PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to consider an appeal of the Planning Board�s decision to deny Project No. 2006-105, a proposal to construct a 60,000 square foot Whole Foods market with a minimum of 300 (5 spaces/1000 square feet) parking spaces in two subterranean levels. The applicant is requesting a variance for the front, side and rear setbacks to provide less than is required by code.  The applicant is also requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for type 21, 41, and 42 alcohol licenses. (Exhibit 1)

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:

Planning Board Decision: At a public hearing on October 23, 2006, the Planning Board considered Project No. 2006-105, a proposal to build a 60,000 SF Whole Foods store at 901 West Alameda Avenue. The Planning Board ultimately voted (4-1) to deny the project and to not adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. (Exhibit 2)

Planning Board Deliberations and Public Comment: At the Planning Board hearing, community members spoke in opposition and in support of the project. The Planning Board deliberations included concerns about traffic, neighborhood compatibility, proximity to schools and to horse keeping single family R-1 properties. (Exhibit 3) Some residents voiced opposition to the project over concern that it may negatively affect their neighborhood.  Several residents believe that the project could generate traffic that may impact the surrounding area, and that vehicles accessing the site may create safety issues. Additional concern was expressed regarding the presence of horses crossing Main Street with the addition of the proposed project. However, some residents believed that the project will be a resource for Burbank and are in support of the project as it would be walking distance to their neighborhood.

At the Planning Board public hearing the public and the Board had several concerns regarding the project. The following questions and staff responses generally summarize issues raised.

Traffic and Circulation Issues

1)      Are left hand-turn arrows required for the intersection at Alameda Avenue and Main Street?

Left hand turns arrows are not required for the intersection at Alameda Avenue and Main Street. The traffic study concluded that the intersection at Alameda Avenue and Main Street will not be significantly impacted by traffic generated by the proposed Whole Foods store. Thus, no mitigations were identified at that location.  In addition, the future left-turn volumes projected for this intersection, after the addition of forecasted and project traffic, do not support the installation of left-turn phasing on any of the intersection approaches.  Installation of left-turn phasing when not warranted by high left-turning volumes must be considered carefully; installation of such improvements will increase delay on the opposing through movements because traffic signal green time must be reserved for the new left-turn movement at the expense of the through movement.  Thus, because future volumes do not show the need for left-turn phasing, and because there is not an accident history at the intersection, The Public Works Traffic Division does not recommend the installation of left-turn phasing at Main Street and Alameda Avenue.

While the traffic study did not identify a significant impact at the Main/Alameda intersection, the Public Works Department Traffic Division is requiring the applicant to provide a dedicated right-turn lane on the southbound approach of Main Street to improve intersection operations, and the circulation of vehicles to and from the site.  In addition to improving operations, this improvement will also provide additional capacity to the intersection such that it improves modification Level of Service from B to A in the AM peak hour and C to B in the PM peak hour under future traffic conditions. (Exhibit 4)

2)      Did the traffic study factor in the eastbound traffic on Alameda coming from the Media District?

The traffic study did factor in existing eastbound traffic on Alameda. The traffic study sampled existing traffic volumes at thirteen study intersections, including six intersections on Alameda Avenue.  These traffic counts were used to calculate baseline conditions in the project study area. To estimate future traffic conditions that are expected at the Whole Food�s opening in 2008, a 2% per year ambient growth factor is applied to the existing counts to approximate future traffic conditions.  In addition, traffic from entitled projects in the study area expected to be occupied prior to the opening of the proposed Whole Foods project is added to the future traffic conditions.  Once the future 2008 traffic conditions are forecasted, the Whole Foods project traffic is added to the forecasted future traffic and each of the study intersections is analyzed to determine if significant impacts are created by the addition of project traffic.  Thus, the methodology used in the traffic study to determine impacts to the street system takes into account existing and projected future traffic conditions on Alameda Avenue.  In addition to the traffic study�s analysis of Alameda Avenue and other intersections in the study area, staff conducted a field observation of current traffic conditions on Alameda near Main during the PM peak travel period to validate the conditions documented in the study.  The results of this field observation are discussed in a separate memo attached as Exhibit 4, and they do confirm the findings of the traffic study.

3)      Why were the trips distributed equally, especially since Alameda is a main traffic corridor? Do you think that more people would come from Alameda?

The traffic consultant chose the distribution of project trips from the proposed Whole Foods based upon existing circulation patterns, distribution of land uses surrounding the project site, and the expected travel patterns of Whole Foods patrons from the surrounding neighborhoods.  The proposed Whole Foods is expected to attract customers in a relatively even distribution from the east who work or live in the Media District and adjacent residential areas, from the north that live in the Burbank hills, from the south from neighborhoods in the East Rancho and West Glendale, and from the west via Interstate 5.  The traffic consultant determined that this evenly-spaced distribution of patrons warranted an equal distribution of trips to the project site.  In addition, this even distribution provides a conservative estimate of the number of trips accessing the site along Main Street, which was a more sensitive driveway to analyze for potential ingress and egress issues, than the more commercial driveway on Alameda Avenue. Staff agrees with the assessment made by the traffic consultant in preparing the study and believes that the distribution used for the proposed Whole Foods best approximates the projected distribution of traffic to the site.

It is important to note that in a peer review of the traffic study conducted by Fehr & Peers/Kaku Associates, a distribution was created using trade service area data provided by Whole Foods. (Exhibit 5)  This data is proprietary and was not made available to staff nor was it available to the traffic consultant hired by the City.  However, the results of the traffic generation using the trade data distribution did not alter the conclusions of the original traffic study.

4)      Was there a traffic comparison study conducted of other Whole Foods Stores?

Staff did not conduct a study of other existing Whole Foods stores. Staff analyzed the possibility of doing a comparison study in addition to the traffic study.  Staff surveyed other cities that have recently processed an entitlement for a Whole Foods market and none of the cities surveyed had conducted comparison studies. However, all of them used the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) rate for supermarkets that was used in the traffic study for this project. Additionally, the ITE rate that was used is based on many surveys of existing grocery markets 60,000 SF and over, not just one or two stores, and thus their rates are more statistically reliable as they have a larger sample size. The large sample size used in ITE rates ensures the most accurate prediction of supermarket trip generation.

However, as discussed in a later section titled �Additional Studies & Analysis Conducted�, recently the applicant hired a transportation consultant to gather and analyze data from three existing Whole Foods Markets. This study found that existing Whole Foods markets have similar trip generation to the projected ITE rates used in the traffic study for the project. (Exhibit 5) In light of this data staff still believes that the traffic study using the ITE supermarket rate is the most trusted industry-wide, reliable and unbiased traffic forecast and most accurately represents the projected trip generation of the proposed project.

5)      What will the new lane configuration look like with the addition of a middle left hand turn lane north of the intersection of Alameda Avenue and Main Street?

The proposed street configuration is depicted in Exhibit 6. With the addition of a two-way left turn lane and other street improvements required by the project, Main Street will have one through travel lane in each direction, a bike lane on the east and west sides of the street that will also be used for equestrian travel, a two-way left turn lane extending from the Main Street/Alameda Avenue intersection north to just north of Valencia Street, and a dedicated right-turn lane on the southbound approach of Main Street at Alameda Avenue (at the northwest corner of the intersection).  In addition, parking will be preserved along the east side of Main Street north of Alameda adjacent to the daycare center. The additional lanes will require street widening of eight feet on the west side of Main Street adjacent to the proposed project and will require parking removal on the west side of Main between the Glenwood Place alley and Alameda Avenue.  This street widening will occur in the existing 16-foot sidewalk along the west side of Main Street.  In order to preserve adequate sidewalk width after the street widening, a dedication of 4 feet is being requested of the applicant, in addition to a 1 foot easement, to maintain a 12-foot sidewalk along the Main Street project frontage.

