The purpose of this report is to consider a request by PW, LLC (aka: The Platt Companies) for a proposed Planned Development and a Development Agreement and to consider an Environmental Impact Report related thereto for a mixed used development at the above referenced property.

Property Location: The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Olive Avenue and Lima Street. The address ranges for the site are 3400, 3408, 3440 West Alameda, 112, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 125, 127, 129, 133 North Avon Street, 3401, 3407, 3413, 3421 West Olive Avenue and 111 North Lima Street. (Lots 1-10, 14 and 15, Tract No. 10135 [M.B 141-21-22], Lots 1 and 2 of Block 63 of the Subdivision of Rancho Providencia and Scott Tract [M.R. 43-47-49], Tract No. 9560 [M.B. 133-43-44], Tract No. 7553 [M.B. 99-16-17]). The project also includes 2,457 square feet of land currently owned by Caltrans. (Exhibit A)

Zoning: The subject property is zoned Media District Medium Density Residential (MDR-4) and Media District Limited Commercial (MDC-2). The request is to change this zoning to a planned development (PD) zone. (Exhibit A)

General Plan Designation: The property is located within the Media District Specific Plan (MDSP) and is a portion of an area identified as the Media Center North. This area is intended for commercial mixed-use development. The General Plan designation is commercial. (Exhibit A)

Property Dimensions: The property is an irregular shape consisting of 3.8 acres (165,362 square feet (sf)). This includes Avon Street (approximately 24,780 sf) and two alleys totaling approximately 32,980 sf which are requested to be vacated as part of this project request.

Street Classifications: Olive Avenue and Alameda Avenue are considered major arterials. Lima Street and Avon Street are local streets. The right-of-way along Olive and Alameda ranges from 90 to 100 feet with a roadway width on Olive from 68 to 80 feet and a roadway width on Alameda of 68 feet. The right-of-way on Lima is 60 feet with a 39 foot roadway. The alleys are 20 feet wide and Avon is currently 60 feet wide.

Current Development of the Site: The existing site consists of multi-family and single-family residential buildings and commercial buildings in addition to a church with adjoining community room. (Exhibit A) The following is a listing of the existing improvements on site:

Surrounding Neighborhood: Westerly adjacent to the subject site along Alameda Avenue is vacant land which will be used for a relocated off-ramp from the State Route 134 freeway to be built by Caltrans. Further to the west will be a new on-ramp to the freeway and a relocated substation. Across Alameda from the subject site are multi-family buildings and further to the north is a single-family residential neighborhood. To the east of the subject site is vacant land that has received approval from the City Council through the PD process to build a phased project consisting of office space and a theatre and museum use as proposed by the Bob Hope Family. Across Olive Avenue is the Pinnacle project which is a 585,600 square foot office and incidental retail and restaurant project. Approximately 400,000 square feet is currently built and the second phase will contain the balance. Further to the south of this project is the State Route 134 Freeway. (Exhibit A)

Project Description: The applicant is requesting approval of a mixed use project. (Exhibit B) The original request was for two different development scenarios, the first including a 384-room hotel and the second replacing the hotel with a residential apartment tower. Both of these development scenarios were analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). After several community meetings and input from residents, the applicant withdrew the request for the first development scenario and re-submitted an application outlining the second scenario in more detail. In addition, the applicant had requested approval of an alternate to the request to allow for a flexible development entitlement depending on market and other demands which would have included additional residential units. Both of these alternatives were studied in the Final EIR.

On August 7, 2002, the applicant again amended the project to change all office space to media office and to offer that a minimum of 33,000 square feet of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) would be obtained rather than coming from Development Opportunity Reserve (DOR) (both of these terms are explained in the analysis portion of the report) to reduce Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to 2.59. In addition, the applicant withdrew an interim request for a "flexible" alternative development project as it became apparent that the project would not meet many of the goals of the Media District Specific Plan (MDSP).

Subsequent to the Planning Board hearing on the matter, the applicant again revised his project to reduce the height of two buildings, reduce the units and square footage, amend the proposed phasing of the project and increase the parking in the first phase.

Therefore, the two following tables lists the original proposal, the proposal discussed at the Planning Board hearing and the currently proposed project so that the Council may understand the currently proposed project in context with what was originally requested. The first of the following two tables also lists the five proposed buildings indicating their height and uses. The second of the following two tables identifies the square footage and project specifics for each of the uses.

The project involves the construction of five buildings. Four of the buildings utilize glass and steel for the exterior materials, creating a transparent look. The glass extends beyond the functional space of the building creating "windows" to see through. The 12 story office building contains "sky gardens" that are enclosed in glass but offer a type of open space for those in the building�s higher floors. The fifth building (the townhomes off of Alameda) includes more solid elements such as stucco, tile and aluminum. Translucent materials are also used such as frosted glass, sun shades and louvers. The ground level contains the more transparent glass material. The applicant is proposing double paned low-emissivity (low-e) glass on all facades.

The applicant is proposing awnings and sun shades along the front yards (near the sidewalk) on both Alameda and Olive. The applicant proposes an extensive landscaping program consisting of mature trees, grass and planters. Decorative hardscape is also proposed throughout the public plaza areas.

The applicant is proposing to provide funds for a neighborhood protection program to comprehensively address community concerns regarding intrusion (parking and circulation) into residential neighborhoods. In addition, the developer has proposed an on-site community coordinator that would be available during construction to immediately address any concerns of residents. The applicant is proposing a child care program that will accommodate 144 children.

The applicant does not own all of the property on the subject site. If approved, the change of zone would be contingent upon the applicant having ownership of all properties. One exception is that the applicant is requesting approval of the site to extend to property currently owned by Caltrans (State of California Department of Transportation), however if the applicant does not possess control over this property, the PD zone would not apply to this land but would still be in effect for the remaining property if approved by the City Council.

The open spaces encompass over 58,000 square feet of the total site area or approximately 35%; total lot coverage is 65%. These open spaces are accented with sitting areas and a water feature almost in the middle of the site. The project is also identified by an approximately 110 foot high architectural feature that serves as a steeple for the church.

The 15 story residential building provides recreational amenities on the rooftop and contains a community room indoors.

The applicant is proposing to construct the project in up to two phases. The phases are listed below with approximate time frames for construction. However, if the project were approved, the actual dates for construction might change depending on market conditions and other factors.

Phase 1 � Demolish all buildings on site. Construct all buildings except the 12 story office building and construct the required parking for those buildings in the first phase. This includes the 15 story residential building on Olive Avenue with ground floor retail and restaurants. Construct the 5 story residential building on Alameda with ground floor retail and restaurants. Construct the 50 foot high church building (two levels above-ground, one level below) on Alameda. Construct the 6 story office building spanning the width of the lot with the health club and child care facility. The child care will be built to accommodate 144 children, however will be operational for only 72 children in the first phase. The remainder of the site (where the 12 story office building will be located) will be landscaped with grass. The parking is proposed to be located in up to 7 levels beneath the buildings constructed and will meet code required parking plus an additional 50 spaces utilizing a shared parking demand analysis (a total of 2,004 spaces). Construction is anticipated to begin in October 2003 and be completed in June 2005 with full occupancy expected in June 2006.

Phase 2 � Construct the 12 story office building and the parking spaces required for this building in a 6 and 7 level subterranean structure (this parking will be merged with the existing parking to provide for underground circulation through most of the site). The child care will be operational for all 144 children in this second phase. Therefore, if this second phase is not constructed, the child care will not be expanded to accommodate 144 children. Construction is anticipated to begin in July 2006 and be completed in March 2007 with full occupancy expected in March 2008.

The application is a request to create a new zone with its own development standards. However, to fully analyze the request, it is important to provide Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) as a point of reference and note where the project varies from code or where discretionary permits are traditionally required. The following table lists those characteristics and compares them to code that would traditionally be imposed on commercial and residential projects if this were not a request to create a Planned Development zone.

Some of the items listed above are discussed in more detail below:

1. Zoning- As the existing zoning does not allow for a mixed use project (residential would be allowed in the residential zone or above commercial in the commercial zone, but commercial would be allowed only in the commercial zone), the applicant needed to apply for a PD for this project and the General Plan encourages the PD process for this type of project. Another option would have been to apply for a Zone Map Amendment, but a PD is more appropriate for a mixed use project as there is not one zone in the City that would meet the needs of a mixed use project. The General Plan also states that any project requesting to build to R-5 density must be approved through the PD process. However, using the whole of the site, the project is building to less than R-4 density.
2. Multi-family development standards � BMC has standards for multi-family development projects which this proposed project will vary from. Such standards include 150 square feet of open space per unit conveniently located (project provides open space that is shared with other uses and community room and roof top recreation is located only on 15 story building) and fa�ade variation with minimum dimensions of 3� x 4� (project does not provide such variation on 15 story tower)
3. Development Opportunity Reserve (DOR) � The MDSP allows a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.1 for all properties in the Media District (except for Media Center South) based on office equivalent gross square feet (OEGSF) and not true FAR. The MDSP, however, created a pool of 800,000 square feet (sf) of DOR which developers could request to use through the CUP process. In addition to DOR, the Media District permits use of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). This means that one owner of property can give up their rights to develop to a 1.1 FAR and give those rights to someone else. The applicant is proposing to obtain 94,481 sf of TDR from unknown sources in the Media District (although they have stated an interest in buying some from the City�s substation site). The PD application incorporates the request for 113,400 sf of DOR leaving a balance of over 625,000 sf of DOR in the reserve.
4. Signage � While consistent with the square footages allowed in the BMC, the applicant is requesting a specific sign program that will limit the amount of signage permitted on the sides of buildings facing the residential properties across Alameda. In addition, the location of signs and number of signs may vary from code depending on the lot configurations and other issues. Through the PD process, the City may consider such a signage program.
5. Parking � The applicant is providing code compliant parking based on a shared parking analysis. BMC allows mixed use areas to utilize a shared parking analysis. Such analysis is done in the EIR and requires 1,954 parking spaces for the project. The applicant is proposing to provide 50 parking spaces over this demand. Without the shared parking analysis, 2,512 spaces would be required: 1,234 for the office (3 parking spaces per 1,000 adjusted gross square feet), 364 for residential (1.95/1 bedroom and 2.2/2 bedroom), 194 for the health club (6/1,000), 218 for the retail/restaurant (10/1,000), 458 for the church sanctuary and multi-purpose space (28.6/1,000) and 44 for the child care facility (1/8 students and 1/state required employee). The parking for the first phase would be incrementally different based on the uses built in the first phase.

If the City Council approves the PD, both the PD and DA would be subject to the applicant receiving legal or equitable interest in all of the subject property. Specifically, the applicant has applied for a vacation of the streets and alley on the subject site, but staff will process this request only if City Council has made a decision of approval on the PD application. In addition, two of the lots on the subject property are owned by the Redevelopment Agency. The Redevelopment Agency Board would consider the request to approve the land sales if an offer was made by the applicant.

