1 STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 7, 2023
TO: Justin Hess, City Manager
FROM: Patrick Prescott, Community Development Director
V IA: Fred Ramirez, Asst. Community Development Director – Planning BY: Scott Plambaeck, Planning Manager
Amanda Landry, Principal Planner
Joseph Pangilinan, Associate Planner
Fatima Benitez, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Adoption of Ordinance Amending Title 10 of the Burbank Municipal Code Pertaining to the Development Standards for Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units in all Single -Family and Multi -Family Residential Zones, and on any Lots with Proposed or Existing Single-Family or Multi-Family Uses
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 1 (ZONING) OF THE BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE
TO UPDATE THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN ALL SINGLE -
FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES, AND ON ANY LOTS WITH
PROPOSED OR EXISTING SINGLE -FAMILY OR MULTIFAMILY USES TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH STATE LAW (ATTACHMENT 1).
SUMMARY
On October 17, 2023, the City Council held a public hearing to introduce AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 1 (ZONING) OF THE BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN ALL SINGLE -FAMILY AND MULTI -FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL ZONES, AND ON ANY LOTS WITH PROPOSED OR EXISTING
SINGLE-FAMILY OR MULTI -FAMILY USES TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH STATE LAW.
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
2 At the public hearing, the City Council c onsidered staff’s recommendation on the proposed updates to Title 10, Chapter 1. Staff also addressed several public comments generally concerning deed restrictions imposed on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and several of the proposed design and development standards that may be construed as vague or overly broad and therefore, not objective. In response to the public comments about restrictive covenants related to deed restrictions for additional on- site parking in excess of state requirements an d the other regarding an on- site owner occupancy requirement, staff clarified that the intent of Subsection F of the proposed Ordinance relating to a deed restriction for additional on-site parking is to incentivize the provision of on-site parking and minimize offsite impacts to adjacent residential properties. In addition, staff clarified that the purpose of Subsection I of the proposed Ordinance relating to owner-occupancy restrictions is intended to allow the City to require such covenant again without further action by the City Council if the state requirement restricting such a covenant were to go away . The Ordinance (Attachment 1) has been amended to help clarify this intent. Furthermore, staff acknowledged that the proposed language regarding Building Official discretion over what constitutes a landing, balcony, porch, or patio and the development standards regarding the treatment of garage doors that are being replaced with alternate design features (e.g., windows and/or entry doors) should be further refined to ensure they meet the state definition of an objective development standard.
After discussion, the City Council voted to introduce the O rdinance, with direction to include minor changes to the proposed Ordinance that would codify the responses given by staff, as outlined above.
Vote at Introduction:
AYES: Mullins, Perez, Takahashi, Schultz, and Anthony.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
Based on the direction provided to staff at the introduction of the Ordinance, the following modifications to the development standards for ADUs and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) have been made:
• BMC Section 10 -1-620.3(F)(6) (former numbering) has been deleted in the proposed Ordinance and the remainder of subsection (F) has been renumbered accordingly.
BMC Section 10 -1-620.3(F)(6) formerly stated, “The building division will determine what is considered a landing or a balcony, porch, or patio for the purposes of square footage requirements.”
3 • BMC Section 10-1-620.3(I) has been amended to read as follows (for the purposes of clarity, the proposed amendments are noted in red):
“Special Note: Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(8), the City shall not impose any owner-occupancy and restrictive covenant requirements noted in this section, inclusive of the following items 1) through 3) until January 1, 2025, or a later date if said prohibition is subsequently extended by state law . If state law is amended at a future date to allow owner-occupancy restrictions before January, 1, 2025 , then this Owner Occupied and Restrictiv e Covenant Section shall spring back into effect without further action of the City Council.” • BMC Section 10-1-620.3(J)(1) has been amended to read as follows (for the purposes of clarity, the proposed amendments are noted in red):
“1. When a garage is converted into an ADU, the garage door must be removed and replaced with one or more windows and/or, a residential entry door, or other exterior design features that match the exterior design of the structure and the primary dwelling unit.”
Lastly, staff would like to clarify the following in response to public comments related to possible changes to the City’s R -1 standards regarding new on- site trees for new construction and the consideration of rent control for ADUs . First, the ADU ZTA as proposed via the Ordinance does not change the City’s residential development standards for trees. Citywide development standards will continue to require two trees for each single-family dwelling, with the size of tree well and placement dictated by the BMC’s zoning regulations. Second, the ZTA and Ordinance before the City Council are focused on addressing the design and development standards for ADUs in the City to comply with the State ADU Laws as noted in Senate Bill 897 and Assembly Bill 2221, which amended, in part, California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22. The public comment focused on possible rent control of ADUs is a broader issue than the development standards being considered under the proposed ZTA and Ordin ance.
Therefore, staff is considering this rent control comment as being outside of the scope of this ZTA and Ordinance and would be best suited as part of a larg er rent control discussion by the City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.17, adoption of the Zone Text Amendment and Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under PRC Section 21080.17, CEQA does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance by a city or county to implement the provisions of Section 65852.2 of the Government Code (State ADU law). The ZTA implements California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 within the City of Burbank in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of S tate ADU/JADU Laws. As such, the proposed ZTA and Ordinance is exempt from CEQA.
FISCAL IMPACT
4 Approval of the proposed ZTA and adoption of the proposed Ordinance will not impact the City’s General Fund. Applications for all proposed ADU/JADUs will be subject to the City’s Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Fee Schedule. The proposed ZTA will allow more flexibility for property owners to create additional housing opportunities for the community. This will increase the number of building permit applications received by the City; however, the cost to review these applications is recovered through fees paid by the applicant, including consultants used for the permit review process. Proponents of future developments would be required to pay the associated development impact fees as well as any required infrastructure connection and maintenance fees. Lastly, as residents upgrade their properties with ADUs or JADUs, their properties will be reassessed at a higher valuation and therefore increasing property tax.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the revised proposed Ordinance. The changes outlined in the proposed ZTA are intended to resolve inconsistencies between the City’s local ADU/JADU development standards and the amended State ADU/JADU Laws. Without the adoption of the propose d ZTA, the City may be vulnerable to legal challenges of its ADU/JADU regulations due to potential inconsistencies with current State ADU L aw. The proposed ZTA will facilitate ongoing responsible development of new housing units, which will create new housing opportunities and building types to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation while putting in place development standards as allowed under the law which help preserve and protect the character of existing residential neighborhoods and maintains as much local control as allowed under applicable regulations.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Ordinance
Attachment 2 – Revised Redline Changes to BMC