Anyone who’s lived in Burbank for more than a few months knows full well that it’s the apartment tenants who get the most shit and the least respect from city hall. The rules are always different for them.
The reasons are many: Burbank’s always been a notoriously landlord-run town, and the fact that we’ve NEVER had a renter on the council (or the planning board either, that we can find) only compounds the lunacy.
It’s not this way in real cities, btw.
Remember that Chicken Restaurant debacle a few years ago on Magnolia? The one where a couple of homeowners were able to completely block this worthy project because they were afraid that someone might have the temerity to park in front of their house for an hour or so? In an R-1 neighborhood that they damn well knew was business and food-adjacent before they moved in?
And that’s where there was already plenty of room for street parking!
But check this new one out. Notice how the rules are suddenly different in this other neighborhood. Keep in mind too that Maple Street is all apartment there, and that these same Riverside Drive-adjacent residents had already gotten shafted a few years ago by the Golonski-growth crowd on that huge, unwanted “Now Voyager” project across the street:
DATE: February 21, 2012 Project Description: The Planning Board staff report, including all materials considered by the Planning Board, is included in Exhibit 1. The applicant is proposing to locate a restaurant in an 893 square foot tenant space that was previously occupied by ‘Geographia’ which was a travel and map bookstore and considered a retail tenant with a total of four parking spaces on the property (which would be reduced to three with the enforcement of handicap accessible parking requirements)… Appellant Presentation The appellant explained that street parking in the neighborhood is ‘miserable’ most of the time and that a lack of on-site parking would negatively affect the quality of life and parking for other businesses in the neighborhood. He also stated that he believes that the trash accommodations are inadequate to serve the three on-site businesses.
TO: Michael S Flad, City Manager
FROM: Greg Herrmann, Community Development Director
Via: Michael D. Forbes, Assistant Community Development Director-
Transportation and Planning
By: Jesse Brown, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Board’s decision to uphold the Community Development Director’s approval of Project No. 11-0003738 – Administrative Use Permit – 4000 Riverside Drive
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an appeal of the Planning Board’s decision to deny an appeal and uphold the Community Development Director’s decision to approve an
Administrative Use Permit (AUP) to allow a restaurant to locate in an existing 893 square foot retail tenant space without having to provide additional parking…
This sounds reasonable to us. That’s a horrible place in which to vest off-street parking for a non-standard use. Much worse than Magnolia with that Chicken restaurant.
But of course, this is Burbank. The Land Where the Rules are Always Different– depending of course on who you are and where you live.
Four of the Planning Board members stated that they believe the proposed project would be a great addition to the neighborhood and would support the project, with one Planning Board member stating the project would have a negative impact on parking and that the trash collection area was inadequate. The Board voted 4-1 to deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s decision to approve the project (Exhibit 3).
Now notice how in this new AUP process of the council’s, any non-standard parking exception could be made for anywhere that the core use is permitted? Under this same staff logic you could always make the necessary findings to allow minimal parking. Hel-loooo…
Findings Analysis: In order for an AUP to be approved six findings need to be made. The Planning Board was able to make all of the following six findings. (1) The use applied for at the location set forth in the application is properly one for which an administrative use permit is authorized by Title 10 of the Burbank Municipal Code. Burbank Municipal Code Section 10-1-1408 permits restaurant uses up to 2,000 square feet in gross floor area to locate in a space previously occupied by a retail or office tenant without having to provide additional parking with approval of an AUP. The proposed restaurant space was most recently occupied by a retail tenant and is approximately 893 square feet. (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. Operation of the subject restaurant would not be detrimental to the operation of existing uses on the site or on adjacent properties. There are various types of restaurants in this area but none that serve solely Indian food as the subject business proposes to do. The business will not generate noise, traffic, waste, or other adverse impacts in excess of what is typical of commercial uses permitted by right in the Media District General Business (MDC-3) zone and the restaurant will mainly serve the employees of surrounding office buildings during the work week and adjacent residences on the evenings and weekends who will most likely walk to the site.
Oh yeah? What about the existing uses right next door, i.e., the neighbor’s homes? Are you considering this little pickle for them, you Burbank assholes?
Of course not.
And if this new restaurant is going to be relying on staff’s explanation that most of its clientele will be “walking” to it, then it’ll last about two months before it goes out of business.
This “walking” claim is probably the most evasive and completely dishonest statement that we’ve ever seen come from a Burbank staff member.
They go on:
(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 subject restaurant is a permitted use in the MDC-3 zone making it compatible with the other restaurant, retail, and office uses in the surrounding area. Additionally, there are various types of restaurants in this area that serve the surrounding residents and employees further making the subject restaurant compatible with the surrounding 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, fences, landscaping, and other features required to adjust the use to the existing or future uses permitted in the neighborhood. The use is proposed to be located in an existing commercial building, which was built in compliance with all applicable development standards in effect at the time of construction, and has adequate space for all required trash collection areas and a grease interceptor. (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 subject property is served by Riverside Drive, a fully improved Secondary Arterial, and Maple Street, a fully improved Local Street. The quantity and type of traffic generated by the 893 square foot restaurant is not expected to generate traffic that cannot be accommodated by the existing street network. (6) The conditions imposed are necessary to protect the public health, convenience, safety, and welfare…
Clearly, Finding #2 cannot be made. The new use is detrimental to the surrounding area just because of the parking problem alone. The others all just keep begging the question.
Jesus. These Riverside Drive people should get together with the Rancho crowd. And then they should both immediately throw these lying Booster clowns right out of city hall. Somebody should.
Unfortunately, here’s more of what these poor neighbors are up against. And keep in mind that they’ve also paid hundreds of dollars just to have the chance to air their grievance in front of the council tonight:
Appeal: The Planning Board’s decision was appealed on January 24, 2012. According to the appeal form (Exhibit 4), the reason for this is because the project site has only three parking spaces for the businesses, a lack of neighborhood street parking, and inadequate trash containers. After reviewing the appeal, staff still believes that the findings can be made to approve the City Council Goals: This project would help to further the 2011-2012 City Council goal of Economic Development by providing creative solutions to help business and property owners to fill vacant tenant spaces along the City’s commercial corridors.
proposed project…
Hey, here’s a creative solution, and it’s in the same spirit. Maybe our school board can find a fun way of renting out their best looking high school coeds for big bucks. You know, bend the rules a little in service of the greater good of business.
Why not whore out the whole kit n’ kaboodle while we’re at it?
