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 buildings on site:

Surrounding Neighborhood: Westerly adjacent to the subject site along Alameda Avenue is the newly constructed State Route 134 westbound off-ramp.  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, which is now beginning construction, 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 as set forth in more detail below. (Exhibit B)  In its PD application, the applicant requested that the EIR study several different scenarios so that after input from the community, the applicant could narrow the scope of the project.  Therefore, throughout this report, the project will be referred to as Scenario 5 as that is the number that corresponds to the development scenario analyzed in the EIR.

In 2000, the applicant proposed a different mixed use development project.  The project went through many iterations after community meetings, after Planning Board meetings and ultimately, was denied by the City Council in April 2003.  The following table lists the proposal that was denied by the City Council in 2003 and the currently proposed project to show the progression that was made with this project proposal.  In addition, the applicant has provided a summary sheet identifying the various changes in the project from that which was denied by the City Council. (Exhibit B)

* OEGSF calculations are described in detail in later sections of the report

Site Plan and Building Envelope Details:

There are five buildings proposed on the site.  In accordance with the MDSP height restrictions, the height of the buildings step up the farther their distance from the R-1, single family residential zone.  Therefore, the buildings along Alameda are 50�, 70� in the center of the site and one 133� building near Olive and the 134 Freeway.  The buildings have footprints that allow large amounts of open space with both landscaping and hardscape.  This open space is 94,194 square feet which is over 56% of the site area.

Design Details:

After much public concern and discussion regarding the design of the previously proposed project, which will be described in greater detail later in the report, the applicant has stated the desire to prepare a new design for the project.  In fact, the applicant intends on holding an architectural competition to select the architect for the project.  However given that the redesign of the project will take a substantial number of months to complete, the applicant requests approval of an �envelope� of development.  Under this proposal, upon execution of the development agreement, the applicant would be vested with respect to the site plan, uses, maximum permitted density, height and other development standards for the project, with the approval of the design by the Council occurring at a later date pursuant to design conditions of approval.  As the design of the project is an integral part of the decision making process, a condition of approval is proposed that sets parameters of the design criteria and allows the City Council (after Planning Board review) sole and absolute discretion over the final design and architecture of the buildings. (Conditions #11-12 and attached design photographs to the Development Agreement)  Therefore, the report does not go into detail on the design and any elevations shown in previous documents, such as the Draft EIR, should not be considered as part of the project proposal.  The applicant will have three years to bring back a design and receive Council approval, or the approval will not be effective.

While this process might be considered unique or unusual, it is not unprecedented in the City of Burbank.  The City has approved projects in the past without a specific design or architecture.  Specifically, planned developments were approved for the three studio lots without the benefit of architectural design.  Those projects were more loosely conditioned allowing staff final approval of architecture as long as the materials were similar to that already existing on site and consistent with Media District Specific Plan guidelines.  The building envelope, maximum height and general location of the buildings with maximum square footages, was identified, but nothing more.  Additionally, the Media Studios North project was approved with conceptual architecture identified and future buildings were required to be substantially similar, but staff was allowed final approval of architecture and design.  The Bob Hope project was approved with architecture shown for the Phase I building only.  Architecture and design for the Phase II building was not developed by the time the project went to Council for approval.  The Phase II building was limited by height, square footage, setbacks and use and a condition was included that required the architecture for the Phase II building to be approved by the City Council prior to building permit approval.

Neighborhood Protection and Setting:

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.  While most of these concerns stem from existing problems, the requirement nevertheless is being placed upon this applicant.  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 center on the property that would accommodate 72 children.  Outdoor cafes and seating areas are proposed as well as art and water features.  Recreational amenities both indoors and outdoors as well as community rooms are proposed for the residential tenants.

Ownership of Land:

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 and the agreement would allow three years to do so.  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.

Phasing:

Although the applicant would prefer to construct the project in a single phase, the applicant has prepared the application to accommodate up to three phases if necessary.  The phases are listed below.

Phase 1 � Demolish all buildings on site.  Construct the 50� buildings which are the church and the 16 units of townhomes along Alameda with ground floor retail/restaurant space.  Subterranean parking to accommodate these uses in accordance with the parking study would also be built.  The remainder of the site will be landscaped with grass and trees.

Phase 2 � Construct the 70� buildings which are 120 residential units with ground floor health club, child care center, retail and restaurant space.  Subterranean parking required for this phase would also be constructed.

Phase 3 � Construct the 133� building which includes 162 residential units with ground floor retail/restaurant space.  The remainder of the subterranean parking would also be constructed.

Municipal Code Conformance:

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 under traditional zoning or where discretionary permits are customarily 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.

* Required parking is discussed below.

Some of the items listed in the above table 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; while the project is not proposed at the maximum R-5 density (87 units per acres), it is over the R-4 density.  (78 units per acre instead of 58 units per acre for R-4).

For the purposes of further comparison, the land currently zoned MDR-4 plus the vacated street and alleys (assuming they would convert to the residential zone that they are adjacent to) would accommodate 157 residential units by right (given approximately 118,000 square feet of land).  Also, the land currently zoned MDC-2 would accommodate 46,600 square feet of general commercial development by right (given approximately 42,370 square feet of land).

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; the project provides open space, some of which is shared with other uses.

3)      *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 a separate technical memorandum identifies the peak parking demand for all the uses on the site.  The residential parking spaces, however, will be required to be located in a secured area and therefore would not be shared with the other uses.  This was accounted for in the analysis.

Additional Applications:

The applicant has applied for a Vesting Tentative Tract Map Number 61882 which would allow the sale of residential units as condominiums.  The proposed development agreement (DA) would grant the applicant the vested right to construct the project, subject to its terms and conditions.  If the City Council approves the PD and DA, the DA could not be executed until the applicant receives legal or equitable interest in all of the subject property, including the parcels owned by the Redevelopment Agency.  Moreover, the rezoning of the site to PD does not take effect until the applicant acquires fee title to the entire site.  Two of the lots on the subject property are owned by the Redevelopment Agency.  The applicant has offered to buy this land; therefore a fair market value appraisal will be conducted based on the highest and best use of the property.  Lastly, the applicant has applied for a vacation of the portion of Avon Street as well as two alleys that intersect the site (also discussed below).

