Meredith, Alyssa
From:
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 1:53 PM
To: City Council DL; Anthony, Konstantine; Schultz, Nick; Takahashi, Tamala; Perez, Nikki; Mullins, Zizette
Subject: Public Hearing - 10-17-2023 ITEM 0 - ADU ZTA
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Members of Council,
Please consider taking the opportunity to additionally amend the ADU Zone Text on the Agenda tonight by addressing additional issues that have been important in Burbank.
1. Please clarify our tree ordinance and ensure our sustainability efforts are not undermined by the State's mandates. Our decades old ordnance, now in its current iteration, requires TWO trees anywhere on the lot. Please require these trees now be in the FRONT YARD and must be present in any new construction plan, and may limit the total amount of construction if they cannot be placed in the front yard. This would include ADU structures.
2. Please consider being as specific as cities like Glendale and detail how and where the trees are to be planted to maximize their chance of successfully protecting the environment and fighting climate change. Please check my understanding with an arborist, but there are many trees that require several feet of space on all sides to grow to their full healthy potential.
The new ADU laws the state is requiring, force our Staff (and thereby the taxpayers )to cover the cost of local enforcement, infrastructure and implementation without any regard to the will of the people who live on the land or consideration of loss of other opportunities our staff cannot attend to. In In recognition and in support of the supposed goals of the State please consider crafting our ordinance to minimize speculative profiteering on these lands and incentivize ownership and generational wealth growth by:
1. Implementing rent control on all NON-OWNER occupied detached single unit properties under 1000 sqft, detached and junior adu new applications as well as deed transfer after Dec 1, 2023.
2. Residency can proved up annually with IRS or State tax form for the exemption from the rent control.
3. Low income deed restricted properties could also be exempt.
The above suggestion is intended to protect existing owners and landlords, but curb the rampant corporate housing investment that is already happening and expected to increase with the new laws. 1 Thank you for your consideration,
Resident,
Simon Hammel
Meredith, Alyssa
From: Nick Eckenwiler
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 3:45 PM
To: City Council DL
Cc: City Clerks; City Attorney
Subject: Public Comment on Agenda Item 0.5
Attachments: Burbank ADU Ordinance - 2023.10.17.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good afternoon,
Please see attached for the California Housing Defense Fund's public comment on agenda item 0.5 at today's council meeting. Thank you!
Nicholas Eckenwiler
Legal Fellow
HDF
Oct 17, 2023
City of Burbank
275 East Olive Avenue
Burbank, CA 91502
By Email: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected] Re: Proposed amendment of the City's Accessory Dwelling Unit and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations
Dear Burbank City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund ("CalHDF") submits this letter as a public comment concerning item 0.5 on the agenda for tonight's City Council meeting. This item - a zoning text amendment to attempt to bring the City's legislation into compliance with state law regarding accessory dwelling units, or ADUs and JADUS - presents a number of legal problems. CalHDF urges the Council to address these problems before approving the ordinance.
Deed Restrictions Imposed on ADUs Cannot be Enforced
The deed restrictions imposed on ADUs are unenforceable. This is due to the absence of horizontal privity between the City and the applicant. In other words, since the City does not own the applicant's property at the time of the application, and does not own a neighboring property to whose benefit the proposed restriction(s) redound, black letter property law bars the restrictions from binding future property owners. (See, e.g., Scaringe v. J. C. C. Enters. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1536 [describing the types of privity relationship between covenanting parties that allow enforcement of a deed restriction]; see also Civ. Code § 1460 et seq.) The proposed restrictive covenants and deed restrictions in the ordinance - concerning owner occupancy and square footage - should be cut.
Some Design Standards in the Proposed Ordinance Are Not Objective Only "objective" standards may be imposed on ADUs. (Gov. Code § 65852.2, subds. (a)1)(B)(i), (e)(7); see also Gov. Code § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(C).) "Objective standards" are those that "involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by 360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
reference to an external and uniform benchmark." (Gov. Code § 65852.2, subd. (j)(7).) The proposed ordinance falls short of this standard on several points:
• In the rules for ADU square footage, the ordinance states attached balconies, porches, or patios count towards the square footage allowance. The rules also state, "The building division will determine what is considered a landing or a balcony, porch, or patio for purposes of square footage requirements." This discretion vested with the building division renders this a clear example of a subjective standard. It must be removed.
• In the rules for garage conversions, the design standards state, "The garage door must be removed and replaced with windows, door, or other exterior design features that match the exterior design of the structure and the primary dwelling unit." It is not objective what it means for design features to "match the exterior design" of either the ADU or the primary dwelling unit. An applicant cannot know ex ante and with certainty whether their design will satisfy the rules. Thus, the language here must be made more precise, or else it must be deleted.
ADUs Are Now Completely Immune from Owner Occupancy Requirements Recently-passed AB 1033 amended the statewide ADU law, effective next year, to bar owner occupancy requirements for ADUs. "No additional standards, other than those provided in this subdivision, shall be used or imposed, including an owner-occupant requirement." (Gov.
Code § 65852.2(a)(8).) (Previously, cities could impose owner-occupant requirements on ADUs permitted after January 1, 2025, but not before.) The sections of the proposed ordinance imposing an owner-occupant requirement, on ADUs in both single-family and multi-family zones, must be stricken.
CalHDF appreciates the Council's attention to its ADU ordinance. As the Council knows, our state faces an acute housing crisis, and ADUs are a crucial part of the solution. It is important, then, that local implementing ordinances follow the law, and CalHDF urges the Council to correct the problems described above before approving the ordinance.
CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households.
You may learn more about CalHDF at
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
20f2