6)      Would a significant amount of traffic be diverted on to the residential streets in the neighborhood?

The traffic study did not find that a significant amount of project traffic would be routed to and from the site along the immediate residential streets. Staff does not expect that there would be a significant increase in traffic volumes on the nearby residential street network. However, the revised conditions of approval have included a requirement that the applicant pay for traffic calming measures (not to exceed $25,000) in the immediate residential neighborhood if requested by the majority of the residents.  The street segments identified for these funds are:

Between Main Street and South Victory Boulevard

Chavez Street                           Valencia Avenue

Elm Avenue                               Lutge Avenue

Linden Avenue                         Cedar Avenue

Spazier Avenue                        Elmwood Avenue

Providencia Avenue

Between Alameda Street and Riverside Drive

Chavez Street

Between Verdugo and Oak

Glenwood Place

Additionally, the revised conditions of approval require a traffic diverter to be installed at the entrance to Valencia Avenue in the case that project traffic contributes to a significant increase in traffic volumes on Valencia Avenue.

Based on the traffic study, staff does not expect that a significant amount of project traffic would be routed onto Glenwood Place north of Oak Street. Glenwood Place dead-ends into an alley that serves as a truck loading access and is not expected to draw vehicle trips.  Truck traffic would enter the alley from Main Street and exit the site through Glenwood Place to Oak Street.  The project�s proposed conditions of approval require that all truck deliveries are prohibited from accessing Glenwood Place north of Oak Street, and instead must turn right onto Oak to reach Main Street.  These conditions are consistent with an existing, signed truck prohibition on Glenwood Place north of Oak Street. Staff does not anticipate that a significant amount of traffic would be routed along this section of Glenwood Place.  Additionally, cut-through traffic north of Oak is unlikely as the faster route would be up Main and Victory for north bound traffic.  Traffic that is west bound would likely exit at the Alameda driveway.

7)      Traffic counts should be taken for a weekend day because that is a peak time for the market.

A Saturday traffic analysis was not conducted as part of the original Whole Foods traffic analysis.  Generally, while project traffic at a supermarket is slightly higher on a Saturday than during the weekday peak hours, traffic impacts are not expected on Saturday because ambient volumes on adjacent streets are much lower than those occurring during the weekday peak hours.  Current City policy does not require Saturday analysis for projects that are not located in large, regional retail areas (such as Downtown or the Empire Center).  Nonetheless, in response to the Planning Board comments about the desire for a Saturday analysis, a focused Saturday traffic count (which included a medium sized event at the Los Angeles Equestrian Center) was performed to determine if significant traffic impacts would occur. (Exhibit 4) The results of the analysis show that no significant impact is expected to occur on a Saturday as a result of the proposed Whole Foods project and that projected Saturday traffic with the project is less than the peak weekday traffic as forecasted in the original traffic study.  The results of this analysis are discussed in further detail in a later section titled �Additional Studies & Analysis Conducted.�

8)      Why was Wednesday selected as a day to count trips?

General industry practice dictates that traffic counts for traffic impact studies be taken on a day of the week that represents typical conditions for the surrounding street network.  Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday are usually considered typical weekdays for the purpose of collecting traffic data, as they are not influenced by different travel patterns that occur near the weekend. Staff compared and validated the counts collected for the traffic study against historical counts and found most intersections to be accurate and fairly representative of the existing conditions. Staff conducted additional counts at Alameda and Buena Vista after the initial counts were taken as the first counts were not consistent with historical data collected at that intersection (i.e. they where lower than expected). A second count of this intersection was compared and validated by other counts and was found to be fairly representative of the existing conditions.

9)      Did the traffic study analysis address �micro-traffic� impacts? (This study would include analysis of the driveway ingress and egress, driveway queuing, and parking lot circulations along Alameda Avenue.)

A study of the project�s driveway ingress, egress, and driveway intersection Level of Service was included in the traffic study and additional analysis was conducted of existing driveway activity on Alameda Avenue. The study predicted the number of cars entering and exiting the project at peak times and analyzed how these trips would effect the existing vehicle circulation of surrounding streets.

The traffic study found that the cars accessing the project driveways would not conflict with access to the existing five driveways on Alameda Avenue based on forecasted traffic volumes. The Public Works Department has reviewed the project driveway configuration and does not believe that cars entering or exiting the site will conflict with other vehicle movements into and out of the driveways along Alameda Avenue. This review is based on the fact that there is available street capacity and that there is sufficient distance from the existing driveways and the proposed project driveways.

In terms of the how the new driveway access will affect queuing and access to other existing driveways on Alameda, the available center-turn lane stacking distance between the proposed Whole Foods driveways and the nearest opposing driveway has enough storage distance to accommodate more than the expected number of waiting vehicles.  In making this determination staff reviewed existing and expected future traffic volumes on Alameda Avenue and the expected number of trips entering and leaving the proposed Whole Foods site at each driveway.  Staff compared the number of expected entering vehicles to opposing traffic volumes to determine the expected number of queued vehicles that would be waiting to make turning movements into each driveway.  In both cases, the number of queued vehicles is more than accommodated by the amount of storage space available between the proposed project driveways and other opposing driveways that might conflict with the proposed driveway locations.

The traffic study found that during the peak hour of traffic, the expected number of cars queuing at each of the project driveways could be accommodated by the existing street configuration, and that Level of Service at these driveway intersections was well within the City�s standards. In addition, staff verified the expected queue lengths for various turning movements in and out of the project driveways and found that generally no more than 3 cars would be expected to queue at any driveway entrance.  To aid in circulation, the Public Works Department is requiring the installation of a two-way left turn lane along Main Street so that queued vehicles will not block through lanes on Main Street. 

Public Works staff reviewed the parking lot layout to ensure that vehicle operations in the parking structure will accommodate the projected traffic. Generally projects that do not have sufficient parking (are under parked according to code) have issues with queuing on the streets adjacent to the project as people have trouble finding a parking spot and thus do not efficiently move through the parking structure. Thus, it is more the availability of parking that creates queuing concerns, not the size of the project. The proposed project will be parked to code and will have adequate parking to meet projected demands.  Overall, there is sufficient road capacity for queuing and access into and out of the project, and this access is not expected to cause significant delay for through traffic.

10)  How would big rigs from the Los Angeles Equestrian Center effect the circulation of traffic with the project?

It is staff�s observation that the big rigs traveling to and from the Equestrian Center traditionally do not travel along Main Street north of Alameda Avenue. The most preferred and most likely route for these big rigs is along Main Street and then east on Alameda Avenue to the Freeway. It is unlikely that the big rigs would be affected by the traffic from the project (and vice versa) since the weekend trip projections are low and are insignificant on the weekends when events are usually in progress. Additionally, the big rigs currently navigate the intersection safely and efficiently and the road improvements required for the project would only improve these conditions.

11)  Would the project comply with the recently proposed TIMS methodology?

The project would not comply with the TIMS methodology as proposed to the City Council several months ago which is a process to limit development based on trips. However, the TIMS methodology has not been completely developed or approved and could in the future contain a provision to allow a project to apply for vehicle trip credits for development and then be allowed.

Pedestrian and Equestrian Issues

12)  Has the project done enough to accommodate equestrians? Are there any dedicated horse lanes in Burbank? Are there traffic engineering standards for horse lanes? It is not ok to share bike facilities with horse facilities.

