This report requests that the City Council deny an appeal and uphold the Planning Board�s decision to deny a conditional use permit application by August Bacchetta to construct an automobile lubrication service and detailing facility with four service bays in conjunction with a restaurant in the BCC-3 zone.

Property Location: The subject property is located at 524 S. San Fernando Boulevard (Lots 3 and 4, Block B, Tract 1308; M.B. 18-91) between Santa Anita and Providencia Avenues (Exhibit A-1).

Zoning: The subject property is located in the Burbank Center Plan and South San Fernando Redevelopment Project areas, and is zoned BCC-3 Burbank Center Commercial General Business. Adjacent and abutting properties are zoned BCC-3, BCCM Burbank Center Commercial Manufacturing, and R-4 Residential Multiple Medium Density.

General Plan Designation: The property is designated as Mixed Commercial/Office/Residential by the General Plan Land Use Element. The zoning is consistent with this land use designation.

Property Dimensions: The subject property is approximately 90 feet wide and 154 feet deep with an area of 13,860 square feet. Following the dedication of two feet at the rear of the property for alley purposes as required by the Public Works Department, the property would be approximately 152 feet deep with an area of 13,680 square feet.

Street Classification: San Fernando Boulevard is classified as a major arterial street in the General Plan Circulation Element.

Paved Width of Street: The San Fernando Boulevard right-of-way varies from 85 to 90 feet in the vicinity of the project site with a paved street width of approximately 65 feet.

Sidewalk/Parkway Width: The sidewalk is approximately nine feet wide on the west side of San Fernando and 11 feet on the east side of San Fernando in front of the project site. There is no landscaped parkway on either side of the street.

Current Development of the Site: The project site is currently utilized by an abutting nursery for plant storage and sales. There are several small sheds at the rear of the property, and the remainder of the property is paved and open to the sky. A wrought iron fence runs along the front property line. The property is filled with various types and sizes of plants sold by the nursery that occupies the property.

Project Description: August Bacchetta has applied for a conditional use permit to construct and operate an automobile lubrication service and detailing facility in conjunction with a restaurant (Exhibits B-1 and B-2). The project consists of an automobile service building containing four service bays and an office/storage area totaling approximately 1,425 adjusted gross square feet. Two of the bays are designated for oil changes and lubrication and two of the bays are designated for automobile detailing. An 821 adjusted gross square foot restaurant with a 216 square foot outdoor dining area is proposed for the San Fernando Boulevard frontage. The owners of the subject property own and operate a car wash on the abutting property that was approved by a separate conditional use permit in 1997. The proposed facility would complement the auto services offered by the car wash.

The applicant previously provided information indicating that an estimated 15-20 lubrication and oil changes would occur per day. The detailing portion of the business would include exterior polishing and waxing and interior cleaning. The restaurant is proposed to serve hamburgers, hot dogs, and similar related foods with no drive-through or alcohol service.

Previous Approvals: This project was originally approved by the Planning Board in December 2000 under Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-18 (Exhibit C-1). Staff recommended denial of the application due to a belief that the proposed use would be incompatible with nearby residential properties and would be inconsistent with the goals of the Burbank Center Plan for redevelopment of the South San Fernando corridor (original staff reports attached as Exhibit C-2). However, the Board voted 4-0 to approve the project. As reflected in the meeting minutes (Exhibit C-3¹), Board members cited their beliefs that the proposed use was compatible with the nearby residential uses and was an appropriate commercial use for the South San Fernando area. Several Board members stated their opinion that the proposed project did not necessarily conflict with the goals of the Burbank Center Plan and would perhaps itself stimulate economic development in the neighborhood.

The abutting car wash approved by the City Council on appeal in 1997 was also specifically discussed by Board members as an example of how the proposed use would be compatible with, and complimentary to, the existing and future character of the South San Fernando area. Staff pointed out that the car wash conditional use permit was approved prior to the adoption of the Burbank Center Plan. However, several Planning Board members noted that redevelopment planning efforts in the South San Fernando area were well under way at the time the car wash was approved, and stated their belief that the Council approved the car wash project based on its belief that it would be compatible with future redevelopment efforts in the area.

