Burbank City Council
September 27, 2022

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

HCD appreciates the hard work and dedication Karen Warner, the City’s consultant provided in preparation of the City’s housing element and looks forward to receiving the City’s adopted housing element. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Divya Sen, of
our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
S
enior Program Manager
ATTACHMENT 6-221
May 24, 2021
Burbank City Council
Burbank City Hall
275 E. Olive Avenue
Burbank, CA 90512
Dear Councilmembers:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the process of updating the housing element of Burbank’s general plan. We are writing on behalf ofAbundant Housing LAand YIMBY Law regarding Burbank’s 6th Cycle housing element update. Abundant Housing LA is a pro-housing, nonprofit advocacy organization working to help solve Southern California’s housing crisis, andYIMBY Law’s mission is to make housing in California more accessible and affordable through enforcement of state housing law. We support more housing at all levels of affordability and reforms to land use and zoning codes, which are needed in order to make housing more affordable, improve access to jobs and transit, promote greater environmental sustainability, and advance racial and economic equity.

In October 2020, AHLA shareda letter with the City of Burbank, providing guidance on how the City should fulfill both the letter and the spirit of housing element law. We have reviewed the City’s draft Housing Element, and have major concerns about the City of Burbank’s willingness and ability to meet its state-mandated RHNA targets.The staff report and draft site inventory are inconsistent with HCD’s instructions and the requirement that housing element updates affirmatively further fair housing under Assembly Bill 686.

The following issues are of particular concern to us:

1. Planning’s process for selecting sites and assessing their capacity does not accurately estimate parcels’ likelihood of development or net new units if redeveloped.

Therefore, Planning has not identified enough sites where 8,750 homes will realistically be developed by 2029.

An accurate assessment of the site inventory’s housing capacity is necessary in order for the housing element to achieve sufficient housing production. The site capacity estimate should account for the following two factors:
● What is the likelihood that the site will be developed during the planning period? ● If the site were to be developed during the planning period, how many net new units of housing are likely to be built on it?
1 ATTACHMENT 6-222
These are the likelihood of development1 and net new units if developed2 factors, as required by HCD guidelines. The portion of the jurisdiction’s RHNA target that a site will realistically accommodate during the planning period is:
(likelihood of development) x (net new units if developed) = realistic capacity.

Planning’s analysis identifies 12 sites in Burbank’s Downtown and 7 sites in the Golden State Specific Plan, totaling 95.7 acres and containing theoretical zoned capacity for about 6,100 housing units. However, Planning does not estimate the likelihood of development for these parcels. Instead, Planning only provides a cursory discussion of why these sites may be good candidates for redevelopment, without providing quantitative evidence or analysis. Although Planning claims “property owner and/or developer interest in acquiring and assembling underdeveloped parcels into larger development sites”,3 Planning did not share any letters from property owners indicating their interest in selling or redeveloping these sites.

Per HCD guidelines, if a jurisdiction assigns more than 50% of its lower-income RHNA to nonvacant sites (as Burbank does), the jurisdiction must make findings supported by “substantial evidence” that the sites’ existing uses are “likely to be discontinued during the planning period.”4 Planning did not follow this instruction, which is a requirement under Assembly Bill 1397.

We disagree with Planning’s contention that all 19 sites will all be redeveloped by 2029. For example, the Site Assessment assumes that all four acres of Golden State Specific Plan block No. 1 (Lima/Avon) will be built out at the density of Downtown Burbank (84 units per acre), producing 334 homes.5 However, this block is entirely occupied by a variety of light industrial businesses, including the popular Lincoln Beer Company. Planning provided no evidence that the site is nonviable as industrial land, or that the various property owners intend to sell.6 Similarly:
● The owners of TOD 6 (Burbank Town Center) spent $60 million to renovate the property in 2018.7 It seems unlikely that the property will be redeveloped withany housing, much less the anticipated 1,020 new homes.
● TOD 7, the Civic Center parking lots, are owned by the City of Burbank. The City showed no interest in developing any city-owned land during the previous RHNA cycle, and provided no evidence that this stance will change during the 6th cycle. ● TOD 8 is fully occupied by a variety of small businesses. 7 https://www.burbanktowncenter.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/130/2018/10/BurbankRenovationsCostPlus_FINAL-1.pdf 6 https://www.lincolnbeercompany.com/
5 Draft Housing Element, pg. D-26
4 Gov’t Code 65583.2(g)(2), also HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 26-28. “when a city or county is relying on nonvacant sites described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) to accommodate 50 percent or more of its housing need for lower income households, the methodology used to determine additional development potential shall demonstrate that the existing use identified pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the housing element. An existing use shall be presumed to impede additional residential development, absent findings based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.” 3 Burbank Draft Housing Element, pg. 1-71
2 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 21
1 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 20
2 ATTACHMENT 6-223
● GSSP 5 is the parking lot for a busy office complex which hosts Insomniac Games, a video game studio.

Housing production data from the 5th cycle further casts doubt on Planning’s implicit assumption that all 19 sites will be redeveloped by 2029. At the outset of the 5th cycle, Burbank claimed a theoretical capacity ofroughly 5,573 more housing units. Through 2019, Burbank permitted 501 housing units, which equates to 668 housing units permitted by the end of the 5th cycle (assuming that the same annual permitting pace continues through 2021). This implies that in Burbank, excess zoned capacity has a12% likelihood of being developed(668 actual units divided by 5,573 theoretical units).8
The City mustfairly estimate the likelihood of development for all parcels on the suitable sites inventory.The City of Sacramento’sdraft site inventoryprovided a high-quality, numerical analysis of the likelihood of their sites’ development through a “tiered classification system to classify the non-vacant underutilized sites”.9 Sacramento’s good approach offers a model for Burbank to build on.

Recommendations:

1.1 Provide a quantitative estimate of parcels’ development probabilities, and incorporate this factor into the estimate of sites’ realistic capacity.

1.2 Report the proportion of sites in the previous housing element's inventory that were developed during the planning period.

1.3 Share letters from owners of the site inventory parcels, indicating their interest in selling or redeveloping these properties during the 6th Cycle.

1.4 Remove parcels from the site inventory where redevelopment is unlikely to occur during the 6th Cycle.

1.5 Commit to a mid-cycle review to verify Planning’s assumptions about development probabilities. If it turns out that sites within a tier, or category, were developed at a lower-than-expected rate during the first half of the cycle, then the city should rezone for additional capacity or make other appropriate adjustments for the second half of the planning period.

1.6 If the City lacks enough suitable sites to achieve the RHNA target, rezone additional parcels where redevelopment is likely.

2. Planning assumes that 2,180 housing units that were approved or pending approval during the 5th Cycle will be built during the 6th Cycle, without accounting for the near-certainty that some projects will never be built.

The City counts 1,245 units in projects pending entitlement and 935 units in approved projects towards Burbank’s 6th cycle RHNA target, and assumes that all 2,180 units will ultimately be 9 Public Review Draft, City of Sacramento Housing Element 2021-2029, p. H-2-15 8 Burbank 5th Cycle Housing Element, pgs. 20, 48. Burbank's housing element claims a citywide capacity of 50,219 housing units under current zoning (pg. 48). Burbank had 44,646 units in 2010 (pg. 20). This suggests a citywide claimed capacity of 5,573 units.
3 ATTACHMENT 6-224
built. This is a faulty assumption: not every pending project gets approved, and not every approved project gets built. Although some of the projects listed here are currently under construction, like the First Street Village, most are not, and many may never be.

While the City may count permitted or entitled units towards its 6th Cycle RHNA goals, it must realistically estimate how many of these units will ultimately be built during the 6th Cycle, based on recent historical data. TheCity of Los Angeles’ Initial Studycounted active planning entitlements, approved planning entitlements with no building permit, and permitted projects that have not yet been completed towards its 6th Cycle RHNA goals, but discounted each category based on the share of proposed units expected to be built, using the City’s historical data.

Planning must incorporate a similar estimate into its Inventory Analysis.Using data from recent projects, the City of Los Angeles estimated that 37% of projects with pending entitlements, 45% of projects with approved entitlements, and 79% of permitted projects, are ultimately completed.10 Burbank, with more restrictive permitting and less than half the housing growth rate of Los Angeles, should discount the number of pending and approved entitlements counted toward its RHNA target by at least the same factors:
1,245 units pending entitlement x 37% chance of completion = 461 units 935 units entitled x 45% chance of completion = 421 units Thus, the City might reasonably claim 882 units from pending and entitled projects towards the RHNA target. Alternatively, Planning could use local data from recent projects to estimate these percentages. But Planning should certainly not count 2,180 units towards its 6th cycle RHNA goal.

Recommendation:

2.1 Provide a quantitative estimate of the likelihood that in-pipeline projects will be completed, based on historical data, and adjust the number of in-pipeline units counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA target accordingly.

3. Planning makes overly optimistic forecasts of future ADU production which are unlikely to be achieved even with aggressive policies, without providing evidence to support this claim.

HCD has established two safe harbors for forecasting ADU production during the 6th Cycle11.

One option (“Option #1”) is to project forward the local trend in ADU construction since January 2018. The other, for use when no other data is available (“Option #2”), assumes ADU production at five times the local rate of production prior to 2018. 11 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 31
10 Initial Study, City of Los Angeles, pg. 21
4 ATTACHMENT 6-225
Burbank issued permits for 54 ADUs in 2018, 110 ADUs in 2019, and 112 ADUs in 2020. Under a correct calculation of HCD’s “Option #1”, Burbank would take the average of the ADU permitting trend between 2018 and 2020, and forecast that 92 ADUs will be permitted per year during the 6th Cycle. This would allow for a total 6th cycle forecast of 736 ADUs.

However, Planning counts 1,600 ADUs, or 200 ADUs per year, towards the City’s RHNA target.

Planning contends that a small reduction in processing fees, expedited application review, and pre-approved ADU plans will lead to a doubling in the number of ADUs permitted annually going forward.12 But Planning provides no tangible evidence that these relatively minor incentives will yield this outcome.

The housing element therefore significantly overstates the likely production of ADUs during the 6th cycle, possibly as a tactic to avoid rezoning.Planning must correct its calculation of the ADU safe harbor, and simply apply the average of annual ADU permits issued between 2018 and 2020, per HCD’s guidelines.

Recommendations:

3.1 Burbank must use HCD’s Option 1 safe harbor, and project that 736 ADUs will be permitted during the 6th Cycle.High-quality data is available on the local trend in ADU construction since January 2018, so this is the appropriate safe harbor to use. If the City believes that higher ADU production forecasts are warranted, it must provide well-grounded estimates, based on the pace of ADU production in neighboring jurisdictions, and must explain what programs or policy efforts it will adopt that would lead to higher ADU production than it currently observes.

3.2 Follow HCD’s recommendation to track ADU and JADU creation and affordability levels, and commit to a review at the planning cycle midpoint to evaluate if production estimates are being achieved.” 13 Burbank’s housing element should commit to mid-cycle rezoning if ADU production is lower than forecasted, and its midpoint review should be linked with immediate and automatic programs to increase housing production in the second half of the RHNA cycle. Our recommended approach is to incorporate by-right density bonuses on inventory sites, which would automatically take effect mid-cycle if the ADU target is not met. The density bonus should be large enough, and apply to enough parcels, to fully make up for any ADU production shortfall.

4. Planning did not propose adequate reforms to address the major constraints on redevelopment that exist in Burbank.

Building housing in Burbank is difficult, expensive, and time-consuming. Development timelines are long, with an average time of 12-16 months for multifamily project approval.14 Mixed-use projects take even longer, requiring a 3-4 year approval process and a conditional use permit 14 Draft Housing Element, 1-59
13 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 31
12 Draft Housing Element, pg. 1-74
5 ATTACHMENT 6-226
(for which approval can take 12-16 months alone).15 This process is a major impediment to housing production.

Burbank’s housing stock only grew 0.7% between 2015 and 202016 (putting it 43rd out of 89 jurisdictions in Los Angeles County), despite extremely strong demand for housing as evidenced by high rents (the median renter household pays $1,555/month, 37rd-highest in Los Angeles County)17. Similarly, the ratio of home price to replacement cost is 2.6, one of the highest in the county.18 Per Professor Chris Elmendorf of the University of California, Davis and his co-authors ofSuperintending Local Constraints on Housing Development, the above data suggest that restrictive land use rules are making homebuilding difficult in Burbank, leading to continued shortage and high costs.

Housing element law requires cities to provide an analysis of constraints on housing development, as well as a program to mitigate or remove these constraints. While the Draft Housing Element discusses constraints in detail, including long approval timelines, strict limits on building size, high construction costs, and a lack of local funding for affordable housing production, the report does not commit to a strong enough program to remove policy constraints that deter housing production. Merely recommending “a program to review and update the City’s multi-family development standards, including re-evaluation of parking, setbacks, height and other standards to enable compact, well-designed multi-family product types”19 is inadequate:
the City must commit to specific policy changes and rapid implementation.

Other cities in California have successfully implemented process reforms that streamline housing production. The City of Los Angeles’ Transit Oriented Communities program approves qualifying projects by-right, leading to an average approval time of 6 months for by-right projects. Santa Monica recently made all new residential and mixed-use development project approvals by-right, and has gotten its approval time down to six months or less for most new development. But the best ordinance to emulate comes from Sacramento, where the Ministerial Housing Ordinance provides for ministerial approval of 2-150 unit mixed-use and multifamily projects within 60 days, and 151-200 unit mixed-use projects in 90 days. 20 This would dramatically streamline the process of building new housing, and reduce the administrative workload on city staff by reducing the number of unnecessary hearings and studies.

We urge Burbank to commit to major constraint removal policies in order to encourage strong housing growth at all levels of income.

Recommendations:
20 https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Community-Development/Planning/Major-Projects/Ministerial-Housing 19 Draft Housing Element, pg. 1-44
18 Elmendorf et al., Superintending Local Constraints on Housing Development, 2020 17 American Community Survey
16 California Department of Finance, Report E-5, 2020
15 Draft Housing Element, 1-59
6 ATTACHMENT 6-227

4.1 Establish a fast by-right review process for all new multifamily and mixed-use buildings which meet the zoning law and the General Plan.Sacramento’s Ministerial Housing Ordinance is an excellent model to follow.

4.2 Pre-approve standard ADU, small-scale “missing middle” multifamily and small lot subdivision housing plans, allowing developers to receive a permit quickly if they use a pre-approved design.

