Burbank, California City Council Meetings, 18 Apr 2022

Previous Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: Burbank City Council Special Meeting - April 18, 2022

Description

Burbank City Council Special Meeting - April 18, 2022

A

A

A

Live from burbank the media capital of the world.

B

During the current state of emergency due to coven 19 council members will be.

B

Participating online and the public will not be able to physically attend today's meeting.

B

To participate in the general public comment period, please call now at 818-238-3335.

B

Members of the public may speak for up to three minutes depending upon the number of speakers.

C

Good evening and welcome to a special meeting of the burbank city council on monday.

C

April 18 2022, I have invited patrick prescott, director of the community development department,.

C

To lead us in the pledge of allegiance will everyone please rise. Welcome.

D

Good evening, please join me in the salute to our nation's flag.

D

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to.

D

The republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

C

Thank you, mr prescott.

C

City clerk good evening good evening, mr mayor, it's nice to see all of you here tonight. Yes, welcome.

E

Back, thank you. Councilmember fritos, I'm off the island, I'm back on the dice life is good. We're.

F

Here, together, welcome back councilmember schultz very happy to be president. Thank you. Councilmember.

E

Springer here vice mayor, anthony you and mayor tillemantis president. Thank you glad to be here.

C

We would like to advise the community. There will be one period of public comment tonight.

C

If you would like to participate in the public comment during the public hearing.

C

Please call now at 818-238-3335.

C

Callers will be placed in a queue until the beginning of public comment.

C

This is a time and place for the hearing for project number 22, 22-000972.

C

Concerning the community development director's determination that the proposed residential.

C

Development project investing tentative track map number 8362 for the property located at 921.

C

Through 1001 west riverside drive is consistent with all applicable design, review and development.

C

Standards pursuant to senate bill 35 bless you before we begin. Are there any disclosures related.

C

To this hearing colleagues, yes, mr mayor, I like most of us, I did take a meeting with the developer.

G

And I've had several meetings with members of the public to hear their concerns. However,.

G

I've remained impartial and feel that I can render an objective decision tonight.

C

Councilman frudos. Thank you, mr mayor. I also received literally hundreds of emails and met.

F

With folks in the community to not necessarily discuss but to listen- and I did not compromise my.

F

Process I'm coming into this meeting neutral and open-minded. Thank you. Anyone else vice mayor.

H

Thank you, mr mayor. I had a conversation um on this specific project with state.

H

Senator anthony portino, who full disclosure opposed sb 35. However, his stance on that bill.

H

uh Is not the same as mine, so I'm going to have the open-minded and objective opinion on this.

C

Because remember springer, yes, thank you. I've met or communicated with members of the public and.

I

I have not been compromised in any way. Thank you yeah. Likewise, for me, sarah a lot of emails phone.

C

Calls and discussion with the developer but, like I always tell all the developers, I'm here to listen.

C

No decisions were made, no discussions were made. So thank you very much for that venom city clerk are.

C

The notices that's required by law been given. Yes, they have do. We have the complete file of exhibits.

C

Correspondence emails and other documents. Yes, you do! Mr mayor, you received a total of 111 so far.

E

And they're still going so the rest will be up updated tomorrow. Great thank you.

C

Has the city received any written communications on this matter and have they been provided to all.

C

City council members, yes, I have um those are part of the 111 correspondence you received.

C

Will the representative of the community development department please.

C

Introduce yourself and summarize the matter for us welcome.

J

Powerpoint presentation please.

J

Okay, great good evening, mayor tara, montes vice mayor, anthony council members and member of the.

J

Public, my name is scott plamback planning manager with the community development department tonight.

J

Council will consider the community development director's determination and approval of sb35.

J

Ministerial design review for a multi-family housing project at 921-1001, west riverside drive.

J

First, I want to touch upon sp-35. What is sp 35 sp-35 is intended to address the state's housing.

J

Shortage and high housing costs by facilitating and expediting the construction of housing.

J

The purpose of sp35 is to create a streamlined ministerial review.

J

And approval process for cities that have not made significant or sufficient progress.

J

Towards meeting their regional housing needs for assessment, otherwise known as rena to process.

J

Development applications expeditely during the 2014 through 2021 housing element, fifth planning.

J

Cycle the city is one of 510 jurisdictions that did not make sufficient progress towards meeting.

J

Arena numbers: as a result, we are subject to sb 35 minute, sterile, streamline review process.

J

So next, what does sp 35 require of us sp35 mandates that projects meeting certain specified.

J

Criteria must be processed through a streamlined ministerial review and approval process and shall.

J

Not be subject to a conditional use, permit or discussion or any discretionary review process.

J

The city may only evaluate the proposal against objective general plan and zoning standards.

J

Objective subdivision standards and objective design review standards, in effect.

J

At the time of the complete, completed, notice of intent is submitted to the city.

J

These objective standards are defined by the state statute as standards that.

J

Involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official in our uniformly verified.

J

By reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criteria available,.

J

And no noble by both the development applicant and a public official before submittal sp 35 further.

J

Provides that when objective zoning standards or design review centers are mutually inconsistent.

J

A development must be deemed consistent with the objective zoning and subdivision standards.

J

If the development is consistent with the standards set forth in the general plan, so in.

J

Other words where the general plan and municipal could conflict on matters such as permitted uses.

J

Or development standards, a proposed project is deemed consistent if it meets the general plan.

J

Standards, even if the sounding is more restrictive,.

J

Next slide, please: this area shows the entire eight and a half acre pickwick property.

J

The project site for the 5.05 acre project is bound in yellow here on. This exhibit.

J

The project is currently developed at the 51 000 square foot bowling alley, a 2, 700 square foot.

J

Bar an arcade and a 2.5 acre garden area and surface parking lot.

J

The existing facilities will be demolished in order to make way for the project.

J

In addition, the pickwick bowling site is currently on site will be preserved and integrated into.

J

The proposed project next slide, please. This slide shows the proposed project site plan.

J

The units will face either the public street for sales or common open space.

J

And here is just an overview of what's being proposed, so what's being proposed by the developer.

J

Is 96 versus residential units with a mix of unit and building sizes that range from one thousand.

J

Three hundred thirty three square feet to one thousand one hundred two square feet: the units.

J

Will be three stories and the applicants proposing two to four story are two to four bedroom units.

J

Please note that 10 of the units will be deed, restricted units of.

J

And affordable units for sale to low-income households, making 80 percent of the la county.

J

Area media income. The development also includes approximately 59 000 square feet of open space.

J

Including private balconies, 16, 000 square feet of central community area and a turf area with.

J

Dining area, barbecue, seating area play area and a fire pit. The parking rate is 2.25 per unit with a.

J

Total of 219 parking spaces, the project includes six on-site parking spaces as well. um Just please.

J

Note there will be upgrades to the public infrastructure serving the site, including the.

J

The construction of 15 foot sidewalks that will be around the perimeter of the site next slide. Please.

J

The current general plan land use destination for the project site is rancho commercial, which.

J

Allows a flurry ratio of 0.6 and a residential density of up to 20 units to the acre with desk.

J

With discretionary approval next slide, please consistent with a zoning designation for the.

J

Project site. Excuse me consistent with the general plan designation for the project site.

J

Commercial recreation allows commercial, mixed use or residential uses, including multi-family housing.

J

Such as the one being proposed tonight, and in addition um in this zoning district of commercial.

J

Recreation um 20 years per 20 units per acre is allowed on the site. Next slide, please this next.

J

Slide should show us a project timeline just to bring the council up to speed as to where we are.

J

On july 1st, the applicant submitted for the sb 35 notice of intent and submitted the application.

J

On july 30th 2021 the city sent out a request for tribal consultation to two local tribes on august.

J

2Nd 2021 the fernandinho tattavian banned mission, indians, initiated consultation with the city.

J

On september, 2nd 2021, the applicant resubmitted their noi application and was received by.

J

The city please note: on november 10th the city did receive confirmation from housing.

J

Community development hcd that the project was eligible for streamlined ministerial processing.

J

On november 15 2021, the city did issue a letter confirming that the project applicant was comp.

J

That project application was complete and eligible for an sp 35, streamlined ministerial processing.

J

On december 13th 2021 the enforceable agreement between the city and the satavian and satavians.

J

Was finalized and then on february, 24 2022 the applicant submitted a formal application.

J

For a streamlined ministerial process and the staff's been working on that proposal and is.

J

Presenting that to you tonight next slide, please.

J

This timeline shows the processing of the project. The city is currently at step. Four.

J

Which is consideration of the project's approval in accordance with senate bill.

J

35 within 60 days of submittable, the project city is required to provide the applicant with.

J

A determination of consistency, in addition, the city shall approve conditionally approve.

J

Or deny the application within 90 calendar days of receipt of the sb35 application.

J

For the city's streamlined ministry approval process in california government code.

J

Section 65913.4: the project was analyzed for consistency with the objectives, development.

J

And design review standards found in the burbank 2035 general plan and the burbank municipal code.

J

Including applicable zoning subdivision and design review standards, state law.

J

Limits the city's analysis to objective standards, which again is defined as.

J

Standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly.

J

Verified by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criteria available.

J

And noble by both the development applicant and the public official prior to submittal,.

J

More specifically, the project has been reviewed for compliance with all of the following.

J

Objective standards and design review standards, which include the standards required in the.

J

Rancho master plan zone, commercial recreation, zoning district.

J

Article 6 of residential uses and standards for affordable housing, article 6 for residential.

J

Uses of standards for the multifamily r3 sites standards and then, of course, the project was.

J

Reviewed for to meet all the subdivision standards in title 11 of the burbank municipal code.

J

The project was determined being compliance with all all relative objective standards in.

J

The burbank municipal code, with exceptions to the setback on main street, for which the applicant.

J

Has requested a concession pursuant to burbank municipal code, section 10-1 64a1 next slide. Please.

J

The project applicant is requesting a concession from the required setback along main street.

J

Pursuant to burbank municipal code, section 10-1635, the project is eligible to receive.

J

A concession since it reserves at least 10 percent of the units for to low-income households.

J

In pursuant to burbank section 10-1640 development centers modified as incentives.

J

Or concessions the applicant is requesting a concession from the required front yard setback.

J

Along south main street, the required front yard setback along south main street is 25 feet and.

J

The applicant is requesting a 13 foot setback to accommodate a right turn lane on south main street.

J

Bourbon section 10-164 allows the applicant of a qualifying density bonus project to.

J

Request: your reduction of a project site applicable building setback requirements.

J

Staff finds a concession to allow for reduction in the building setback from 25.

J

To 13 feet along south main street is necessary to accommodate the project.

J

And propose off-site improvements requested by the city, transportation and traffic engineering staff.

J

To accommodate the right term, pocket on from south main street onto riverside drive next slide. Please.

J

So this project has been viewed for conformance with the 2035 general plan and I'll highlight.

J

A couple of policies that apply first policy is the project, be consistent with the land use.

J

Designation, uh their online landing designation in this case, the underlying land use designation.

J

For the for the project site is the uh ransom commercial, and this this designation does allow.

J

For a maximum of 20 units per acre and for a variety of low intensity, multi-family residential.

J

And commercial uses. In addition, it complies with policy 4.8, which notes that requires.

J

Parking lots and structures to be located behind buildings or underground, and in this case the.

J

Parking is proposed within enclosed garages and then finally, the project is consistent.

J

With objective standards that were hit prohibits gated communities, this project will not be gated.

J

Next slide, please: the project is consistent with the city's, affordable housing strategy and council.

J

Goals of building 12 000 units by the year 2035. the proposal, the proposed multi-family housing.

J

Development would result in 19 for sale units, including 10, for sale units that.

J

Will be de-restricted and set aside for eligible low-income households.

J

Excuse me, I was just corrected. It's 96 units they're being proposed. Excuse me.

J

Okay, consistent with the city's affordable housing strategy, the multi-family housing development.

J

Would expand housing choices for housing choices by providing 96 town home style condominium units.

J

As new opportunities for home ownership, this confirmed this conforms with the.

J

Housing element goal 2 that provides for a variety of housing sites and burbank.

J

And to to accommodate a range of housing types to meet the device needs of.

J

Residents and burbank, in addition, uh this this would be housing element policy, 2.2.

J

Which calls for promoting a variety of housing types, including small lot? Development live.

J

Working as a mix use development to meet the needs of the city next slide, please.

J

The applicant also submitted a vested in the map number 83627, to subdivide the property into one.

J

Common lot and 96 condominium units the applicant proposes to sell the individual condominium.

J

Condominium units, while having the future hoa, maintain the common areas of the project site.

J

The processing of the track map is subject to a ministerial process as.

J

Part of the sb-35 streamlined ministerial approval process.

J

Furthermore, the city can only apply objective subdivision standards when it comes to reviewing.

J

The subdivision map and the processing of the map is also exempt from the requirements of sequa.

J

As previously noted, the proposed investing tenant of map is determined to be consistent.

J

With all objective subdivision standards as well in compliance with all objective.

J

General plan standards and and applicable to similar types of land.

J

Land subdivisions staff has included objective standard conditions for the track map approval.

J

They're included in the project conditions of approval, as noted attachment, one of exhibit one.

J

Next, I will discuss the building design, and these are these are the elevations.

J

Along riverside drive and main street next slide, please, the applicant is proposing.

J

A spanish architectural style that includes spanish, tile roofs and textured stucco facades.

J

Pitch cable, roofs and cable ends: patios courtyards, arches and archway features.

J

In addition, there will be no roof mounted equipment. All the equipment will be located.

J

At ground level, or within the attic space, all publicly visible sides of the building will be.

J

Are equally and well articulated with building variation elements, including surface breaks.

J

Projecting facades, recessed entry ways and projecting archways.

J

Here is the landscape plan for the project. The project proposes 67 000 square feet of both.

J

Private and common open space that will provide recreational opportunities for future residents.

J

The project will provide landscaping within the setback area adjacent to south main street and.

J

West riverside drive and additional trees in the city's public right-of-way, the applicant.

J

Will provide approximately 159, shade trees, decorative pavement, drought, tolerant landscaping.

J

And there also will be irrigation with equipment that promotes water conservation, the resulting.

J

Landscape amenities will ensure the project site, provides needed, shade and is set in aesthetically.

J

Pleasing vegetation at this prominent corner in the heart of the rancho neighborhood, the project.

J

Also proposes 10 626 square feet of private open space in the form of patios and courtyards.

J

So each unit will have their own private patio and courtyard. Furthermore, the project.

J

Proposes about sixteen thousand square feet of coffin common open space area in the form of.

J

One larger central, open space area and two smaller open space areas next slide. Please.

J

Burbank city staff has provided standard conditions of approval pursuant to sb 35, which.

J

Are included in exhibit 1 of attachment, 1. sb 35 does allow approval of ministerial processing to.

J

Include standard conditions of approval if those conditions are objective and broadly applicable to.

J

Developments within the locality, regardless of the streamline approval and such conditions, implement.

J

Objective standards that have been adopted prior to submission of a development application.

J

The california environmental equality act otherwise known as seqa does not.

J

Apply to projects that qualify for the streamlined ministerial approval process.

J

As a result, the project is not subject to sql review. Moreover, an sb35 applicant cannot.

J

Be required to prepare any studies that would otherwise be required under sql, such as a traffic.

J

Analysis or quality analysis, the city can only require an applicant to abide by objective.

J

Planning standards that were, in effect at the time of the time of the sb 35 application, submittal.

J

In conclusion, seth has determined that the project is consistent with sp 35 pursuant to government.

J

Code, section, 65913.4 and staff has determined the project is to be is consistent with all.

J

Sb35 criteria and applicable objective design and development standards.

J

Seth therefore recommends the city council conduct a design review for the project.

J

Located in 921-1001, riverside drive otherwise known as pickwick gardens pursuant to sp35.

J

And staff recommends that the city council adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of.

J

Burbank confirming the community development director's determination that project number.

J

Zero 22000 nine seven two located at nine two one through one thousand one west riverside.

J

Drive is consistent with all applicable objective general plan. Zoning subdivision and design review.

J

Standards and improving the project, streamlined ministerial design review, and that concludes.

J

Staff's presentation and we're available for any questions. Thank you very much. Thank you for that.

C

Before we open the hearing to the public, I will invite the applicant or their representative to.

C

Address the council: you will have a maximum time of 15 minutes to make your presentation.

K

Good evening, mr mayor, can you hear me yes great good evening, mr mayor members of the city council,.

K

My name is matt waken and I'm the managing member of pickwick investment llc. The owners.

K

Of the property, I'm very pleased and grateful to be here tonight presenting before you.

K

This project I want to first start. This is really important. I want to thank uh the staff in the city.

K

Of burbank everybody from the city manager, down to the planning, staff, uh fred and scott.

K

Patrick they've been so involved in this project. They've been very thorough.

K

They've been very fair and I am very grateful them and they've been a pleasure to work with so.

K

I would be remiss if I didn't thank them for all the work that they had done um when we first.

K

Started this project a little over a year ago, we took a lot of time to go back and look at the.

K

uh Previously designed concept uh project that had been envisioned back in 2017.

K

We did not feel that the size and scope of that project was appropriate um for this site.

K

And ultimately, the project that was presented before you and that we've submitted under sb 35.

K

um Is what we feel is very appropriate for the site? The this project is is less than one-third.

K

The size of the previously envisioned site um this project provides pride of ownership.

K

Versus transitory housing and that's really important and that's an item I'll get to in.

K

A couple of minutes, um this project maintains the pickwick ice rink, and that will stay and be a very.

K

Important part of the community and it provides really thoughtful enhanced design features.

K

Finishes amenities and open space, which is really important to any type of development. This project.

K

Is going to allow and afford young families to come in and have home ownership.

K

And pride of home ownership within the community of burbank, it's something that's really important!.

K

And it really is quite honestly, a deficit not just in the city of burbank, but in many communities.

K

In los angeles and orange county, and so many of our young families are being pushed out of.

K

Communities that they grew in, they grew in grew up in and they haven't had a chance to come back.

K

And really become a part of that community again um just currently today, I just look today. There.

K

Are currently 28 homes listed for sale in the city of burbank, between 600 000 and 2.4 million.

K

When you look at that range of pricing and a community of over a hundred thousand people.

K

uh That's a pretty important number and again it's. This is not something that is just.

K

Happening in burbank, it's happening in a lot of different areas, and um if you refer to the city's.

K

Housing element the updated march 22 housing home, and this is really important. There's some numbers.

K

That we're starting to see in l.a county, which again are really important. The age group 18 to 24.

K

Within the city is on the decline and has been for a number of years same with young adults.

K

24 25 years of age to 44 years of age. And when you look at the demographic for 45 years old,.

K

To 64 years old, which is considered middle age and 65, plus, which you consider seniors.

K

Those numbers are increasing, and so what's happening is young families are getting priced.

K

Out of markets, they're not being able to relocate and set roots, and this is causing a problem.

K

In schools, in brick and mortar retail and shopping, it's important that we provide housing.

K

For young families, uh the housing stock in burbank was moving at about a four percent growth rate.

K

Between 1990 and 2000 that slowed to three and a half percent between 2000 and 2010 and in the last.

K

10-Year cycle, it's it's slowed to 1.5 um again, there's not sustainability with those numbers.

K

And renter occupied unit versus owner occupied units again renter occupied the numbers are.

K

Increasing dramatically while owner occupied units are decreasing, that's again, something I think the.

K

Council should be really concerned about you know. Burbank is a wonderful community. It's built out.

K

In a number of different ways and been built out really to meet reno numbers and to increase how.

K

Increase the housing stock in a number of different areas. Non-Vacant sites are.

K

Critical for development, because there's just not vacant sites located in these areas, anymore.

K

And I'll end with this, and then I'm going to turn it over some of my time over to scott berkey who's.

K

Involved with my with land use, um you know I I I don't have any illusions that the rancho district.

K

Is in opposition this project and the neighbors around the project aren't supportive of it. I.

K

Understand that you know change is difficult for everyone. I find a lot of things going on.

K

This world difficult to handle too. As far as the changes that are occurring, I would just.

K

Submit this to the city council to think about the majority of the members of this council tonight.

K

That are hearing this and are going to make a decision tonight and the majority of the.

K

Members of the community that are going to call tonight are long-term burbank residents.

K

And everybody here had that opportunity to buy their home, whether it was their first home.

K

A starter home or their second home or their third home. They had an opportunity to come.

K

Into the city of burbank, which is an amazing city, it's got so many positive benefits to it and they.

K

Had an opportunity to do that, and what I would submit to you tonight is that this project is.

K

Going to provide 96 units for young families, pride of ownership, people working within the.

K

Community of burbank that want to stay here. They don't want to move east. They don't want to move to.

K

Santa clarita they may want to stay in burbank and be close to their grandparents and their parents.

K

And this project can provide that, and I would say that the members of this community and the people.

K

That live in this community and these 96 units can become a very important asset to the equestrian.

K

Community and work to benefit it, and so I'm I'm very grateful. I'm thankful to you tonight for.

K

Reviewing this project and rendering your decision, I hope, it'll come out. Favorable.

K

And with that, I'm going to turn it over to scott burkey, and thank you very much. Thank you. Matt good.

L

Evening, mayor telemontes and city council members, my name is scott berkey and I'm with the law firm.

L

Of cox, castle and nicholson, we represent pickwick investment in connection with the pickwick project.

L

Before you tonight, I'd like to remind you of three things that should serve as guiding principles.

L

For you, as you listen to comments this evening and as you consider the project, mr planbeck has.

L

Already addressed some of what I'm about to cover, but I'd like to distill much of what he discussed.

L

Into three guiding principles that I think you should use as sort of sideboards as you consider.

L

Our project this evening, first cities that are not making sufficient progress toward meeting.

L

Their housing supply obligations under state law are subject to sb 35., the city of burbank.

L

Is one of those cities? This means that in burbank a qualifying project that provides at least.

L

10 percent, affordable housing units is eligible to use the sb 35 streamlined approval process.

L

It's important to underscore the policy rationale behind this. The idea is to incentivize the.

