Meredith, Alyssa
From: James Pugh <
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 9:29 AM
To: Anthony, Konstantine
Cc: Aram Basmajian
Subject: RE: Drive-Through Restaurant Ordinance - Letter from In-N-Out for Agenda Item 12 - City Council Hearing 9-26-23
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning Mayor Konstantine,
Thank you for the quick response. I appreciate your thoughts on the ordinance and insight on the longer-range planning context for the area.
Still, In-N-Out is concerned about the impacts of the ordinance for the reasons stated in our letter.
I will be at the hearing tonight and welcome the opportunity to say hello.
Thank you,
James E. Pugh | Partner
SheppardMullin | Los Angeles
ext.
| mobile
From: Anthony, Konstantine < [email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 1:29 PM
To: James Pugh <
Cc: Aram Basmajian • -
Subject: Re: Drive-Through Restaurant Ordinance - Letter from In-N-Out for Agenda Item 12 - City Council Hearing 9-26- Hi James,
Thank you for reaching out.
The City of Burbank is moving away from drive-thrus as a common business model and instead prioritizing pedestrian eateries and sit-down dining.
Your location in Burbank should be unaffected as a legal non-conforming use, and you will always have the option of applying for a Conditional Use Permit in the future should you want to expand the drive-thru for any reason.
In addition, the city is looking to renovate the entire area surrounding your restaurant and Bob's Discount Furniture, as well as the old IKEA building across the way. I would love to see your establishment engaged in that discussion so we can make sure you remain a part of our downtown economy for decades to come! 1 I'm hoping we can replicate the success of your Glendale location on Brand Blvd.
Sincerely,
Mayor Konstantine Anthony
From: James Pugh
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 12:33:14 PM
To: City Council DL <[email protected]>
Cc: Aram Basmajian
Subject: Drive-Through Restaurant Ordinance - Letter from In-N-Out for Agenda Item 12 - City Council Hearing 9-26-23 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Honorable City Council Members,
We represent In-N-Out Burger Corporation. They are concerned about the proposed drive-through restaurant ordinance, which is schedule for the September 26, 2023 city council hearing. We are respectfully requesting a continuance of the hearing, among other things. Please see attached. Please add this letter to the administrative record for this matter, and provide it to the City Council members at the earliest opportunity. Please confirm receipt of this email.
Thank you.
James E. Pugh | Partner
direct
mobile
| Bio
SheppardMullin
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
| main
| Linkedin | Twitter
Attention: This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
2 Meredith, Alyssa
From: James Pugh
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 12:33 PM
To: City Council DL
Cc: Aram Basmajian
Subject: Drive-Through Restaurant Ordinance - Letter from In-N-Out for Agenda Item 12 - City Council Hearing 9-26-23
Attachments: Drive-Through Restaurant Ordinance - In-N-Out Letter (FINAL).pdf Importance: High
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Honorable City Council Members,
We represent In-N-Out Burger Corporation. They are concerned about the proposed drive-through restaurant ordinance, which is schedule for the September 26, 2023 city council hearing. We are respectfully requesting a continuance of the hearing, among other things. Please see attached. Please add this letter to the administrative record for this matter, and provide it to the City Council members at the earliest opportunity. Please confirm receipt of this email.
Thank you.
James E. Puah | Partner
/ direct
I mobile
| Bio
SheppardMullin
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
main
| Linkedin | Twitter
Attention: This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
1 SheppardMullin Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP Los Angeles. California 90071-1422
main
fax
September 25, 2023
File Number: 0VLL-366494
VIA E-MAIL to [email protected]
City of Burbank
ATTN: City Council
City of Burbank
Burbank City Hall
275 E. Olive Avenue, 1st Floor,
Burbank, CA 91502
Re: Proposed Ordinance for Drive-Through Restaurants
Dear Honorable City Council Members:
Our office represents In-N-Out Burger ("In-N-Out") regarding land use and real estate issues.
We were recently informed about the drive-through restaurant ordinance ("Ordinance") proposed by the City of Burbank ("City"). The Ordinance appears detrimental to In-N-Out's long-standing business in the City. We believe the Ordinance is too harsh and that the City should not adopt it at this time. Therefore, we provide the following comments for the administrative record, and respectfully request that the City reconsider its course of action.