4.3 Eliminate the conditional use permit requirement for mixed-use projects.

4.4 Reduce restrictions on maximum height, floor-area ratio, and lot coverage.

5. The housing element does not promote new housing opportunities on parcels where apartments are currently banned, even near the planned NoHo-Pasadena busway.

Instead, it concentrates lower-income housing opportunities in areas with significant noise and air pollution exposure. This approach fails to affirmatively further fair housing and reverse existing patterns of residential segregation.

AB 686 (2018) requires housing element updates to “affirmatively further fair housing”, which is defined as “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and fosters inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” The City must address the issue of residential segregation by accommodating the lower-income RHNA targets in a way that conforms with AFFH requirements.

In April 2021, HCD issued anAFFH Guidance Memo, which establishes a number of important principles for promoting fair housing, including:
● A city’s AFFH analysis should reveal “current and historical spatial patterns of subsidized housing within and surrounding the jurisdiction, including emergency shelters, subsidized affordable housing, supportive housing, and usage of housing choice vouchers.”21 ● The distribution of housing-element inventory sites with lower or moderate income capacity must not be skewed toward lower-income neighborhoods. To demonstrate that the site inventory furthers fair housing, the city must calculate the percentage of households at lower, moderate, and above-moderate income levels in each census tract or “block group” in the city, and then do the same for the lower, moderate, and above-moderate-income RHNA units assigned to the tract or block group. The share of lower-income RHNA units assigned to tracts (or block groups) with a higher-than-average share of lower-income households should be less than the current share of lower-income households in those tracts.22
● The housing element must benchmark the citywide distribution of household incomes against the distribution in the county or region, and state. The AFFH program of a predominantly high-income city, like Burbank, must break down barriers that keep lower income and minority households from accessing housing in the city.23 ● “Goals, policies, and actions” to further fair housing must be “aggressively set to overcome ... contributing factors [to fair housing problems, and thus] to meet the 23 AFFH Guidance Memo, pp. 15, 32-34, 77
22 AFFH Guidance Memo, p. 47
21 AFFH Guidance Memo, p. 46
7 ATTACHMENT 6-228
‘meaningful impact’ requirement in statute.”24 The list of actions shall include concrete timeframes for implementation, measurable outcomes, explicit prioritization (“high,” “medium,” or “low”), and “must be created with the intention to have a significant impact, well beyond a continuation of past actions.”25
● “The schedule of actions generally must” (1) enhance the mobility of low-income and minority communities, (2) encourage the development of new affordable housing in high-opportunity areas, (3) protect existing residents from displacement, and (4) invest in disadvantaged places.26
In our region, housing policy and land use regulations were once used to exclude members of minority groups. Redlining and restrictive covenants, which restricted where Black, Latino, and Asian Americans could live, were once common in Los Angeles County. Discrimination in housing takes other forms today: even afterde jure segregation was banned, opponents of neighborhood change in prosperous areas weaponized zoning policy to make apartment construction illegal in much of Los Angeles County, especially in high-income areas. Restrictive zoning has perpetuated historic patterns of segregation and exclusion, and continues to push housing opportunities for lower-income households away from high-cost, high-opportunity cities.

To this day, apartments are banned on80% of the residentially-zoned land in Burbank. The median home sale price in Burbank was $755,000 in 2018, and 54% of the city’s renters are “rent-burdened” (i.e. they spend more than 30% of their income on rent) 27. This denies historically disadvantaged groups housing opportunities near job centers, quality schools, and other public resources, a situation that persists today.

The City is obligated to promote fair housing opportunities and undo patterns of segregation. Burbank should follow HCD’s recommendation that cities distribute lower-income housing opportunities throughout the city, and recommends that cities first identify development potential for lower-income housing in high-opportunity neighborhoods.28 This would mean rezoning more parcels, including residential parcels currently zoned single-family only, to encourage enough housing growth to achieve the RHNA target in full.

However, the City’s proposed site inventory does not include enough parcels to make achievement of the RHNA target likely. The city proposes no rezoning on any R1-zoned parcels, even those that are near the forthcoming NoHo-Pasadena Metro Busway. This is a recipe for missing the RHNA target, which means that the housing element is unlikely to advance the goal of socioeconomic integration or greater housing affordability.

Also, by proposing to accommodate 75% of the lower-income RHNA target in the Downtown and Airport districts only, which are locations with significant exposure to noise and air pollution, and by failing to encourage housing growth in other residential neighborhoods, where 28 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 3
27 Abundant Housing LA letter to Burbank, October 2020
26 AFFH Guidance Memo, p. 54
25 AFFH Guidance Memo pp. 52, 71
24 AFFH Guidance Memo, p. 52
8 ATTACHMENT 6-229
environmental quality is significantly better, the City risks perpetuating the concentration of lower-income households in areas with poor environmental quality.

Burbank should promote additional housing opportunities, including housing for lower-income households, by allowing small apartment buildings and townhouses citywide. It is especially important for Burbank to legalize multifamily housing production near the NoHo-Pasadena Metro Busway. The line will serve most of Burbank’s major employers and destinations29, with stations planned at Hollywood Way/134 (Warner Bros., Burbank Studios), Alameda/Naomi (Providence-St Joseph, Disney, CBS), Olive/Verdugo, Olive/Lake (Nickelodeon Animation), Olive/San Fernando (Downtown Burbank), and Glenoaks/Alameda.30
But outside Downtown, the housing element does not encourage new housing growth near any of these stations, even though many sites near the stations are perfect for redevelopment. Most commercial buildings near the busway stations are squat one- and two-story buildings built after World War II, with large surface parking lots. For example, the block bracketed by Verdugo, Parish, Olive and Reese is 100 yards away from a planned busway station. Currently, it has a few squat commercial buildings and 2.3 acres of surface parking.

Squat commercial buildings with large surface parking lots line the busway corridor.

The other buildings along this corridor also present opportunities for new housing. For example, the Buena Vista Branch Library has an oversized 1.9 acre parking lot, and the Olive Rec Center has a 2.8 acre parking lot. The same is true of residential areas, which frequently contain older tract homes on large lots.

The commercial areas near the busway are mostly zoned C2 (Limited Commercial), while the residential areas are mostly zoned R1 (Single-Family Residential), with high mandatory parking requirements, broad setbacks, and limited density. This means that Burbank’s current zoning does not allow current and future residents to fully benefit from the busway. 30 http://media.metro.net/2021/4-1-21-NoHo-Pas-Community-Update-Meeting.pdf 29 Namely, Warner Bros., Disney, Providence-St Joseph, Deluxe, ABC, and Nickelodeon. 9 ATTACHMENT 6-230
Zoning map overlaid with planned Metro Busway stations.

The City should rezone all residential areas within a 10-minute walk of busway stations for apartments at Downtown densities, and rezone commercially-zoned land for mixed-use development, with loosened parking, setback, open space and height requirements. When rezoning, Burbank should emulate the City of Los Angeles’s Transit Oriented Communities program, which offers generous by-right density bonuses to developers who include affordable housing in new developments near mass transit. Transit Oriented Communities has led to theproposal of over 30,000 homes(of which 20% are deed-restricted affordable units) in Los Angeles, built at no cost to the taxpayer.

New housing and businesses near transit are good for everyone. They’re good for Burbank residents, particularly those who have been denied fair housing opportunities due to their race or income. They’re good for City finances, due to increased property and sales taxes (Redwood City analyzed the impact of new housing construction on its General Fund, and found that each new multifamily unit brought in additional net revenue of $254 per year).31 They’re good for Burbank merchants, because new residents mean new customers. They’re good for Burbank 31 https://meetings.redwoodcity.org/AgendaOnline/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=2245&doctype=1 10 ATTACHMENT 6-231
schools, which currently face declining enrollment due to the aging population.32 They’re good for the environment, because someone who lives and works in Burbank can walk, bike, or take the bus to work, instead of clogging the 134 freeway. And rezoning is good for current homeowners, because a parcel’s value increases if it’s legal to build more homes on that parcel.33
Recommendations:

5.1 Upzone parcels located near transit, job centers, schools, and parks in order to expand the supply of housing in Burbank’s highest-opportunity areas, including areas within a 10-minute walk of future busway stations. This should include R1 parcels where single-family detached homes are currently mandated by law.

5.2 Ensure that housing opportunities for lower-income households are not concentrated in neighborhoods with high concentrations of low and moderate income households, or in neighborhoods with significant exposure to noise or air pollution.

5.3 Enact a citywide small lot subdivision ordinance modeled on the policy in Los Angeles.

5.4 Introduce a density bonus program similar to Los Angeles’ Transit Oriented Communities program (with 50-80% density bonuses) to permit additional affordable housing to be built near mass transit.

5.5 Eliminate on-site minimum parking mandates, which drive up the cost of housing production and reinforce car dependency.

5.6 Identify new funding sources and public resources to encourage the production of affordable housing, such as reform of the City’s real estate transfer tax and introduction of congestion pricing.

5.7 Exempt parcels containing rent-restricted and de facto affordable housing units from rezoning.
***
The City of Burbank has a legal obligation to sufficiently plan to meet current and future residents’ housing needs, in a way that guarantees access to opportunity for Californians of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. The issues that we’ve highlighted above suggest that the City is not on a path to fulfilling this legal obligation. We urge you to change course and actively embrace this opportunity to provide a variety of attainable housing options for Burbank’s residents and workers.

Finally, state law imposes penalties on jurisdictions that fail to adopt a compliant 6th Cycle housing element update by October 15, 2021. On that date, noncompliant jurisdictions will forfeit the right to deny residential projects on the basis of local zoning, so long as projects include at least a 20% set-aside for below market-rate units or are 100% moderate-rate projects 34. 34 California Government Code 65589.5(d)(5)
33 Upzoning Chicago: Impacts of a Zoning Reform on Property Values and Housing Construction 32 Draft Housing Element, 1-11
11 ATTACHMENT 6-232
Noncompliant jurisdictions may also lose the ability to issue building permits, potentially including permits for kitchen and bath renovations. Jurisdictions that want to maintain local control over new development should therefore plan to adopt a compliant housing element update on time.

We request the opportunity to meet with you and your colleagues to address the concerns raised in this letter. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Leonora Camner
Executive Director
Abundant Housing LA
Anthony Dedousis
Director of Policy and Research
Abundant Housing LA
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
CC: Jason Elliott, Senior Counselor to Governor Gavin Newsom Assemblymember Laura Friedman, California State Assembly Assemblymember David Chiu, California State Assembly
Senator Scott Wiener, California State Senate
Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director, Housing Policy Development, HCD Melinda Coy, Land Use and Planning Manager, HCD
Tyrone Buckley, Assistant Deputy Director of Fair Housing, HCD Paul McDougall, Housing Policy Development Manager, HCD 12 ATTACHMENT 6-233
ATTACHMENT 6-234
ATTACHMENT 6-235
ATTACHMENT 6-236
ATTACHMENT 6-237
Read about the coalition here
ATTACHMENT 6-238
August 27, 2021
Burbank City Council
Burbank City Hall
275 E. Olive Avenue
Burbank, CA 90512
Dear Councilmembers:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the process of updating the housing element of Burbank’s general plan. We are writing on behalf ofthe Our Future LA Coalitionregarding the 6th Cycle housing element update.
2 ATTACHMENT 6-239
Why does this matter?Because we face a cascade of housing crises in our region.And while nearly everyone in Los Angeles County feels the crush of our housing crisis, Black and Latino residents feel it more than most:
● Black households have 1.12% the wealth of white households, and Latino households less than 5% (Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco)
● Black people make up 8% of the county population, but 33.7% of people experiencing homelessness (LAHSA)
● Even under COVID-related eviction moratoriums, Black and Latino neighborhoods face disproportionately higher eviction threats (Los Angeles Times, UCLA) These are the effects of decades of racist policies that we have not eradicated: Restrictive covenants, exclusionary zoning, and redlining made it impossible for Black families to build wealth through homeownership, and result in lower homeownership and higher rents today. The California Constitution’s Article 34 and local “crime-free housing” policies put roadblocks in the way of addressing racial divisions in Californians’ housing affordability and security.

This impact was felt devastatingly during the pandemic, when essential workers living in overcrowded housing were exposed to COVID at work and had no choice but to expose their families at home, leading to disproportionate deaths among Black and Latino people.

Neighborhoods in South and Southeast LA, where nearly 20% of homes are overcrowded (defined as more than one person per room) had COVID rates of roughly 14,000 cases per 100,000 people. Neighborhoods on the Westside, where less than 5% of homes are overcrowded, had rates well under 5,000 cases per 100,000 people.1 Death rates were similarly disproportionate -- at a time (January 2021) when the city of Beverly Hills was reporting 21 COVID deaths, and the neighborhood of Brentwood 9, the city of Compton reported 147, and the neighborhood of Westlake 202.2 In all, COVID-19 mortality rates in LA County were roughly twice as high for Black people (31 deaths/100,000 individuals) and Latinos (29/100K) as for whites (15/100K) (from CGLA).

Of the 3,007 counties in the United States, L.A. County ranks last in housing affordability, overcrowding, and unsheltered homelessness. We are not doing enough to preserve and create homes for working class and lower-income people. The affordable housing crisis, rampant speculation, and housing shortage have gotten so bad that lower-income Black and Latino families are being pushed out of their homes and communities at an alarming rate. At the rate we’re going, next generations won’t be able to live in Los Angeles County.

Los Angeles County is legally required to build 341,000 affordable homes by 2030.To truly address our needs, we need more than double that.At the rate we’re going today, we might build 25,000. That’s 7% of what’s needed. That kind of failure will fall hardest on Black and Latino families, who disproportionately face eviction, homelessness and having to choose between rent and food. Our Future LA demands we not let that happen. 2 “We Are Forced to Live in These Conditions’: In Los Angeles, Virus Ravages Overcrowded Homes”, NY Times, 1/23/21 1 “When coronavirus invaded their tiny apartment, children desperately tried to protect dad”, LA Times, 1/29/21 3 ATTACHMENT 6-240
In order to create a better housing future, we must make every neighborhood resource-rich so people can live where they want to live and don’t have to leave their community to find opportunity. We must also achieve equitable land use and zoning so that we open-up new areas to greater density and value capture, while also ensuring that areas already zoned for density are protected from environmental and spatial racism. As the region plans for growth, there must be no conversion of wildlife habitat to housing or further development in wildfire hazard areas, as identified by CalFire. We understand that the City cares deeply about these issues, and we hope to offer assistance in addressing them.