The project traffic study considered equestrians as well as it recommended street improvements that will attempt to improve equestrian access on Main Street north of Alameda Avenue. The traffic study requires the placement of equestrian warning signs north of the property along Main. Additionally, the traffic study, and the City is requiring, that the project provide bike lanes on both the east and west sides of the street. These bike lanes are proposed as a dual use lane for horses and bicycles. There are currently no engineering standards for equestrian lanes or trails. Currently bike lanes are used as shared bike/horse lanes on Riverside Drive in Burbank. Staff believes that the installation of bike lanes may improve equestrian access as compared to existing conditions. According to the Burbank Police Department Animal Shelter records, there are only 6 horse permits for any properties north of Alameda. However, we assume that there may be more horses in the area that may not have current permits. The relatively small amount of equestrians that will use Main Street (north of Alameda Avenue) to access the Los Angeles Equestrian Center and the Los Angeles River Trail can be accommodated with the proposed road improvements and signage. 

13)  Would the peak hours of the Whole Foods overlap with the School peak hours?

The peak hours of Whole Foods would not overlap with the school peak hours. The peak hours of pedestrian and vehicle traffic for the  junior high and elementary schools in the area  are 7:00 AM -8:00 AM and 3:00 PM� 4:00 PM, while the peak hours for Whole Foods would be during the evening hours after work when people grocery shop 5:00 PM � 8:00 PM and on the weekends. 

14)  Was a study of children�s routes to school analyzed in regards to the project?

Yes, it is City policy that all traffic studies include an analysis of pedestrian access in the project area. However, a more specific study of the routes to school was conducted after the Planning Board hearing. Staff took pedestrian counts at the intersection of Main and Alameda using a camera placed for an 8 and 24 hour period and through direct site observation as described in a later section titled �Additional Studies & Analysis Conducted After the Planning Board Public Hearing.� Staff found approximately 20 pedestrians, including children, parents and dog walkers, crossing the intersection at Alameda Avenue and Main Street during the hours of 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM. There is currently a crossing guard at this intersection that accompanies children and parents across the street. Staff does not anticipate that pedestrians (children and parents) that use the crosswalks will be significantly impacted by the potential increase in vehicle volumes passing through the intersections for the following reasons. 1) The time at which there are the most pedestrians walking to and from school is not the time at which most customers patronize a Whole Foods, 2) The pedestrians are provided with existing safe crossing facilities and a crossing guard is present during morning and afternoon peaks, 3) The City is currently making plans (unrelated to the proposed project) to install a flashing pedestrian warning with a crosswalk at the intersection of  Main Street and Oak Street to further improve conditions in the area, 4) The total amount of pedestrians is low and can be safely and adequately accommodated with the existing street infrastructure even with increases in traffic volumes, and 5) The intersection at Main Street and Alameda currently functions at a B level of service and with the required  road improvements will continue operating at a B or higher level of service. (Exhibit 4)

Land Use, Operations and Others Topics

15)  The use is not permitted in the Rancho Commercial zone.

The use of �grocery store� is a permitted use in the Rancho Commercial zone as per the use matrix (BMC 31-502). The history of the adoption of this section of the code is described in full detail in a report to the Planned Board dated January 22, 2007. (Exhibit 7) The use list matrix was adopted in 1998 by a zone text amendment that was approved by the City Council. This amendment to the code was City wide and affected all zones including the Rancho, the Media District, the Burbank Center Plan and Magnolia Park.  The Planning Board and the City Council reviewed the documents for these changes, held a public hearing and approved the changes. The use matrix was created in an attempt to streamline Chapter 31 and make the permitted uses in each zone more accessible for the general public, home owners, developers and others who are interested in conducting due diligence before purchasing and developing property.  The original Rancho Master Plan was adopted by Council through a Zone Text Amendment and General Plan Amendment. (Exhibit 8) This allowed a use �food specialty store� in the Rancho Commercial zone.  The use matrix changed �food specialty store� to �grocery/market� as a permitted use in the Rancho. There was also a code change in 1997 that defined grocery store and included �food specialty store� as part of that definition.  It has been proposed by some that the change that resulted from the creation of the use list matrix was a departure from the intent of the Rancho Master Plan.

The Planning Board reviewed this code change and concluded that the change to the use matrix was likely inadvertent and they requested that the matter be brought to the City Council.  They requested consideration by Council to correct this change and residents present at the meeting also asked that Council carefully look at all changes that were made to code and direct that the original master plan be restored.

16)  The project is dividing the section of the Rancho North of Alameda from the rest of the Rancho.

The project will not divide the Rancho neighborhood. The project is being constructed within the existing street infrastructure, and no streets or sidewalks are being removed or significantly modified. The existing infrastructure provides sufficient vehicle, pedestrian and equestrian access from the section of the Rancho north of Alameda to the section of the Rancho south of Alameda. The required bike lanes may be used for horses and will improve access along Main Street. The project does not significantly affect pedestrian or equestrian access at the intersection of Main Street and Alameda. The level of service at the intersection of Main and Alameda is currently a B and the forecasted level of service with the required road improvements will remain at a B or higher level of service.  The existing lot has been used for industrial and commercial uses in the past and this proposed would not result in dividing the Rancho.

17)  Why is the store proposed to be 60,000 SF? Why can�t the size be reduced?

Currently, the store is proposed to be approximately 59,540 SF as the applicant states this is the current standard for all new Whole Foods stores. Of the 19 Whole Foods stores in development in Southern California, 13 store are approximately 50,000 SF or larger, two of those 13 stores are larger than 70,000 SF. Three of the stores in development in Southern California are smaller than 40,000 SF, but are either replacing existing market store shells or are in dense metropolitan centers such as the City of San Francisco that do not allow for a larger store. Of the total 62 stores in development across the country and elsewhere, approximately 90% of those stores are 50,000 SF or larger. Corporate Whole Foods has proposed that this store is similar in size to other stores in development in Southern California. The applicant states that Whole Foods would not give approval for a smaller store in the 45,000 SF range.

18)  Why can�t the store go to another location in the City, like the old Vons building at Olive Avenue and Verdugo Avenue or the Empire Center?

The applicant has stated that this site is an ideal site for Whole Foods based on the proximity to freeways, a large residential population and that it is a corner lot. Additionally, the applicant has stated that they have searched 5 years for an appropriate site. The existing old Vons site has a covenant placed on the deed of the property that prohibits any other grocery store other than Vons or a Vons-owned grocery store to be located on the property, plus it is currently being developed as a CVS Pharmacy. It was suggested by a community member at the public hearing that the Empire Center would be a good place to locate a Whole Foods; however, the existing entitlements for the Empire Center would require a Planned Development amendment.

Appeal and Revised Proposal: The appellant is requesting that the City Council not uphold the Planning Board�s decision, and approve Project No. 2006-105 and adopt the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration. The applicant sponsored a community meeting on December 7, 2006, 7:00 PM at a resident�s home in the City of Burbank. A summary of the meeting�s discussions were provided to staff. As a result of this meeting and other public input, the applicant proposed changes to the project including increasing the setback on Main Street and decreasing the total square footage of the building. The applicant has made the following amendments to the project proposal since the Planning Board meeting:(Exhibit 9):

1. A 5� increase in the street facing side-setback along Main Street, plus another 1� easement for sidewalk purposes.

2. A reduction in the height of the caf� patio from 4� to 3.5�.

3. Changes to the parking garage to address stacking and other concerns.

The applicant has amended the plans to reflect an increase in the street-facing side setback on Main Street from 16� to 21�. Considering this change, the building setback for the project will be 21� on Main plus a 4� dedication to the City that will be utilized for street improvements. The applicant proposes that this increased setback will improve the aesthetics of the project as well as meet the intent of  the code requirement for a 25� setback, on Main Street. As a result of the increased street-facing side setback the total square footage of the building has been reduced from 60,000 SF to 59,540 SF.  Additionally, the applicant proposes to slightly reduce the height of the caf� patio above the sidewalk. These changes will improve the aesthetics of the building by providing more room for landscaping along Main Street and slightly reduces the building massing. The garage design has been reconfigured to provide addition area for queuing and continues to meet the 5/1000 parking requirement.  Staff believes that these changes will enhance the project overall, but are not a significant departure from the original proposal.

