1 STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 3, 2025
TO: Justin Hess, City Manager
FROM: Patrick Prescott, Community Development Director
VIA: Fred Ramirez, Assistant Community Development Director - Planning Amanda Landry, Principal Planner
Greg Mirza-Avakyan, Senior Planner
BY: Fatima Benitez, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Introduction of an Ordinance Establishing Conditional Use Permit and Administrative Use Permit Minor Modification Processes and Clarification of Application Withdrawal Process
RECOMMENDATION
Introduce AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 1 (ZONING) OF THE BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE
BY ESTABLISHING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ADMINISTRATIVE USE
PERMIT MINOR MODIFICATION PROCESSES , CLARIFYING THE PROCESS TO
WITHDRAW LAND USE ENTITLEMENT APPLICATIONS, AND MAKING OTHER RELATED MINOR TEXT AMENDMENTS ( PROJECT NUMBER 25 -0001894, ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT) (ATTACHMENT 1).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Community Development Department (CDD) has received multiple requests and inquiries in the past several years related to minor amendments to existing land use permits, including Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) and Administrative Use Permits (AUPs). The Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) does not have a process to approve minor modifications to existing AUP and CUP conditions of approval or permit features. Instead, minor modifications are currently processed through submittal of a new application for the underlying permit, which can be costly and take significant time to process. The proposed Ordinance will establish a streamlined procedure to process minor modifications of
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
2 existing CUPs and AUPs without the need to file a full CUP or AUP application. This process is intended to be utilized in instances where the proposed changes do not result in a substantial alteration or material deviation from the original operational requirements or conditions of approval of the underlying permit . Streamlining requests for minor modifications will facilitate necessary adjustments that support the reasonable operation of the previously approved use while maintaining the intent and purpose of the original approval. Additionally, the proposed Ordinance clarifies the process for withdrawing a land use entitlement application and requesting refunds of related application fees.
BACKGROUND
City staff, including those in the CDD Planning and Economic Development Division s, have received multiple inquiries from local business owners about how to obtain minor changes to approved CUPs and AUPs that would e nhance their operations or enable them to better adapt to customer needs. These requests, from businesses such as coffee shops, restaurants, retail stores, and personal and physical arts studios, typically involve matters such as adjusting hours of operation, building minor additions and/or interior remodels, or modifying alcohol licenses so that restaurants may serve alcohol in outdoor dining areas in the public right -of-way adjacent to their businesses . Although these requests are relatively minor and generally do not introduce additional impacts to neighboring properties, the BMC does not currently provide a mechanism to consider or approve such requests, and the longstanding practice has been to require applicants to apply for a new CUP or AUP. However, obtaining a new CUP or AUP can be a lengthy and costly process to address relatively minor changes with little to no impact , and can be a deterrent to business or property owners from making necessary improvements to their business operations.
Conditional Use Permits
The CUP process is described in BMC § 10-1- 1934 et seq. and establishes a discretionary review process for land uses that require special consideration before being approved (Attachment 4). These uses involve operational characteristics or project features that may have the potential to adversely impact adjacent or nearby properties , thereby requiring special analysis to ensure such impacts are properly addressed by applying project conditions of approval related to traffic, noise, vibration, and other similar impacts. The CUP process is a discretionary review that also considers the potential impact of a proposed use on property values, health, safety, and welfare in the surrounding neighborhood or community. The authority to grant a CUP lies with either the Planning Commission or, upon appeal, the City Council, with both bodies authorized to impose conditions of approval to ensure the Project aligns with the general intent of the City’s zoning regulations and the General Plan, and does not adversely affect the public health, convenience, safety, and welfare. The CUP process requires a public hearing and public notification. The current application fee for a CUP is $9,934.23 for non-single family 3 residential projects, and $5,948.12 for single family residential projects, which represents the City’s cost to process and administer these applications.