As it stands right now, the draft housing element will not meet Burbank’s goals around equity and affordability. We submit these comments in the spirit of collaboration in order to partner and provide research, grounded data to help in meeting housing needs. We are interested in having a meeting to discuss these comments more.

Our Future LA Housing Element Comments

1. Protections and preservation
A. The housing element must do more to prioritize rezoning in transit-rich, job-rich, and high-resource neighborhoods, including single-family zoned areas. This is necessary to expand affordable housing opportunities while minimizing the impact on existing renters in multifamily-zoned areas.

B. The housing element should expand just-cause eviction protections to cover all tenants and establish a corresponding enforcement program.

C. The housing element should implement a local RSO or strengthen/reduce the annual allowable rent increase for the existing RSO program.

D. The housing element should codify a tenant’s right to counsel in an eviction proceeding.

E. The housing element should strengthen its permanent tenant education program to inform tenants of their rights and how to access eviction defense resources.

F. The housing element should exclude parcels containing RSO housing units in the housing element’s site inventory.

G. The housing element should require that no net loss provisions apply to parcels in the site inventory and rezoning program with a monitoring and implementation program.

H. The housing element should institute local programs and funding sources for preservation of existing affordable housing.
4 ATTACHMENT 6-241

2. Prioritization of affordable housing
A. The housing element should utilize a value capture mechanism, such as inclusionary zoning, to locally fund and/or incentivize affordable housing.

B. The housing element should prioritize creation of affordable housing on public land.

C. The housing element should streamline affordable housing production.

D. The housing element should include programs for 100% affordable housing zoning overlays, and should ensure that these overlays apply to high-opportunity areas.

E. The housing element should include programs for 100% affordable housing zoning overlays, and should ensure that these overlays apply to high-opportunity areas currently zoned R1.

3. Site Capacity Assessment
A. The housing element should estimate and report both the likelihood of development and the net new units if developed of inventory sites, both vacant and nonvacant.

Comparison of claimed capacity vs. estimated realistic capacity Income
Category RHNA Target
Claimed
Capacity in
Draft HE
NNL Buffer
Estimated
Realistic
Capacity in
Draft HE
Recommended
Realistic
Capacity w/20%
NNL
Realistic
Capacity
Gap
VLI + LI 3,971 4,212 6% 505 4,765 -4,260
MI 1,409 1,512 7% 181 1,691 -1,509
AMI 3,392 4,219 24% 506 4,070 -3,564
Total 8,772 9,943 13% 1,193 10,526 -9,333
We estimate that the draft housing element will fall short of the RHNA goal, by 9,333 units of realistic capacity. The City mustfairly estimate the likelihood of development for all parcels on the suitable sites inventory.

B. The housing element should report the proportion of sites from the previous housing element’s inventory that were developed during the previous planning period, and HCD-recommended methodologies and data sources should be used in order to conduct a thorough “factors” analysis of sites’ realistic development capacity. 5 ATTACHMENT 6-242
C. The housing element assigns more than 50% of the lower-income RHNA target to nonvacant sites, but should use statistical methods (e.g. surveying a random sample of owners of nonvacant sites) to determine that the sites’ existing uses are likely to be discontinued during the planning period.

D. A buffer of at least 15-30% extra capacity should be included in the housing element site inventory. This capacity buffer is especially necessary in order to accommodate the lower-income RHNA target.

See No Net Loss (NNL) section of 3A.

E. The housing element should provide a quantitative estimate of the likelihood that in-pipeline projects will be completed, based on historical data, and should adjust the number of in-pipeline units counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA target accordingly.

F. The housing element should commit to a mid-cycle review to verify the housing element’s assumptions about development probabilities.

4. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A. The housing element should meaningfully increase the concentration of lower-income households in areas of the city where the existing concentration of lower-income households is low.

B. The housing element should meaningfully reduce the concentration of lower-income households in areas with significant exposure to noise/pollution.

C. The housing element should include a thorough analysis of local patterns in socioeconomic/racial segregation and integration, including patterns of overt racial or ethnic discrimination in the housing and land development market.

D. The housing element should adequately prioritize high-opportunity census tracts and well-resourced areas (e.g. near transit, jobs, schools, parks, etc.) when selecting sites for lower-income housing opportunities.

E. The housing element should adequately identify funding sources, public resources, and density bonus programs to maximize the likelihood that projects with below-market-rate units are built.

F. The jurisdiction should adequately solicit public feedback and commentary on the housing element in a way that accurately reflects the jurisdiction’s socioeconomic makeup.
6 ATTACHMENT 6-243

5. Forecasts of ADU Development
A. The housing element should use an HCD-recommended safe harbor methodology for forecasting future ADU production.

B. The housing element should provide for mid-cycle adjustments if inventory sites are developed at lower rates, or lesser densities, than the housing element anticipated and if ADU production falls short of projections. Mid-cycle adjustments should automatically implement a by-right density bonus on inventory sites, starting mid-cycle, and be large enough to make up for an ADU shortfall.

C. The housing element should assess the affordability of forecasted ADUs using city-specific data; it instead uses a regional average. ***
We request the opportunity to meet with you and your colleagues to address the concerns raised in this letter. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Our Future LA
Steering Committee Members
CC: Jason Elliott, Senior Counselor to Governor Gavin Newsom Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director, Housing Policy Development, HCD Melinda Coy, Land Use and Planning Manager, HCD
Tyrone Buckley, Assistant Deputy Director of Fair Housing, HCD Paul McDougall, Housing Policy Development Manager, HCD 7 ATTACHMENT 6-244
September 29, 2021
Burbank City Council
Burbank City Hall
275 E. Olive Avenue
Burbank, CA 90512
Dear Councilmembers:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the process of updating the housing element of the City of Burbank’s general plan. We are writing on behalf ofAbundant Housing LAand YIMBY Law regarding the 6th Cycle housing element update.Abundant Housing LA is a pro-housing, nonprofit advocacy organization working to help solve Southern California’s housing crisis andYIMBY Law’s mission is to make housing in California more accessible and affordable through enforcement of state housing law.

We support more housing at all levels of affordability and reforms to land use and zoning codes, which are needed in order to make housing more affordable, improve access to jobs and transit, promote greater environmental sustainability, and advance racial and economic equity.

In May 2021,we submitted a comment letterregarding the City’s draft housing element update.

In the letter, we highlighted significant inconsistencies with state housing element law, including the requirement that housing element updates affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH), as well as inconsistencies with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)’s instructions regarding housing element design and implementation.

HCD’s recent comment letter on the City’s draft housing element update directly addresses many of the same deficiencies that our letter highlighted, and also states that “revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law.”1 We have provided a brief summary below (Exhibit A) illustrating how HCD’s comments on the City’s draft housing element are largely congruent with our previous analysis.

These deficiencies must be addressed in the final version of the housing element update. We urge the City to swiftly adopt a legally compliant housing element that accommodates the City’s RHNA target and provides a variety of attainable housing options for the City’s residents and workers.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
1 August 17, 2021 HCD Letter to the City of Burbank, pg. 1 1 ATTACHMENT 6-245
Leonora Camner
Executive Director
Abundant Housing LA
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
CC: Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director, Housing Policy Development, HCD Melinda Coy, Land Use and Planning Manager, HCD
Tyrone Buckley, Assistant Deputy Director of Fair Housing, HCD Paul McDougall, Housing Policy Development Manager, HCD 2 ATTACHMENT 6-246
Exhibit A: Comparison of HCD Comment Letter and AHLA/YIMBY Law and Policy Recommendations Deficiency HCD Comment Letter Appendix AHLA/YIMBY Law
Comment Letter
AHLA/YIMBY Law
Policy Recommendations
Insufficient
AFFH analysis
and policy
reforms to
promote
integrated
neighborhoods

element must include a complete analysis
of AFFH. Based on the outcomes of that
analysis, the element must add or modify
programs. Furthermore, the element must
include metrics and milestones for
evaluating progress on programs,
actions, and fair housing results. For
example, Program 3: Preserve and Protect
Existing Tenants and Housing, states that
implementation will address tenant
protection. However, the program should
be expanded to describe why and how this
program will address inequities through
listing specific deliverables, objectives, and
metrics. All programs need to be reviewed
to incorporate meaningful actions.”

meaningful impact to overcome
contributing factors to fair housing issues.
[...] Currently, the element identifies
several programs to address fair housing
issues. However, to facilitate meaningful
change and address AFFH requirements,
the element will need to add or
revise/expand programs to demonstrate
how it addresses fair housing issues..”
Pages 1-2: “The element needs to include
complete local and regional data on
integration and segregation for the City
and analyze it for both local and regional

perpetuated historic patterns of
segregation and exclusion, and
continues to push housing
opportunities for lower-income
households away from high-cost,
high-opportunity cities.

To this day, apartments are banned
on 80% of the residentially-zoned
land in Burbank. The median home
sale price in Burbank was $755,000
in 2018, and 54% of the city’s
renters are “rent-burdened” (i.e. they
spend more than 30% of their
income on rent). This denies
historically disadvantaged groups
housing opportunities near job
centers, quality schools, and other
public resources, a situation that
persists today.

The City is obligated to promote fair
housing opportunities and undo
patterns of segregation. Burbank
should follow HCD’s
recommendation that cities
distribute lower-income housing
opportunities throughout the city,
and recommends that cities first
identify development potential for
lower-income housing in
high-opportunity neighborhoods.

The City should rezone all
residential areas within a 10-minute
walk of busway stations for
apartments at Downtown densities,
and rezone commercially-zoned
land for mixed-use development,
with loosened parking, setback,
open space and height
requirements.

Do more to reduce the concentration
of lower-income households in
neighborhoods with high
concentrations of low- and
moderate-income households.

Identify new funding sources and
public resources to encourage the
production and preservation of
affordable housing, such as a real
estate transfer tax, an introduction of
congestion pricing, creation of a
local density bonus program, and
active abatement of unhealthy
facilities, such as pumping stations,
incinerators, and other polluting
infrastructure.

Exempt parcels containing
rent-restricted and de facto
affordable housing units from
rezoning to prevent displacement of
vulnerable households.
3 ATTACHMENT 6-247
trends and patterns. [...] The element
needs to be revised to include local and
regional data on areas of affluence and
analyze this data for trends and patterns.

The element should also provide an
updated map and analysis on racial and
ethnic distribution and poverty.”

analysis shall also be reflective of housing
development at all income-levels and
evaluate the sites relative to
socio-economic patterns. The site
inventory analysis should address how the
sites are identified to improve conditions
(or if sites exacerbate conditions, how a
program can mitigate the impact), whether
the sites are isolated by income group and
should be supported by local data and
knowledge.”
This would mean rezoning more
parcels, including residential parcels
currently zoned single-family only, to
encourage enough housing growth
to achieve the RHNA target in full.”
Ensure that “no net loss” provisions
apply to parcels in the site inventory
and rezoning program with an
annual and ongoing monitoring and
implementation program.

Prioritize the production of
affordable housing on
publicly-owned land, and offer that
land to nonprofit developers at no
cost as a lawful and bona fide
concession through state density
bonus law.

Create a 100% affordable housing
zoning overlay that encompasses
high-opportunity neighborhoods,
including R1 zoned parcels.

Poor site
suitability and
failure to
analyze
likelihood of
discontinuation
for nonvacant
sites

assumptions of buildout for sites
included in the inventory, it must also
provide support for these assumptions. For
example, the element should demonstrate
what specific trends, factors, and other
evidence led to the assumptions. The
estimate of the number of units for each
site must be adjusted as necessary, based
on the land use controls and site
improvements, typical densities of existing
or approved residential developments at a
similar affordability level in that jurisdiction,
and on the current or planned availability
and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer,
and dry utilities. The element also needs to
analyze the likelihood that the identified
units will be developed as noted in the

identifies 12 sites in Burbank’s
Downtown and 7 sites in the Golden
State Specific Plan, totaling 95.7
acres and containing theoretical
zoned capacity for about 6,100
housing units. However, Planning
does not estimate the likelihood of
development for these parcels.

Instead, Planning only provides a
cursory discussion of why these
sites may be good candidates for
redevelopment, without providing
quantitative evidence or analysis.

Although Planning claims “property
owner and/or developer interest in
acquiring and assembling
underdeveloped parcels into larger
Provide a quantitative estimate of
parcels’ development probabilities,
and incorporate this factor into the
estimate of sites’ realistic capacity.

Valid methodologies include the
Survey Method or the Historical
Redevelopment Rate Method.

Report the proportion of sites in the
previous housing element's
inventory that were developed
during the planning period.

Share letters from owners of the site
inventory parcels, indicating their
interest in selling or redeveloping
these properties during the 6th
Cycle.
4 ATTACHMENT 6-248
inventory in zones that allow nonresidential
uses (e.g., mixed-use)..”

clearly identify the degree of reliance on
nonvacant sites to accommodate the
housing need for lower-income
households. Please be aware that relying
on nonvacant sites to accommodate 50
percent or more of the housing needs for
lower-income households triggers
requirements to make findings based on
substantial evidence that the existing use
is not an impediment and will likely
discontinue in the planning period.”

sites to accommodate the City’s lower-
income RHNA. Sites smaller than a
half-acre in size are deemed inadequate to
accommodate housing for lower-income
households unless it is demonstrated, with
sufficient evidence, that sites are suitable
to accommodate housing for lower-income
households. The element should provide
specific examples with the densities,
affordability and, if applicable,
circumstances leading to consolidation,
such as common ownership. The element
should relate these examples to the sites
identified to accommodate the RHNA for
lower-income households to demonstrate
that these sites can adequately
accommodate the City’s lower-income
housing need. Based on a complete
analysis, the City should consider adding
or revising programs to include incentives
for facilitating development on small sites.”
development sites”, Planning did not
share any letters from property
owners indicating their interest in
selling or redeveloping these sites.