L

Development of housing in those jurisdictions like burbank, where housing is in short supply.

L

Second city of burbank and other cities that are subject to sb 35 must approve eligible residential.

L

Projects if those projects are consistent with the city's objective, zoning subdivision and design.

L

Review standards: if such a project is consistent, then the city may not require a conditional use.

L

Permit or any other kind of discretionary approval or permit for the project pickwick is an example.

L

Of such a project, the pickwick project is fully consistent with these standards, including the.

L

Standard that the general plan, designation and zoning for the property allow residential uses.

L

As to the general plan, the general plan land use designation, as mr planback mentioned, for the.

L

Property is rancho commercial. This designation allows for residential uses normally in a.

L

Non-Sb-35 contacts this residential uses, but the discretionary approval, but because of sb 35, it's.

L

Enough that the general plan simply allows for development of residential uses on the property.

L

And because the project is consistent with all other objective standards, sp 35 prohibits the city.

L

From requiring a discretionary approval, such as a conditional use permit for the project.

L

One further point: on the general plan: it is basic land use law in the state of.

L

California, that the general plan is viewed as the city's constitution for land use planning.

L

This was recently affirmed by senate bill 330 and changes it made to the housing accountability act.

L

That means that the city's general plan supersedes or trumps any other area plans. Community plans.

L

Or master plans that might otherwise apply to the property, including the master, the.

L

Rancho master plan, which I understand was never actually adopted by the city.

L

As to zoning, the zoning for the property is commercial recreation. This zoning two also allows.

L

For residential uses, as with the general plan, it normally does so with the discretionary approval.

L

Here because the project is eligible under sb 35, the city is prohibited from requiring.

L

A discretionary approval such as the cup or conditional use permit for the project there.

L

Should be no dispute that this project qualifies under sb 35? This is the conclusion reached by.

L

Me and the rest of the applicant team, your own planning staff and city attorney, your independent.

L

Planning consultant and the california department of housing and community development or hcd.

L

Brings me to the third guiding principle, in addition to its eligibility under sb.

L

35, this project is also protected under the state's housing accountability act.

L

A housing development project- that's consistent with objective standards, can only be denied.

L

Pursuant to certain findings, an improper denial of the project tonight, based on, for example,.

L

An erroneous interpretation that the general plan or zoning do not allow for residential uses.

L

Puts the city at significant risk of litigation potentially resulting in a court order mandating.

L

That the city approved the project and that the city pay for the costs of that litigation.

L

Thank you for your attention and consideration of our project tonight, we're very pleased to.

L

Present it to you this evening, a lot of hard work has gone into its design.

L

And fit within the city, and with that I'd like to turn things back over to staff. Thank you.

C

Is that does that complete your presentation.

C

Mr burkey, yes, it does unless, unless mr awaken has any other further comments, no just that.

K

I've got my entire project team available architect, civil engineer, landscape, architect,.

K

uh All available tonight to answer questions that you guys may have later. So. Thank you very much.

C

Thank you so we'll proceed with the hearing. We before we open up the hearing to the public.

C

I'm sorry we'll move on. We will now open the public hearing to hear from.

C

Many persons who wish to speak on this matter each person may address the council for up to.

C

Three minutes on this public hearing item only please call 818-238-3335.

C

Once again, it's 818-238-3335.

C

The phone lines are now open man, I'm city clerk. Do we have any callers online.

E

Yes, mr mayor, we do have callers and we're ready to go excellent, bring them on.

M

Our first caller is catherine waner.

N

Welcome hi everyone: this is katie wanner. I am a burbank homeowner and apologies you're. Also.

O

Here my co-burbank family in the background here- and we really just wanted to be heard.

O

About the pickwick center and I think a lot of the issues about the zoning and horses.

O

And the safety of horses will be addressed by other callers and I'm sure you know them.

O

With the problem of congestion and keeping riders and horses safe, but I really want to talk about.

O

What we lose when we lose the recreational aspect, you know we're coming out of a pandemic where we.

O

All need a place to gather and meet with our community and when we lose the type of.

O

Recreational space that picklick offers it doesn't come back and that, I think, is a big big sadness.

O

To our community- and I have my seven-year-old here with me- who is hoping to have 30 seconds.

O

Of your time, to tell you how important to him pickwick is. um Pickwick is really good, because.

P

People, if they don't have enough to do if they don't have very many books or.

P

Toys for their kids- or they don't have very much stuff to do. They can go there and also it's fun.

P

Because you can do bowling and ice skating, so we really. We hope that you know beyond the safety.

P

And the importance to our community of having pickwick there, it reminds us all of getting.

O

Together and what we've all lost over the last two years at the pandemic, so thank you all. We.

O

Really hope that you make the choice to keep our recreational opportunities here in burbank.

C

Thank you very much and thank your son for speaking as well.

C

Thanks speaker, the next caller is gail just welcome.

O

Honorable mayor talamante vice mayor and council member on september, the 14th 2017, the stabbert.

O

Family also known as the pickwick owners had a community meeting to found out an idea. They.

O

Had for turning their property into a housing development, what they needed from the community.

O

And the city was approval to change their zoning from commercial recreation to residential burbank.

O

Residents made it clear that they would not agree to a zoning change. Since then, sb 35 has been.

O

Approved by the sacramento legislative body and the pickwick property has been sold to a developer.

O

One of the few qualifiers of sb 35 is that a property be zoned for residential use.

O

Or mixed-use development pickwick is not. It is imperative that we use the legal means at our.

O

Disposal to stop this mammoth and ill-conceived project. The community development department's.

O

Determination that this project qualifies for sb 35 is incorrect. Pickwick is not known for housing.

O

And this project should be denied and I feel I would be remiss at this time if I didn't mention.

O

The letter that senator portettino wrote to our city, administrative analysis.

O

After he conferred with the legislative council's office in sacramento, he found.

O

That the pickwick property was not applicable for sb 35 all right. Thank you very much for.

O

Allowing me to make this comment um and uh goodbye. Thank you very much. Next speaker.

M

Our next caller is brad roth welcome.

Q

I think someone's still talking.

C

C

Good night, all right go ahead. Continue, please all right! This is brad roth, I'm also a citizen of.

Q

Burbank and um I want to start my talk with um or my comments with the obvious, the first part is in.

Q

2017 that room there was packed it is empty today, and uh it's because of the supposed mass mandate.

Q

I only see one mask and I see no one's social distancing, so I think we could actually done.

Q

This in person- and you could see us and hear our comments. The second thing, that's quite obvious,.

Q

Is that matt, watkins and his associates are about to make a lot of money if this goes through.

Q

And that lawyer just threatened the city council, which I find a little bit inappropriate.

Q

But let's just talk about the nuts and bolts you're right: there's a housing shortage.

Q

They want 96 houses, that's 192, automobiles at the least now mayor last month or two months.

Q

Ago, when you had a city council meeting about the streets and traffic, you said, I believe.

Q

You have five cars at your house. Also multiple comments on the problem with riverside drive and.

Q

The congestion and now you want to add over 100 automobiles twice a day. That's problem number two.

Q

Problem are none. That's number problem number one problem number two is those people are going to.

Q

Have more than two cars so now they're going to be parking them on the streets? That means people.

Q

In mariposa and griffith park drive are going to have cars on their in front of their houses.

Q

So on thursday, when the garbage man comes they're not going to be able to put their garbage cans out.

Q

In front of their houses, which means the garbage cans are going to be in the middle of the street,.

Q

Which means the streets are going to be full of garbage cans. You know that's going to happen.

Q

uh The the next issue is, I look at the design, they said it meets with the subdivision designs and the.

Q

Area designs, not true. Three stories are too high. Okay, if they would have come down with two stories.

Q

A little bit more of a rancho looking place, I might have bought into this thing.

Q

The other thing is this is the rancho. If I want to put a horse in my backyard tomorrow, I can do it.

Q

There is no horse property there and when you have 96 units and you're in a horse area and.

Q

There's not a single horse corral that really doesn't sit with the design of the the property.

Q

So I would have to say that he really fails in those areas. First of all, they threaten us.

Q

Second, all you know they're going to make a lot of money over this and that's what it's all about.

Q

The parking issue and the traffic issue hasn't been addressed.

Q

It doesn't go along with the the design or our area.

Q

Along with all the other comments that people make and that's all, I really have to say thank you.

C

M

Our next caller is james keane, welcome.

R

Welcome. Thank you.

R

Hi, my name is jim kane. I live across the street from pickwick site.

R

At 1200, west riverby riverside drive.

R

I commute by bicycle to my work office every day.

R

And I already don't feel safe riding on the designated bike paths on riverside drive in.

R

Main street south of alameda rush hour traffic, especially has been obstructing bicycle lanes.

R

And I feel 200 plus additional residents and our guests and their friends will dramatically add.

R

Traffic on one way, south main and west riverside drive further endangering bicyclists an increase.

R

In injuries and fatalities to pedestrians, horses, pets and wildlife will be inevitable.

R

On another issue, this construction complex would pave over pickwick gardens and its.

R

Massive century-old growth, trees and birds and animal habitats, the demolition of the garden's.

R

Unique park-like environment with classic historical garden architecture and remarkable.

R

Water fountains, its diverse wildlife and shade tree species would be a significant.

R

And painful loss to a city's historical and cultural identity.

R

Let alone its natural resources can't the gardens be preserved for their cultural and.

R

Ecological values for burbank residents, speaking of burbank residents, we should also think of the.

R

Future generations of burbank won't be able to see and experience this rich heritage, the pickwick, the.

R

Equestrian center and other sites of the rancho district, unless they are preserved and cherished.

R

I'd like to also say, I fully concur with what the previous speaker, mr raw.

R

Said especially about the city council being threatened with a lawsuit and further litigation.

R

I'd also like to add that I feel having checked out the sales of townhomes and.

R

Condominiums in the general area around here, which are very high.

R

Thirteen hundred square feet to two thousand square feet: you're talking around six hundred.

R

Fifty thousand to a million plus, so I feel, ninety percent of the town homes, perhaps.

R

Even the ten percent are already priced beyond what an average person can afford.

R

Thank you for hearing our concerns. Thank you. Next speaker.

M

Our next caller is tony osek. Welcome hello. I am a homeowner in the burbank rancho. In fact, I'm right.

O

Directly across from pickwick, I'm also a horse owner and a rider in this immediate area. I will.

O

First off say that I am against the proposed project for numerous reasons: some that have.

O

Already even been stated in the few cults, I I believe it would gravely put.

O

The equestrian community in tons of traffic danger it's already crazy enough in this area.

O

The way that it is the proposed project, I believe, needs to go through a normal permit process.

O

For the community to be allowed to support or decline it like any other project,.

O

We cannot allow our legislators, who voted for the sb 35 rule to be able to ruin.

O

This community, you as our elected officials, have the right to vote no on allowing this process.

O

We- and you also included- need to stand up for what we want our community to actually be. We have.

O

Street legal golf carts in this area, many there has been no traffic review, which I understand.

O

In what they said a while ago, that that's not required, which is just ludicrous and so risky.

O

To not have a traffic review with equestrians in this area and that's why you know we are.

O

Here, they're, not addressing what the current community you talk about, bringing in new community.

O

What about what the current community, which is supporting this area, what their needs are they.

O

Want more equestrian properties, which is a huge draw to this area? People pay huge.

O

Amounts of money for equestrian properties, they're, not addressing any equestrian danger.

O

That will be put upon this community without any traffic studies done. It's not even been mentioned.

O

About the equestrian danger- and they said a while ago that we might be heartfelt against change. That.

O

Everyone is against change. No, I don't think we're against we're against change. That is not what.

O

Needs and fits for the community, and so if there was something that was put there, that is the right.

O

Property that would benefit the burbank rancho, which is where it's at you might feel some support.

O

I agree mike is blew up and they also used the entertainment aspect that was across from us.

C

Thank you. Your time is up. Thank you very much. Next, caller.

M

Great thank you. Our next caller is noreen reardon welcome hello. um I just want to say that I defer.

O

To senator portino in declaring that this project does not fall under sb 35, I don't.

O

Agree with the staff- and I I got to tell you as a member of the rancho review board- I really.

O

Resent the fact that the staff deliberately excluded us the whole board and the community.

O

From getting any kind of input or put having any input input on this project, all under the guise.

O

Of it falling under sb 35 this after knowing which other people have mentioned, how involved.

O

This neighborhood has been in the past regarding developments in the rancho, so I say uh we're in.

O

Trouble if we let this proceed because uh under sb 35, because it's going to set a precedent for all.

O

Commercial and industrial property in the city- and you knew you knew it- was going to come out.

O

That the lawyer was going to threaten to sue, they always do, but I have a question for matt.

O

Waken the developer he kept mentioning that this is going to be a great opportunity for.

O

Young families to buy their first home well, he never mentioned how much they're going to be.

O

Selling these things for 500 000- I doubt it maybe 800- maybe 900- is probably more likely.

O

So um I just urge your council to please vote no on this. Let's go back to the drawing board and.

O

I would also say to um matt wake and look up the name, tom zanik, a developer with ethics. Thank you.

C

Thank you next speaker.

M

Oh okay, thank you. Our next caller is richard. Bertain welcome, hi hi. Thank you good evening.

S

Mayor tomorrow and burbank city council member, I wanted to thank you for taking my call. I just.

S

Want to share my thoughts on the project as it's proposed. I have been a burbank resident since 1988.

S

And my wife and I have owned property in burbank since 1992. I was fortunate to buy our first house.

S

In 1992 in the 200 000 range- and we are parents of four children, um three of which couldn't.

S

Afford to buy a home in burbank, you know, based on current pricing. um As I look at this development.

S

I recognize that burbank is in desperate need of new for-sale housing. I also acknowledge that.

S

You have the housing prices right now. It's very challenging for to attract young families.

S

As I look at this project, I see that it makes good sense. I do believe that two of my three.

S

Children that couldn't afford a house might be able to possibly buy something in the new project.

S

And yes, I mean change is challenging, but I think this project speaks to the opportunity to develop.

S

Appropriate and suitable new development in that area that could be then affordable for.

S

New families- and I don't think that in the area we've had much in the way of new development.

S

In the in the past number of years, there's certainly been apartments, but there's not been.

S

The opportunity for new homes, so I would applaud the project. I would encourage you to consider.

S

It and to move ahead. I think your staff has done great work in assessing all the aspects of it, but.

S

We do need growth and I think that burbank would benefit from this development. You know I too also.

S

I don't live in the rancho area, but my daughter wanted a horse many years ago and we were able.

S

To take advantage of the equestrian center, which is still there and we boarded a horse over there.

S

At circle k for six years and made the trek over there- and I appreciate the area- and I think that.

S

This development will be a great addition to that area and I think we'll be mindful of that.

S

So I encourage the council to adopt the resolution and to allow the project to move ahead.

S

And I thank you for your time and keep up the great work. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker.

M

Our next caller is leslie banuelos welcome.

P

Hello, thank you. I am calling regarding the picnic development uh in contradiction to mr waken's.

O

Statement, I am a recent buyer of a home here in the rancho community and along with several of.

O

Our newly purchased home neighbors, we are between the ages of 35 to 55 most with young families, also.

O

The condescending statement he made that change is hard is laughable. This is not about adapting to.

O

Change for us it's more than that, and it is also sad that mr bilke has threatened the council with.

O

Legal actions should the committee not approve this development, which really should be telling.

O

Of the motives and lengths these developers will go to in order to push their agenda through.

O

The focus should be those in the rancho, the safety of the community and what a loss, the recreation.

O

Space is to burbank as a whole, although I am certain my concerns will not be any different than.

O

Any other comments that are made by homeowners in the area- I am just one more voice to add to.

O

The growing fear that our equestrian community is being over developed in the name of profit.

O

We purchased our home in may 2020. During the height of the pandemic. We purchased the home.

O

Because we loved the way, this part of burbank seemed like its own small town, where you can see.

O

Horses walking by your window daily, it's where we wanted to spend the later part of our lives.

O

Our home is on the corner of riverside and mariposa, where the traffic has now shown its full.

O

Volume now that the restrictions for the pandemic have been lifted and people are going back to work.

O

The line of cars in the morning and in the late afternoon is obvious and consistent. The studio.

O

Traffic as well as the school traffic is intense enough. The thought of adding even more traffic.

O

To accommodate 96 new residents is unthinkable, dangerous and is an exhausted nightmare for us.

O

That live in the area. Finally, constructing a new complex that is so far outside of the.

O

Aesthetic of the rancho community is an insult to those of us who paid top dollar and high taxes.

O

For our homes and to live in a community that has been historic in its own right. If the council.

O

Approves this residential home development and space zone for commercial use, it will open the.

O

Door for further development projects that go against the community's wishes. Please consider.

O

Us residents, those who have voted for you who are strongly against this development. Thank you.

C

Thank you next speaker.

M

Okay, the next caller is sabrina silver welcome.

T

O

All right, can you hear me: yes, go ahead, okay, great.

O

Hold on I'm sorry there we go. I am opposed very strongly to.

O

The change in usage um and the development of pickwick into dense housing, condos or.

O

Other dense housing apartments, it puts the rancho in an existential danger.

O

In danger of losing the character and equestrian nature of the rancho rancho, it's a special and.

O

Historic location, it should not be squandered, it should not be changed. The people of burbank.

O

Glendale and los angeles would lose an important recreational space, a historic recreational space.

O

Dense housing also endangers equestrians, walking the streets, and it set the precedent. This.

O

Decision would set a precedent for lack of need of consideration of the appropriate use of specific.

O

Properties and the effects that they would have on the community, so I'm I'm highly strongly opposed.

O

To the condo development proposal and hope that the city of burbank can do something to save the.

O

Rancho and the equestrian nature and the quiet sort of country-like nature of this location.

O

Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker.

M

The next caller is mike scandifio welcome hello, um dear city council members, um I'm a 35-year.

U

Resident of the burbank rancho, I go back to the media district wars that we had here with.

O

And the burbank rancho home owners and everything that's gone on. uh As I understand sb 35 given.

O

The discretion that it gives to the it gives discretion to the council to ignore environmental.

O

Impact ignore public safety, ignore zoning, ignore the community, the voice of the community.

O

So you have the discretion to do all these things and appoint approve this project. However,.

O

The discretion was not given to the developer and the staff.

O

The developer and the staff seem to think that they do the zoning, not you. Let me give you an.

O

Example, the community development department back in 19 2014 excuse me 2004. There was an uh an.

O

Intercept sewer that was going to go under valley heart that was going to be built by the county of.

O

Los angeles, every community that was affected had public hearings, the only community that was not.

O

Notified and was was not given. A public hearing was burbank because the staff didn't tell the.

O

Council- and they didn't tell the community that the city of la wanted to do a public hearing.

O

And that sewer line was going to go right into valley heart with a big exhaust pipe uh in in.

O

In the poliwag, so that's what the community development department is about.

O

uh Again, you have the discretion, not them the developers, don't determine the zoning you do under.

O

That law, you could ignore us, but you could also ignore the developer and you could also ignore the.

O

Staff- and we expect you to have critical judgment and not be mindlessly, compliant to very vague.

O

State laws, and, by the way, as far as suing goes, people are suing everybody all the time in burbank.

O

And and in all through southern california, come on it's just an empty threat. I was in the.

O

Development business for 40 years and that's what developers do so I so I ask you: exercise critical.

O

Judgment tell the staff you're in charge tell the developer. He doesn't dictate zoning. You do.

O

And we would expect you to have we voted for you because we thought.

O

And we know you have the backbone to stand up to this kind of thing.

O

So um again, um I urge you to turn this ridiculous thing down and interpret this whole thing.

O

uh In a very uh open-minded way, as opposed to a very compliant narrow-minded way, which the staff.

O

Seems to want to do I thank you so much as a 35-year president bye. Thank you next speaker.

M

Our next caller is sheila harmer welcome.

V

Thank you good evening to the council. I'm really really appreciate that we're having this meeting.

V

I'm feeling a big squeeze right now, because I'm on south mariposa street, where I've been for over.

V

30 years I've got pickwick at one end and I've got the supposedly butterfly gardens down at the other.

V

End and and everybody wants to double the traffic hundreds of more cars, not on this street, but.

V

They're all where they going to go but to turn off on riverside. So whether we have whether we have.

V

Five two-story office buildings, where the stables now exist and we have hundreds of cars at pickwick.

V

It's gonna, it's really gonna affect the traffic. I do understand to some degree senate bill 35 and I.

V

See it as nothing more than a fast-track method, that was a typical liberal political decision.

V

With little thought about the consequences of what it was going to do to cities, not just.

V

Burbank but all over california, there are small, incorporated cities, I don't see them doing it.

V

Out at at the palisades or beverly hills, um where there's also lots of land and big.

V

Big estates, but it's it was made. It was just a poor decision and it's probably going to get.

V

Enough enough support to be voted off. The other thing is I'm.

V

I'm I understand 35 and I imagine they're, probably the developers are probably going to.

V

The developer lobbyists are probably going to go also that we go for senate bill.

V

9 and 10, which is really going to screw any small incorporated city.

V

I'm curious as to what the develop number one. I don't like three stories. There's nothing around.

V

Here that's three stories: we don't need three stories if it has to be, if, if you have to have.

V

It residential it needs to be lower density and two stories at the very most. um It's just kind.

V

Of ridiculous you, since you can't you, don't have to have the studies because sacramento said so.

V

But since nine and ten were passed that says the developers don't have to contribute anything.

V

I'm curious what the developers have offered in the way of um maintenance, water.

V

Power sewer street repair, public safety services, according according to the senate bills that have.

V

Been signed by our dear governor ever since he did not get recalled, they don't have to.

V

Contribute anything, but I want to know if these developers are going to contribute.

V

And in regards to the purchase price and our needs for for family units,.

C

Ma'am your time is up. Thank you for your call next speaker.

M

Our next caller is frank ganji. Welcome. Thank you. Hi mayor talamante and members.

U

Of the burbank city council, frank gange, I'm the president of game development, a local burbank.