Environmental Review:  Under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this project.  As this type of report requires a specialized expertise, the City of Burbank hired Kaku Associates to prepare the Traffic Study and Impact Sciences to prepare the remainder of the report.

CEQA requires that a lead agency (the City of Burbank) first conduct a scoping process to determine which areas to study in the environmental review process.  Therefore, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed to public agencies in August 2003 and a scoping meeting was held with the community on September 24, 2003 (Exhibit C).  The comments received through the NOP process and the scooping meeting, plus knowledge we had gathered from the process with the previously proposed project for this site, allowed the EIR to focus on certain environmental concerns such as traffic, noise, air quality and aesthetics.

As required by CEQA, the DEIR was released to the public on May 26, 2004 which began a 45 day comment period that ended July 12, 2004. (Exhibit C)  Through the DEIR process, staff conducted an extensive analysis of the traffic in the surrounding area.  The EIR examined existing conditions, future conditions without the project, and then future conditions with the project.  As the proposal by the applicant included five scenarios, all five scenarios were analyzed.  The EIR provides recommended mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen all significant impacts.

EIR Summary

1.                  Areas studied  CEQA requires review of several different areas of the environment to be studied.  However, through the initial study and NOP process, an EIR need focus only on the areas with the potential to create a significant negative impact on the environment.  This EIR studied Geology and Soils, Air Quality, Noise, Land Use, Population and Housing, Traffic and Circulation, Public Services and Utilities, Aesthetics and Cultural Resources.

2.                  Water Supply Assessment  A section of the EIR contains information on water supply for the project site, and Burbank in general.  This information was taken from the Water Supply Assessment prepared by Burbank Water and Power. (Exhibit D)  Preparation of this Assessment is a requirement of SB610 as a few of the proposed development scenarios exceeded the thresholds of development which require preparation of the assessment.  The assessment concludes that Burbank has more than enough water through our agreements to provide the needed water to the subject development and that the maximum proposed development is within the growth considered by the Department.

3.                  Cumulative Impacts  CEQA requires that a lead agency consider cumulative imkpacts as well as project impacts.  Specifically, the EIR assumes that the City will experience a certain amount of growth in development each year (the City of Burbank assumes 1.5%) plus certain large developments that have received entitlements or are proposed are also added on top to include the maximum amount of development by the horizon year of the project.  These projects are identified in the EIR.  CEQA does not allow a City to look only at the impacts of the project, but requires that these cumulative developments be considered.  It is an all encompassing process.

4.                  Potentially Significant Impacts  The analysis revealed potentially significant impacts in the areas of Air Quality, Noise, Geology and Soils, Public Services and Transportation and Circulation.  The EIR describes what thresholds were used to determine the significance of each impact.

5.                  Alternatives studied  CEQA requires that an EIR study alternatives to proposed projects including any feasible alternative sites. (p. 1.0-25 of the DEIR has a summary of the alternatives studied)  With this project, no alternative sites were identified that could meet the project�s basic objectives.  The alternatives that were studied, rather, were different densities of the same project with varying land uses.  Each alternative has varying degrees of impacts, some significant, some not.  Most have suggested mitigation measures.

6.                  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.  These mitigation measures are incorporated into the conditions of approval.  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 during construction of the subject project. (p. 1.0-24 has a summary of the impacts for all scenarios studied)

7.                  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.  Later in the process, but before release of the Final EIR, the applicant stated his desire to change the architecture and design of the buildings.  However, not knowing what that would be, a condition of approval was suggested that would set design parameters and allow the City Council, after Planning Board review, sole and absolute discretion over the design and architecture of the building.  The Final EIR therefore accounts for this change and it determines that this change in project would not result in additional impacts to the environment that were not studied in the Draft EIR.  For traffic impacts, the DEIR describes the mitigation measures necessary for Scenario 5 (total of eight), which are different than those required for Scenario 1 (total of 12). (Exhibit C)

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 identified in the Draft EIR.  The recent project modification 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 DEIR process, City staff and the applicant held community meetings to discuss the DEIR and the project in general.  Specifically, a community meeting was held June 16, 2004.  This was after the release of the DEIR.  At this meeting, residents were invited to ask questions and give input on the document and the project in general.  In addition, on June 21, 2004 a meeting was held in front of the Planning Board to discuss the DEIR.  Comments and questions were received and a transcript of the meeting was included in the FEIR.  Each comment and question related to environmental concerns was responded to in the FEIR.

Neighborhood Protection Program:  After Council denied the previously proposed project on this site, Council directed staff to conduct a study and prepare a Neighborhood Protection Program (NPP) for the area north of Olive and Alameda Avenues, south of Oak Street and between Hollywood Way and Buena Vista Street.  This was in response to complaints from residents in the area who stated there is currently a parking and cut-through traffic problem.  This is a separate process from the EIR which studied traffic impacts for the project.  While no one can state for certain that a project across the street from a residential neighborhood will have absolutely no impact on the residential neighborhood, it is important to note that the improvements to the arterial street system have the effect of keeping project specific traffic out of this neighborhood.  Certain turning movement restrictions are included in the traffic study to help ensure this.  The neighborhood traffic improvements, therefore, are not necessary to prevent project specific traffic from entering the neighborhood, but are an additional measure to protect the residential neighborhood from all types of existing and future development in the area.

Kaku Associates was hired to work with the community and prepare the NPP.  Four community meetings were held and there was a consensus from the group that various measures should be implemented such as permit parking, some additional stop signs, striping changes, diverters and a raised intersection near Stevenson School. (Exhibit E)  The program is not complete; the next step is to send voting cards (December 2004) to all the residents in the area to determine if the majority of people are in support of the measures.  Then staff will hold one final community meeting (January 2004) and will report the results to the City Council.  Staff and the consultants held what was thought to be the last community meeting in May, but the community requested that one more meeting be held after the voting cards are released and before the due date for voting for any members of the public to ask questions, with their neighbors present, about the proposed improvements.

Although all of the current problems come from existing development, the measures proposed would prevent the proposed Platt project from impacting these residential neighborhoods.  The applicant has volunteered and staff believes it is appropriate to ask that the applicant contribute to any NPP that the City Council may adopt.  Therefore, a condition of approval has been added to reflect this contribution of up to $150,000.