Per HCD guidelines, if a jurisdiction
assigns more than 50% of its
lower-income RHNA to nonvacant
sites (as Burbank does), the
jurisdiction must make findings
supported by “substantial evidence”
that the sites’ existing uses are
“likely to be discontinued during the
planning period.” Planning did not
follow this instruction, which is a
requirement under Assembly Bill
1397.”

from the 5th cycle further casts
doubt on Planning’s implicit
assumption that all 19 sites will be
redeveloped by 2029. At the outset
of the 5th cycle, Burbank claimed a
theoretical capacity of roughly 5,573
more housing units. Through 2019,
Burbank permitted 501 housing
units, which equates to 668 housing
units permitted by the end of the 5th
cycle (assuming that the same
annual permitting pace continues
through 2021). This implies that in
Burbank, excess zoned capacity has
a 12% likelihood of being developed
(668 actual units divided by 5,573
theoretical units).”
Remove parcels from the site
inventory where redevelopment is
unlikely to occur during the 6th
Cycle.

Commit to a mid-cycle review to
verify Planning’s assumptions about
development probabilities. If it turns
out that sites within a tier, or
category, were developed at a
lower-than-expected rate during the
first half of the cycle, then the city
should rezone for additional capacity
or make other appropriate
adjustments for the second half of
the planning period.

If the City lacks enough suitable
sites to achieve the RHNA target,
rezone additional parcels where
redevelopment is likely.
5 ATTACHMENT 6-249

element does not include a complete sites
inventory or analysis; as a result, the
adequacy of sites and zoning has not been
established. Based on the results of a
complete sites inventory and analysis,
programs may need to be added, or
revised, to address a shortfall of sites and
zoning for a variety of housing types.”
Failure to
estimate
realistic
capacity for
residential
development in
Specific Plan
areas

a large portion of its RHNA at all income
levels on nonvacant sites including sites
that will be rezoned to address the 6th
cycle shortfall (page 1-66). The analysis
mentioned a list of factors that were
considered to determine development
potential including age of structures and
degree of underutilization. However, the
element must include a complete analysis
demonstrating the potential for
redevelopment of nonvacant sites
including the extent to which existing uses
may constitute an impediment to additional
residential development. The element
could include the City’s past experience
with converting existing uses to higher
density residential development, the
current market demand for the existing
use, an analysis of any existing leases or
other contracts that would perpetuate the
existing use or prevent redevelopment of
the site for additional residential
development, development trends, market
conditions, and regulatory or other
incentives or standards to encourage
additional residential development on
these sites.”

Planning’s contention that all 19
sites will all be redeveloped by
2029. For example, the Site
Assessment assumes that all four
acres of Golden State Specific Plan
block No. 1 (Lima/Avon) will be built
out at the density of Downtown
Burbank (84 units per acre),
producing 334 homes. However,
this block is entirely occupied by a
variety of light industrial businesses,
including the popular Lincoln Beer
Company. Planning provided no
evidence that the site is nonviable
as industrial land, or that the various
property owners intend to sell.”

permitted or entitled units towards
its 6th Cycle RHNA goals, it must
realistically estimate how many of
these units will ultimately be built
during the 6th Cycle, based on
recent historical data. The City of
Los Angeles’ Initial Study counted
active planning entitlements,
approved planning entitlements with
no building permit, and permitted
Provide a quantitative estimate of
parcels’ development probabilities,
adjusted for the expected mix of
residential vs. commercial
development, and incorporate this
factor into the estimate of sites’
realistic capacity.

Provide a quantitative estimate of
the likelihood that in-pipeline
projects will be completed, based on
historical data, and adjust the
number of in-pipeline units counted
towards the 6th cycle RHNA target
accordingly. If the City does not
have these data, it should apply the
same discount as the City of Los
Angeles due to the close proximity
and microeconomic conditions that
exist there.
6 ATTACHMENT 6-250
projects that have not yet been
completed towards its 6th Cycle
RHNA goals, but discounted each
category based on the share of
proposed units expected to be built,
using the City’s historical data.

Planning must incorporate a similar
estimate into its Inventory Analysis.

Using data from recent projects, the
City of Los Angeles estimated that
37% of projects with pending
entitlements, 45% of projects with
approved entitlements, and 79% of
permitted projects, are ultimately
completed.”
Lack of
concrete
constraint
removal and
adequate
rezoning
program

element requires a complete analysis of
potential governmental constraints.

Depending upon the results of that
analysis, the City may need to revise or
add programs and address and remove or
mitigate any identified constraints.”
Pages 5-6: “[T]he City’s Growth
Management Ordinance includes
information on its purpose and analysis on
constraints (page 1-49). However, the
analysis should include the current number
of units vs. units built out considering the
RHNA. Furthermore, the element notes
“the maximum allowed number of
residential units beyond the approved
maximum build out in the 1988 Land Use
Element without voter approval” and that
City Council extended Measure 1 to
January 1, 2030. The Housing Crisis Act of
2019 (SB 330, 2019) [...] generally
Pages 5-6: “Building housing in
Burbank is difficult, expensive, and
time-consuming. Development
timelines are long, with an average
time of 12-16 months for multifamily
project approval. Mixed-use
projects take even longer, requiring
a 3-4 year approval process and a
conditional use permit (for which
approval can take 12-16 months
alone). This process is a major
impediment to housing production.
[...]
Housing element law requires cities
to provide an analysis of constraints
on housing development, as well as
a program to mitigate or remove
these constraints. While the Draft
Housing Element discusses
constraints in detail, including long
Create a high-quality local density
bonus program, which would also
apply to low-density parcels where
apartments are banned today.

Pre-approve standard accessory
dwelling unit (ADU), small-scale
“missing middle” multifamily and
small lot subdivision housing plans,
allowing developers to receive a
permit quickly if they use a
pre-approved design.

Speed up the timeline for ministerial
review, and expand ministerial
review to apply to more projects.

Eliminate on-site parking
requirements, instead allowing
property owners to decide how
much on-site parking is necessary.
7 ATTACHMENT 6-251
prohibits a locality from enacting a
development policy, standard or
condition that reduces intensity, imposes
moratoriums, enforces subjective design
standards, or implements any provision
that limits approvals or caps population.
[...] The City should evaluate consistency
with these requirements and if necessary,
immediately void or suspend the annual
growth cap.”

required fees for single family and
multifamily housing development, [...] and
then, the element must analyze their
impacts as potential constraints on housing
supply and affordability.”

Procedures: The element states that a
community meeting is required for
multifamily projects (page 1-58). The
element should describe
and analyze how this meeting relates to
the approval of the project, if the
community meeting is required for both
discretionary and non-discretionary
projects, and any impacts to the project in
terms of cost and approval certainty. In
addition, the element should describe the
City’s SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of
2017) streamline ministerial approval
process and application.

consolidated small sites to accommodate
the RHNA for lower-income households, it
should include a program(s) to facilitate lot
consolidation and development of housing
approval timelines, strict limits on
building size, high construction
costs, and a lack of local funding for
affordable housing production, the
report does not commit to a strong
enough program to remove policy
constraints that deter housing
production.”
Reduce restrictions on maximum
height, floor-area ratio, unit size,
setbacks, and lot coverage.

Rezone parcels located near transit,
job centers, schools, and parks in
order to expand the supply of
housing in high- and
highest-resource areas, including
R1 parcels where single-family
detached homes are currently
mandated by law.

Reduce fees on multifamily
residential development.

Eliminate the conditional use permit
requirement for mixed-use
development.
8 ATTACHMENT 6-252
on small sites. For example, the program
could commit to (1) granting density
bonuses above state density bonus law
(Gov. Code, § 65915.); (2) deferring fees
specifically for consolidation; (3) expediting
permit processing; (4) identifying and
targeting specific financial resources; and,
(5) modifying development standards.”
Unrealistic
forecast of
future ADU
development

buildout of 200 ADUs per year for a
potential buildout of 1,600 units within the
planning period. Given that the City has
permitted 54 ADUs in 2018, 110 in 2019,
97 in 2020, and 179 in the first 6 months of
2021 (for an average of 98 units per year),
it is not clear if a production level of 200
ADUs per year will be achievable over the
planning period. As a result, the element
should be updated to include a realistic
estimate of potential ADU production.

54 ADUs in 2018, 110 ADUs in
2019, and 112 ADUs in 2020. Under
a correct calculation of HCD’s
“Option #1”, Burbank would take the
average of the ADU permitting trend
between 2018 and 2020, and
forecast that 92 ADUs will be
permitted per year during the 6th
Cycle. This would allow for a total
6th cycle forecast of 736 ADUs.

However, Planning counts 1,600
ADUs, or 200 ADUs per year,
towards the City’s RHNA target.

Planning contends that a small
reduction in processing fees,
expedited application review, and
pre-approved ADU plans will lead to
a doubling in the number of ADUs
permitted annually going forward.

But Planning provides no tangible
evidence that these relatively minor
incentives will yield this outcome.”
Use HCD’s Option 1 safe harbor,
and project that 736 ADUs will be
permitted during the 6th Cycle.

Follow HCD’s recommendation to
track ADU and JADU creation and
affordability levels, and commit to a
review at the planning cycle
midpoint to evaluate if production
estimates are being achieved.
9 ATTACHMENT 6-253
December 16, 2021
Burbank City Council
Burbank City Hall
275 East Olive Avenue
Burbank, CA 91502
Dear Councilmembers:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the process of updating the housing element of Burbank’s general plan. We are writing on behalf ofAbundant Housing LAand YIMBY Law regarding the 6th Cycle housing element update.Abundant Housing LA is a pro-housing, nonprofit advocacy organization working to help solve Southern California’s housing crisis, and YIMBY Law’s mission is to make housing in California more accessible and affordable through enforcement of state housing law.

We support more housing at all levels of affordability and reforms to land use and zoning codes, which are needed in order to make housing more affordable, improve access to jobs and transit, promote greater environmental sustainability, and advance racial and economic equity.

In May 2021, wesubmitted a comment letterregarding Burbank’s draft housing element update.

In the letter, we highlighted significant inconsistencies with state housing element law, including the requirement that housing element updates affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH), as well as inconsistencies with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)’s instructions regarding housing element design and implementation.

In September 2021, we alsosubmitted a comment letterdemonstrating significant alignment between our May comments and HCD’s review of the City’s draft housing element update. Our September letter includes a brief summary (included in this letter as Appendix A) illustrating how HCD’s comments on the City’s draft housing element are largely congruent with our previous analysis. We agreed with HCD’s finding that “revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law.”1
We are disappointed that the latest version of the City’s housing element update does not meaningfully fix the deficiencies identified in our earlier comments or in HCD’s review and comments. The City’s housing element is inconsistent with HCD’s instructions, does not comply with the requirement that housing element updates affirmatively further fair housing under Assembly Bill 686, and does not comply with Government Code Section 65583(c)’s requirement that housing elements include programs with concrete action steps to facilitate housing production.
1 HCD, Review of the City of Burbank’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Draft Housing Element Update, 8/17/21, pg. 1 1 ATTACHMENT 6-254
The following issues that we raised earlier this year remain unaddressed:

1. Planning’s process for selecting sites and assessing their capacity does not accurately estimate parcels’ likelihood of development or net new units if redeveloped. Therefore, Planning has not identified enough sites where 8,750 homes will realistically be developed by 2029.

2. Planning assumes that 2,180 housing units that were approved or pending approval during the 5th Cycle will be built during the 6th Cycle, without accounting for the near-certainty that some projects will never be built.

3. Planning makes overly optimistic forecasts of future ADU production which are unlikely to be achieved even with aggressive policies, without providing evidence to support this claim.

4. Planning did not propose adequate reforms to address the major constraints on redevelopment that exist in Burbank.

5. The housing element does not promote new housing opportunities on parcels where apartments are currently banned, even near the planned NoHo-Pasadena busway. Instead, it concentrates lower-income housing opportunities in areas with significant noise and air pollution exposure. This approach fails to affirmatively further fair housing and reverse existing patterns of residential segregation.

We also wish to raise the following issues that are specific to this latest draft:

AB 1397 Compliance
Under Assembly Bill 1397, when cities allocate over 50% of their lower-income RHNA targets to nonvacant sites (as Burbank does), they must demonstrate throughsubstantial evidencethat the current use of these sites is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.

While AB 1397 and HCD’s existing guidance require cities to provide substantial evidence of nonvacant sites’ likely discontinuation, cities have many options available to them forhow to assess nonvacant site capacity. For example, cities could communicate with the owners of site inventory parcels, to find out whether they plan to redevelop their property into housing. Cities can survey a random, representative sample of property owners to estimate the overall likelihood that a site’s existing use will discontinue in the near future. Cities can calculate the share of properties associated with permits for demolition, change of use, or redevelopment over the past few years, in order to estimate an overall likelihood of site discontinuation.

The proposed housing element relies on a relatively short list of 19 “Opportunity Sites” for most of the City’s anticipated housing growth during the 6th Cycle, many of which are zoned for commercial uses and currently host businesses. Given that some of these businesses may be operating under long-term leases, and given that commercially-zoned sites can be redeveloped into uses other than 100% residential structures, it’s especially important for cities to provide 2 ATTACHMENT 6-255
strong evidence that these sites are likely to be redeveloped into residential or mixed-use developments.

Unfortunately, the City does not provide this evidence, nor does it attempt to estimate a likelihood of discontinuation based on recent redevelopment trends. Appendix D of the housing element provides information about each of the 19 Opportunity Sites, including whether city staff has spoken to the property’s owners about their interest in redeveloping the site, the current building’s age and use, and the building’s current value relative to the value of the land.

While this information is useful for identifying sites that have a reasonable chance at being redeveloped in the future, this is not the same as providing firm evidence that redevelopment is likely to occur by 2029.Of course, planners are unable to predict with certainty whether a site will be redeveloped in the near future, which is why experts recommend that cities’ housing elements provide theoretical zoned capacity equivalent to a multiple of the RHNA target. This is the approach used in the City of Los Angeles’ housing element.

Additionally, the City has included multiple Opportunity Sites where redevelopment is far from likely. For example:
● TOD 3 (potential for 23 homes)is a collection of lots, including a large parcel owned by Caltrans, two restaurants, and a gas station. While City staff “has been engaged with Caltrans and the adjacent property owners about the viability of redeveloping these parcels as a cohesive mixed-use project”2, the housing element does not say when these discussions took place, or whether the owners of these properties are interested in selling their parcels to a single owner. Development projects that involve combining multiple parcels with different owners are often challenging, especially when the owner of the largest parcel is a state agency. While this project is certainly possible, it is far from a certainty.
● TOD 7 (potential for 379 homes)is the Civic Center’s parking lots, owned by the City of Burbank. The City has not made a clear commitment to allowing the redevelopment of these sites, and redevelopment of publicly-owned land, while certainly possible, should not be treated as a sure thing.
● TOD 8 (potential for 88 homes)is fully occupied by a variety of small businesses.

