PURPOSE:

This report presents the proposed Trip-Based Intensity Measurement Standard (TIMS), a new development standard that aims to limit by-right development to the land use forecast analyzed for the General Plan Mobility and Land Use Elements update.  The report also discusses the centers and corridors land use concept that is the foundation of the proposed Land Use Plan in the updated Land Use Element.  Staff seeks direction from the Council on the centers and corridors concept.

BACKGROUND:

Over the last 24 months, the City Council has held a number of Traffic and Transportation Study Sessions in the process of developing a preferred land use forecast of development through the year 2025 to be analyzed as part of the Mobility Element General Plan update.  This iterative process resulted in a varying number of development scenarios that were then modeled to determine traffic impacts and necessary street improvements needed to mitigate future traffic conditions.  At the City Council meeting of October 19, 2004, Council directed staff to study the �Reduced Growth Forecast� as the preferred development scenario for both the Land Use and Mobility Elements. These assumptions (summarized in Table 1), were used to develop a final model of future traffic conditions for which street improvements are currently being developed as part of the Mobility Element update.

Table 1 � Land Use Element / Mobility Element Preferred Land Use Scenario

One of the long-stated goals of the General Plan update is to ensure that both the Land Use and Mobility Elements are tightly integrated so that transportation policy and long-term street improvements correspond to land use policies.  Traffic congestion is a major impact to development, and both the Council and the greater Burbank community have identified increased traffic congestion as one of the major issues to address in planning for Burbank�s future.  Throughout the Mobility and Land Use Element planning process, staff has sought to develop a policy or system that would correlate the City�s Land Use Plan to the transportation system while balancing land use development with transportation improvements.

DISCUSSION: TIMS:

Limitations of Current Density Measurements

The standard measure of density used in Land Use Planning is Floor Area Ratio, or FAR, which is simply a ratio of a given parcel�s building square footage to its land area.  The Media District Specific Plan expresses limits to development in the Media District area in terms of FAR to control overall limits to building density.  Other limits to building size or bulk have been used to effectively limit density, such as limiting a building�s height or setback (height is used as the limiting factor in the current Land Use Element).  As a control of a developments bulk, massing, or scale, these limitations are useful tools.  However, these measures are deficient in relating development density to traffic impacts because a building size is not the only determinant of how much traffic can be generated by a given development.  Trip generation is derived by a combination of variables, including the size of the development as well as its use.  Other variables come into play to a lesser extent in determining trip generation, such as a development�s location and relationship of the development to other nearby uses.

The Media District Specific Plan recognized the limits of a strict FAR-based control on density when it instituted the Office-Equivalency concept.  Recognizing that different media uses within the district have widely-varying trip generation characteristics, office equivalency was a way to express the peak hour trips of varying land uses in terms of the equivalent size of office use that would generate the same trips.  This �apples-to-apples� comparison allowed decision makers to compare different uses in terms of their traffic-generating characteristics and recognized that size alone wasn�t the only variable needed to compare developments if traffic generation were to be taken into account.

Trip-Based Intensity Measurement Standard

The office-equivalency concept can be taken to a further abstraction by converting different land uses not to their office equivalency trip generation, but to the actual number of trips the development produces.  By converting all development to the actual number of peak hour trips they generate, different developments and uses can be directly compared to one another in terms of their impact to the transportation network.  Because FAR can not be used as an adequate measure of density for traffic impact comparisons, staff is proposing a new ratio be used that relates peak hour trips to parcel land area rather than building square footage.  This new ratio, termed the �Trip-Based Intensity Measurement Standard� or TIMS, sets a ratio of peak hour trips per one-thousand square feet of land area for each Land Use Map designation throughout the city.  The purpose of implementing this tool is to ensure that new, by-right development will be consistent with the Reduced Growth Forecast selected for analysis in the Mobility Element update.  While the actual derivation is slightly more complex, the basic calculation in deriving the TIMS ratios is to allocate the total peak hour trips in the city as defined by the Reduced Growth Forecast to each land use designation identified in the Land Use Element.  This allocation averages the trip generation across land use categories, but it is geographically dependent as different levels of development in the Reduced Growth Forecast are assigned to different land uses throughout the City.  It also takes into account the different uses assigned to each area, as both uses and sizes are factored together to derive a raw �currency� of trips.  The ratio of trips per thousand square feet is expressed as a TIMS rate for each land use category.  The TIMS rates for each category are listed in Table 2.

In developing the TIMS rates, four variables were calculated citywide that are used to calculate the TIMS for each land use category:

• total building square footage for each General Plan land use designation

• total land area square footage for each land use designation

• land use makeup of each land use designation

• the peak hour trip generation rates for each use within the land use designations

Total Building Square Footage

The city�s traffic model land use assumptions for the Reduced Growth Forecast were used to obtain the total building square footage for each land use designation.  This information is categorized by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ).  These TAZs subdivide the city into small areas that share similar land use and circulation characteristics.  To allow total trip generation to be assigned to each land use designation, a combination of assessor parcel data and Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis was used to determine how much building square footage in each TAZ should be allocated to each land use designation. 

Total Land Area Square Footage

The City�s proposed Land Use map was represented in GIS, and a calculation was used to derive the total land area of each designation within the General Plan map.

Use Makeup for each General Plan designation

The land use forecast used in the City�s traffic model categorizes land use in each TAZ by general use category � commercial shopping, commercial service, office, industrial, medical, school, church, lodging � and also catalogs the number of single- and multi-family units in each TAZ.  Groups of TAZs representing large samples of each land use designation were selected to determine a representative percentage makeup of each use type for each of the land use designations.  This Use Makeup is a broad sample of the types of uses located in each of the General Plan Land Use designations.

Peak Hour Trip Generation Rates for each use category

Gross P.M. Peak Hour trip generation rates for each of the broad use types within each Land Use designation was obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook.  These rates mimic the rates used in the traffic model to derive trip generation for modeling purposes, and are the rates typically used in traffic studies done to determine impacts of proposed development projects.

With these four variables, a TIMS rate was calculated for each land use designation.  This TIMS number represents the PM Peak hour trips per one-thousand square feet of land area.  It was derived by taking the total square footage for each designation, applying the percentage use makeup for each designation, and multiplying each use by the corresponding ITE PM Peak Hour Trip Generation to derive the total PM Peak trips generated for that land use designation.  The total trip number was then divided by the total land area of each land use designation to find the TIMS rate for each designation.  The schematic below illustrates conceptually the calculation described above.

The TIMS rates listed in Table 2 on page 5, as calculated through the process discussed above, represent a development control that, when applied to a given parcel within each land use designation, ensures that any development falling within that threshold will conform to the Reduced Growth Forecast identified by Council as being the upper limit for 20-year growth in the City.  In theory, if all parcels were to redevelop and maintain a �trip density� at or below the rate per thousand square feet of land area identified by the TIMS rates, the city would have a total PM peak hour trip generation equal to the total generation predicted by the Reduced Growth Forecast.  The last column in Table 2 represents the maximum FAR for each land use designation for a general office building and shows the equivalency between TIMS and Office FAR.