Environmental Review: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. As this type of report requires a specialized expertise, the City of Burbank hired Impact Sciences, Inc. to provide the services of preparing the report. Impact Sciences subcontracted with Crain and Associates to prepare the traffic study and McKenna, et al. to prepare the historic resources study.

CEQA requires the lead agency, in this case the City of Burbank, to conduct a scoping process to determine which environmental topics to study in the EIR. To comply with this requirement, the City prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP), which was distributed to public agencies in December, 2000 (Exhibit C) and conducted a public scoping meeting to receive comments from the community on December 6, 2000. In May 2001, the City issued a revised NOP to describe changes to the project as proposed by the applicant and provide an opportunity for further comment. The comments received at both the public meeting and in response to the NOP were reviewed and considered in determining which environmental topics should be studied in the EIR.

Staff from all departments reviewed the Draft EIR and all supporting technical studies for accuracy and completeness before Draft EIR was released for public review. In particular, staff closely directed preparation of the project traffic study to ensure completion of an extensive analysis of traffic effects in the surrounding area. The EIR examined existing conditions, future conditions without the project, and then future conditions with the project. The EIR also provides recommended mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen all significant traffic impacts.

As required by CEQA, the Draft EIR was released to the public on September 28, 2001 (Exhibit C) for a 45-day public review period scheduled to close on November 12, 2003. In response to a request from the Planning Board, the Community Development Director extended the comment period until November 30, 2001. However, comments received through December 10, 2001 were accepted and responded to in the Final EIR. (Exhibit C) Any comments received after that date or not relating to the EIR are attached as Exhibit D and described below in a section on public correspondence and input.

1. Areas studied CEQA requires study of topics in an EIR if there is a potential for a significant impact on the environment. Through the initial study and scoping process, it was determined that the following topics should be studied in the Draft EIR: Geology and Soils, Air Quality, Noise, Land Use, Population and Housing, Traffic and Circulation, Public Services and Utilities, Aesthetics and Cultural Resources.
2. Significant Impacts The EIR identified significant impacts based on the thresholds of significance discussed in each section of the EIR. Significant Air Quality, Noise, Geology and Soils, Public Services and Transportation and Circulation impacts are identified in the Draft EIR.
3. Alternatives studied CEQA requires that an EIR provide a comparative evaluation of alternatives to a proposed project to provide information on ways to lessen or avoid the significant impacts of the project. The "no project" alternative must be considered along with other alternatives that can feasibly meet the basic objectives of the project while lessening or avoiding significant impacts. Alternative project designs and alternative sites are typically considered in this analysis. With this project, no alternative sites were identified that could meet the project�s basic objectives. The alternatives that were studied included different densities of the same project with varying land uses. The first was the no project alternative, next was the 1.1 FAR alternative, then the 2.0 FAR, next the 2.1 and in response to a request from the Planning Board on the Draft EIR, a 3.15 FAR/2.72 FAR alternative was also studied in the Final EIR.
4. Impacts that cannot be avoided or reduced below significance After analyzing the areas of potentially significant impacts, the EIR suggested mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. There is one area where the mitigation measures could not reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. This was in regard to Air Quality emissions during construction and operation of the subject project. Before Council may approve the project, they must make findings that there is no feasible way to lessen the Air Quality impacts of the project to a less than significant level or avoid these significant effects and that specifically identified benefits of the project outweigh these significant Air Quality impacts. These findings are not a requirement to certify the EIR, but would need to be made if the Council approves the project. Therefore, these findings are not discussed further in this section of the report, but rather the section on recommendations.
5. Previous project modifications After the Final EIR was complete, the applicant proposed changes to the proposed project. These changes reduced the project FAR to 2.59, but consisted of a project with the same physical characteristics in terms of building locations, general types of uses, and site design as the 3.15 FAR Alternative addressed in the Final EIR. A big part of this change was replacing approximately 230,000 sf of general office space with media office space and utilizing 33,000 sf of TDR rather than DOR. This has the effect of reducing the FAR as defined by the Media District Specific Plan, but the project is designed the same. This is the project that was presented to the Planning Board at their public hearing of October 7, 2002. It was explained to the Board that this change did not require additional environmental analysis to be completed as no new significant environmental impacts would result.
6. Recent project modifications As discussed above in item 3, the Draft and Final EIRs included analysis of a broad range of alternative development scenarios for the project site. Specifically, the Final EIR evaluated a 3.15 FAR/2.72 FAR, which consisted of a project with the same physical characteristics in terms of building locations, general types of uses, and site design as the 2.36 FAR project addressed in this report.

The project as currently proposed reflects several modifications made by the applicant to the 3.15/2.72 FAR alternative assessed in the Final EIR. Specifically, the applicant proposes to change the request to approximately 410,000 sf of media office use for the project (reduction from 472,000 sf). In addition, the applicant is proposing to obtain 97,708 sf of TDR and reduce the request for DOR from 499,362 sf (originally proposed) to 113,400 sf. The two 205 foot buildings proposed have also been reduced to 179 feet tall each. The applicant also proposes to construct the subterranean parking structure in up to 7 levels rather than simply 6 levels. (Exhibit C)

As discussed above in this report, through final review of the project and the MDSP, it has been determined that the FAR of the project is 2.36 when all appropriate OEGSF factors are applied.

As the overall physical configuration and design of the project is similar to the 3.15/2.72 FAR alternative addressed in the Final EIR, the analysis of this alternative applies to the project as currently proposed. No additional environmental analysis is necessary as the recent project modifications would not result in any new significant impacts not addressed in the Draft and Final EIRs. In addition, the modifications would not increase the severity of any of the significant impacts identified in the Draft and Final EIRs. The change in use from general commercial office to media office as well as the reduction in media office sf and 11 residential units will reduce the amount of peak hour traffic generated by the project. The project will, however, still be required to implement all of the mitigation measures for traffic impacts identified in the Final EIR. For this reason, no additional traffic analysis is warranted or necessary. However, attached as Exhibit C is an analysis showing the impacts specifically identified for this modified 2.36 FAR project. The applicant has also submitted a letter from the project geotechnical engineer indicating that the addition of one level of subterranean parking will not result in any additional geology or soils impacts.

A Planned Development as defined in the Burbank Planned Development Ordinance consists of a Development Plan, Development Schedule, and Development Program Statement. The proposed development schedule, or preliminary phasing program, was described in the Draft EIR Project Description section (Page 4.0-9) of the Draft EIR. The EIR describes the project as anticipated being built in three separate phases, however the applicant has also modified this proposal to construct the project in two separate phases. The first phase would consist of the construction of the six story office building including the health club and childcare facility, all residential units, the church and all retail and restaurant space included in each of those buildings as well as subterranean parking for all the phase 1 uses. The second phase would involve development of the 12 story office building with any ground floor retail and the subterranean parking associated with this building. The applicant has submitted a formal plan for the first phase of the project. (Exhibit B) This first phase plan would not result in any new significant impacts not addressed in the Draft or Final EIRs or any increase in the severity of the impacts identified in the Draft or Final EIRs. In fact, the significant impact of operational air quality for the final proposed project (2.36 FAR) can now be reduced to a level of insignificance. Parking will be provided to meet code requirements for the uses included in the first phase and all required traffic mitigation will be implemented.

Standards for requiring additional analysis of a project after a Draft EIR has been prepared are defined in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. As defined in this section, additional analysis of a project is required, and a Draft EIR must be re-circulated for additional public review, when modifications to a project will result in new significant impacts not identified in the Draft EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of the significant impacts is identified in the Draft EIR. The recent project modifications and the first phase plan will not result in either of these circumstances. For this reason, the Final EIR is adequate for the project as currently proposed and no additional environmental analysis is required.

Through the Draft EIR process, City staff and the applicant held community meetings to discuss the Draft EIR and the project in general. Specifically, a community meeting was held at St. Joseph Medical Center on October 3, 2001. This was after the release of the Draft EIR. At this meeting, residents were invited to ask questions and give input on the document and the project in general. In addition, on October 29, 2001, a meeting was held in front of the Planning Board to discuss the Draft EIR. Comments and questions were received and a transcript of the meeting was included in the Final EIR. Each comment and question related to environmental concerns was responded to in the Final EIR. Staff received an additional comment after the Final EIR was circulated by M. David Paul Development, LLC. While CEQA does not require lead agencies to comment after the circulation period, staff feels a response may be in order as the applicant stated the same items addressed in their previous comments. The following is a response to that letter dated September 13, 2002 which is attached as part of Exhibit D.

Complete responses to all comments in the October 16, 2001 and November 30, 2001 letters from M. David Paul & Associates related to traffic impacts on Avon Street were provided on pages 4.0-85 through 87 of the Final EIR.

The methodology for preparing the project traffic study with the City�s computerized traffic model allowed the traffic study to address the impact of the project on the planned future street network in the area. The roadway network modeled for future traffic conditions assumes Avon Street is vacated and the intersections of Lima Street with Alameda and Olive Avenues have been signalized as stated in this comment. The traffic model redistributed existing trips from Avon Street to the other surrounding streets. In this manner the traffic study specifically accounts for the shifting of trips from Avon Street to other surrounding streets.

The traffic study shows that Lima Street will operate at an acceptable level of service with the closure of Avon Street and the addition of traffic from the project as originally proposed and other related projects considered in the cumulative impact analysis, including the Pinnacle and Hope projects. The traffic study demonstrates that no widening of Lima Street is necessary to accommodate projected future traffic volumes. It should be noted that the Final Proposed Project is reduced in size and intensity of use and will generate approximately 52% of the daily trips that would have been generated by the project as originally proposed. Future traffic volumes on Lima Street will, therefore, be lower than those considered in the traffic study.

As discussed in the Draft and Final EIRs, the applicant is requesting a modification of the setback standard on Olive Avenue as part of the application for approval of a Planned Development. Approval of this request and the requests for modification of other applicable development standards is at the discretion of the City Council. Discussion of the design character of the Olive Avenue frontage of the project with the proposed setback is provided in the Draft and Final EIRs and in the staff report.

As indicated in this comment, the applicant has revised the proposed uses in the project to include media office rather than general office uses. This comment requests that the City make a realistic interpretation of the term media office to ensure that this use, as defined in the Media District Specific Plan, is not exploited to allow denser development than would otherwise be allowed.

The media office uses included in the proposed project would be defined and regulated subject to the Media District Specific Plan, consistent with the manner in which all other media office uses are regulated. The use and monitoring of office equivalency factors is defined in Note 6 to the Office Equivalency Factors table on page 60 of the Media District Specific Plan. This note requires that if certain office equivalency factors are used, including Media Office, that a monitoring program be created requiring the applicant to periodically supply sufficient information to the Director of Community Development to ensure that the factors remain valid over time. In order to use any media factors, the applicant is required to execute and record an agreement restricting the use of the building to those media factors that form the basis of the office-equivalency factor for which the applicant is applying. Violation of this agreement is subject to enforcement.

Calculation of the FAR for the project with the office equivalency factor for media office space defined in the Media District Specific Plan is also consistent with the manner in which FAR is calculated for all projects in the Media District Specific Plan Area.