We do recognize this is a last minute request, and we apologize for that. We understand that the City has been grappling with the drive-through issue for some time, and provided general notices of the ongoing procedure. Nonetheless, local representatives for In-N-Out were only recently made aware of the Ordinance. Specifically, In-N-Out received a letter from the City on September 15, 2023 advising that the Ordinance would be heard by the City Council on September 26, 2023. See Exhibit 1: Outreach Letter. Six business days is not enough time to properly react and carefully consider the significant impacts of the Ordinance.
Thus, as a first order of business, we respectfully request that the City Council continue this matter for at least 30 days. For reference, the Ordinance is Item 12 on the City Council's agenda for the September 26, 2023 public hearing. In the alternative, please consider the following facts, and proposed modifications of the Ordinance, provided in this letter.
I. Existing Use.
In-N-Out has operated in the City for nearly three decades. On June 22, 1995, In-N-Out received approval from the City (Development Review No. 95-14) to construct a 2,900 square foot restaurant with a drive-through located at 761 N. 1st Street ("Restaurant"). In-N-Out has SheppardMullin
City of Burbank
September 25, 2023
dutifully complied with its conditions of approval and has not received any violations from the City.
The Restaurant is not adjacent to, or near, any residential uses. Instead, the Restaurant is located along the Interstate 5 Freeway on a portion of 1st Street that fronts the freeway. It is located in planned development zone that allows commercial uses, on a surface parking lot, anc near two retail establishments. See Exhibit 2: Aerial Image. There are no other drive-through establishments in reasonable proximity to the Restaurant. In short, the Restaurant is in an ideal location for the City.
Moreover, the Restaurant has been an integral part of the local community for approximately 30 years. We feel strongly that the City should not make the Restaurant a legal non-conforming use by passing the Ordinance. That action would be an overreach, in our opinion, and not necessary based on the location of the Restaurant.
Il. The Ordinance Encourages the Eventual Elimination of In-N-Out.
In a nutshell, the Ordinance makes In-N-Out a legal nonconforming use and subjects it to Section 10-1-1801 of the Burbank Municipal Code ('Code"). This nonconforming-use section of the Code states that "It]he intent of this article is to permit these nonconformities to continue until they are removed or required to be terminated, but not to encourage their survival." (Emphasis added). In other words, by passing the Ordinance, the City is telling In-N-Out (and other similarly situated restaurants) that it is only a matter of time until their establishments can no longer exist in the City. Is that really the intent of the Ordinance - and the political will of the decision makers - to banish In-N-Out from the community? Surely, there is a better way to balance the interests of the stakeholders.
For the most part, the Ordinance aims to amend existing regulations concerning drive-through restaurants to mitigate potential adverse effects on residential areas. Specifically, Section 10-1- 608.A of the Ordinance prohibits any restaurant with a drive-through adjacent to residentially zoned properties. It is well established that the Restaurant is located in a commercial center adjacent to major public infrastructure with no impact to residential uses.
The Ordinance introduces amendments to the City's use list, requiring a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") for all restaurants with drive-through facilities in applicable zones. This modification impacts the Restaurant by categorizing it as a legal nonconforming use, thereby removing certain rights previously enjoyed by In-N-Out. In-N-Out would also be constrained from making alterations or modifications to the Restaurant, as it falls under the purview of Article 18 Nonconforming Land, Uses, and Structures of the Code.
We believe that the Ordinance is overly broad and not the most suitable course of action. We believe that there are other options that warrant the City's consideration. Such options are set forth below.
SheppardMullin
City of Burbank
September 25, 2023
1. The Restaurant Should Be Exempt from the Ordinance.
As noted above, the Restaurant is in an ideal location and does not adversely impact residential areas, or materially interfere with commercial operations. It should be exempt from the Ordinance for that reason alone. As drafted, we believe the Ordinance is overly broad anc paints all drive-through restaurants in a negative light. When, in fact, certain restaurants are sited appropriately and compatible with surrounding land uses Accordingly, we suggest the City create a section in the Ordinance for exemptions. For example, the City could provide an exemption for properties located within 200 feet of major freeways and arterials, but not adjacent to residential areas. That would allow smartly sited drive-through restaurants to exist in certain commercial centers and near major public infrastructure, which appears to be a win-win for the City and businesses. Applied here, the Restaurant would be exempt from the Ordinance and could continue serving the community and visitors drawn to the City while passing on the Interstate 5 Freeway.