U

Company located at 229 east palm avenue, I was calling to speak on behalf of the project. I think.

U

We really need to approve projects like this. We last year completed a similar project, 28 units.

W

Off of pennsylvania avenue in the 210 freeway in glendale, and I can tell you, the buyers were young.

U

People and people that are that have young kids, they were either first-time buyers or if they.

U

Weren't first-time buyers, they were buyers that owned, say a one-bedroom um condominium and as.

U

They got married, they started having kids, they needed more space. We are in a housing crisis.

U

I'm telling you we had this project by the time we got to the third phase of the project.

U

They were all pre-sold, because people need the housing, and I recall um when emily gable, luddy.

U

Was on council, she of course was a planner and she made the point we need to in burbank. We.

U

Need to supply 12 000 units in the next 10 years, and I was thinking at the time. That's a thousand.

U

Units a year, how are we going to do it? Because I know it's needed. I know we're in a crisis, but.

U

This type of project will arena, numbers are required, housing needs assessment numbers, it's.

U

An sp 35 project, it's got an affordable component. Townhouse townhouse units are very much in demand.

U

A lot of people like the fact that they don't have a concrete garage and they have their own.

U

You know their own unit, which is very similar to a home, so this is the type of need. I think it's.

U

Excellent and I hope that you'll give it serious consideration to approve. Thank you for your time.

C

Thank you next speaker.

M

Our next caller is sam kirkby. Welcome.

T

Hi, um I have some notes here and I'll try to make sense of them that I've been scrolling.

O

Throughout this meeting and then I might read a few sentences from a letter, I wrote to you guys.

O

Dense housing development is antithetical to peaceful and safe equestrian activity.

O

And it is antithetical to the historic integrity and cultural significance of the burbank rancho.

O

I believe there is probably no area in burbank less appropriate for dense housing development.

O

Than the burbank rancho, the burbank rancho horse community is one of the most unique.

O

And precious treasures of our city, the history and the charm of this community are undeniable to.

O

Anyone who visits here and most certainly to those of us who call this peaceful, neighborhood our home.

O

Nonetheless, we who call the burbank ranch to our home have been in the past years, living.

O

In an almost constant state of anxiety about this small community being destroyed by greedy.

O

And opportunistic developers who have no concern for the integrity of our lifestyle, I, for one.

O

Feel like it's been a constant battle to keep our precious horse community from being swallowed up.

O

By industry and development, tiny stables that run and survive on a shoestring budget have literally.

O

Had to take on david versus goliath, fights and have only done so with the strengths and the.

O

Help of our tight-knit tightly knit community uniting as one and standing strongly together.

O

The thought of adding such a significant burden as the pickwick condo development to.

O

Our already overstressed roads is a devastating idea. The traffic from nearby studios is already.

O

At a critical point, especially at rush hour when cars race down riverside to access the freeways.

O

There are often literally dozens of cars that fly past you, if you are trying to cross the.

O

Street during those times and if you are on a horse that can be quite harrowing.

O

I doubt anything can be done about the traffic as it stands, but to add to our already way too busy.

O

Main thoroughfare riverside drive by putting hundreds of new cars on it on a daily basis.

O

On on a small two-lane road, which is a home to home, to horses, ponies and children and animals.

O

Is a recipe for disaster? This neighborhood cannot and will not survive. If we allow the.

O

Pickwick land to change its historic zoning, this land was always intended for public use.

O

And enjoyment, and has always been so I for one, would love to see pickwick bought by the.

O

City and turned into a permanent public park for horses, dog, walking, picnics and quiet recreation.

O

Many other cities have done this and I feel like the burbank rancho is the perfect place for this.

O

Type of public open space for all to enjoy and treasure, please believe me when I say that the.

O

Burbank rancho is a unique and precious treasure and if it is lost, it will be gone forever. It would.

O

Not only be a devastating loss to our current community, but a permanent loss to our children.

O

Our children's children, the city of burbank and the cultural heritage of the rancho district.

R

Please please find it in your heart to hold fast this beautiful, peaceful and irreplaceable.

O

Equestrian and animal loving community. Thank you for your call. Your time is up. Thank you.

C

M

Our next caller is laura larocca welcome good evening mayor telemontes and members of the.

O

City council, my name is laura larocca and I'm a resident of burbank rancho and a horse owner this.

O

Evening I am calling to express my opposition to the large residential project being considered at.

O

The pickwick property as a homeowner in the rancho. I am deeply concerned about the increased traffic.

O

Noise safety and the permanent change to our quiet, small town feeling neighborhood. As you know,.

O

The homes near south main are zoned for horses and frequently used this stretch of riverside.

O

To access the beautiful equestrian facilities and gateways to griffith park with people returning to.

O

Work riverside drive is already seeing increased traffic and speeds. Kids are back at school around.

O

The flying curve of riverside and mariposa there are horses and other animals crossing the street.

O

At all times of the day, I do not understand why we would put more cars and people into one of.

O

The greenest parts of our community, how many I'd like to know how many of the city staff.

O

Making these decisions live in burbank and how many of them drive or ride on riverside and maine.

O

I believe in offering alternatives, this location is an ideal place for a city.

O

Microfarm or garden it would be obviously fit. It would obviously fit into the community provide.

O

Hospice center residents a nice view and offer the city some green space with fresh vegetables.

O

When passing sb 35 sacramento politicians did not have our best interests in mind, we elected you, our.

O

City council, to make the tough local decisions in partnership with our community members, the.

O

Pickwood site is zoned commercial recreation, not residential. Why is the city deviating from the.

O

Requirements to have the project reviewed by the entire rancho review board changing the zoning.

O

Will be irreversible in the future? Please don't let the developer threaten you into a decision. The.

O

Community doesn't want please vote to block this project tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker.

M

Our next caller is roy simpson. Welcome.

X

Good evening, yes, my name is roy simonson and I was a member of the rancho master plan committee.

X

uh We worked very hard with the city for many years to maintain a balance between development.

X

And preserving the neighborhood, I emphasize preserving the neighborhood.

X

This community is not just for the rancho; it is also for all of burbank to enjoy.

X

We welcome everybody from burbank to come down and part of that enjoyment is the recreation aspect.

X

And I can only stress that, taking the changing the zoning and taking away that residential.

X

Aspect would I don't think it would be a good thing for the city too many people put in too.

X

Many uh too much effort over the years to try and do exactly that, and it seems like this never stops.

X

So I'm back on trying to put my two cents in we've already lost a lot of the aspect of recreational.

X

As you know, the pickwick is gone. Two major horse stables have gone out of business.

X

And we all also now uh with with the covet and everything it's made it very difficult.

X

And my heart goes out to the stavert family. uh I understand that the business got very hard.

X

And they they were between a rock and a hard place. But I don't think this is going in the spirit of.

X

Preservation, uh not all of burbank, could come and enjoy this recreational area. It.

X

Would simply be for the uh of people buying these townhouses anyway, I urge you to try and come up.

X

With some way of preserving what we have, thank you very much. Thank you next speaker.

M

Our next caller is ellen ruskin welcome hello, elon, musken renter in downtown burbank.

O

People need homes. This city has a terrible housing shortage. Yet here people object to new housing.

O

On the grounds that it will inconvenience their horses, perhaps they are nostalgic for the medieval.

O

Hegemony of equestrian landowners over tenants, the burbank housing element plan puts the city on.

O

The hook for over 8 000 new units in this decade and we are far behind the curve towards that goal.

O

Every time I cite these numbers, someone says we know we're behind, we know we need to build.

O

More but it matters where we put it so this time from the council. I would like to hear something.

O

Specific, where else the city will approve this many homes this year, we've killed a development on.

O

A dead car wash we've killed one on a dead ikea. Where exactly will we approve? People complain.

O

That these houses are too expensive. They even have the gall to claim that adding supply in a.

O

Shortage will make them more expensive, which is saying that restricting supply holds prices down.

R

This defies both logic and science. Study after study has shown that adding even luxury housing.

R

Slows rising prices because if new units don't get built, wealthy buyers bid up the old ones.

O

If affordability is truly the neighbor's objection, then I'd like to hear about the.

O

Possibility of putting affordable housing at twice the density there. Thank you.

C

Thank you next speaker.

M

Our next color is alyssa cunningham welcome good evening.

O

There is no doubt that these 96 proposed units will help the city of burbank meet.

O

Its housing numbers and to be sure I do not object to new housing, whether.

O

It's for sale or for rent. I simply object to it on a parcel that is not designated to be residential.

O

Further, it is not accurate for the developer to state that this project will be for young families.

O

At market price, which the developer has indicated, he will be pricing these at.

O

It will not be affordable for a typical young family burbank and most of the surrounding.

O

Communities have not been affordable at market rates for young families, since roughly 2012.

O

The developer statement of limited housing for sale is correct for the entire county of.

O

Los angeles and beyond, it has nothing to do with burbank. Specifically, let's be honest here: sb 35.

O

Is simply a tool for investors and developers to strip away local control and allow them to profit.

O

Handsomely without sb 35, this developer would have the usual process to get approval, which would have.

O

Included meeting with the community and the rancho review board, the great city of burbank has always.

O

Understood the value of our diverse neighborhoods for all our citizens, barranco remains one of the.

O

Few cities, which still provides single-family residential areas in which horses may be kept.

O

For many decades, the city of burbank, through its general plan and rancho master plan, has committed.

O

To preserve and maintain all existing dedicated horse keeping property in the city. Furthermore, as.

O

Stated in the general plan, it is policy to protect these areas from encroachment by any incompatible.

O

Land use which could adversely impact the use of horsekeeping property for equestrian related.

O

Activities, the pickwick property has special and specific zoning and usage, that is by design. It is.

O

The only parcel in all of burbank dedicated for commercial recreation, which serves all of burbank.

O

With the assistance of the previous owner of pickwick, this zoning was specifically created to.

O

Work in concert with the surrounding parcels, and indeed with the entire city. Please do not let this.

O

Die on your watch, while our state legislators are clearly to blame for voting in sb 35, you have the.

O

Power to determine this project does not qualify for sb, 35 processing and, in turn, uphold decades of.

O

Careful planning that makes this city so great for all its citizens. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker.

M

Our next caller is sarah summerfield welcome, hi, yes, okay, so my husband and I have.

O

Moved here from silver lake in december 2021, although I haven't lived here long, I I have feel.

O

Like I have to speak up, I live 400 west riverside drive. We moved here to get out of the city.

O

Watching the horses go by from our bedroom window, I love that my husband was so excited.

O

And now I found out about this project, and it's just this besides me. I don't understand why this.

O

Is happening, and I also agreed with the speaker before this- that's really all I have to say.

O

I just had to say something. Thank you. Thank you next speaker.

M

Our next caller is cass lyons.

N

Welcome uh good evening mayor, thank you and good evening to the city council members, uh my name.

O

Is kath lyons, I'm a 16 and a half year resident of the rancho in burbank. I'm also a horse owner.

O

And I'm calling in this evening to urge you beg you to vote no on this developmental plan.

O

The points I'm going to make are very similar to the beautiful articulations of my other rancho.

O

Burbank uh residents that I am so proud to be a part of this evening to hear everybody speak up.

O

uh So, with the increase of traffic up to 200 more vehicles, this would make horseback riding.

O

Dangerous in this area, I live on linden avenue across from riverside drive in main street.

O

And I cross that intersection almost every day to access the swinging bridge that leads to.

O

Trails in griffith park uh on my street alone, there are about eight other horses and riders.

O

Going up and down my street several times a day, my granddaughters also ride this route.

O

So my question that I would put to you as council members to each and every one of you.

O

Is this with the increase in traffic? Would you feel comfortable allowing your children.

O

Or your grandchildren to get up on a 1200 pound animal at the intersection of riverside in maine.

O

And to cross that street during rush hour traffic morning or evening, we are not as rancho residents.

O

Just being really precious about trying to protect our equine neighborhood from development.

O

We are horse people horse folk who know the nature of our horses. This is not a question of.

O

If an accident happens on main street riverside involving horse rider and vehicles, this is a.

O

Question of when, if this is allowed to go through and be developed, please cast your vote on behalf.

O

Of safety for the children and the adult writers in the ranch show. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker.

M

Our next caller is herbert care. Welcome. Thank you. uh Like it's data, my name is herbert care.

W

I live on south griffith park drive just south of alameda. I have two small children and um this.

W

Development um to say that 10, affordable housing units will make a dent in california's housing.

W

Crisis is ludicrous. There's over, I believe it was last stated: 13 million houses short or about that.

W

And to say that 10 units is actually going to make a difference. It's a bold face. Why the entire idea.

W

Of more units for california is, like other people, said just money. It's just a streamlined idea to.

W

Make developers money? We all know this. um As far as traffic goes, we've already asked for traffic.

W

Studies on our streets, because we have almost been hit numerous times when walking my small.

W

Children down to the park on the corner, that park is already being utilized by people that are not.

W

Residents of this community, which is fine for the most part, but they do leave somewhat of a mess.

W

um And then you're going to bring in 96 more units- let's say: average family income for a.

W

25 year old, according to the statistics of the california census, under the u.s census, bureau.

W

Is, uh I believe, was 70 thousand dollars. That's for two income family, which means that those houses.

W

Would have to sell for half of that thirty five thousand a year, um I know still upwards of seven.

W

Hundred and eight hundred thousand dollars a piece uh for a three-story house, that's ridiculous! That.

W

They're actually going to sell for those prices. um That was a quick math, because I was also watching.

W

My two kids, while trying to listen to this meeting um the fact that there's only been one meeting.

W

It's also very disturbing. uh We moved in with my wife and my all my kids weren't born yet, but.

W

About four or five years ago now, and people don't buy in the community thinking that everything that.

W

They love about is going to be taken and torn away from them, especially without consent and.

W

Lots of consent is a large part of society today. So remember that this bill was passed.

W

Down by people in san francisco or sacramento that have no idea what any community is like.

W

In the area- and they were just forcing you to do things- that they say that they think is good.

W

um And that's about it. I just want to call in and voice my concern about this proposed bill like.

W

Other people have said: three-story houses- there's nothing around here like that or townhouses.

W

I think the biggest thing we have the two-story apartment complex in that same area.

W

And um yeah I mean if they actually propose something realistic and if you look closely.

W

At some of the sb-35 measures they do fail to meet them, um so I'd encourage you to not be.

W

Threatened by lawsuits, I've been threatened by numerous lawsuits throughout my life and.

W

They never actually go anywhere. um Developers might do because they more money on the line.

W

But, like I said, 10 units is a ridiculous amount to claim that to make a difference.

W

And I do live in the rancho community. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker.

M

Our next caller is sandy hubbard welcome. Thank you. My name is sandy hubbard and I've been a.

O

Pickwick bowl league member for eight years for identification purposes only. I advise you that I'm.

O

A los angeles, neighborhood council board member chair of its planning and land use committee and.

O

Am opposed to this project in its current form, the public open space, dedication that burbank.

O

Has provided the pickwick center is unique and has been special to community members for many years.

O

The loss of this open space and the impact to the equestrians in the local area is incalculable and.

O

Cannot be reversed once the project is approved, while housing is indeed a problem in california.

O

There's actually an abundance of market rate housing. If anyone thinks that just building more.

O

Housing will ensure a trickle-down effect. They simply need to look at housing in hong kong, london.

O

New york, san francisco and other very dense neighborhoods to know that this information.

O

Is not factual. The only way to ensure that affordable housing is built would be to require.

O

That 100 of a project be built as affordable housing, burbank's downtown plan to add more.

O

Housing would take advantage of current transit and makes much better sense for higher density.

O

The state's insistence on approving bills, like sb 35 as sb9 sb10, all of which remove public hearing.

O

Requirements that would otherwise permit community voices to be heard by their elected officials is.

O

Truly undemocratic, as the burbank city council has the ability tonight to modify this project.

O

I'd strongly urge you to consider the overall quality of life impacts to your voters and seek.

O

To modify the project's impacts by taking into account the comments, you're hearing, inclusive.

O

Of a public need for maintaining long-term open space, while the city densifies, according to its.

O

Already pre-planned general housing plan. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Next speaker.

M

Her next caller is rebecca females. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you for taking the calls I.

O

Grew up in the rancho riding horses and I no longer live there. But my mother and.

O

Many of my friends are still there. I now work in real estate development and I'm a very big.

O

Fan of development and affordable housing and and fixing the housing shortage. However, this.

O

Is the wrong approach? This project would create more traffic, it would kill the the aesthetic of.

O

The community, the horse property, the community element of it, and it would also create hazards.

O

Riverside drive cannot support that amount of cars. There are already a lot of accidents and.

O

Traffic um and it would just be a detriment to the to the entire area.

O

I think there's plenty of space near ikea and by the media center for larger developments.

O

And if a developer were to come into pickwick and actually support the community values of.

O

Horses and outdoor recreation and become a more sustainable sized project. I think the community.

O

Might actually accept it, utilizing sb 35 is excessive and I think exploitative.

O

Of of the city and of the nature of the law threatening to sue the council, members is bullying.

O

And I think this needs to be reevaluated, so thank you so much. Please vote no on this.

C

Thank you next speaker.

M

Our next caller is robin hawks. Welcome. Hi, thank you for taking my call. My name is robin, and I.

P

Live on south mariposa street, I'm right between riverside and the l.a river, so pickwick is less.

O

Than a five-minute walk from my house, my husband and I have been burbank residents since 2009.

P

And we purchased our home in the rancho in 2018., as others have said, rancho is just it's there's.

P

Nothing like it, we love living here special, doesn't even begin to cover how we can describe.

P

This neighborhood, um I wanted a home with space to keep animals, so my husband works at the studios.

O

So the rancho presented a workable compromise for both of us. I never imagined that I'd be.

O

Able to happily keep animals in a home that also affords my husband, a reasonable commute to work.

O

um But the rancher did provide that for us. We were actually house hunting for two years and.

O

Made offers on two other rancho properties before we finally purchased our home. We have two horse.

P

Dolls and a small turnout in our backyard and they are not empty and for the record we are.

O

Both in our early 40s, which puts us squarely in that middle-aged demographic, like almost everyone.

P

Else is spoken tonight. I'm strongly opposed to this project. It really doesn't make any sense.

P

For the rancho and as discussed before, it's not even zoned for housing, I'm not opposed to.

O

Building and I understand the need for housing um to the effect, my husband and I have done our.

O

Part by converting our garage to an edu, and that is expected to pass final inspection this week.

O

But we need to support responsible building and on a parcel that makes sense. There are already condos.

O

And apartments all up and down riverside and a busy private school in the immediate area. So we.

O

Are not short of housing in this area? Traffic is already very very busy, not only at rush.

O

Hour but all day long, adding 96 new units to this neighborhood would increase traffic exponentially.

O

Which would not only put horse and rider at risk, but also students at the neighboring lila school.

O

Not to mention the parking issues and just to add, as I was holding your uh your hold.

O

Music at the city says that california is in a drought and we need to conserve water.

P

If our current residences are being urged to conserve water, I don't know why we would consider.

O

Allowing 96 new units to be built, thank you for taking my call. Thank you next speaker.

M

Our next caller is blanca guzman welcome, hi good evening. um First, I want to thank you for letting.

O

Me voice my concern um in regards to this project. I'm a horseshoer and I'm also a caretaker for a.

O

Lot of the horses in the area and I'm very concerned with this project in regards to my.

O

Safety and horseback riding I already deal with a lot of traffic right now, currently, with all.

O

The other condominiums in the area, I believe that this project would probably raise the.

O

Stakes in danger of just crossing the street, from maine to riverside and just around the area, so.

O

I'm sorry I'm a bit nervous, but that's basically my one of my biggest concerns.

O

And I just hope you guys take that into consideration. I feel very lucky to be working.

O

In that area, and to be a part of that area, it's one of the only areas. um That's equestrian and.

O

It's nice that it's been kept that way, but I feel that the more development that happens.

O

We lose that uh burbank rancho loses that charm, um and so I just want all those things.

O

To be considered, um I don't think so much it has to do with the fact that you know.

O

There's more residents moving in, but more so just the safety of us horseback riders and.

O

um People that just take care of you know um the animals around there and just.

O

Just making sure that everyone understands that you know you have to slow down for horses when.

O

You know we're crossing or we're on the street. You know um we're forced to use the bike lane.

O

Which can be very dangerous? Because there are a lot of people that don't realize that they have.

O

To slow down or they have to give us a certain amount of space, um so that's all I have to say.

C

Thank you very much next speaker.

M

Our next caller is ron stavert welcome.

U

Mr mayor, how are you in the city council? I appreciate the opportunity to speak.

U

I just wanted to let everyone know that.

U

The staverd family we got involved in pickwick through my grandfather in 1955.

U

And we owned it up until july 16th of last year and not because we wanted to sell. But because.

U

We didn't feel that we had any property rights under the commercial recreation zone.

U

We had a couple of chances to to bring in a partner which would keep this family involved.

U

To develop some units anywhere from 200 to 300, you know it's a lot less than what.

U

Matt's proposing through sb 35, but we did it, we did do the lease with the ice rink, which is I'm.

U

Glad they're keeping that, but more than anything you know the covet situation really impacted us.

U

It was going to shut us down, but it did impact us and the the timing of selling was was was good.

U

But it's not what we wanted and during the covent time I never got one call from.

U

A city council member: how are you doing? Is there anything we can do to help you.

U

If we hadn't and we got charged utility bills for not even using it, because they were allocated to.

U

Us and had to be part of the budget, so I am 100 in favor of what matt is doing and.

U

For those that are worried about the the traffic issues, I did full traffic studies through sequa.

U

Back in 2017 and any sort of residential community will lessen the traffic, so I am.

U

Just voicing my opinion and I'm disappointed that I'm no longer an owner in burbank, but I wish.

U

Wish matt and his team all the best. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker.

M

Our next caller is sylvia mancini.

N

Welcome mayor telemances and the city council, thank you very much for taking the calls and.

O

Listening to the neighbors and different opinions, I just wanted to say that I believe that senator.