Additional Studies & Analysis Conducted After the Planning Board Public Hearing: Staff, with the assistance of consultants, has conducted further environmental analysis regarding the proposed project. This additional analysis was prompted by comments made by the Board and the public at the Planning Board hearing and written public correspondence received since the Planning Board hearing. The following analyses were conducted in order to further inform the decision process, and to verify the results of previous results of previous studies conducted for the subject project.

Peer Review of Traffic Study by Fehr & Peers/Kaku Associates

A traffic study conducted by Parson Brinkerhoff found that the project does not have any significant traffic impacts with the mitigation measures required.  This study was presented to the Planning Board at the October 23, 2006 hearing. Since this meeting, the applicant hired Fehr & Peers/Kaku Associates Inc., a respected traffic consultant that the City has retained in the past, to conduct a peer review of the traffic study. They found that the report met industry standards and accurately identified the traffic and parking impacts of the project. The peer review considered the following elements of the traffic study: the proposed project trip generation, the trip generation pass-by credit, project trip distribution, and neighborhood impacts/cut through traffic. Fehr & Peers/Kaku Associates Inc. found the analysis of these items to be correct and consistent with industry standards. Additionally, the peer review found the estimates of project traffic to be consistent with actual field data collected at nearby Whole Foods Markets. (Exhibit 5)

Saturday Traffic Analysis:

Staff conducted a Saturday traffic analysis using data collected by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas to determine if the project traffic generation would create a significant impact when combined with a weekend equestrian center event and ambient levels of traffic. (Exhibit 4)

For the Saturday analysis, traffic counts were taken at the four nearest intersections, identified in the Whole Foods Market Traffic Impact Study prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. dated October 2006, on Saturday, November 4, 2006 for the purpose of capturing existing conditions.  In particular, the counts were taken to capture typical Saturday travel patterns and volumes, including weekend traffic to the nearby Los Angeles Equestrian Center (LAEC).  These counts included traffic generated by an equestrian event occurring on November 4 which, according to LAEC staff, drew approximately 1500 spectators. 

Applying the City�s thresholds of significance to the four intersections studied for the Saturday analysis shows that the project does not create a significant impact at any of the four nearest intersections on a Saturday.  With the addition of Saturday project traffic to future 2008 conditions, each of the four study intersections continues to operate at LOS C or better. There are no significant impacts at these intersections because this is within the City�s standard of LOS D. Staff believes that there will be no significant impacts caused by the Whole Foods Market to the city street system during the Saturday peak hour because these four nearby intersections do not show a significant impact. As suspected in the original study, a weekday analysis yields the �worst-case� for traffic impact as compared with the weekend. (Exhibit 4)

Air Quality Supplementary Analysis

The Planning Division retained URS Corporation to prepare a supplemental air quality analysis to verify the results of the Initial Study (IS) document produced by the City planning staff.  The purpose of the supplemental air quality analysis was to provide additional information to support the IS document and also respond to comments provided by the public.  The analysis found that for project construction and operations, all criteria pollutants are below the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) significance thresholds.  The supplemental review confirmed the finding made in the previously circulated Initial Study that there are no significant air quality impacts.  (Exhibit 10)

Vehicle, Pedestrian and Equestrian Access/ Visual Observations and Video Surveillance

Staff conducted field observations and set up video surveillance at the corner of Alameda Avenue and Main Street in order to determine if the findings of the traffic study were accurate and to further study pedestrian and equestrian access at the project intersection. These investigations illustrated that the traffic conditions at the intersection are accurately represented by the traffic study data and that pedestrians currently have good access, and that the project is unlikely to hinder future access. The following paragraphs provide details of staff�s observations.

Field Observations

Staff conducted a field observation of Alameda Avenue near Main Street during the evening of November 16, 2006 from 6:00 PM - 6:45 PM for the purposes of observing flow on Alameda and congestion at the Alameda/Main intersection. This time frame was selected in order to gauge the later peak period which is sometimes higher because of Media District traffic. Staff found that traffic flows were heaviest in the eastbound direction, which is consistent with employees commuting out of the Media District towards the Golden State Freeway.  Traffic signal operations near Main Street were consistent with the findings of the Whole Foods traffic study, and staff observed that vehicles queued on Alameda cleared in one cycle during all observed phases, with some cars able to clear the signal without waiting at all.  Traffic volumes on Main Street were very low relative to Alameda Avenue in the PM peak hour, with never more than 1 to 2 vehicles queued per lane on both Main Street approaches.  Level of Service at the Main / Alameda intersection was observed to operate adequately.

The field observation made of Alameda Avenue at Main Street confirmed the data reported from the Whole Foods Traffic Study for these locations, which indicated good operations at Main/Alameda and fair operations at Victory/Alameda.  During the PM peak hour, volumes on Alameda Avenue were fairly heavy during the peak hour but were stable and relatively free-flowing near Main Street.  Intersection operations at the Main/ Alameda intersection were within the City�s standards, and traffic queues on all approaches cleared during every traffic signal cycle.  Staff did observe queues developing on Alameda Avenue further to the east; these queues seem to result from the operations of the Victory/Alameda intersection.  At both intersection locations, the increased project traffic expected to be caused by the proposed Whole Foods Market is not expected to create a significant impact at either of these locations because the City�s impact thresholds are not met. (Exhibit 4)

Video Surveillance

Staff set up a camera at the intersection of Alameda Avenue and Main Street to conduct video surveillance of the project intersection at Alameda Avenue and Main Street. It was observed that the intersection is operating at an acceptable level of service according to the City�s established level of service definitions and that the amount of pedestrians using the intersection was low. From the video surveillance from two days totaling 32 hours on November 11 7:00 AM � 2:00 PM and 7:00 AM - 7:00 AM (next day) and December 5, 2006, staff counted less than 20 pedestrians during peak school travel times, including children and their parents. Staff observed pedestrians crossing the street with the aid of a crossing guard, and did not observe any conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. Staff did not find any equestrians crossing the street on either of these days.

Public Correspondence: The City has received a number of public comments since the Planning Board public hearing. (Exhibit 11) In addition to general comments for or against the project, staff has received letters commenting directly on the environmental review that was conducted. Comments discuss deficiencies in the analysis conducted and call for additional studies and revised conclusions.  Below is a summary of the comments made followed by analytical responses by staff.

The project may impact aesthetics such as a scenic vista or nighttime views.

The proposed project height (35� to the top of the roof with an architectural tower element at 50�) is not expected to significantly affect views or create any negative aesthetic effect on the neighborhood. The project is not located in a hillside area or in area recognized in the Municipal Code as having protected scenic views. The existing views of the Hollywood Hills looking south from the corner of Main Street and Alameda Avenue is currently partially blocked by existing street trees that are approximately  50� or taller in height and the building would not block views in excess of the views currently blocked by these trees.  The surrounding single family residential area views will not be affected by the building as it is not directly in their line of sight to the Hollywood Hills. There is a 1000� distance from the proposed site to any directly north R-1 neighbor. This distance will create a perspective view that will still allow for a view of the Hollywood Hills with the proposed building height.

