Burbank Moves to Limit Project Reviews, Appeals : Growth: The City Council seeks to exempt small- and medium-sized plans as a means to streamline the process and encourage development.

In a bid to attract new development despite the recession, the Burbank City Council has voted to curb its power to block new land-use projects and to curtail citizen appeals of development proposals that already comply with city zoning codes.

The development ordinance, which gained preliminary approval on a 4-1 vote late Tuesday, exempts small- and medium-size projects that are consistent with the city’s zoning ordinance from discretionary review by the council. It would cut the review process for such projects from an average of more than three months to about a month and would save developers time and money, planners said.

The new process also limits citizen appeals to whether the project violates the city’s zoning code, which controls the size, type and location of development, said Rick Pruetz, a Burbank city planner who presented the ordinance to the council. Citizen input will be allowed on projects not covered by the new process.

“If you don’t like the code, then go to the council and get them to change the code,” he said. “I really do have my heart go out to a developer who spends thousands to adhere to every piece of the zoning code . . . and then faces an appeal process because some neighbor doesn’t like it.”

The new ordinance, Pruetz said, limits the city’s authority to “ministerial review” of a project’s compliance with zoning laws rather than a “discretionary review,” which allows the city to consider broader effects and community opposition. He estimated that about half of the development projects in the city would qualify for the streamlined review process.

Developers believe the existing review process in Burbank and many other California municipalities is costly and time-consuming because opponents can challenge a project and public officials can require costly changes even when a project satisfies zoning requirements.

Before the council voted, James K. Suhr, vice president of real estate operations at Warner Bros., urged the council to back the measure. He said its passage would send “a strong message to development interests throughout Southern California” and will “speed the recovery” in Burbank, which has lost several thousand aerospace jobs.

The pace of residential development has plummeted in Burbank in recent years. Before 1990, an average of 1,000 dwelling units a year were being built; in the past two years, the annual average has fallen to 31 units.

“Commercial development has basically stopped. The only things that are occurring are renovations and repairs,” said Bob Tague, director of community development for the city.

But several homeowners called the new development ordinance irresponsible and a betrayal of public responsibility. They also said the new process would unfairly stack the deck in favor of developers who can afford attorneys and consultants against private citizens who are not experts in zoning law but who are concerned about their quality of life.

“This is bad public policy,” said Dave Golonski, a resident who lives near Burbank’s rapidly developing Media District. “As a homeowner, I’m disturbed that you want to give up your own discretion.”

Large projects with “statewide, regional or areawide significance” would still be subject to a more lengthy review process. State law defines such projects as residential developments that add more than 500 dwellings, hotels with more than 500 rooms and businesses or commercial projects that employ more than 1,000 people. These are considered large projects and would be subject to the longer review.

The new ordinance also would not ease the approval process for projects that require zoning changes. Before voting for the measure, several council members defended the new development ordinance and said it makes the city’s process for reviewing projects more predictable, giving Burbank a competitive edge in attracting new business. The ordinance is scheduled for a final vote on Aug. 18.

“Let’s look at the big picture. . . . We’re in competition economically,” Councilman Thomas E. Flavin said. “Streamlining development makes sense . . . it establishes a clear set of guidelines. We can’t have everything be discretionary.”

Timothy M. Murphy, who was alone on the council in opposing the ordinance, said he appreciated its intent but felt uncomfortable with limiting citizen power.

He asked his colleagues to consider amending the ordinance to allow discretionary appeals on projects next to single-family homes--neighborhoods where most development disputes occur.

“When someone comes up to me and says it’s incompatible--but it’s in code compliance--what can we do?” he said. “We need to leave it open for homeowners to bring us appeals on issues other than code compliance.”

But Councilman Michael R. Hastings disputed the negative interpretations of the ordinance by Murphy and other opponents.

“I don’t think we’re taking anything out of their hands by changing the appeals process,” Hastings said. “I still believe these people have just as much power. . . . You can still call on public officials.”