O

Portentino and his review of sb 35, I would put more credence to that review than someone who's.

O

A developer, who has obvious financial motive and in terms of the development itself, I'm not.

O

Opposed at all to having affordable housing and more housing in the city, I agree that it's needed.

O

But I think that what is being proposed is both too dense and too tall for this neighborhood. It.

O

Takes away from things as previous people have already stated, and that there is always a need.

O

For a review of traffic parking and noise, as well as having involvement from the community.

O

Which this proposal does not address, it really does not address affordable housing, either.

O

Based on what the going market rates are, and the very small amount of what is proposed as.

O

Affordable housing that is being used more as a way to get what the developer wants not to.

O

Really have affordable housing in the area. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker.

M

Hi our next caller is louis westfall. Welcome, hi thanks for letting me speak, my name is lois.

T

Westball, I am a long time resident of burbank rancho and I am one of those people who crosses.

T

The street right by this at riverside and maine and right now it is you, know, questionable and.

O

Can be dangerous, it's certain especially certain times of the day when traffic's coming through.

O

So my main objection is safety and crossing on horseback at that corner. The bourbon grand show.

O

I don't know if anybody has traveled around, but it is unique not only to california but.

O

I would I would really say to the world: I mean I've traveled around in other countries. There's.

O

Nothing like the country in the city, and I think, preserving it and preserving the land use, is a.

O

Huge thing that burbank should be pushing beyond anything else and with the pickwick development.

T

I would say another huge thing to preserve is the commercial. You know that is a commercial um uh you.

T

Know fun, you know, I'm just escaping me what it's called right now, um but anyways having pickwick.

O

There having the ice rink there having the meeting space there used to be a great restaurant there. It.

O

Was such a great place to go and visit, and it still is, that would be a real shame and a huge.

O

Loss not only to burbank but to the surrounding areas that use that space. Also people from outside.

O

Of burbank come into burbank and they shop at pavilions and they buy a starbucks and they go.

O

Out to breakfast- and they wouldn't be coming here- if it wasn't for the horses, so I think preserving.

O

The horses in this community should be the number one issue for our city council to keep burbank.

O

As wonderful as it is, and then just another thing to throw in, there is questionable use of.

O

Our infrastructure and that being sewer and electric and water were entering into.

O

A serious issue with water restriction and I just wonder if all of that has been considered- that's.

O

Beyond my knowledge, but from what I would question I would say: how can we sustain? You know a complex.

O

This large, so those are my two things and I just wanted to to thank you all for letting me speak.

C

Thank you next speaker.

M

Thank you. Our next caller is lisa dyson welcome. um Thank you, mr mayor and city council members for.

O

Hearing our comments on this issue, I walk around the rancho, probably five days a week near pickwick.

O

And I have to say: yes, we do need more affordable housing in burbank, but the pickwick site.

O

Is not the appropriate place for this there's already a lot of traffic that backs up and.

O

Down riverside drive and also on main street, we have several actually many schools in this area.

O

And the additional traffic is a danger to the school kids walking to school.

O

And to all pedestrians by cyclists and equestrians, so I'm asking you to please.

O

Consider turning down the pickwick development project, as is thank you.

C

Thank you next speaker.

M

Our next caller is emily gabiletti welcome. Thank you for the opportunity to comment council.

Y

Members first I'd like to say that that the rancho master plan was adopted into the land use element.

Y

The thing that wasn't adopted into the land use element was an illustrative booklet.

Y

But if you read the adopting resolution, as stated by elisa cunningham,.

Y

You will see that it is, and has been a part of the land use element of the general plan.

Y

Secondly, this project is inconsistent with the objective standards that the staff laid.

Y

Out tonight and the city can make the required findings to deny the project.

Y

Because it does not comply with sb 35, sb, 330 and housing accountability act.

Y

You should be have a letter that was written on my behalf detailing that out, but I want to cover.

Y

About five points with you, the applicant has not completed a sewer capacity analysis, even though.

Y

Public works asked for it back on september, 29 2021, and it was contained in the staff report back.

Y

To the developer, dated november twenty twenty one, why is this important? Because, as some of you know,.

Y

The beechwood fourth main and pump station have been a significant problem in the city of burbank.

Y

For the last eight or nine years, including an over 11 million dollar replacement of the.

Y

Pump station in force, maine and ongoing and continuous problems as late as 2019.

Y

Why is that significant? It's reflective of a broader issue in the city which is shown in.

Y

The recent housing element- the draft environmental impact report for the housing element, identifies.

Y

The city's wastewater treatment capacity impacts as significant and unavoidable, and it says.

Y

Potentially significant impacts could result on a project specific basis with no feasible mitigation.

Y

At the current plan level, therefore, the impacts would be significant and unavoidable. You cannot.

Y

Make a decision tonight about this because you do not have the fall of the evidence in front of you.

Y

And I'd like to point out that the developer finally filed and paid a fee for the sewer.

Y

Capacity analysis, three months after receiving the report from the city that it was required.

Y

And he paid his fee on march 29th, barely three weeks before this hearing tonight.

Y

You do not have this information in front of you and the record is full of problems.

Y

With wastewater treatment and wastewater pump stations down at beechwood and riverside and.

Y

Mariposa and riverside so without knowing that you have a duty to reject this project. Secondly,.

Y

This project does not implement complete streets. In fact, the project will widen main street beyond.

Y

That required by public works to accommodate more cars in a right turn pocket and the project does.

Y

Not propose any off street trail horse trail to secure equestrian safety. Thank you for that.

C

Your time is up. Thank you thanks, speaker.

M

Our next caller is alyssa feller welcome, hi. Thank you, um hello and thank you to the city council.

O

For letting me speak, I'm a renter in the rancher neighborhood. Unlike many my neighbors, I support.

O

This project, but only to a certain extent, I've been seeing a lot of ukrainian flags and support.

O

For the people of ukraine here in the rancho district, I love to see this, but it signs me to.

O

Think that if a refugee came to the los angeles area to start a new life, they would be priced out.

O

Of burbank and the rancher district, specifically a majority of the houses, condos and townhouses.

O

In this area are over a million dollars and it's impossible to find anything under 500 000, even for.

O

Renters, like me, everything is over 1500 a month. I am a single adult working in the entertainment.

O

Industry I make what I would consider a good salary, but even with a decent amount of savings.

O

I still can't dream of buying anything in this neighborhood. I've actually panicked that if my.

O

Rent goes up anymore. I would have to leave burbank a city that I love living in. What.

O

We need in burbank is affordable housing, but we need more than just these 10 new, affordable units.

O

This is supposed to be a community for everybody, but now it's a community for only the rich. If you.

O

Love your neighbors, you want them to keep. You would want to keep on living in a city.

O

And you'd want others to become burbank residents and we need to make housing affordable for that to.

O

Happen I would support this project if there were more affordable units or if the entire project had.

O

Some kind of price cap for each unit, uh even more units like condos instead of townhouses, would help.

O

And also, just as a side note, I've already heard multiple callers say that three stories is too.

O

Much and unlike anything else in this neighborhood, there actually is already.

O

It's right across the street at 12 the 1200 riverside apartments. They are three stories.

O

It's not something too radical and if anything going up in stores decreases, the footprint of.

O

A condo uh thank you for taking my call and have a good rest of your night. Thank you next speaker.

M

Our next caller is liz, frank welcome hello city council of burbank.

O

Thank you for taking my call and thank you for for allowing all of us to speak about this.

O

Issue which, obviously, as you know, is a very emotional one for the people that live in.

O

This area, but also for the people of burbank. As you all know, you, we all love burbank and it's.

O

Our special little heaven, and especially in the rancho department um uh area, I live in a town.

O

Home right at the parkside equestrian state, literally across the street, from this proposal.

O

And um you know I love our little bit of heaven and burbank horse country. I don't have a horse.

O

Right now, but I love living near horses and we've lived in this quiet, peaceful and unique.

O

Neighborhood for many years and basically I feel like I'm being assaulted, with the pickwick gardens.

O

Property situation: my concern is about having a large condo development right across the street.

O

uh As you know, the traffic on riverside drive in the afternoons, especially from the studio people.

O

And from other people, it's like a parking lot instead of using the 134 adding all of these cars.

O

To that area, especially in the morning or at night, is going to be even more of a nightmare than it is.

Z

Right now it's like a freeway um and then the parking in the general area.

Z

Is just can be really bad. uh We've been in such a unique area and burbank is so great.

O

And having a bowling alley across the street has been so fun and an interesting thing to have.

O

Across the street- but I know it's going away, but please please reconsider what you put there. I I'm.

O

I'm just voting in with my heart that you guys will do the right thing and create.

O

Something else there. Thank you very much I'll. Let you go now. Thank you very much. Next speaker.

M

Our next caller is cj bailey welcome.

Z

Hi um I'm cj bailey and I am a youth horsemanship instructor in the rancho community.

O

I am not sure if everyone on the council is aware of the youth activities that happen in the rancho.

O

And the incredible positive impact that they have in the community and in the world as a whole.

O

I'm bringing this up to you because I'm concerned about any development happening in this specific.

O

Community, I do appreciate our housing crisis greatly. However, I also think that.

O

I ask you to please be mindful of the crisis and impact that developing the rancho.

O

Would have on use in this community, we have grown junior olympic team riders.

Z

Doctors, veterinarians, military service people, civil servants and more through.

O

Various horsemanship programs that this community provides contrary to the mistaken opinions of some.

O

Horsemanship is not an activity for only the elite or those stuck in prior time. There are programs.

O

And scholarships available in the community to all with a sincere desire to participate.

O

We even have high school credited riding leagues. Many of us are 4-h alumni. We embrace and live.

O

By 4-h principles we teach 4-h ethics and encourage 4-h participation. We even both keep.

O

Allowing further the furthering of this or any other developing of the historic equestrian.

O

Rancho will gravely negatively impact countless youth, I'm going to reach you a little bit about.

O

What you will serve if you choose to stand behind the protection of youth engaging in.

O

Local equine activities in this community for h, I'm going to read you a little bit about 4-h.

O

First, I want to say: 4-hers are four times more likely to give back to their communities. They are.

O

Two times more likely to make healthier choices, they are two times more likely to participate in.

O

Stem activities 4-h grows. True leaders, 4-h empowers young people to be true leaders.

O

True leaders are young people who have confidence, know how to work well with others.

O

Can endure through challenges and will stick with a job until it gets done.

O

In 4-h, we believe true leaders aren't born they're grown 4-h programs. Hand-On approach gives young.

O

People guidance tools and encouragement and then puts them in the driver's seat to make.

O

Great things happen. Thank you very much. Your time is up. Thank you for calling next speaker.

Z

I'll wait for my q. Thank you. Our next caller is lauren ewing. Thank you. Welcome.

O

Thank you good evening, everybody. I appreciate you taking my call so based on the representatives of.

O

The pickwick estate and this legal expert it seems like I am the target audience for this development.

O

I felt compelled to speak as I'm looking to move back to burbank, I'm in need of reasonably priced.

O

Housing and as a single lady in my late 30s, it's really tough trying to navigate a very.

O

Aggressive and discouraging housing market, however, and most importantly, I'm also a burbank resident.

O

Through and through I was born and raised in the rancho, I grew up riding horses and I still do.

O

I'm an emt and get to see the consequences of increased traffic volume and I urge everyone.

O

To see the mess that is marvelous as 2017 traffic calming road diet in which vehicle.

O

Versus pedestrian deaths doubled in the years following its implementation. Further, I intended.

O

The 2017 meeting in which it was determined the area was not appropriate for development.

O

It truly saddens me to see these developers find a sliver of a foothold to push this.

O

Again, using sp-35 as a crutch, it was mentioned, the 10 units would be 80 percent of the median la.

O

County price, which doesn't add up, I can't see this occurring where comps such as 1008 west, riverside.

O

Drive a two thousand square foot unit is going for the bargain of one million ten thousand dollars.

O

Median burbank condos, as of 2019, were priced at eight hundred and twenty six thousand dollars.

O

Eighty percent of this median is not affordable for all. Affordability is relative. It's obvious.

O

Who these developers are truly trying to attract under the veil of sb-35? And it's certainly not me.

O

It's not for bank rancho residents, it's not the preservation of the rancho and its heritage. This.

O

Tactic is disappointing and pathetic, and I would much rather see the rancher preserved and have a.

O

Monstrosity with 10 empty gestures constructed in the name of fair housing as a single woman.

O

Searching for affordable housing: this is not the solution. I vehemently oppose this project and the.

O

Despicable attempts to pander to my desire to become a homeowner, as well as the threats of.

O

Litigation to my city and its representatives, city council, do right by the tax paying burbank.

O

Residence and represent our interests. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker.

M

Our next caller is kathy ewing. Welcome, oh thank you very much, um the the first speaker that we had.

O

Mr matthew, awaken for the developer, uh to quote him specifically, he said.

O

This development is an important asset to the equestrian community, except that he failed and.

O

Neglected to give us any details, I would like to know how this project will be a unique asset.

O

To the equestrian community, and I hope that the council will ask him to provide more details.

O

Before this presentation is concluded tonight, thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker.

M

Our next caller is paul herman welcome. Thank you good evening, council members. My name is.

AA

Paul herman long time, burbank resident local business owner I've talked a lot in the past.

AA

About the need for local control of our housing policy here in the city of burbank.

AA

Unfortunately, due to the nimby advocates that never want to build anything anywhere in burbank.

AA

Our control has been usurped by the brain trust up in sacramento. I'm not a fan of sp 35, but I don't.

AA

See any way around it. In this instance, I've heard the argument that this project doesn't conform.

AA

With sp35 because of pickwick properties and zone for residential well, I reviewed our general plan.

AA

And housing element, and that argument is patently false. It's clear as data that far for residential.

AA

Development, the commercial recreation zoning where the project is located, 0.60 or 20 units per acre.

AA

Once again, I'm not a fan of sp 35, but the law is the law. The whole purpose of sb 35 was to expedite.

AA

Projects just like this, with ministerial approval, so city councils, just like you.

AA

Don't have a say in the approval so long as the project conforms with the city's development.

AA

Design standards, frankly, I don't know how you can have a special meeting about this project at all.

AA

Because per sb 35, you should have no discretion over its approval. Now you can go the route of.

AA

The oakland city council, which voted on sp 35 project in their city and just like oakland the.

AA

City of burbank will get sued by the developer. If you go that route, however, I think you've advocated.

AA

Your fiduciary responsibility to your constituents outside of the rancho. Why should all the residents.

AA

Outside the rancho have to flip the legal bills for the rancho folks, because the rancho folks will.

AA

Never let any anyone build anything in their backyards. The people that live in the rancho.

AA

Have to remember that they are part of this city too, and if we are going to have a serious.

AA

Conversation about our housing crisis- maybe they will have to bear a little bit of the burden as.

AA

Well, in all honesty, though, this project won't be a burden to the rancho it'll be a blessing. It is.

AA

Low density and low impact it includes for sale, housing that our city desperately needs and will.

AA

Encourage pride of ownership: yes, the naysayers pun intended always point that old stocking horse.

AA

Double pun, intended of traffic, I haven't seen the traffic studies and, frankly, I don't need to.

AA

To tell you that the impact on traffic from 96 new dwelling units will be negligible at best.

AA

I guarantee no one in the ranch will even notice the difference that this project is built.

AA

You know people keep pointing out that the zoning for the pickwick project is commercial recreation.

AA

And not residential, but what, if a developer decided to build an amusement park instead of.

AA

Low-Density housing, what do you think the rancho people would say about traffic, then? Thank you.

C

Thank you next speaker.

M

Our next caller is lisa blair welcome, hi, uh thank you for taking our call burbank city council. We.

O

Appreciate you all um I've been a burbank rancho resident. I was fortunate enough to buy into this.

O

uh Neighborhood, my friends all asked me why you buy in there. I said because it's cool at.

O

The time they didn't quite get it, then they would come and they would see the neighborhood and now.

O

Everybody's coming, the housing values have skyrocketed in this neighborhood. I could put a.

O

Sign out of my yard and sell my house in probably a hot minute, but that that's not the point of.

O

The we in this area don't want to sell our home. We want to live in this area.

O

And enjoy all that it has to offer and when we bought in this area, we bought knowing what.

O

Was in this area that the equestrian center, the pickwick center, the skating rink, uh the.

O

Studios riverside drive, alameda drive all these corridors, which do impact the area.

O

And everybody keeps talking about riverside drive is, is, is a traffic hazard alameda, since I've lived.

O

Here two people have been killed on that street. One was a bike rider and one was a motorcycle.

O

Rider and that's because of the heavy traffic that comes daily in the in the evenings, mostly.

O

So it's not only so mariposa and maine or a block away from where those two accidents happen.

O

And that and that borders the other side of riverside drive. So when, when you talk about.

O

Building 96 homes, which is great: let's build 96 homes but hey, let's not build it on two major.

O

Corridors that people are already impacted greatly in driving on to and from work. um How about? We.

O

Grab some other area, why is it this area that city staff has already passed and.

O

Pushed through and let this developer mr berkey say well, change is inevitable.

O

You're right change is inevitable. I've seen it my property taxes have gone up exponentially.

O

Because the change in the neighborhood and and we're paying higher taxes, I was told by.

O

La county assessor that they taxes fifty thousand dollars more a parcel, because this is the rancho.

O

So, if we're being taxed more money, because this is the rancho and the aesthetic of the rancho, I would.

O

Think the burbank city council would want to save the aesthetic of this rancho and not allow one.

O

uh Scott waker walker to just up and up threaten you. I mean it's offensive: how the how? How.

O

Him and the developer and everybody on the city staffer on a first name basis, but yet you've left.

O

Left our residents and your voters on basically a last name basis, we're the last ones to know.

O

And the last ones to be notified. Thank you. Thank you for your call. Your time is up next speaker.

M

Our next caller is cecilia wagers, welcome good evening, mayor and council members. um I want to.

Z

Share a little bit of humor with you before I start, I've been on hold for quite a long time.

Z

And I keep getting the message about how we're in a drought and we need to save water, which makes.

Z

Me question: if you're going to okay a 96 unit, a development- I don't know, maybe two toilets two.

Z

Showers in each unit or in the so you're talking about 192, toilets and 192 showers or baths, doesn't.

Z

Make sense to okay uh to me, just common sense says we can't handle something. This large right now.

Z

I am a rancho resident a homeowner. um I know I'm not naive enough to think that pickwick is.

Z

Going to stay and someone's going to rescue it and buy it from the developer, I know something.

Z

Different is going to have to be built there, but this development is too.

Z

Dense, we don't have the water and we don't have the sewer to handle this. We just don't.

Z

The traffic goes without saying, riverside and alameda are nightmares in the evening, and I also.

Z

Have to go with senator portentino is saying that this project does not qualify for sb-35.

Z

So I don't know who decided it did, but I kind of think that the state senator would know.

Z

Whether it qualifies or not, I hope this evening, if you don't vote it down you at least.

Z

Put it off and make the developer come back with more realistic plans for that plot of land.

Z

It can't we can't handle it. Our infrastructure cannot handle a unit units that many units in that.

Z

Neighborhood there may be other areas in the city that can we can't so I would ask that you think of.

Z

The future, the decision that you're making tonight will affect all future decisions of development in.

Z

Burbank and just keep that in mind and know that the phrase with power comes great responsibility.

Z

You have the power, it is now your responsibility to protect the city of burbank. Thank you.

C

Thank you next speaker.

M

Okay, our next caller is emile. Herrick welcome. Thank you so much. Mr mayor and city council.

AB

Members, I don't want to sound like a broken record, but I do want to identify myself. I'm a.

AB

I'm a homeowner at 984 west riverside right across from this development. I'm a horse owner, I'm also.

AB

An attorney I'm very interested in this process. I know you've heard a million times how unique.

AB

The rancho is, but I it truly is- I moved here from malibu to buy a place to have this kind of.

AB

Community I hear people from outside the rancho kind of looking at us as we're somewhat elitist.

AB

That's just not the case. The rancho is a jewel for all of burbank. It attracts people to that.

AB

Area attracts people to the city that want to come. They want to see the riding events and they want.

AB

To participate when I say this is a jewel, I can't state this clearly enough. There are other riding.

AB

Communities in the in los angeles area, there are malibu they're, palos verdes, they don't have the.

AB

Public access that we do here in burbank, there's multiple stables here, there's multiple places you.

AB

Can rent horses and ride in our beautiful hills? This will go away. It may go away anyway. In the far.

AB

Future, but it certainly will go away a lot sooner if this development comes here, mass.

AB

Property mass developments like this are simply inconsistent with equestrian activity. People.

AB

Come to the rancho, they bring their horses here for this kind of lifestyle. They don't come here.

AB

To have massive condo built projects, in terms of I think I heard the developer, or maybe the pickwick.

AB

Former owner say that this will have no impact on traffic. That's ludicrous! You bring in more people.

AB

You're going to have more you're, going to obviously have more traffic this, the community.

AB

The rancho community is very, very united against this project. Nobody wants this here other than.

AB

The developer who's for obvious reasons, he's in it for the money, his platitudes, otherwise I mean.

AB

I don't think anybody's naive enough to be fooled by any of that. You all are elected representatives.

AB

You're our guardians, we voted you into this position. We really really want you to represent.

AB

Our interest and to reject this development, and thank you for your time. Thank you next speaker.

M

Our next caller is simon, hamill. Welcome.

C

Mr hamill you're not coming in clear you're all broken up, but I thought.

C

You know, let's try. Let's try a little bit later you we can't hear what you're saying.

C

Okay, all right next speaker.

M

Our next caller is evan mann welcome hi. Thank you. um I just wanted to say that this proposed.

AC

Development subverts the actual intent of sb-35. This is not about affordable housing. This is.

AA

About a developer using a new law which the land developers lobbied for to make money period end.

AA

Of story, 10 quote-unquote, affordable housing units in the context of a construction undertaking. This.

AA

Large is a joke. It's just laughable. A project of this size and scope would forever alter the rancho.

U

More, moreover, uh it would establish a precedent that zoning laws could be upended throughout the.