Following the Board�s approval of the conditional use permit, the development review was approved administratively in January 2001 (Exhibit C-4). The applicants at that time (the current property owners) elected to apply for the conditional use permit and development review separately rather than processing both applications simultaneously as is now being done with the subject application. Both the conditional use permit and development review were valid for one year. Because no building permits were issued and no extensions were requested before the expiration of the development review, both the conditional use permit and development review expired in January 2002. The applicant wishes to pursue the project and has reapplied for the exact same project using the exact same plan drawings.

At the time of development review approval, the applicant was notified of several deficiencies in the submitted plans that would require correction prior to building permit issuance. The applicant elected not to make these corrections prior to submitting the plan drawings for the subject application. In addition, staff�s interpretation of a Code section related to the provision of compact parking has changed since the project was originally entitled to better reflect what staff believes is the intent of the Code (this is addressed below). Although the submitted plans are identical to those approved by the Planning Board in December 2000, several substantial changes would be required for the project to comply with the Burbank Municipal Code and generally accepted parking and access design standards.

Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) Section 31-502 requires a conditional use permit for "automobile detailing" in a completely enclosed building and "automobile service station" in the BCC-3 zone². Although the proposed lubrication service facility is arguably different in nature from a service station, an "automobile repair garage" or other similar automobile oriented use would also require a conditional use permit in the BCC-3 zone. Regardless of the definition under which the proposed use is placed, a conditional use permit would be required. The Snappy Lube facility at the corner of Olive Avenue and Buena Vista Street was approved in 1997 under a conditional use permit for an "automobile service station," so that use classification is used here for consistency.

The BCC-3 zone adopts most of its development standards from the C-3 zone, but utilizes the height standards of the Burbank Center Plan. The items shown in bold in the table below indicate where the proposed project does not comply with Code or required parking standards and must be modified accordingly.

Submitted Plans: As discussed above, several aspects of the proposed project do not comply with the Burbank Municipal Code or established parking design standards. While staff believes that these deficiencies can be corrected, doing so may require substantial modifications to the project. Staff is unable to determine for certain whether Code compliance has been achieved in some instances due to the inconsistent scale at which the plans are drawn. Dimensions that are called out on the plans do not match the actual scaled dimension of the plans in all cases, and individual dimensions do not always add up to the stated overall sum dimensions.

Staff advised the applicant in writing of these concerns and requested that the applicant prepare revised drawings that are properly scaled and reflect a project that is consistent with Code and accepted parking design standards. Staff also informed the applicant of the Planning Board�s recent direction to staff that plans should not be brought before the Board that do not comply with Code or would otherwise require substantial modification prior to final project design. The applicant responded verbally that he disagrees with staff�s assessment of the submitted plans and requested that staff go forward with the scheduled Planning Board hearing on November 18. Staff�s assessment and recommendation to the Board was based upon the submitted plan drawings with the understanding that the overall site layout would remain unchanged, and that the necessary modifications could be accommodated by the current site plan.

Previous Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended denial of the subject project when the Planning Board considered it in 2000. Staff believed that the proposed use was incompatible with adjacent multiple family residential development and with the redevelopment vision for the area established in the Burbank Center Plan. The Burbank Center Plan includes several policies for the South San Fernando corridor, including providing "buffers between residential and commercial or light industrial land uses," and recycling commercial properties for development with "mixed use projects which would include residential units�and provide work/live space for professionals." The rear alley frontage of the property would contain a parking area with minimal landscaping and a commercial structure, providing little or no buffering from the residential properties across the alley. Further, the project would result in the rehabilitation of an existing commercial property to another commercial use rather than a residential use or mixed-use project.

Current Staff Recommendation: The subject application is a renewal of a previously approved application for the exact same project. Had the applicant applied for an extension prior to the expiration of the original conditional use permit and development review, this item would have been brought before the Planning Board only as a hearing to extend the original approval and not for additional analysis with regard to the required conditional use permit findings. Because the applicant has allowed the original approval to lapse, the project now must again go through the full entitlement process. However, the application is nonetheless a simple renewal request for the previously approved permit, and the zoning, environmental setting, and surrounding neighborhood are unchanged from the time of the original project approval. If the subject application were not simply a renewal request, staff would have again recommended that the Planning Board deny the application.