Public Correspondence and Input:  The Planning Division has received 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.  Some of the comments received relate to the entitlement portion of the project.  Meaning, although it is not studied as an environmental impact, it should be analyzed as part of the PD process.

For all meetings, including this public hearing, the Planning Division 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.  Also, many residents living outside the project�s mailing list requested to receive information about this project during the previous proposal.  Those same people were notified about the public hearing.  In addition, the notice has been posted on the City�s website and in the Burbank Leader.

In addition to actual written comments (by mail, e-mail and hand delivery as documented in the DEIR), City staff held three community meetings to discuss the project where verbal comments were given.  While two of these meetings were held exclusively to obtain comments on the potential environmental impacts (September 24, 2003 scoping meeting at Stevenson School and June 21, 2004 public meeting at Planning Board), the other meeting was designed to obtain comments on the project and disperse information about the proposed project (June 16, 2004 at Buena Vista Branch Library).   The applicant attended all meetings to provide first-hand information on their proposed project.

Although some residents had specific concerns or praises, there were major themes that could be gleamed from the verbal and written commentary.

Height � Not focusing on the environmental aspects but rather the impacts that the neighborhood was concerned it would �feel,� much of the nearby 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 500,000 square feet).  Some of these comments related to the setbacks proposed on the Olive Avenue side.  Most of these comments came in prior to the applicant�s proposal of Scenario 5 which has much larger setbacks along Olive.  One commercial neighbor asked for the setbacks to be increased to meet code. (Exhibit F)  A condition of approval is proposed that would require the applicant to meet code required setback of 20% of the building height (which is a 26�� setback) for the Olive Avenue frontage.  Code allows averaging to be used for this setback, so that is what is proposed.  The 26�� setback, therefore, would be averaged for the buildings that face Olive Avenue.

Architecture � Many comments from residents were about the architecture that was proposed.  Many did not like the design and did not feel the glass and steel fit in with the community, both residential and commercial, nor did it fit in with Burbank.  Of  course, these comments came in before the change to remove this type of architecture.

Traffic � Many residents have significant concerns over the amount of traffic that the project would generate and how that would impact their lives.  However, most residents did note the fact that by the applicant changing his proposal to a mostly residential project, the peak hour trips were reduced which they appreciated.  Additionally, the residents who attended the NPP meetings that were conducted separately from this project proposal were pleased to see some measures proposed that would alleviate current cut-through traffic problems.  One commercial neighbor stated the vacation of Avon Street would force those that currently use Avon to use Lima Street for access to the various nearby sites.  They also stated that widening of Lima would be necessary to accommodate the additional traffic on this street. (Exhibit F)  The traffic study performed did not come to these same conclusions.  In fact, because the project has two access points, those traveling west along Olive would exit at Olive rather than at Alameda as indicated in the letter, thereby avoiding two additional streets and turns.

Parking � Related to traffic, many residents expressed concern over intrusion of parking into the residential neighborhoods, especially if commercial tenants and visitors had to pay for parking.  The NPP also suggested solutions to the current parking problems that the neighbors face and the residents were pleased that the project would likely not have an impact when these measures are put in place in addition to conditions proposed to keep parking for the project on the site.

In addition to the City-held meeting, the applicant held two 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.  The applicant also held one support dinner meeting for those who expressed an interest in the project and has held numerous individual and small group meetings with the residents.

ANALYSIS:

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.

Office Equivalent Gross Square Feet (OEGSF):

Before a discussion of the different findings required of the project, it is important to clarify the calculation of OEGSF which is the method for calculating floor area ratio (FAR).  The method is identified in code, as required in the adopted MDSP, in an effort to compare different types of development fairly.  As stated in the table in the background, the applicant is proposing a project with an OEGSF of 112,651.  The MDSP sets a maximum development limit at a 1.1 FAR (FAR is based on OEGSF, not gross square footage).  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.  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 simply relates to a calculation method and under all three calculation scenarios, the project remains the same with respect to the massing, height and size.

1)      The development impact fee 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 is approximately equal to 297 square feet of general office space.  This is identified in the MDSP based on the studies that were prepared for the MDSP.  Therefore, to determine OEGSF for the residential portion of the project, staff multiplied 298 units by 297 square feet to get an OEGSF of 88,506.  This OEGSF combined with the other uses makes a total of 112,651 OEGSF.  By right, the developer could build 181,898 sf (1.1 x site size of 165,362 sf).  Subtracting 181,898 from 112,651 is a negative number and therefore Scenario 5 is less than the development permitted by right.

2)      There is a second option to consider how residential development relates to FAR.  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.  Based on the one unit per 500 sf limit, the residential development would consume 149,000 square feet of land.  That would leave 16,362 sf of land remaining for non-residential uses.  Therefore 17,998 OEGSF (1.1 x remaining site size of 16,362) could be built.  When you subtract the remaining development proposed (24,146 OEGSF you discover that the proposal exceeds the 1.1 FAR allowance by 6,148 OEGSF.  The applicant would need that amount of Development Opportunity Reserve (DOR) or Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) to build the proposed 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 298 units in addition to the 1.1 FAR allowed by right.  In this case, the FAR of the project would be far below the 1.1 limitation as the project is predominantly residential.

The MDSP does not specify which of the three above 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, for example, are assumed to have an internal rate factor.  This means that they generate less trips as 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.

Goals of the Media District Overlay Zone:

In order for the City to approve a building greater than 35�, the City must find that the project meets the goals and objectives of the General Plan for the Media District.  The following are the goals of the MDSP and the analysis of the project compared to them:

(a)   Protect the quality of life in single-family residential neighborhoods surrounding the District through density limits, height restrictions, development standards, traffic diversion techniques and other neighborhood protection programs.