AC

City using sb 35, any commercial or industrial land could be made residential without the.

O

Input of the community- and this is incredibly problematic for a whole host of reasons not not.

AA

Only for current burbank residents, but also for those who might want to move here in the future.

O

And as a long time, burbank and rancho resident, I urge you to vote against changing the zoning.

AC

Of the pickwick land, because I I want you to think about the larger implications of using sb.

AC

35 to to subvert the voice of the people well well, this might seem like a relatively small.

O

Matter at the moment, I really think that this decision tonight and the precedent it.

AC

Sets is a pivotal moment for the future of the city. Thank you very much for your time.

C

Thank you next speaker.

M

The next caller is simon, hamill, welcome again hi good evening again. um I wanted to express that.

AC

I did agree with the developer that you know it's important to build ownable housing, but that that's.

AC

Not the only reason people are leaving california, everything is interconnected and just one example.

AC

Is kind of how insanely difficult and tedious it is to start and say, run a business in california.

AC

And it's easier to set up elsewhere. You also, you know, can't use enough water to keep your.

AC

Plants alive here and to that end, my call really is about the loss of democratic freedom. You heard.

AC

The lawyer call in and remind you that they are banking, on the fact that you all had your rights.

AC

Stripped away to charge enough for infrastructure to decide what kind of city you want to have to.

AC

Basically govern yourselves, it's happening in different ways across the country. The removal of.

AC

Democratic norms for a more centralized top-down government- and you heard the lawyer remind you.

AC

That, if you don't do what you're told by people who don't live in the city, you will be punished.

AC

I asked the council to contact our own assembly member, laura friedman and demand that she be a.

AC

Part of this meeting because she chose to take your rights away from you, not her staff person.

AC

But that she attended herself, she is the one who decided we should not govern ourselves and gave.

AC

Into the development lobby that will be lined in their pockets as they take from the now powerless.

AC

Citizenry across california, she voted for sb-35. Please let us know which, if any of you did contact.

AC

Her and what her response was, I guess it's another point. I agree with the developer. Change is hard.

AC

It's hard to lose your right to vote, get used to it. The state of california will hurt you.

AC

The arena numbers are unfortunate and they're an unfortunate current law because, but they also.

AC

Are a fabrication excuse me and they're totally ignorant of the climate challenges for which there.

AC

Are no answers and no real solutions of any kind on the horizon? The city is about to have already.

AC

Approved housing projects come online, they will consume tens of millions of gallons of new indoor.

AC

Fresh water every single month forever. Finally, I want to ask what is the metric for when the.

AC

So-Called housing crisis ends. What is the housing price point? What is the available housing stock.

AC

Number does it matter if water is rationed, if you can no longer cross the city in a reasonable.

AC

Amount of time does it matter if there are enough schools or if the class sizes are too big or.

AC

Or any of those things, my guess is, there is no answer and there is no end and that our right.

AC

To democratic process has been permanently horse, traded in our legislature for something.

AC

Between ideology and a development lobby handout you've heard from your residents the people who.

AC

Paid for the infrastructure and who actually live in this place, what it is that they want.

AC

You approve the airport apartments with less evidence, so I'm not sure how you can deny this one.

AC

Good luck with your choice about what happens in our city. If you really even have one.

AC

Thanks for taking the time good night, thank you next speaker.

E

Mr may I'm confirming that was our last caller. If you just give me a moment.

E

Okay, okay, there's no more callers than queue, so we can go ahead and close public comment.

C

Thank you. There be no further public comment. I now declare the public comment period closed with the.

C

Representative of the community development department like to make any further comments.

J

Thank you, mr mayor I'll, go ahead and start and then my colleague will step in as well.

J

um There was quite a few comments and I'll try to group them in the best. I.

J

Can hopefully I don't miss anything. One of the uh first comments that came up was about.

J

Requiring a traffic analysis and unfortunately, we can't require a traffic analysis with this.

J

Project, as mentioned before, because this project is exempt from um sql review, which, which we.

J

Would require traffic analysis typically, but we can't with this project. So we can't look at that.

J

There's also comments about changing the zoning and changing the general plan. I just want to.

J

Emphasize that the zoning for the site and the general plan for the site are not being changed.

J

The zoning for the site allows residential with discretionary approval for up to 20 years to the.

J

Acre and the 0.6 that they are, and so so does the general plan designation for the site, sp 35 does.

J

Does say state that we cannot require discretionary review of these projects, so that's.

J

Why this project's being done as a ministerial design review process, which was established.

J

Separately from our typical discussion review process.

J

There's also comments about density and height requirements.

J

Just to again, the project is meeting the density requirements of the underlying zoning and.

J

General plan designation and it's meeting the height requirements of the zoning designation.

J

AD

Good evening, mayor vice mayor, anthony and council members, one thing I want to focus in on because.

AD

I've heard it quite a bit before we move any further. Could you identify yourself? Yes, sir.

AD

My apologies uh fred ramirez assistant director in planning, uh I'm part of the community development.

AD

Department, thank you and I work with my colleague here, scott plambeck, our planning manager.

AD

So I I wanted to touch on the uh reference that's been made to uh senator portentino's letter of.

AD

October 7 2021. specifically uh there's reference to the fact that, in a letter that we wrote to the.

AD

Developer, we identified the fact that the land use table itself didn't note the residential.

AD

um Designation on the land use table per se, but as a planning manager, scott plambeck correctly noted.

AD

In 10-1 23 46.5 of the city's zoning regulations for commercial recreation.

AD

The city back in 2013 adopted a general plan, consistency table and, as part of that,.

AD

Consistency table, which is part of the general plan. It noted that there was an far of 0.6.

AD

And 20 units to the acre that would be allowed in the commercial recreation zone, so that was.

AD

Done right after the adoption of the general plan and the reason for that is to ensure per state law.

AD

That there's consistency between the zoning code and the general plan, so I want to make.

AD

Sure that that is noted, because what I'm not sure exactly what information was presented to uh you.

AD

Know for the senate for the sake of the senator for his review. But that's a key point is that.

AD

Yeah, it might not be noted in the land use table, but it is part of the zoning code and therefore.

AD

Consistent with both the zoning requirement for residential, as well as a general plan,.

AD

In follow-up, I also wanted to note the fact that, in the attachments that you received, 10-12.

AD

Section 300 of local government responsibility. It talks about the requirements for determination of.

AD

Consistency and in those instances where you have inconsistency between the zoning rigs.

AD

And the general plan, the general plan standards hold firm, in other words,.

AD

That's the requirement you're going to have to fall back on, and in this case the general plan.

AD

Does allow residential at this location, similar language is found in attachment, 11-12 65913.4 a.

AD

5, a and b also talk about inconsistencies in the fact that you have to.

AD

Look at those inconsistencies and ultimately rely on the general plan. Land use designation for the.

AD

Property that allows residential, so I just wanted to make sure I added that to the record as well.

C

Anything else were you through. As far as um some of the questions that um were brought up.

AD

uh Talked about infrastructure, they talked about studies that needed to be done. uh One.

AD

Of the things that's important, I think scott noted in this in the presentation is that the uh under.

AD

These the laws that apply as far as streamline review sql is not applicable to the project.

AD

And as such, those studies that would otherwise come with sql also don't apply to the project.

AD

With that said, there are conditions of approval that require certain requirements for proving up.

AD

The ability to provide proper sewer service we do have subject matter experts available.

AD

To talk about that, we also have other experts to talk about other utilities that were in question.

AD

So I want to make sure you're aware of that. So if you need to ask those questions, there are people.

AD

Here to answer that, thank you, okay, we'll move on to does the applicant or the representative.

C

Wish to make any further comments. You have a maximum time of 10 minutes for rebuttal.

K

Thank you, I'm gonna, let uh I'm gonna let scott burkey go first and then I'll follow up. Thank you.

K

Thank you. Thank you, matt. Thank you, mayor calamontes,.

L

I need to explain my comment on litigation and I apologize for any misunderstanding. It certainly.

L

Wasn't meant as a threat against the city by the applicant. Instead, I was referring to protections.

L

That were recently given to residential projects under sb 330 that allow housing organizations.

L

Such as the yes in my backyard or umb organization and other housing market.

L

Organizations to bring challenges on their own when a project is denied, so I apologize to.

L

uh City council and I apologize to the community uh for any misunderstanding on that point and I.

L

Sit before you here contrite on that issue, and I apologize if I could raise one other legal issue.

L

And then I'll turn it back over to matt, I'd like to say something about the 10 10, affordable units.

L

That some of the community members mentioned so the reason why 10 affordable units is the number.

L

Is because that reflects 10 percent of the overall unit count and that's the sb 35 trigger is 10 and.

L

So it's the requirement. It's the sb 35 requirement in the city of burbank every city. Each city has a.

L

Different classification- and that's where burbank falls is in that 10 range. So with that, why don't.

L

I turn it over to matt. Thank you. Thank you, scott. uh First off, I want to thank the 40 people uh from.

K

The neighborhood that called in uh it's important that they get to voice their opinion and say their.

K

Piece on the project- and I appreciate that um just to follow up with scott I've been involved in real.

K

Estate development for 32 years, I've developed thousands of units throughout california and I've.

K

Never filed a lawsuit in my career of any nature, so that's not the intent that I have when I'm.

K

Moving forward the project I want to address some issues really quick. I think the important one that.

K

Was brought up was traffic and- and I want to- I want to discuss traffic again when I'm presenting.

K

Projects a lot of time, the red residents- they don't look at what the potential of a.

K

Different development could be or what the actual impact of the precise development is, and a lot of.

K

Times they're, looking at a property they're saying well, the pickwick hasn't had normal operations for.

K

Over two years it's been shut down for majority of it due to code restrictions in l.a, county.

K

And so the bear the actual numbers- and I did I did have my traffic engineer- uh review the project.

K

Numbers and when you look at traffic generated from either the existing use, which I'll reference.

K

Or a prescribe a different prescribed use under commercial recreational. Here's what it looks like.

K

The pickwick bowling alley consists of 51 000 square feet of building, including a bar and a.

K

Lounge 427 parking spaces, the ite, the institute of transportation, engineers, trip generation rate.

K

For a bowling alley- and this specifically a bowling alley- is 33 33.33 trips per day.

K

Per 1 000 square feet of space. This equates in a fully functioning bowling alley to seventeen.

K

Hundred tripped ends per day, seventeen hundred the proposed 9016, a multi-family townhome project.

K

Generates 7.32 trips trip ends per unit per day or 703. There's approximately a thousand.

K

Less trips per day generated now, if we looked at a redevelopment of the site because.

K

I don't think anybody will question that the current uses is functionally physically and.

K

Economically obsolescent and ron the owner, I really appreciate his call. He stated that very.

K

Clearly so if the project was redeveloped under a different use, which would be allowed, which would.

K

Be things that are allowed according to the the commercial recreational by right offices, medical.

K

Businesses, uh limited retail, with with a specialty food, store shopping center, other retail shops.

K

Those types of shopping center and office developments could create north of five.

K

To six thousand trips per day, so the impact of alternative developments is much more significant.

K

Than the impact of this, so that's that's issue on the traffic on the off-side improvements we.

K

Are we are conditioned to underground power poles all along riverside drive all along.

K

Main street, that's at a significant cost, we're adding additional right-of-way on main street.

K

And one thing I want to point out as far as the streets are concerned, the safety of those streets.

K

I I I took a look at main street and riverside drive. Those are designated as collector streets on.

K

The city's roadway circulation plan and mobility element of the general plan collectors streets.

K

Have a designated right-of-way of 60 feet within which 36 feet is for traveled way, 36 feet for.

K

The street and 24 feet is for parkway 12 on each side. Riverside drive is currently constructed to.

K

Secondary arterial standards with a right of way of 100 feet with 68 feet of traveled way.

K

And 16 feet of parkways on each side, riverside's already well expanded over what is designated for.

K

So we I we believe that from a traffic standpoint, this is a safe project for the area.

K

It's already been noted that there's three story projects along riverside drive the.

K

Sewer capacity is condition number 205. If you refer to 205, we have to review uh the sewer.

K

Study and we have to make any improvements or reduce the project to accommodate any deficiencies.

K

So that is covered in the conditions of approval, and you know I think, that the final comment- and I.

K

Really want to make this is that I have reviewed previous project approvals and I understand the.

K

Council, in certain instances, has implemented a neighborhood protection program or sort of.

K

A development impact fee on projects that can be assigned to them. I don't think that that council.

K

Has the ability to do that on sb 35 project? That's something that I would not be opposed to.

K

If that money was to go, we have a parkway which is very large around the perimeter of our site.

K

I am more than open to the design of some sort of a horse trail that would be connected and work as.

K

Part of a larger connectivity plan- uh I'm open to that. I am willing to do that and I'm stating.

K

That, on the record, I don't have any problem with that um it can't be conditioned on the project. I.

K

Don't think, but I'm saying that I'll I'll tomorrow, regardless of the response to this project tonight,.

K

That's something I'm willing to do so. uh You know I appreciate everybody's comments. I appreciate.

K

The council um looking at everything- and I think this is a great project and again I really truly.

K

Believe it's going to be an asset to the community, so many of the residents there spoke about.

K

The wonders and the beauties of this area and this district- and I I'm sorry I I stick to my.

K

First statement opening statement, I believe that other families should have the ability.

K

To become a part of it and integrate into it and help it thrive, and I believe they will thank you.

C

Thank you very much. Does the council have any questions of staff or the applicant.

C

Colleagues, uh yes vice mayor.

H

Thank you, mr mayor, and thank you to all the folks who called in um and thank you.

H

To the applicant for coming and giving a great presentation, thank you, staff putting.

H

All of this together and it's a big packet and a lot of work. So I appreciate all the time.

H

That we put into this, I just want to address one thing: real, quick someone mentioned about.

H

Masks and social distancing, my colleague, councilmember schultz has a young child at home.

H

Who is not vaccinated, so he obviously is wearing a mask if my son was not vaccinated, yet he is. I too.

H

Would be wearing a mask we're trying to take as much safety precautions as we have as we can. um We.

H

Have a lot of folks here, working who have done the due diligence getting vaccinated getting boosted.

H

And we never mess with us when we travel in and out so we're taking all precautions.

H

Soon we will be in person in a couple weeks. It will be safe, please I encourage you to.

H

Come down and join us here uh to my questions um first, um actually to to the applicant. I.

H

Wanted to ask mr waken um a couple of folks referenced a meeting on september 14 2017.

H

When did you first get into negotiations with this project? When did you purchase the property.

K

Oh not not until uh 2021 is when I was engaged in the project. I had no involvement in the project.

K

Prior to 2021., did you have a conversation with, I believe mr stavert, the previous owner, about.

H

His plans and what he tried to do was there any conversation about what he was proposing. Of course,.

K

Yes, I I thoroughly reviewed what was previously proposed at the project with a higher density. The.

K

Transitory nature of the multi-family development, the number of units, the fact that the ice rink.

K

Was going to be a part, the overall site as a whole was going to be a part of it, and yes, I reviewed it.

H

And to your knowledge, did mr stavert want to use any part of sb 35 on this, or did that only.

H

Come into effect after you had purchased the property uh after I purchased the property. Okay.

H

Do you remember how that came about like how did you realize that sp 35 could be applied to.

H

To this project, well, sp 35, like a number of other housing bills from sacramento, have.

K

Have been bills that I've been reviewing and keeping track of and looking at different cities.

K

And whether they qualified for sb 35 under a 10 basis or a 50 affordable basis, so it had been.

K

Something that I had reviewed so I check when I check sites. I look for general planner zoning.

K

Consistency within that site has to possibly apply sb35 to it. Did you do that before you.

H

Purchased the property going into it. You knew that you had some idea that sv35 might be applicable.

H

I did okay, all right. Okay, thank you. I I appreciate that information um to the staff.

H

I wanted to ask um former mayor gable, luddy called in and asked about and mentioned.

H

That the land use element was integrated into the master plan. Do you know what she means by that.

J

Good evening, vice mayor um scott plank party manager, um what we did was we implemented the.

J

Parts of the rancho master plan into the zoning ordinance, so it's actually.

J

In the zoning ordinance- and you see it, it's used for for the analysis of tonight's.

J

For the project you see before you tonight, so sections of that are actually.

J

Incorporated into the designing code, if I can, if I can add vice mayor more specifically,.

AD

If you look at attachment, 1-53 exhibit 2. It talks about article 24, rancho master plan zone.

AD

And it talks about uh actually 152 and 153 talk about the requirements uh for the.

AD

Different setbacks, there's also language from the rancho master plan. That is noted on page.

AD

AD

And that one specifically talks about additional requirements within the rancho area when it comes.

AD

To architectural design and landscaping, so those are things that are from the rancho.

AD

Master plan that were codified and put in place as part of the city's zoning code.

AD

And they were used as objective standards in the review of the project, so those are.

AD

The pieces of the rancho master plan that actually got incorporated into.

AD

The city's owning code, now, when was the rancho master plan put together.

H

I mean was that, prior to the adoption of the 2013 general plan,.

H

um Yes, it was sir okay, so we had a rancho master plan and then in 2013 we did a general.

H

Master plan incorporated portions of that into there, but after that, since that point.

H

Council didn't adopt a separate, rancho master plan moving forward. No, that's uh the only thing that.

AD

Is codified and per sb 35 that we can apply is what's in the zoning regulations as adopted.

AD

So uh the sections that we read off, in addition to other sections of the commercial recreation.

AD

Rancho master plan zone- those are the applicable standards that were in effect at the time of the.

AD

Submit of the application we're not aware of any other pieces of the plan that were adopted and.

AD

Subsequently, added to the to the zoning code, okay and then earlier, you had mentioned that.

H

There's an inconsistency on the land use table, so uh the city's zoning land use table, which is kind.

AD

Of the initial, when you go to initially review, land uses, you'll, look at the table and it has.

AD

All the different zones across the top for non-residential in particular and.

AD

Then it'll list the different land uses along the left-hand side, and it goes on for multiple pages.

AD

So that is a document that you initially look at and say: okay, is this use permitted or not? However,.

AD

As noted in in that letter that mr portentino relied on, we identified the fact it's not in the.

AD

Land use table, however, even if that was the only location where it was not listed, and there was.

AD

An inconsistency sp 35 notes that when there's an inconsistency between zoning and the general plan.

AD

The general plan standards basically are the determining factor and the general plan land.

AD

Use allows for density, a residential density of 20 units to the acre at that location.

AD

Subsequent to the letter, and as has been presented previously to council and is included in this.

AD

Staff report: we also have noted the fact that the general plan consistency table, in other words.

AD

The language, that's in the general plan for these type of, like in the case of rancho commercial.

AD

The type of far that's allowed, the maximum allow allowed density was adopted right.

AD

After the adoption of the general plan into the zoning code- and that was purposely done so that.

AD

There was consistency between the zoning and the general plan in doing so, it basically established.

AD

Residential as a permitted use within that zone, even though it is under discretionary review.

AD

But of course sp 35 comes after 2013 and sb 35 says hey when it comes to the code.

AD

If you have a requirement in the general plan, that's inconsistent with the zoning, but the.

AD

General plan allows residential you have to allow ministerial design, review and approval.

AD

Of a residential project that meets the requirements under sp 35, and that is why that.

AD

Asterisk that says, discretionary review in essence is knocked out by the requirements under sb 35.

AD

It says it has to be ministerially, reviewed and approved. Did mr stavert, the previous owner ever.

H

Come to city staff with a project for housing, did we ever get us the only project that.

AD

Has come forth, and even that was in preliminary stages. It wasn't actually formally submitted.

AD

Was uh the proposal I think that's referenced in september of 2017? I believe there was some.

AD

Discussion about that project moving forward that didn't actually come forward as a project there.

AD

Was a separate project that was for a property on mariposa, where there was a general plan float up.

AD

Process for consideration, which is very different right, was prior to sb 35, but that's the project.

AD

That did come to council, but mr staverts preliminary discussion was that about housing.

AD

There was an actual company that was engaged with mr stavert to discuss the possibility of building.

AD

Out a residential project at that location: okay, because sp 35 was signed into law september 29th.

H

2017 right about the same time, he was having those meetings. He never mentioned anything about sb-35.

H

Not that I'm aware of and and to keep in mind if you go back and look at the narrative of 2017, I'm.

AD

Sorry of sp 35 over the first year or so there was discussions as to why developers were or were not.

AD

uh Moving forward with sp 35 projects, and some of it had to do with the fact that.

AD

To exempt yourself from sequa to process the subdivision uh in some instances people had to.

AD

Enter into project labor agreements to do that and some of the developers were wary.

AD

Of the cost implications of doing so up until recently, as the demand for housing has become.

AD

Even more significant and there's such a great housing shortage, we've seen more applications.

AD

So uh you've seen both the one for this particular project, as well as the ones on empire.

AD

And we've gotten other inquiries, so I think it's just the conditions are different now than they.

AD

Were in 2017 when the project was first, I'm sorry when the or the regulations were first.

AD

Put in place that the market conditions are such that now it pencils out, I guess sure. Well, uh mr.

H

Stavert continued to own the property for another, almost four years. He still never brought any other.

H

Housing even that whole time he had it. No, I mean okay, there there's, there's uh real estate agents.

AD

That inquire all the time what can and can't be built here, but as far as mr stavert coming in no.

H

Someone who is inquiring a developer or real estate agent, whatever, if they're looking for.

H

Zoning would they first go to that table to check that be their first look. I think.

AD

It'd be speculative, I think developers do their due diligence. They look at many factors. They.

AD

Look at the general plan: they look at the zoning regulations. They'll, look at the land use tables.

AD

They'll, look at the consistency tables that apply under the different zones, so they'll do a kind of.

AD

A broad brush analysis and then they'll ultimately uh set up a meeting and a discussion with staff.

AD

Okay, the um commercial recreation, commercial, that's the only plot in the whole city that.

H

Has that designation is that right? I think you're referring to commercial recreation.

AD

Commercial recreation. Thank you, because recreation, commercial would be something different. Yeah.