More importantly, the Restaurant is covered by Planned Development 89-4 and the related Development Agreement. These planning approvals demonstrate that the Restaurant should be exempt from the Ordinance. In particular, the relevant planning documents state that "[a] drive-through restaurant shall be permitted on Parcel 14 of Parcel Map 22043 on the site at the northwest corner of First Street and Magnolia Boulevard," (Emphasis added), which is the current location of the Restaurant. See Exhibit 3: Planned Development Approval. The City should respect these property rights and the clear intent of the City to allow a drive-through restaurant in this location. We recommend that the City add language to the Ordinance (in the exemption section) that exempts restaurants which were developed consistent with planned development approvals and/or development agreements.
Hence, we respectfully request that the City exempt the Restaurant from the Ordinance on the basis of its location and prior planned development and development agreement approvals.
The Ordinance Should Clarify What Triggers "Ceased Operations." The Ordinance should be clarified regarding times for discontinuation of use to avoid unfair impacts to existing businesses. It states that "[a]ny legal non-conforming establishment with a drive-through that ceases operation is subject to Section 10-1-1809(3) and 10-1-1809(4)." This provision creates uncertainty for the Restaurant and enforceability problems for the City. What does "ceases operation" mean? Is there a duration (a day, a week, a month that triggers ceased operations? Which foreseeable or unforeseeable events do not qualify as "ceased operations?" We recognize the City recently removed the 90-day provision from the Ordinance, and chose to merely reference the aforementioned Code sections. That does not solve the issue, and in fact exacerbates it. There should be more clarity, especially considering the importance of this issue.
SheppardMullin
City of Burbank
September 25, 2023
We recommend that the City provide at least 120 days before a "ceased operations" clause would trigger. And, we recommend that the City establish the events that qualify, and do not qualify, as "ceased operations" and revise the Ordinance accordingly.
At a minimum, we recommend the City add the following force majeure provision to Section B of the Ordinance.
"Ceases operation", for purposes of this ordinance, does not include force majeure events, which are acts of God; fire; earthquake; floods; explosion; action of the elements; epidemic or pandemic or other viral exposures or preventive measures to control the same (e.g. business closures, quarantines and/or stay- at-home orders and the like); war; invasion; insurrection; riot; mob violence; sabotage; malicious mischief; inability (notwithstanding good faith and diligent efforts) to procure (or general shortage of) labor, equipment, facilities, materials, or supplies in the open market; failure of transportation; strikes; lockouts; action of labor unions; condemnation laws; requisition or order of government or civil or military or naval authorities; litigation involving a party or others relating to zoning, subdivision, or other governmental action or inaction pertaining to the premises or any portion of it; temporary closures due to casualty, condemnation or remodeling or any other cause; inability (notwithstanding good faith and diligent efforts) to obtain, or unexpected delays in obtaining, permits or governmental approvals; or any other cause, whether similar or dissimilar to those stated above, not within the City's or applicants reasonable control."
3. The City Should Provide a Streamlined Approval Procedure.
As drafted, the Ordinance would require existing restaurants that fall outside the parameters of the legal nonconforming use section of the Code, as well as new establishments seeking to introduce drive-through services, to undergo a CUP process. Obtaining a CUP is burdensome, could trigger the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and appears particularly unreasonable for existing restaurants with existing conditions of approval. We request that the City implement a streamlined ministerial procedure for existing businesses. Specifically, we propose that any approval needed to retroactively permit existing restaurants be granted at the staff level or director level, rather than requiring Planning Commission and City Council review.
4. Revised Development Standards Should Reflect Operational Realities and Not Stifle Business.
The Ordinance contains development standards for drive-through restaurants and the conversion of existing drive-through restaurants. The implementation of these developmen standards could pose material challenges for the Restaurant, and other businesses. We suggest that the City revise the proposed development standards as follows:
SheppardMullin
City of Burbank
September 25, 2023
(a) Stacking Distance
We recommend a reduction in the on-site vehicular waiting lane length from 300 feet to 200 feet, measured from the centerline point of entry or the start of a drive-through lane. This adjustment takes into account the existing configurations and dimensions of numerous commercial centers within the City. Implementing a 300-foot stacking distance would present serious challenges, necessitating a comprehensive parking area redesign and potentially impacting adjacent structures in the same shopping center.
In addition, Section D.1 of the Ordinance states that approval of the minimum stacking distance shall be at the sole discretion of the Director or his/her designee. We believe this is too absolute. We request that the City revise this provision as follows " ... approval of the minimum stacking distance shall be at the sole reasonable and good faith discretion of the Director or his/her designee, taking into account site constraints and compatibility of adjacent uses."
