|
Council Agenda - City of BurbankTuesday, May 31, 2005Agenda Item - 6 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PURPOSE
This report is for the purpose of complying with Section 31-19129 of the Burbank Municipal Code, which requires the Community Development Director to submit to Council an annual review of each Development Agreement entered into pursuant to the Planned Development provisions of the Code. This review is for the time period of April 1, 2004 through April 1, 2005.
BACKGROUND
The planned development process began in 1985. Its purpose is to provide a process to rezone property to accommodate unique developments under controlled conditions. The Development Agreement (DA) is the implementation and enforcement tool for a Planned Development (PD); it is an agreement between the City and the applicant that provides vested rights to assure a developer that the planned development can be built; further the DA is used to implement the specific conditions of approval as to the PD imposed on a particular development project by the City Council.
The two entitlements (PD and DA) have two different review processes. The Burbank Municipal Code requires an annual report to City Council on the status of each DA entered into as a part of the PD process. This review should summarize the annual City Planner review. If there is a violation of a DA, then the Council can proceed, after a noticed public hearing, to terminate the project, but only if substantial evidence supports a finding that the developer has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of the DA. Once the DA has terminated or expired, the review process no longer involves that site, although the PD zone remains even after the DA has expired, for that becomes the sites permanent zoning. Once the DA has expired or been terminated, Council is free to rezone that property. Before the review can go to Council, the Code requires the City Planner to first review each development agreement for compliance. That review is also on an annual basis. The DA, as stated above, provides vested rights to a developer for the term identified in the agreement. Aside from that important goal, the DA is also used to implement the conditions of approval and any mitigation measures unique to the project. Once the DA is expired, any on-going zoning conditions remain applicable to the property until the zone is amended. If the City Planner finds that substantial evidence supports a finding that the developer did not comply with the terms and conditions of the development agreement in good faith, then he can set the matter for a hearing before the Planning Board. If the Planning Board makes a similar finding, then the matter goes before the City Council. These steps would occur prior to the Council annual review. (BMC 31-19114, 19115). The City Council may then initiate termination proceedings or modifications to the agreement in the event that it finds and determines that the applicant has not complied in good faith with the terms or conditions of the agreement. The Council is required to hold a public hearing prior to terminating or modifying a development agreement (BMC 31-19116).
Over the past 20 years during which the City has been using the Planned Development process, there have been a total of 106 Planned Development applications taken in. The current status of these PD applications is as follows:
In order to comply with Code requirements, the review provided in this report, deals with those DA�s related to PDs and reports on the status of those agreements. Some DA�s have in the agreement specific review dates, such as the Airport DA, and some of the studio DAs. Those agreements, however, are not connected to PDs and are not part of this review.
Active PDs There are currently 18 Active PDs; these are PDs that are not built or not complete. Staff monitors the Active PDs to ensure progress and compliance with development requirements and conditions of approval. All but two of the Active PDs are in compliance with the schedules and requirements of their DAs. The two PDs that are currently not in full compliance are PD 94-7 and PD 94-8, the two Warner Bros. master plans.
PD 94-7 for the Warner Bros. Studio Main Lot Master Plan and PD 94-8 for the Warner Bros. Studio Ranch Lot Master Plan required Warner Bros. to provide childcare for their employees. Both PDs were required by their DAs to conduct a Childcare Survey five years after the effective date of the Development Agreement � by November 2000 � in order to determine whether the existing Warner Bros. childcare facility is adequate to meet the needs of the Warner Bros. employees or whether additional childcare capacity is required. Warner Bros. has not yet complied with this survey requirement. Staff is currently working with the Warner Bros. studios and expects to resolve this issue by mid-June.
PD 89-7 is for the Media Studios North development. This PD has been amended twice, most recently in March of 2005. During the amendment process there was some concern about compliance with the requirement that the developer participate in the Transportation Management Organization (TMO) as a condition of approval. This project is now compliant with all conditions of approval, including membership in the TMO.
Exhibit A, at the end of this report, gives a brief summary of all the Active PDs and amendments.
PDs with expired Development Agreements PD 99-4, for a 253 room hotel at 321 S. First Street is the only PD for which the DA expired during the current review period. The DA for this PD expired on March 4, 2005. There are no approved plans for this project. Staff is aware that Marriott International, the property owner, is planning to submit an application for a new PD on this site for a smaller hotel that will be more economically feasible. Staff is working with Marriott International and is awaiting the submission of a complete application for a new PD. Staff does not recommend rezoning this property at this time, but rather to wait for a new application which, if approved, would change the zoning to a new PD.