Public Correspondence and Input: The Planning Division has received a significant amount of correspondence from the public regarding this application. Most of the comment letters can be found in the FEIR and are responded to in that document. Specifically, the community was most concerned about height, density, massing and traffic. All comments that related to the environmental impacts were addressed in the FEIR. Many of the comments received, however, relate to the entitlement portion of the project. Meaning, although it is not studied as an environmental impact, it should most certainly be analyzed as part of the PD process. Those comments as well as others that were received (not included in the FEIR) are attached as Exhibit D.

For all meetings, the Planning Division (or City Clerk�s office in the case of this public hearing) mailed out over 4600 notices to a 1000 foot radius plus the Media District mailing which is every resident and property owner north of the 134 freeway, south of Oak Street, from Mariposa Street to City limits at Clybourn. In addition, the notice has been posted on the City�s website, the Channel 6 bulletin and in both the Daily News and Burbank Leader newspapers.

In addition to actual written comments (by mail, e-mail and hand delivery), City staff held four community meetings to discuss the project where verbal comments were given. While two of these meeting were held exclusively to obtain comments on the potential environmental impacts (December 6, 2000 scoping meeting at Stevenson School and October 29, 2001 public meeting at Planning Board), the other two meetings were designed specifically to obtain comments on the project and disperse information about the proposed project (October 3, 2001 at St. Joseph�s hospital and May 16, 2002 at Burroughs High School). The applicant attended all meetings to provide first-hand information on their proposed project. The following is a break-down of the reported attendance at the meetings:

In addition, the Planning Board held a public hearing on September 9, 2002 where they accepted public comment from 35 people. That meeting was continued to September 16, 2002 and concluded on October 7, 2002 when residents were given the opportunity to comment further on the new materials presented at the meetings.

Although some residents had specific concerns or praises, there were definitely major themes that could be pulled out of all of the comments received both verbally and in writing. Most of the comments received were prior to the most recent "down-sizing" the project by the applicant.

Height � Again, not focusing on the environmental aspects but rather the true impacts that the neighborhood was concerned they would "feel," much of the community just does not want a project of this size in this area. Many noted the Bob Hope and Pinnacle projects as appropriate heights for the area.

Mass � Many felt that the project was "just too big." They felt the site could not support this large of a development (over 690,000 square feet). Some felt that there should not be commercial in this area at all, while others felt the MDSP did not allow residential in this area.

Traffic � Many residents have significant concerns over the amount of traffic that the project would generate and how that would impact their lives. Although the Traffic Study did not call for it, many residents expressed a desire for a neighborhood protection program with diverters or other traffic calming improvements.

Parking � Related to traffic, many residents expressed concern over intrusion of parking into the residential neighborhoods, especially if tenants and visitors had to pay for parking.

DOR � Several people expressed concern that this project would utilize a large portion of the remaining DOR thereby preventing its use at other sites in the Media District.

Schools � Staff received some input stating concern over the impact the residential project would have on the local schools.

Church � Staff received several letters and comments from people in support of the renovated church portion of the project stating how important it was to get a new sanctuary.

Child care � Several comments in support of the child care component of the project were received. These commentors noted the need for child care in the area.

Retail/restaurant � Staff heard from several people that retail and restaurant uses would be an added amenity in the area.

An analysis of the project follows below in this report where the topics brought up by the community are discussed. However, a few members of the public made a statement of particular note. They felt that the project was not even eligible to request use of the DOR because the project itself is "large" and that the MDSP allows use of DOR only by "small properties." While the project is considered "large" by many in the community, the MDSP specifically did not define "small projects" but rather simply defined "small properties" as those under four acres. The clear interpretation of the MDSP is that contiguous lots under four acres is the minimum threshold for DOR, which this project site meets.

In addition to the City-held meetings, the applicant held three meetings of their own to describe changes they had made to the project, to understand the concerns of the community and to offer solutions to some of the concerns. A smaller group of residents was assembled at one of these meetings to strictly discuss traffic and possible neighborhood protection measures. However, neither city staff nor city consultants attended these smaller group meetings as they were not noticed to the entire neighborhood.

The applicant submitted a letter noting the major points of concern that the applicant believed ould be addressed. (Exhibit B) These are incorporated as proposed conditions of approval if the Council chooses to approve the project.

The project proposal for a mixed use development in the Media District is subject to analysis through many different areas of BMC and the MDSP. Each part of the following discussion describes how the project is subject to certain findings and analyzes the project against each of those findings.

Before a discussion of the different findings required of the project, it is important to clarify the calculation of office equivalent gross square feet (OEGSF). As stated in the table in the background, the applicant is proposing a project with an OEGSF of 389,694 (the 2.36 FAR alternative). The MDSP set a maximum development limit at a 1.1 FAR (FAR is based on OEGSF, not gross square footage). However, the MDSP recognized that some specific uses generate less peak-hour trips per square foot than a general office and therefore allows more floor area for those uses. Rather than simply allowing more floor area, the MDSP came up with factors to determine the use�s office equivalency, thereby comparing apples to apples for trip generation in the peak hours. For example, a media office generates less peak hour trips and therefore was given an office equivalency factor of 1.33. This means that on a piece of land that is 90,900 sf, you can build approximately 100,000 sf of a general office building or 133,000 sf of a media office building and they will have the same peak hour trip generation.

The MDSP states that other uses that are permitted or conditionally permitted in commercial zones and do not have an established office equivalency should be considered equivalent to a general office. This includes restaurants and health clubs.

The MDSP states that multi-family residential development density is limited by the BMC rather than FAR. However, for the purpose of calculating impact fees, one dwelling unit is equivalent to 297 square feet of office floor area. This is a conservative average given that high-rise luxury condominiums tend to have a lower rate. As this project is creating a new zone, the multi-family residential density is limited by the General Plan rather than BMC. That means no more than 87 units per acre are permitted (consistent with the highest density residential zone (R-5)). As the intent of OEGSF is to compare apples to apples, staff chose to provide a factor for residential units. As the purpose of OEGSF was to allow more development for uses that generate less peak hour trips, basing the residential factor on trip generation is appropriate. There are three ways, however, to consider how residential development relates to FAR and is therefore calculated. The following lists those three ways. It is important to note, however, that this is simply a calculation method and in all three scenarios, the project remains the same with respect to massing, height and size.

1. The development impact fees imposed for residential projects is based on one unit being equal to 297 square feet. In other words, the trip generation for residential projects in peak hours are approximately equal to 297 square feet of general office space. Therefore, to determine OEGSF for the residential portion of the project, staff multiplied 181 units by 297 square feet to get an OEGSF of 53,757 sf. This OEGSF combined with the other uses makes a total of 389,694 OEGSF. By right, the developer could build 181,898 sf (1.1 x site size of 165,362 sf). Subtracting 181,898 from 389,694 leaves a total of 207,796 sf. This is how much DOR and TDR the applicant would need to build the proposed 2.36 FAR project. The applicant is requesting to obtain 94,396 sf of TDR and up to 113,400 sf of DOR.
2. There is a second option to consider how residential development relates to FAR. As mentioned above, the MDSP states that multi-family residential development is limited by code rather than FAR. The PD zone can allow a maximum density for residential that is allowed in the General Plan. This is 87 units per acre or approximately one unit per 500 square feet. The 2.36 FAR alternative proposes 181 units. Based on the one unit per 500 sf limit, the residential development would consume 90,500 square feet of land. That would leave 74,862 sf of land remaining for non-residential uses. Adding the OEGSF for the other uses would be 335,937. Subtracting 82,348 (1.1 x remaining site size of 74,862) leaves a total of 253,589 sf. Less 94,396 sf of TDR to obtain, the applicant would need 159,193 sf of DOR to build the proposed 2.36 FAR project under this calculation scenario.
3. There is yet another way to consider residential development with regard to FAR. The MDSP states that multi-family residential development is limited by code rather than FAR. As code does not specify a maximum residential component for PD (except that it cannot exceed that allowed by the General Plan) an argument can be made that no OEGSF is necessary for residential. Under this scenario, the developer could build the 181 units in addition to the 1.1 FAR all by right. In this case, the DOR needed to build the proposed 2.36 FAR project would be 59,643 sf. Again, although this form of calculation uses significantly less DOR, the project is the same as #1 and #2 described above.

The MDSP does not specify which of the previous methods to use. Of all these scenarios, staff has selected the first to calculate OEGSF for the residential portion of the project. As this scenario relies on the factor used for calculating development impact fees, it recognizes that the peak hour trip generation for one unit is equal to the trip generation of 297 sf of a general office; this is consistent with the definition of OEGSF as stated in the MDSP.

As stated above, office equivalency is allowed in the MDSP to allow more floor area for specific uses which generate less peak-hour trips per square foot than general office buildings. The church, and health club are assumed to have an internal rate factor. This means that they generate less trips as some of the trips associated with them are already assumed for another use on site. Some of these are peak hour trips. Therefore, a higher factor is used for them in order to determine OEGSF. A conservative internal use factor has been used for this calculation based on the EIR. For example, a reduction of 15% was given for the health club use meaning that at least 15% of the health club patrons will come from the office or residential buildings on site.

As this project proposal includes a request to exceed 1.1 FAR, the applicant submitted a request to use the DOR. The MDSP states that the DOR is available to properties where contiguous lots under one ownership are four acres or less in size. The MDSP also states that DOR may be used by projects which provide benefits to the City by meeting the goals of the Media District Overlay Zone. In addition, in order for the City to approve a building over 35 feet tall, the City must find that the project meets the goals and objectives of the General Plan for the Media District.

The MDSP was adopted by the Burbank City Council in 1991 which approved a DOR in the amount of 800,000 square feet. Because only approximately 58,000 square feet of the DOR has been used (or will be used) thus far in the ten years of the MDSP's existence, 742,002 square feet remain in the DOR.

This DOR essentially represents the untapped capacity to guide development within the Media District consistent with the MDSP. The project applicant states that they seek the use of 113,400 square feet of the remaining DOR. This requested amount is the same (proportional based on land size) to the amount requested for and received by the Bob Hope development on 3301 West Olive. The applicant states this amount of DOR is requested in order to provide a well-designed project with enough "height and mass to identify the Media Center as the center of the Media District," as called for by the MDSP. The applicant is requesting use of 15% of the remaining DOR. The project represents approximately 1.1% of land area as a total acreage (352 acres not including streets) in the Media District. Based on available information and assumptions on what properties can feasibly use DOR, the site size represents approximately 8% of the total site area that may feasibly use DOR (48 acres). Staff had to make several assumptions to come to this "area of feasibility." Specifically, staff used commercial areas only and discounted areas within 500� of R-1. Although properties within 500� of an R-1 zone may certainly apply for DOR, they are not likely to use large amounts of the DOR as they cannot exceed certain height limits. Staff did not include the three studio sites as they have master plans and did not include the hospital as it is not subject to the 1.1 FAR limit. In addition, staff did not include properties that currently exceed FAR by a large amount (Geiger tower, Disney Channel building, etc.) as it is reasonable to assume that these properties would not give up their current legal non-conforming development rights. (Exhibit E)

The following are the goals of the MDSP and the analysis of the project compared to them:

The project provides a density limit of 2.36 FAR. This includes both the commercial uses of the project, the church and the residential use of the project. This density is .71 FAR less than that found across Olive Avenue at the Pinnacle project which is 3.07 FAR (as entitled for both phases) and .57 FAR more than that approved for the Bob Hope Project across Lima at 1.79 FAR. As outlined in the MDSP, through the PD process, the City Council will determine the density limits for this project by way of approving use of DOR and TDR.