However, because the Planning Board previously voted to approve the proposed project, staff believed that the Board should affirm its original decision to allow the proposed project to go forward so long as the Board continued to believe that the required conditional use permit findings could be satisfied. As such, staff recommended that the Planning Board approve the subject application. Staff carried forward all of the originally approved conditions of approval and added several additional conditions, and recommended that all original and newly proposed conditions be adopted if the Board approved the application (the staff-proposed conditions of approval are attached as Exhibit F-3). The analysis and recommendation for approval that staff presented to the Board was based upon staff�s interpretation of the Planning Board�s previous action on this project and the opinions expressed by the Board members at that time. However, staff maintained its overriding concern that the proposed use would be generally incompatible with nearby residential uses.

As discussed further below, the Planning Board was unable to make the required findings to grant the conditional use permit, and voted to deny the application. Since staff�s recommendation of approval was based upon the Board�s previous action to approve the project, staff�s recommendation is that the City Council uphold the Planning Board�s decision to deny the subject application. Staff has believed throughout this process that the required conditional use permit findings could not be made. Because the Planning Board did not affirm its original decision and ultimately agreed with staff�s recommendation, staff recommends that the Council uphold the Board�s decision consistent with staff�s original recommendation.

Surrounding Properties: The project site is surrounded by commercial and multiple family residential properties. The proposed use would complement the existing car wash located to the north. However, automotive service uses operate differently from typical commercial uses and frequently produce unique impacts that may be detrimental to residential and other commercial uses. Although all service would be performed in fully enclosed buildings, the use would involve the servicing of automobiles, and the possible related impacts due to noise, odors, and related problems associated with automobiles would be difficult to mitigate even with incorporation of the staff-proposed conditions of approval.

Noise:

Automobile service uses typically generate substantial amounts of noise. While all auto servicing would occur in completely enclosed buildings and a proposed condition of approval would have prohibited service bay openings from facing residential properties, the potential noise to be generated would nonetheless be incompatible with nearby residential uses. Additional proposed conditions of approval would have placed further restrictions on the project in an effort to protect nearby residential uses. The proposed project would also be required to comply with the noise standards of the Burbank Municipal Code. However, automobile service uses generate noises that are of a unique and ongoing nature (due to the equipment utilized and nature of the work being performed) and have particular impacts upon residential uses beyond the typical noise impacts of other commercial uses.

Staff believes that the proposed use would generate traffic similar to other commercial uses and would not have any traffic related impacts on the street system in the area. However, the layout of the proposed project and the vehicle access to the project site from the alley would result in increased alley traffic beyond what exists today and what would likely be generated by another commercial use. As such, the traffic generated by the proposed project would have a negative impact on nearby residential properties by increasing the amount of traffic traveling through the alley adjacent to the residential uses. The proposed conditions of approval would have prohibited the use of the subject property for queuing or pick-up activities associated with the car wash and would have prohibited the servicing or storing of vehicles in any parking space or on a public street. However, the traffic patterns created by automobile service uses are different from those of other commercial uses, and could adversely impact nearby residential uses.

Automobile servicing involves the use of chemicals that may create strong odors and impact nearby properties. All servicing would occur in a fully enclosed building and a proposed condition of approval would have prohibited the use of evaporative petroleum products or solvents and require the proper storage and disposal of all chemicals. However, the potential exists for odors associated with the proposed use to create incompatible impacts on nearby residential and commercial uses.

A proposed condition of approval would require all architecture and building materials to be approved by Redevelopment Agency staff to ensure an aesthetically acceptable appearance that is compatible with ongoing redevelopment efforts in the South San Fernando corridor. However, the overall appearance of this type of use and its orientation toward the automobile is not aesthetically pleasing. Despite the proposed conditions of approval that would have attempted to ensure the visual quality of the site, the potential exists for the accumulation of automobiles, cleaning products and waste, and other related materials on the project site, which would be incompatible with nearby residential uses.

Department Comments: The subject application was routed to City departments and divisions for review and comment. The Building Division and Park, Recreation, and Community Services Department outlined applicable Code and related requirements (Exhibits D-1 and D-2).