In addition to the above mentioned PD, for which the DA expired during the current review period, there are 9 other PDs with DAs that have expired over the past several years. The Development Agreements for the following PDs have either expired prior to the approved projects being built or were never executed; the sites are therefore left with a PD zoning for an approved project but the developer no longer has vested rights to the project and the conditions and regulations that the City has imposed on the particular project, which were contained in the DAs, are no longer in effect.
PDs with Expired Development Agreements
The above sites are zoned as PDs yet are left without the Development Agreement which was negotiated in conjunction with the PD approval. Even when Development Agreements expire, the Planned Development zone, as any other zone change in the City, stays in effect until a subsequent zone change replaces it with another zone. There is no automatic reversion back to the previous zoning. Staff recommends that the above sites (except where indicated otherwise) be rezoned to the zone designation that preceded the PD designation if that zoning is compatible with adjacent uses and in accordance with the General Plan, otherwise the property should be rezoned to a use consistent with surrounding land uses. If the property owner wants to develop the site as a Planned Development after the site has been rezoned, a new PD application would be required and the City Council would have an opportunity to consider the appropriateness of the project under present conditions.
Staff recommends that the City Code be amended to include a process for Planned Developments that would ensure that the PD zone does not effectively replace the existing underlying zone until it is certain that the entitled project is actually being built. Staff also recommends that the Code be further amended to ensure that all requirements for the PD development and any conditions of approval would not be part of a DA that expires but rather an integral part of the approved Planned Development zone.
Exhibit B summarizes the PDs with expired DAs.
ANALYSIS
The annual review of Planned Developments and the Development Agreements for those Planned Developments is an opportunity to ensure that developers are complying with the schedule and conditions of approval that are part of the Development Agreements. Through this review process the City can ensure that the conditions of each active Planned Development are being met and where they are not being met, work to ensure compliance.
During the early 1990�s, following the passage of Measure One, the Planned Development process was used extensively to sidestep the tightening of development standards. Developers rushed to apply for PDs in order to obtain entitlements for projects they were concerned might not be approved once the new development standards called for by Measure One were codified. Several of these PDs were never built and the conditions of the entitlement detailed in the Development Agreement for these PDs expired along with the Development Agreement. As mentioned above, there are 10 such properties which have a PD zone designation with no Development Agreement. The City Code (Sec. 31-19129) states that the City Council �may terminate or modify the agreement (Development Agreement) without the consent of the applicant or his successors in interest in the event Council finds and determines � the applicant or successor in interest has not complied in good faith with the terms or conditions of the agreement�. The Code also states that the termination of a development agreement �shall result in the immediate reversion of the PD Zone to the R-1 Zone�. The City Attorney has informed staff that, in fact, there cannot be an automatic reversion to the R-1 zone but rather, the PD sites must go through the entire zone map amendment process. It is necessary to correct this part of the Code.
Amending the City Code so that the underlying zone would not be changed until the approved project achieved a certain stage in the development process that would likely ensure completion of the project (such as final permits, excavation or framing), and would ensure that the Planned Development process functions as intended. There are several ways of achieving this end and staff is working with the City Attorney�s Office to formulate an amendment to the Code to better implement the Planned Development process.
The Planned Development process is an important tool in the Planning toolbox to accommodate and facilitate unique developments in the community that can benefit from modified development standards. It is important, however, that there be an ongoing mechanism to ensure the continued compliance of the conditions of approval and project requirements; the current use of Development Agreements has not proven to be an effective way of regulating Planned Developments in that they expire thereby eliminating the requirements that are contained therein.
In addition to addressing the problem of the existing PDs without DAs, it is necessary to amend the PD process in the Code to prevent this situation from occurring in the future. Staff has been working with the City Attorney�s office to come up with changes to the PD process that would make sure that a PD zone would not be left without protections to ensure that all the conditions of the approved project are met.
Upon direction from the City Council, staff will proceed to work with the City Attorney�s Office on a zone text amendment to eliminate the �zone reversion� clause for PDs with expired Development Agreements, and to ensure that if PDs are not built in accordance with the provisions of the Development Agreement, the underlying zone does not get changed. Staff anticipates bringing this zone text amendment to the City Council for consideration in the fall of 2005. Staff will begin the rezoning process for the PDs with expired Development Agreements early in 2006.