Application of TIMS

The purpose of TIMS is to ensure that new by-right development will be consistent with the Reduced Growth Forecast selected for analysis in the Mobility Element update.  The TIMS rates for each land use designation, when combined with a specific land parcel considered for development, will yield a PM peak hour trip �budget� that represents the maximum trip generation for that site that will remain consistent with the 20-year land use forecast.  A land owner can calculate the trip budget, and then use ITE trip generation rates for various land uses to derive different development scenarios that are all equivalent in their peak hour trip generation.  Exhibit A shows a practical application of TIMS for two hypothetical development sites.  As can be seen from the exhibit, the trip budget of 39 PM peak hour trips for a hypothetical development on a Magnolia Boulevard block face was developed using the TIMS rate of 1.43 (the rate for the proposed Boulevard Commercial Land Use designation) and the parcel size of 27,810 square feet.   Three hypothetical development scenarios were then created, each having the same PM peak hour trip generation of 39 trips. Using ITE rates, a land owner can mix and match different land uses to develop project scenarios while still remaining under the 39 trip budget.  All of these developments, while different in size, will have the same trip generation, and all of these developments will generate traffic � for that site � that is within the limits of the land use forecast approved and studied as part of the Mobility Element.  Therefore, it can be shown that overall traffic impacts to the city by this proposed development can be accommodated by the improvements identified through the Mobility Element long-range planning and the Infrastructure Blueprint.  It should be noted that site-specific impacts, such as ingress-egress points, as well as impacts of larger projects that may have impacts beyond those identified through the Blueprint, would still need to be analyzed.  However, by using TIMS, area-wide traffic impacts will be mitigated via the City�s long-range transportation plan.

Table 2 � TIMS Rates for Land Use Plan Designations

^�  TIMS for Media Production are calculated separately for each major studio based on entitled development

Implementation

TIMS will function as a zoning development standard, and as such will be implemented through the Zoning Ordinance.  The General Plan is a broad policy document intended to guide future development in the City.  However, the General Plan does not regulate the day-to-day use and development of land; that is the role of zoning.  It is important, however, that the zoning be consistent with the land use pattern called for in the General Plan to ensure that the goals and policies of the General Plan are being appropriately implemented.  To appropriately implement TIMS, a number of changes would be required to the Zoning Ordinance and Zone Map.  The commercial and industrial zones would be amended and in some cases replaced with new zones.  The TIMS requirements would be added to these amended and new zones as a new development standard that would have to be complied with in the same manner as other development standards such as parking, setbacks, and height.  Before building a new building, an applicant would be required to demonstrate compliance with TIMS by providing a building and/or tenant within the designated trip thresholds.

Staff recognizes that administration of the TIMS program will be challenging, at least initially, since it is a new concept never before used in Burbank.  One of the biggest challenges with TIMS will be related to the reuse and change of use of existing buildings.  The situation is comparable to parking requirements, where a change in use may not be allowed if adequate parking cannot be provided for the new use.  Staff continues to study whether a similar approach would work for TIMS.  Staff believes that it is important to balance the goal of TIMS in regulating traffic generation in the City while not overly restricting the adaptive reuse of existing buildings.  Staff continues to work on this issue and will return with recommendations as part of the TIMS zoning implementation program.   If the Council ultimately decides to adopt TIMS through the General Plan update, staff would bring forward the necessary zoning amendments through the normal public hearing process.

Adjustments and Incentives to TIMS

In using the TIMS methodology, the conversion between trips and land uses is accomplished primarily through the application of ITE Trip Generation Handbook rates.  These rates are derived through a database of trip surveys compiled from various land uses across the country.  These sampled uses are thus representative of national trends rather than trends particular to Southern California or the City of Burbank specifically.  In particular, the Trip Generation Handbook surveys are biased to suburban uses that are usually stand-alone and are very automobile-centric.  This provides a very conservative estimation of trip generation.  Burbank, although it is a suburb, is a denser, urban inner suburb and thus exhibits trip generation characteristics that are not directly in-line with the straight ITE rates.  Land uses in Burbank are more likely to encourage higher average vehicle ridership (AVR), more transit use, and a better likelihood that a single vehicle trip is used to visit multiple, nearby destinations.  Thus, application of ITE rates to new developments in Burbank is inherently more conservative because they reflect the suburban, stand-alone bias of the ITE rates.  However, their use in this manner is consistent with current industry practice and the city�s current traffic study policies which yield slightly conservative estimations of trip generation.

Another variation from a strict application of ITE rates is the difference in trip generation between the broader, aggregated land use defined in the traffic model (and thus used to define the TIMS rates) and the specific, project land use calculated for an individual project.  The traffic model aggregates land use into a few broad land use categories (office, commercial shopping, industrial, etc.) and applies ITE rates for these broad categories when generating trips for use in modeling.  The model also aggregates land use into TAZs, which usually span multiple city blocks, and then applies an ITE rate to this larger amount.  Because ITE rates for some uses are affected by this �economy of scale�, this methodology results in a lower trip generation per thousand square feet than if ITE rates were applied individually to every building within that TAZ.  The TIMS rates, which are based on this aggregation, are therefore slightly lower than if ITE rates were applied individually across each building in the city.

Finally, there are many uses that have very high ITE trip generation rates because they are very automobile-centric.  These types of uses include fast-food drive-through restaurants, convenience stores, banks, gas stations, and other uses that exhibit high turnover of vehicle traffic.  When these specific land uses are applied to the TIMS rates, which are based on broader, less specific land use types, it becomes difficult to fit these uses within trip budgets of many parcels.  TIMS rates are derived from use of average citywide trip generation rates in the traffic model, which reflect trip reductions to account for transit usage, passby trips, and captured trips between adjoining land uses.  Application of specific ITE rates to projects with high trip generation will be difficult to compare to the broader citywide TIMS rates without accounting for these reductions.

While these differences in methodology will yield a conservative estimate of trip generation for by-right projects analyzed via TIMS, there are a number of options available to adjust the rates to allow for larger projects.  First, staff proposes giving incentives to projects that can provide better pedestrian orientation to the street, thereby encouraging more walking trips between adjoining land uses, or for mixed use projects that are integrated into surrounding uses and provide opportunities for reducing vehicle trips.  For mixed use retail projects, staff proposes that the lower, general �shopping center� ITE rate be used rather than a higher use-specific rate, recognizing that mixed use projects with good pedestrian orientation to adjoining uses have the ability to reduce trips.  For instance, a restaurant that is located in a mixed use district, perhaps with adjoining or nearby residential, and oriented toward the sidewalk to encourage walking trips from other uses, could calculate its trip generation using the ITE shopping center rate at 3.75 trips per thousand square feet, rather than the restaurant rate at 10.92 trips per thousand square feet.  There is existing precedence in Burbank to make these types of reductions for captured trips in the Downtown, where parking requirements for many uses are lower in recognition that people will utilize a single trip to visit multiple, related uses.

Second, staff proposes to make provisions to account for pass-by reductions or reductions for internal trips for projects with multiple, related uses.  Gas stations, convenience stores, and fast food restaurants, for example, all have high pass-by trips.  These trips represent traffic already on the street network directly adjacent to the location, who happen to stop at the use on the way to a primary destination.  Land owners, after applying TIMS, could petition for a standard pass-by reduction depending on the type of use.  A similar mechanism would be created to determine internal trips, or trips between different land uses on the same site (walking within the site).

Finally, staff could propose a set of credits or incentives for additional transit, transportation demand management, or pedestrian walkability amenities.  These credits would be granted for developments that were able to accommodate transit or other alternative modes of transportation, and would need to be justified with a limited traffic study or other analysis.  These incentives would me more difficult to formulate, as a nexus would have to be made between the amenities and actual trip reductions on the road network.  Staff is currently formulating a mechanism to grant these types of reductions.

TIMS and the CEQA Process

The TIMS methodology is a process of comparing new development to the land use forecast studied as part of the Mobility Element and used to develop the Infrastructure Blueprint, which establishes the improvements needed over the next 20 years to accommodate traffic from increased development.  As such, the TIMS methodology will need to be integrated into the City�s existing California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process in terms identifying traffic impacts.