The project provides three square feet of development for every square foot of land area.  This includes the commercial uses of the project, the church and the residential use of the project.  In accordance with the MDSP, the office equivalent factor should be used and when it is, the project provides .68 square feet of office equivalent development for every square foot of land.  This is less than the 1.1 limit imposed by the Code.  For comparison purposes, across Olive Avenue, the Pinnacle project provides 3.07 square feet of office development for every square foot of development (as entitled for both phases).  If an office equivalence factor was not utilized for the Platt project, it would provide 3.03 square feet of development for every one square foot of land.  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 in height; they do not.  The MDSP limits height to 70 feet for buildings setback between 300 and 500 feet from R-1, the two 70� buildings in the center of the project site are setback over 300 feet.  The 133� building also follows 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 require employees to pay for parking on site end up having a tremendous effect on neighboring residential uses.  Although commercial development on this site is minimal, staff has proposed a development standard (condition of approval) that would require the developer to provide most of the commercial parking free of charge (at a minimum through a validation system) and to provide a mechanism for ensuring that tenants are paying for parking for their employees and visitors.

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 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.  The measures proposed with the NPP would be another technique to reduce intrusion into the single-family residential neighborhoods.  A potential condition would require the applicant to pay into the program that is eventually adopted by the City Council after a vote of the community.

(b)   Allow sufficient and reasonable development opportunity for media and medical establishments:  these uses have a special need to locate and expand within the MD.

The project does not prevent other commercial sites in the District from developing media and medical establishments.  Beside development opportunity on sites that are currently underdeveloped, the studios have master plans that allow millions of square feet of commercial media space.  Because of its proximity to other media offices, media company employees in particular would have a desire to locate in this project.

(c)    Ensure that infrastructure and public service improvements are provided to accommodate the needs of all existing and future development and that improvements required as a result of new development are funded primarily by that new development.

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 and Alameda Avenues) for expanded rights-of-way to improve the transportation infrastructure.  The project will also comply with Title 24 guidelines with respect to energy use.

(d)   Ensure that all property owners have a long term opportunity for a reasonable amount of development.

The project will be complete within three years, but the developer would be guaranteed to develop the project up to 15 years through a development agreement.  This new development would be subject to an updated traffic study after 2008 indicating the new horizon year if necessary.  While this might not be considered long term, the proposed project allows for the long term opportunity for a reasonable amount of development.  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 and future zoning and General Plan restrictions.

The proposed project would not require use of DOR and therefore other projects in the District could apply for this reserve which includes over 740,000 OEGSF of development opportunity assuming OEGSF is calculated under staff�s recommended method.

(e)   Minimize the potential for land use conflicts by restricting intensive development near single family residential neighborhoods and by applying development standards which promote quality development and maximize compatibility of adjacent properties.

The project is a primarily residential project with a density of approximately 78 units per acre plus approximately 33,000 square feet of commercial development, a church and a child care center.  These are uses that are compatible with single family neighborhoods, but the level of development is intensive and therefore might not be considered compatible.  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 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.  So although the development proposed is intense, the MDSP indicates that this is a site that was planned for intense development, even development that might not be as compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood like this development is.

(f)     Encourage distinctive urban design elements and architectural standards which establish the gateways, corridors and centers of the district and project an identity which emphasizes the unique entertainment orientation of the MD

As defined, this area is the center of the media district.  The design of the buildings is unknown at this time, but a condition of approval would allow the City Council sole and absolute discretion of approving the architectural design.  The criteria for evaluating any architectural design submittal by the applicant are those that are identified in the MDSP and that which has been identified in the condition of approval.  Photographs of aspects of the design and urban feel of the project have been included as an attachment to the condition so there is no confusion over the parameters.  Although the tallest building proposed is 133�, good design can have the impact of visually reducing the height and making the building appear less massive.  The project design could be regionally modern to emphasize the unique nature of the media industry, but without being internationally modern which would be incompatible with the surrounding commercial and residential neighborhoods.

(g)   Provide land uses, urban design components and public improvements which maximize pedestrian travel within the district.

The District is predominantly commercial and while that may allow some mid-day pedestrian movement, the residential uses maximize pedestrian movement, at many times throughout the day.  The project also provides many areas of open space.  These can have the result of attracting more pedestrian to the area, especially when combined with commercial uses that can be visited throughout the day.  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 a good design to encourage pedestrian activity.

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.

(h)   Encourage retail uses which support the employment bases and residential areas and which create an active street life.

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 florist, 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 both Olive and Alameda.  Another use proposed is a health club which will serve the on and off-site residents and the office employees in the area.  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 (or live in) 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.

(i)     Promote car/van pools, ridesharing, flex time, public transportation improvements and other transportation systems management strategies which reduce traffic, particularly in the peak commuting hours.

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 Board 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.

(j)     Encourage a mix of land uses and promote open space, plazas, facilities of the arts and child care to enhance the quality of life in the MD.

The project provides a mix of land uses such as residential, a health club, a church, retail and restaurant uses.  The project provides over 94,000 sf of open space with a building lot coverage of 43%.  The open space would be required to contain 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.  These uses enhance the quality of life of those on-site as well as those within the Media District who take advantage of the facilities.  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.

Overall Commercial and Residential Objectives of the Media District Specific Plan:

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. 

Residential objectives:

(a)   Provide for a proper transition between the commercial/industrial, and multi-family residential areas.

The project site contains commercial but primarily multi-family uses.  Directly north of the project is multi-family uses and directly south are commercial uses.  The mixed use project site provides a transition between the two uses.  The church also acts as a transition from the more intense commercial areas to the multi-family areas.

(b)   Require residential property owners to maintain their structures, parking and landscaping to a high standard, and to rehabilitate structures where necessary.

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.

(c)    Encourage the recycling of obsolete structures, particularly those which do not include adequate off-street parking or those which have not been adequately maintained.

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.  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.

(d)   Create a safe pleasant residential pedestrian environment via provisions for landscaping, shaded sidewalks, nighttime lighting and other appropriate amenities.

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.

(e)   Encourage the assembly of larger multi-lot parcels for new multi-family residential development to facilitate high quality development and the provision of on-site landscaping, usable open space, recreational facilities, and other amenities.

The applicant proposes to assemble over 25 lots for the subject application, which includes a request to provide 298 residential units.  The development can be considered high quality because of the proposed amenities.  There will be over 94,000 square feet of open space which is about 57% of the total lot area.  Some of this space, however, is shared with other uses on the site and visitors to the site.  In addition, recreational facilities and amenities are provided within and around the buildings.  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.

(f)     Require utility lines to all residential structures and the utility lines leading onto or across the project site to be place underground.