While the City states that “staff had previous discussions with the property owner about the redevelopment of this opportunity site as a residential/mixed use project”3, the City doesn’t say when these discussions took place, or whether the owner is interested in redevelopment.

The City must present solid evidence that the owners of site inventory parcels (especially those with existing businesses and leases) are interested in redevelopment, and must discount sites by their likelihood of discontinuation. The City must also include additional parcels on their site inventory in order to achieve the RHNA target, which will likely necessitate rezoning. 3 Burbank Housing Element, Appendix D, November 2021, pg. D-21 2 Burbank Housing Element, Appendix D, November 2021, pg. D-16 3 ATTACHMENT 6-256
Fair Housing Issues and AFFH Compliance
The latest version of the housing element provides additional detail on fair housing issues in Burbank, including segregation patterns, displacement risk, and major disparities in access to high-opportunity neighborhoods. This updated AFFH section includes detailed data, maps, and qualitative analysis explaining these issues and describing their impact in Burbank.

However, the housing element’s proposed actions to actually encourage more housing opportunities in high-resource areas, a necessary component for AFFH compliance, are weak.

As we described in Issue #1 of our May letter, the City’s proposed sites inventory does not provide “substantial evidence” that discontinuation of the sites’ existing uses is likely, does not provide evidence that the sites’ owners are interested in redevelopment, and includes several large commercial sites where residential redevelopment is far from a sure thing. As we described in Issue #4 of our May letter, the City’s housing element would do little to relieve the severe constraints on homebuilding (separate from restrictive zoning) that have made housing difficult to build in Burbank.

While the housing element includes a map of the sites inventory overlaid over census tracts’ TCAC designations, indicating that most sites inventory parcels are located in census tracts categorized as High Resource TCAC, this matters little if, as is likely, many of these sites are not redeveloped during the 6th cycle.

Additionally, the updated housing element failed to include policies that would encourage denser development on R1-zoned parcels, even near the future NoHo-Pasadena busway, a shortcoming that we raised in Issue #5 of our June letter. This helps to explain why only 3 out of the 19 Opportunity Sites are located in census tracts with Highest Resource TCAC designations,4 since R1 zoning predominates in these tracts.

Ending exclusionary zoning is necessary for the housing element to advance socioeconomic integration and greater housing affordability.The final housing element must make a stronger effort to affirmatively further fair housing by rezoning sites in low-density, high-resource areas of Burbank, particularly near transit corridors. This is necessary to ensure that sufficient housing opportunities, available at all levels of income, are created citywide, including in Highest Resource areas.
***
Once again, we remind you that Burbank has a legal obligation to sufficiently plan to meet current and future residents’ housing needs, in a way that guarantees access to opportunity for Californians of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. Concerned residents and equity advocates have consistently highlighted the above issues, and we believe that Burbank is not on a path to fulfilling its legal obligation.
4 Burbank Housing Element, Appendix B, November 2021, pg. B-45 4 ATTACHMENT 6-257
We urge the City to swiftly adopt a legally compliant housing element that accommodates the City’s RHNA target and provides a variety of attainable housing options for the City’s residents and workers.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Leonora Camner
Executive Director
Abundant Housing LA
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
CC: Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director, Housing Policy Development, HCD Melinda Coy, Land Use and Planning Manager, HCD
Tyrone Buckley, Assistant Deputy Director of Fair Housing, HCD Paul McDougall, Housing Policy Development Manager, HCD 5 ATTACHMENT 6-258
Appendix A: Comparison of HCD Comment Letter and AHLA/YIMBY Law Comment Letter and Policy Recommendations Deficiency HCD Comment Letter Appendix AHLA/YIMBY Law
Comment Letter
AHLA/YIMBY Law
Policy Recommendations
Insufficient
AFFH analysis
and policy
reforms to
promote
integrated
neighborhoods

element must include a complete analysis
of AFFH. Based on the outcomes of that
analysis, the element must add or modify
programs. Furthermore, the element must
include metrics and milestones for
evaluating progress on programs,
actions, and fair housing results. For
example, Program 3: Preserve and Protect
Existing Tenants and Housing, states that
implementation will address tenant
protection. However, the program should
be expanded to describe why and how this
program will address inequities through
listing specific deliverables, objectives, and
metrics. All programs need to be reviewed
to incorporate meaningful actions.”

meaningful impact to overcome
contributing factors to fair housing issues.
[...] Currently, the element identifies
several programs to address fair housing
issues. However, to facilitate meaningful
change and address AFFH requirements,
the element will need to add or
revise/expand programs to demonstrate
how it addresses fair housing issues..”
Pages 1-2: “The element needs to include
complete local and regional data on
integration and segregation for the City
and analyze it for both local and regional

perpetuated historic patterns of
segregation and exclusion, and
continues to push housing
opportunities for lower-income
households away from high-cost,
high-opportunity cities.

To this day, apartments are banned
on 80% of the residentially-zoned
land in Burbank. The median home
sale price in Burbank was $755,000
in 2018, and 54% of the city’s
renters are “rent-burdened” (i.e. they
spend more than 30% of their
income on rent). This denies
historically disadvantaged groups
housing opportunities near job
centers, quality schools, and other
public resources, a situation that
persists today.

The City is obligated to promote fair
housing opportunities and undo
patterns of segregation. Burbank
should follow HCD’s
recommendation that cities
distribute lower-income housing
opportunities throughout the city,
and recommends that cities first
identify development potential for
lower-income housing in
high-opportunity neighborhoods.

The City should rezone all
residential areas within a 10-minute
walk of busway stations for
apartments at Downtown densities,
and rezone commercially-zoned
land for mixed-use development,
with loosened parking, setback,
open space and height
requirements.

Do more to reduce the concentration
of lower-income households in
neighborhoods with high
concentrations of low- and
moderate-income households.

Identify new funding sources and
public resources to encourage the
production and preservation of
affordable housing, such as a real
estate transfer tax, an introduction of
congestion pricing, creation of a
local density bonus program, and
active abatement of unhealthy
facilities, such as pumping stations,
incinerators, and other polluting
infrastructure.

Exempt parcels containing
rent-restricted and de facto
affordable housing units from
rezoning to prevent displacement of
vulnerable households.
6 ATTACHMENT 6-259
trends and patterns. [...] The element
needs to be revised to include local and
regional data on areas of affluence and
analyze this data for trends and patterns.

The element should also provide an
updated map and analysis on racial and
ethnic distribution and poverty.”

analysis shall also be reflective of housing
development at all income-levels and
evaluate the sites relative to
socio-economic patterns. The site
inventory analysis should address how the
sites are identified to improve conditions
(or if sites exacerbate conditions, how a
program can mitigate the impact), whether
the sites are isolated by income group and
should be supported by local data and
knowledge.”
This would mean rezoning more
parcels, including residential parcels
currently zoned single-family only, to
encourage enough housing growth
to achieve the RHNA target in full.”
Ensure that “no net loss” provisions
apply to parcels in the site inventory
and rezoning program with an
annual and ongoing monitoring and
implementation program.

Prioritize the production of
affordable housing on
publicly-owned land, and offer that
land to nonprofit developers at no
cost as a lawful and bona fide
concession through state density
bonus law.

Create a 100% affordable housing
zoning overlay that encompasses
high-opportunity neighborhoods,
including R1 zoned parcels.

Poor site
suitability and
failure to
analyze
likelihood of
discontinuation
for nonvacant
sites

assumptions of buildout for sites
included in the inventory, it must also
provide support for these assumptions. For
example, the element should demonstrate
what specific trends, factors, and other
evidence led to the assumptions. The
estimate of the number of units for each
site must be adjusted as necessary, based
on the land use controls and site
improvements, typical densities of existing
or approved residential developments at a
similar affordability level in that jurisdiction,
and on the current or planned availability
and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer,
and dry utilities. The element also needs to
analyze the likelihood that the identified
units will be developed as noted in the

identifies 12 sites in Burbank’s
Downtown and 7 sites in the Golden
State Specific Plan, totaling 95.7
acres and containing theoretical
zoned capacity for about 6,100
housing units. However, Planning
does not estimate the likelihood of
development for these parcels.

Instead, Planning only provides a
cursory discussion of why these
sites may be good candidates for
redevelopment, without providing
quantitative evidence or analysis.

Although Planning claims “property
owner and/or developer interest in
acquiring and assembling
underdeveloped parcels into larger
Provide a quantitative estimate of
parcels’ development probabilities,
and incorporate this factor into the
estimate of sites’ realistic capacity.

Valid methodologies include the
Survey Method or the Historical
Redevelopment Rate Method.

Report the proportion of sites in the
previous housing element's
inventory that were developed
during the planning period.

Share letters from owners of the site
inventory parcels, indicating their
interest in selling or redeveloping
these properties during the 6th
Cycle.
7 ATTACHMENT 6-260
inventory in zones that allow nonresidential
uses (e.g., mixed-use)..”

clearly identify the degree of reliance on
nonvacant sites to accommodate the
housing need for lower-income
households. Please be aware that relying
on nonvacant sites to accommodate 50
percent or more of the housing needs for
lower-income households triggers
requirements to make findings based on
substantial evidence that the existing use
is not an impediment and will likely
discontinue in the planning period.”

sites to accommodate the City’s lower-
income RHNA. Sites smaller than a
half-acre in size are deemed inadequate to
accommodate housing for lower-income
households unless it is demonstrated, with
sufficient evidence, that sites are suitable
to accommodate housing for lower-income
households. The element should provide
specific examples with the densities,
affordability and, if applicable,
circumstances leading to consolidation,
such as common ownership. The element
should relate these examples to the sites
identified to accommodate the RHNA for
lower-income households to demonstrate
that these sites can adequately
accommodate the City’s lower-income
housing need. Based on a complete
analysis, the City should consider adding
or revising programs to include incentives
for facilitating development on small sites.”
development sites”, Planning did not
share any letters from property
owners indicating their interest in
selling or redeveloping these sites.

Per HCD guidelines, if a jurisdiction
assigns more than 50% of its
lower-income RHNA to nonvacant
sites (as Burbank does), the
jurisdiction must make findings
supported by “substantial evidence”
that the sites’ existing uses are
“likely to be discontinued during the
planning period.” Planning did not
follow this instruction, which is a
requirement under Assembly Bill
1397.”

from the 5th cycle further casts
doubt on Planning’s implicit
assumption that all 19 sites will be
redeveloped by 2029. At the outset
of the 5th cycle, Burbank claimed a
theoretical capacity of roughly 5,573
more housing units. Through 2019,
Burbank permitted 501 housing
units, which equates to 668 housing
units permitted by the end of the 5th
cycle (assuming that the same
annual permitting pace continues
through 2021). This implies that in
Burbank, excess zoned capacity has
a 12% likelihood of being developed
(668 actual units divided by 5,573
theoretical units).”
Remove parcels from the site
inventory where redevelopment is
unlikely to occur during the 6th
Cycle.

Commit to a mid-cycle review to
verify Planning’s assumptions about
development probabilities. If it turns
out that sites within a tier, or
category, were developed at a
lower-than-expected rate during the
first half of the cycle, then the city
should rezone for additional capacity
or make other appropriate
adjustments for the second half of
the planning period.

If the City lacks enough suitable
sites to achieve the RHNA target,
rezone additional parcels where
redevelopment is likely.
8 ATTACHMENT 6-261

element does not include a complete sites
inventory or analysis; as a result, the
adequacy of sites and zoning has not been
established. Based on the results of a
complete sites inventory and analysis,
programs may need to be added, or
revised, to address a shortfall of sites and
zoning for a variety of housing types.”
Failure to
estimate
realistic
capacity for
residential
development in
Specific Plan
areas

a large portion of its RHNA at all income
levels on nonvacant sites including sites
that will be rezoned to address the 6th
cycle shortfall (page 1-66). The analysis
mentioned a list of factors that were
considered to determine development
potential including age of structures and
degree of underutilization. However, the
element must include a complete analysis
demonstrating the potential for
redevelopment of nonvacant sites
including the extent to which existing uses
may constitute an impediment to additional
residential development. The element
could include the City’s past experience
with converting existing uses to higher
density residential development, the
current market demand for the existing
use, an analysis of any existing leases or
other contracts that would perpetuate the
existing use or prevent redevelopment of
the site for additional residential
development, development trends, market
conditions, and regulatory or other
incentives or standards to encourage
additional residential development on
these sites.”

Planning’s contention that all 19
sites will all be redeveloped by
2029. For example, the Site
Assessment assumes that all four
acres of Golden State Specific Plan
block No. 1 (Lima/Avon) will be built
out at the density of Downtown
Burbank (84 units per acre),
producing 334 homes. However,
this block is entirely occupied by a
variety of light industrial businesses,
including the popular Lincoln Beer
Company. Planning provided no
evidence that the site is nonviable
as industrial land, or that the various
property owners intend to sell.”

permitted or entitled units towards
its 6th Cycle RHNA goals, it must
realistically estimate how many of
these units will ultimately be built
during the 6th Cycle, based on
recent historical data. The City of
Los Angeles’ Initial Study counted
active planning entitlements,
approved planning entitlements with
no building permit, and permitted
Provide a quantitative estimate of
parcels’ development probabilities,
adjusted for the expected mix of
residential vs. commercial
development, and incorporate this
factor into the estimate of sites’
realistic capacity.

Provide a quantitative estimate of
the likelihood that in-pipeline
projects will be completed, based on
historical data, and adjust the
number of in-pipeline units counted
towards the 6th cycle RHNA target
accordingly. If the City does not
have these data, it should apply the
same discount as the City of Los
Angeles due to the close proximity
and microeconomic conditions that
exist there.
9 ATTACHMENT 6-262
projects that have not yet been
completed towards its 6th Cycle
RHNA goals, but discounted each
category based on the share of
proposed units expected to be built,
using the City’s historical data.

Planning must incorporate a similar
estimate into its Inventory Analysis.