• Redevelopment Agency staff stated their opposition to the proposed project due their opinion that it conflicts with the policies set forth in the Burbank Center Plan and the Agency�s ongoing redevelopment efforts in the South San Fernando Redevelopment Project area. Agency staff requested that all architecture, design elements, materials, signs, and related permits be subject to their approval if the application is approved (Exhibit D-3).

• The License and Code Services Division recommended that several conditions of approval be required dealing with the location and nature of automobile servicing, hours of operation, storage of trash and other materials, use of equipment, odors, and noise (Exhibit D-4).

• The Fire Department outlined applicable Code requirements and stated that a waste oil storage plan would be required (Exhibit D-5).

• The Police Department stated its requirements regarding lighting, visibility, construction signage, addressing, and traffic circulation (Exhibit D-6).

• Burbank Water and Power Electrical Division stated its requirements for the provision of electrical service and stated that an on-site padmount transformer may be necessary depending upon the electrical loads of the proposed project (Exhibit D-7).

• Burbank Water and Power Water Division stated its requirements for the provision of water service and stated that a water main replacement fee would be required for the San Fernando Boulevard frontage (Exhibit D-8).

• The Public Works Department reiterated applicable Code requirements and stated that it would require the dedication of a two-foot portion of the property along the alley. The Traffic Engineering Division expressed its concerns regarding the slope of parking areas and vehicle and pedestrian access at the rear of the subject property (Exhibit D-9). In its comments on the original project application, the Public Works Department also required a five-foot street dedication as reflected on the submitted plans. Staff inquired with Public Works staff, who stated that the dedication is no longer required due to a determination that dedications for the purpose of street widening are no longer necessary for certain properties in the South San Fernando area. As such, the applicant has five additional feet available for site development beyond what is shown on the submitted plans to assist with accommodating the necessary design changes described above.

All applicable comments from all City departments and divisions have been incorporated into the proposed conditions of approval.

Environmental Review: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines pertaining to new construction of small structures. The exemption applies to up to four commercial structures not exceeding 10,000 square feet in size when the project site is zoned for the proposed use, where the use would not involve significant amounts of hazardous substances, where all necessary public services and facilities are available, and when the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive. The proposed project would involve the construction of a single commercial structure of less than 10,000 square feet. The project would not involve the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances. The project is located in an entirely urbanized area and has been previously developed. As such, the area is not environmentally sensitive, and all necessary public services and facilities are available to serve the proposed project.

The Planning Board held a public hearing to consider the subject application on November 18, 2002. As reflected in the attached minutes (Exhibit F-1), the Planning Board asked questions related to a variety of concerns, and focused specifically on ongoing redevelopment efforts in the surrounding area and the potential incompatibility of the proposed project with those efforts. During the deliberations, several Board members expressed their misgivings about their original votes to approve the proposed project, and stated their belief that the project would not be compatible with nearby residential uses nor consistent with ongoing redevelopment efforts. Some Board members relayed their concerns about the proposed project layout, the on-site traffic circulation and access patterns, and the potential traffic impacts to the alley at the rear of the property. Some Board members stated that the proposed conditions of approval would be appropriate for the proposed use but would not mitigate the potential impacts to a point where compatibility with the nearby residential uses would be possible.

Although an argument was made that the proposed use would be compatible with the existing car wash next door, some Board members stated their opinion that the car wash itself was incompatible with surrounding uses and that approval of the subject application would result in a further intensification of incompatible land uses. Overall, the Board believed that the nature of the proposed use was such that it could not be designed or conditioned to any extent that would make it compatible with nearby residential uses, or with the stated land use policies and redevelopment goals for the neighborhood. The Board voted 4-1 to deny the subject application (Exhibit F-2). Chair Berlin voted in favor of the application, citing the Board�s previous approval of the project and her belief that the proposed project would be compatible with the existing car wash use.

The applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Board�s decision on November 20, 2002, on the basis that the conditional use permit findings should be made subject to the project complying with staff�s review comments (Exhibit G).

It is staff�s and the Planning Board�s assessment that the six findings required for approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to BMC Section 31-1936 cannot be made for the proposed project.

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.

BMC Section 31-502 requires a conditional use permit for "automobile detailing" in a completely enclosed building and "automobile service station" in the BCC-3 zone.