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

Commercial objectives:

(a)   Encourage new businesses which are pedestrian-oriented or designed to serve the retail/service needs of the Media District business community or adjacent residential neighborhoods.  Encourage businesses which support the local business community and adjacent neighborhoods and which promote diversity and scale capable of attracting pedestrian activity.  Discourage businesses which do not meet these requirements.

This project will contain retail and commercial services in addition to a public plaza and open space to serve the adjacent residential neighborhood.  The residential units might likely serve the surrounding office community and support the already thriving media industry in Burbank.

The building orientation would facilitate pedestrian activity on the Olive edge.  The design of all open spaces on the Alameda edge would facility pedestrian activity, but would allow for more seating areas.

(b)   Create an inviting pedestrian environment through appropriate streetscape elements including hardscape, street furniture, landscaping and lighting.  Minimize curb cuts.

The site plan allows for ample open space that can contain both landscape and hardscape elements.  The urban design of the plaza areas will provide seating areas, outdoor eating spaces and appropriate lighting which all create an inviting pedestrian environment.

(c)    Require site designs that encourage pedestrian travel and provide a mix of uses and amenities capable of attracting pedestrian traffic from throughout the district.

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.  As the district is very large, it may not attract pedestrians from throughout the district.  But certainly employees from nearby studios and other media offices could walk to the site to make use of the amenities.

(d)   Allow retail and restaurant establishments at or near the sidewalk.  Promote accessible, pedestrian-oriented landscaped setbacks in front of non-retail buildings.

The proposal includes retail and restaurant establishments at and near the sidewalk.  There will be landscaping in front of the church with a sidewalk; all other ground floors will contain retail/restaurant space and any residential lobbies will be required to have a minimal frontage so as not to break up the retail facade.

(e)   Require architecture and landscaping that reflects the quality image and innovation of the media industry.

As specific architectural design/style is not part of this proposal but will be reviewed separately, the project cannot be compared to this finding.  However, the condition that requires Council approval of the architecture will allow the Council discretion over determining if the design reflects the quality image of the media industry.  Additionally, the design condition of approval sets additional design parameters that will ensure the project architecture has a quality and appropriate look for the District.

(f)     Require the use of landscaping and architectural elements to screen parking lots trash areas and delivery doors in an effort to promote attractive pedestrian corridors on the side street approaches as well as the arterial streets.

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 building and landscaping would be designed to screen these elements.

(g)   Require parking to be located behind or beneath buildings.

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

(h)   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.

The NPP that the City has prepared with the community�s input offers improvements to the residential area north of the subject property which would alleviate some of the existing parking deficiencies in the District by ensuring that residents have access to street parking.  A condition of approval requires the applicant to contribute to the cost of these improvements.

(i)     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.

Media Center Objectives:

The project is located in the Media Center portion of the City as described in the MDSP which is the area bounded by Alameda, Olive, the 134 Freeway and Hollywood Way. (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:

(a)   Promote media-related office development, development owned by or leased to media or entertainment companies.

The project does not provide media office space.  For this reason, staff required that the applicant apply for a General Plan Amendment to allow a predominantly residential development in this Media Center area of the Media District even though residential above the ground floor is not prohibited but requires a Conditional Use Permit.  Staff hired a consultant to review the request and consider the appropriateness of an amendment that would permit residential in this area. (Exhibit G)  The findings of this report state that with the abundance of office space entitlements throughout the District, turning 3.8 acres of potential media office space to residential space would not effect the overall uses of the District.  In fact, the City has begun looking at mixed use in an effort to relieve congestion, encourage pedestrian oriented development and promote better communities citywide.  The study determined that residential development was not purposefully excluded from the MDSP and the Media Center, but rather it was not considered.  The MDSP came at a time when residential development was on the rise and citywide measures were being taken to reduce densities.  Also, mixed use (residential/commercial) was not a concept familiar to Burbank or Southern California as a whole during the late 80s and early 90s.

As part of the ongoing update of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, a study was recently performed by Keyser Marston Associates which found that many of the commercial properties in the City are underperforming with regard to the amount of sales tax generated.  This is indicative of the City�s oversubscription of land devoted to commercial uses and that there is not enough commercial activity to support the amount of land that the City has devoted to commercial uses.  The study found that it would be economically viable and would make better use of the land to allow residential development along commercial corridors.  Because of this and other growing national trends toward smart growth and new urbanism, staff will propose in the update to the Land Use Element that mixed use and residential development be permitted and encouraged in many of the commercial areas in the City.

(b)   Allow higher intensity of use for media-related development.

The proposed project contains no media-related development.

(c)    Encourage other uses desired in the Media District including legitimate theater, media museum, hotel, restaurants and retail/service businesses which support the media industry.

The subject proposal does not include a theater, a museum or a hotel.    The proposal includes restaurants and a childcare facility that are capable of supporting nearby employees of the Media District and residents on-site and in the area.

This objective does not state whether residential uses are encouraged or not.  As described earlier, 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.  One may also state 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.

(d)   Require the master planned development of both Media Center North and South which serves as a focal point for the Media District Specific Plan; unify the North and South sites; supply expansive landscaped plaza areas; and provide for convenient pedestrian travel between the two areas

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 beginning construction).  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 already approved by Council offer different architectural representations.  When a final design is approved by Council, this project site may serve to unify the northern and southern areas unlike the two previously approved projects have done (Bob Hope and Pinnacle).

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 one taller building in addition to the 50� and 70� 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 plaza will contain water elements, benches and caf� seating areas.  A driveway is provided that traverses the project site.  This throughway is provided to allow cars to travel to the appropriate exit depending on their next destination.

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.

(e)   Allow a building complex which has enough height and mass to identify the Media Center as the center of the Media District but does not unnecessarily obscure existing views

The proposed 133� building 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 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 massing in five buildings to try and accomplish the goal of making this area the focal point of the Media District.

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 costs by eliminating uncertainty and reducing potential development problems.  The MDSP design standards also establish more specific guidelines for projects in the Media District.  In addition to the design parameters required of the project, the architect massing and other design elements of the project would be required to comply with the MDSP design standards.  These standards related to pedestrian friendliness, colors, materials, scale and massing among others. (Exhibit H)

Tentative Tract Map:

The following conditions must be made to approve a vesting tentative tract map:

(a)   The map is consistent with the General Plan and applicable specific plans.

