The Planning Board approved the change of use Dec. 14, also granting a permit for height and variance for the parking shortage. Board members also imposed a condition giving planners the ability to require valet parking if complaints mounted.
But council members Tuesday pointed to a traffic study conducted for the project that concluded two key intersections would be significantly impacted by gym traffic, downplaying mitigation measures and a monitoring program.
Councilman David Gordon cited large office and residential developments within a one-mile radius that, when fully occupied, would cause further bottlenecks at nearby intersections and freeway off- and on-ramps, he said.
Anja Reinke and Jess Talamantes joined him in denying the application, saying it boiled down to spurring economic development versus quality of life for residents.
“I feel that the impacts of this project outweigh the gains, especially the traffic,” Talamantes said.
Reinke used the company’s aggressive marketing style to its own detriment and questioned representatives on how they expected their thousands of potential members to not have a dramatic effect on the community.
Warner said considering its 24-hour schedule and a slew of required conditions, parking and traffic demands were overstated by detractors, and in many cases not an issue at all.
What’s more, while the club did expect to sign up nearly 10,000 members within five years, only about 25 employees and 200 guests would occupy the club at a given time, he said.
“Never before have we seen a corporate, known entity where people could rely on their memberships, come to Burbank,” he said. “It really probably shouldn’t be downtown.”
