|
Mr. Herrmann, Assistant Community Development Director, Transportation and
Planning, gave a brief introduction and stated that staff is in the
process of updating the Land Use and Mobility Elements. He added that
community meetings and study sessions have been held with the Planning
Board and Council to receive input. He noted that the purpose of the
study session was to request Council input on the Trip-Based Intensity
Measurement Standard (TIMS) and the neighborhood centers concept.
Mr. Kriske, Transportation Analyst, Community Development Department,
reported that a major goal of the Land Use and Mobility Elements update
has been to integrate land use and transportation policy to ensure that
over the next 20 years, the City can accommodate the traffic generated by
current and future development. He noted that pursuant to Council
direction, staff has developed a reduced growth preferred land use
forecast that balances the ability to accommodate future growth with the
need to maintain mobility and good levels of service on the transportation
network, while ensuring that the transportation network remains compatible
with the community. He added that to help achieve this goal, staff is
proposing the TIMS, which attempts to describe new development in terms of
its p.m. peak-hour trip generation and creates a density measure based on
peak-hour trips and not on building square footage. He explained that
this new ratio of trips per 1000 square feet of land area is calculated
for each land use designation proposed under the Land Use Element. He
noted that when multiplied by a given parcel size within each land use
designation, the TIMS rates create a trip budget or threshold for the site
in question. He added that any development with a trip generation at or
below this trip budget will thus conform to the 20-year land use growth
forecast and will be accommodated by the planned long-term improvements to
the transportation network. He noted that a property owner wishing to
redevelop a parcel can formulate various development scenarios that will
have equivalent trip generations. He added that the TIMS rates would be
implemented as a zoning development standard and tools would be provided
to the development community to allow easy calculation of a trip budget
for various uses.
Mr. Kriske then noted the need for exceptions to the base TIMS rate for
certain land uses with highly-concentrated trip generations such as banks,
convenience stores and high turnover restaurants which may require a
discretionary process under the TIMS methodology. He also reported that
staff proposed a modification to the environmental review process to
accommodate the new TIMS methodology by adding a new threshold to
determine whether a traffic study is required of a project. He noted that
projects that exceed TIMS would be discretionary and would require a
traffic study to determine the project�s actual impacts. He also stated
that changes to traffic mitigation funding were also being proposed in
cases where mitigation for new projects are above and beyond those
identified as part of the infrastructure blueprint. He noted that in
order to allow a discretionary project that would exceed TIMS, staff is
proposing to include an alternative development scenario in the Mobility
Element analysis that would allow additional development beyond the
reduced growth forecast in the form of a trip reserve similar to the Media
District development opportunity reserve.
Mr. Kriske noted that the most significant fiscal impact of implementing
the TIMS methodology is to discourage some land uses with high peak-hour
trip generation by requiring the uses to perform a traffic study while
encouraging uses with low trip generation. He added that other potential
economic impacts include delay in redevelopment of parcels with existing
density higher than that allowed under TIMS, and a possible increase in
the value of the existing denser developments; however, overall, TIMS
would not affect the economic viability of any one area of the City.
Mr. Golonski requested clarification with regard to the application of
pass-by trip reductions for by-right and discretionary development
scenarios with the TIMS methodology.
Mr. Forbes, Senior Planner, Community Development Department, reported
that one of the concepts that serve as the foundation of the proposed Land
Use Element is the centers and corridors idea. He added that for the
updated Land Use Plan, staff has identified different types of centers
around the City, including downtown, regional and neighborhood centers.
He stated that the centers are connected by corridors, most of which are
currently developed with commercial businesses. He explained that the
most significant feature of the centers and corridors concept is the
promotion of mixed-use development with residential units over commercial
businesses, and the promotion of residential development along the
corridors between the centers as alternatives to aging commercial
development. He added that staff has previously discussed this issue with
the Council and the community and has proceeded with creating a Land Use
Element based upon this concept.
