-4 months longer.
Let us talk about fair for our residents of Burbank. The thought of a neighbor a block away saying that you should have stucco instead of siding, or a Spanish style home instead of modern, is ridiculous. The City of Burbank is not an HOA where the aesthetic of our home is dictated to us. Can we not respect our homeowners' opinions? They are the ones paying to live in Burbank in a home that they love. I have had countless conversations with Burbank residents who have such a distaste of the Burbank permitting process. The enjoyment of adding to your home, building a new home, or creating a more functional and beautiful home for your family is fair and reasonable. People in our great city have dealt with red tape long enough. It is time to be fair. Follow a precise municipal code, that should be amended as staff is proposing, and let the building of our homes be a standard process.
We are fortunate to have our planning board and city council reviewing amendments like this to help continue the betterment of our city. Groups like Preserve Burbank have previously expressed concern over the size and mass of our homes. Thankfully, the City of Burbank invested 250K to create the precise municipal code to control larger homes, as stated previously. This has been money well spent. What we have learned since 2017 is that the Neighborhood Compatibility Review Process has created a dysfunctional, subjective process, that requires the planning department to outsource its plans. This is costing the city a tremendous amount of money. The third party who reviews the plans is then rechecked by a staff member. This is redundant, costly, and causes more time delays. Is this an effective use of our city's money? When this amendment passes and plan checks go back to a normal 2-3 months, then our staff will be able to process more with less outside help.
I would like to comment on two of the proposed changes based on my expertise in this field. The 22-foot plate line makes perfect sense. If you have a raised foundation and you wish to have 9 or 10-foot ceiling heights, which all newer homes have, you need to have the 22-foot plate line. This is not the top of the roof, but merely where the angle of the roof starts. This does not affect the overall height of the home, as there is an overall roof height already in the municipal code. This additional 10% mass does not cause any additional blockage of views, or out of place architecture. This is a simple matter based on whether your home is on a slab or raised foundation since the height of the plate line starts at the natural grade. In addition, the proposed changes to the code will require all 2 story homes to have modulation, which is an offset to the side and front walls. This will not allow big box type building, but allows for architecturally pleasing 2 story homes.
Driveway widening is simple. Most of the newer homes have a two-car attached garage. The standard garage door width is 16 feet. When you park your car in your own driveway, you hope to open the door without hitting the other car in your driveway. It is also a safety factor to have a solid flat surface when you exit your vehicle and walk to your front door. Common Sense. The driveway apron generally approved by public works is 12-14 feet for attached garages. This will not change based on the width of a driveway on private property, and therefore not reduce existing street parking.
I stand with thousands of city residents and strongly urge the City Council to approve Staffs recommendation as presented and approved by the planning board who has reviewed, studied, and vetted all concerns related to the matter. Help our city grow, keep building fun for homeowners, and enjoy where we live!! Sincerely,
John Brennan
Brennan Construction
2 Meredith, Alyssa
From: Jane Casserly L
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2022 4:55 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Design Guideline Streamlining
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council Members,
Can you explain to me how getting rid of existing Design Guidelines, allowing changes such as increasing the wall height by two feet alleviates any kind of housing shortage? The answer is you can't, because it doesn't. Trying to camouflage the elimination of Design Guidelines with the real and desperate need for housing is shameful.
I will hold out hope that perhaps you simply didn't realize how bad this idea is, and give you the benefit of the doubt that this is not somehow entirely for the benefit of greedy developers who want to build even bigger single family homes than before the IDCO, solving exactly zero housing shortage problems, and throwing away whatever was left of Burbank's architectural charm.
Speaking of throwing things away, how about the quarter of a million dollars spent on researching and developing these guidelines?
You must at the very least, provide the residents of Burbank an extension of time to go through the pages and pages of design guidelines that are on the chopping block.
Respectfully,
J Casserly
Burbank, CA
When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never tried before.
Mae West
1 Meredith, Alyssa
From: Myles Collins ‹
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2022 4:53 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Public Comment - Agenda Item #7 for Meeting on 2/8/22 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing in support of Agenda Item #7 for this evening's City Council meeting (Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Sections of Title 10 of Burbank Municipal Code). My wife and I have experienced the stress and frustrations of a design review process that was unreasonably long (2 years from plan submittal to pulling permits) and also that had seemingly subjective interpretations of the code. When we asked about the timing and expected outcome of our plans, the answer was always that it depended who reviewed it and how busy they were.