Other significant projects in the Media District (approved prior to the MDSP) include the Geiger tower which has an FAR of 7.2, the Disney Channel building which has an FAR of 5, 5 FAR for the SAG building and the "Dalt�s" building has a 4 FAR.

The project meets the maximum allowable height limits established in the MDSP. These limits are set specifically to limit height based on the building�s distance from R-1 and R-2 properties. The two buildings along Alameda are set back over 235 feet from the R-1 zone. The MDSP requires that buildings setback between 150 and 300 feet from R-1 may not exceed 50 feet; they do not. The MDSP limits height to 70 feet for buildings setback between 300 and 500 feet from R-1, the 6 story building in the center of the project site is setback over 300 feet and does not exceed 70 feet. The towers also follow the limits that allow buildings setback over 500 feet from R-1 to have a maximum height of 205 feet or 15 stories, whichever is less.

As this project is a PD, development standards to protect the single-family neighborhoods may be imposed that are not imposed on projects in other zones. For example, some projects that have paid parking for employees end up having a tremendous effect on neighboring residential uses. In this case, staff has considered a development standard (condition of approval) that would require the developer to provide most of the parking free of charge (through a validation system) and to provide a mechanism for ensuring that tenants are paying for parking for their employees and visitors. (See list of possible conditions of approval)

Traffic diversion techniques and other neighborhood protection programs are key to protecting the quality of life for the single-family neighborhoods near the project site. The first step in reducing intrusion into the single-family neighborhoods is to maximize the capacity on arterial streets and thereby diverting traffic flow away from residential neighborhoods. When these work well through widened streets, increased lanes and better signals, most non-residential traffic will not consider using the local streets for "cut-through." This project will provide such enhancements through the traffic mitigation measures set forth in the EIR. In addition, a neighborhood protection program proposed by the applicant would be another technique to reduce intrusion into the single-family residential neighborhoods. However, it would be premature to simply set vague parameters for the program and implement neighborhood protection measures without input from the potentially impacted neighborhoods. Therefore, a potential condition would require the applicant to pay into a program that the City and community could coordinate on in the future to determine where and what measures to implement. The amount of $250,000 is proposed based on other neighborhood protection programs that have been implemented throughout the City relative to the size and scope of the proposed project.

The project provides over 410,000 square feet of office space (293,000 sf OEGSF) exclusively for the media industry. While this space may not be sufficient depending on how the media industry grows, it is a reasonable amount of development opportunity. The project provides no medical establishments. With the amenities provided: health club, childcare facility, restaurants, many different types of offices would have a desire to locate in this project. Because of its proximity to other media offices, the applicant hopes that media companies in particular would have a desire to locate in this project that is located within the Media District. In fact, the applicant would not be able to lease to non-media tenants under this planned development request. Such a condition would be monitored by reports from the applicant as well as during sign off of each business license issued for the building.

Major sections of the EIR focus on public services and infrastructure and whether or not the proposed project would have an effect on them. The EIR noted where existing infrastructure could support the proposed project and offered mitigation measures to ensure that the project would contribute its fair share in providing additional infrastructure improvements as necessary to mitigate any negative impact. Above and beyond EIR thresholds, the applicant would be responsible in covering all costs associated with their use of public services and improvements. These are collected through a variety of ways, including the payment of community facilities fees at time of building permit approvals (Parks, Fire, Police and Transportation Improvement Fees) and payment of any cost to provide electrical service at time of building permit approvals, just to name a few.

In addition, the developer is required to dedicate portions of his property (along Olive Avenue) for expanded rights-of-way to improve the transportation infrastructure. The project will also exceed the State�s Title 24 guidelines with respect to energy use. In fact, the developer will utilize Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) strategies to reduce the energy consumption of the project.

The project is proposed to be constructed within the next five years and the Development Agreement will permit it be constructed in the next 15 years. While this might not be considered long term, the proposed project allows for the long term opportunity for a reasonable amount of development. In other words, the project, even if constructed within five years, would ensure that the property owner would have a long term opportunity through the PD process (and the development agreement). Surrounding property owners would also maintain their opportunities for development. For example, the Bob Hope project across Lima would maintain their rights to build as would NBC and Pinnacle. All studios would be able to build to their master plan limits including buildings of 15 stories in height. The residential uses across Alameda would preserve their rights for reasonable amount of development given their existing zoning and General Plan restrictions.

The proposed project includes a request to utilize 113,400 square feet of the DOR. Although the City has approved use of 75,126 sf of the DOR to be used since the MDSP�s inception in 1991, only three projects have used or maintain the ability to use their allotted DOR at 57,998 sf. This means that over 742,000 sf of DOR remains. If this project were approved, that would leave over 625,000 sf of DOR to be used for other projects in the Media District. Any such project would have to meet the goals of the MDSP and would have to be less than 4 acres. It is reasonable to assume the recently constructed buildings and buildings already exceeding the 1.1 FAR would not recycle. Therefore, in order to determine which properties could be eligible to receive DOR in the future, staff must look at vacant, older and under utilized pieces of property. Attempting to map out these areas proves difficult as even land larger than four acres could be subdivided to smaller pieces of property. In other words, there remains several pieces of land that have the ability to use DOR. However, any land must meet the height requirements of the MDSP, therefore properties that use significant portions of the DOR, must be a substantial distance from R-1 to develop within height limitations. Several such properties exist in the Media District and all have had the opportunity to use DOR since 1991 and will maintain the right to request DOR in the future. However, if the project were approved as proposed, the pool will be less than that currently existing. An argument can be made that a 625,000 sf pool of remaining DOR, however, still offers a reasonable amount of development for other property owners. Attached is exhibit F that shows the areas where 15 stories could be built (over 500� from R-1) and that may be likely to be built on given their land use designation.

As stated above, the subject site represents approximately 8% of property that is reasonably eligible to receive DOR and is requesting use of 15% of the remaining DOR. (Exhibit E) Over 625,000 sf of DOR will remain and be available for 44 acres of land.

The project provides approximately 464,000 square feet of commercial space, a church and 181 residential units all totaling an FAR of 2.36. The project is over 230 feet away from the nearest single family lot line. Both the adjoining residential neighborhood and the project would use the same arterial access routes. To determine if this development is at an appropriate intensity, staff looks to the MDSP for this area (the subject site). This area is identified as the Media Center North and is noted as part of an area intended to become the focal point of the Media District. The MDSP promotes mixed-use development in this area, but does not identify an appropriate FAR for the Media Center North except to note that this area is acceptable to receive DOR. The MDSP also notes that the building complexes in the Media Center should have enough height and mass to identify the Media Center as the center of the Media District, without unnecessarily obscuring existing views. It also states that the Media Center should allow higher intensity of use for media-related development. The applicant argues that a 2.36 FAR and limiting the heights to those allowed in the MDSP minimizes the potential land use conflicts. In addition, as it is a mixed-use project with residential, the use is compatible with multi-family residential immediately adjacent to the single family lot lines and within the single family neighborhood. However, one could argue that the size of development and the areas where the project varies from code (setbacks, architectural features) make the project incompatible with surrounding neighborhoods.

The project as applied for attempts to provide quality construction and operations. (See applicant�s discussion on materials and project amenities in Exhibit B) The project would be required to comply with development standards already in place in the Media District which were designed to add to a quality development. However, the request is to deviate from development standards such as setbacks, and therefore can be considered to not be providing a quality development.

As defined, this area is the center of the Media District. The architect has proposed buildings that are designed with a unique architecture and more unique materials, using mostly glass for the exterior fa�ade. The low-glare glass proposed by the architect offers a "see-through" effect for passers-by which attempts to bring the pedestrian into the building and the tenants out onto the street level. The 12 and 15 story buildings have the glass fa�ade continuing past the usable space of the building which emphasizes the buildings "see-through" effect. The 12 story office building proposed by the applicant offers unique "sky gardens" where trees and shrubs are tucked behind the glass, but offer a type of sanctuary for the employees inside. As the five-story residential building faces multi-family, mostly stucco, buildings across Alameda, the architecture shifts to one more compatible with that neighborhood by including more solid materials such as stucco. But the design remains distinctive especially with the roof-top gardens and balconies over-looking the open space areas.

The proposed sign program is another way the proposal projects an identity which emphasizes the unique entertainment orientation of the Media District. While not fully developed, the applicant intends on using cutting-edge technology for the signage on the curtain walls of the 12 story office building. The project may include logos or other media displays on static adhered vinyl which can be applied to the building or another technology such as light on the glass curtain wall. Either type would be unique and oriented to inform visitors to the area that they are entering a media area.

The land uses provided by the applicant include residential, residential serving retail, commercial services, restaurants, offices, a church and a childcare facility. These together maximize pedestrian travel on the subject site. The project also provides two main areas of open space. One set between the 6 story building and the 12 and 15 story buildings will be used primarily by the tenants on-site. The other, set just off of Alameda is intended as an open space not only for the on-site residents, but also for the neighborhood. This space is large enough to accommodate visitors from the area but small enough to encourage those who are mainly within walking distance. In addition, the space works with the retail and restaurant space in that visitors can walk from one use to another.

Both Olive and Alameda are designated as pedestrian routes in MDSP. Having store frontages facing street or public plazas is considered a good design to encourage pedestrian activity.

The Olive edge of the project is setback only five feet from the property line. This design proposed by the project architect brings the retail/restaurant uses at the ground level "out" to the sidewalk creating a pedestrian-oriented environment. The MDSP encourages this type of design over large open unusable spaces at the sidewalk edge such as parking lots as those discourage pedestrian movement along the corridor.

The project proposal would include public improvements to enhance circulation, including pedestrian circulation. One such improvement is an improved sidewalk after widening the roadway and other street improvements are complete (along Olive). This sidewalk will offer easy access to move through the crosswalks to reach other destinations in the Media District. This combined with the uses offered on-site can encourage movement throughout the district. One could argue that reducing parking or allowing pay-only parking are ways to maximize pedestrian circulation in the district; however, staff recognizes the need for parking outweighs such extreme measures to reduce non-pedestrian modes of travel. It was probably not the intent of this goal to reduce parking provided on a project site.

