1 STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 10, 2024
TO: Justin Hess, City Manager
FROM: Patrick Prescott, Community Development Director VIA: Fred Ramirez, Asst. Community Development Director – Planning Scott Plambaeck, Planning Manager
BY: Amanda Landry, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Adoption of an Urgency Ordinance and Introduction of a Regular Ordinance to Amend the Streamlined Ministerial Review Process for Development Projects Subject to Streamlined Ministerial Review when Required by State Law, Including Government Code Sections 65913.4 (SB 35) and 65912.100 et seq. (AB 2011)
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURBANK TO AMEND THE STREAMLINED MINISTERIAL REVIEW AND
APPROVAL PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS SUBJECT TO
STREAMLINED MINISTERIAL REVIEW WHEN REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, INCLUDING CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65913.4 (SB 35) and 65912.100 ET SEQ. (AB 2011) (Zone Text Amendment No. 24 -0006014) (Attachment 1) (Unanimous 4-0 vote of current City Council Members required for adoption).
2. Introduce AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK TO
AMEND THE STREAMLINED MINISTERIAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL
PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS SUBJECT TO STREAMLINED
MINISTERIAL REVIEW WHEN REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, INCLUDING CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65913.4 (SB 35) AND 65912.100 ET SEQ. (AB 2011) (Zone Text Amendment No. 24-0006015) (Attachment 2).
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
2 BACKGROUND
The City of Burbank (City) is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process established by Senate Bill (SB) 35 (adopted in 2017, as subsequently amended, and codified in California Government Code § 65913.4) (Attachment 3) for residential developments because of insufficient progress in providing housing units toward fulfilling the Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) allocation during the fifth planning cycle (2014 – 2021). The purpose of SB 35 is to create a streamlined ministerial approval process for cities that have not made sufficient progress toward meeting their RHNA allocation and to process development applications expeditiously. In addition to SB 35, the City is required to comply with the provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 2011 (adopted in 2022, as subsequently amended, and codified in California Government Code §§ 65912.100 et seq.) , which also allows a streamlined, ministerial review process for housing projects in commercial zones and corridors that meet certain objective standards and affordability and site criteria that is similar to the SB 35 streamlined ministerial review process.
SB 423 (Attachment 4), adopted in 2023 and effective January 1, 2024, made a number of amendments to SB 35. Importantly, SB 423 removed authorization for local agencies to conduct “public oversight” of SB 35 streamlined ministerial development applications and removed “ City Council” and “ Board of S upervisors” from the SB 35 project review process. AB 2243 (Attachment 5), adopted in 2024 and effective January 1, 2025, similarly removes “ City Council” and “ Board of S upervisors” from the AB 2011 project review process.
The City’s streamlined ministerial review process, codified at Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) § 10-1- 19300, et. seq., requires a Council public hearing to conduct public oversight and design review and is, therefore, inconsistent with the current provisions of State law that removed “City Council” from the SB 35 and AB 2011 streamlined ministerial review process. Further, AB 3122 (Attachment 6), adopted in 2024 and effective January 1, 2025, along with AB 2243, shorten consistency review times for streamlined ministerial development review application resubmittals from 60 days for projects of 150 or fewer housing units, and from 90 days for projects larger than 150 housing units, down to just 30 days. This change conflicts with the BMC resubmittal review period of 60 days for projects of 150 or fewer housing units, and 90 days for projects larger than 150 housing units. Failure to complete this consistency review within the shortened 30- day timeline results in a project being deemed to satisfy state and local objective planning standards (and thereby, deemed approved by operation of law), regardless of actual compliance with such standards.
As a result, the proposed U rgency Ordinance is necessary to immediately preserve the public peace, health, safety, and welfare by updating the BMC to conform with recent State law changes to the SB 35 and AB 2011 streamlined ministerial review process. 3 DISCUSSION
Council may adopt an emergency measure to preserve the public peace, health, safety, or welfare pursuant to City Charter § 500 if the measure is passed by not less than four members of the Council.