Mr. Forbes informed the Council that the centers and corridors concept is
intended to promote the vision of a balanced community as expressed by
residents during the outreach efforts for the Land Use Element update. He
added that neighborhood centers are based on new urbanism concepts and are
envisioned as pedestrian-friendly destinations with neighborhood serving
uses. He noted staff�s belief that the neighborhood centers would promote
the small-town atmosphere that Burbank residents value, and would further
the Council�s goal of providing alternatives to private automobiles by
encouraging walking and public transit use.
Mr. Forbes stated that residential development along the corridors would
help to support the neighborhood centers by bringing additional residents
to the corridors, and residences along the corridors would also promote
the use of public transit by providing more riders along transit routes as
well as provide additional housing opportunities. He noted that creating
additional housing capacity is especially important given the recent
decrease in multi-family residential densities across the City. Also, he
added that multi-family residential development along the corridors would
have the added benefit of being more compatible to the nearby
single-family neighborhoods than the existing commercial development, with
reduced noise, traffic, parking and other such impacts.
Mr. Forbes informed the Council that on August 8, 2005, the Planning Board
held a study session to discuss the centers and corridors concept and
several questions and concerns were raised about how effective they would
be in helping to achieve their intended goals. He also noted that on
August 9, 2005, the Council denied a proposed mixed-use project on
Glenoaks Boulevard, and concerns were raised with regard to density,
height and setbacks. He noted that the proposed Land Use Plan map, which
incorporates the centers and corridors concept, has been finalized and
policies for the Land Use Element and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
are in progress. He stated that any significant changes in policy
direction once the draft Land Use Element and EIR are complete could
result in substantial delays as the goals and policies of the plan are
changed and the EIR is revised accordingly. He stated that staff was
therefore seeking additional direction on the concept.
Mr. Vander Borght
expressed support for the neighborhood centers concept but stated that he
was unable to support the
Glenoaks Boulevard
project due to its excessive density. He was also not amenable to
two-story residential development over the commercial in mixed-use
developments, noting the height of the project would be an issue
especially in commercial areas that abut R-1 development.
Mr. Campbell
concurred with Mr. Vander Borght, noting that the proposed project on
Glenoaks
Boulevard was too dense. He also noted his preference for more balanced
mixed-use projects that provide additional housing while providing an
opportunity to renew the commercial aspect and eliminate blight.
Mrs. Ramos stated
that her primary reason for voting against the
Glenoaks Boulevard
project was inadequate circulation, combined with the excessive density.
She also expressed concern with three-story-height development along
corridors such as
Magnolia Boulevard.
She was generally supportive of the neighborhood centers and mixed-use
projects.
Mr. Golonski also
stated that the
Glenoaks Boulevard
project was too dense. He expressed support for the neighborhood centers
concept but noted that the density has to be compatible with the adjacent
neighborhoods. He specifically noted the challenge of residents agreeing
to three-story development along the corridors.
Mr. Vander Borght
commented on the cost of implementing the new zoning standards and
expressed support for staff to proceed.
Mrs. Ramos commented
on and expressed support for the form based codes concept proposed by
staff.
Mr. Vander Borght
expressed concern with the concept of commercial projects not having
substantial setbacks in an effort to make them more pedestrian-oriented.
Mr. Campbell
commented on the need for setbacks, landscaping and street parking to
increase pedestrian friendliness, and emphasized the need to prevent
spillover effects of these mixed-use projects from the adjacent
residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Golonski stated
that while he was supportive of the corridors and centers idea, he was not
agreeable to increasing densities to support the concept. He agreed that
zero setbacks make sense when creating pedestrian-oriented environments
provided there is an adequate right-of-way width.
Mrs. Ramos supported
incorporating housing into mixed-use projects but noted the challenges
associated with three-story development in areas that are adjacent to
single-family residences.
Staff was directed to proceed with the TIMS methodology and the corridors
and centers concept, with emphasis on maintaining densities at the
absolute minimum.
|