The applicant is proposing retail and commercial services that will be used primarily by the on-site tenants and nearby residential neighborhoods. Such uses may include a dry cleaner, a caf�, a bookstore and others. Having these uses next to large open spaces with seating and sitting areas creates the ability to have an active street life on the Alameda edge. The uses on the Olive edge that "open-up" to the street can stimulate the street and have an effect of activating that street edge. The applicant proposes a caf�-type restaurant on that edge as well to create a friendly environment for passers-by. Another use proposed is a health club which will serve the office employees, the residents on-site and the residents in the neighborhood. The child care center will also support the employment base and the residential areas. In fact, the EIR considered that approximately 75% of the trips to the retail, restaurant and commercial services would come from internal trips, meaning that 75% of people who visit one tenant location will also visit another. These internal trips keep people circulating throughout the site which can have an effect of creating an active ground/street level.

All commercial tenants of the subject property will be required to conform to the MDSP trip reduction program. This program requires an annual reduction of trips to equal a 38% reduction in the area by the year 2010. In addition, all tenants will be required to maintain a bulletin board (electronic format is acceptable) which will inform employees of the various ride-share and transit options available to them. A part of the trip reduction ordinance requires that the employers pay into a Transportation Management Organization (TMO). It is through this TMO that employers can gain ideas and information on additional techniques to reduce traffic if they are having difficulty meeting their trip-reduction requirements. The residents on-site, however, are not subject to such trip-reduction requirements and as such will have some trips that take place during peak commute hours. In making findings for this PD, the Council would have to determine if this PD is in an appropriate location to promote public transportation and reduced traffic. Such findings may be made by analyzing the project�s proximity to transit lines and freeway on and off ramps. The MTA 96 and 152 lines travel along Olive as well as the Burbank Local Transit commuter line connecting to the Metrolink. This can be considered an appropriate location because of these transit lines that already exist.

The project provides a mix of land uses such as residential, media office, a health club, a church, retail and restaurant uses. The project provides over 58,000 sf of open space with a lot coverage of 65%. The open space contains plaza elements such as a water feature, seating areas, large landscaped areas and decorative hardscape areas. The development is required to comply with the BMC art in public places requirement which is required to be located in a space open to the public thereby adding to the "plaza-feel" of the open space areas. The project does not provide a facility for the arts in the traditional terms. The project provides a child care facility that will be available to the tenants on-site and those off-site as space permits. The developer has sought to enhance the quality of life of those on-site as well as those within the Media District who take advantage of the facilities and mix of uses. As this project comprehensively looks at the entire site, the applicant is able to take advantage by providing many different uses. If the site was developed as several smaller projects, it would not be able to provide the variety of uses.

One of the requirements for a PD is that the project be substantially consistent with the General Plan. The MDSP, a specific plan amendment to the General Plan, lists objectives for commercial and residential development in the Media District.

Commercial objectives:

This project as proposed will contain retail and commercial services in addition to a public plaza and open space to serve the adjacent residential neighborhood. All of the office space will be available to media related offices which serve to support the already thriving media industry in Burbank. Because of the building design, especially on the Olive edge, businesses who do not benefit from being near pedestrian lines of travel may not want to locate in that building. Businesses who locate there will want their operations to be "open" to the public and will need to have the type of operation which "invites" the public into their space.

The architect has designed the building in an attempt to facilitate pedestrian activity on the Olive edge. The design of all open spaces on the Alameda edge would facilitate pedestrian activity, but would allow for more seating areas.

There are two different "sides" to this project as presented by the developer. One (the Olive edge) is more urban and the design makes the sidewalk look "busy" and invites pedestrians who are on lunch break or for quick trips. This side is accented with some landscaping, awnings and an outdoor caf�. The second edge (Alameda) is also pedestrian oriented, but in a way that promotes people to stay for longer periods of time. This edge is full of trees and landscaping in addition to benches and sitting areas. Both edges have only one curb cut each.

Again, the project contains a mix of uses including a health club, some residential-serving retail, restaurants and an open public plaza. These amenities are capable of attracting pedestrian traffic. The Olive edge is designed to promote pedestrian traffic by making that edge interesting and bringing activity going on indoors to the outside by way of the glass fa�ade. As the district is very large, it may not attract pedestrians from throughout the district. But certainly the developer desires employees from nearby studios and other media offices to walk to the site to make use of the amenities.

The proposal includes retail and restaurant establishments at the sidewalk on the Olive edge and near the sidewalk on the Alameda edge. There will be landscaping in front of the church with a sidewalk. The office building will have a sidewalk with minimal landscaping in front.

The architecture proposed would be very unique in the City of Burbank. It consists mainly of a glass fa�ade covering a steel frame. It is important when speaking about the architecture and using such qualitative words as "quality image" and "innovation," to also have a discussion of the architect. The designer of the complex is Helmut Jahn who was born and trained in Germany and is now a world renowned architect. In 1991, Jahn was acknowledged as one of the "Ten Most Influential Living American Architects" by the American Institute of Architects.

Jahn�s recent works have constructivist tendencies and the type of design that motivates his buildings is sometimes deemed "archi-neering" which marries architecture to engineering in an aesthetic and natural environment. The look of "suspending" the glass in air can be compared to the innovative nature of the media industry. And the name Helmut Jahn is definitely associated with a quality image. Jahn is not new to media buildings. He designed the mixed use Sony Center Filmhouse in Berlin that reached fame from both the architecture world and the visitors to the site with its unique "mast" open ceiling.

The parking is provided in a subterranean garage; the trash is located within that garage; loading spaces are provided off of Lima in the first level. The applicant is proposing to design the building to screen these elements. While most emphasis of design is placed on the arterial streets, Lima is also well landscaped to provide an attractive pedestrian environment.

All of the parking will be located within a subterranean garage.

• Require solutions to existing parking deficiencies and promote a higher quality of development by encouraging lot assemblage and promoting shared parking between nearby parcels.

The existing uses on-site do not meet current parking code. The proposed project will provide code-required parking using a shared parking approach. During peak hours, the parking will serve only the uses on-site. However, during off-peak hours, the parking garage could accommodate additional vehicles for nearby uses, but that is not the intent of the current parking layout. The parking provided would not, nor is it intended to, solve parking deficiencies of nearby uses. The project will assemble 25 lots in an effort to create this mixed-use project. Any PD approval would be contingent upon the applicant having ownership of all of the properties, including the City of Burbank Redevelopment Agency owned properties.

• Require utility lines, including those leading onto the project site, to be placed underground.

All utility lines leading onto the project site and on the project site will be located underground.

Residential objectives:

The project site contains both commercial and multi-family uses. The taller commercial and residential buildings are located on the Olive edge, 500 feet from the single family zone. The next building to the north is the 6 story office building, approximately 200 feet from the multi-family zone. The only commercial space that is near to the multi-family across Alameda is residential-serving retail and restaurants below multi-family residential units. The church also acts as a transition from the more intense commercial areas to the multi-family areas across Alameda.

The applicant will be required to maintain the structures, parking and landscaping in accordance with the BMC. In addition, the Community Development Director has the authority to require that these be maintained to a high standard and that the applicant rehabilitate structures as necessary.

The project involves the demolition of several residential and commercial structures that are currently being used. Almost all of the structures, therefore, are not obsolete. In fact, over 30 households exist on the subject property and businesses continue to operate in the project area. The church, however, has expressed a desire for a new church as theirs is outdated. Most uses on the subject site are underparked according to current codes and demand. Although many of the buildings are older (1930s to 1950s) with some signs of attrition, it would not be accurate to characterize them as inadequately maintained. In fact, there is a home built in 1932 that appears in excellent condition.

The landscaping and sitting areas provide a pleasant environment for residential pedestrians on-site and those traveling from off-site nearby residential areas. Street trees are also provided for shaded sidewalks. Lighting will be provided for assurance of a safe nighttime environment and such lighting plan would be approved by the Police Chief.

The required amenities for the residential units are located within and on the roof of the building off of Olive. Therefore, the tenants in the 16 residential units off of Alameda will have to traverse the site to reach their amenities in the 15 story building. While the site will be well lit and landscaped, this is an inconvenience for those residents. The private open space and other standards required for multi-family projects are generally designed for two and three story structures. The spaces provided for this project are appropriate amenities for a high-rise apartment building.

The applicant proposes to assemble over 25 lots for the subject application, which includes a request to provide 181 residential units. The development can be considered high quality because of the materials being used and the proposed amenities. There will be over 58,000 square feet of open space which is about 35% of the total lot area. Of this, over 45,000 sf can be considered "usable" open space, however this is shared with other uses on the site (over 240 sf per unit). In addition, recreational facilities are provided on the rooftop as well as within the 15 story residential building. If this project were not built on the entire site available, another developer may not be able to provide the type of amenities and different uses that this project is able to provide as they are proposing to assemble the entire site.

The utility lines leading onto the projects site and to all residential structures will be placed underground.

The project is located in the Media Center portion of the City as described in the MDSP. (Exhibit A) This area was intended to become the focal point of the Media District and is identified as an area where mixed-use development is promoted. Office components of this area are intended to be media-related and should also include other uses as specified in the following objectives:

All of the office space will be available for media-related companies. The MDSP states that media offices have a different traffic generation than traditional offices. The rationale is that media offices often do not have employees traveling during peak commute hours. In addition, media offices often require more square footage per employee than traditional offices. Because of this different traffic generation, in determining total floor area for a media office, they are given a factor in calculating Office Equivalent Gross Square Feet (OEGSF). In other words, a media office of 133,000 sf would be equivalent to a traditional office of 100,000 sf. The applicant is proposing that all office space be leased by media offices. This would be monitored by reports given by the developer in accordance with the MDSP and would be verified at sign off of each business license for the building.

Every commercial and industrial project in the media district is subject to a 1.1 floor area ratio (FAR) (residential development is limited by density limits for each zone). The proposed project exceeds this FAR and has a higher intensity of use. As this is a mixed use project, the higher intensity of use is not only for media-related development, but also other commercial and for residential. However, it is reasonable to assume that the commercial and residential components will be enjoyed and used by those in the Media District. For example, the apartments will more than likely house Media District employees as it will be convenient housing and the housing will be marketed toward income levels that are consistent with many positions in the media industry. The childcare will more than likely be used by employees of the site and those in the nearby area. In addition, the retail and restaurant space will likely be used by Media District employees during the day.

It is important to note that while this proposed plan allows for a greater development in this portion, the BMC allowed an increase for only the south triangle portion of the Media Center (where Pinnacle now exists). This area was allowed to build to a 2.0 FAR, but was not eligible to receive DOR credits.

The subject proposal does not include a theater, a museum or a hotel. A theater and museum use was approved with the adjacent Bob Hope project within the Media Center North. The proposal includes restaurants and a childcare facility that are capable of supporting nearby employees of the Media District and the applicant intends on marketing the office space to service business that will support the media industry. All of the office space will be available strictly to media related companies.

This objective does not state whether residential uses are encouraged or not. In fact, when discussing mixed-use development, the MDSP does not include a discussion of residential units. In order to determine if residential uses are permitted, an analysis of both the General Plan and the BMC are necessary. The General Plan states that vertical zoning is encouraged (residential above commercial). In addition, the commercially zoned areas of the Media District all allow residential over commercial uses if a CUP is approved. This is not in violation with the General Plan or the MDSP. The developer believes that high-end residential is a service that supports the media industry by being available to employees of the media district within walking distance to their places of employment.