Using data from recent projects, the
City of Los Angeles estimated that
37% of projects with pending
entitlements, 45% of projects with
approved entitlements, and 79% of
permitted projects, are ultimately
completed.”
Lack of
concrete
constraint
removal and
adequate
rezoning
program

element requires a complete analysis of
potential governmental constraints.

Depending upon the results of that
analysis, the City may need to revise or
add programs and address and remove or
mitigate any identified constraints.”
Pages 5-6: “[T]he City’s Growth
Management Ordinance includes
information on its purpose and analysis on
constraints (page 1-49). However, the
analysis should include the current number
of units vs. units built out considering the
RHNA. Furthermore, the element notes
“the maximum allowed number of
residential units beyond the approved
maximum build out in the 1988 Land Use
Element without voter approval” and that
City Council extended Measure 1 to
January 1, 2030. The Housing Crisis Act of
2019 (SB 330, 2019) [...] generally
Pages 5-6: “Building housing in
Burbank is difficult, expensive, and
time-consuming. Development
timelines are long, with an average
time of 12-16 months for multifamily
project approval. Mixed-use
projects take even longer, requiring
a 3-4 year approval process and a
conditional use permit (for which
approval can take 12-16 months
alone). This process is a major
impediment to housing production.
[...]
Housing element law requires cities
to provide an analysis of constraints
on housing development, as well as
a program to mitigate or remove
these constraints. While the Draft
Housing Element discusses
constraints in detail, including long
Create a high-quality local density
bonus program, which would also
apply to low-density parcels where
apartments are banned today.

Pre-approve standard accessory
dwelling unit (ADU), small-scale
“missing middle” multifamily and
small lot subdivision housing plans,
allowing developers to receive a
permit quickly if they use a
pre-approved design.

Speed up the timeline for ministerial
review, and expand ministerial
review to apply to more projects.

Eliminate on-site parking
requirements, instead allowing
property owners to decide how
much on-site parking is necessary.
10 ATTACHMENT 6-263
prohibits a locality from enacting a
development policy, standard or
condition that reduces intensity, imposes
moratoriums, enforces subjective design
standards, or implements any provision
that limits approvals or caps population.
[...] The City should evaluate consistency
with these requirements and if necessary,
immediately void or suspend the annual
growth cap.”

required fees for single family and
multifamily housing development, [...] and
then, the element must analyze their
impacts as potential constraints on housing
supply and affordability.”

Procedures: The element states that a
community meeting is required for
multifamily projects (page 1-58). The
element should describe
and analyze how this meeting relates to
the approval of the project, if the
community meeting is required for both
discretionary and non-discretionary
projects, and any impacts to the project in
terms of cost and approval certainty. In
addition, the element should describe the
City’s SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of
2017) streamline ministerial approval
process and application.

consolidated small sites to accommodate
the RHNA for lower-income households, it
should include a program(s) to facilitate lot
consolidation and development of housing
approval timelines, strict limits on
building size, high construction
costs, and a lack of local funding for
affordable housing production, the
report does not commit to a strong
enough program to remove policy
constraints that deter housing
production.”
Reduce restrictions on maximum
height, floor-area ratio, unit size,
setbacks, and lot coverage.

Rezone parcels located near transit,
job centers, schools, and parks in
order to expand the supply of
housing in high- and
highest-resource areas, including
R1 parcels where single-family
detached homes are currently
mandated by law.

Reduce fees on multifamily
residential development.

Eliminate the conditional use permit
requirement for mixed-use
development.
11 ATTACHMENT 6-264
on small sites. For example, the program
could commit to (1) granting density
bonuses above state density bonus law
(Gov. Code, § 65915.); (2) deferring fees
specifically for consolidation; (3) expediting
permit processing; (4) identifying and
targeting specific financial resources; and,
(5) modifying development standards.”
Unrealistic
forecast of
future ADU
development

buildout of 200 ADUs per year for a
potential buildout of 1,600 units within the
planning period. Given that the City has
permitted 54 ADUs in 2018, 110 in 2019,
97 in 2020, and 179 in the first 6 months of
2021 (for an average of 98 units per year),
it is not clear if a production level of 200
ADUs per year will be achievable over the
planning period. As a result, the element
should be updated to include a realistic
estimate of potential ADU production.

54 ADUs in 2018, 110 ADUs in
2019, and 112 ADUs in 2020. Under
a correct calculation of HCD’s
“Option #1”, Burbank would take the
average of the ADU permitting trend
between 2018 and 2020, and
forecast that 92 ADUs will be
permitted per year during the 6th
Cycle. This would allow for a total
6th cycle forecast of 736 ADUs.

However, Planning counts 1,600
ADUs, or 200 ADUs per year,
towards the City’s RHNA target.

Planning contends that a small
reduction in processing fees,
expedited application review, and
pre-approved ADU plans will lead to
a doubling in the number of ADUs
permitted annually going forward.

But Planning provides no tangible
evidence that these relatively minor
incentives will yield this outcome.”
Use HCD’s Option 1 safe harbor,
and project that 736 ADUs will be
permitted during the 6th Cycle.

Follow HCD’s recommendation to
track ADU and JADU creation and
affordability levels, and commit to a
review at the planning cycle
midpoint to evaluate if production
estimates are being achieved.
12 ATTACHMENT 6-265

January 13, 2022

Divya Sen, Analyst
California Department of Housing and Community Development Housing Policy Division

Subject: Response to 3rd Party Comments on Revised draft Burbank Housing Element - Abundant Housing LA 12/16/21 Comment Letter

Dear Ms. Sen:

To assist in your review of Burbank’s revised Draft Housing Element submitted to HCD on December 3, 2021, we have prepared the following responses to comments raised by Abundant Housing LA in their December 16, 2021 comment letter on the Element.

Comment #1 (pg 2): Planning’s process for selecting sites and assessing their capacity does not accurately estimate parcels’ likelihood of development or net new units if redeveloped. Therefore, Planning has not identified enough sites where 8,750 homes will realistically be developed by 2029.

The opportunity sites in the draft housing element were selected based on site-specific factors that are supportive of redevelopment with housing during the 8-year planning period. The sites are also opportunity sites within the two major specific plan update projects (Golden State Specific Plan and the Downtown Burbank Transit Oriented Development TOD Specific Plan) currently underway in the City . Both specific plans are anticipated for consideration by the City Council within calendar year 2022. The approach taken to use opportunity sites from the specific plans as opportunity sites for the Housing Element is intended to establish consistency throughout the City’s long range planning documents . The timing of the Housing Element coinciding with the specific plan projects provides a unique opportunity to do so. Additionally, the sites themselves are optimal for facilitating new housing development given their size, status of the existing uses, proximity to two of the City’s major employment and transit centers (consistent with city, regional and state efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions), and direct and ongoing communication from various developers and/or property owners indicating interest and intent to pursue housing.

The strategies being developed as part of the specific plans will be significant in increasing the likelihood of development on the housing element sites –and within the specific plan areas generally – by establishing objective development standards and streamlining project review. The Golden State Specific Plan also involves significant upzoning of residential density including on the opportunity sites. Additionally, the City recently received funds through SCAG’s Sustainable ATTACHMENT 6-266

Communities Program in addition to funds p reviously awarded through LEAP to update the existing Media District Specific Plan. This update is anticipated to occur in 2023 and would result in similar code and process improvements as those that will be established with the Golden State and Downtown TOD Specific Plans, and is noted in draft Housing Element Program #5.

In response to Abundant Housing’s prior comments, City staff has added descriptions of the suitability of each opportunity site by summarizing our knowledge of site-specific factors that support housing development beyond having the zoning /General Plan in place to do so.

Additionally, Housing Element Program #5 was revised to include a mid-cycle review with respect to development of housing on the opportunity sites . The mid-cycle review will be an opportunity to assess the City’s progress and, if necessary, make changes accordingly.

Comment #2 (pg 2): Planning assumes that 2,180 housing units that were approved or pending approval during the 5th Cycle will be built during the 6th Cycle, without accounting for the near- certainty that some projects will never be built.

The inclusion of housing units that are part of projects already -approved or pending approval is consistent with HCD sites inventory guidelines. Additionally, based on what the City has experienced with recent projects and the continued demand for housing we believe it’s reasonable to assume the approved and pending projects will be built. W ithin the last 6 years only one developer ultimately opted not to move forward with their entitlement. Of the four entitled projects identified in the draft Housing Element, one is under construction, one has been issued building permits, and two are in plan check review.

We recognize that housing production in the 5 th cycle was low . Since then, the City Council adopted the Affordable Housing Strategy and the goal of facilitating the building of 12,000 new homes through 2035 . City Council action in this regard has sent a positive message to the development community t hat the City is seeking to facilitate housing that helps to build neighborhoods and seeks to make positive inroads in our 3 to 1 jobs to housing imbalance. The 2,180 housing units in the pipeline reflects that policy and goal -setting at work . T he housing element and specific plans will help to further advance these goals. Furthermore, consistent with the City Council housing goal and the programs proposed in the Housing Element, the City Council affirmed its commitment to implementing these housing goals and programs by approving a mixed- use project of 862 rental dwelling units (including 69 deed-restricted units affordable to low-income households) at the former Fry’s Electronic Store at 2311 N. Hollywood Way. The project was approved on November 18, 2021, and is the largest mixed use residential unit approved by the City in the last 20 years. The developer of this project is the same one that is currently constructing a 573-unit mixed use project approved by the City Council for the site located at 777 N. Front Street (a noted pipeline project).

Comment #3 (pg 2): Planning makes overly optimistic forecasts of future ADU production which are unlikely to be achieved even with aggressive policies, without providing evidence to support this claim.

City staff continue to receive ADU applications, averaging about 5 – 10 submittals each week, and with the total number increasing each year since ADU regulations were updated by the State.

During the most recent three-year period (Jan 1, 2019 – Dec 31, 2021), the City has issued building ATTACHMENT 6-267

permits for 542 ADUs, an average of 180 ADU permits per year, with 322 ADU permit issued in 2021 alone. From the demand the City has been experiencing over the past three years, the City only sees ADU applications and perm itting increasing. It is staff’s assessment that our proposed numbers will be met as the City proposes new program initiatives as part of the Housing Update for the 6 th Cycle that will bolster ADU production (including reduced fees, reduced processing times for smaller ADUs, and creation of pre -approved ADU plans). Therefore, City staff and the consultant believe 200 ADUs per year for a total of 1,600 ADUs during the eight -year planning period is realistic and achievable.

Additionally, in response to Abundant Housing’s earlier comments, the Housing Element includes an explicit commitment to provide mid-cycle review of ADU production.

Comment #4 (pg 2): Planning did not propose adequate reforms to address the major constraints on redevelopment that exist in Burbank.

Many of the strategies recommended by Abundant Housing are included in the draft Housing Element as part of the proposed programs. Objective development standards and by -right review processes would be established through the two Specific Plans for qualifying projects including removal of the CUP requirement. Fine-tuning of the details for how this would work are being addressed through the development of the Specific Plans, with the potential to be replicated in other areas of the City including as part of the eventual update to the Media District Specific Plan.

Another separate program addresses updating the multifamily development standards , including parking, setbacks, height, and other standards to better enable compact, well-designed multi-family product types.

The proposed Housing Element update also includes a program to create pre-approved ADU plans, and to pursue zoning updates that facilitate infill development in the form of small lot subdivision and missing middle housing. In regards to pre -approved ADU plans, the City has been in discussion with firms such as YIMYADU, Inc. to discuss the possibly of one or more product types that could be pre-approved by the City to streamline review and shorter processing times for this housing type.

Comment #5 (pg 2): The housing element does not promote new housing opportunities on parcels where apartments are currently banned, even near the planned NoHo-Pasadena busway. Instead, it concentrates lower -income housing opportunities in areas with significant noise and air pollution exposure. This approach fails to affirmatively further fair housing and reverse existing patterns of residential segregation.

LA Metro’s North Hollywood (NoHo) to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Corridor, scheduled to begin service in 2024, will extend 18 miles between the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys, providing east-west transit service to link key activity centers to improve access to jobs, education and essential services. The NoHo-Pasadena busway will have six stops within the City of Burbank, exiting SR -134 to serv e the Burbank Media District and continuing along Olive Avenue to Glenoaks Boulevard. As depicted on the map which follows, two of these stops are in areas where the City is focusing future high density residential development: the station at Olive Avenue and N. San Fernando Boulevard is in the heart of Burbank’s downtown where the Downtown TOD Specific Plan is planning for over 3,400 units, and the station at Alameda Avenue and Hollywood ATTACHMENT 6-268

Way falls within the Media District Specific Plan which the City has received funding to update through SCAG’s Sustainable Communities Program to accommodate an estimated 2,000 new housing units.

In terms of the relationship of the 19 opportunity sites identified in the Housing Element to affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH), sites are located predominately in High and Highest Resource census tracts, with just one site and two pending projects located in a Moderate Resource tract, per the Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) maps (refer to Exhibit B-21 in Appendix B of the draft Housing Element).

The census tract to the immediate east of the Hollywood Burbank Airport within the Golden State district, where several opportunity sites are identified, is identified as a disadvantaged community per the CalEnviro Screen analysis conducted as part of the Environmental Justice component of the GP update, in that this area is exposed to relatively higher degree of exposure to noise and air pollution. Although the AFFH requirement is related to the TCAC maps for areas of opportunity, the Safety Element update being prepared in conjunction with the 6 th cycle Housing Element includes Environmental Justice policies aimed at addressing these environmental hazards by investing in infrastructure improvements through the Golden State Specific Plan; incorporating project design features such as fixed windows, open space, increased tree plantings and higher MERV rated air filtration systems; and making use of the City’s Complete Our Streets Plan to help evaluate streetscape design for new projects that considers all modes of transportation with the goal of providing safe and accessible travel to all individuals. The aforementioned 862 unit development at the former Fry’s Site (2311 N. Hollywood Way) is a real world example of this type of mixed use project approved by the City that includes many of the noted design features including MERV 13 filtration system, fixed windows, open space, tree plantings and a bike and pedestrian friendly paseo that provides a direct path from the lower income neighborhood south of the Metrolink rail line to the existing Metrolink Station on Vanowen Street.

ATTACHMENT 6-269

Comment #6 (pg 3): The City has included multiple Opportunity Sties where redevelopment is far from likely. For example:

TOD 3 (potential for 23 homes) is a collection of lots, including a large parcel owned by Caltrans, two restaurants, and a gas station. While City staff “has been engaged with Caltrans and the adjacent property owners about the viability of redeveloping these parcels as a cohesive mixed-use project”, the housing element does not say when these discussions took place, or whether the owners of these properties are interested in selling their parcels to a single owner.