(b) Waiting Lane
As drafted, the Ordinance requires the drive-through lane to be a separate lane from the circulation routes and aisles necessary for ingress to or egress from the property or access to any off-street parking spaces. This may be unduly constraining for many sites suitable for drive- through restaurants. Thus, we request that the City adjust the Ordinance so that the drive- through/waiting lane is permissible, and can be integrated with the circulation routes, provided that it does not result in a public or private nuisance. (c) Hours of Operation
We recommend that any new hours of operation limitations be applied only to drive-through establishments in proximity to residential zoned properties, rather than uniformly across the entire City. Different locations warrant different hours of operation. Therefore, we suggest that the City add the following phrase to Section F of the Ordinance: "Establishments that are not located within 500 feet of a residential use shall be permitted to operate between the hours of 6 a.m. to 2 a.m."
III. The City Should Undertake Adequate Environmental Review.
To comply with CEQA, the City relies on the "common sense" exemption to cover the City's approval of the Ordinance. That is a questionable legal strategy. As the City knows, a lead agency may only use the common sense exemption if it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. The agency must make a factual review of the record to determine whether the exemption applies.
Whether a particular activity qualifies for the common sense exemption presents an issue of fact, and the agency invoking the exemption has the burden of demonstrating that it applies.
The City's use of the exemption must be supported by record evidence.
SheppardMullin
City of Burbank
September 25, 2023
Here, evidence to support the exemption is scant. The City mostly relies on a conclusory statement (repeated several times in the record) that "there are no pending applications for restaurants with drive-throughs that would be affected by the ZTA or that would otherwise be forced to relocate to other locations." That statement alone is unlikely to satisfy the City's evidentiary burden. Simply because there are no pending applications does not mean there is no possibility the Ordinance may not have a significant effect on the environment. And, we do not see sufficient evidence in the record that informed the City's determination that no business would relocate.
The Ordinance would foreseeably require businesses to redesign their sites to comply with new development standards. That type of redesign may make certain sites infeasible. In addition, that type of redevelopment may change traffic patterns, modify circulation, create new or different operational impacts to noise, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions as vehicles access drive-through restaurants in a different manner. Moreover, construction activities to modify sites to comply with the Ordinance could have environmental impacts. Also, the Ordinance applies city-wide and therefore it may trigger cumulative environmental impacts as the restaurant industry attempts to comply (by redeveloping sites or relocating stores) with the Ordinance. Granted, the Ordinance is supposedly designed to reduce impacts on the community. To be adequate, however, CEQA requires more analysis and more evidence than contained in the City's record.
Consequently, we urge the City continue this matter and take more time to factually and analytically support the administrative record before relying on a common sense exemption.
IV. Conclusion: Please Exempt the Restaurant, Continue this Matter, and Revise the Ordinance.
In conclusion, In-N-Out has been a stakeholder in the City for many years, and contributed to the City's tax base while serving the Burbank community. The Ordinance jeopardizes the Restaurant and In-N-Out's ability to do business in the City. We hope the City will pause and truly consider implementing the recommendations in this letter. In-N-Out wants to be a Regards,
FOr SHEPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON UP
SheppardMullin
City of Burbank
september 25, 202:
Exhibit 1: Outreach Letter
Exhibit 2: Aerial Image
Exhibit 3: Planned Development Approval
EXHIBIT 1
RECEIVED SEP 15 2023
EXHIBIT "1"
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
September 6, 2023
Esther Snyder, President
RE: Update to the Development Standards for the Conversion of Businesses with Drive-Throughs and new and Existing Restaurants with Drive-Through To Whom It May Concern:
The City of Burbank City Council will be holding a public hearing to consider a Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) to amend the City's zoning regulations, including but not limited to / Burbank Municipal Code Sections 10-1-502, 10-1-1608 and 10-1-1609, related to the regulations for the conversion of existing businesses with drive-through and new and existing drive through restaurants! The Planning Commission considered the proposed Zone Text Amendment on May 22, 2023 and voted 3-2 to recommend approval of the proposed ZTA to the City of Burbank City Council. The Planning Commission staff report may be found at: https://www.burbankca.gov/pendingprojects.
You are receiving this letter because you own or operate an existing drive-through establishment in the City of Burbank, or a property with such an establishment, and may be affected by the proposed Zone Text Amendment.