AD

I I don't know if we have the the zoning map itself to see whether there is.

AD

If you give us a second we'll, just double check, what's in the zoning map,.

H

And then, while you're checking that, can I just confirm with you that.

H

On page 316 of the 2035 general plan, there's only four sentences that describe commercial recreation.

AD

And I'm sorry vice mayor, I we were looking for the map. I didn't hear you.

H

Just can you confirm on on page 316 of the 2035 general plan? I count only four sentences.

H

That describe the usage of commercial recreation and then nowhere else, I'm sorry three. Sixteen.

H

Three page three dash six: oh three dash one six yeah 3-1-6 and the references to rancho commercial.

H

I think it's page like 48, I'm not mistaken somewhere in there yeah uh rancho das, commercial.

H

Rancho is that right, rancho, commercial yeah, so.

AD

So the question is again: wait. I'm saying I only see four sentences there is that correct.

AD

There are one two three yeah four sentences correct, and this is for rancho, commercial.

AD

This is the land use designation that would apply to this particular project site.

AD

uh And so this is a general plan land use designation. Then you have the zoning code, which is.

AD

The implementing tool of the general plan- and that has the language of all the development standards.

H

Now there are other land use designations in that same area. You know, we've got on that same section.

H

uh The north victory commercial, industrial, the media district, the golden state, those.

H

Those land use designations, do they have their own master plan? Is that correct.

AD

So the the golden state- uh commercial, we're in the process of developing a specific plan.

AD

Okay, for that particular uh area, okay- and it may actually include additional locations.

AD

There are different references like to media district, commercial.

AD

Which includes different zones, the the project next to the airport.

AD

Had that zoning classification, and then you have a downtown commercial, which is the downtown specific.

AD

Plan so some areas have specific plans that uh support the general plan. Land use designations.

AD

Some have specific plans and some others have pieces of those plans if they weren't adopted.

AD

Incorporated into the zoning code in the case of the rancho master plan,.

AD

They codified specific development centers in the zoning code. Okay, all right, because when I look at.

H

It it seems as though a lot of these other areas are much more flushed out, and this one seems just.

H

Light on content is all just when just reading through it I understand, um and then um I think I'm.

H

Good for questions actually for now, mr mayor, thank you thank you. Colleagues,.

I

Thank you very much. I do have questions. um Can mr um berkman, please explain the sewage situation.

AE

Good evening honor honorable mayor council members nice to see you.

AE

um The sewer capacity analysis is something that is done.

AE

uh For any project, sb 35 or not when it triggers a 7 500 gallon per day, increase.

AE

So this project or others are conditioned to do so themselves with their own consultants or they can.

AE

Basically, pay staff and we will do it ourselves, but that is always completed before we take a.

AE

Look at the review of the off-site improvement plans, which would include wastewater systems.

I

So um miss gabaletti noted that you know the eir. The draft eir of the housing element says that.

I

Impacts to our sewage system are, it cannot be mitigated? Can you explain what that means.

I

For this project and for the city of burbank, because this sb-35 isn't.

I

Considered in the housing element, nor is sb9 or um potentially sb10, it's just the housing element.

I

Thank you so um I'll ask my my planning peers to explain if I get something incorrect here.

AE

But um in general you know at the end, with our wastewater treatment plant a reclamation plant.

AE

Can handle what is to be built? The 12 000 is what we're talking about, and each individual project.

AE

Has its own contribution to that and that's kind of this sewer analysis and um if there's any.

AE

Triggers for a project that comes in individually that can't that's going to overburden the.

AE

Sewer system they're uh mandated to make the improvements, so they can safely convey their.

AE

Sewage from their parcels from their projects, and if I may clarify, I think ken we were referring to.

AD

The maximum projected capacity in the housing element of 10 456, as opposed to the 12 000., the.

AD

The other thing to um uh uh council and and uh councilmember springer is uh my recollection and.

AD

I'll go back and double check this, but there's actually there is reference to sp35 within the.

AD

Housing element because these particular projects were identified as projects that were in the queue.

AD

For review, I think what mr burkman has pointed out, which is standard, and that is if you're bringing.

AD

A project online tomorrow, you have to assure the city that there's sufficient capacity for.

AD

That particular project before you're able to get an occupancy for that for the property or.

AD

Units and that may come through the form of fees for development, as well as the.

AD

Build out of infrastructure to support that my understanding can and you can clarify, but this.

AD

Particular project is down slope from the sewer treatment plant and I'm not sure are we pumping.

AD

Sewer up to the plant for for or is it a pass through to the hyperion treatment plant? Well,.

AE

It flows to uh by gravity to the mariposa station, then um into beechwood and force maine up to the.

AE

Reclamation plan, so so the improvements any uh project impacts associated with this project would.

AD

Have to either if they're uh historic are part of our sewer sewer system upgrades, but anything.

AD

That's specifically attributed to the project to support the project. They would be responsible.

AD

For building out and or funding right, correct, just like any other project that comes through.

I

Thank you, and um this is for um planning, and we received some documents late.

I

um Late late in the day and the the rancho master plan was.

I

Adopted in 1993 and was incorporated into our general plan and.

I

And became a part of it, even in our general plan, it's referenced.

I

You know to check the rancho master plan.

I

For vision and policies applicable to this neighborhood, so it's constantly referenced and.

I

By there there would be no inconsistency, then, if the rancho master plan was adopted into our.

I

General plan and in the document documentation that they sent today, it indicates that a planned.

I

Development is required for commercial recreation. So have you seen that document I haven't seen.

AD

What's been submitted recently, we do have a copy of the rancho master plan that was submitted and.

AD

Going back to sb-35 sp 35 notes that um the applicable standards are those that are codified.

AD

In the actual zoning code, or if it's an adopted master plan, if there's specific.

AD

Objective standards that are listed as well as, what's in the general plan,.

AD

So the discussion I, if I'm understanding it correctly, is you're asking the question or.

AD

You're stating that the fact that residential could be developed there with the planned.

AD

Development, that's actually in the zone. That's actually the zoning code. Now you could go.

AD

Through a discretionary review process of planned development to consider residential at the site,.

AD

And that's consistent with the zoning table, the general plan consistency table that was adopted.

AD

Back in 2013 that says that residential could be considered here with discretionary review.

AD

As well as with the general plan that notes that there's a density of of 20 maximum 20.

AD

Units to the acre, I have to go back to the discussion we've had on numerous occasions.

AD

That talks about the fact that under sb 35, you have to consider a housing development project.

AD

On a property of this type that has a general plan, land use designation of 20 units to the.

AD

Acre through a non-discretionary review process, a ministerial- and that is inclusive of the fact.

AD

That you can't either require a cup a plant development or any other discretionary permit.

AD

We've noted that, based on the statute, we've also noted it. It's stated as such. Excuse me.

AD

In the general plan, I'm sorry in the housing and community development guidelines that implement sb.

AD

So that's still that narrative and that representation from city staff has been.

AD

Consistent in that manner, because in some of what I've read from the hcd.

I

It says that, what's normal excuse me ordinary practice, they use the term ordinary practice.

I

And ordinary practice in burbank is a plan development development agreement.

I

And so mr berkey even just talked about conditional use, permit a planned development.

I

Is is different from a conditional use. Permit um respectfully it's a discretionary review. It has.

AD

Different sets of findings that need to be made, but it's still discretionary. It's still within.

AD

The matter of course, of discretion under sb 35. You can't take a project that qualifies for sp 35.

AD

Through a discretionary review just to further emphasize the point, and hopefully it wasn't lost.

AD

There was so much discussion about the portino memo that we kind of glossed over the fact that.

AD

In november of the same year, we were contacted by hcd to inquire about how we came to the conclusion.

AD

That uh this particular project site was an sb-35 qualifying project. We submitted the.

AD

Information to the state acd then came back with an email, that's included in your packet. That says.

AD

We concur with staff's assessment that the project qualifies as an sb-35 project. Thank you. I read.

I

That I read all the communication from hcd um and that's where maybe I read about the ordinary.

I

Excuse me, the ordinary practice and what a normal person would, um what conclusion they would come to.

I

And in the in our general plan, the rancho master plan is and the rancho are referenced.

I

A lot um you know the rancho is suitable for low intensity, low density and low density development.

I

Is 0 to 14 units an acre and- and it says, that's appropriate for the rancho and it seems like some.

I

Discretion was used to kick that up to 20 units an acre, so that's inconsistent with our general plan.

AD

Yeah mayor, if I may so just as you're, noting that the rancho master plan is referenced in.

AD

The general plan, I'll I'll, bring your attention uh the council's attention to page 3-16, which you've.

AD

Noted before it says, rancho commercial, which is a land use designation for this property.

AD

And unless I'm misreading it, it says a maximum 0.6 far and a maximum 20 units to the acre with.

AD

Discretionary approval, so so there is no bump up other than what's already included in the.

AD

Underlying land use designation, there is no uh thing that city staff interpreted differently.

AD

We're just basically going back to the table. Looking at the 20 units of the acre and saying.

AD

That's the maximum that a development for this particular site could consider unless they go.

AD

Through sb, through a density bonus project and bump the the maximum density beyond that under.

AD

State law, so I believe the number of units of the acre scott that they're proposing is 19.

AD

Units of the acre, so it's under that threshold, correct so they're, proposing 19 to the acre.

I

Right but there's nothing in sb 35 that says you have to max out the density.

I

And to do that is inconsistent with our general plan. I I will say that there's nothing in.

AD

Sp 35 that says that you have to go to 20 units of the acre but same same thing said: there's nothing.

AD

In sp 35 that says it has to be something less. If anything, it cautions the city to be.

AD

Mindful of putting limitations on a project that would otherwise preclude the build out.

AD

Of housing consistent with the city's land use and zoning designations, which would be.

AD

Up to 20 units to the acre right, but that's um if it's um a residential land use designation.

I

And this is commercial recreation and um according to the documentation that.

I

In the master plan that um was adopted into our general plan, a plan development is required.

AD

Absent sp35 you're correct the plan. Development would be the process that someone would undertake.

AD

As an as an aside, but this is an sb 35 application and as an sb35 application.

AD

A discretionary permit, whether it's a sieve, a conditional use permit or a planned development, cannot be applied to the project.

I

Okay, that's all the questions I have for now. Thank you.

C

Colleagues, customer schultz. uh Thank you very much, mr mayor. uh Thank you to staff.

G

I do have a couple of questions. I wanted to thank everyone for the presentation, so.

G

I wanted to address um one of the callers comments tonight. uh I believe it was mr herman who said you.

G

Know why have a hearing at all, and I just wanted to note that under section d1, I believe sorry.

G

8D1 of the statute, we're participating in a public oversight process. Tonight our goal is to educate.

G

The public about what's happening because, as we heard from a lot of our our neighbors.

G

They've been left in the dark and they're frustrated, and I certainly can't blame them.

G

So some of my questions are going to be a little bit broader in scope, but I really want to start.

G

Back with the burbank 2035 general plan in 2013., so walk me through it one more time, so the rancho.

G

Master plan was in existence prior to 2013. Right, that's correct! My apologies. That's correct! Okay,.

G

And- and it was incorporated into the general plan- is that right.

G

There is reference to the in within the general plan that talks about the rancho master plan.

AD

uh And that is on page 316., that's correct! Okay, now before I go on for everybody, who's.

G

You know intently, watching this meeting tonight walk us through pre-senate bill.

G

35, how, if someone wanted to build housing on the pickwick project site, how would they have done it.

J

They would have to go through a discussion and review process in this case they would have to.

J

Go through a planned development process because in the land use table for the zoning designation.

J

It doesn't list it as a conditional use, but the general plan does say that you can do housing.

J

At this site for up to 20 inch to the acre with discretionary approval, the only way to.

J

Do the discretionary approval in this case would be to apply for a plan development to.

J

um For for to implement the density that would be allowed on the site, thank you, mr blambeck.

G

I agree: that's clear, concise and it's how we, how we've always operated businesses, council member.

G

Springer is saying my next question is we've heard a lot of rightfully aimed criticism at.

G

Sacramento tonight about how they have completely changed the game for all of us, with senate bill 35.

G

Please, if you can go over in as much detail as you can provide.

G

What have they changed? What rights of hours have they ripped away.

J

Straight to the point: they've taken away discretion, um so we have to review the.

J

Project based on objective standards, uh as you mentioned, a council member when we review this.

J

We're hearing this more as a design preview at best, so we are reviewing this project based on.

J

The objective standards and the zoning code in the subdivision code and in the general plan so.

J

We have no discretion in the review of this project. We just have to um answer the question.

J

As to whether they meet those objective standards, and if I may um yes please, I I would say in my.

AD

Words- and maybe this maybe the audience will pick up on this. We went from a process that.

AD

Allowed us to negotiate with a developer through a plan development process.

AD

uh A design that you know included residential standards, um including additional community.

AD

Benefits uh to you know in some instances millions of dollars worth of improvements.

AD

uh Neighborhood protection program, funds and and whatnot, and we went through this whole process.

AD

That included public meetings, including a meeting in this particular case for development review.

AD

And the rancho review board, which is what people are accustomed to. We went from that kind of a very.

AD

Broad and kind of open kind of an open process to one that basically relegates staff to reviewing a.

AD

Checklist where we're going through and saying, here's all the objective standards that are in.

AD

The zoning code in the general plan under our subdivision regulations, and we basically have to.

AD

Hold them to those standards, and we can't request anything beyond that. So in those instances where.

AD

We would want to say well, you know the code does say this, but it would be really great if you.

AD

uh You know did this additional amenity for the sake of the neighbors and the concerns for.

AD

Horses and and whatnot, and uh you know a horse trail. What not! Well, if it's not in the code.

AD

We can't require them to do so. I mean mr mr awaken noted, potentially wanting voluntarily.

AD

To contribute to neighborhood protection program or something to that effect, we can't require that.

AD

On them and some developers may not be as forthcoming with additional community.

AD

Benefits they say no, I'm only going to do what's in the code and that's it and and so to scott, to.

AD

Our scott's point is: we've been relegated to reviewing checklist items when it comes to sb 35.

AD

So that they're, reviewed and processed in a timely benefit, yeah, which is you're right. I.

AD

Mean you guys are used to planned developments that come to you after two and a half years.

AD

Of us kind of grinding, through with the developer, these are having having to make a decision in.

AD

60 days and 90 days, depending on the size of the project, thank you very much, mr ramirez, um mr mayor.

G

Before I go on with my line of questioning would now be an appropriate time for a comment, or is it.

G

Questions online: well, let's questions of staff and okay, all right you're, through with your questions.

G

I got just just a couple more mr continue, um so I want to talk a little bit about senator.

G

Portentino's letter, I I see that he wasn't with us tonight and I don't see a representative from him.

G

uh Now I recall uh earlier I'm sorry later last year in 2021, we talked specifically about this.

G

Letter and my recollection is one of the things I had asked. Staff was to reach out to the senator.

G

Because, uh as a practicing attorney, this is much like hearsay, anybody can say. I talked.

G

To a lawyer- and they said x, y or z- did staff reach out to the senator and if so, was any.

G

Sort of analysis provided to flush out what we see in this letter from him uh dated october 7, 2021.

AD

That is correct, uh councilmember schultz, you're jogging, my memory and maybe my director remembers.

AD

But I remember there was a letter that we all helped prepare, that included supporting.

AD

Documentation and that all that information was provided uh to the senator's office and I think.

AD

What it was, how it was communicated was we're not sure what information was presented to you, that.

AD

You came to this conclusion, but we're hoping that, with this additional information providing you.

AD

This additional context that you'll have a greater understanding of the city's review of the project.

AD

And why we came to the conclusion that we did so? Yes, there was a written correspondence and then.

AD

A follow-up with actually the mr portino's office. Okay, and uh do you know what that information was.

G

Shared with legislative council or if that changed their analysis, uh I'm not aware. I know it was.

AD

Given to uh his office and his deputies. But as far as what follow-up happened with them and and their.

AD

Legal counsel, I'm not aware of that so so, just to be crystal clear staff went back to the senator.

G

Said we want to make sure you have a full and complete picture, here's all of the documentation.

G

And since then, we've had silence crickets. We have not received any follow-up correspondence where.

AD

We, where we did receive correspondences, as we mentioned before, was from hcd itself and provided.

AD

Them with the same context, and as a result of that, they came back with the conclusion that yes,.

AD

We agree with staff city staff, it's eligible for sb, 35 processing, and I know that it is buried in.

G

This mountain of paperwork that we've all read, but for everybody watching at home what specifically.

G

Was given to hcd, which was also according to what you're saying today, given to senator portentino.

AD

So uh there was a narrative regarding underlying zoning underlying general.

AD

Plan land use designations uh project information like where it's located. uh You know.

AD

What was being proposed uh in general terms, that's the information that was provided.

G

Thank you very much. um I know our vice mayor referenced, page 316 of the general plan.

G

I know that that's not in our packet, but if it'd be all right with you. Mr mayor, I'd like.

G

The general plan to be part of the record or made part of it for today, since I think it's relevant.

G

To the analysis, um with regards to page 3-16, which is at the bottom portion, titled rancho commercial.

G

Would you please read that provision into the record because I'd like the people at home to.

G

To hear what we are looking at sure, so it's uh page 316, it's the heading is rancho commercial.

AD

In parentheses, it notes maximum 0.6, far and 20 units per acre with discretionary approval. End of.

AD

End of the parentheses, then it talks about it, says the rancho commercial designation is.

AD

Located in the unique rancho neighborhood that allows for keeping of horses on single-family.

AD

Residential properties, a variety of low-intensity, multi-family, residential and commercial uses.

AD

The neighborhood is located close to the la equestrian center and a vast regional.

AD

And a vast regional trails network, the far for rancho commercial, anticipates that some properties.

AD

Will recycle and that the intensity of new development will be comparable to.

AD

What exists today, supplemental land use goals and policies are provided in the rancho master plan.

G

Thank you very much, mr mayor. I know I'm going on. I just have a couple more. That's all right.

AE

um Just a couple more give me three: how about that um so would you agree that the 1993 rancho master.

G

Plan uh the commercial recreational zone uh that version- I don't believe provided for residential.

G

Purposes is that right, this is pre-general plan of 2013. correct, so the the land use table didn't.

AD

Specifically know under commercial recreation residential. So uh when you look at those land.

AD

Use tables you'll see every time it's amended, it references the ordinance that amends it and the.

AD

Ordinance, I think you've been provided before and is in your agenda packet notes that in 2013.

AD

uh To ensure consistency between the general plan and the zoning code, they adopted the general plan.

AD

Consistency tables in every zoning classification in the city, including commercial recreation and.

AD

That ensured that, because we're noting in the general plan that residential is allowed, there.

AD

The zoning has to match, if not, there's, an inconsistency and that's a fatal flaw.

AD

In in in the document, because under state law, they have to be consistent.

G

So my second of three questions, mr mayor, is that in 2013, before nearly any of us were on council.

G

The council, I guess what I'm trying to wrap my head around is we had a rancho master.

G

Plan that said, that site is not suitable for residential the way I'm reading it is that in 2013.

G

Well, it appears to at least at first blush to indicate residential.

G

Is okay there? What are we supposed to make of that? Because I quite frankly see the frustration. The.

G

Concern the confusion of so many of our residents who are calling in what happened in 2013. I believe.

AD

And I wasn't here, but my understanding is the general plan process itself.

AD

Was almost a decades-long effort to update the general plan and as a and during that process,.

AD

At the later stages of it, when the plan was being adopted, the general plan was adopted in 2013 and I.

AD

Think within six months uh there was this trailer ordinance that in essence ensured as uh staff was.

AD

Going through this process, looking at saying, oh wait, the general plan has residential requirements.

AD

In some of these zones, but it's not reflected in the zoning that we have to adopt something.

AD

That, in essence, uh captures that residential and applies it specifically to the zone.

AD

So that someone questioning how you're getting a general plan land use designation in the general.

AD

Plan that doesn't actually match with the zoning code, how it's consistent so that effectively when.

AD

You read the narrative of the ordinance. It says that it was specifically done for that purpose.

AD

Is to incorporate residential as a permitted conditionally permitted use right discretionary.

AD

In the zoning for all the different zones of the city, so are you suggesting that a prior council.

G

Made a change in policy as it relates to that site effectively what you have in front of you.

AD

Was a policy decision? The general plan is a policy document. They made a policy change at that point.

AD

And uh they followed through by implementing it when they did the zone code. Amendment.

G

Okay, um I just have one more question and then I'm going to seed my time back to the.

G

Mayor and I'm sure, council member prudis wants to ask some questions so senate bill 35 didn't.

G

Take effect until 2017 or 18, if I recall so once it took effect, what is it that I mean you know.

G

Obviously, now the application's in and it's frozen in time, the standards are what the standards are.

G

What is it that prior councils could have done so um I mean we're speculating, but I I.

AD

I'll do just that, and that is, um if you go back to the general plan. There's a realization element.

AD

That is in the general plan and in there there is kind of a work program for the different.

AD

City departments and divisions, one of which is uh to go back and look at the city's specific plans.

AD

Look at the different zoning code and develop like mixed use, development standards that could apply.

AD

uh It also uh has us look at the different zoning regulations and see if those match up.

AD

When it's basically a work program without actually allocating resources to it most recently.

AD

Over the last five years, the city has taken on kind of a proactive effort and we've actually.

AD

As you're aware, we've done the general plan specific uh specific plan for the golden state.

AD

The tod specific plan now the media district, specific plan we're now looking at zone code.

AD

Amendments that need to come forward we're looking at mixed-use development standards that could be.

AD

Incorporated into specific plans and then applied in other zones, including the rancho.

AD

But all that effort is something that was part of a work program which wasn't implemented.

AD

After 2013, but was subsequently implemented over the last five years under uh the directorship of.

AD

Mr prescott, so there there's quite a laundry list, there's 20 plus items. Could we have.

AD

Done amendments to the code, of course we could have. Could we have looked at um offsetting.

AD

If we weren't going to allow residential land uses in one area, we'd have to.