The development of condominium project is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed density of development is within the limitations established by the General Plan. The subdivision is not contrary to the objectives of the Media District Specific Plan Burbank Center Plan.

(b)   The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and applicable specific plans.

The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the Media District Specific Plan. The project design is in keeping with the goals, policies, and objectives of both documents as well as the specific land use designations established for the subject property.

(c)    The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development.

The EIR for the project identifies that the project site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development when mitigation measures are incorporated.

(d)   The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitats.

The project is located in an urbanized area. No fish or wildlife are present on the site.  The EIR concluded that the project, including the subdivision, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage.

(e)   The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems.

The subdivision is consistent with City regulations. The development will not involve the creation or use of materials that could result in serious public health problems.

(f)     The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

The project involves vacation of public alleys and a street and will include new easements as necessary by the various public entities.

Design Review Criteria:

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 Board and staff need only consider the findings of the PD.

When reviewing a PD, the Board 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:

(a)   The design of the overall planned development shall be comprehensive and shall embrace land, buildings, landscaping, and their interrelationships and shall be substantially consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Element of the General Plan.

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, with the proposed amendment, 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 area is identified in the Media District (a specific plan of the General Plan) as a commercial area.  The applicant is proposing a predominantly residential project which requires a General Plan Amendment to be completely consistent with this designation.  As designed, the MDSP expands upon the goals and policies found in the General Plan.  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.

(b)   The planned development shall provide for adequate permanent open areas, circulation, off-street parking, and pertinent pedestrian amenities.  Building structures and facilities and accessory uses within the planned development shall be well integrated with each other and to the surrounding topographic and natural features of the area.

The proposal provides over 94,000 square feet (or 57%) of permanent open areas.  According to the internal parking demand utilizing a shared parking analysis, 1,208 spaces are required.  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 people to the appropriate buildings.  When exiting, signs will direct them to the appropriate exit depending on their desired route of travel.

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.

(c)    The planned development shall be compatible with existing and planned land use on adjoining properties.

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 surrounding office uses by providing restaurants, retail, a health club, a child care facility and housing.

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 incompatible, 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 building 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. 

(d)   Any private street system or circulation system shall be designed for the efficient and safe flow of vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, and the handicapped, without creating a disruptive influence on the activity and functions of any area or facility.

The on-site circulation system is almost completely underground.  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.  The BMC requires location of bicycle racks on the property; these shall be placed to minimize conflicts with other traffic and circulation.

(e)   The public street system within or adjacent to a planned development shall be designed for the efficient and safe flow of vehicles (including transit vehicles), pedestrians, bicycles, and the handicapped.  Public streets shall be designed using standard City lane widths, capacities, and travel speeds.  The design shall also include adequate space and improvements for transit vehicles and facilities for bicycle and pedestrian circulation.  City standard entrance control requirements shall be maintained.  Design of major streets shall also provide sidewalks, adequate street lighting, and concrete median islands on arterial streets.

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.  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 Media District shuttle if the City deems it is necessary to take residents to the Downtown Metrolink train station.

(f)    Common area and recreational facilities shall be located so as to be readily accessible to the occupants of residential uses.

Common areas and recreational facilities are located at grade in plaza areas and within the buildings.  The at-grade space is readily accessible to the occupants in all buildings.  However, as not all space will be secured, residents will have to share some of their common areas with visitors of the other uses on the site.

(g)   Compatibility of architectural design and appearance, including signing throughout the planned development, shall be sought.  In addition, architectural harmony with surrounding neighborhoods shall be achieved so far as practicable.

The details of the architectural design have not been provided for this application.  Instead, the applicant proposes to conform to a condition of approval that would set parameters for the design and allow the Council the discretion to approve a design and determine if it meets these findings.  Therefore, the finding is ensured through the conditions of approval.  When City Council reviews the architectural design, they will be able to determine if it meets the requirements of this finding as well as the design criteria outline in the MDSP and the design condition.  Compatibility will be achieved and this project site has the ability to tie the other surrounding buildings into many different, yet complementary designs.  Any signage on the property would be required to be uniform and would be appropriate for a residential project along a commercial corridor.

(h)   Where applicable, an adequate variety of uses and facilities shall be provided in order to meet the needs of the planned development and adjacent neighborhoods.

The applicant has provided a variety of uses and facilities that include residential units, residential-serving retail, 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.

(i) The planned development and each building intended for occupancy shall be designed, placed, and oriented in a manner conducive to the conservation of energy.

The applicant is required to comply with energy conservation methods.

Affordable Housing and Exclusive Agreement :

The Community Development Department is requesting that the developer provide 10% affordable units (30 units) or pay into an affordable housing trust fund that would allow the City to produce affordable units within another project.  The amount per affordable unit that staff is proposing is $100,000 which is supported by the fee study that was prepared by Keyser Marston Associates for the proposed inclusionary zoning ordinance and based on what the City and Redevelopment Agency have been experiencing with recent affordable projects.  While the fee study shows that the maximum supportable fee is up to $131,800 per moderate rate ownership unit, the City�s and Agency�s recent experiences have been that an affordable unit can be produced for approximately $100,000.  The proposed inclusionary zoning ordinance is currently pending density revisions in the land use element; staff will then proceed with taking the proposed ordinance back to the Planning Board and to the City Council for adoption.  The $100,000 is the gap between a market rate unit and an affordable unit; this is how much the City would have to pay to create the affordable unit which would include a covenant to ensure the unit is available for 45 years for ownership projects or 55 years for rental projects.

The developer has stated their willingness to pay this in-lieu fee assuming the currently proposed project is conditionally approved and provided that the development agreement is exclusive to the current developer.  For instance, if a lesser amount of units are approved, the developer would pay less of a fee (but still equal to 10% affordable units based on the number of units constructed).