FISCAL IMPACT
The rezoning of nine properties from a Planned Development to a more appropriate zone is extremely labor intensive and will have an impact on staff resources. In order to rezone these properties in a timely manner it would require the reprioritization of the existing Planning Division workload. An alternative would be to hire a contract planner to work exclusively on these rezoning projects. Amending the Code to prevent PDs that are not built from being left as a PD zone, would, eliminate the need for rezoning when DAs expire in the future and thus save time and resources.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT A - Summary of Active Planned Developments EXHIBIT B - Summary of Planned Developments with expired Development Agreements.
EXHIBIT A
SUMMARY OF ACTIVE PDs
ACTIVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (UNBUILT OR INCOMPLETE)
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 89-6 (Previously PD NO. 87-3)
Applicant: M. David Paul Development Project: Pinnacle (Previously JH Snyder, NBC/Cushman)
Location: 3300-3414 W. Olive Avenue and 121-221 California Street Original PD approved March 12, 1991 (Ord. 3238) Amended PD approved December 17, 1996 (Ord. 3455) Amended PD approved March 7, 2000 (Resolution 25702) Amended DA effective January 25, 1997 Amended DA expires December 31, 2012
The project is a unique media oriented development. It consists of 585,000 sf of office space within a six-story Mediterranean styled complex and four levels of subterranean parking.
Construction of the second phase began late in 2004 and is scheduled to be completed in November 2005. All of the remaining off-site improvements will be completed during the second phase of the project.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 89-7
Applicant: M. David Paul Development Project: Media Studios North Location: 3101-3301 Empire Avenue between Ontario Street and Hollywood Way
Original PD approved November 5, 1991 (Ord. 3278) Amended PD approved April 15, 1997 (Ord. 3463) Amended DA effective July 14, 1997 Amended DA expires July 14, 2007 Second Amendment effective April 9, 2005 Second Amendment Expires April 9, 2012
The project is a unique media oriented development. The first phase of this project consists of 650,000 sf of mixed office and studio uses. Construction of the third building is in process. The final building for the first phase is currently in plan check. The project is compliant with all conditions of approval, including membership in the TMO. The PD was amended (Second Amendment) to add 60,000 sf of office to the project and expand the project boundary out to Avon Street as a second phase of development. There has been no activity to date on the additional 60,000 sf entitlement.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 91-13
Applicant: Walt Disney Company Project: Walt Disney Studios Master Plan Location: 500 S. Buena Vista
PD approved October 20, 1992 (Ord. 3317) DA effective November 24, 1992 DA expires November 24, 2017
The project is unique, with mixed-use studio elements.
The majority of the entitled floor space has been constructed; there remains approximately 250,000 sq. ft. left to be developed. There is no development schedule for construction of the remaining floor area.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 94-7
Applicant: Warner Bros. Project: Warner Bros. Studio Main Lot Master Plan Location: 4000 Warner Boulevard
PD approved October 10, 1995 (Ord. 3415) PD effective November 25, 1995 DA expires November 25, 2015
The project is unique, with various studio elements.
The 20-year master plan has been initiated and construction is in progress. Building 28, which replaced damaged office and warehouse space, was completed in 1997. The remodel of Building 6, Scoring and Dubbing Stages, was completed in 1998. Building 50, Feature stage, was completed in 1999. The Western back lot was converted to a New England theme with production offices in 2004. Construction began on a new post-production facility in 2004. There is no development schedule for the master plan as a whole.
Staff is working with Warner Brothers regarding meeting the Childcare Survey requirem of the Development Agreement.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 94-8
Application: Warner Bros. Project: Warner Bros. Studios Ranch Lot Master Plan Location: 3701 Oak Street
PD approved October 10, 1995 (Ord. 3416) DA effective November 25, 1995 DA expires November 25, 2015
The project is unique, with various studio elements.
The 20-year master plan has been initiated and construction is in progress. A new security gate and grading for parking, and various other small site work has been done in 2000-2001. Plans are currently in Plan Check for a new production office to replace the trailers that are on the site. There is no development schedule for the master plan as a whole.
Staff is working with Warner Brothers regarding meeting the Childcare Survey requirement of the Development Agreement.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 96-1
Applicant: NBC Project: NBC Studios Master Plan Location: 3000 W. Alameda
PD approved March 18, 1997 (Ord. 3461) DA effective April 26, 1997 DA expires April 26, 2017
The project is unique, with various media related and studio elements.