Development projects that involve combining multiple parcels with different owners are often challenging, especially when the owner of the largest parcel is a state agency. While this project is certainly possible, it is far from a certainty.

This opportunity site inc ludes a 1960s IHOP restaurant, fast food eatery and gas station and adjacent 1.58-acre portion of land currently owned by Caltrans. Excluding the Caltrans parcel, the site has an improvement -to-land value ratio of just 0.17, indicating a strong potential for redevelopment with a higher value economic use. City staff has been engaged with Caltrans and the adjacent property owners about the viability of redeveloping these parcels as a cohesive mixed-use project including the introduction of affordable and market rate residential units in proximity to downtown. Redevelopment of the site is bein g evaluated as part of the Downtown Burbank TOD Specific Plan. This site falls within the Housing Element program to allow for a by-right ministerial review process for projects within the specific plans that include 100 dwelling units or fewer. The existi ng zoning of the Project site will be updated as a part of the Downtown Burbank TOD Specific Plan to include objective development standards making the project site more conducive for redevelopment. City Planning and Housing staff have initiated communication regarding relinquishment of this and other Caltrans property adjacent to street right of way in the City to facilitate land consolidation to build the projected 23 dwelling units at the proposed site. Furthermore, City’s Planning and Economic Development team have continued outreach with property owners of the San Fernando Blvd. fronting properties to facilitate redevelopment including new housing opportunities at this TOD 3 site consistent with the Housing Element and subject to the development standar ds being developed as part of the upcoming Downtown Burbank Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Specific Plan.

TOD 7 (potential for 379 homes) is the Civic Center’s parking lots, owned by the City of Burbank. The City has not made a clear commitment to al lowing the redevelopment of these sites, and redevelopment of publicly-owned land, while certainly possible, should not be treated as a sure thing.

The Civic Center site currently has no allowable residential density under the Institutional General Plan l and use designation. As part of the Downtown TOD Specific Plan and Housing Element implementation, the site’s density will be increased to allow up to 87 dwelling units per acre. This effort will help facilitate the planning and visioning process that the City is currently undertaking with the community and City decision makers to consider redevelopment of City - owned properties within this opportunity site to include a new library, affordable and workforce housing, new office space, shared parking facilities, a transit plaza, and new public open spaces.

The existing City Hall building will remain. As part of the development of the Downtown Burbank TOD Specific Plan, the City is developing a general concept for the Civic Center opportunity site that will consider the development of a Public-Private-Partnership (“P3”) to help ATTACHMENT 6-270

facilitate the development of the project during the 2021 -2029 planning period. The proposed land uses, including residential, will be evaluated as part of the Specific Plan’s Program EIR with the intent to facilitate streamlined review of future development. The Specific Plan will also consider the potential use of transfer development rights, to allow transfer of unused density to other parcels within the Civic Center site. As of January 2022, the consultant team of economists and land use planners have been selected to assist the City in analyzing the site’s potential for redeveloping a mix of uses including 379 housing units.

TOD 8 (potential for 88 homes) is fully occupied by a variety of small businesses. While the City states that “staff had previous discussions with the property owner about the redevelopment of this opportunity site as a residential/mixed use project”, the City doesn’t say when these discussions took place, or whether the owner is interested in redevelopment.

City staff had previous discussions with the property owner about the redevelopment of this opportunity site as a residential/mixed use project. The site currently contains multi-tenant office buildings in the City’s Downtown. Most of the buildings on the site were constructed prior to 1980. The site itself is near the City’s downtown adjacent to a Los Angeles County Courthouse and across the street from the City’s Civic Center. The site is approximately half a mile from the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Train Station, within a High-Quality Transit Area. Per the TCAC Opportunity Map, the site is within a high resource area. The redevelopment effort is focused on facilitating a mixed -use project that combines the potential for new office space with new housing in a major employment and transportation hub. In additi on, this site falls within the Housing Element program to allow for by -right ministerial review process for projects within the specific plans that include 100 dwelling units or fewer. The existing zoning of the Project site will be updated as a part of the Downtown Burbank TOD Specific Plan to include objective development standards making the project site more conducive for redevelopment. The City’s Planning and Economic Development team have continued outreach with property owners and prospective develop ers of the subject site to facilitate redevelopment including new housing opportunities consistent with the Housing Element and subject to the development standards being developed as part of the upcoming Downtown Burbank Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Specific Plan.

Comment #7 (pg 4): The housing element fails to include policies that would encourage denser development on R-1 parcels.

The City’s primary focus to accommodating future housing growth is to concentrate densities near employment and high quality transit , while preserving and enhancing existing neighborhoods.

This is exemplified by the Golden State and Downtown TOD Specific Plans that will provide for over 6,000 additional high density housing units, as well as Me dia District which is projected to accommodate 2,000 new units. Within Burbank’s single -family districts, more limited infill opportunities will be provided through the following:

Senate Bill 9, effective January 1, 2022, allows property owners to split a single-family zoned lot into two lots and/or place up to two housing units on a single-family zoned lot. The City is currently working on a Code update to implement the provisions of SB 9, expanding opportunities for residential infill in high resource single-family zones.

ATTACHMENT 6-271

The City is also in the process of updating development standards for R-1 and R-1-H single family residential zones to facilitate development of single -family r esidential units by incorporating objective standards and eliminating the existing discretionary review process for development of single-family homes. The proposed update to single-family standards, in conjunction with existing regulations that facilitate the provision of ADUs and JADUs , will facilitate development on R-1 parcels.

Additionally, compliant with State law, the City updated its Code to permit transitional and supportive housing in R -1 and R -1-H single -family zones, expanding the variety of by-right housing options in single-family zones.

Appendix A (pgs 6-12) Policy Recommendations:

Identify new funding sources and public resources to encourage the production and preservation of affordable housing.

As stated in Program 14, the City will be evaluating establishing an impact fee on non-residential development to provide an additional source of revenue for the Housing Trust Fund, similar to the City of Glendale. The City’s Housing and Grants Division, along with the Burbank Housing Corporation, actively pursues funding sources in support of affordable housing, and as indicated in the AFFH, has secured Permanent Local Housing Allocation funds, and will be pursuing round 2 Project Homekey funds from the State.

Exempt parcels containing rent -restricted and de facto affordable housing from rezoning to prevent displacement of vulnerable households.

In contrast to Burbank’s 5 th cycle Housing Element which focused new housing growth on underutilized residential parcels, the 19 Housing Opportunity Sites in the 6th cycle Housing Element are located entirely in non-residential districts, thereby minimizing any potential residential displacement. In addition, the City adheres to AB 1397, which requires development on Housing Element sites occupied by lower income households within the last five years to be replaced with affordable units.

Ensure that “no net loss” provisions apply to parcels in the site inventory and rezoning program with an annual and ongoing monitoring and implementation program.

To ensure the City’s monitors its compliance with SB 166 (No Net Loss), P rogram 7 has been added to the Housing Element to develop a procedure to monitor the development of sites in the Housing Element and remaining capacity to address the RHNA by income category.

Prioritize the production of affordable housing on City -owned land, and offer that land to nonprofit developers at no cost as a lawful and bona fide concession under state density bonus law.

Approximately six acres within the Civic Center have been identified as an opportunity site in the Housing Element sites inventory. The City is currently undertaking a visioning process to evaluate redevelopment of City-owned properties within the Civic Center to include the integration of an ATTACHMENT 6-272

estimated 379 units of affordable and workforce housing. The TOD Specific Plan is incorporating concept planning for the Civic Center opportunity site to include a Public-Private Partnership (P3) to help facilitate development of the projects during the 2021-2029 planning period.

Commit to mid-cycle review to verify Planning’s assumptions about development probabilities. If it turns out that sites were developed at a lower-than-expected rate, rezone for additional capacity or make other appropriate adjustments.

Program 5 commits the City to c onduct a mid-cycle review (2025) to evaluate production levels in comparison to the RHNA, and if falling significantly short, to rezone additional sites to increase capacity.

Provide a quantitative estimate of the likelihood that in-pipeline projects will be completed, based on historical data, and adjust the number of in -pipeline units counted towards the RHNA accordingly. If the City doesn’t have this data, it should apply the same discount as the City of Los Angeles due to the close proximity and microeconomic conditions that exist there.

The following table presents an update of the status of projects with development entitlements. As shown, all projects are moving forward. In addition, the former Fry’s Electronics site which was identified as a pending project in the Draft Housing Element received its planning entitlements in November 2021. Within the last six years only one developer ultimately opted not to move forward with their entitlement.

The eight pending projects totaling 626 units identified in the Housing Element are all in various stages of entitlement (excluding the former Fry’s site since it is now entitled) . Even if one or two Projects with
Entitlements Description Zoning Acres
#
Units
Afford-
ability
Project Status
(as of Jan 2022)
La Terra
777 Front St
Mixed Use
(573 apt. units,
307-room hotel,
1,067 sf retail)
Rezoned from
AD (Auto
Dealership) to
PD 17-01
7 acres 573 Mod: 69
AMod: 504
Project currently
undergoing plan check
process to obtain
building permits
First Street
Village
315 N. First St
Mixed Use
(275 apt units,
21,265 sf retail/
restaurant)
Rezoned from
BCC-2 to PD
14-01

2.99 acres

275 Mod: 14
AMod: 261
Phase 1 of the project is
under construction.

Applicant undergoing
plan check process to
obtain building permits
for Phase 2.
601-615 E. Cedar
Ave.

MF residential R-4, High
Density
Residential

0.8 acres
46 Very Low: 3
Low: 5
AMod: 24
Building Permits for the
project were issued 4th
Quarter of 2021
624-628 San
Fernando Blvd
Mixed use
(42 apt units and
14,800 sf
commercial use)
BCC-3 0.71
acres
42 Very Low: 4
Low: 1
AMod: 37
Project currently
undergoing plan check
process to obtain
building permits
Former Fry’s
Electronics Site
2311 N.

Hollywood Way
Mixed Use
(862 units,
151,800 sf office,
9,700 sf
commercial uses)
C-3 10.43
acres
862 Very Low: 80
AMod: 782
Received Planning
entitlements November
2021. Applicant will
initiate the plan check
process soon.

ATTACHMENT 6-273

of these projects ultimately don’t end up moving forward , the City has two recent SB 35 applications (see Table below) for a total of 471 units that would more than offset any losses. In summary, the market demand for residential development in Burbank is extremely robust, and the inclusion of entitled and pending projects in the sites inventory is warranted based on the City’s experience with recent projects.

Should you have any questions regarding our responses to these comments , please contact me at [email protected] or 818-238-5250.

Regards,

Federico “Fred” Ramirez
Assistant Community Development Director, Planning Division

cc:

Paul McDougall, Housing Policy Development Manager, HCD Melinda Coy, Land Use and Planning Manager, HCD
Anthony Dedousis, Director of Policy and Research – Abundant Housing LA Leonora Camner, Executive Director – Abundant Housing LA

Recent Project
Applications Description Zoning Acres
#
Units
Afford-
ability
Project Status
(as of Jan 2022)
3000 Empire Ave. 340-unit
residential
building
M-2 (General
Industrial)

1.97 acres
340
units
Low: 271
Mod: 68
AMod:1
SB-35 application (notice
of intent filed), SB 330
preliminary application.
3001 Empire Ave.

131-unit
residential
building
M-2 (General
Industrial)

0.68 acres
131 Low: 104
Mod: 26
AMod: 1
SB-35 application (notice
of intent filed), SB 330
preliminary application.

ATTACHMENT 6-274
May 13, 2022
Gustavo Velasquez, Director
California Department of Housing & Community Development 2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
Dear Director Velasquez:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the process of updating the Housing Element of Burbank’s general plan. We are writing on behalf of Abundant Housing LA (AHLA) and YIMBY Law regarding Burbank’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (HEU). Abundant Housing LA is a pro-housing, nonprofit advocacy organization working to help solve Southern California’s housing crisis, and YIMBY Law’s mission is to make housing in California more accessible and affordable through enforcement of state housing law.

We support reforms to legalize more homes, make homes easier to build, increase funding for affordable housing, and protect tenants, which are all needed to make housing more affordable, improve access to jobs and transit, promote greater environmental sustainability, and advance racial and economic equity.

On 5/24/2021, 9/29/2021 and 12/16/2021, AHLA shared letters with Burbank and HCD, regarding drafts of the HEU, providing comments on how Burbank should fulfill both the letter and the spirit of housing element law.

On 2/1/2022, HCD sent aletter to Burbank regarding an earlier draft of the housing element, identifying corrections that need to be made to obtain certification of the plan. A subsequent draft Housing Element was received by HCD for review on 4/4/2022. The purpose of this letter is to provide our comments on the subsequent draft HEU.

We have reviewed the City’s subsequent draft HEU received by HCD on 4/4/2022, and continue to have major concerns about Burbank’s ability to meet its state-mandated RHNA targets.

On 12/16/2021, MapCraft Labs publishedan analysis1 of an earlier draft of the HEU, which was commissioned by AHLA. The purpose of the analysis was to evaluate Burbank’s sites inventory to assess its likely impact on housing production. The analysis found a capacity shortall of between approximately 1,100 and 2,300 units and made several recommendations for improving the Housing Element, which are summarized below.

The 2/1/2021 HCD review letter identified deficiencies in the previous draft HEU. This letter concludes by highlighting common themes in AHLA and HCD’s comments. 1 MapCraft Labs (2021). “Burbank Housing Element Analysis Results” page 1.

ATTACHMENT 6-275
Discussion of issues that AHLA raised previously:

Comment 1: “Planning’s process for selecting sites and assessing their capacity does not accurately estimate parcels’ likelihood of development or net new units if redeveloped.