It is important to note that an objective of the housing element of the General Plan is to provide high-end housing to serve employees within the City, especially within the media industry.

Media Center South was originally approved in 1991 with PD 89-6. In 1996 it was amended to approve modifications that are the Pinnacle project that exists today (Phase II is yet to be constructed). That approval is for 585,600 square feet in two 6 story buildings with underground parking. The site is 4.37 acres which means the approved project provides 3.07 FAR. The lot coverage is approximately 56%. Although this site is allowed only to build 2.0 by right, it was able to take advantage of Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) to receive the additional 204,646 square feet (this site is not eligible for DOR).

In 2001, Council approved PD 2001-2, the Bob Hope Project for a portion of the Media Center North. In 2002, the Planning Board approved CUP 2002-8 for a relocated substation in another portion of the Media Center North with a portion of the land to be vacated in two and ten years. The project proposal is for a planned development for the remainder of the Media Center area.

Architecture may be considered as one element that serves to unify certain areas. Not including the substation portion of this area, the two projects approved by Council and this proposed project all offer different architectural representations. This project, like that approved by Council previously for the northern area (the Bob Hope project), does not serve to unify the northern area with the southern area (the Pinnacle project).

Massing may be another element that serves to unify areas. The projects previously approved have similar heights and massing, where buildings are between three and six stories and where open space can be limited. In this case, this project differs from that previously approved as it offers two taller buildings in addition to the 5 and 6 story buildings and offers two expansive open space areas even after all phases are complete.

The areas, however, are capable of providing convenient pedestrian access between all portions of the Media Center by way of the new signalized crossings on Olive at Lima and the new project driveway. And those traveling onto the project site will have expansive landscaped plazas to wander through or stay to sit. The architect and landscape architect have designed a plaza which contains two water elements, one is partially tucked under the six story building to provide shade and the sound of running water for those visiting the plaza. This plaza has benches and is capable of being turned into a caf� seating area. The other plaza contains more open landscaped areas for sitting. A driveway is provided that traverses the project site. This throughway is provided to allow cars to travel to the appropriate garage during peak hours and to allow them to travel to the correct exit depending on their next destination. During peak pedestrian hours, bollards will rise from the ground that will prevent cars from traveling through the public plaza. That means the entire expansive area will be available for pedestrians to walk through and stay in next to the water feature if they so desire.

It is a great benefit to the City to have the entire site developed as one project. When projects are broken up into smaller parcels, the developers are usually not able to provide as many amenities or variety of uses as they are when developed as a larger site.

The proposed 179� tall buildings would not be the tallest in the Media District, but would be comparable to other buildings in the area. The design and grouping of the buildings are intended by the architect to create a unique mass to draw attention to the area, but because of the distance from R-1, the massing is focused on the Olive edge. The EIR described how the height will obscure some views, like those to the Hollywood Hills from some of the residential areas north of the subject site. As Warner Bros., Disney and NBC are all permitted to build to 15 stories, the applicant has proposed unique architecture and massing in five buildings to try and accomplish the goal of making this area the focal point of the Media District, without making height the key element.

Development Standards in the Media District:

The MDSP establishes design standards to guide development within the Media District. The design standards are intended to ensure an orderly high quality development process; to protect and enhance major public investments in the area; to protect both small and large scale private investments in the area; and to minimize development cost by eliminating uncertainty and reducing potential development problems. The MDSP design standards also establish more specific guidelines for projects in the Media District. The following describes the specific design standard and compares that standard with the proposed project. It is important to note, however, that these are guidelines only and by-right development in the Media District is not required to follow them.

The project provides a variety of features intended to promote high levels of pedestrian activity. Special hardscape with compatible coloration, texture, and accents including high-quality street furnishings are proposed by the developer to create a more enjoyable pedestrian experience. Project hardscape will extend to the curb to minimize the perception of street width and maximize the appearance of sidewalk width. The building setbacks on Olive, Alameda and Lima will be fully developed with landscaping as well as hardscape treatments and be fully accessible to the public. The Project will include ground level retail along Olive, designated by the MDSP as a primary pedestrian route, as well as townhouses and a community church along Alameda, designated by the MDSP as a secondary pedestrian route. Collectively, all of these project features will help fulfill the vision illustrated in the MDSP, which specifically calls out the project site as a location for pedestrian-oriented active uses.

(b) Continuity in Retail Frontage - In order to maintain an active pedestrian environment, retail uses must be the predominant ground floor use. Long gaps between retail stores discourages active pedestrian shopping and activity. Non-retail first floor uses should be kept to a minimum in retail and restaurant areas. New development should provide first floor retail and restaurant frontage in character with adjacent uses.

There are some interruptions in the continuity of retail frontage along the pedestrian routes. In no case shall this interruption exceed 25�. The street frontage along Olive, designated as a primary pedestrian route, will be predominantly dedicated to active ground floor retail and restaurant uses. The street frontage along Alameda, designated as a secondary pedestrian route, faces toward residentially zoned areas and thus features more residentially-appropriate pedestrian-friendly components, such as a church, an open plaza and townhouses. The ground floor, however, will be retail/restaurant with only a slight gap (25� maximum) for the residential lobby.

(c) Treatment of Non-retail Frontage - Non-retail uses such as offices, service and institutional uses should have visually interesting fronts. Non-retail storefronts should convey the nature of the inside activity to passersby and contribute to the visual interest of the area. Blank, monotonous walls are discouraged. Windows, signs, displays and entrances should convey information about the nature of the business inside.

The project incorporates unique architectural elements and traditional urban design techniques to create intense visual interest in the area. This includes the use of glass to open up the interior spaces. It also includes the use of landscaping and awnings to create a pleasant pedestrian environment. Lobby areas will be clearly identified and contain a short enough lineal distance (less than 25 feet) to not cause a large break for the passersby.

Office lobbies are intended tol be open and inviting and have a transparent connection between sidewalk and interior spaces. There will be no blank, monotonous walls. As the building is glass, it lends itself to "displaying" what is going on inside to the outside pedestrians.

All of the pedestrian entrances to the shops, stores, and lobbies face either outward to the street or inward to the plaza areas. Some, however, are along primary pedestrian routes while others are along secondary pedestrian routes as identified in the MDSP.

The height of the two taller buildings (179 feet) expresses the importance of the area and the Media Center as the focus for the Media District. Having them set back only five feet from the property line puts them close to the sidewalk. A tall building can have the opposite effect of being pedestrian friendly if landscaping and design elements serve in making the pedestrian feel overwhelmed. As much of the 2.36 FAR is within the 12, 15 and six story buildings, it allows over 58,000 square feet of open space, which is 35% of the total site area. As the height of all buildings was determined by its proximity to the R-1 zone, the taller buildings act as a shade to the shorter buildings during the winter sun for some of the day (see EIR for details). This does not allow maximum winter sun to the shorter buildings within the project or some multi-family buildings across Alameda. Because of the open spaces between the buildings, the passage of air is still possible. All tenants will have views to public plazas or pedestrian areas and those in the 179� tall buildings will have views to the Hollywood Hills and other buildings throughout the Media District. As stated in the EIR, some views north of Alameda to the Hollywood Hills will be partially blocked by the new structures.

The MDSP requires a stair-step approach to height limits. Depending on the project�s distance from any R-1 zone, a building may be 50 feet, 70 feet or 205 feet. Taking a buffer of 500 feet from any R-1 zone (the requirement to reach 205), there are several properties that can reach 205 feet. (Exhibit E) However, for the purposes of determining which building might reach this height, it is reasonable to discount certain properties. The hospital, the studios, the residential only developments allowed in the General Plan and those buildings that already reach or come close to this height limit may be discounted as they will more than likely not reach this height limit because of their type of use and because of their legal non-conforming status for height that already exists. When doing this, it reduces the areas where a 15 story building may be placed. This exercise is important to determine where the MDSP was proposing such development to be located. The proposed location is 3.8 acres of 48 commercial acres left in the Media District for 15 story buildings that are not currently developed with tall buildings or with a master plan.

A portion of the 15 story residential building is located less than 500 feet from the R-1 lot line. This is permitted by the BMC which allows up to 10% of a building that crosses limit lines to reach the higher limit as long as a space exists equal to the volume in the higher limit line that is unused. The project proposed by the applicant meets this requirement. Specifically, 1,025 square feet of footprint is located within 500� of R-1 zoned property and over 1,025 sf is left as open space replaced outside the 500� buffer. Even with the allowances the applicant is still choosing to construct an even smaller building than permitted at 179� rather than 205�.

In the site plan for the project, the architect concentrates the taller buildings toward the freeway and away from the residential neighborhoods. The existing buildings across and fronting Olive and across the freeway fronting Olive and Riverside Drive are taller than the buildings across Alameda. The site plan attempts to place buildings of similar scale depending on the neighborhood it is facing. For example, the five-story town houses face the two-story apartments on Alameda and the 12 and 15 story buildings face the six-story Pinnacle project and the 15 story and other taller buildings across the freeway ("Dalt�s" building, former "Sony" building). This is a more dominant pattern on the Olive/freeway edge.

The project proposal seeks to establish pedestrian scale along Alameda and Olive as well as the project courtyard by having a continuous canopy of tree foliage which serve to filter the sun and shade the sidewalk. Mature landscaping will help provide a better proportion from the pedestrian to the large building height. Benches, other types of seating and umbrella tables are envisioned at pedestrian locations within the project.

The street frontage along Olive will be predominantly dedicated to active ground floor retail uses with only one interruption in the continuity of retail frontage. This will be necessary for the lobby to the residential units above. Sidewalk cafes will be encouraged to stimulate interest. The design of the building is the ultimate in window displays. All activities on the inside will be "brought" to the outside because of the type of glass to be used in the construction.

The glass proposed by the architect to be used throughout the project will be transparent, no reflective or dark tinted glass will be used. The transparency will be modulated with a variation of interior and exterior shading and translucent interlayering. The typical office facade would be floor-to-floor clear glass with conventional mullions and interior glare filtering shades. The facade of large open areas such as the sky gardens and office and apartment entry areas would be a large expanse of clear glass supported by light stainless steel cable/rod trusses. The glass skylights in the apartment building and the church will have a frit applied to filter the light. The side walls of the church will be translucent glass to flood the space with light while maintaining a high level of intimacy inside. Glass and mesh canopies will extend over the walkway along Alameda. At night, the buildings will be gently illuminated to create a soft luminescent glow. The architects seeks to achieve interest and texture by using the simple basic material (glass) in a variety of ways which captures the imagination and expresses the fundamental transparency, translucency, luminescence, subtle reflectivity and gradual metamorphosis of appearance as sky and interior light change throughout the day.

The glass used is low-emissivity that the Building Division notes is good to use because of reduction in glare (it is non-reflective).