Currently a traffic study is warranted if a project is expected to exceed 50 PM peak hour trips.  At 50 trips, it becomes likely that a project may have at least a localized impact on the street network, and therefore a traffic study is required to determine if an impact exists.  If a project exceeds this 50-trip threshold of significance, a study area is identified and intersections within the study area are analyzed for traffic impacts.  Intersections that exceed the City�s significant impact thresholds are identified through the study and mitigations are identified that reduce the project�s impacts to the intersection.  The project mitigates its impacts through payment of a transportation impact fee based upon square footage of the development.  The project is also responsible for any site access improvements (driveway improvements, signalized intersections adjacent to the site, etc.) that may be necessary above and beyond those improvements paid for by the impact fee.

The TIMS methodology adds a new variable to the City�s current traffic impact analysis policies.  Projects that exceed 50 PM peak hour trips are still considered to have potentially significant traffic impacts.  However, in addition to this 50-trip threshold, projects that exceed the TIMS trip budget for their site must also undergo a traffic study.  Because the project�s trip generation exceeds TIMS, the generation for the site exceeds the average citywide trip generation projected under the Mobility Element 20-year forecast.  Thus, a traffic study is required to determine if impacts to the street network exist.  Projects that are within their TIMS budget but are above 50 PM Peak Hour trips must still undergo a traffic study to determine if any localized traffic impacts may require remediation.

The method in which traffic impacts are funded would also change under the proposed TIMS analysis.  Currently, all projects pay for their impacts to the street system via a transportation impact fee levied based upon the project�s building square footage.  This fee pays for improvements identified in the Infrastructure Blueprint as being needed to mitigate traffic caused by new development.  Under the TIMS methodology, projects that show additional impacts beyond those identified in the Blueprint would have to pay for their fair share of the cost of these improvements directly.  This would apply to projects that both exceed TIMS as well as exceed the 50-trip threshold but are within TIMS.  This fair share cost would be in addition to the impact fees paid to fund the Infrastructure Blueprint improvements.  The Transportation Impact Fee pays for cumulative improvements identified through the Blueprint.  Improvements required by projects that are above and beyond this set of improvements need to be funded by the project itself, and shared across multiple projects that may all require these additional mitigations..

Projects that Exceed TIMS

The primary goal of implementing the TIMS methodology in the review of new development is to ensure that the city�s overall growth remains within the growth forecast identified in the Mobility and Land Use Elements and thus compatible with the transportation improvements that are programmed in the context of that growth.  However, this tool is not meant to restrict all growth that may exceed the TIMS rates. Projects that exceed TIMS may be eligible for reductions in their trip generation if they meet certain criteria as explained above.  Projects may also undergo a traffic study to determine if the actual trip generation of the project may be less than the generation predicted by ITE, or to determine if projects that exceed TIMS indeed create street impacts that must be mitigated.  Finally, a project may be found to both exceed TIMS and have impacts to the street network.  For this case, staff is proposing a mechanism whereby, if the City Council were to make certain findings, a project may be able to draw additional peak hour trips from a geographically-based �trip reserve,� or a bank of peak hour trips available for projects that exceed TIMS.  Staff is proposing to study an alternative land use scenario as part of the Mobility Element Update. This alternative scenario would include the assignment of additional square footage in the Downtown/South San Fernando, Media District, Golden State, and other strip commercial areas.  This additional square footage would be available, in the form of additional PM peak hour trips, at the discretion of the City Council much like the current Development Opportunity Reserve is currently available to projects in the Media District.  By creating a trip pool of additional discretionary trips, projects will be able to be approved that exceed the average trip generation as predicted by the traffic model and land use scenario for the General Plan, but that may have community benefit that overrides the cost of increased traffic on the street network.  Staff is also studying the possibility of allowing available trips to be transferred from one property to another within a limited geographic area, again at the discretion of the City Council.  Such a program would be similar to the Transfer of Development Rights program that is available to projects in the Media District.

Economic Analysis

As directed by Council at the June 8, 2005 Traffic and Transportation study session, staff has analyzed the economic ramifications of implementing the TIMS methodology with the help of economic consultant Keyser Marsten Associates (KMA).  In particular, staff was concerned with how implementing this new density control may affect land values, redirect or change development patterns, or encourage or discourage various land uses.  Staff provided KMA with a host of maximum development scenarios in various parts of the City that would be allowed under TIMS, and compared that to similar maximum scenarios under current zoning.  KMA also applied their knowledge of the economic viability of various development scenarios in comparison to the scenarios allowed under TIMS.

Through this analysis, the most significant economic impact that would result from implementation of the TIMS methodology was to discourage many land uses with highly concentrated peak hour trip generation.  These uses, such as banks, convenience stores, high-turnover restaurants, and gas stations, fit poorly in the TIMS methodology because the TIMS rates are based on averages, while these spot uses have very high trip generation and thus fall far outside the average trip generation.  The size of these uses permitted under TIMS is too small to make these developments economically viable or even practical.  In practice, under TIMS, most high-turnover, high generation uses will require a traffic study to determine if any impacts exist to the street network beyond those that are programmed as part of the Blueprint. It does not necessarily mean that these uses can not be implemented; instead, these uses will require further analysis of their traffic impacts.  However, there is also an opportunity for these uses to be built in a more pedestrian-friendly manner.  Because a traffic study will be required, developers of these uses may have incentive to include better pedestrian access, orientation to the street, or otherwise make these developments more in-line with proposed pedestrian design standards proposed under the Land Use Element.  These developments would most likely be constructed as part of a mixed use or shopping center project rather than as a stand alone development to take advantage of possible trip reductions and incentives for pedestrian-oriented development.

In the same manner, the TIMS methodology would encourage land uses with lower trip generation rates.  In particular, residential units have very low trip generation rates, and as such would be encouraged in areas where residential and mixed use development are permitted.  In the multifamily residential zones, the number of residential units would continue to be limited by density controls, and TIMS would not apply.  In commercial areas where TIMS would be utilized to regulate development intensity, mixed use and residential projects would be encouraged under TIMS because such projects would allow properties to develop to a higher intensity than strictly retail or office projects.  As discussed further below, the updated Land Use Element as proposed by staff would encourage mixed use and residential development in currently commercial areas as an alternative to commercial development, and TIMS would further promote this idea.  In addition to the low trip rates of residential units, mixed use projects can further reduce the trips generated by the commercial uses because of the trips saved by people walking to the businesses from their residences.

Staff asked KMA to study the affect that TIMS might have on the value of parcels that are ripe for redevelopment and parcels with established structures that would not likely redevelop in the foreseeable future.  KMA anticipates that TIMS may have the effect of increasing the value of existing development over the long term where this development is denser than that allowed under this new mechanism.  This may have the effect of delaying turnover from old to new uses if what can be built new is less than what already exists on the site.  However, KMA found that TIMS was not shown to remove economic viability to parcels in any part of the City.  With the implementation of TIMS, all areas will still have a viable economic redevelopment option; these options may simply change as certain uses are made more difficult to implement in different areas of the city.  For instance, the land use forecast studied for the Mobility Element reduces the development potential of the Media District (outside of existing entitlements for the Studios) due to the area�s more critical peak hour congestion, while increasing the development potential in the Downtown, where its better transit connections, freeway access, and greater available street capacity allows for additional development.  This may have the economic effect of redirecting new office and retail development out of the Media District and into the Downtown and strip commercial areas.