The developer has requested that the development agreement be made specific to this applicant, PW, LLC.  Typically in the City�s development agreements, a successor (voluntary or involuntary) to the developer that signs the development agreement is able to take over the entitlement rights.  Therefore, this exclusivity clause would be unique to this project.  The applicant requests this exclusivity for two years.  If PW, LLC does not pull building permits before this time, the project may be sold (or foreclosed upon) and another entity would take over the entitlement rights.  However, if, for example, this applicant is bought out within two years, the development agreement will become void or voidable by the City.  The applicant claims it is necessary to have the appropriate leveraging capabilities to build the project as proposed with the additional fees imposed.  This may be beneficial for the City insofar as there will be certainty as to the development entity developing the project.  The applicant has worked in the community for many years and we believe genuinely wants to build a quality project.  This developer has a track record in other communities of building with quality construction and materials.  On the other hand, it is staff�s opinion that the proposed project is being conditioned in a manner that ensures quality construction materials are used.  Moreover, if the DA is canceled, the development entitlement process for the project site will be required to start anew.  Staff has prepared this DA as we prepare all of them and that is with the idea that this applicant may not be the developer of the project and therefore all the requirements we have placed within the agreement, including the conditions of approval, will certainly apply to another developer.  If Council wishes to make the DA exclusive to this applicant for two years and have it be voidable by the City if there is another owner within two years, the City can make the decision at that time.  The City is still protected either way.

Vacation of Avon Street and Two Alleys:

Community Development Department staff reviewed the applicant�s request to vacate Avon Street bounded by Alameda Avenue and Olive Avenue, the adjacent alley bounded by Lima Street and Avon Street, and the alley bounded by Cordova Street and Avon Street. (Exhibit I)  The vacation of these rights-of-way is necessary for the applicant to be able to assemble the development parcel.  The Redevelopment Agency also has fee ownership that affects portions of the area to be vacated.  All appropriate City departments and all outside utility companies have reviewed the proposed vacations, including Pacific Bell, Charter Cable, The Gas Company, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and the Metropolitan Water District.  The proposed vacations are conditioned in accordance with their responses. The proposed vacation has been conditioned by five outside utility companies and three City Departments as listed below:

The Gas Company requests that a permanent easement be reserved to maintain and operate their present gas piping facilities within the area of the proposed street vacation, or relocated at the applicant�s expense.

Metropolitan Water District requests a 40 foot wide permanent easement within Avon Street as they have a 43 inch inside diameter Santa Monica Feeder pipeline, or relocated at the applicant�s expense.

Charter Communications has aerial facilities that need to be protected, or relocated at the applicant�s expense.

County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works requests that a blanket easement over the northwesterly 50 feet of Avon Street be reserved to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District for a covered storm drain, appurtenant structures and ingress and egress.  Alternatively, the facilities may be relocated at applicant�s expense.

Burbank Water & Power, Electrical Division will require relocation of existing underground lines at applicant�s expense.

Burbank Water & Power, Water Division will require relocation of existing underground facilities at applicant�s expense.

Pacific Bell maintains existing communication facilities within the subject area that would require relocation at applicant�s expense.

City of Burbank Public Works Department will require abandonment in place of an eight inch sewer main in Avon Street.

City of Burbank Fire Department conditions their approval on the opportunity to approve specific plans prior to implementation.  Conditions may include and are not limited to installation of additional fire hydrants and water mains, elimination of on street parking where appropriate and site specific access requirements based on submitted plans.

In addition, staff has proposed a condition that the vacations do not occur until such time as all of the properties on the project site are owned by the applicant and the project is readied for development.

Sale of Redevelopment Agency Owned Land:

The developer will be required to own all of the parcels of land before commencing with the project.  As noted earlier, the Burbank Redevelopment Agency owns two lots within the subject site which are currently off-street parking lots not improved with buildings.  The developer has offered to buy these lots.  The sale of this land is subject to a fair market value appraisal based on the highest and best use of the property.  If the project is conditionally approved by the Council, the appraisal will be completed and the developer will be required to pay fair market value, based on the highest and best use of the property.

Department Comments:

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 J)

PREVIOUS PLANING BOARD AND COUNCIL DISCUSSION:

In April 2003, the City Council denied a PD application on the same site for a different project proposal as described at the beginning of this report.  During their deliberations on the project, Council Members stated their concerns and stated potential changes that could be made to improve the project.  Below are general statements that were made either individually or by several City Council Members:

• Concerns over height and massing.  Suggested six stories for any new building in the area.  Willing to sacrifice open space for reduced height.

• The project is too large, too much density on the site, it is too massive for the area. Would consider amended project with substantial changes to height and density

• Concern over Olive Avenue setbacks; it is a very hard edge.  Need more setbacks. Alameda Avenue design/height was good; need to see some of that sacrifice on Olive Avenue.

• Project would block the mountain views.  The project will impact the skyline.

• Includes too much residential.

• Hope the project comes back with something that is palatable to the neighborhood.  Get to a design that everybody is willing to buy off on � not necessarily the immediate residential neighborhood.  Come back with something that could be supported by the neighborhood and tamper down the design and architecture that has not been looked at favorably.  Involve the community early on in the redesign process.  Other studio projects had a lot of public outreach with give and take, this project did not have that.

• The project design does not embrace the community in which it is located; neither the Olive neighbors or the residential neighbors. Cannot make compatibility finding. Architecture is incompatible with neighborhood and not appropriate for Burbank. The developer has made great strides for the design to be palatable, but needs to be really good, not just palatable.

Although the last time the Planning Board reviewed the previous proposal it was a different design than what the Council ultimately denied, some of the Board Member�s comments were broad and offered suggestions for improvements.  Some of these comments, given either individually or by separate Board Members, are listed below:

• Project too dense.  The request for DOR is too much.  The buildings are too tall.

• The phasing of the project creates parking problems.

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

Staff believes that the project as currently proposed has made great strides to make the changes that Council and Planning Board requested and has responded to those concerns.  The applicant has involved the community in his outreach process and has reduced the height by 46 feet and reduced the overall square footage by almost 200,000 sf.  The applicant also increased the open space by 22% leaving over 94,000 sf of the site open to the sky from the ground up.  The new Scenario 5 proposal also combines the two taller buildings along Olive into one building limiting the portion of the mountains that are blocked from the residential view.  It does not eliminate the view blockage, but it does limit it.  By creating just one building, this allowed more space along Olive to be opened up which increased the setbacks.  In fact, the corner along Olive and Lima is completely open which limits the portion of the building that has only a five foot setback.  The traffic impact study includes a discussion of Barham Boulevard and the City separately has been undergoing the NPP for the residential area north of Alameda Avenue.  Each building phase now provides the code required parking to support those buildings.  To respond to the concern over architecture, the applicant has agreed that the glass and steel design is not appropriate and will accept a condition that the Council have sole discretion over approval of the final architecture if it complies with certain design parameters.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Approval of the Planned Development does not negatively affect the City�s budget.  If the Council conditionally approves the project, the land appraisal for the two Redevelopment Agency lots will be completed and the land could be sold to the developer at fair market value based on the highest and best use of the property thereby not causing a fiscal impact to the Agency.

PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION:

The Planning Board, at its October 18, 2004 special meeting, voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the proposed project with accompanying documents including the EIR. (Exhibit K)  The Board took public testimony from 21 people and had lengthy deliberations.  The Board Members recognized the change in project since from that which was denied and said this project is smaller and removed the reliance on a Development Opportunity Reserve.  They noted that the project fits in with what the City wants in the Media District and thought the residential units are good because of the reduced traffic impacts.  They preferred maximizing open space rather than a project that reduced the height but had more lot coverage.  The Board Members were supportive of the project even with the condition that architectural plans will be reviewed at a later time.  They felt the design conditions adequately protected the City by allowing the City Council final approval power over the architecture for the buildings.

The Board felt that Scenario 2 (as described in the EIR and proposed by the developer when the project went to Planning Board) should not be considered for approval.  They did, however, also recommend approval of Scenario 5A (a proposal that would replace 60 residential units from Scenario 5 with 85,000 square feet of media office space).  However, the developer removed this proposal from consideration after the Planning Board meeting and before the Council report was prepared.  The Board felt that staff�s calculation method for OEGSF was appropriate and that one unit should be equivalent to 297 square feet of general office space.  The Board did not believe the applicant should be required to pay an affordable housing in-lieu fee because the timing of the project.  They were under the impression that this requirement was given at a later date to the applicant, however, staff has made the applicant aware of this requirement since the beginning of this new application as the City was processing the inclusionary zoning ordinance. They requested the entrance to the subterranean loading area have a height tall enough to accommodate the larger delivery vehicles; this condition was added.  The Board asked that the setback on Olive Avenue shall have an average equal to that required by code for commercial areas (26�� or 20% of the building height) and that a minimum five foot setback shall be permitted only in the area along Olive Avenue that is west of the project driveway.  Staff is proposing a condition similar to this requirement with the exception that the five foot minimum setback also be permitted in the area east of the driveway, as long as the entire Olive Avenue frontage has an average setback of 20% of the building height.  This is consistent with code requirements for commercial buildings in the corridor.  Finally, the Board concurred with staff�s recommendation, based on the traffic study, that the widening of Lima Street is not required and stated that Traffic Engineering staff shall be allowed the flexibility to restripe as necessary.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

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 a water supply assessment.  Staff further recommends that Council certify the Environmental Impact Report and adopt findings for environmental impacts and adopt a statement of overriding considerations and mitigation monitoring program.  Staff recommends that Council approve a General Plan Amendment No. 2004-187.  Staff further recommends that Council approve Planned Development No. 2003-1 with the Development Agreement related thereto, Development Review No. 2003-36 and Vacation V-339, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.  Below is a sample of a few of the conditions that limit and control development of the project.

Sampling of findings: (Included within CEQA Resolution)

In order for the City Council to certify the EIR, they must adopt findings for the one significant environmental impact that cannot be mitigated.  These findings shall indicated 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 than 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 it serve the City�s desire for a comprehensive development of the site.  The four other alternatives also continue to significantly impact Air Quality during construction. 

Sampling of proposed conditions: (Attached to Development Agreement)

• The City Council must approve the architectural design and landscape plan before building permits can be pulled for the project (including grading or excavation permits).

• The development must comply with all mitigation measures stated in the EIR.

• The applicant will be required to pay transportation improvement fees at the time of building permit issuance.

• 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 received a certificate of occupancy for all buildings by the traffic study horizon year of 2008, the City shall perform, at the cost of the applicant, an update to the traffic study to determine if additional mitigation measures are necessary before the applicant can receive a certificate of occupancy for any additional buildings.  The applicant will be required to comply with all mitigation measures.

• All required parking for each phase shall be built with the buildings for each phase.

• The child care facility shall be available to residents 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.

• The applicant will make every reasonable effort to lease the specialty retail space to businesses which will serve not only the residents on-site, but also the adjacent residential neighborhood.  In addition, cafes and other businesses which add a more pedestrian scale shall be provided.

• The developer will be required to pay all costs associated with bringing electrical utilities to the property.

• The applicant will be required to pay up to $150,000 for a neighborhood protection program approved by the City Council.

• During construction, an off-street parking area must 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.

• The applicant will be required to provide 10% affordable units or pay into an affordable housing trust fund that would allow the City to produce affordable units within another project.  The fee is $100,000 per affordable unit (for a total of $3,000,000)

LIST OF EXHIBITS

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         Site Plan, Survey, Letters from the Applicant,

                        Application forms, project details, Tentative Tract Map (separate document)

Exhibit C        Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) with Notice of Preparation (separate

                        document)

                        Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) with comments received on the DEIR

                        (separate document)

                        Technical Memorandum from Kaku Associates on Scenario 5 shared parking

Exhibit D         Water Supply Assessment dated March 2004

Exhibit E          Neighborhood Protection Program proposed improvements

Exhibit F          Letter from M. David Paul Development LLC dated October 15, 2004

Exhibit G         General Plan Amendment analysis prepared by Jeffrey Lambert, AICP

Exhibit H         Media District Specific Plan Development Standards

Exhibit I           V-339 Map of the area to be vacated

                         Legal description of the area to be vacated

                         Vacation comments (as submitted by the departments and utility companies)

                         Mailed notice

                         Posted public notice

Exhibit J          Department comments from Redevelopment Agency staff, Public Works,

                         Burbank Water and Power Electric and Water Divisions, Police, Fire, Building,

                         Park, Recreation and Community Services

Exhibit K          Planning Board Resolution #2958 and minutes from October 18, 2004

go to the top