 

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 use would have detrimental impacts on surrounding properties. The traffic and noise to be generated by the proposed automotive use are not in character with other commercial uses in the area.

 

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.

The proposed use would be incompatible with adjacent residential properties. The traffic, noise, light, and odors to be generated by the proposed automotive use would negatively impact nearby residential uses. Any conditions of approval would not be adequate to mitigate these potential impacts to a level of compatibility.

 

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 or future uses permitted in the neighborhood.

The proposed site layout would not accommodate the vehicle circulation needs of the proposed use. The proposed site layout does not effectively buffer the proposed use from nearby residential properties and results in a generally unattractive project.

 

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 driveway locations and parking area layout would substantially increase the number of vehicles using the alley and as a result would negatively impact nearby residential properties. Although located on a major arterial street, the circulation patterns that would result from the project would place undue traffic demands on the alley at the rear of the property.

 

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

Any conditions of approval would not be adequate to mitigate the potential impacts of the proposed project such that it would be compatible with surrounding uses and properties.

In addition to the above findings, approval of the subject application would not be consistent with the General Plan as required by BMC Section 31-1935. The proposed project conflicts with the goals and policies set forth in the Burbank Center Plan regarding the redevelopment of the South San Fernando corridor. Such policies include providing "buffers between residential and commercial or light industrial land uses," and recycling commercial properties for development with "mixed use projects which would include residential units�and provide work/live space for professionals."

Staff recommends that the City Council deny the applicant�s appeal and affirm the Planning Board�s decision to deny the subject application.

Exhibit A-1 Zoning/Public Noticing/Fair Political Practices Act Compliance Map

A-2 Notice of Public Hearing

Exhibit B-1 Conditional use permit application package

B-2 Project plans (attached document)

Exhibit C-1 Planning Board Resolution No. 2805 approving

Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-18

C-2 Planning Board staff reports on Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-18

dated November 27, 2000 and December 11, 2000

C-3 Minutes of Planning Board meetings of November 27, 2000 and

December 11, 2000

C-4 Development Review No. 2000-26 Approval Letter

Exhibit D-1 Building Division review comments

D-2 Park, Recreation, and Community Services Dept. review comments

D-3 Redevelopment Agency staff review comments

D-4 License and Code Services Division review comments

D-5 Fire Department review comments

D-6 Police Department review comments

D-7 Burbank Water and Power Electrical Division review comments

D-8 Burbank Water and Power Water Division review comments

D-9 Public Works Department review comments

Exhibit E Public Notice of Environmental Decision

Exhibit F-1 Minutes of Planning Board meeting of November 18, 2002 (draft)

F-2 Planning Board Resolution No. 2885

F-3 Staff-proposed conditions of approval from Planning Board hearing

Exhibit G Applicant�s appeal form filed on November 20, 2002

¹ Minutes are attached from the Planning Board meetings of November 27, 2000 and December 11, 2000. The Board first considered this project on November 27. Because staff�s recommendation was for denial, staff had not shared the proposed conditions of approval with the applicant in advance of the meeting. As such, the Board continued the item to the meeting of December 11 to provide the applicant with time to review the proposed conditions of approval, and then took action to approve the project at the December 11 meeting.

² Automobile detailing not in a completely enclosed building is prohibited in the BCC-3 zone.

³ The parking requirement utilized for the detailing and lubrication facility is that specified for an automobile repair garage. Automobile repair garages may have parking ratios of either three spaces per service bay or one space per 250 square feet of floor area, whichever is greater. The proposed garage is approximately 1,425 square feet, which would require only six parking spaces. Hence, the three spaces per bay requirement is applied. Although the facility is not being processed as an automobile repair garage, this parking requirement is applied to all automobile related uses that utilize service bays. The Snappy Lube facility described above was processed pursuant to this parking requirement.

⁴ At the time this project was originally approved by the Planning Board, staff interpreted the Code to allow compact parking spaces for commercial uses other than retail uses. Staff now believes that the intent of the Code is to prohibit compact spaces for all types of commercial uses and not only retail uses and has been applying the Code accordingly. As such, all spaces for the proposed project must be no smaller than nine feet wide and 18 feet deep.

go to the top