As the Alameda edge faces the residential community, a softer edge is necessary to reduce a feeling of large mass and bulk. On this edge, the architect has used a different material type than simply the glass fa�ade. This edge has more variation in plane, different colors and textures and landscaping is used to soften the mass. The rooftop gardens as proposed also lessen the appearance of height. The setback of the townhomes is 20� from the property line and the frontage will be landscaped with large canopy trees.

The applicant will exceed landscaping code requirements by providing a minimum of one tree for every 20 linear feet of front and exposed side yard. All of the landscaping will be mature and will thus conform to the size and maturity required by the development standards. Landscaped areas will be provided with an irrigation system to maintain the quality of planted materials. In addition, the applicant has proposed a condition that requires a landscape plan to be approved by the Council prior to issuance of the first building permit.

The Olive edge caters to a different clientele, and therefore does not offer a variation in plane through the use of colors or materials. Rather, the architect believes the transparent nature of the glass acts as reducing the bulk. However, anyone standing at the Olive edge may feel overwhelmed by the building if left on its own. At the ground level, massing is reduced and a pedestrian scale is established by way of a canopy of mature street trees as well as a streetscape experience similar to that of an open air marketplace. The all-glass retail storefronts proposed within the project can create the effect of a virtually transparent transition between sidewalk and shop. The structures of the project range in height from 179 feet to 70 feet to 50 feet. Such variation divides the project into distinct massing elements as called for by the MDSP. The neutral, subdued shades of the project as well as the translucency of its glass are intended by the architect to further minimize any appearance of bulk. Overall, the building massing has been designed to make for a project which relates well with the nearby visual environment and at the same time establishes a presence in the skyline of the City. Another argument, however, is that the immediate neighborhood has much lower buildings than that proposed. A more appropriate location for this size building may be across the freeway where other 15 story and taller buildings exist.

The applicant has requested a five foot setback along Olive Avenue. The applicant intends on using the five foot setback for outdoor eating areas and continuation of some of the retail/restaurant tenants on the ground floor of the building. However, in order to make the space work for this kind of use, the applicant would require an encroachment permit for outdoor dining. The developer has sought to create a sense of enclosure and have the landscaping lead the passersby into the interior of the project where the open plazas exist. The project does not contain corner setbacks other than the five foot setbacks and the cutoff necessary for traffic visibility at Lima. The setbacks will have decorative hardscape, landscaping, and street furniture.

The setback along Alameda is proposed at ten feet for the church and 20 feet for the townhomes but contains a large open plaza area. As this is a secondary pedestrian route, sense of enclosure is not as important, but rather a sense of openness and exterior activity. In other words, nearby residents might be more willing to visit this portion of the project in a more relaxed setting whereas pedestrians who want more activity would be willing to visit the Olive area of the project.

This proposed setback will be consistent with many existing setbacks found over an eight-block stretch of Olive between Maple and Ontario and will thus provide for general uniformity in the appearance of setbacks along Olive Avenue. The reduced setback on the Caltrans right-of-way side of the project will not be detrimental to the public welfare in that the area of the setback will be adjacent to a freeway off-ramp which is not intended for any sort of public use. The encroachments of architectural elements and awnings into the setback areas on the Alameda Avenue and Lima Street sides of the project will help break up the massing of the buildings and enhance the pedestrian-friendly nature of the project.

The buildings have been designed to be light and airy. Clear, high-performance energy-conserving glass will be the predominant material with its transparency and translucency which results in a dynamic environment with nuances of variation as the sky changes with the course of the sun and clouds from twilight, through the day and into the evening. The unique nature of this type of building, deemed "archi-neering" according to the architect is innovative in nature and lends itself nicely to the Media District. The signs to be used on this type of building are also very unique and apropos for the media industry. As the Alameda frontage faces multi-family housing and a single family neighborhood, the architect reduced the amount of glass and added stucco and more solid materials that are more cohesive with the physical environment on that side of the project.

Consistent with the project's urban design concept and the overall design intent of the building, the colors of the project will feature subdued, neutral shades. The use of such colors will help underscore the appropriateness of the design as well as massing. At the pedestrian level, accent colors will appear as a result of the transparency which the architect hopes will allow for interior colors as well as activities to be visible from the street. Such accent colors from the building interiors are intended by the developer to help promote visual interest at the pedestrian level and further help activate the streetscape. The awnings can also provide an accent although also intended to be rather subdued to allow the greenery of the landscaping to add color at the pedestrian level. Again, color was added at the Alameda edge to blend in with the surrounding area.

The project will provide decorative hardscape with compatible coloration, texture, and accents as well as street furnishings that extend out to the curb line (while allowing for proper accessibility). The project will include a landscaped plaza with open space for pedestrian travel. The plaza will contain an art in public places piece. The applicant has also proposed one or two water features in the plaza area. The building setbacks on Olive, Alameda and Lima streets will be fully developed with landscape as well as attractive hardscape and accessible to the public. The applicant will be required to maintain all landscaping, hardscape and street furniture in the public right-of-way surrounding the subject property. These will be required to be maintained in good condition at all times.

Project hardscape will extend to the curb to minimize the perception of street width and maximize the appearance of sidewalk width. The applicant will be required to maintain all such surfaces, including those within the public right-of-way.

The project will not provide any wall murals. The signage proposed by the applicant will be required to be maintained in good visual condition. Only small amounts of signage will be placed on the north facades which face toward the residential neighborhoods. The applicant proposes that the Media District displays will help promote the tenants of the project.

When a Planned Development request is received, the applicant is required to meet the findings required for a Planned Development approval and not the individual findings of each request. For example, although a request to exceed 35 feet would normally require the findings for a CUP to be made, the Council and staff need only consider the findings of the PD.

When reviewing a PD, the Council must consider the design review criteria as established in �31-19124 in the BMC. The following lists the criteria and analyzes the project against them paying particular attention to those portions of the project that would traditionally require a different entitlement process.

Planned Developments shall observe the following design review criteria:

The application includes a complete proposal for the comprehensive development of the remaining portion of the Media Center portion of the Media District. The proposal includes open space areas, large buildings with height and mass, unique plazas separated by buildings to be used by different populations and mature landscaping.

The application meets the design criteria for being consistent with the General Plan, specific elements and the Media District Specific Plan of the General Plan. This has been analyzed throughout this report in discussions of Media District development standards, goals, Media Center goals, and commercial and residential goals.

The Media Center is a portion identified in the Media District (a specific plan of the General Plan) as a commercial area. The applicant is proposing residential which may seem inconsistent with this designation. As designed, the MDSP expands upon the goals and policies found in the General Plan. Therefore, a closer look at the entire General Plan is necessary. In the Land Use Element, the City looked for different ways of providing adequate housing in the City. One such policy is to provide standards that allow vertical or mixed-use zoning in which residential units can be developed in conjunction with commercial establishments. The zoning code allows this in commercial zones through the CUP process. The General Plan goes on to say that these mixed-use developments (with multiple family residential units built over, or in conjunction with, compatible commercial establishments) are most appropriate in intensely urbanized areas such as the downtown area and the Media District. In these areas of high employment, mixed-use development can allow more people to live close to work, another important goal of the General Plan. The General Plan also notes that these developments add around-the-clock activity to areas which otherwise may be empty and threatening at night if developed with only daytime uses (offices and other commercial uses). The Planned Development process is identified as the appropriate vehicle to request such a mix of uses.

The proposal provides over 58,000 square feet (or 35%) of permanent open areas. According to the shared parking demand, 1,954 spaces are required; the applicant is providing 2,004 spaces. The amenities provided will provide an active street environment for the interest of pedestrians. The circulation on-site allows visitors to enter either from Alameda or Olive. While in the subterranean parking garage, signs will direct them to the appropriate buildings. When exiting, signs will direct them to the appropriate exit depending on their desired route of travel.

The residents in the townhouses along Alameda would have to travel to the 15 story building where the community space and recreational facilities are located.

The complex is designed to allow easy flow through the site, yet provide some areas for more privacy than others. The buildings shield those in the plazas from the adjoining freeway, but are open to the sidewalks to continue flow off the subject site. The pedestrian circulation also reaches to outside the subject property where people can move to other parts of the district by way of crosswalks.

The commercial uses on the project will be compatible with the existing and future commercial uses across Olive and Lima. The project would complement the office uses by providing restaurants, retail, a health club and a child care facility.

The church proposed is the same International Church of the Four Square Gospel that currently exists on the site, so there is no concern that this use would be compatible, especially because the parking provided will be code compliant (unlike the existing situation). The residential use would be compatible with adjacent properties that are also multi-family, adjacent to single family.

Following the MDSP requirements, the applicant designed the project to put the lower buildings along Alameda and the taller buildings along Olive in an attempt to provide heights that were most compatible with those across the street. In addition, a large open space has been provided on Alameda for immediate view by neighbors. The General Plan calls for a mixed-use project at this location that has enough height and mass to identify the area. The General Plan also states that DOR may be used by projects less than four acres. As this project meets these goals, one may consider the project to be compatible with the surrounding areas. In addition, the three major studios have master plans that permit them to build to 205 feet, compatible with this development (179 feet) with regard to height. However, simply because the MDSP allows a 15 story building on a portion of the site, does not mean the development should also contain a second "front yard" facing Alameda. This may be considered incompatible with surrounding neighborhoods. In addition, simply because the MDSP is silent on the amount of DOR to be used on a particular site, does not mean it was meant to use over 110,000 sf on one project site. The City Council recently approved use of 42,038 sf of DOR for the adjacent Bob Hope project which has a site size of 61,302 sf. Using a simple ratio as follows, this development proposes to use proportionally the same amount of DOR:

42,038 ₌ 113,400

61,302 165,362

The on-site circulation system is almost completely underground. After phase 1 is complete and at full build-out, the only traffic taking place at grade will be by cars entering the site to gain access to the parking garage and by cars travelling across the site to select another exit or entrance, or for a kiss-n-ride type of operation (drop-off and pick-up). All traffic will enter off of Olive (east or west bound) or Alameda (east bound only). All loading traffic will enter off of Lima and be directed underground to the loading spaces. This type of system will minimize disruption to pedestrians at grade. In addition, mechanically activated bollards will be placed near the plaza area so that after peak commute hours, the bollards will be raised and pedestrians will then have free movement in the plaza area without concern of automobiles coming through. The BMC requires location of bicycle racks on the property, these shall be placed also to minimize conflicts with other traffic and circulation.

The proposed project does not contain private or public street systems. However, a traffic study was necessary to determine any impact the project might have on the existing street system. The study offered measures to mitigate any impacts to the street system that would bring level of service below the City standards. Such improvements include widening of Alameda Avenue, adding lanes to Olive Avenue and prohibiting a left turn onto Lima Street from Alameda. Any such improvements must still allow for the proper right-of-way for sidewalks and medians where necessary. Two transit lines run in front of the subject site along Olive and one along Alameda. The construction of this project will not hinder those lines. In fact, the applicant will be required to provide space on-site for the City of Burbank�s Local Transit Media District shuttle if the City deems it is necessary to take employees to the site.