Changing the home improvement process for residents from one of frustration - to one of positivity - would be a huge step forward for our community.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Myles Collins
Meredith, Alyssa
From:
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2022 8:28 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Streamlining of the City permit process
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
(I was speaking with a staff member when the comment period was prematurely and unfairly closed.)
Good evening, Council Members, my name is Edward Sanchez and I am a home owner and business owner in Burbank for 25 years. I calling to urge you to please adopt the city staff's recommendations to streamline the permit process for single family homes.
Our current process may have been adopted with the good intentions, however it is very easy to see that it had unintentional consequences. It has completely overwhelmed our city staff, caused tremendous delays and is costing our residents hundreds of thousands of dollars! To put it plainly, the process is broken. Our City staff has seen what's going on and they are asking for help. This is recommended by our City staff and is not meant to help builders, but to help our City homeowners!
Once again, I urge you to please adopt the staff's recommendations to streamline the permit process for single family homes.
Edward Sanchez
:
1 Meredith, Alyssa
From: Amanda Newman <
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2022 8:42 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Single Family Guidelines Changes
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization, Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
City Council,
As a resident of Burbank, I am seriously concerned about the changes being made to the single family design guidelines. I am appalled that any department would make substantial changes without any input from residents. The residents are the ones impacted by proposed changes.
In reviewing some of the proposed guideline changes, the changes seem skewed in favor of McMansions. Only the developers benefit from McMansions. I certainly hope that all of you, as "representatives of the people," not representatives of developers, will NOT ALLOW the proposed changes.
Burbank has McMansion problems far greater than Glendale or Pasadena. If developers find Burbank such an "easy touch," I cannot help but feel we are "suckers to McMansion builders." The situation casts an atmosphere of dishonest government and building permits.
As a Burbank resident, I ask you to represent me, and veto any proposed changes to the single family design guidelines.
Thank you,
Amanda Noriko Newman
Meredith, Alyssa
From:
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2022 11:39 PM
To: Talamantes, Jess; Anthony, Konstantine; Springer, Sharon; Schultz, Nick; Frutos, Bob Subject: Zone Text - Disturbing Responses Follow up from meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Members of Council,
I just finished watching the Staff follow up to Public Comment. I find some of their answers so disturbing that l am fearful of my investment in my home, at least as a home. As a piece of land...well, there's always uses and rental.
As you might imagine, 3 minutes is not long enough to express my concern or show enough examples, so I will have to find another way, that is outside a council meeting. It's appearing to be more productive in securing commitments from neighbors to effect long term change to spend the effort elsewhere. Fortunately we live in the age we do to have a fair shot at getting information out there to respond to this sort of hearing, and people don't have to accept anyone's word for what is said.
I'd like to meet with any of you late in the week or Monday prior to the vote, where you still have a chance to change a few of the objective parts of this and not take the whole thing at face value. Some of the information given can be easily discredited and was either clearly misleading or should concern every resident, who can judge for themselves comparing clips from the meeting with clips from the hearing and what they will see going forward.
Some initial questions about the bizarre responses
1. If Mr. Ramirez had cash to fill the positions...and the BIGGEST PROBLEM IS SPEED why aren't there planners right now or since he got the money, why is the money still in the account? If it's gone...where is it and why is the backlog so bad?....and if ADU's aren't even in their workload...how are we SO FAR behind Glendale? 1 am disappointed there was no follow up to that, and I think this will resonate and be a natural question for the voting public. If they have no ADU's why isn't there a "toilet and sinks only" type team, a one bedroom team, and a whole house team and funding by the applicants for that? If there's no planners, why no follow ups on simply (and legitimately) raising fees to meet demand?
2. For something like the height, why isn't it limited to the reasoning they said. Why is it blanket 2 feet of walls higher everywhere? This will block more views by not building WITH/ INTO natural grade the hill, to which you CAN step the house; it's in the old code. This restriction HAS NOT SLOWED BUILDING. And if it has, it is incumbent upon applicants to read code and design to it....but there is no penalty for coming back over and over.
Please ask for them to at least apply the 22 feet ONLY to step downs IN THE STEP DOWN and not the whole home. There was no asterisk indicating this....but homes like mine in the foothills (not hillside) will lose tons of value with lost view even though there are FEW if any complaints about the issue. I think this also is what the crazy grading on San Jose was trying to achieve....cut in and pour giant foundation and then measure from top of huge slab. Good luck with sustainability there. Please don't allow the increase.