AD

Address the fact that we have to provide the same level of.

AD

Housing somewhere else to offset that, because that could potentially create a problem with.

AD

State law, when you don't have basically zero net loss of housing, so we would have to look at a.

AD

Myriad of things and bring that kind of a policy approach back to council, but but that is part of.

AD

The larger effort that could have been undertaken, and but here's the bigger one, the largest one, is.

AD

There's 510 cities that fell under the requirement of sb-35. There are some cities, including, I believe.

AD

The city of santa monica that did not fall under sb, 35 and you'll. Ask the question: why.

AD

And that is because they built the housing that needed to be built so that they didn't fall into.

AD

That category and therefore weren't required by right to build out housing in a k. In the case of.

AD

A pickwick project because sb 35 doesn't apply to them. Unfortunately, for us, it does as well.

AD

As 509 other cities- and we have to abide by that requirement, thank you staff. That's all I have mr.

G

Mary, thank you, guest, councilmember frudos. Thank you, mr mayor. A lot of my questions were already.

F

Asked but a couple of them how come we didn't go less on the density on this property. If we.

F

Had that flexibility, and with the council's paper neighborhood protection, why didn't we go smaller.

AD

Well, uh councilmember frutos. I I think I would I would put the we in quotes. um We do not have.

AD

The we can't limit the developers submittal of a proposal within the allowable density.

AD

So the applicant submitted a proposed development of 19 units to the acre. uh It's really within.

AD

Their sole discretion to determine whether they want to go to the full threshold of 20 or do.

AD

Something less than that, so we do not have that authority if we were doing a planned development.

AD

That could be a point of negotiation right with a myriad of other things, but unfortunately, when.

AD

You're in basically a checklist type of approval process, you can do that, but unfortunately, the law.

AD

Doesn't give us that level of discretion so does the law specifically state that they can build.

F

Out to the maximum under the law is it physically written? um I'd have to go back and look at it, but.

AD

It does say that they can build to the allowable density under the city's general plan. Does the.

F

City general plan call for maximum, or is it low density for that area? It says actually we'll go.

AD

Back to 316 and I'll read it once again bear with me realizing. I need reading glasses. Now sorry.

AD

Yeah, it basically says here's the upper limits: maximum 0.6, far and 20 units to the acre with.

AD

Discretionary approval: what is the definition of ordinary practice, I'm kind of puzzled, how.

F

That was thrown out when councilmember springer asked that question. How is that a standard yeah.

AD

I'm not sure I understand, I don't know if if we said that or if that's something I wrote it down.

F

Ordinary practice, you said to council, member springer and I'm trying to understand what is.

F

That definition from the planning department to help me to understand that word, the context: how.

F

It applies to this yeah, I'm not I'm not sure councilwoman was. Is that something I said no.

I

It's something that it's something that the it's a term that hcd has used ordinary practice. So how.

F

Does that staff I stand corrected. How does staff define that, mr mayor, if I could yes go ahead when.

AF

Councilmember springer brought that up. I did search the hcd sb 35 guidelines and I'm unable.

AF

To find that phrase, at least within the sb 35 context, so um from from staff's interpretation.

AF

Sb 35 requires that they comply with all adopted standards and there wouldn't be ordinary or.

AF

Not ordinary, it would be, do we comply or don't we comply yes or no, so I don't know that there would.

AF

Be a separate interpretation unless we could have a specific reference, I'd be happy to look it up.

I

I don't have it with me, it's some communication that I read from hcd and they use the term.

I

Ordinary practice and a normal person, so that's what I'm thinking of again instruments. I apologize.

F

My misunderstanding: okay, so going back to the general plan and the and the rancho master plan.

F

And I'm thinking of when we had that property on mariposa we used lot size. It's got to be so.

F

Much staff was recommending like 2800 feet at that time, so I I want to know.

F

Who made the decision? What parts of the rancho master plan went into the zoning general code and.

F

What parts were not included in that? So the the decision was that of the council. I mean ultimately.

AD

The sections that are codified were done by ordinance, so the council decided what sections.

AD

Of the rancho master plan were codified in the zoning code, so okay, so going with that because.

F

I learned a lot about this when we did the mariposa one, it's very specific for the rancho.

F

Area under gold that the council passed me before, I got elected that each lot size was a certain.

F

Size attack barn, but this project in front of us doesn't have anything related to.

F

The equestrian rancho community correct, so the the difference here is that.

AD

The commercial recreation requirements that apply to this particular project.

AD

Have specific development standards noted in there and the discussion of minimum lot size.

AD

For residential, you know, property isn't an objective standard in here, so we can't apply.

AD

The same set of regulations, my recollection, is when that particular project was being considered.

AD

uh I believe they were looking at a general plan amendment to change.

AD

The uh the overlying um land use designation to a residential one, to which then they were going.

AD

To now apply to your point: uh minimum lot sizes uh minimum eff- you know uh units, so that was a.

AD

Different project and they were making a different request in this particular project, and this was.

AD

Before them, even considering you know, sp 35 right so that no one came in with an sp 35 application.

AD

This one has come in as an sb-35 application, and it basically says you can only apply the standards.

AD

That are within the commercial recreation zone within the rancho master plan that are codified.

AD

Within the zoning regulations and the general plan standards, so what you see in front of you.

AD

As limited as it is, is all the standards that would apply to the project, so the ranch, the.

F

Randall specific master plan this part here, it's codified, whatever is codified in the zoning code.

AD

Is what was applied? Okay, mr c turner? I'm sorry, mr mayor. Yes, mr mayor, I I wanted to um so I found the.

AF

Reasonable person- and this is language that I know has been before- there's no uh ordinary um language.

AF

In it, but this is in determining consistency which is what's before you right now. This is from the.

AF

Guidelines, it says when determining consistency uh which uh you're being asked to confirm.

AF

The director's consistency this evening, a local government, shall find the development.

AF

Is consistent with the objective planning standards if there is substantial evidence that.

AF

Would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the development is consistent with the objective.

AF

Standards, so it's a reasonableness interpretation of the standards, meaning what would a reasonable.

AF

Person conclude these words mean. Thank you. Mr city attorney continue go ahead. Thank you, sir.

F

Complete streets.

F

It's in the general, it's in the general plan right vote it back in in 2013.. How does this project.

F

Comply with complete streets so there are, there are uh kind of policies and approaches, and we.

AD

Do have our assistant director david crisky, to actually uh provide you more greater detail, but.

AD

Specifically, anything that goes from the complete streets and is subsequently codified, I.e like.

AD

In the case of our requirements, under the general plan for uh the widening of the of the sidewalks.

AD

To 15 feet, that's specific, you can measure that and you can apply that. That was an objective.

AD

Standard if there were other requirements that we look at potentially incorporating.

AD

Horse trails and whatnot, though, if there was specific language within the zoning.

AD

Regulations that said, hey, you have to dedicate x amount of feet for this particular purpose.

AD

Then we would be able to apply it, but there is nothing in the code. That's codified. That says.

AD

This particular project and the process of development has to set aside x number.

AD

Of feet for a horse trail, so nothing in the complete streets. So there are certain things.

AD

Like pedestrian improvements that they're doing within the 15 feet that are consistent with.

AD

The complete streets plan, but vice versa, flipping that on its head and saying.

AD

You need to also look at incorporating a horse trail because we're referencing.

AD

Horse trail as a long-term goal within these areas, that's not within the general plan, and it's not.

AD

Specifically a codified standard within our zoning code, so real, simple, there's nothing in our code.

F

To support the residents statements on the traffic safety regarding a horse and a rider and all the.

F

Additional traffic that the callers were calling in from there's nothing in the general plan code.

F

That could be applied under sp 35., so so the the request for studies to analyze impacts between.

AD

Vehicles and horse properties- uh typically, you would see those when a project has square review.

AD

But in this particular case again back to sp 35 that, because sequel doesn't apply to sp 35, then.

AD

Studies that would otherwise be required as part of that analysis, including the type that you're.

AD

Talking about, we cannot require of the applicant okay understood, but can we use a prior study.

F

That was done that identified the number of vehicles. Can we we as a staff? I mean council.

F

As staff hey, what is the last? In the last three years, the traffic counts on riverside and main.

F

Street, where there's projects going up from our resources to help us make a more informed decision.

F

One way or the other, not not the developer under under the law as be 35, but can we as council, if.

F

There's enough interest there: can we request that from our own police department for review.

F

Including incidents involving equestrian mr mayor, if I could answer that question.

C

Mr mcdougall, so the council recently did consider that very issue for riverside in adjusting the.

AF

Traffic speed limits that analysis was brought forth by lieutenant frohmer of the burbank police.

AF

Department uh there was um uh based upon the evidence the council did set a speed five uh miles.

AF

Per hour below, uh but it there was no evidence of a equestrian, a specific equestrian hazard.

AF

But that was the decision of the council further under the housing accountability act in order to.

AF

Use that, as a basis to deny or reduce this project, it would have to be a an objective, quantifiable.

AF

Documented public health safety standard- and I do not believe there are any such standards.

AF

For uh equestrian uh traffic impacts, none that have been applied uh to riverside in this area.

AF

So I am unaware of one: unless someone from staff has one they can bring forward. Okay,.

F

Next question uh kind of picking back where councilmember springer left off.

F

Regarding the sewer compatibility, can you explain to me why this moves forward if the.

F

Developer, basically, according to public testimony um three weeks before this meeting, they finally.

F

Got the whatever they needed to do to get the sewer study? Can you explain how this happened.

F

And sure we don't have completed reports, because I would have loved to have seen that. Well.

AD

Just just to be clear, um even though they paid for a sewer capacity analysis now, actually it's.

AD

A condition of project approval they actually don't need to initiate the.

AD

Sewer capacity analysis until it's actually com submitted into plan check. So, as mr berkman noted.

AD

Them doing the sewer capacity analysis when they look at the project. Submittal.

AD

They'll they'll determine whether it's basically a fee to be paid to offset.

AD

Their impact or whether they have to build out infrastructure in combination with any fees.

AD

To in essence, mitigate the impact, but I'm not aware mr berkman can correct me if I'm wrong.

AD

That we that we said that this particular project would um you know blow out no pun intended the.

AD

Sewer system by the development of 96 units, the discussion that the that with the commenters were.

AD

Making were hey the housing element which, looking at 10 456 units, is a significant and avoidable.

AD

Impact because if all that uh development happened and came online without upgrades to the system.

AD

We would exceed capacity, but I I could say- and I correct me if I'm wrong can.

AD

Mr rickman is that 96 units are not are not the tipping point on our sewer system.

AD

Okay, mr roberts, um I just got a couple more questions sure go ahead. Thank you, sir.

F

How come the rancho review board, at least as of a good? You know, uh community group, that's passionate.

F

About their their neighborhood, how come they weren't at least involved in the notification or.

F

A community meeting, knowing that this is a critical impact in their neighborhood. How come.

F

That didn't happen. There's requirements within sb 35 that this not be a discretionary review process.

AD

As you're aware, typically, when we do development review in the rancho there's a requirement that.

AD

That development review submittal actually get feedback from the rancho review board as an.

AD

Advisory to the director before the director makes a decision, however, under sb 35, that particular.

AD

Discretionary review doesn't occur and therefore it's not a trigger for the rancho review board.

AD

In light of that- and I think part of the the feedback that you received previously was that.

AD

Well, if it's not going to be the rancho review board, we want the city council to at least have.

AD

A ministerial design review meeting at which the public can participate and provide input.

AD

So, in essence, even without discretionary review, the ministerial design review provides the vehicle.

AD

For public input, it's not the rancho review board, but it's the ultimate decision maker.

AD

Within the city, which is a city council, thank you, mr ramirez.

B

Does sp 35 for affordable housing? I get it. It's a 80 of the la county, medium income.

F

What is that number? um I think I I wrote it down uh earlier, so it is as of 2012, um like march of.

AD

2022 for a two-person household, your household income couldn't exceed seventy five thousand.

AD

Seven hundred and for a three-person household it couldn't exceed eighty-five thousand one hundred.

AD

And fifty dollars wow. So what that means is, if you're, paying 30 of your income towards your.

AD

Mortgage or your rent uh in the case of uh 85 000 150, that would be 25 545 dollars per year.

AD

Divide that by 12 it's basically 2 100 21 28.75 that you could put towards your mortgage.

AD

So in essence, those 10 units right that would be market rate and even if we said 800 to a million.

AD

In essence, the developer is covering the lost revenue as a requirement for development by deed.

AD

Restricting those 10 units so effectively the 10 qualifying low-income households for those units.

AD

Are are getting a major windfall in the sense of being able to purchase that project and pay.

AD

Those make those payments under that low-income requirement. So I think we've talked about this.

AD

Before, if the city were to build out those units on their own, it would cost us north of 500 000 to.

AD

Build individually, let alone not even accounting for hoa fees or anything else, so, in effect, people.

AD

That would qualify and meet. This requirement are getting a huge benefit by building out these units.

AD

10 units that the city is not on the hook for 10 units that the developer is on the hook for.

AD

But he has to maintain them as deed restricted for a period of 55 years.

F

So my next question is which I I haven't heard of this, because the first time.

F

We're actually having condominiums for ownership, but how is a low-income, individual 2100.

F

Now they're going to tackle on an hoa the hoa is between at least what I've seen on the low end. 185.

F

To maybe an average of 300 to 400 a month, how are the 10 deed, restricted, low income units protected.

F

From the hoa, so you get the house, but now you got to come up with some extra coins. It has to.

AD

Be factored into the whole process because to to to stay within that range, you have to stay.

AD

Within the 30, you can't be using more than 30 of your income towards paying for your mortgage and.

AD

If your mortgage is inclusive of the hoa, that's something that the developer is going to have to.

AD

Factor in because it's ultimately like saying, I can only afford to do this much and yet there's.

AD

A tack on of an additional fee that all has to be factored in. I don't have all the answers for.

AD

You immediately, but what they do have to do is enter into an affordable housing agreement.

AD

With the city outlining how much these particular units are going to be, how much they're going to.

AD

Be valued at how much they're going to be sold at what all the fees are going to be and that.

AD

Has to be looked at so that our housing division can verify that it meets the requirements under.

AD

Hud and the state when it comes to the level of affordability for that household and the.

F

Reason why I brought that question is because it and really going over at nauseum. You know 35.

F

I could not find anything that specifically looks at hoa. Hoa is defined.

F

As a maintenance agreement, which I'm kind of scratching my head, because the 10 units.

F

That are deeded without something written in physically, which I could not find in sp.

F

35 it doesn't protect because one is the housing. The housing is what the mortgage is. That's defined.

AD

But yeah hoa, so here here's where here's, where there's a dovetail to sp35.

AD

The project has to comply with our inclusionary housing regulations and our inclusionary housing.

AD

Regulations has an affordability agreement that spells out that information, including hoa a.

F

Total can define total cost to the household for either home ownership, mortgage or rental.

F

Okay. Thank you, mr mr mayor, thank you for allowing me a lot of questions, great questions.

C

uh Let me weigh in now everybody, mr mayor, if I could please um so during the course of this.

AF

Hearing staff um searched the internet and found a letter of technical assistance from hcd to senator.

AF

Portentino in response to a letter from emily gable, luddy on february emily's, correspondence.

AF

Was dated february 2nd, 2022 and hcd's response to senator portentino's february 23rd 2022, the city.

AF

Is not on copy on this letter, but it was just found on the internet. Staff is printing a copy.

AF

For you, it is a four-page letter with hcd analyzing our code as it applies to pickwick.

AF

Hcd's conclusion is, it is hcd's determination based upon the statute and reference in hcd's.

AF

Updated streamlined ministerial approval process guidelines at the streamlined ministerial process.

AF

Applies to pickwook gardens. There was much talk about the senator's earlier letter. Apparently he.

AF

Reached out to hcd, we don't have, I mean yeah, he reached out to hcd. We don't have a copy of that.

AF

But we did find uh a staff member found a copy of this correspondence. I guess, while we were talking.

AF

About the senator's letter- and it is from february 23rd, so it's it's being printed and it'll, be.

AF

Provided who is it addressed to it's addressed to honorable anthony portentino, and it is from david.

AF

Zisser assistant, deputy director, local government relations and accountability.

AF

From department of housing and community development, division of housing.

AF

Policy development. In the first paragraph it says this assistance is based in part.

AF

On conversations with you and emily gable, emily j gable and on correspondence received from emily j.

AF

Gable on february, 2nd 2022. staff just happened to come up with it, um and I thought it was.

AF

Material because we were just talking the city, it was not a party to this correspondence, but.

AF

um We'd be remiss, you know, and that was my very first question that I have on the list.

C

Right here there were several references made to senator portenzino's letter, and here it is.

C

Yeah there you go. Thank you very much.

C

So this would clear up obviously, some of the concerns that have been mentioned. Mr mcdougall.

C

Do you think that this should clear up some of the concerns that have been mentioned in reference to.

C

The letter or another letter, if not so much this one another letter well so so this is consistent.

AF

With the response hcd provided to the city at the request of our assembly member friedman,.

AF

We were unaware so uh as council as staff, we never received a response from the senator.

AF

But apparently just this last, our the copy of the letter I have signed by mr prescott.

AF

To the senator is october 11, where we requested to be put in contact with the legislative uh council.

AF

And and requested any information that they had, we hadn't heard back, but this letter that is now in.

AF

Your possession is dated just february 23rd, it is correspondence just between hcd and the senator's.

AF

Office yeah go ahead. Thank you, mr mayor, in light of this letter and given its significance, would.

G

It be appropriate to take a five minute recess just so that we all have a chance to review it.

C

Definitely, thank you. May I have a quote, may ask another question and they can be doing it during.

I

The five minutes, if that's okay, on the um general plan, consistency table that was adopted in 2013.

I

After when we returned, can you please receive read what the preface to that? Because I remember.

I

It saying that it's not intended to change anything that came before, and that would mean.

I

It was not intended to change the rancho master plan from 1993. That's the way. I interpret that.

AG

All right so- and we did- we did get some correspondence today about that. So I just want to.

AD

Be clear, are you asking us to look at the zoning code where it's been adopted into the zoning code.

I

No, there was a chart in 2013 and it has um the different.

I

Land use designations and the the maximum densities that are allowed.

I

Sure, and before that there were a couple of pages of preface that explain the purpose of it and I'm.

I

I'm sorry, I don't have that right here in front of me, but um but are you referring to the ordinance.

AD

That adopted it, I think it's the ordinance, the ordinance okay and we received some.

I

Correspondence this afternoon that references that now who's, we we did, we we did in our email.

I

Okay, I'll go back and take a look, and um are you referring to the letter from? I think it's, mr hall,.

I

Yes, okay, just for the record, I wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Yes, the letter from mr hall, so.

AF

For the record uh sometime around 3 30 3 45 this afternoon, we received additional correspondence.

AF

From jamie hall, who is the attorney for uh mr and ms luddy? uh They submitted an.

AF

Additional letter uh late in the afternoon, I don't know that staff had an opportunity to.

AF

To fully look at it, I don't I didn't see that was a meeting, so I didn't have time to look at it.

C

Okay, let's uh mr ramirez is okay. If we go ahead and take a five-minute break.

AD

At the will of the council I'll tell you what let's be back at 8 45.. Thank you.

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

C

Thank you. Everybody welcome back.

C

Thank you for the break. uh Let me finish. I've got a few questions that I want to.

C

Follow up with and like I said before, we took the break. This was my first question in regards to.

C

There were several different preferences made to the senator portentino letter.

C

And apparently, staff found the response to his office from.

C

Assistant, deputy director of local government relations and accountability.

C

Of department of housing and community development.

C

And that was dated february 23 2022.

C

Which our staff has never seen and obviously council hasn't seen it either.

C

So there was question also in regards by one of the speakers saying: can the gardens be preserved.

C

Can that be something we we asked that question early on and what you have in front of you is.

AD

The result of that question is that to be able to build the units uh consistent with, what's allowed.

AD

Under sb 35 and city's general plan, the gardens have to be removed and built out with housing.

C

You know ms cunningham made a comment saying that there's been about decades of careful planning in.

C

The rancho area- and I agree with her but requirements likes like sb 35, come along.

C

And that changes the entire you know what you can do and can't do it's unfortunate all those decades.

C

Of careful, careful planning have got to be changed by this sp 35 bill and we're seeing it now. This is.

C

Our first sb 35 project in burbank, so we council, the resident staff, um haven't been used to this.

C

Type of system this is new. I just went into effect what three years ago, 2018. uh yeah 20 late, 2017.

AD

2018 early 20, so you know the old ways of doing going through a project like it's been mentioned,.

C

They don't when the developer applies for an sb, 35 project. Things are different.

C

Things they're different than they were the way they were.

C

So we have to just keep that in mind. I know we don't like it. We don't like it.

C

It's taking our local control away from us, but nonetheless that's what sacramento put down.

C

Mr herman stated it very clear: a law is the law and that's what it is. It's the law.

C

I mean if you're, if you want to circumvent something and and you're trying to get away with.

C

It fine, but if you get caught you're gonna get spanked, I mean that's. Gonna cost a lot of money.

C

To our residents, rancho residents, as well as the entire city of burbank residents,.

C

The other question was about the miss caballetti mentioned the sewer analysis. It hadn't been done.

C

Yet that we needed that as a council to make a proper decision and do our due diligence.

C

Mr ramirez, do you feel that we need the sewer before so for us to make a decision? No, it's a.

AD

Condition on the project so for them to be able to pull their permit to build.

AD

They'll need to prove up that there is sufficient capacity or they'll pay, the applicable fees and.

AD

Build out the necessary infrastructure to accommodate it and that's standard. That's a.

AD

Standard condition for all projects of this type, okay, miss kathy ewing, stated this is a unique.

C

Asset to the community- yes, it is, the rancho area is unique to our community is unique. You don't.

C

Have you don't find many of these areas throughout the county throughout the state, so we are.

C

Special and we want to keep it special, but when there's laws that are being implemented at this.

C

At the sacramento level that we have no control over other than talking to our representatives.