In general, TIMS may alter land values and development patterns over the long term in different areas of the City, but it is not expected to decrease land value or stifle development in the City over the long term.  KMA noted that numerous factors including market conditions and demand for different types of land uses, can heavily affect land values and development potential.  TIMS will be another one of several factors that can influence the market and land values, but will not be the only factor or even the most prominent factor.  For example,  it was also shown through this analysis that in many cases, the limiting development control is not TIMS rates, but the current parking requirements.  Some of the development scenarios were rendered economically unviable not because of the lowered potential allowed under TIMS, but because the existing parking requirements for that development were too high to allow the site to be parked without resorting to expensive subterranean parking.  While this demonstrates the complexity of the real estate market and land values, this finding also illustrates the importance of developing more sophisticated parking standards in many areas of the city.

DISCUSSION: CENTERS AND CORRIDORS:

One of the main concepts upon which the proposed Land Use Plan is based is the idea of centers and corridors.  This idea has been presented to the Council on previous occasions, and the Council has generally expressed its support for the concept.  The centers and corridors concept is based upon the designation of various centers throughout the City, connected by corridors.  The downtown area would be identified as the downtown center serving as the business, retail, and entertainment center of the City; the Burbank Town Center mall and Burbank Empire Center would be identified as regional centers attracting visitors from outside the City; and various locations around the City (22 total), mostly around major intersections, would be identified as neighborhood centers to serve local residents.  These centers would all be linked by corridors, notably Burbank, Magnolia, Olive, Victory, and Glenoaks. 

Perhaps the most significant feature of the centers and corridors concept is the promotion of mixed use commercial/residential development within the neighborhood centers and mixed use and residential development along the corridors between the centers.  Following initial Council support of this concept, staff held a series of three community meetings in mid-2004.  Those in attendance at the meetings were generally receptive to the idea of promoting mixed use development in the centers and residential development along the corridors.  On August 8, 2005, staff presented to the Planning Board the neighborhood centers concept.  The staff report, which provides additional details about the history and development of the centers concept and its goals, is attached hereto as Exhibit B.  The Board expressed a number of concerns about the centers and corridors idea and some Board members were not supportive of the concept as presented by staff.  On August 9, 2005, the City Council denied a proposed mixed use project at Glenoaks and Keeler, on the site of a former gas station.  Based upon the draft Land Use Plan proposed by staff, that project would have been appropriate at that location.  Following the modifications to the original project design, staff believed that the height, density, and design of the project fit well with the concept of a mixed use project that combined residential units with retail space in an area that was already a mix of retail and residential uses.  Such a project would have been consistent with the policy recommendations of the proposed Land Use Plan for mixed use development as an alternative to commercial uses.  The Council, however, denied the project, raising concerns about the appropriateness of the project for that location.

The Planning Board�s concerns about the centers and corridors concept, combined with the Council�s denial of the project, has prompted staff to return to the City Council for further discussion and direction before proceeding with the draft Land Use Plan.  Staff still believes that the centers and corridors idea is an important factor for achieving the vision of a balanced community.  Staff has completed the draft Land Use Plan and guiding principles, and is now drafting the supporting goals and policies to support the plan and principles.  Based upon earlier input from the Council and the community, staff has been proceeding with the centers and corridors concept.  However, staff is seeking further direction from the Council on the proposed plan.  If the Council is not comfortable with the centers and corridors concept as proposed, staff will need to revisit and amend the proposed Land Use Plan that will serve as the foundation of the updated Land Use Element.

What is the centers and corridors concept?

In developing the proposed Land Use Plan, staff has sought to further the idea of a balanced community.  This idea is especially important in balancing the needs of Burbank residents to have their shopping and other needs met close to their homes with preventing negative impacts that commercial businesses can have on nearby residents.  Out of this desire to maintain balance grew  the centers and corridors concept.  The centers and corridors concept is based upon the designation of regional, downtown, and neighborhood centers throughout the City, connected by corridors along arterial streets.  The neighborhood centers are the most significant aspect of this concept, since they are located throughout the City.  The purpose of neighborhood centers is to provide localized retail and service destinations to serve nearby residents.  Staff�s goal is to provide a neighborhood center within one-quarter to one-half mile of all residential areas so that every neighborhood was served by one or more neighborhood centers (one-quarter mile is about a five minute walk for most people).  The centers are intended to have neighborhood serving uses that attract and serve nearby residents.  Because the centers are located in proximity to residences, the hope is that many residents will choose to walk to the centers rather than drive, and that the centers will also serve as social places for residents.  The Planning Board staff report attached as Exhibit B includes a detailed discussion of the goals and physical features of the proposed neighborhood centers; this information is also summarized below.

To maintain a pedestrian oriented atmosphere, all new buildings in neighborhood centers would be required to be built at the sidewalk, with parking provided to the rear or underground.  This places the focus of buildings and business on the sidewalk and the pedestrian, rather than placing parking in front of the building and breaking the connection between the pedestrian and the storefront.  Ultimately, as street improvements occur, sidewalks in neighborhood centers would be wider than elsewhere and would include benches, landscaping, and other pedestrian amenities.  By maintaining a pedestrian oriented atmosphere, shoppers would be encouraged to walk to the centers from their nearby homes and walk within the center if arriving by car or transit, rather than driving from business to business.  The ground floor of all buildings in a neighborhood center would be required to have retail or service businesses with ample windows and doors facing the sidewalk to provide direct pedestrian interaction.  Offices and other such businesses that do not interact with pedestrian traffic would be required to locate on upper floors or in the rear of buildings away from the sidewalk. Automobile repair, drive-through businesses, and other auto-oriented businesses would not be allowed to locate in neighborhood centers.  Gas stations, although not appropriate for a pedestrian oriented environment, are necessarily located at the intersection of arterial streets, where many of the proposed neighborhood centers would be located.  Staff therefore recognizes gas stations as being unavoidable in the centers.  In addition to neighborhood serving commercial uses, neighborhood centers would be encouraged to include mixed use development, with residential units on upper floors.

The corridors connecting the centers would also be required to provide a pedestrian friendly atmosphere to encourage pedestrian linkages between the centers.  Although the limitations on development and uses would not be as strict as those within the neighborhood centers, all development would be required to maintain a degree of pedestrian friendliness.  All new buildings would be required to be built at or near the sidewalk, again to maintain a pedestrian interface.  As in the centers, parking would be required to locate behind or under buildings rather than in front.  So as not to overly restrict uses, offices and some auto-related business would be allowed to locate along corridors but would still be required to provide minimum setbacks and windows and doors facing the sidewalk to maintain the pedestrian interface.  In addition to commercial businesses, residential units would be encouraged to be developed along the corridors in the form of adaptive reuse of existing commercial buildings, new mixed use development with residential on upper floors, and new all-residential development.  Like the commercial development, residential development would have minimum setbacks and provide unit entrances facing the street to maintain pedestrian orientation.  Staff anticipates that residential development would be permitted at densities comparable to the new R-3 densities, or up to about 27 units per acre.  One type of residential development that would be encouraged along the corridors would be �rowhouse� development, or attached townhouse units, which would be developed at a lower density of probably around 20 units per acre or less.

Why is the concept being proposed?

