Horse-Riding Citizens Fight Grocery Store

Posted by: maryereynolds

18 December 2006 - 2:00pm

In one of few areas in L.A. zoned to allow horses, Burbank horse owners have convinced the local planning board to reject a plan to build a Whole Foods grocery store in their neighborhood. The retailer offered concessions, but the battle continues.

In Burbank's Rancho neighborhood, Whole Foods has attempted to answer citizen concerns about increased traffic from a proposed store: the developer offered to expand the street, set the store back from it, and add a horse and bike lane.

"Because of its adjacency to Griffith Park, a large equestrian center and several movie studios — which used to board horses back in the halcyon days of the western — the Rancho is one of the few areas near urban Los Angeles zoned for horses, which dozens of homeowners in the area board and ride. Along the quiet suburban blocks, it is not uncommon to see a hitching post in a front lawn, or a rider trotting through the drive-through lane at the Baskin-Robbins."

The city’s planning board turned down Whole Foods' plan in October. But the developer will take the case to City Hall, where the City Council will give the final word on the project in January.

Full Story: This Town Ain’t Big Enough for the Both of Them?

Source: The New York Times, December 18, 2006

Login or register to post comments
Email this page

Still Not Over!

Submitted by LadyRanchoRider on Wed, 03/14/2007 - 08:50.

The Whole Foods developer, Tom Davies of Davies Properties, continues to tarnish Whole Foods Corporation leaving a bad taste in many citizens mouth even if it is Organic! The Burbank City Council has left the door open and let down all of the residents of Burbank who thought our City had the citizens as their primary concern. Clearly, the developer, who lives in Westlake Village and NOT in Burbank, has more influence then the residents who pay the City employees salaries. The longer this erosion of trust continues, Whole Foods Corporation is moving lower and lower down the list of "good neighbors" for Burbank!

Developer/Whole Foods Stopped Again

Submitted by sageent on Thu, 02/08/2007 - 23:32.

On February 6th, the developer, Whole Foods and the opposition met with the City Council and once again the developer did not get a 'yes' vote. What he got was a request to have his team sharpen their pencils to work out a smaller store size. Looks like big bucks, slick flyers and paid consultants still can't get the job done. Chock one up to the community who are prepared to defend their Rancho Master Plan.

Whole Foods Response

Submitted by LadyRanchoRider on Wed, 12/20/2006 - 09:18.

Please note the inaccurate statements made in this article:

The planning board rejected the plan to build Whole Foods because the developer refused to answer the questions raised by the board memebers.

The developer simply stated he would not complete any additional requests for traffic studies and wanted the vote then and there so he could take this matter over their heads to the City Council.

The developer was unwilling to make even one concession. He is requesting variances and has plainly stated "Take it or leave it".

This is the store Whole Foods wants and they will not downsize it to make it fit on this corner.

It's about variances and traffic, not horses and tomatoes

Submitted by slowdown on Tue, 12/19/2006 - 23:07.

I must take issue with the characterization of the planning board's actions in the lead paragraph.

The esteemed members of Burbank's Planning Board voted 4-to-1 not to grant a commercial real estate developer his request for variances to setbacks. It is a mischaracterization to say that these wise women and men were 'convinced' by 'Burbank horse owners.'

Ultimately, Planning voted to uphold required setbacks, which resulted in a rejection of the planned development. Rather than submit to Planning's requested micro-studies on traffic impact or amend the plan to conform with setbacks (which would be considered concessions), the developer has opted to take his chances with an appeal to City Council.

Furthermore, to characterize the applicant as 'the retailer' is grossly disingenuous. There are two entities advancing the agenda of a mega-store at a small semi-residential: the land-owner and a paid consultant. Neither is employed by nor represents Whole Foods. Whole Foods has, for the most part, abstained from the debate, stating publicly that "if this location doesn't work out, we'll keep looking."

Developers get turned down all the time. Setbacks, building codes and zoning exist for a reason.

Just want to set the record straight; I believe that a website for, by and about Planning would prefer to stick to the facts.

Horse-Riding Citizens Fight Grocery Store

Submitted by sageent on Tue, 12/19/2006 - 20:49.

First, let me start by saying I am a Burbank Rancho resident. The Planning Board only declined the developer's project after he forced its hand. Concerned citizens turned out in great numbers and after hearing their comments, the Board requested micro-studies. The developer said he did not want to prolong the process (leading to more expenses for him) and wanted their decision that very night. Faced with that ultimatum, the Board rejected the developer's proposal.
Additionally, I would like to point out that in the flyers that the developer has circulated to the residents surrounding the site, he has not offered any NEW "concessions" - he has merely repeated his initial intentions outlined in his first proposal already reviewed and rejected by the planning board.
The neighbors against his development are not convinced that these items (shared horse/bike lane, limited street widening, store setback) are enough to offset the increased traffic in the long-term. Neighbors in opposition simply care about Burbank Community: people and horses alike.

Whole Foods Market developer concessions

Submitted by socarroll on Tue, 12/19/2006 - 20:22.

I would argue that the developer has not offered any meaningful concessions. He is asking for a substantial variance from setbacks. The offer to set the building further back from the street is an offer to reduce the amount of the variance, but a variance is still being sought last I heard. This 60,000 square foot market with two levels of subterranean parking would still be built on the property-line of a nursing home, according to the latest version of the project that I am aware of, and it would still be located in close proximity to two schools, two daycare/kindergarten facilities and two residential health care facilities, not to mention the horse issue.

Also, the developer seems to want to take credit for bike/horse lanes scheduled to be put in by the City, funded by a Safe Route to Schools grant -- the grant will also pay for a flashing crosswalk where the crossing guard is, to address existing student safety issues on the two-lane street which would be the main access to the proposed market.

In addition, the street improvements that I have seen mentioned so far are for the most part those requested by the City's Traffic Department to address market traffic. The developer does make generic, non-specific mention of speed bumps, or other traffic calming measures(one of the great oxymorons of planning), but as of the Planning Commission meeting, none of these were included as conditions of approval or in anyway guaranteed.

This story is an important example of a community trying to maintain its uniqueness in the face of what appears to be an attractive use, but the offered Whole Foods market would be only a tenant. The future, if this project is approved, may be a less attractive tenant in the future, one which if offered in the first place, would not have gotten the support of those who say they favor the project.

I hope Planetizen will continue to track this story.