The 20-year master plan has been approved. Construction has not begun and there is no development schedule.
The City has been made aware that NBC Universal will consider selling the Catalina St. property for development under the DA.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 97-3
Applicant: Zelman Retail Partners, Inc. Project: 103-acre Mixed-Use Location: former Lockheed B-1 site
PD approved September 16, 2000 (Ord. 3554)
PD effective October 17, 2000 DA expires October 17, 2015
The entire project has been constructed with the exception of the second phase of the office complex.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 2000-2
Applicant: United Cerebral Palsy Project: 18-Unit independent living complex Location: 600 South San Fernando Boulevard
PD approved June 6, 2000 (Ord. 3544) DA effective July 15, 2000 DA expires upon termination of D&DA Agreement with Redevelopment Agency. Automatic reversion to BCC-3 zone with DA termination. Construction in Progress
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 2001-2
Applicant: Maple Dell & McClelland Project: Bob Hope Center Location: Bob Hope Triangle � West Olive
PD approved May 29, 2001 (Ord. 3579) DA effective (date signed) _July 17, 2001 DA expires (date signed + 10 yr) July 17, 2011
The project has been approved for 108,500 sq.ft. of Office Building and 20,000 sq. ft. performing arts center. To date there has been no activity on this entitled project.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 2002-1
Applicant: Olson Company Project: Mixed use residential/retail/restaurant Location: bounded by Third Street, Angeleno, San Fernando Blvd. and Olive Ave.
PD approved Feb 18, 2003 (Ord. 3618) DA effective March 29, 2003 DA expires March 29, 2013 Construction in Progress
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 2002-2
Applicant: City of Burbank Project: Community Services Building (CSB) Location: 150 Third Street
PD approved May 29, 2003 (3620) DA effective (date signed) _April 26, 2003 DA expires : April 26, 2011
This PD includes entitlement for various civic center buildings including a new central library and CSB and associated parking.
Project is awaiting completion of plans.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 2002-3
Applicant: Burbank Civic Plaza, LLC Project: Office Retail Cusumano Location: bounded by Third Street, Angelino, San Fernando Rd and Olive Ave.
PD approved March 18, 2003 (Ord. 3619) DA effective April 26, 2003 DA expires April 26, 2013
Construction in Progress
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 2003-1
Applicant: Platt Companies Project: Multi-use (Restaurant, Retail, Location: North Triangle Residential, Church and Childcare)
PD approved February 8, 2005 (Ord. 3664) DA effective - pending DA expires: April 26, 2011
PD approved; awaiting developer ownership of land to sign Development Agreement.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 2003-2
Applicant: Champion Development Group Project: 118 condos, 50,000 sq.ft. of The Collection at Downtown Burbankretail/restaurant and parking for project and downtown
Location: 140 E. Palm St.
PD approved Dec. 7, 2004 (Ord. 3658) DA effective January 15, 2005 DA expires January 15, 2012
This has been separated off from PD 98-2. Tentative Tract Map approved for condominium portion of development
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 2003-3
Applicant: Pacific Medical Buildings Burbank Medical Plaza Project: 155,000 sq.ft. medical office space in 2 buildings plus structured parking added to existing 72,000 sq. ft. office building. Location: 201 Buena Vista St.
PD approved Feb. 1, 2005 (Ord. 3665) DA effective March 20, 2005 DA expires: March 20, 2015
Applicant is developing landscape plans for City Council review.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 2004-3
Applicant: Olson Company Project: Lance Site San Fernando Walk 33 Condominium units (10 units affordable) BHC project Location: 700-722 So,. San Fernando Blvd. .