• New urbanism principles.  New urbanism is a movement within the planning, architecture, and development communities that came about in response to the automobile-dependent suburban sprawl that continues to occur across much of the United States.  New urbanism calls for compact walkable neighborhoods with a variety of housing types and densities that provide housing opportunities for different people with different needs.  New urbanist neighborhoods are served by a neighborhood center, located within a five-minute walk from residences, that serves the daily shopping and other needs of residents and includes access to public transit.  New urbanism places an emphasis on the importance of urban design in defining the public space and shaping a pedestrian oriented environment.  New urbanism calls for buildings to be placed at the sidewalk with parking in the rear and for buildings to have doors and windows along the sidewalk to interact with passing pedestrians.  Sidewalks are wide and cater to pedestrians, bicyclists, and wheelchair users.

Based on direction from the City Council to strive to make Burbank residents less dependent upon the private automobile, and to promote the small town atmosphere that many Burbank residents called for during the Land Use Element visioning process, staff has sought to include new urbanist principles in the goals and policies for the updated Land Use Element.  The corridors and centers concept draws upon new urbanism and has been used by numerous other cities to revitalize aging commercial strips.

• Underperforming commercial land.  Burbank residents have commented for several years on the decline of the City�s commercial strip corridors, especially Burbank and Magnolia Boulevards.  The corridors are not as successful as they once were, and show signs of economic blight including decreased rents and land values, lower quality businesses and non-retail tenants, and disinvestment in buildings.  Economic analysis performed by KMA shows that businesses along the corridors are generally performing below regional and national averages for retail activity, and that Burbank has too much land area devoted to commercial uses.  This trend is not unique to Burbank.  Cities across the country are finding that they have too much land designated for commercial use.  In its 2001 publication Ten Principles for Reinventing America�s Suburban Strips, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) cited reducing the amount of land zoned for commercial use and concentrating commercial activity into nodes or centers as two of its ten recommended actions.  In the publication, ULI states that �it simply is not necessary for every major parcel along every arterial to be zoned for commercial or retail use.�  As discussed further below, staff notes that the proposed plan would not compel commercial property owners to switch their properties to mixed use or residential use, it would simply provide them with the option of doing so to give them more flexibility in the development of their property.

Staff believes that the declining vitality of the corridors as retail destinations will be a continuing problem if action is not taken.  Staff has received input from some individuals who believe that allowing residential development along the strips would not be giving the commercial development a chance at success.  Some people believe that the City should instead be doing more to encourage and facilitate the revitalization of the existing commercial development, including streetscape revitalization projects.  While the aesthetics of the corridors are important, and adding amenities such as landscaping, street furniture, and other streetscape features is a valuable part of any revitalization effort, such cosmetic improvements do not by themselves address the underlying land use issues.

 

Staff believes that there is not enough retail demand to continue sustaining all of the retail space along the corridors.  The proposals discussed in this report, especially allowing residential development along the corridors, seek to address the underlying land use issues.  People�s shopping needs and patterns have changed over the years, and shopping centers such as the Burbank Town Center and Empire Center are apparently in a better position to appeal to the modern consumer.  Even without the development of the Burbank Town Center or Empire Center, Burbank�s older corridors would not be able to meet the demands of today�s retail market, and Burbank residents would shop outside the City to meet their needs.

 

Some portions of the corridors will still fill an important need by meeting the focused retail and service needs at the neighborhood level through the neighborhood centers.  Staff believes that by focusing the retail activities into the neighborhood center nodes and ensuring that the retailers are appropriate for a neighborhood scale, there will be demand from nearby residences to support the centers.  In staff�s opinion, allowing residential development along the corridors between the nodes is also a critical component of the concept, since housing along the corridor would bring more people to the corridors and further increase the demand for neighborhood serving retail and service businesses.  As noted earlier in this report, the limitations on development in the Media District and Golden State areas could increase the demand for office space elsewhere in the City, including along the corridors.  High rent office space coupled with residential development would further increase the demand for neighborhood oriented retail and restaurants within the neighborhood centers and encourage the economic revitalization of the corridors.

• Additional residential capacity and housing opportunities.  In July 2005, the City Council approved amendments to the multiple family residential zones Citywide.  In addition to changing the multiple family development standards, the amendments reduced the permitted residential densities across the City by an average of 30 percent.  This had the affect of reducing the dwelling unit capacity of the City.  In order to maintain consistency between the zoning and the General Plan and to ensure that the General Plan reflects the policy direction of the City Council, the updated Land Use Element will have decreased residential densities consistent with the new zoning.  Further, staff is proposing additional changes to the Land Use Plan map to better buffer Burbank�s single family neighborhoods from higher density multiple family development by designating all multiple family areas in proximity to R-1 zones with the medium density (R-3) designation rather than the high density (R-4) designation.  This will have the effect of reducing the amount of land in the City designated for high density development, further reducing the unit capacity.

The City is required by the State of California to demonstrate through its General Plan that it has adequate dwelling unit capacity available in the City to satisfy the City�s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation.  RHNA is a process by which the state determines the number of affordable housing units that must be accommodated in various regions of the state.  The regional governments, such as the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), then divide the region�s share among the cities within the region.  Burbank has historically not had any problems demonstrating the ability to satisfy the RHNA requirement because of relatively high residential densities.  With the density decrease approved by the Council and further proposed adjustments to the Land Use Plan, staff is concerned that it will not be as easy for the City to demonstrate RHNA compliance.

 

In its ongoing calculations, staff has been depending upon the additional dwelling unit capacity that would be captured by promoting mixed use and residential development in the centers and along the corridors, respectively.  Staff estimates that about 5,000 additional housing units could be provided Citywide in the centers and along the corridors through mixed use and residential development in those areas.  Staff is concerned that residential densities may have to be increased, or other alternatives explored, for the City to demonstrate compliance with future RHNA requirements without this potential capacity.  Given the continued high demand for housing in Burbank, staff views the corridors and centers as an opportunity to increase the City�s housing supply while maintaining lower densities in the multifamily zones to avoid further burdening the multifamily neighborhoods. 

• Automobile alternatives.  Through all of the recent discussions about traffic in Burbank, the City Council has articulated a primary goal to reduce dependence on the private automobile for traveling around Burbank.  While providing transit options, bicycle paths, and other such steps are critical, it is also important to provide land use options and policies that support alternative transportation.  The centers and corridors concept supports alternative transportation through support of pedestrian traffic and public transit use.

As discussed above and in more detail in the report attached as Exhibit B, the centers and corridors would support a pedestrian oriented environment through the provision of wider sidewalks, street furniture, storefronts oriented to the sidewalk, and other such features.  Due to their location in proximity to residential neighborhoods throughout the City, the hope and intent is that residents would walk from their homes to the centers.  The proposed residential development along the corridors would also provide additional residents near centers who would walk from their homes along the corridors to the nearby centers.  By providing retail and service businesses to fulfill the everyday needs of residents near within walking distance of their homes, people will be able to walk rather than drive to meet some or all of their daily shopping needs.

 

Most of the neighborhood centers and corridors designated for residential development are along MTA bus lines.  Some centers and corridors, including Burbank and Magnolia Boulevards, are also located on the new Burbank Bus local transit lines.  Allowing mixed use and residential development in the centers and along the corridors supports transit services by providing residences in proximity to transit and encouraging residents to take advantage of transit options.  The residential densities along the corridors would be higher than those in the adjacent single family neighborhoods, which would further support transit services and facilitate future expansion of transit services by providing increased ridership along those lines.