The City Council public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, September 26, 2023, at 6:00 pm. The meeting will be held in the City Council Chambers in City Hall at 275 East Olive Avenue in Burbanka The staff report and meeting agenda will be posted prior to the meeting date at: https://www.burbankca.gov/web/city-clerks-office/meeting-agendas- and-minutes. All members of the public are encouraged to attend and participate.
If you have any questions about this letter, please contact me by telephone at (818) 238- 5250, or via e-mail at: [email protected].
Sincerely,
JOSEPH ONYEBUCHI
Associate Planner
275 EAST OLIVE AVENUE BURBANKCA.GOV
BURBANK, CA 91502 [email protected]
CERTIFIED
CITY OF BURBAN
A CAI9I3 USPOSTAGE */0
M 50
2º 4150: $ 008.53#
RONARACAN 2020286002947 ( 13 2023
7022 3330 0000 1629 1270
PLANNING DIVISION
P.O. BOX 6459
BURBANK, CA 91510-6459
Esther Snyder
New In and Out ECEIVE
construction? Baldwin Park, CA 91706 SEP 15 2023
BY:
S1705-582302
EXHIBIT 2
Exhibit"2*
In-N'Out Bunget
Burbank Town Center
b's Discor eland Mattress Store
EXHIBIT 3
Effective date: EXHIBIT "3"
May 29, 1993
ORDINANCE NO. 3341
AN ORDIAN OF ME COUNCEST OF ME CANNY COF 1702
BURBANK APPROVING ME SECOND AND DEL HALO
BEANNED DEVOPMST NO. 89-4 AND A DEVELORMENT
city ittorzay's syaopsis
second amendment to flanned
evelopment Ordinanca No- 3169 alono with a related Developmen Agreement between the City of Burbank and the Haagen Burbank Fartnership and the Redavelopment Agency of the CitI of Burbank to Inflect modifications to the devalopment of a mixed-use Regional Saogoing Cantal, commercial offica and botal davaloguent, knowi as Media City canter on ‡ 41 acres at the junction of Burbank Boulevard and the Golden Stata Freeway in Burbank, California.
IRE COUNCIL OE IRE CITY OF BURBANK FINDS:
Ihe Council of the City of Burbank at its regular meeting of September 18, 1990, approved an amendment to Planned Development Na. 89-4, as evidenced by ordinanca No. 320T, and as applied for by Haagen-Burbank Partnershig ("Haager") and the Redevelopment Agency I the city at Burbank ("Agency") wiica authorizad moditications t he mixed-use Regional Shopping Centar, commercial offica and hote davelogment.-
Since that first amendment, the lack of markat demand in the los Angeles area with respace to new high rise office and hotai . develoguents, jas lade such developments economically infeasible.
C. Ine Council fiads that alterative retail uses for
certain parcels within the mixed-use Regional Shopping Center, • commercial offica and botal develogment, may be apgrogriata for cartain pads at some time in the future if the current aconomic elinata does not change. Notrithstanding the foregaing, the Council " no time authorizas the ratail uses for the hotal/oirica parcal or the development permittad pursuant to this amended Planne evelopment unlass and until tha agency approves an Implementatio geeement which specifically autorizes the retail uses at certai •: PaIcals.
the Redevelogment igency at the City of Burbank and Haagen, and on a second amendment to Planned Develagment No. 39-4, applied lor by
Haagen and tue Agency, waich would authorize madification to the mixed-use Regional Shopping Canter, commercial office and hotel developient. adding alternative Istail usas to parcels
13/14,17, and 15/16, among otzer things.
• ÷
The amendment to Planned Development No. 89-4 proposes
changes to the project which do not create
significant environmental impacts; therefore, Negative
been prepared by
Environmental Quality Act and has been considered by the Council of the. City of Burhank. Ihe Negative Declaration shows that the progosed amendent will not have a significant effect on the aavironment.
The Council considered the report and recommendations of the City Planner, the Negative Declaration. and the action and recommendations of the Planning Board as evidence by its Resolution No. 2336 and the evidence presented at such hearing.
THE COUNCIL DE THE CITY OF BURBANK ORDAINS:
Planned Development No. 89-4 adopted in ordinancs to-
3I69, and as amended by Ordinanca No. 3207, is heraby amended to deleta Exhibit "4° entitled the "Scope of Development", it its entiraty, and Ieplace it with Exhibit "A-1" attached to this 'ordinance and incorporated by referenca herein.