Administrative Use Permits
The AUP process is described in BMC § 10 -1-1954 et seq. (Attachment 4). The AUP process is also a discretionary review and is designed to provide a more streamlined review for land uses that are generally less intrusive and impactful and more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood than those requiring a CUP . The intent behind the AUP is to allow the Community Development Director (Director) to manage the review of land uses and impose conditions of approval on projects where the impact on the community is minimal, allowing for a more efficient review process while still ensuring the protection of public interests. The AUP process requires public notification, but does not require a public hearing, unless the Director’s decision is appealed to the Planning Commission. While the AUP application fee varies depending on the type of project and related complexity, in general , the application fee for a non- residential AUP is currently $4,866.77.
BMC Precedent for Approving Minor Changes to Approved Projects The BMC does not include a formal procedure for requesting minor modifications to the scope of a project or conditions of approval of approved CUPs or AUPs. However, the BMC does contain two provisions that allow review authorities to approve a very narrow scope of minor changes to approved projects:
1. BMC § 10-1-1949 permits the Planning Commission to approve minor revisions to a site plan after a CUP has been granted without requiring a new hearing, so long as the revisions do not conflict with the original intent, standards, or conditions of the permit or the applicable zoning regulations.
2. BMC § 10-1-19302 allows applicants to submit a modification request of a housing development project approved through a streamlined ministerial review authorized by Senate Bill (SB) 35. The applicant can request modification of approval after ministerial review and approval and prior to issuance of final building permit pursuant to California Government Code §§ 65913.4, 65912.100 et seq., or other
applicable state law. The modification is reviewed by the Director to confirm compliance with state law.
Survey of Neighboring Cities
An analysis of similar procedures in eight jurisdictions indicates that five have implemented similar processes – the cities of Beverly Hills, Long Beach, Pasadena, and West Hollywood along with the County of Los Angeles (Attachment 5).
4 DISCUSSION
Minor Modification Process
The following summary describes proposed modifications to the BMC to address the need for an additional procedure that would ensure substantial conformance with an original decision and allow for minor modifications that do not significantly deviate from the terms and conditions of the previously approved CUP or AUP. The full redline text of the proposed BMC amendment is included in Exhibit A to Attachment 1.
Definitions: For purposes of the new CUP and AUP Minor Modification processes, the proposed Ordinance defines “Substantial Conformance” to mean that the minor modification does not alter the original approval findings, original project description, design, operation, conditions of approval, or original environmental review determination, in a way that creates a new significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood or environment.
Initial Eligibility: A CUP or AUP is ineligible for a minor modification request if , at the time of the request, conditions exist on the site in violation of the Zoning Code or any permit or other approval issued under the Zoning Code, unless the minor modification seeks to address and correct those violations.
Procedure: To ensure that the requests are reviewed through a public and transparent process, all requests for minor modifications will be processed in accordance with the same procedures for application submittal, administrative review by the Director, and public notice currently in place for AUPs. All decisions on minor modification requests for CUPs and AUPs will be issued by the Director and appealable to the Planning Commission.
Required Findings : To approve a minor modification request, the Director must determine that the minor modification is in substantial conformance with the existing CUP or AUP by making the findings listed below. This approach provides a consistent framework for evaluating proposed changes while upholding the intent of the original permit findings.
1. The proposed minor modification request does not alter the findings of the approved CUP or AUP, and that such findings can still be affirmatively made.
2. The proposed minor modification does not involve a feature of the project inclusive of the environmental determination and any mitigation measure that was specifically addressed in or was a basis for findings in a categorical or statutory exemption, Negative Declaration (ND), Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act for the project.
5 3. The proposed minor modification does not involve a feature of the project that was specifically addressed in or was a basis for conditions of approval for the original CUP or AUP (or any subsequent amendments or modifications), unless that feature no longer exists, or the Director otherwise determines the project is still operated in substantial conformance with the original findings for the CUP or AUP.
Fees: To reflect the reduced administrative cost to process requests for minor modifications of existing CUPs and AUPs, staff proposes a minor modification fee of $1,800. If Council introduces the proposed Ordinance, this fee update will be presented concurrently with the Second Reading and Adoption of the proposed Ordinance and Council will be asked to adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment 2).
Additional BMC Amendments:
The following summary describes additional amendments proposed under the Ordinance to similarly transfer approval authority from the Planning Commission to the Director for minor revisions to a site plan after approval of an existing CUP and clarify the process for withdrawing a land use entitlement application and requesting related application fee refunds. The full redline text of the proposed BMC amendments are included in Exhibit A to Attachment 1.