• Reduced impacts on single family neighborhoods.  The interface between the commercial businesses and single family residential neighborhoods along Burbank�s corridors creates a land use challenge.  Mixed use development that blends residential and non-residential uses can provide many benefits to a community, and staff is encouraging the continued development of residences within, and in proximity to, commercial areas.  However, most commercial buildings along Burbank�s corridors were designed and built many years ago, when attention was not given to the way in which the buildings addressed the residences across the alley.  As such, many businesses impact nearby residences through light, noise, odors, and general unsightliness from parked cars, trash, and other items stored behind businesses.  Because there is not adequate off-street parking available for many businesses along the corridors, residents in nearby single family neighborhoods often experience parking impacts from corridor businesses.

Staff believes that the introduction of residential development onto the corridors will improve the interface with the single family residential neighborhoods and result in reduced impacts.  New residential development would be required to be designed so as to minimize visual, noise, light, privacy, and other impacts on the single family neighborhoods.  Late night cleaning, deliveries, trash removal, and other such activities that are often incompatible with nearby residences across the alley would not occur with multifamily development, where the times and patterns of activities would be generally the same as those in the single family neighborhood.  Because multifamily development would be built with adequate off-street parking, the parking impacts on residential streets next to residential projects would be dramatically reduced.  Guests would be able to park on-site and along the boulevards in front of the residential projects, rather than on residential streets.

How would the concept be implemented?

It is important to note that under the proposed concept, no land uses or buildings would be required to change.  No existing businesses would be forced to move, and no existing buildings would have to be demolished.  Mixed use and residential development would be offered as alternatives in the centers and along the corridors, but commercial development would continue to be a permitted use.  Existing commercial buildings would be allowed to remain, and new commercial buildings could be constructed.  Mixed use and residential development would be permitted, but it would be up to the property owners to determine if and when it was right to recycle their properties with a mixed use or residential project, or convert a portion or all of an existing building to residential units.  As noted above, economic analysis has shown that Burbank�s corridors are generally underperforming as commercial properties.  Given the continued high demand for housing, staff believes that market conditions may be right now and in the future for residential development to be financially beneficial along the corridors in place of commercial development.  Given the need for housing and the potential financial benefit to property owners of providing it, staff believes it is important to provide an opportunity for housing along the corridors and in the centers.

Staff proposes that the mixed use and residential development would be allowed by right in the centers and corridors, and would not require extensive discretionary review.  Projects could be required to undergo compatibility review as part of the development review process, as is currently done with multifamily projects in multifamily zones.  However, staff proposes that a conditional use permit or other such discretionary approval would not be required.  Staff believes that it is important to implement the General Plan�s policies through the zoning in a manner that best supports the policies.  If the General Plan encourages or promotes mixed use and residential development, the zoning should reflect that by making it as straightforward as possible for a developer to build a mixed use or residential project in a center or along a corridor.

One method that many cities are using to introduce mixed use and residential development into commercial corridors and to promote new urbanist development principles is the form-based zoning code.  Form-based zoning codes focus primarily on the built form of the environment and how buildings interact with and define the public street.

Conventional zoning codes, such as Burbank�s current code, focus heavily on controlling uses and often make it difficult to change from one use to another or to adaptively reuse an existing building.  With regard to the built environment, conventional zoning codes do not establish specifics to direct what buildings will look like, but rather depend upon minimum setbacks, maximum height, and other limitations to define an envelope in which a building may be built.  Often, the ultimate design is further controlled through design review or a similar discretionary process.  Although design review is not used in Burbank, the ultimate look of the building is further controlled through compatibility findings in the case of multifamily development.

This approach does not provide a high degree of certainty to either developers or the community.  Because developers are only bound by generalized limitations on setbacks and height, they are free to build whatever fits inside the defined box, which can vary widely from one project to another.  Although the community may have participated and given input when the development standards were originally created, there is little guarantee of what the final product will look like.  When compatibility review or other such discretion is involved, this provides uncertainty for the developer, since they do not know going into the process if their project will be approved or substantially changed.  In the case of mixed use development, discretionary approval, in the form of a conditional use permit or planned development, is always required.  There is currently no zone in Burbank in which mixed use development with residential units is allowed by right.  This means that there is no guarantee for any mixed use builder that their project will be approved at all, much less how the project will be expected to look.  The conventional zoning code approach also makes it difficult or impossible to effectively create a sense of place, as staff hopes to achieve in the neighborhood centers.  Since there is no ability to guarantee that buildings will have consistent setbacks, height, or designs, any location in the City is a mix of building types and sizes.

Form-based zoning codes seek to address these issues by increasing the specificity of zoning and focusing on the buildings themselves.  Uses are still regulated, but the form of the buildings is considered more important.  Minimum heights are specified in addition to maximum heights.  Maximum setbacks or �build-to� lines are specified rather than minimum setbacks to ensure that buildings properly address the street and create a pedestrian friendly environment.  The amount of doors and windows is carefully regulated to ensure that a pedestrian environment is maintained.  This approach provides a great deal of certainty to both developers and the community by describing in great detail the requirements for all future buildings.  This also helps to create a sense of place by ensuring that all buildings will of a similar scale and design, in whatever manner is decided by the community to be appropriate.  Unlike conventional zoning codes, which may use the same zoning designation at various locations around a community, form-based zoning is typically specific to a particular area or street.  The idea is that form-based codes are used to create a special identity for a particular center or corridor, so different form-based zones are applied to different neighborhoods, centers, or corridors.  It is important to note that form-based zoning codes do not seek to regulate architecture and, in many cases, are not accompanied by a design review process.  The idea is that the design of building is regulated such that the architectural style is not necessarily an issue because the design of the building and its ability to fit in with and address its surroundings is guaranteed through the form-based standards.

Because form-based codes focus on the design and appearance of the built environment, it is critical that the public be involved throughout the development of the form-based code.  Part of the process of providing certainty to the community and developers is ensuring that all stakeholders provide input through all steps of the process and have a sense of ownership over the requirements that are ultimately adopted.  Whatever approach is selected to implement the centers and corridors concept, form-based or otherwise, the proposed zoning would go through the public process as would any changes to the Zoning Ordinance or Zone Map.  Such a process would include public outreach and public hearings before the Planning Board and City Council. 

Planning Board Concerns

On August 8, 2005, the Planning Board held a study session on neighborhood centers.  The Board asked questions and expressed a number of concerns about the idea as proposed by staff.  The Board members� questions and comments are listed below, followed by staff responses.

• How do automobile oriented uses such as auto repair, gas stations, and drive-through businesses fit into the centers and corridors concept? As discussed above, auto oriented uses are considered inappropriate for the neighborhood center areas, due to their strong pedestrian orientation.  Some auto uses such as repair garages may be acceptable along the corridors if they are designed in a way that maintains pedestrian friendliness and minimizes impacts on neighboring properties.  One of the main tenets of new urbanism and its implementing form-based codes is that the design of the building is far more important than the use of the building.  The idea is that if a building is well designed to fit into its surroundings and minimize any negative impacts to neighboring properties and passers-by from the activities going on inside, the actual activities are of secondary importance.

European cities (and some American cities) have automobile repair garages and auto dealerships nestled into the ground floor of residential buildings.   Because the working space is indoors, the noise and other impacts on neighbors are minimized.  And because the building looks like the other buildings in the neighborhood, you do not realize it is an auto repair shop until you are directly in front of it.  Some businesses even maintain a pedestrian interface by having windows and doors facing the sidewalk, allowing pedestrians to view the work being done inside.  While this is certainly not as desirable as a retail store or restaurant, it maintains an opportunity for auto related businesses to locate along corridors without forcing them into industrial areas, while minimizing their negative impacts.  Existing auto oriented businesses along corridors and in centers, of which there are many, would likely be subject to the City�s typical grandfathering clauses, meaning that they could continue in their current state, but could generally not expand or intensify.