Planned Develogment No. 39-4 as adoptad by dedinanca lo. 3169 and further amended by Ordinance No. 320T, is hereby amended in that Exhibit "g" entitled "Conditions of Approval" is amended as Iollows:
is amended by addin •
Ine applicants shall be permitted to substitata
retail uses in glace of the offica and total uses described in • items "a" and and in place of the affica use currently permitted on the site on the northwest corner of First Street and Magnolia Boulevard. Retail uses shall be permitted on these sites as fallaws:
mind S1,d Suetest Comer of suzbank Boulevard and
30, 000 sq, It, retail
Pad 2 (Parcel 15/16) - Southwest corner of Burbank Baulavard and я но
нака
Pope 2
sar Fernando Blvd.: 50,000 sq. It. retail.
Pad 3 (Parcel 13/14) - Northwest corner of Fist Street and Magnolia Boulevard: 35,000 sq. ft. retail and 5,000 sa. It. fast food restaurant.
Ihe proposed glans for the retail uses on Pads 1 and 3 shall comply general with those plans, colds palettas, and all other materials submittad to the Planning Board at its meeting of March elevations for all three pads shall aiso require review and approval by Redevelopment Agency staff.
b) Conditian No. I of Exhibit "g° is amended to read as follows:
2. All office buildings, retail buildings, restaurants and the hotel shall be fully designed, with height dimensions, setbacks, and signage. The office buildings shall as a minimum be of a Class "A* type office stracture, with quality facades. The Ietail buildings and lestaurants shall be an architactural style (both elevations and materials) compatible with the retail (mall) center and shall be of Class "a" construction with exterior finishes similar to South Coast Plaza's Crystal Court located it Costa Mesa, california. Ihe hotel shall be of an architectural style (bott elevations and materials) similar to a first class Sherator, Mariots, or relatad total operation. The restaurant uses shall be of first class, full service, , Camily style, dinner house type, which include the sale ol alcoholic beverages for on-premise cansumption. When the particular uses and plans therefore are submitred, they shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Board and appealable to the City Council; which approval stall also be deemed to be approval of the sale al alcoholic beverages.
A deliver chrough fast food rescalat shall be permitsad on Parcal 14 of Farcel Map 22043 on the sica ad the condivest corner of Burse Street and Magnolia Bouteva..d. The building designs and elevations for chis restaurant shall be subject to Planning Board review and appealable to City Council as autlined above.
e) Condition No. 21 Of Extibit "g" is added to read as
[ollows: .
21. All undeveloped areas on Pad I (Parcel 17 0I Parcal Mag 22043), Bad 2 (Parcals 15 and 16 of Parcal Mao 22043), and Pad 3 (Parcals 13 and 14 ai larcal Map 22043) and all gads surrounding Parking Structure No. 3 shall be landscaped prior to Ibe opening of
the Circuit City and/or Office Depot stores. Said landscaping shall be subject to staff levies and approval.
d) Condition No. 22 of Exhibit "y" is amended to read as follows:
22. The schedule of construction of the lajor buildings stall be as set forth in the Schedule of Performanca attached to the Second Implementation Agreement to the Disgosition and Develoguent : agreement:
That cartain Second amendment to the Develogment
Agreement for Planned Develapment No. 89-4, by and betueen tze City at Burbank and Haagen in the fora presented at this meeting, Is hereby approved, and the City Manager is authorized to execute, and the city Clerk to attest, the second Amendment to the Development Agreement on behall of the City when this ordinanca is effective. It approving the Second Amendment to the Developuent Agreement, this Council specifically finds:
General Plan; and
Planned Developuent No. 89-4 as amended neets the
desion citeria set forth in Section 31-18124 af the Burbank Municipal Code.
4. In accordance with Fealth and safety code section
3322a (d), and for the purgose of aiding and co-operating in the planning of the Iedevelogment project located at the junction of Burbank Boulevard and the Golden Stata Freeway, known as the Media City Cantar, the Agency is empowered to peruit the alternative uses appproved herain, and only after Agency Board approval, which way 5- The terus and conditions of the Second Implementation Agreement and the Amended Site Laase between the Redevelogment Agency of the City of Burbank and Haagen are approved.
6. The City Clerk shall certily to the passage of this
gIdinance and cause the title, murber, data and synopsis of this ordinanca to be published anca in the Burbank Laader.
Page +
PASSED and ADOPTED this JOth day of april. 1993-
s/Robert Ra Bowne
Robert R- Bovna
Mayor of the City of Buzbank
Attast:
s/Micbael J- Metninch
ficizel I. Helmina, dest. City Clerk:
5-
..: