Ballot Measures Ask Voters to Spell Out Development Limits

In many ways, Tuesday’s Burbank primary election is as simple as ABC. But it’s a lot more controversial.

Measures A, B and C are three development-control measures on the ballot that have grabbed much of the attention from the council and school board races:

* Measure A would put severe restrictions on commercial and residential development.

* Measure B is less restrictive but would still put height limits on commercial buildings. It calls for development that is compatible with residential areas.

* Measure C would prohibit the sale or lease of surplus school property to private developers.

Proponents have waged a low-cost grass-roots effort to promote the measures, while opponents have spent more than $200,000 to defeat them.

The City Council has been joined by several major film and television studios headquartered in Burbank, including Warner Bros., Disney and Burbank, in opposing the measures. Officials for St. Joseph Medical Center and the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority have also come out against Measures A and B, calling them too restrictive.

Only one of the 12 City Council candidates, Dave Golonski, supports Measure A--and he’s its author. Only four support Measure B. Half the candidates support Measure C.

Proponents of the measures say their passage is the only way to protect neighborhoods from being overrun by rampant development. They say the city’s leadership has placed the interests of developers and large property owners over the concerns of residents who want to preserve the quiet neighborhood atmosphere in parts of Burbank.

Measure A would place “reasonable annual limits” on the development of major commercial projects and on the construction of multiple-unit residential buildings. It would forbid the building of more than 250 residential units or more than 350,000 square feet of commercial or industrial floor area per year.

It would also limit the construction of non-residential high-rise buildings and would prohibit new ones in areas near residential neighborhoods.

Measure B, which was authored by Carolyn Berlin, co-founder of the Verdugo-Magnolia Park Homeowners Assn., by architect Michael Scandiffio and by leaders of other homeowner organizations, would not be as restrictive as Measure A and does not call for specific caps on development.

The measure calls for limits only on commercial building, not residential. It would put a three-story limit on the height of most new buildings. There would be a five-story limit on new commercial buildings near residential neighborhoods, and a 10-story restriction on buildings near downtown.

Measure C, authored by school board candidate S. Michael Stavropoulos, would prohibit the sale or lease of public school sites, surplus school property or public parkland to any party other than the city of Burbank. The city, in turn, could use those properties only for public parks or recreational facilities, or as a land reserve for future school expansion--but not for sale or lease to developers.

Golonski, 32, a computer systems consultant who has lived in Burbank for 3 1/2 years, said the development caps on Measure A are needed because the city was not sticking to its General Plan, which forecasts development through 2005. He said residential neighborhoods are increasingly threatened by high-rise development.

“If you pace development according to a city’s ability to handle it, then development can be beneficial,” he said. “It’s important to look at the impact of development, and whether we’ll be able to provide the services to keep up with it.”

Berlin said the passage of Measure B would ensure that future development would take place in a manner that would be compatible with residential communities. “Unlike Measure A, B is designed to respond to economic changes when there are recessionary times,” she said. “There’s no other restriction other than height limits.”

But Tillie J. Baptie, director of corporate communications at Disney Studios and one of the leaders of the No On A & B Citizens Committee, called both measures disastrous.

“It would be most damaging to the economy of the city,” she said. “They would severely inhibit the city’s ability to recycle the Lockheed land. It would take away the studio’s right to build any more sound stages on our property. It would be devastating to us.”

Baptie said the concerns of residents about future development were met with the recent adoption by the City Council of the Media District Specific Plan, which limits development in that area.

If the plan had not been adopted, developers would have been able to build an additional 30 million to 50 million square feet of commercial and industrial projects, according to forecasts. But under the plan, development in the area would be limited to an additional 16.8 million square feet total.

“Every concern expressed by citizens about growth and height” was addressed in the plan, Baptie said. “It’s a plan that everyone can live with. There was not one ounce of public input into Measures A and B. They are terribly ill-conceived.”

A financial analysis of Measure A conducted last year by John Nicoll, Burbank’s management services director, said Measure A could wind up costing the city more than $56.8 million, over the next five fiscal years, in terms of administrative costs, lost non-residential development revenues and lost residential development revenues.

Golonski called those figures “preposterous and misleading.”