The project will not have a substantial effect on light or glare or effect nighttime views. The existing building has external lighting and there are existing street lights on Main Street along the project site. The building will have external lights as required for safety and identification purposes, but will be required as a condition of approval to not have lights that do not cause glare into any residential neighborhood. This project is situated in an urbanized area that has existing commercial establishments across the street from the site that produce similar ambient light during nighttime hours as expected from the proposed project.

The project would have significant impacts on Air Quality.

The supplemental air quality analysis conducted by URS Corporation confirmed the findings of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. (Exhibit 10) The project will not exceed thresholds of significance established by the Southern California Air Quality Management District given the size of the project and the schedule of the proposed construction.  Additionally, impacts to sensitive receptors during operation of the Whole Foods have been reduced to below-significant levels by use of a ventilation system for the parking garage which will expel diluted exhaust through the roof of the structure.

The building at 831 Main Street may be an historical resource.

The building at 831 Main Street is not considered culturally or historically significant. It is not listed on a list of historically significant buildings in the City of Burbank�s 1999 Historic Preservation Plan. The building is a common building with no unique characteristics and there is no evidence, other than the 50 year plus age of the building, to suggest that this building has cultural or historical significance.

The project is located in a liquefaction hazard zone and a geotechnical report must be prepared.

The project is located in a regional basin in which there is historical occurrence of liquefaction. However, a geotechnical report submitted by the applicant for the 901 West Alameda site concluded that based on the type of soil and the saturation level of the soil with ground water that soil liquefaction will not occur at this site in the case of a seismic event.

As required by municipal code, the project will be required to provide a geotechnical and hydrogeology report to the building department for review and will comply with applicable building standards. Staff believes that this project, as with other projects with subterranean parking lots recently constructed in close proximity to the site, will not have a significant impact on geology or soils.

Project traffic would interfere with emergency response especially given the proximity to the Alameda Care Facility.

The traffic study for the project found that the intersection at Alameda Avenue and Main Street would not be significantly impacted by the forecasted project traffic and that the intersection is at an existing level of service B and would remain at a level of service B or better with the improvements. Considering the traffic study�s findings, it is unlikely that project traffic would conflict with access to an emergency response location on Alameda Avenue or Oak Street and in the event of a major emergency or disaster it is unlikely that the store would be open for regular operations. Also considering traffic that will remain at a level of service B, access to the Alameda Care Center would not be compromised. The Alameda Care Center was contacted prior to Planning Board hearing by phone, as well as by mail, and they had no objections to the project.

The project site is located in an area with historically highest groundwater levels of approximately 20-30 feet and may effect hydrology and water quality.

The project is within a 100-year flood hazard area. However, this site is currently developed with a 42,653 SF post production office building and a 2,900 SF smaller post production office and is abutting and adjacent to properties that are currently developed with one-story commercial and industrial buildings. The proposed development is a one-story building with a two-level subterranean garage. The increase in the amount of development on the site, considering the built-out condition of the neighborhood, does not pose a significant increase in risk for flooding that would expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death. For the soil testing, one boring was drilled to a depth of 51.5 feet and no water was encountered in the boring.  The Burbank Water and Power Department states that the water table is likely much lower, in this area, possibly as low as 70 feet.

The site is close in proximity to the Crystal Springs unit where soil contamination has seeped in to the groundwater on some sites. However, the site is currently not listed on any national disclosure list for ground water or soil contamination. Additionally, the project applicant received confirmation in May of 2006 that a �No Further Action Letter� from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) sent in July 1998 to then property owner (Dr. Osman Aly, Campbell Soup Company) (Exhibit 12). In the 1998 letter CRWQCB reported that soil samples taken from the site did not contain significant levels of any contaminates, and that the minor concentration of volatile organic compounds (VOC) found in the soil did not pose a threat to underlying groundwater as compared with CRWQCB VOC screening criteria. The letter to the project applicant also stated that if any contaminated soils are encountered during future site construction activities or redevelopment, the applicant is required to provide notification to CRWQCB and implement the appropriate clean up and health and safety measures. The letter also stated that if any contaminated soils are discovered in the future that they shall be removed from the site and be disposed of at a legal point of disposal.

The site has minimal landscaping; approximately less than 10% of the site is not covered by hardscape or a structure. The proposed development will have the same percentage of hardscape ground coverage and will propose more landscaping than currently on the site.

Overall the development on the site does not pose any significant threat to water quality, water flow and drainage, nor does the project pose increase a significant risk of flooding.

The project is not consistent with the Rancho Master Plan or the proposed Land Use Element.

The General Plan for the Rancho area designates this property as �Rancho Commercial�, which is intended to encourage and support the development of community-oriented retail shops and services in conjunction with professional offices. (Exhibit 8)  While offices are not proposed, a grocery market can certainly be considered consistent with a community-oriented retail use.

The proposed General Plan Element change referred to has not been adopted and furthermore the City Council has requested that staff further study, analyze and potentially modify the draft document. Since this document is not recognized as part of Code, projects are not required to conform to its standards. Additionally, CEQA does not require that agencies review a project subject to a proposed General Plan Element.

The project may result in excess noise which will effect nearby residents and children and the City as improperly deferred analysis by requiring an acoustical study.

The project will include noise and vibration for the period of construction.  But this noise is not expected to be significant and will not affect people during normal sleep hours given the restrictions on the hours of operation.  The noise will not be much greater than ambient noise that it will disturb people going about normal daytime activities.  The Building Division, through the course of the building permit process, will require the applicant to prepare an acoustical study; this is a regular requirement of construction and the applicant will be required to meet all requirements intended to protect inside occupants from outside noises.  This is not deferred analysis as far as environmental review which focuses on how the project noise will affect others.

The project may have significant impacts on providing Fire, Police, Parks and other public services to the community.

The project would not alter or interfere with the provision or access to public services. The project does not include housing units, and thus will not increase the need for schools, parks or other public facilities. The project will not interfere with access of emergency services to this or other locations and all conditions required by the departments are required through the building permit process or have been made conditions of approval.

The project will create too much traffic and impact the neighborhood.  The traffic study is not accurate and does not reflect the impact the project will really have.

The traffic study is a technical process, based on research methods and statistical data that are highly scrutinized by engineers that create and analyze the data. This particular traffic study has been further scrutinized by two transportation consulting firms (Parsons and Brinkerhoff and Fehr & Peers/Kaku Associates) and staff transportation planners and engineers in the Planning Division and the Public Works Department. In summary, the trip generation data was produced using industry standard methods that are based on data sets that are based on large samples and thus are the most representative as compared to any alternative methodology.

Trip Generation

The trip generation used to estimate project traffic created by the proposed Whole Foods project is a valid representation of the forecasted trips and was developed by a methodology consistent with industry standards for developing trip generation.  For the project trip generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers 6^th Edition was consulted to determine an appropriate trip generation rate.  ITE Category #850, Supermarket, was used to approximate the trip generation of the Whole Foods project.  A fitted curve equation was used estimate AM and PM trips, consistent with methodologies outlined in the ITE �Trip Generation Handbook, Second Edition.�  In particular, ITE recommends using a fitted curve, rather than a weighted average rate, when the study sample size is large and a good correlation exists between the fitted curve and the data points in the ITE survey sample. 

When numerous studies are used to develop the trip generation rates, the average rate takes into consideration outliers of the data set, however, the fitted curve is based on the development of an equation that provides a better fit of the data set.  How close the data set is to the curve is statistically measured by a correlation factor (R²).  The higher the factor means that the curve (equation) that was developed provides a better fit for the real world data set.  For the ITE Category #850, the correlation factor is above 0.75 (0.77 for the PM peak hour).  This means that the majority of the studies conducted provided results which are close to the formula used for the fitted curve.

For the AM peak hour, less data is available, so there is less of a case for using the fitted curve rather than the weighted average, and thus a lower R² value for the fitted curve. However, in the case of the Supermarket rate, use of a fitted curve equation for AM trip generation yields a higher (4.15 trips / 1,000 sq. ft) trip rate than using the weighted average rate (3.25 trips / 1,000 sq. ft).  Thus, the traffic study errs to the side of being conservative in the AM case where there are fewer samples available.  For the daily rate, a regression equation was not provided so the weighted average rate was used.

A critique of the mitigated negative declaration claims that SANDAG rates should be used instead of ITE rates for trip generation purposes.  However, The City of Burbank supplements ITE rates with San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) rates published under the �Brief Guide to Trip Generation�.  The City requests use of SANDAG rates under certain circumstances when there are less survey samples provided by ITE, or if SANDAG data appears to be a better fit of observed conditions than ITE rates.  In the case of the supermarket rate, there is good data presented in the ITE dataset that does not warrant a use of SANDAG rates, which are less documented than the ITE rates.  Both staff and the transportation consultants that produced and reviewed the study believe that for the AM and PM peak times, ITE produced data that was a better indicator of trip generation than the single average rate published by SANDAG.  When evaluating for impacts, while some effort is made to err to the side of being conservative when evaluating traffic conditions, staff feels it would be considered poor policy to blindly utilize the worst-case rate of all studies without regard to fitness and reliability of data. 

It should be noted that both ITE and SANDAG represent trip generation rates that are biased towards suburban, automobile-oriented developments.  In particular, surveys are collected from sites that are likely segregated uses that have extremely high vehicle mode splits.  Thus, both ITE and SANDAG are conservative estimates of trip generation that do not take into account usage of transit, walking, or biking trips that take place in a more urbanized area such as Burbank and in particular will be made to the proposed project site.  The Traffic Study did not include these reductions when estimating trip generation to the proposed project. 

The critique also takes issue with the trip generation used for the existing post-production use.  Again, using ITE guidelines, a fitted curve rate was used to generate trip generation rather than average rate, with an adjustment made to convert general office use trip generation to post-production media uses.  With R2 values of .76 and .77, the fitted-curve equation for ITE code #715 (Single Tenant Office Building) is an appropriate approximation of trip generation for the existing uses on the site.  Using the existing square footage of 44,890 square feet, ITE estimates approximately 80 trips in the AM and 87 trips in the PM for existing uses.  Even if the independent variable is changed from square footage to employees as suggested in the letter, using the fitted curve equation, trip generation for existing uses is expected to be 63 trips in the AM and 73 trips in the PM.  This small difference between trips does not change the overall results of the study.

Pass-by Trips

The 20% pass-by trip reduction assumed for the Whole Foods is a reasonable assumption.  The critique takes issue with this figure and quotes figures published in the Southern California Association of Government�s (SCAG�s) State of the Commute report, which suggests that in the set of all commute trips, 20% of those include stops to other locations between home and work, and of those, 28% stop to buy groceries, and therefore no more than 5.6% (20% times 26%) of the project�s total trips should be pass-by.  This SCAG statistic for linked trips reports statistics for commute trips only rather than all trips Second, this statistic reports the statistic that of all commute trips, 5.6% involve a stop at an intermediate shopping trip.  However, for the purposes of determining Whole Foods pass-by trips, one is concerned with the percentage of supermarket trips that are linked to another trip purpose, and are patronizing the supermarket on the way to an alternate destination.  This subset of supermarket trips is a completely different category of trips than commute trips.  It would be illogical to apply the rate of all commute trips that make intermediate stops at shopping destinations to the small, distinctly different subset of supermarket trips that may be part of a longer trip (either commute or other type). 

Thus, in trying to quantify the amount of trips to the proposed Whole Foods project that are pass-by trips (trips already on the street network adjacent to the project that would be stopping at the Whole Foods as part of a longer trip), the traffic study again looked to ITE for guidance.  ITE reports pass-by percentages in the PM peak from 19% to 57%, while SANDAG reports 40%, and the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) allows a 40% pass-by rate.  The traffic study utilizes a conservative rate of 20% for both AM and PM peak hour, primarily due to the low traffic volumes on Main Street (pass-by percentages are roughly correlated to the amount of traffic on adjoining streets) and the fact that traffic and population densities in Burbank tend to be lower than those in Los Angeles proper.

Weekend Traffic Impacts

As noted in the critique, market trip generation rates for supermarkets are higher on weekends than on weekdays.  However, it should also be noted that background traffic on the roadway network is lower on weekends than on weekdays.  In general, the net result is generally lower on weekends than on weekdays.  Nonetheless, in response to Planning Board comments at the October 23, 2006 Public Hearing for this project, Transportation and Planning Division staff conducted a focused Saturday traffic analysis to determine the potential for significant impacts at intersections near the proposed project.  The results of this analysis, outlined in Exhibit 4, showed no significant impacts were likely to occur on a Saturday as a result of this project.

Victory/Main/Verdugo Intersection

The Victory/Main/Verdugo five-leg intersection was studied as intersection #6 of the traffic study and was shown to operate at LOS A in the AM Peak Hour and LOS B in the PM Peak hour under Future with Project conditions.

CMP Analysis

The City of Burbank utilizes the guidelines outlined in the 2004 Congestion Management Program (CMP) to analyze project impacts to the CMP network.  These guidelines state that if a project is not expected to add more than 50 trips to a CMP arterial, or 150 trips to a CMP Freeway mainline segment, then no further CMP analysis is required.  The only CMP facilities located within the project study area are the Golden State Freeway (I-5) and Ventura Freeway (SR-134).  The traffic study showed that less than 150 trips will be utilizing either freeway during the AM and PM peak hour.  This can be seen by examining the project traffic expected to travel through intersection #3 (Buena Vista Street and Riverside Drive) and intersection #11 (Alameda Avenue and Lake Street), shown in Figure 4 of the Traffic Study.  Thus, because these volume criteria are not met, no further CMP analysis is required.  In addition, the traffic study reviewed bus operations from the single bus line operating in the vicinity of the project and concluded that due to infrequent headways there would be no impact to transit services caused by the project.

Site Circulation and Access

The mitigations recommended by the City�s Traffic Engineering Department to address safety concerns can supplement the traffic report.  The traffic study did analyze both intersections to determine Level of Service and number of cars expected to queue at both driveways and found that no significant impacts to traffic circulation and access in the area were likely to occur.  For example, it should be noted that from a traffic operations perspective, the Main Street access will operate at LOS C without any widening.  However, re-striping Main Street to provide a two-way left turn pocket will help in minimizing potential queues and rear-end collisions due to sudden stops by vehicles accessing the Whole Foods Market parking structure.  In addition, the right-turn lane at Main Street will facilitate better flow of turning vehicles onto Alameda, although from a Level of Service perspective this intersection would operate within acceptable parameters without this improvement.  Access and circulation was reviewed by the Public Works Department, and their recommendations and requirements were incorporated into the project proposal or included as conditions of approval.

Required Street Improvements

Required street improvements necessary to accommodate bike/equestrian lanes as well as the two-way left-turn pocket and right-turn lane are a condition of approval to this project.  These improvements require street widening of eight feet on the northwest corner of Main Street and Alameda Avenue in front of the project.  This would reduce the existing sidewalk/parkway area from 16 to 8 feet.  To maintain adequate sidewalk widths, an additional four feet of dedication and an additional easement is required of the applicant to maintain sidewalk widths at 12 feet.  This improvement includes the installation of bicycle lanes that meet Caltrans standards.  The required street improvements will require the removal of on-street parking on the northwest corner of Main and Alameda, opposite the project site.  No other on-street parking will need to be removed.  Street lights, traffic signal mast arms, and telephone poles, and one street tree will require relocation or removal along Main Street between Alameda and just north of Valencia.

Bike Lanes

The critique of the Mitigated Negative Declaration states that �it is unclear whether a bike lane that meets the minimum five foot standard can be accommodated�. The City will require the project to provide bike lanes that will meet Caltrans standards.

The Mitigated Negatively Declaration did not consider cumulative impacts and the project would have a significant impact when considered with other projects.

The  traffic study  conducted for the project included forecasted future traffic conditions based on cumulative projects in the surrounding area that are entitled for future construction. There are no proposed projects on the abutting or adjacent properties that would create a cumulative significant negative impact. The project does not pose any significant impacts with the required mitigation. Mitigation for any significant impact will be required at the time of construction and completed prior to the project opening. The mitigation measures are included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and will be part of the conditions of approval for the project entitlement. The project will be required to conform to Burbank Municipal Code including the Uniform Building Code.

CONCLUSION:

While arguments can be made for and against the project, ultimately, the determination on whether to approve a Conditional Use Permit, a Variance and Development Review is based on the ability of the City Council to make the required findings. It is staff�s assessment that the four (4) findings for a Variance, the five (5) findings for a Development Review, and the six (6) findings for a Conditional Use Permit, can be made.

Requirements for Granting of a Development Review

(1)   All provisions of this Code will be satisfied.

The proposed project complies with all requirements of the Burbank Municipal Code subject to the Variance, and CUP approval, and subject to compliance with all comments from the City Departments and the conditions of approval.

(2)   The environmental document prepared for this project was considered prior to project approval and satisfies the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (�CEQA�) or the project is exempt from CEQA.

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project which indicates that, with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures, the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. The Mitigated Negative Declaration specifically identifies potential impacts and mitigation relating to transportation and traffic.

(3)   The project will not conflict with, or will not have an adverse impact on, the existing or intended neighborhood character.

The following features of all structures on the site, including subterranean parking garages, fences, walls, and fa�ade design as conditioned by this approval will be compatible and consistent with the project site itself and with existing residential and commercial properties and structures in the surrounding neighborhood: height, size and massing, proportions, articulation, elevations, pedestrian entry locations and circulation, roof style and pitch, locations placement and orientation. The proposed structures provide fa�ade variations, setbacks and designs that will complement the surrounding architectural designs and are in accordance with the Rancho Master Plan.  The surrounding commercial properties are predominantly built out with one to two story commercial buildings above semi-subterranean or beside at-grade garages and lots.  The subject project is proposed with a maximum height of 35� to the top roof pitch and 50� to the top of a tower architectural feature.  Main Street, which has an 80� right-of-way, and commercial properties along the east side of Main Street divide the building from the R-1-H zone, and provides buffering between the uses. The project is designed to be sensitive and compatible with the surrounding Rancho neighborhood with the addition of architectural design, setbacks, landscaping, and provision of a 5/1000 code required parking ratio.  The proposed project, as conditioned, is not expected to have any significant traffic impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The buildings located to the north, and south, adjacent to the proposed structure, are improved with one to two story commercial buildings. The properties to the east across from Main Street are commercial and R-1 Single Family Residential Horsekeeping. 

(4)   The project will not have an adverse impact on nearby single family residential structures located in any single family residential zone.

The project as conditioned is consistent with all City codes and standards regarding the size, location, and type of this project. The project is separated by a street and commercial property from the R-1-H single family zone, and the on-site landscaping provides adequate screening and buffering between the project site and adjacent and abutting properties. The project design is compatible with surrounding properties as is it similar in density and massing to adjacent commercial buildings. Required landscape plans will ensure that the project complies with all requirements of the Burbank Municipal Code with respect to landscaping. The proposed use and design of the proposed project is expected to have a positive effect in terms of neighborhood revitalization.

(5)   The facilities and improvements, vehicular ingress, egress and internal circulation, and other building and design features are so arranged that traffic congestion is avoided, pedestrian and vehicular safety and welfare are protected, and surrounding property is protected from adverse effect

The construction of a single-story retail grocery building is consistent with the zoning density allowance by code and is not expected to have a significant impact on traffic as conditioned. A traffic study was conducted for the project and it was concluded that if the recommended mitigation measures are implemented then the project will not have a significant impact on traffic. The recommendations in the traffic study are included as conditions of approval and will be required to be implemented with the construction of the project. The majority of properties in the area are served by parking garages or at grade parking. Typical access for other commercial properties is along Alameda Avenue for the adjacent and abutting properties. The proposed project will provide two driveways to access the site, one on Main Street and one along Alameda Avenue. These entrances will provide sufficient access to the site while conditions of approval will set directional controls on the ingress and egress to ensure that vehicles entering and exiting the site do not negatively affect traffic flow or pedestrian and horse movement. The properties along Glenwood Place are accessed either by an alley that runs behind the property, parallel to Alameda Avenue or by Glenwood Place. This alley will be used for delivery truck access. Improvements to the existing alley, as recommended in the traffic study and required by the conditions of approval, will enable the alley to better serve the existing businesses along Glenwood Place and serve the proposed market.  The project will provide a direct pedestrian entrance at the street level at the corner of Main Street and Alameda Avenue. The proposed project provides subterranean parking for customers and employees in a secure garage.  There is pedestrian access from the subterranean garage to the elevator that provides direct access to the building. Overall the parking requirement is a 5/1000 parking ratio, and the plans submitted comply with this requirement. The required parking must not be used for the purpose of temporary or permanent storage of materials or vehicles, thus all required parking spaces will be available for customers and employees. While there is no way to guarantee future customers and employees will not use street parking, the design and supply of the parking as proposed will make the on-site parking more easily accessible to the building.

Requirements for Granting of a Conditional Use Permit (Alcohol Sales)

(1)                The use applied for at the location set forth in the application is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Chapter 31 of the Burbank Municipal Code.

Burbank Municipal Code Section 31-1116 & 31-502 requires a conditional use permit for a restaurant with incidental alcohol that sells alcoholic beverages (wine and beer), for on-premises consumption if it is located within 150 feet of a residential neighborhood, for on-premises wine tasting, and for off-premises sales (wine, beer, and sprits) within a retail establishment for this zone. These uses are permitted in the zone with the granting of a Conditional Use Permit.

(2)                The use is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located.                                                                                      

The proposed alcohol sales are controlled and monitored by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) as well as the attached conditions of approval. Beer and wine service is unlikely to change the nature of the business, since it is incidental to the restaurant service or served within a structured educational wine tasting class. There will not be a bar/lounge in addition to the restaurant, where alcohol would primarily be served. The wine and beer will be served within the onsite restaurant. Patrons will eat inside or outside in the outside dining area. The retail off-premises sales will be sold incidental to other groceries. Wine, beer and sprits for off-premises sales will be displayed in an aisle or section of the market set-aside for alcohol sales that is not located near a store entrance. Off-premises sales are a standard use in conjunction with grocery stores and several grocery stores in the area, including Pavilions market, have permits to allow off-premises sales of alcohol. The use will not be detrimental to existing uses in the surrounding area, and any impacts of the proposed use will be negligible to the existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone.

(3)                The use will be compatible with other uses on the same lot, and in the general area in which the use is proposed to be located.

There are other grocery markets in the area as well as retail stores. The use will allow the proposed incidental restaurant to better serve the needs of its patrons by giving them a choice of enhancing their meals with beer and wine service. The off-sale of wine, beer and sprits will be unique to this neighborhood as these types of beverages, specialty wines, are not sold in all locations.  The educational wine tasting will be an incidental use to the market, and will occur in a secured area of the market and this area will only be accessible to people 21 and over. Other restaurants in the area including Talleyrand, the Pickwick Center, Joy Feast Chinese and others sell liquor in conjunction with food. The neighboring Pavilions market sells beer, wine and sprits in conjunction with grocery sales. The nearest residential zone is behind the subject site more than 100 feet away separated by a public street. The abutting neighbor is a nursing home; however this is a commercial property. The front public entrance to the restaurant is more than 100 feet away and separated from residences by Main Street and adjacent commercial properties. As stated in the previous finding, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and the attached conditions of approval will help monitor and control the proposed uses. The similar uses in the area and the monitoring of the proposed use make this use a compatible use in the area.

(4)                The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and all of the yards, setbacks, walls, landscaping, and other features required to adjust the use to the existing future uses permitted in the neighborhood.

The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed alcohol uses. The alcohol sales do not pose any physical, structural or aesthetic changes to the property with the exception of providing an enclosed area within the building for wine tasting.

(5)                The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated or to be generated by the proposed use.

The existing transportation infrastructure is adequate to support the type and quantity of traffic generated at the subject site. A traffic study was conducted for the project and no significant impacts are expected with the implementation of the recommendations as listed in the conditions of approval. Furthermore, the sale of beer and wine is not likely to increase the traffic impacts.

(6)                The conditions imposed are necessary to protect the public health, convenience, safety, and welfare.

Staff believes that the conditions of approval will mitigate any potential negative impacts on the community that might result from alcohol sales at the proposed market.

(7)                The Public convenience or necessity would be served by the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control�s issuance of an off-sale retail alcoholic beverage license to such establishment.

The sale of wine, beer and sprits with grocery sales at the proposed Whole Foods market would provide a public convenience. The types of wine, beer and sprits sold at Whole Foods are generally unique gourmet products that may not be available at other retail off-sales establishment (specifically traditional grocery stores such as Pavilions and Ralph�s) in this census tract or in the entire city. This store is expected to provide convenient access to a unique line of gourmet wine, beer and sprits that will reduce the distance an area resident will need to travel. Additionally, it is convenient for customers to have the ability to purchase wine, beer and spirits for their consumption at home with the purchase of their groceries. Many grocery stores in Burbank and other locations provide alcohol sales in addition to grocery sales as it provides a convenience to customers to purchase both types of items in the same location at the same time.

Requirements for Granting of a Variance (Setbacks)

(1)   There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other property or classes of use in the same vicinity and zone.

There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity and zone.  The subject property is a corner lot, which is subject to more constraining setbacks than other regular interior lots. Setback regulation requires that a street-facing side yard on a corner lot have the same 25� setback as the front yard. In the Rancho Commercial zone side yard setbacks on interior lots are 10� while front yard setbacks are 25�. The proposed grocery store is required to be setback 15� additional feet compared to an interior lot of the same size. The subject site is required to set aside an additional 4,662 square feet of the property for the side setbacks than would be required if it were an interior lot. This difference in the availably of lot coverage is an extraordinary condition. The 25� front and street-facing side yard setbacks are exceptional as compared to the 5� front and street-facing side yard setback commercial standards that are required for zones outside of the Rancho Commercial zone. Other commercial properties in other areas of Burbank are allowed to have a zero rear and interior side setbacks while this property is required to have 10� interior side and 5� rear setbacks. The setback requirements are exceptional and cause an extraordinary impact on the potential development of the site.  If the applicant were not required to provide a dedication for bike lanes and sidewalk width, the strict setback requirements would be met.

(2)   The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question.

There is a substantial property right which is possessed by other property owners and denied to the applicant with regard to setbacks. There are many similar commercial properties in the Rancho Commercial zone that that are �grandfathered� under old setback codes and therefore are permitted to have zero, front, and side setbacks. In many other zones in the vicinity property owners of similar commercial lots are allowed to have zero or 5� front, and street-facing setbacks and zero interior side and rear setbacks. Therefore, the additional constraints of the Rancho Commercial setback requirement prohibits the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights that are enjoyed by others under similar circumstances.

(3)   The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located.

Granting of this variance will not be materially detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding uses. The reduction of the setbacks may improve the pedestrian walkabilty of the neighborhood by creating a streetscape in which the buildings are closer to the property line, when coupled with large sidewalks. The close proximity of store windows and entrance may be inviting to pedestrians as it creates an illusion of a narrowing of the right-of-way that creates a more human scaled environment. Overall these setback variances may positively impact the surrounding neighborhood by encouraging pedestrian activity along Alameda Avenue. In terms of equestrian activity it is believed by some that buildings that are placed in close proximity to the property line may intimidate horses. However, considering the sidewalk width and setbacks, there will still be up to 32� before the 35� tall building begins allowing an open feeling for pedestrians and horses.  The setbacks proposed with the variance will not have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood and may improve the functionality and accessibility of the site.

(4)   The granting of the variance will be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan.

The objectives of the General Plan note that a goal of commercial development shall be �to create convenient and functional commercial facilities scaled to meet the needs of the area in which they are located.� The addition of a Whole Foods market would provide a resource for the community and may improve the economic vitality of the entire area. The subject property is classified as Rancho Commercial which calls for community-oriented retail.  The addition of a Whole Foods market will not conflict with the objective of the classification.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the appeal and  approve Project No. 2006-105, a Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Development Review, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration related thereto, subject to the conditions of approval.

LIST OF EXHIBITS:

Exhibit 1          Planning Board Staff Report including all exhibits dated October 23, 2006

Exhibit 2          Planning Board Resolution #3060 denying project dated October 23, 2006

Exhibit 3          Planning Board Minutes for the October 23, 2006 meeting

Exhibit  4         Memo: �Additional Traffic Analysis Conducted for the Proposed Whole

                         Foods Project� dated December 18, 2006

Exhibit 5          Memorandum: Peer Review Summary of Traffic Impact Report for

                         Proposed Whole Foods Market prepared by Fehr & Peers/Kaku Associates

                         dated January 10, 2007

Exhibit 6          Diagram � Alameda Avenue and Main Street proposed lane configuration

Exhibit 7          Memorandum: Report on Zoning Use List and Classification of Land Uses

                         in Planning Areas dated January 22, 2007

Exhibit 8          Rancho Master Plan � Ordinance #3343 for a Zone Text Amendment

                         and Resolution #23,927 for a General Plan Amendment

Exhibit 9         Appeal and letter from Tom Davies proposing project amendments &

                        amended plans

Exhibit 10       Proposed Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration, Traffic Impact

                        Analysis (attached document) & �Supplemental Air Quality Analysis� prepared

                        by URS, Corp. dated January 16, 2007

Exhibit 11       Public Comments received after October 23, 2006 (to be provided under  

                        separate cover by the City Clerk�s office)

Exhibit 12      CRWQCB �No Further Action� letters

go to the top