Each Side Says It’s Losing Growth Battle : Development: The Burbank City Council has fashioned an ordinance to implement Measure One. It would limit some apartment house heights and require landscaping.
Burbank homeowner groups are complaining that provisions of a controlled-growth ordinance under consideration by the City Council do not go far enough, but developers and real estate agents are saying they go too far.
“The citizens feel betrayed,” said Michael Scandiffio, director of the 400-member Burbank Rancho Homeowners. “This council is not against growth. It’s for the destruction of communities.”
But Mario Iacobellis, a real estate developer and president of the Burbank Board of Realtors, argued that provisions of the ordinance are too stringent and will cause rents to increase and property values to decrease.
“It will be a disaster,” he said.
Slowing growth in Burbank was the key issue in the city’s February election. Former Mayor Al F. Dossin and former Councilwoman Mary E. Kelsey, both accused of favoring developers, were defeated in reelection bids.
At the same time, Measure One was overwhelmingly approved by voters. The ordinance calls for the City Council to establish guidelines that would force developers to reduce the size of residential buildings and make them blend better with surroundings. It also calls for city officials to gauge what services would be needed to accommodate new apartments and condominiums and to charge developers fees to help pay for them.
But critics say the development guidelines recommended by the city Planning Department and being considered by the council will not adequately protect single-family neighborhoods.
The proposed guidelines include limiting the height of new apartment buildings to 23 feet if they are next to a single-family neighborhood. The same building would have to be set back the same distance from the street as adjacent houses; construction would be limited to 60% of a lot’s area, and at least 25% of the lot would have to be landscaped.
Restrictions also would be imposed on new apartments and condominiums inside areas zoned for large residential projects. For instance, the height of such buildings would be limited to 35 feet. Developers also would have to meet landscaping and security requirements, such as providing trees and planters outside buildings and installing deadbolt locks and burglar alarms.
Council members said they plan to approve final provisions of the ordinance on Dec. 19 to become effective in 30 days.
“What they’ve come up with are watered-down guidelines,” Scandiffio said of the Planning Department recommendations.
David Golonski, head of Enough is Enough, a slow-growth group, agreed.
“The design guidelines, as far as I can tell, don’t impose very many restrictions whatsoever,” said Golonski, whose group has about 150 members. “It’s just a tightening of codes. It’s certainly not what the residents were asking for with Measure One.
“Measure One, in the residents’ mind, was a slow-growth initiative that was going to put a stop to the deterioration of the quality of life in Burbank. And design guidelines that have a small impact on buildings isn’t how you do it.”
Golonski said the City Council should limit the number of building permits issued. He said the city also should tighten controls on commercial and industrial developments, which are not addressed in Measure One.
Scandiffio said the Planning Department has failed to address the provision in Measure One that calls for the city to devise a way to charge developers for services necessitated by their projects--including sewers, street improvements, fire and police protection and utilities.
City Manager Robert (Bud) Ovrom said the Planning Department is working on a fee schedule for additional services and utilities, but it will not be completed until early next year. Ovrom said the City Council can implement the ordinance by requiring developers to sign a blank check until the city can decide how much to assess.
Councilwoman Mary Lou Howard, who authored Measure One, said she prefers that the council require developers to obtain conditional-use permits until the fee schedule is determined. Such permits require public hearings at which residents can voice complaints.
Howard said she is confident that Measure One will work as intended. “I think it’s going to reduce density tremendously by reducing the number of apartment units that are going to be built,” she said. “There shouldn’t be any doubts in anybody’s mind.”
Some residents may have misinterpreted the ordinance, Howard said.
“I think some people thought that it was going to stop development,” she said. “This was never intended to stop development. It will make it very difficult to develop. It will slow growth down, and it will create better projects.”
Mayor Robert R. Bowne agreed and expressed frustration about residents’ complaints that the Planning Department recommendations are not tough enough on developers.
“I don’t know what satisfies some of these people,” Bowne said. “Some people want to impose such stringent standards that it’s tantamount to a complete moratorium, and that’s not even an option we’ve been working with. What we’re trying to do is provide better projects and, in the process, reduce density.”
Burbank Senior Planner Roger Baker, like Howard, blamed some of the controversy on misinterpretation. Some newspapers, for example, have referred to Measure One as a slow-growth ordinance.
“This affects more the quality of development and our ability to accommodate development,” Baker said. “It’s more like managed growth.”
Another problem, he said, has been confusion over whether the ordinance calls for “development guidelines,” which would be voluntary, or “development standards,” which would be mandatory. The two terms have been used interchangeably by residents, city officials and in city documents.
Baker said it is up to the council to determine how the ordinance is implemented. But he added: “The consensus has been that these will be development standards.”
Scandiffio and Golonski said their homeowner groups will consider drafting a Measure Two if members think Measure One does not go far enough.
To put a measure on the ballot, residents would have to collect the signatures of 15% of the 43,215 registered voters in Burbank. Also, the wording of a proposed ordinance would have to be approved by City Attorney Juli C. Scott. The City Council then would vote on when the proposed ordinance would be put on the ballot.
The bottom line is that residents are demanding more say about development in Burbank, Scandiffio said.
“The people on this City Council said they were for slow-growth and they turned out not to be,” he said. “This council is more pro-development than the last.”
The previous City Council was harshly criticized for its approval of several large developments, including a 129-house tract on an undeveloped hillside. Many of the projects are in or around residential areas dominated by single-family houses, and density restrictions for some properties were loosened to accommodate the developments.
Critics complained that residential development in the city was out of control.
An average of 186 residential units--apartments, condominiums and single-family houses--were built annually in Burbank from 1974 to 1985. But the rate rose dramatically in 1986, when 1,819 residential units were constructed. In 1987, 1,117 units were built, and planning officials say 1,316 were built in 1988. About 1,000 units were granted permits through July, 1989.
Developers and real estate agents admit that some controls on development are needed but contend that the provisions under consideration by the council are too stringent.
Iacobellis, of the Burbank Board of Realtors, predicted that the provisions would cause rents to increase 25% to 40% and would prevent some blighted areas from being redeveloped.
“The council does not understand the implications of Measure One because they are not business people,” Iacobellis said. “It’s too stringent. The city already has enough power to restrict projects.”
Pamela Corradi, president of the Burbank Chamber of Commerce, said the ordinance would reduce property values by limiting the amount of space on which a developer can build.
“There are a lot of older people who had planned to sell their property to have something to retire on,” Corradi said. Councilman Michael Hastings said some neighborhoods are in need of redevelopment and that he favors including language in the ordinance to exempt them from Measure One. Hastings said the council also should consider making allowances for small property owners who may be hurt by Measure One.
“As much as I advocate slow growth, I have to represent those people too,” Hastings said, adding: “If we’re overly restrictive, there are going to be a lot of losers.”
But Councilman Tim Murphy said the council should implement the ordinance without making exemptions.
“There’s no question that some people are going to be hurt, but that’s the way these kinds of things happen,” Murphy said. “For years, the developers raped and pillaged the land, and now we have to be prepared to respond to the damage that’s already been done.”