1) Amend BMC § 10-1-1949 to revise the review authority for minor revisions to a site plan after a CUP has been approved from the Planning Commission to the Director. This change will align with the intent of the proposed ZTA to provide a more efficient review process of minor modifications. In addition, it will save staff resources by eliminating the need for subsequent review by the Planning Commission.
2) Amend BMC § 10-1-1907, to include withdrawal, refund, and inactive application provisions to clearly specify the conditions under which an application may be eligible for a full or partial refund, when an application is considered inactive, and the process by which such applications will be administratively withdrawn. This change will provide clarity for those applying for any entitlement application.
Approval by the City Council:
The proposed Ordinance amends the text of Title 10 of the BMC and involves procedural changes only. The proposed Ordinance does not involve amendments to the City’s land use regulations or property development standards, and therefore does not require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. As a result, the proposed Ordinance may be directly initiated and approved by the City Council pursuant to BMC §§ 10-1-1985 and 10-1-1989.
6 Consistency with the Burbank2035 General Plan
California Government Code § 65860 requires that any ZTA be consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the City General Plan.
As explained further in Attachment 3 to this report, the proposed Ordinance is consistent with Goal 3 (Community Design & Character) and Goal 6 (Economic Vitality and Diversity) of the Burbank2035 General Plan Land Use Element.
Interdepartmental Review
While the scope of the proposed Ordinance is administrative, Planning staff consulted with the Economic Development Division, which noted that several local businesses have expressed interest in modifying conditions to previously approved CUPs and AUPs. The most common requests involve extending hours of operation to meet customer demand.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Staff presented to the Burbank Chamber of Commerce on May 15, 2025, the details of the proposed modification process, and the impact it could have on providing additional flexibility and options to local business owners . The presentation was well received by both the Chamber and the businesses in attendance. Staff noted there was enthusiasm about the potential benefits. This is an exciting development for local businesses, as it presents opportunities to reduce operational costs and improve overall efficiency. Though not required by law for this type of administrative procedural change, a public notice regarding the proposed Zone Text Amendment was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City on May 17, 2025. Information about the proposed Ordinance was also made available on the Planning Division webpage. No comments or feedback were received.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed ZTA has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff recommends that the Council find the ZTA is exempt from review under CEQA (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq,) pursuant to § 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because the proposed amendment affects administrative procedural requirements only, and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. No unusual circumstances exist that would preclude the use of this exemption. Furthermore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15378, this Ordinance is not considered a “project” subject to the requirements of CEQA because the ZTA has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment
.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund by adopting the proposed Ordinance. 7 If the proposed Ordinance is adopted, staff has prepared a draft resolution for Council consideration that would amend the City Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2025-26 to establish fees for a CUP Minor Modification and AUP Minor Modification (Attachment 2).
The proposed fee was determined based upon the amount of staff time to review similar applications and is lower than a regular CUP or AUP application fee to account for the streamlined processing.
CONCLUSION
The changes outlined in the proposed Ordinance are intended to provide a streamlined and efficient approach for businesses seeking adjustments to existing approved CUPs and AUPs that do not significantly alter the original approval terms. By enabling businesses to more efficiently modify conditions, the proposed Ordinance supports economic vitality and flexibility, thereby fostering increased business activity, job creation, and overall economic development, without imposing a financial burden on the City’s resources. Staff anticipates receiving approximately three to six applications per year for this streamlined process.
By allowing for an open and transparent process to consider minor changes that are in substantial conformance with the original conditions, the O rdinance ensures that public health, convenience, safety, and welfare are still maintained while supporting the reasonable operation of businesses.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Ordinance
Attachment 2 – AUP Fee Resolution (to be presented for adoption on June 24, 2025) Attachment 3 – Consistency with Burbank2035 General Plan Attachment 4 – Excerpts of Existing CUP & AUP BMC §§ 10-1-1934 & 10-1-1954 Attachment 5 – Survey of Neighboring Jurisdictions