3. But more importantly, that was the first time I've ever heard anyone say air conditioning 10 percent (I was wrong on number...) it's 10 percent additional cubic feet times dozens of homes is negligible. It causes me to question all commitment to sustainability or at least who is forced to make sustainable concessions. How can any If one could make an air conditioner 10 percent more efficient, it would be better for the environment. 1 4. To Mr. Talementes question about the vote. Anyone watching, which I think it's important for the public to see video, now that was put into this hearing...will see the code thrown out in the last few minutes of the second to final meeting where ONLY THREE members vote yes. And the Chair Matt Gamboa courageously voted NO, as the only candidate to look out for quality of life in the City. So a person who was with this every step of the way up to and including the decision to do the red-lining voted not to advance. Hopefully he's not the only one with the correct vision.
The chair also did not vote on the last night...meaning at NO TIME was this ever unanimous consent to advance this to you. But what I think will trouble home owners the most, is that Mr. Ramirez did not offer this information when asked your question. They will see in the clips that he was there at all times:
How could any voter trust the other information delivered tonight, when they see this obtuse and equivocal response. Has all of the information and answers been delivered this way...if not, which questions were answered in such a misleading way, and which are the ones that contain the whole complete story/ answer?
5. I think it's important to see the doublespeak answer I got on my oneway, one-sided phone call to the planning board for 3 minutes. It was a waste of my time. People should see that. The questions I asked vs the response and then no inclusion of the pricing concerns within two months to include them. So really, who is it that didn't get on the ball? There was no real opportunity for back and forth public discourse, but it is made to look like there was. But there still could be, if you decide so. People will want representation that makes it more than an illusion as soon as humanly possible.
You still have time to fix this. We'll be in touch as a group. But I'd like to speak with all of you before the vote next week to hopefully get changes made to at least some of it.
BTW for the most part I know many of us ARE in favor of not having additions that can't be seen from the street not subject to review. It doesn't affect anyone but the owner and future potential buyer, who is free to choose.
It seems strange to me, to eliminate so many rules and trust that no one will notice if in fact, there is a return to the cheapening of Burbank prior to 2014, in that really...so little time allotted for this compared to the IDCO and workshops. And as long as no one notices any difference from how well things are going building wise, everything will be just fine. Perhaps no one noticed because it really is some strangely minuscule change called a Zone Text Amendment and not a total overhaul with brand new loopholes undoing the excellent outcomes we have now. and clips will tell.
I look forward to continuing this issue until and so long as a satisfactory outcome is reached.
Frankly, speaking only for myself, I'm no longer willing to accept the way this is handled and a change must be made. I am probably wasting my time, but unfortunately for all of us, I'm pot committed and so obligated.
Best, Simon Hammel
2 Meredith, Alyssa
From:
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2022 1:22 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: changes to single family housing guidelines
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Burbank City Council,
This email is to urge ALL City Council members to NOT allow proposed changes to the current single family design guidelines.
I am appalled that serious changes that affect residents are being proposed, without widespread publicity that encourages feedback from residents, the very people the changes would affect.
Without substantial publicity and input from residents, not developers, one cannot help but get the feeling someone was trying to quickly sneak the changes through, before anyone knows what happened.
All residents of Burbank are entitled to know:
WHO suggested these changes?
WHO chose what to change?
WHO actually changed (crossed out, eliminated, added, approved) the proposed changes?
I want names, and action! Anyone who tries to make such changes without well- publicized outreach loses the trust and confidence of those impacted by these ordinances.
Tax supported agencies must be accountable to the public, without evasive excuses. I will not accept an "I do not know" answer. The public does not pay taxes, or vote for politicians to "not know."
All tax-supported agencies are supposed to represent the interests of their constituencies. The Burbank Development Department seems to help McMansion builders, and views established residents as nothing more than grumpy, senile people. I suggest cleaning up the department by:
Firing Patrick Prescott
Firing analysts who consistently make excuses for McMansions. 1 Many people are still trying to figure out how the project on the 800 block of North Bel Aire every got approved.
As I voted for some of you, I hope you will represent many of us, by NOT allowing proposed changes to single family design guidelines.
Ann Baba
2