• The concept of neighborhood centers supporting a �small town� atmosphere will not work without further attention to detail, including the provision of community serving uses in each neighborhood center such as recreations centers, plazas, or other public spaces.  Staff does not envision neighborhood centers as community gathering places in the same sense as a park or library.  While it would be ideal for every neighborhood center to have a community center or open space for public use, staff does not believe that it is practical or economically feasible to do so.  Staff hopes that neighborhood centers will become places for social interaction as surrounding residents travel there for their shopping needs and stop to dine or relax.

• Concentrating commercial activity into centers will drive up land values and rents which will drive out �mom and pop� shops and work against the desire for a small town atmosphere.  Some commercial areas of Burbank have had more difficulty recycling than others because of the changing retail market and the amount of commercial land available.  Although Burbank�s corridors are home to many quality small retailers, other storefronts remain vacant.  Staff�s hope is that allowing residential development along corridors will increase land values over the long term by allowing owners to make alternative uses of their land.  If residential development occurs along the corridors in response to its short-term value, commercial development may be increasingly forced into the centers, which would in turn increase land values in the centers as the supply of commercial land came more in line with the demand.  Numerous smaller, unique and neighborhood businesses along Burbank�s corridors are already successful, and would continue to be successful under the centers and corridors plan. Smaller retailers are, in many cases, better able to meet the neighborhood scale needs of shoppers in the neighborhood centers than would larger scale national chain retailers.

• Mixed use along the corridors is acceptable, but residential development should not be forced on the corridors; the City should not �walk away� from the commercial uses there.  As discussed earlier in this report, the proposed centers and corridors concept would not compel property owners to redevelop their properties with residential uses and would not prohibit future development of commercial uses.  Mixed use and residential development would be offered along the corridors as by right alternatives to commercial development to allow property owners greater flexibility in using their land, depending upon market conditions.

• Some corridor areas, such as portions of Magnolia Boulevard, should have diagonal parking installed and the travel lanes reduced to help solve parking issues.  This is an option that staff has studied previously and dismissed as infeasible, but will study again as part of an ongoing look at parking options in Magnolia Park and along other corridors in the City.  With or without implementation of the centers and corridors concept, staff believes that a comprehensive parking management program will be required for some areas of the City.  Discussion about such a program is beyond the scope of this report, but could include the use of parking districts, parking meters, in-lieu parking fees, and the use of on-street parking to satisfy parking requirements in the case of adaptive reuse of older buildings.

• Live/work development should be considered along the corridors.  Live/work development typically consists of mixed use development with residential units located above storefronts.  However, the storefronts are connected internally to the residential units, such that each unit has its own storefront and the resident uses the storefront for their business.  Such projects are ideal for self-employed individuals who need workshop space, sales space for their artwork or products, or office space, such as artists, persons working in the media industry, and accountants.  Staff agrees that live/work development would be ideal along the corridors as a blending of the commercial and residential land uses.

• Neighborhood centers will each need a theater, boutique restaurant, or similar destination to attract patrons.  Entertainment and large-scale dining destinations are necessary in the downtown area and regional centers.  However, staff does not envision the neighborhood centers as functioning in this way.  Neighborhood centers are intended to have small-scale retail and service uses that serve the surrounding neighborhoods or in some cases, the City as a whole.  Theaters and boutique restaurants are of too large a scale to be supported on the neighborhood level and are dependent upon Citywide and/or regional patronage.  This type of business is not compatible with the neighborhood center concept.  Staff envisions that the implementing zoning regulations will have standards limiting the size of businesses in neighborhood centers to prevent businesses that are out of scale with the center from locating there.

• Neighborhood centers are mostly located around intersections that are already busy.  Centers should perhaps be located between major intersections so that traffic is not as much of an issue.  This is an issue that staff has carefully considered.  As noted in the report attached as Exhibit B, staff agrees that traffic will be one of the challenges to address in neighborhood centers, since the centers are mostly located at major intersections.  However, these intersections already function in many cases as nodes of activity and, staff believes, are a natural fit for neighborhood centers.  The intersections are also spaced regularly throughout the City, which facilitates their placement within walking distance of as many residential areas as possible.  While the need to widen these intersections is at odds with the desire for wider sidewalks for pedestrian orientation, the City Council has already stated its policy of not widening intersections to the point that street parking and pedestrian accessibility are sacrificed.  As such, staff believes that it will be possible to successfully accommodate traffic and pedestrians at the centers and along the corridors.

• The centers as envisioned by staff will not happen without substantial recycling of properties.  There are possibilities for creating pedestrian friendly environments and streetscape along the corridors now without waiting for centers to develop over a period of many years.  The City should invest in the corridors now instead.  Some locations that would be designated as neighborhood centers already have buildings at the sidewalk, pedestrian amenities, and other neighborhood center features.  Others have parking lots facing the sidewalk and are not ideally suited to function as pedestrian oriented centers.  In some cases, recycling of properties would be required before the vision of a neighborhood center would be realized.  However, the General Plan is a long-term planning document.  The horizon year, or year used as the anticipated endpoint, for this Land Use and Mobility Element update, is 2025.  As such, the Land Use Plan is intended to provide a blueprint and vision for the development that will occur in Burbank over the next 20 years.  While existing development patterns have been carefully considered and have influenced staff�s decisions about the proposed Land Use Plan, the proposed plan also represents a departure from existing development patterns in a way that previous Land Use Elements have not.  When considering the proposed Land Use Plan, it is important to realize that it represents the intended development pattern of the next 20 years, not what the City expects or desires to happen in the next year or five years.

Further, the City is investing now in the corridors through efforts such as those of the Magnolia Park Community Advisory Committee and the Burbank Boulevard and South San Fernando Boulevard streetscape projects.  However, as noted above, streetscape projects and other aesthetic improvements cannot by themselves address the underlying land use issues.

• The centers as envisioned by staff will require a great deal of demolition and reconstruction, which may have environmental consequences.  Smaller scale infill development and adaptive reuse should be promoted instead.  As noted in the previous comment, the Land Use Element is a long-term planning document.  Given the advanced age and state of disinvestment that is evident in many of the buildings along Burbank�s corridors, staff anticipates that a number of buildings along the corridors and in the proposed centers would be redeveloped over the coming 20-year period.  The centers and corridors concept would change the way in which some of those buildings would be redeveloped, for example with mixed use or residential projects instead of another commercial project.  Further, the updated General Plan will promote adaptive reuse as an alternative to new construction, for example by converting an existing commercial building to one or more residential units rather than building a new residential building.  Finally, given the nature of development in Burbank, staff anticipates that most or all of the projects to be carried out in implementing the centers and corridors concept will be relatively small scale infill projects.  To avoid a �checkerboard� development pattern along the corridors, staff anticipates proposing a policy in the Land Use Element that no less than one-half of one block face would be required for new development.  A half-block face or even a full block face of new development is still a site size of less than one acre, and is a relatively small infill project.

City Council Issues

The proposed mixed use project at the intersection of Glenoaks and Keeler was located in an area that has been designated on the proposed Land Use Plan as a corridor area, meaning that commercial, mixed use, or residential development would be appropriate there.  In its decision to deny the project, Council members stated various concerns about the proposed project.  These concerns included the project�s density, heights, and front setbacks.

In a general sense, given the project�s proximity to R-1 zoned properties, staff would recommend in the General Plan that areas such as the one in which the project site was located be designated for a density no higher than the equivalent of R-3, or 27 units per acre.  Studies have found that in order to support neighborhood serving retail shops and adequate headway times for public transit, a minimum density of about 25 to 30 units per acre is generally required.  As such, staff would recommend that mixed use and residential development in the centers and along the corridors be permitted at an R-3 equivalent density.  Because of the relatively low trip rate of multifamily residential development, TIMS will not likely be a limiting factor in controlling residential densities; a separate defined maximum density will be required.

Staff believes that the proposed height of the project (30 feet along the Glenoaks frontage and 20 feet elsewhere) is generally in scale with R-1 and multifamily residential properties and would be appropriate for that site specifically and for the centers and corridors in general.  Under current commercial zoning, it is possible to build up to three stories on the front portion of a property that is adjacent to an R-1 zoned property, such as along Magnolia or Burbank Boulevards (except in the Magnolia Park zones).  KMA has informed staff that mixed use development is typically not financially feasible unless the developer is able to build three total stories: two stories of residential units over one story of retail. 

Regarding the setback, one of the most important means of creating a pedestrian oriented environment is to place buildings at the sidewalk to facilitate interaction between the storefronts and pedestrians.  Further, multiple story buildings with little or no setback can help to define the public space and create a sense of place, which staff believes will be important in the neighborhood centers. Step backs for upper floors or other options could be explored to prevent a building from overpowering the street frontage.  However, minimal or no setbacks for ground floors are critical to maintain pedestrian orientation both in the centers and along the corridors.

Issues to be Addressed

As addressed in the attached staff report (see Exhibit B pages 12-16), the centers and corridors concept is not without its challenges, including the following:

• Parking

• Building height limitations

• Small lot sizes

• Traffic and circulation

Because these issues are discussed in detail in the attached report, the discussion is not repeated here. Although the report is specific to neighborhood centers, the challenges can apply to the centers and corridors concept in general.  Staff acknowledges that these issues are significant, and will be important to address as the zoning is developed that will implement the centers and corridors concept.  However, staff believes that the challenges can all be effectively addressed in a way that will not jeopardize the intended results and significant benefits of the centers and corridors concept.

FISCAL IMPACT:

TIMS

TIMS would be implemented through changes to the Zoning Ordinance and would be administered by Planning Division staff along with the other development standards specific to each zone.  Substantial staff time has already been utilized in developing, testing, and revising the TIMS methodology and TIMS values.  Additional staff time will be required to finalize the methodology, prepare the necessary changes to the Zoning Ordinance, and develop an implementation program for the new standard.  TIMS will cause a substantial change to the way that new buildings are permitted and may affect the reuse of existing buildings.  This change will be reflected in the way that development review and other planning applications are processed, building permits are issued, and environmental impact analysis is conducted.  All of these issues must be carefully considered by staff before the program is fully implemented under the zoning.  Information will also need to be prepared to assist City staff and the development community in understanding the new requirements.

Administration of TIMS is expected to consume substantial Planning Division staff time, especially in the first year after the program is implemented while staff adjusts to the new requirement.  An additional step of review will be required to ensure that a proposed structure or use is within its TIMS limitation any time a building is built or expanded or a business permit is issued.  Because the proposed TIMS requirement has never been used in Burbank and has not been implemented citywide in any jurisdiction to staff�s knowledge, it is difficult at this time to estimate the actual demands on staff resources and the time that will be required to implement the new standard.

Centers and Corridors

Pending Council direction, the centers and corridors concept will be initially implemented through the Zoning Ordinance amendments that implement TIMS.  Because the TIMS numbers are based upon the proposed Land Use Plan, the Land Use Plan will likely become the new zoning for most non-residential areas of the City.  However, this step will only establish the initial zoning framework. New development standards will have to be created for the new centers and corridors zones.  As discussed earlier, form-based zoning codes are now being adopted by many cities as a means of creating pedestrian oriented centers and neighborhoods based on new urbanism principles.  Alternatives to form-based codes include area plans or specific plans for certain areas of the City, or a comprehensive update of the conventional zoning code.  Any of these options would require substantial staff resources to prepare, including extensive public outreach.  With any approach, staff would strongly recommend the hiring of a consultant with expertise in preparing the type of code or plan selected.  Depending upon the scope of the plan or code to be prepared, such a consultant would not likely cost less than $100,000 for a smaller area of the City and would more likely cost several hundred thousand dollars for a new Citywide zoning program.

If the new zoning is approved, additional staff time may be required to administer it, in addition to the TIMS requirements that would be part of it.  Because of its higher level of built-in certainty, a form-based zoning code would likely be easier to administer and would save staff time in the long term, but would probably take additional staff resources in the beginning since its administration would be substantially different from the existing conventional code.  An area plan or specific plan would likely be complicated to administer and may require the adoption of further zoning measures to fully implement it.  Again, because of the various options available and Burbank�s lack of experience with some of the options, it is difficult to estimate the actual costs or staff demands that would result from implementation of the centers and corridors concept.

CONCLUSION:

TIMS

The TIMS methodology proposed by staff is a development control that will ensure that by-right development will be allowed that is consistent with the Land Use and Mobility Element land use forecast as approved by City Council.  It ensures that the overall traffic impacts from by-right development will be mitigated through the City�s Infrastructure Blueprint and paid for by the Transportation Impact Fee required by new development.  It provides a tool to compare varying development scenarios by the common denominator of trip generation, thereby making an equivalence between various projects based upon their impact to the street network.  Because the TIMS rates are based upon averages, certain developments with highly-concentrated trip generation will be prohibited as a by-right use because they will require further analysis to determine their traffic impacts.  However, the TIMS methodology does not in itself restrict development, as various incentives will be made available to petition for a reduction in trip generation for projects that exhibit good urban form, have more walking or captured trips due to their proximity to complementing land uses, or can be shown to have lower generation as compared to national averages. Finally, the proposed �trip reserve� could be made available at City Council�s discretion to allow for projects that exceed TIMS but that have overriding community benefit.  The purpose of TIMS is to ensure projects with the potential to impact the street network are subjected to a higher level of scrutiny in evaluating their impacts to traffic congestion.  The system provides a mechanism to evaluate projects in light of the City�s further dwindling street capacity to ensure that this capacity is utilized in the best interests of Burbank�s transportation users, property owners, and residents.

Centers and Corridors

Based upon feedback from the City Council and the community over the past two years, staff has proceeded with the centers and corridors concept as a cornerstone of the updated Land Use Element. Staff believes that the concept would be very beneficial in advancing the City�s goals of maintaining a small town atmosphere and striving to reduce dependence on the private automobile. 

In an effort to complete the ongoing General Plan update in a timely manner, staff seeks additional direction from the City Council on this issue.  Staff has finalized the proposed Land Use Plan map, which incorporates the centers and corridors concept, and is now in the process of developing goals and policies to support that plan and the community�s vision statement.  Staff anticipates completing the draft Land Use and Mobility Elements and the accompanying Environmental Impact Report (EIR) by the end of this year, with public review starting in January 2006 and public hearings commencing as early as March 2006.  A significant change in policy direction once the draft documents and accompanying EIR have been completed could result in substantial delays as the documents are amended and the environmental analysis is repeated using revised development scenarios.  Therefore, it is preferable that the Council provide input at this time on the policy direction of the General Plan update so that any necessary changes can be made now, before the document and related environmental analysis progress any further. 

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction on the implementation of the proposed TIMS system and on the proposed centers and corridors land use concept.

EXHIBITS:

Exhibit A         TIMS Illustrative Examples

Exhibit B         Planning Board Staff Report from Neighborhood Centers Study Session

                         Dated August 8, 2005

go to the top