PD approved June 29, 2004 (Ord. 3645) DA effective August 21, 2004 DA expires August 21, 2011 Project in Plan Check as of April 2005.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 2004-169
Applicant: B-G-P Airport Authority Project: A-1 North Parking Lot Surface parking lot with valet parking facility
Location: 2555 N. Hollywood Way
PD approved Feb. 1, 2005 (3660) DA effective March 15, 2005 DA expires: 7 years from date the Airport Authority buys the A-1 site
Construction will begin once the Airport Authority acquires the property from Zelman
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 2004-170
Applicant: B-G-P Airport Authority Project: Lot A Parking Lot Surface parking lot
Location: 2729 N. Hollywood Way
PD approved Feb. 1, 2005 (3661) DA effective March 15, 2005 DA expires: 7 years from date the Airport Authority buys the A-1 site
Construction will begin once the Airport Authority acquires the property from Zelman
EXHIBIT B
SUMMARY OF PDs WITH EXPIRED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS WITH EXPIRED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS (OR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THAT NEVER BEEN EXECUTED)
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 90-1
Applicant: Reza Bagherzadeh Project: 5-Unit Condominium Complex Location: 1314 S. Lake Street
PD approved July 31, 1990 (Ord. 3201) DA effective September 25, 1990 DA expired September 25, 2000
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 90-2
Applicant: Fred Danelian Project: 3-Unit Residential Complex Location: 706 E. Santa Anita
PD approved November 13, 1990 (Ord. 3219) DA effective December 22, 1990 DA expired December 31, 2000
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 90-6
Applicant: James Naylor Project: 4-Unit Apartment Complex Location: 210 N. Screenland
PD approved October 9, 1990 (Ord. 3213) DA effective November 17, 1990 DA expired October 1, 2000
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 90-9
Applicant: Foud Anis Project: 16-Unit Condominium Complex Location: 304-310 E. Verdugo
PD approved March 26, 1991 (Ord. 3241) DA effective May 21, 1991 DA expired May 21, 2001
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 90-13
Applicant: Grigor Davtyan and Hovanes Odadjian Project: 4-Unit Apartment Location: 1715 Peyton
PD approved Sept. 24, 1991 (Ord 3274). DA effective November 2, 1991 DA expired November 2, 2001
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 90-16
Applicant: Walter Lima Project: 6-Unit Apartment Complex Location: 2227 N. Fairview Street
PD approved November 6, 1990 (Ord. 3218) DA effective December 19, 1990 DA expired December 31, 2000
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 90-18
Applicant: Richard Dell Project: 4-Unit Condominium Complex Location: 2936 W. Riverside Drive
PD approved April 30, 1991 (Ord. 3251) DA effective June 8, 1991 DA expired June 8, 2001
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 90-19
Applicant: Bill Gohlke Project: 5-Unit Apartment Complex Location: 549 N. Sixth Street
PD approved January 29, 1991 (Ord. 3234) The Development Agreement was never signed by the applicant.
Staff will initiate the rezoning of this property.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 91-7
Applicant: Alajajian Marcoosi Project: 5-Unit Apartment Location: 701 East Cypress Ave.
PD approved August 6, 1991 (Ord. 3262) DA effective August 29, 1991 DA expired August 29, 2001
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 99-4
Applicant: Karl Sternbaum Accord Interests LLC Project: 253 Hotel Suites Location: 321 So. First Street
PD approved Jan 25, 2001 (Ord. 3356) DA effective March 4, 2000 DA expired March 4, 2005
Awaiting submission of application to amend PD
PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS WITH EXPIRED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN REZONED
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 90-10
Applicant: A. Bacchetta Project: 6-Unit Apartment Complex Location: 220 North Valley Street
Planned Development approved October 30, 1991
Project was withdrawn by applicant and the DA expired on September 10, 1996. Rezoned to MDR-4 by City Council Ordinance 3511 effective 3/13/99.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 90-12
Applicant: Verj Baharian Project: 11-Unit Multiple Family Complex Location: 1700 Grismer Ave.
DA was approved on April 22, 1991 for five years; DA expired in April of 1996. The site has been rezoned to Multiple Family Medium Density Residential (R-4) effective June 20, 1998 (ZMA 98-2).
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 90-15
Applicant: Anderson/Geiger Project: 43,000 sf Office Building Location: Alameda Avenue and Maple Street
Planned Development approved in 1991. The DA was signed and recorded but no building plans were ever submitted for plan check. The DA expired in June of 1996. The site has been rezoned to Media District Limited Commercial (MDC-2) effective September 5, 1998 (ZMA 98-4).
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 91-6
Applicant: Donn Rediger Project: 5-Unit Condominium Complex Location: 4447 Lakeside Drive
PD approved January 14, 1992 (Ord. 3281) DA effective February 22, 1992 DA expired February 22, 1997
Code exceptions for this project allowed for easing of second-story setback requirements, reduced fa�ade variations, and easing of rooftop parapet requirements.
There was no development schedule. The DA expired in 1997 with no activity having occurred. The site has been rezoned to Media District Multiple Family Medium Density Residential (MDR-4). (ZMA 98-3 approved August 11, 1998).
|