Common areas and recreational facilities are located at grade in two separate plaza areas, on the rooftop and within the 15 story building.

The at-grade space is readily accessible to the occupants in both buildings. They would more than likely utilize the space closest to them, but would have an attractive walkway to the other space if they so desired. The recreational facilities provided in the 15-story building would be readily accessible to those in that building, but more cumbersome for those in the townhouses along Alameda to enjoy.

The project has been designed to complement each of the buildings within the project. While the two towers look relatively the same, they are different from the six story building which is different from the church which is different from the townhouses. However, they all complement each other and provide a similar architectural style. The townhouses are the only clear break from the glass fa�ade, but still offers components of the glass to complement the site as a whole. This building also more closely complements the buildings across Alameda as it has more of a residential look. The other buildings, however, are quite a different architecture than the surrounding buildings, especially those on the commercial edge. Harmony can still be achieved with different styles, such as is apparent with the townhouses structure. However, as the style of the other buildings is so different from those across Lima (proposed) and Olive and the freeway, these may not be compatible and/or complementary.

The applicant has provided a variety of uses and facilities that include residential units, residential-serving retail, office space, office-serving restaurants, a health club for both residents and office workers, a child care facility for both residents and office workers, a church for on-site and adjacent neighborhoods and open space and plazas for on-site tenants and off-site neighbors. These facilities will meet both the needs of the planned development as well as the needs of the residential and media district neighbors.

The applicant is required to comply with energy conservation methods. The architect has been working with glass for many years and has established a method to reduce heat into the structure and thereby reduce costs to cool it down. The low-emissivity glass used minimizes heat and maximizes the availability of natural daylight reducing the need to turn on lights. Fixed and moveable shading systems integrated with the fa�ade minimize transmitted solar heat gain. Ice building chillers and ice storage are used to generate a "block" of ice and the chillers are run at night. During the day, the building is cooled by circulating chilled water through the ice block. The developer will implement Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) strategies into the building design to reduce energy consumption.

The PD amendment application and plans were routed to different departments and divisions in the City. Most of the comments were included in the EIR. Many were not related to any environmental impacts and therefore were listed in the conditions of approval or partial list of code requirements. No department or division objected to the development of the subject project. (Exhibit F)

CHILD CARE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

The applicant made a presentation to the Child Care Committee in October 2001 and June 2002. At these meeting, the Committee reviewed the proposal, asked questions and offered suggestions. The Committee is always in support of new child care facilities in the City. They offered the operator advice for the start-up of the facility and recommended that they become accredited and provide care for infants and toddlers. The Committee also offered to assist the applicant further and encouraged them to keep in touch with the Committee during start-up of the facility.

The Transportation Commission simply reviewed the traffic impacts of the proposed project. In October 2001, the traffic study was presented to the committee by staff and the consultants. The commission asked questions and offered recommendations. The Commission voted 6-0 to accept the findings of the traffic study and to recommend that the design encourage and promote all alternative transit modes, other than personal vehicles, and to emphasize pedestrian use and access. The Commission expressed concerns over too many parking spaces (prefer to rely on transit system) and pedestrian use. Their comments were summarized in a letter that was included and responded to in the FEIR

In addition to reviewing and commenting on the DEIR as discussed in the environmental review section of this report, the Planning Board reviewed the project at a public hearing conducted on September 9, 2002, continued to September 16, 2002 and concluded on October 7, 2002. The Board voted 5-0 to recommend denial of the project. (Exhibit G) The Board enumerated different issues and listed issues they thought Council should focus on while considering the project. Some of these opinions were expressed by all Board Members, while other were expressed by only a few or by individual Board Members. After each comment is a discussion on whether or not the issue has been address by the applicant:

• The FAR was too high for the site and too high for the mix of uses.

The applicant reduced the FAR from 2.59 to 2.34, but did not change the mix of uses.

• The DOR request is too high. Cannot justify awarding more DOR than was awarded to the Bob Hope project.

The applicant has lowered their DOR request to be proportionally equal to the Bob Hope project approval; a reduction of over 100,000 sf of DOR.

• An OE factor should be used for sound stages or warehouses, not office use which has a much higher trip generation than those uses.

The OE factor for media offices is listed in code and that is what is being applied to this project. The OE factor for sound stages and warehouses is much different than for media offices as the code recognizes they have a different trip generation.

• Fifteen stories is too high, it would cut the skyline and occlude the view of the hills for the residential neighborhood. Maybe 6 stories is good. The project dwarfs the Bob Hope project and adjacent residential neighborhood.

The applicant has lowered the building by 26 feet, a 3 story reduction for the office building. The residential building although lowered by 26 feet also, remains at 15 stories as Code requires counting lofts as stories. The EIR identified a loss of partial views of the Hollywood Hills, which will be even less with the 179 foot buildings.

• The phasing of the project creates problems with off-site parking required for the church and a loss of recreational amenities for the residents.

The applicant changed the phasing to include all required parking within the first phase eliminating the need for off-site parking. They also included the 6 story media office in the first phase which includes the health club thereby making the site virtually complete after the first phase.

• The traffic study considers buildout through 2008, but the Development Agreement (DA) is through 2017. The DA should be amended to reduce the completion time to match with the analyzed buildout.

Burbank traditionally allows ten years for DAs or longer for more master planned projects. Although the entitlement to build as approved would be granted for the full life of the DA, if the applicant does not complete buildout by 2008, a new traffic study would be required. This is a requirement of CEQA and is identified in the proposed DA.

• Traffic impacts analysis should have included Barham Boulevard and the residential neighborhood to the north.

The traffic study did include these areas. However, with the turning restrictions, the residential area immediately north of Alameda was identified as an area that would not be impacted by this project. Also, the traffic study did identify mitigation measures for Barham.

• The proposed $150,000 for the neighborhood protection program is not enough for the magnitude of this project.

While the $150,000 was based on other neighborhood protection programs the City has completed, the applicant has offered to pay $250,000 toward a neighborhood protection program that would be run by the City with the input of residents.

• The DA should identify the architectural firm since it is such an integral part of the project. Media related office use needs to be defined in the DA and in the conditions of approval for enforcement.

These issues have been added to the proposed DA.

• The Pinnacle and Bob Hope projects should be finished before approval of the project on this site so the City can ascertain impacts.
• Some Board Members did not like the architecture while others did.
• Some Board Members felt the development of this entire area as a whole was preferred to a piecemealed approach.

The purpose of the Planned Development process is to provide an alternate process to accommodate unique developments for residential, commercial, professional, or other similar activities, including modified development standards which would create a desirable, functional and community environment under controlled conditions of a development plan.

Staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed project (2.36 FAR), Planned Development No. 2000-5 and the Development Agreement and recommend certification of the Environmental Impact Report related thereto, subject to the attached findings and Conditions of Approval. Below is a sampling of the findings and conditions of approval. (Exhibits C and H)

In order for Council to approve the proposed project, they must adopt findings for each significant environmental effects of the project. These findings shall indicate that alternatives or mitigation measures which can reduce the impacts to a less than significant level are infeasible due to economic, social or other benefits of the proposed project. In the case of this project, it has been determined that the only impact that cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance is Air Quality during construction of the proposed project. There is only one project alternative studied that has the ability to eliminate this significant impact, that is the no project alternative. The no project alternative is not a feasible alternative as it would not meet any of the applicant�s basic objectives nor would they serve the City�s desire for a comprehensive development of the site. The 1.1, 2.0 and 2.1 alternatives also continue to significantly impact Air Quality during construction. These alternatives are also not feasible as they do not provide the type and mix of uses identified in the MDSP for this area nor do they meet the goals identified in the MDSP or the applicant�s basic objectives.

Below are some of the conditions that limit and control development of the project:

• Only the 2.36 FAR project is approved, not the 3.15 or 2.72 that was previously proposed.
• The City Council must approve a landscape plan before building permits can be pulled for the project.
• The development must comply with all mitigation measures stated in the EIR.
• The applicant will be required to pay transportation improvement fees prior to issuance of building permits, City staff will ensure fees are used for mitigation measures identified in the traffic study for the project.
• The applicant shall sign a covenant and be responsible for maintenance of street furniture, hardscape and landscape in the public right-of-way surrounding the subject site.
• Each commercial tenant shall receive parking with their lease and must give those spaces to their employees free of charge. Each commercial tenant shall provide 2 hours validation for parking free of charge to their patrons.
• If the developer has not obtained a building permit for the construction of Phase 2 within 9 years of the effective date of the development agreement, the developer must pay $50,000 to the City to be used to anywhere in the Media District to encourage or improve the type of development desired in the Phase 2 development. Another $50,000 will be due each year until the developer obtains a building permit for Phase 2.
• After 10 years, if the applicant has not begun building Phase 2 (obtained a building permit) the applicant will begin losing 50,000 square feet of DOR. Another 50,000 sf will be removed from their approval each subsequent year that they do not have a valid building permit for Phase 2. In this case, the City may allocate the DOR to other projects that are capable of meeting the goals of the MDSP.
• Phase 1 shall include all parking required for all uses within phase1 plus an additional 50 spaces (minimum of 1,256 spaces plus loading) and these shall be located within the subterranean parking garage. The spaces dedicated for the residential units will be separately secured. The land at grade not improved with the 12 story office building shall be landscaped according to a plan approved by the City Council at a future date.
• Half of the child care shall be available to tenants on-site on a first-come, first-served basis. When a space opens up, the operator will first look to a list of on-site parents or guardians, then to off-site parents or guardians in an effort to reduce trips to the site.
• The applicant will make every reasonable effort to lease the specialty retail space to businesses which will serve not only the tenants on-site, but also the adjacent residential neighborhood. In addition, cafes and other businesses which add a more pedestrian scale to the Olive edge shall be provided.
• The applicant will be required to pay $250,000 for a neighborhood protection program designed by the City or its consultants.
• During construction, the contractor must follow many requirements to limit intrusion and inconvenience for the residential neighbors. One of those requirements is for an off-street parking area to be provided for workers and a transportation system must be provided if the area is off-site. All contracts shall state the prohibition of parking in residential neighborhoods and a monetary penalty will be charged for any violation. A construction hotline will be set up for neighbors to report violations. Those reports shall be responded to within 24 hours.

Exhibit A Assessor�s Plat Map

Zoning and Fair Political Practices Act Compliance Map

Media District map outlining Media Center

Aerial photograph (smaller area)

Aerial photograph (larger area)

Exhibit B Letter stating newly revised project proposal

Exhibit E Radius map showing where 15 story buildings can be built and prime locations for use of significant amounts of Development Opportunity Reserve (DOR)

Exhibit F Department comments from Redevelopment Agency staff, Public Works, Burbank Water and Power Electric, Police, Fire, Parks, Recreation and Community Services, Building, Burbank Water and Power Water

Exhibit G Planning Board Resolution #2875, minutes from the Board meetings of September 9, 2002, September 16, 2002 and October 7, 2002

Exhibit H Proposed Development Agreement with Conditions of Approval

Exhibit I Proposed Resolution and Ordinance

go to the top