Therefore, Planning has not identified enough sites where [8,772] homes will realistically be developed by 2029.”
The HEU relies on just 19 sites to accommodate a large portion of the RHNA. Many of these sites have substantial constraints to housing in the form of existing structures and environmental factors. For example, a major grouping of seven housing opportunity sites is located in the Golden State Specific Plan (GSSP) area, which is in close proximity to the Hollywood Burbank Airport and characterized by existing industrial uses. These factors raise concerns about future residents’ exposure to noise and pollution from existing uses and related questions about how these environmental conditions may deter developers from building housing. One of the sites, “GSSP 3 - Valhalla”, which is supposed to accommodate 678 homes, is located in the airport influence area, and may face additional development constraints, such as on building height, which should be analyzed2. On another site, “GSSP 7 - Empire”, Burbank claims capacity for 510 homes, but the aerial image provided shows a substantial portion of the site is covered with existing buildings3. While redevelopment of this site may be technically possible, the plan should include an analysis of likely constraints to that redevelopment, such as existing leases, so that the likelihood of redevelopment during the planning period can be properly accounted for.

Furthermore, the sites inventory is required to specify the projected number of units at each affordability level for each site, per HCD’s standard form4, yet this information is missing in the sites inventory5. Burbank has an obligation to present substantial evidence that existing uses will discontinue during the planning period because non-vacant sites are accommodating over half of the lower-income RHNA6, but it is not clear exactly where the lower-income RHNA would be accommodated. This issue is especially relevant because Burbank saw only 26% of its 5th cycle RHNA actually built, with significant shortfalls of housing affordable to moderate, low and very low income households7. The 6th cycle RHNA numbers are significantly higher, meaning more effort will be required to meet them.

In the Downton TOD Specific Plan area, analysis of existing leases to assess realistic development potential is critical. For example, on site “TOD 6 - Burbank Town Center” Burbank claims capacity for 1,020 homes, and states that the property was purchased by a firm interested in redevelopment8. However, the site is developed with a large indoor mall where many existing leases could constrain redevelopment over the next eight years. Perhaps a developer could buy out those leases, but that would increase the cost and affect the feasibility 8 Burbank Subsequent Draft Housing Element Appendices, page D-19. 7 Burbank Subsequent Draft Housing Element Appendices, page C-13. 6 California Government Code Section 65583.2.(g)(3)
5 Burbank Subsequent Draft Housing Element Appendices, pages D-8 - D-13. 4 California Government Code Section 65583.3.
3 Burbank Subsequent Draft Housing Element Appendices, page D-24. 2 Burbank Subsequent Draft Housing Element, page 1-80.
2 ATTACHMENT 6-276
of any potential redevelopment, and particularly of any below market rate units that may be included in such a development, as Burbank’s inclusionary zoning ordinance would require. This is the site with the largest claimed capacity for new housing in the plan (about 12% of the RHNA), and the assumptions around realistic development capacity here must be better supported.

Comment 2: “Planning assumes that 2,180 housing units that were approved or pending approval during the 5th Cycle will be built during the 6th Cycle, without accounting for the near-certainty that some projects will never be built.” The sites inventory now claims 2,431 units from entitled or “pending” projects9. However, it is not legitimate to assume that 100% of proposed, entitled, or even permitted units will actually be built. In all of these scenarios there is some probability that the project will not be completed.

Burbank can and should report and assess what these probabilities are with reference to its own historical experience with past projects and discount the number of units claimed as in pipeline appropriately. Furthermore, the number of units claimed must be specified at each affordability level.

Comment 3: “Planning makes overly optimistic forecasts of future ADU production which are unlikely to be achieved even with aggressive policies, without providing evidence to support this claim.”
The plan states that 181 ADUs were permitted annually between 2019 and 2021 and then projects 200 ADUs per year over the planning period. HCD lays out a safe harbor option for projecting ADUs based on permitting trends since 201810. While it is conceivable that programs to promote ADUs could result in production during the planning period exceeding the historical average, we recommend adhering to the historical average since 2018 for purposes of projections to account for factors that could depress ADU production during the planning period, such as a recession. A conservative ADU forecast also creates an additional buffer in case the plan’s expectations on other sites are not met, as seems probable (see discussion above under Comment 1).

Comment 4: “Planning did not propose adequate reforms to address the major constraints on redevelopment that exist in Burbank.”
Program 1011 includes evaluating Burbank’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance and should include specific reform commitments to make it less burdensome and more effective at producing housing at all income levels. For rental housing developments the ordinance currently requires 10% of homes to be affordable for lower-income households and 5% to be affordable for very low income households. This framing is not well aligned with the state density bonus law 11 Burbank Subsequent Draft Housing Element, page 1-107. 10 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, page 31.
9 Burbank Subsequent Draft Housing Element Appendices, page D-7. 3 ATTACHMENT 6-277
because that law requires the granting of one density bonus for qualifying projects12. Burbank’s requirements for low income and very low income units each would individually trigger a state density bonus, but those bonuses do not “stack” as a matter of state law. It would be better to specify a menu of options at different affordability levels, at the lower end of what triggers a state density bonus. For example requiring 10% of units for low-income households or 5% for very low income households, instead of requiring both. In this manner a homebuilder would qualify for a state density bonus to offset the feasibility challenges that can come with requiring affordable units. Of course, a builder could always choose to exceed the minimum affordability requirements, if incentives are properly structured so that pathway is feasible.

Program 5 discusses revisions to parking requirements consistent with state density bonus law.

Parking requirements increase the cost of housing, reduce the density of development, and exacerbate environmental problems, and we advocate for their abolition at the state and local level. State density bonus law lays out three different scenarios whereby parking requirements may be reduced, and different reductions, based on the level of affordability and other factors13.

Since Burbank has an inclusionary zoning ordinance that triggers state density bonuses, projects will qualify for this parking relief regardless of what Burbank does to change parking requirements in its municipal code. A more meaningful action would be to propose eliminating residential parking requirements or at least reducing them to levels below what state density bonus law makes available.

The plan makes the problematic decision to steer development away from areas zoned single-family residential, instead directing it to the Downtown TOD Specific Plan Area and Golden State Specific Plan Area. Single-family zoning is a significant constraint to housing production, and particularly the production of affordable housing. While the plan does include some positive programs around ADUs, such as pre-approved plans and reduced fees, the plan should go farther to promote housing opportunities in exclusionary areas. Cities are required to permit ADUs and SB 9 duplexes and lot splits by state law. Burbank should go beyond strategies that are driven by state law and legalize bungalow courts, townhomes, and small apartment buildings in all residential neighborhoods, with reasonable public safety exceptions such as for high fire hazard severity zones.

The lack of funding for affordable housing as a constraint merits further consideration. For example, Program 1a discusses using $5 million in redevelopment successor agency funding to purchase ten market rate units and preserve them as affordable 14. The analysis of the inclusionary zoning ordinance does not make clear how much money it has raised in in-lieu fees or how many affordable units have been built under its provisions, if any. Given the scarcity of available funding, it is critical that Burbank commit to raising more funding locally and aligning its affordable housing incentives and mandates well with the state density bonus law, as discussed above.
14 Burbank Subsequent Draft Housing Element, page 1-101. 13 California Government Code Section 65915.(p)
12 California Government Code Section 65915.(b)(1)
4 ATTACHMENT 6-278
Per HCD’s review letter, the HEU in Program 715 commits to rezoning certain sites identified but not redeveloped in prior planning periods for 20% affordable projects to be approved by right.

However, we recommend extending by right approval to all 20% affordable projects, or even more broadly (where not already covered by other ministerial approval programs), because this standard would be easier to track and administer and is more supportive of housing construction than the minimum standard in state law.

Comment 5: “The housing element does not promote new housing opportunities on parcels where apartments are currently banned, even near the planned NoHo-Pasadena busway.

Instead, it concentrates lower-income housing opportunities in areas with significant noise and air pollution exposure. This approach fails to affirmatively further fair housing and reverse existing patterns of residential segregation.”
With regard to affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH), Exhibit B-2516, which shows the sites inventory overlaid on a map of low to moderate income population, is concerning. The map shows that the vast majority of opportunity sites are located in areas with the highest concentrations of low to moderate income households. This means that the HEU is unlikely to reverse patterns of socioeconomic segregation in Burbank, which is essential to AFFH.

Furthermore, Exhibit B-2717, shows a significant proportion of opportunity sites are located in areas that are designated as susceptible to displacement or areas of ongoing displacement. To some extent this approach is justified, since this is the area where Downtown Burbank is located, and a place where future residents would have good access to jobs and transit.

However, it is critical to strengthen programs to protect residential tenants. Program 318, on this subject, mainly references compliance with existing state laws, but Burbank should go further, for example by establishing a robust right to compensation in a no-fault eviction for redevelopment and a right to return at the previous rent for some period of time. Policies such as these would help steer investment to areas where fewer tenants would be displaced.

However, this must be accompanied by strong policies to create more housing opportunities in other parts of the city, particularly in areas zoned single-family residential.

As discussed above in Program 1, a significant portion of the sites inventory is located in the Golden State Specific Plan area, where existing industrial uses and the airport not only constrain redevelopment, but also raise environmental justice concerns for future residents of the area.

The planned North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Project would run through southern Burbank along Olive Avenue and Glenoaks Boulevard, with a connection to the Downtown Burbank Metrolink station. Although the plan references some future rezoning of the Media District in Program 519, the commitment is somewhat vague and this area is not part of 19 Burbank Subsequent Draft Housing Element, page 1-103. 18 Burbank Subsequent Draft Housing Element, page 1-102. 17 Burbank Subsequent Draft Housing Element, page B-60
16 Burbank Subsequent Draft Housing Element, page B-57
15 Burbank Subsequent Draft Housing Element, page 115.
5 ATTACHMENT 6-279
the sites inventory. The HEU should take full advantage of the opportunity to plan for more homes at all income levels near high-quality transit, which allows people to lower their transportation costs and live more sustainably.

Rezoning Deadline
California Government Code Section 65583.(c)(1)(A) states in part “a local government that fails to adopt a housing element that the department has found to be in substantial compliance with this article within 120 days of the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element, rezoning of those sites, including adoption of minimum density and development standards, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element.” The statutory deadline for jurisdictions in the SCAG region, such as Burbank, was 10/15/2021. Per HCD’s website, the subsequent draft HEU was received for review on 4/4/2022, after the 120 day grace period had elapsed.

Some of the programs (e.g. Programs 12, 14, 18) to rezone and adopt supportive development standards, target implementation dates after the one-year rezoning deadline of 10/15/2022.

However, this schedule is not available to jurisdictions that fail to obtain certification of their housing elements in a timely manner, as described above. Therefore, HCD should clarify that compliance with the one-year rezoning deadline is required.

MapCraft Analysis:

The MapCraft analysis of the HEU commissioned by AHLA found that the capacity claimed in the sites inventory could fall short by approximately 1,100 to 2,300 units. The finding lends support to our conclusion that the sites inventory is not adequately considering realistic development capacity of non-vacant sites. The analysis considered historic development scale and financial feasibility analysis under different parking requirements scenarios. The analysis makes the following recommendations:

1. “Right-sizing claimed capacity on sites in the current site inventory, both by reducing expectations on many sites and being more ambitious in upzoning other sites. The city could revisit additional opportunities to rezone more parcels in the inventory, particularly in areas like Downtown and along commercial corridors like West Olive Avenue.”

2. “Adding more sites to the site inventory and evaluating rezoning of those sites. Excluding ADUs, the inventory addresses only 3.5% of the city’s 4,200 parcels, so there are many places that could be explored further to address this potential shortfall.”

3. “Reducing or eliminating parking requirements and promoting automobile alternatives to reduce households’ demand for parking. If developers could meet household demand with fewer on-site parking stalls, it could make multifamily development in many parts of the City more economically feasible.”

4. “Introducing new economic incentives to increase the financial feasibility of redevelopment, especially for projects that include below-market-rate units.” 6 ATTACHMENT 6-280

5. “Consider establishing development minimums to ensure high utilization of sites with feasible housing capacity.”
Comparison of HCD Comment Letter and AHLA/YIMBY Law Comment Letter:

The table below lists the comment numbers that are relevant to the categories of deficiencies identified, along with a summary of key AHLA and YIMBY Law policy recommendations for each category.

Deficiency

AHLA/YIMBY
Law Comment
Letter
HCD
Comment
Letter
Key AHLA/YIMBY Law Policy
Recommendations
Sites Inventory 1, 2, 3 A2
Improve analysis of constraints to
housing production such as
environmental factors in the GSSP
area, and existing leases.

Inventory must project units at each
affordability level for each site.

Adjust the number of units
expected from in-pipeline projects
to reflect the reality that not all
projects will be built, based on
historical trends in Burbank.

Use the HCD ADU forecast safe
harbor based on permitting trends
since 2018.

Funding and
Promoting
Affordable
Housing and
Housing for
Special-Needs
Groups
4 B2
Commit to raising local funds to
fund affordable housing and better
align inclusionary zoning ordinance
with state density bonus law.

Governmental
Constraint
Removal
4 A3, B1, B3
Better align the inclusionary zoning
ordinance with state density bonus
law.

Eliminate parking requirements or
at least reduce them beyond what
state density bonus law already
accomplishes.

Upzone single-family areas to allow
7 ATTACHMENT 6-281
a balanced mixture of housing
types going beyond state ADU law
and SB 9.

AFFH Analysis
and Programs to
Promote
Integrated
Neighborhoods
5 A1, B4
Upzone single-family areas to allow
a balanced mixture of housing
types going beyond state ADU law
and SB 9.

Strengthen anti-displacement
policies, including a robust right to
compensation for a no-fault eviction
and right to return at previous rent
for some period of time.

GSSP sites are problematic due to
existing industrial uses and the
airport raising environmental justice
concerns.

Take advantage of the opportunity
to allow more housing at all income
levels near planned BRT stations.

Public
Participation
We concur with
HCD’s
comment
C
Improve outreach methods to lower
income and special-needs
households.

We request the opportunity to meet with you and your colleagues to address the concerns raised in this letter. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Lena Cn Son us
Leonora Camner
Executive Director
Abundant Housing LA
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
CC: Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director, Housing Policy Development, HCD Melinda Coy, Land Use and Planning Manager, HCD
Tyrone Buckley, Assistant Deputy Director of Fair Housing, HCD Paul McDougall, Housing Policy Development Manager, HCD Divya Sen, HCD
Burbank Planning Department
8 ATTACHMENT 6-282
ATTACHMENT 6-283
ATTACHMENT 6-284
ATTACHMENT 6-285
ATTACHMENT 6-286
ATTACHMENT 6-287
ATTACHMENT 6-288
ATTACHMENT 6-289
ATTACHMENT 6-290
ATTACHMENT 6-291
ATTACHMENT 6-292