In accordance with the recent State law changes made by SB 423, AB 3122, and AB 2243, the proposed Urgency Ordinance would remove the mandatory Council public oversight and design review hearing, require the Community Development Director to conduct such review and approval within the applicable State mandated timelines, and clarify that the Director’s decision is final. The proposed Urgency Ordinance also makes other minor clarifying updates. Failure to immediately update the BMC through the proposed Urgency Ordinance may cause significant risk that development projects subject to streamlined ministerial review will be deemed consistent with applicable state and local objective standards, regardless of actual consistency, due to the City’s failure to conduct timely review in accordance with the updated 30- day review period. An Urgency Ordinance is therefore necessary to preserve the City’s authority to apply local objective standards to streamlined ministerial housing development projects, reduce confusion over conflicting State and local project review timeframes, and ensure the City can complete streamlined ministerial project review within shortened statutory deadlines.
In the event that the facts constituting the urgency are challenged, staff also recommends the Council introduce a regular Ordinance to amend the BMC in the same way as outlined in the proposed Urgency Ordinance. Under BMC § 10-1-1985, the proposed regular Ordinance may be adopted without a public hearing because it does not involve amendments to property development standards or land use regulations . The proposed regular Ordinance relates to application approval procedures and therefore may be considered without a public hearing.
While neither the City Charter nor the BMC require formal public noticing in advance of the Council’s consideration of the Urgency Ordinance or permanent Ordinance, notification about these efforts was distributed through available City resources, including posting on the City’s website, notification through eNotify, and announcements on the City’s social media outlets. A meeting announcement was also published in the Burbank Leader on December 7, 2024.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed Urgency Ordinance and regular Ordinance have been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed updates to Title 10, Chapter 1 of the BMC seek to amend the City’s streamlined ministerial review process for development projects submitted under SB 35 (Government Code § 65913.4), AB 2011 ( Government Code §§ 65912.100 et seq.), and any other state law that may require streamlined ministerial review . The proposed Urgency Ordinance and regular 4 Ordinance will not affect the City’s underlying zoning and/or land use designations as they currently exist in the City’s Zoning Ordinance and the Burbank2035 General Plan and will thus not have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
Therefore, the proposed Urgency Ordinance and regular Ordinance have been determined to be exempt from CEQA review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Article 18: Statutory Exemptions, § 15061( b)(3). This section of the CEQA Guidelines establishes a statutory exemption when “The activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.”
Additionally, pursuant to California Government Code
§§ 65912.114(o) and 65912.124(o), adoption of the Urgency Ordinance and regular Ordinance for implementing a streamlined, ministerial review process for AB 2011 applications shall not be considered a “project” under Division 13 (commencing with § 21000) of the Public Resources Code and therefore, the Urgency Ordinance and regular Ordinance are not a “project” subject to CEQA review.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed updates to the BMC will amend the City’s streamlined ministerial review process for development projects submitted under SB 35 ( California Government Code § 65913.4), AB 2011 (California Government Code §§ 65912.100 et seq.), and any other state law that may require streamlined ministerial review . The Urgency Ordinance and regular Ordinance propose updates to an existing process and do not propose any changes to the established cost recovery application fees for development project applications (or notices of intent to submit such applications) subject to streamlined ministerial review. Therefore, the proposed BMC updates will not have an impact on the City’s budget.
CONCLUSION
Staff has prepared an update to the City's streamlined, ministerial review process for applications subject to streamlined ministerial review pursuant to State law, including SB 35 and AB 2011, to bring the City’s procedures into conformity with recent amendments to State law. The proposed updates to the BMC will remove the mandatory Council public oversight and design review hearing, which is no longer allowed pursuant to amendments made to the SB 35 and AB 2011 streamlined ministerial review process by SB 423 and AB 2243, align the City’s local review process with the current State mandated shortened project resubmittal review period of 30 days consistent with AB 3122 and AB 2243, and make other minor clarifications.
ATTACHMENTS
5 Attachment 1 – Urgency Ordinance
Attachment 2 – Ordinance
Attachment 3 – Government Code Section 65913.4
Attachment 4 – Senate Bill 423
Attachment 5 – Assembly Bill 2243
Attachment 6 – Assembly Bill 3122