C

It's it's out of our hands. It's out of the city council's hands. It's not like.

C

And there was a lot of court requests. Stop this, you change it, you know, don't pass it and it's it.

C

Doesn't work that way when it comes to laws that are being implemented up at sacramento and and.

C

Sent down to our local jurisdictions uh are there any other questions.

C

You guys remember springer, yes, um mr ramirez, do you can you please read the the press yeah? We.

AD

Were I was, I think, we're waiting for a printout of it. I was able to see it via the um city attorney's.

AD

Ipad, but can we put that actual? I think this is the she's talking about the ordinance.

AD

The larger ordinance, that's uh where the consistency tables were incorporated.

AF

Our ordinance, I believe, that's what you were. Okay, I can. I can read it, um you me this would be.

AF

The um purpose section of article 24 rancho.

AF

Sorry, rancho master plan zones. This article creates the rancho master plan area.

AF

Which contains a series of zoning classifications for the east and west rancho, as defined in.

AF

Resolution number 23893, which amends the general plan and land use element to reflect this area.

AF

All land use regulations, development standards for the rancho master plan area.

AF

Augment the land use regulation, development standards of the burbank municipal code, the.

AF

Rancho master plan regulates land zone single family horse, keeping commercial.

AF

Commercial recreation and existing industrial in the rancho master plan area.

AF

For land use, density, height, setbacks, parking landscaping and design standards when an issue.

AF

Condition or situation is not covered or provided for in the rancho master plan zones ordinance the.

AF

Development regulations of the burbank municipal code that are most applicable shall apply.

C

So, council, member springer, that's not it! It's the what was incorporated into the general plan.

I

In 2013 there were um two pages of preference preference preface to that and we received them.

I

Again today in mr hall's email um towards the end of the email well he's his attachment is.

AF

Like 160 pages that they submitted at 3 42., so I haven't had a chance to go through it.

AF

His letter, which is, in addition to a letter he sent yesterday or the day before, is 20 pages so.

AF

He is attached.

I

All right, what's what ordinance number is the the charts that were incorporated in 2013.? Could you.

I

Please look at that ordinance. Well, so the the ordinance adding all of the general plan, zoning.

AF

Consistency is uh ordinance, 3839, effective, may 24th 2013. the preface to each consistency table.

I

No, it's the two pages that preface the consistency tables. There are a couple of paragraphs that.

I

Precede the and it indicates the purpose of those tables and that the intent is not to change.

I

um The general plan, the meaning of the general plan or the intention of it.

AF

Well, so all I can speak to is the ordinance that the council adopted, which is codified. It doesn't.

AF

Have two pages before it: it is simply uh 10-1 dash relative to this. Property is 10-1-24 36.5.

AF

I'm going to that section.

AF

So, for commercial recreation, the purpose of commercial recreation? No, that's! That's not.

I

It I'm sorry, thank you I'll, find it. Okay, oh. Can we move on yeah all right? Thank you. Anyone else.

C

Council members, because we have schultz uh I'll, be quick. Mr mayor um councilmember springer.

G

Are you referring to, uh I think it's. The page. Nine of mr hall's letter from today is that right.

I

That sounds about right. It starts with a quote: land use zone, designations, pre. It goes on and on.

G

For our city attorney's benefit, I think it's on page nine. Can you read it please.

G

uh Yeah sure, so what I'm reading is page nine of the letter dated today. It reads, and I quote.

G

Land use zone designations presently applied to the project area in the city of burbank.

G

General plan include the following: first, one is commercial recreation under that there's a.

G

Bullet point- and it says quote, the intent of the commercial recreation area is to provide.

G

Suitable land for commercial recreation facilities, which require large areas for parking and access.

G

Related to regional highways, commercial recreation facilities function as essential supplements to.

G

The public recreational facilities providing such facilities as bowling alleys, theaters.

G

Skating, rinks and stables related commercial uses which are compatible with the primary use intended.

G

For this area include restaurants and lounges. The next bullet point, which I think is the end.

G

Of it says, any development in the area designated for commercial recreation must be carried out as.

G

A planned development- and this is cited- burbank rancho commercial recreation, center master plan.

G

Looks like an effective date of april 28 1992 and it's citing page 14.. So I would simply point out.

AF

This is simply a cut and paste from an attorney's letter. This is not the city's official ordinance.

AF

I I I can't really speak to the context of this language or the source document that it came from.

AD

If I may add to um and correct me, mr mcdougall, but.

AD

The references are to uh an ordinance and and regulations back in 1992.

AD

And then, subsequently in 1993, and what we're talking about is an ordinance.

AD

That took effect in 2013 that subsequently incorporated the general plan. Consistency.

AD

Table into the city, zoning regulations and, in essence, as is the case over time,.

AD

Old policy gets trumped by new policy, so the new zoning requirements trumped the old requirements.

AD

And in the new requirements, residential isn't allowed use discretionary approval, but it is.

AD

Nonetheless, an allowed use there, so I think we're still back to the same issue at hand and if I may.

AD

There was reference, and I just want to be clear and I'm not going to believe her the point, but.

AD

We got this letter uh from that went from hcd to portino and there is reference I.

AD

Just want to be on record here. There was a question as to whether we had.

AD

Heard the term ordinary practice and this letter dated of february.

AD

Of 2022 references on the second page middle paragraph, it says ordinary practice would either.

AD

Be to list the uses are not allowed or to remain silent as such uses and that's in the land use.

AD

Table so the reason we didn't know about it is because we never received this, so I'm not sure.

AD

Where the council member received the reference to ordinary practice, but if it was from this letter.

AD

This is the first time we're seeing it unless someone else saw it sooner than we did.

AF

Mr mayor, yes, sir um to mr ramirez's point about the ordinances uh sb 35.

AF

Puts the obligation on the city to impose only those objective standard, subdivision regulations.

AF

Zoning regulations and design review that are, in effect, as of the date, the notice of intent.

AF

Was deemed complete uh and uh it's un it's it's unknown, whether any of this language.

AF

Would even be, in effect, we'd have to presume that what is codified in the burbank municipal code.

AF

Is the effect of language rather than recitals from a 30 year old, ordinance, yeah.

C

How would you like to move forward councilman springer? Yes, thank you. Okay, you're, through all.

C

Right anyone else any comments before I go ahead and close yes, councilmember fudos. uh Thank you, mr.

F

Mayor, uh mr mcdougall, can you help me understand legality in reading this letter, I'm on page nine.

F

I'm in the middle of the of uh the page and I'll just read it.

F

On may 11 1993, the burbank city council adopted resolution 23 927.

F

Which amended the burbank general plan to add the rancho master plan.

F

And land use element on june 26th, the burbank city council adopted a separate zone text amendment.

F

How does that play in so the the paragraph that you read about the general plan.

AF

Has been completely replaced in 2013., so at the time the city commenced, the general plan amendment.

AF

Prior to 2006 that general plan amendment wasn't completed until 2013.

AF

There's no portion of the old general plan that remains the general plan.

AF

Which looks like this is the city's general plan. There's no.

AF

Prior volume that unless the language was carried over, that is effective as the city's general plan.

AF

There's separate volumes, which are the greenhouse gas reduction plan, uh which is coming for.

AF

Amendment and then there's a separate eir, so that is a new document and anything that was.

AF

Adopted or amended prior to that would no longer be, in effect, any amendment to the zoning ordinance.

AF

Would have to exist in context to what is currently in the zoning ordinance.

AF

The the reference at the bottom of page nine that you just read from refers to section 31-2440 well,.

AF

31 used to be uh title, 31 zoning used to be in title 31 when I first came here back in 2005 and.

AF

The city clerk was re-titling re-chaptering, the entire municipal code in 2007, the council approved.

AF

The reformulated municipal code and zoning is now in title 10., so these are very old references.

AF

And it looks like 2440, if that's the corollary.

AF

I'm looking at the current that doesn't appear that that section exists anymore.

AF

I'm scrolling through the current code, which would be 10 okay, so I will give.

AF

You a reference to that other section, so the the current burbank municipal code. So this.

AF

Section three one would be title three one section, two, four four zero would be the reference right.

AF

So the current code, reference would be title ten uh dash one chapter one. I think.

AF

Dash two four four zero, so the current municipal code reads: section 10-1-2438-2439-2440,.

AF

Blank deleted by ordinance 3509, effective, 1226 1998, so this provision was repealed in 1998. That.

AF

Would be 15 years before the new general plan was even adopted, so this language would have had no.

AF

Applicability before this century, thank you for clarifying it. No more questions, mr mayor, thank.

C

You thank you, mr mcdougall, very helpful, okay, we're gonna, I'm gonna close the hearing. uh I now declare.

C

The public can I ask one question. Sorry, let me take that back. Hang on vice mayor, go ahead.

H

If we wanted to submit things into evidence, would it be now or can we do it during the liberation.

AF

Well, presumably, you would have introduced it um so that the applicant would have an ability to.

AF

Take a look at it. Well, that's the question I have. uh We just got this letter. In fact, we.

H

The a couple of these- and I don't know if the applicant has had access to read them.

H

So I don't know what the process is here. We didn't get them beforehand, they're new to us, so is there.

H

A way I could submit these well so so the channel law group letter was received prior to the meeting.

AF

Okay, so that's in that's in the evidence that is part of the correspondence that the clerk.

AF

Referenced: okay, the portentino letter, the portentino letter- did not exist at least.

AF

With regard to staff, although some of the language was referenced in council comments, it was actually.

AF

Another department head was searching the internet. While we were talking about portino.

AF

And found this, so it was literally during council comments. I think it is material. It goes directly.

AF

To the point of what the senator was relying upon, apparently there was technical assistance with hcd.

AF

Even though we never heard back from the senator uh and and this letter was sent back.

AF

To somebody so this this should be introduced. um uh It is also germane to the correspondence.

AF

That was previously in the record that I actually sent to council, which was mr herrera from hcd's.

AF

Response that he determined that the sp 35 was applicable to the projects, the the original.

H

Htd letter, that's in evidence is the original october 7th 14th letter, also in evidence as well.

AF

uh It's part of the record of the project. I don't know that it is.

AF

It's not incorporated into this binder would it be appropriate to.

H

Have all of these letters put into evidence, or is that not yes, mr ramirez has my printed.

AF

Copy and we can hand that to the clerk the the october letter. We can also make sure that mr.

AF

Prescott's october 11th response uh to senator portentino is added. That's the one where staff.

H

Yeah, that's good. I want all four of these letters put in there yeah. So let me read.

AF

uh So october, 11th I'll just give a specific reference and then I'll forward this to the clerk.

AF

October 11th 2021: this is from patrick prescott, community development director.

AF

To honorable senator anthony j portentino ray sp35 and proposed pickwick project in burbank.

AF

And um this was conveyed in sentiment, but I'll just quote from it. On the last page, mr prescott.

AF

Says the city would be very appreciative if the legislative council could confirm their opinion.

AF

Sb 35 is not applicable to this site, based on the general plan, land use, designation and zoning.

AF

For this site, as outlined above I'd, be happy to discuss this request with you.

AF

And our legislative council and welcome your feedback on this very complex matter.

AF

That's again october 11th, 2021., okay, does that suffice, yeah those two and then the one from.

H

uh Jamie hall and then the one from uh david zisser is that what you understand.

C

Mr mcdougall is that yes, okay, okay, thank you appreciate it councilman schultz. uh Thank you.

G

Mr mayor, I just have one more question and then I think we're ready to deliberate.

G

So mr city attorney I'd like to ask you, because we had a lot of comment tonight asking for this.

G

Council to fight back against sacramento- and I think again this is public oversight. The.

G

Community has a right to know what we're facing, so my question is sort of a two-parter. What findings.

G

uh Would the council need to make tonight to find that this project is not is not eligible under.

G

Sb 35 and what might be the consequences or what would be the process playing out after that.

AF

So, in order to find that the project is not consistent, the council would need to identify.

AF

Among the criteria that staff presented evidence, let me go back to.

AF

What I read earlier, it was the reasonable person standard that council member springer referenced.

AF

Pardon me for just a moment.

AF

This is from the updated, streamlined ministerial approval process. These are the hcd guidelines. This.

AF

Is from hcd guidelines, section 301 development review and approval a ministerial processing.

AF

So this is 301 a 2c when determining consistency. A local government shall find that the development.

AF

Is consistent with the objective planning standards if there is substantial evidence that.

AF

Would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the development is consistent with the objective.

AF

Standards period, this is the first half and so staff's recommendation is based upon your packet.

AF

They believe that is the substantial evidence. The second sentence, the local.

AF

Government may only find that a development is inconsistent with one or more objective.

AF

Planning standards, if the local government finds no substantial evidence in favor of consistency.

AF

And that, based on the entire record, no reasonable person.

AF

Could conclude that a development is consistent with the objective standards.

G

Thank you, mr mayor. Okay,.

C

I now declare the public hearing closed and council will now deliberate. What is the council's.

C

Pleasure is there any discussion or a motion, all right, council members. I have um on the letter.

I

That we just got on the bottom paragraph, there's an there's, a misunderstanding on the part of hcd.

I

While the land use designation for the site under the general plan's.

I

Land use element is called rancho commercial.

I

The primary use described for that designation allows the primary I'll repeat the primary use.

I

Described for that designation allows for residential with some incidental commercial.

I

So they it should be the other way around. So they're writing they're, responding to the senator.

I

And they have misunderstood their land use, designation.

I

They're thinking it's primarily residential when it's not.

AF

Well, they've set forth an analysis.

I

Assumption well, I I I think the letter can speak for itself and you can give it whatever way.

AF

You prefer, to give it, I mean in the end, each council member needs to determine what weight.

AF

To give the evidence, oh okay and I have um um well, this is deliberation. We went through the.

C

Questions right prior, so now you're going through. I can give my comments. Yes, okay,.

I

So I think I've been pretty consistent in the way that I feel about this, but even more.

I

Consistent now, in that, the project does not is not consistent with our general plan or sb-35.

I

If the site has a non-residential land use designation, there are 12 in the city of burbank.

I

12 non-residential land use designations, it's indicated in the text and also in the diagram lu-1.

I

In our general plan, pickwick is zoned commercial recreation within the rancho commercial land.

I

Use area by right uses include gyms ice skating, rinks bowling alleys and racquetball courts.

I

Zones allow or prohibit specific uses, as indicated in section 10-1-502.

I

Residential uses are prohibited in rancho, commercial and rancho.

I

And commercial recreation nor, in my opinion, are they authorized in section 10-1-503.

I

I went down the rabbit hole given these facts. No reasonable.

I

Person could conclude that the development is consistent with objective general plan standards.

I

Forcing and distorting this non-residential land use designation.

I

Into ministerial review for residential development is jamming a square peg into a.

I

Round hole and potentially shatters the rancho neighborhood according to hcd, the purpose of.

I

Sb-35 was to allow local jurisdictions to control housing development through objective standards.

I

I think that this proposed project proves that residential land use designation is key to that.

I

Ordinary practice in burbank is that residential development proposals for non-residential land.

I

Uses move forward with the general plan, amendment plan, development and a development agreement.

I

Appropriate density and other mitigations for health, safety and public welfare.

I

Are decided within that process.

I

The the pickwick commercial recreation zoning is the only commercial recreation.

I

Zone in burbank, if we approve this project, we lose that valuable asset.

I

That valuable recreation space in burbank, as well as degrade the rancho neighborhood.

I

Burbank 2035 references, the rancho master plan, which was adopted in 1993 into the general plan.

I

And provides further vision and policy for the rancho neighborhood. It allows for keeping.

I

Horses in a low density, urban environment, that's a quote the vision and policies applicable to this.

I

Neighborhood are discussed in the rancho master plan. That line is a quote from the general plan.

I

Low density and low intensity are noted throughout the rancho commercial portion of our general plan.

I

Yet the proposed project exceeds that and has moved forward as r3 medium density, residential.

I

Widening main street at riverside is not consistent with our general plan.

I

If an improvement would not be compatible with the scale, this is a quote: if an improvement.

I

Would not be compatible with the scale and design of the existing infrastructure or would increase.

I

The existing roadway width, measured from curb to curb along a residential or mixed use, area.

I

The improvement would conflict with mobility element 1.5, the pickwick site wasn't and isn't a.

I

Residential opportunity site chart lu2 in burbank 2035 indicates a 2035 development capacity of zero.

I

Dwelling units and zero population for rancho commercial pickwick is not in a transit center.

I

Or on a transit corridor, the land use element and mobility element were developed concurrently.

I

Recognizing the close relationship between land use and transportation policy, that's a quote.

I

Burbank 2035 references, burbank, complete streets plan and that plan indicates that possibly.

I

Every street in the rancho, including maine and riverside, are equestrian priority streets.

I

In addition to the general plan guidelines, this is a quote now: assembly bill ab 1358, the complete.

I

Streets act of 2008 requires that cities and counties identify how they will provide.

I

For the routine accommodation of all users or roadways of roadways, a complete street is a.

I

Transportation facility that is planned, designed, operated and maintained to ensure safe access.

I

For all roadway users, nowhere do I read about equestrian safety. The neighborhood is located.

I

Close to the los angeles, equestrian center and a vast regional trails network- and it is important.

I

That equestrians arrive safely to arenas and griffith park lots. There are small and horses.

I

Need to safely access exercise opportunities. These are equestrian priority streets.

I

The the lots are small, they don't have runabouts in their backyards.

I

And in the the the legal cases that we were given, one is in cetus boulevard apartments.

I

Versus city of encinitas, that site is zoned r30 residential 30 overlay zone.

I

And in the san mateo, california, renters legal advocacy and education fund versus.

I

City of san mateo, the project site, is designated.

I

In the city's general plan and zoned for high-density multi-family dwellings.

I

Are for zoning so we're talking about? I realize the importance of streamlining, but this is.

I

Not a residential land use designation and that's why we have this trying to jam a square peg into.

I

A round hole trying to keep people safe because it was never intended for residential use.

C

All right vice mayor, thank you, mr mayor.

H

I really like the project. It's exactly what I've been asking for for years. We need for sale, housing.

H

It's got medium density, it's not a big high-rise, it's not spread out, um and you know if the.

H

Previous owner had come to us and said hey. This is what I want to build. I would have loved to have.

H

Gone through a plan, development or a conditional use permit worked out something to to to put some.

H

Housing in that neighborhood I mean right across the street, is uh you know across maine? Is r4.

H

Yeah, it's our four and then across riverside is also r4. It's dens, it's dense, but that's not.

H

What happened and in fact, how much I love the project can't be factored in to the findings.

H

A reasonable person when looking at this evidence.

H

Would in no way ever think that you could build housing on a bowling alley? I want to go back to.

H

The very end of senator portino's letter here he says um on the october 7th he says uh in addition.

H

As a former mayor and council member, I find the position that a general plan can be revised via a.

H

Staff driven administerial action, absent a council, supervised process and final action, inconsistent.

H

With the usual and customary standard practice for cities in california, I believe what happened.

H

In 2013 and it's nobody's fault, a lot of stuff going on big changes. General plan coming through.

H

I believe city staff was tasked with putting together a list of all the fars, all the possible.

H

Theoretical, even the the the line from that piece of um um general plan even says, you know.

H

uh It says uh the far for rancho commercial anticipates that some properties will recycle.

H

It's it's about a future projection. There weren't nobody was building anything in that plot of land.

H

And so I think staff put together a whole list included in far and said. Well, if that's what.

H

The city wants to do we're just going to put it there, because that's what we think is: okay,.

H

And then they turned around to do a rancho master plan and to council member schultz's.

H

Point by voting for something like that, but for that general plan, it's basically a policy change.

H

But when a supervised uh process and final action, like uh uh senator portentino, mentioned.

H

Came before the council in 2013 a uh rancho master plan to update it, the council said no.

H

And that's reflected in what is the most obvious and easy piece of information that most reasonable.

H

People would look at and that's the land use table. I looked at the land use table. It's all laid out.

H

In charts and graphs- and I talk about reasonable people, because mr stavert, the previous owner.

H

He he had pickwick for four years after the signing of sb-35 and never once.

H

In all that time, and he wanted housing, he talked about it. He held a meeting.

H

He said what am I going to do. I want to put some housing here. Please talk to me.

H

Never once did he approach our city staff with an sb-35 idea only only.

H

The applicant came forward, who is, I would consider, beyond a reasonable person, he's an expert, in fact,.

H

This is what he did. He admitted that he looks for projects in cities where this is applicable and.

H

Buys those properties and puts that into effect he went out of his way to find the smallest footnote.

H

Four little sentences on a general plan that was never adopted in the master plan for that area and.

H

He put pressure on his lawyers and whatnot to buy the property and flip it and turn it into condos.

H

And one of the reasons why I was so excited about when I heard condos is because most.

H

People don't build condos, most developers, don't build condos because it doesn't pencil out.

H

You really can't make that in the state of california there's a lot of laws and restrictions.

H

You really don't make any money. Building condos apartments is where the money's at.

H

And so I thought to myself: why is this guy building condos and it has to be because he.

H

Paid almost nothing for a commercial bowling alley and he's gonna flip it and make.

H

Tons of money on condos, that's what this guy does and he's got his lawyer threatening lawsuits and.

H

It's funny his lawyer didn't even threaten for him to sue. He said a bunch of yimbi organizations are.

H

Gonna sue us for him, so he's got his lawyer in his ear saying: no, no do the thing you won't have.

H

To worry about a lawsuit, we've got all these other organizations across the state up and down suing.

H

This city and suing that city and if they say no they're, going to hit him real hard. I mean I.

H

You know I hate to break it to mr berkey, but when I was running I was endorsed by quite a few.

H

Housing organizations and I'm a very pro housing person. In fact, when I look around the table here,.

H

First street village front street: all of the adus we've been approved. This.

H

Is the most pro housing council in burbank's history? I mean he's going to be hard-pressed.

H

To find any organization, that's going to sue us over something as simple as the fact that.

H

There's an inconsistency between the land use table and the section that's written.

H

All right the fact that when a rancho master plan came to council, they refused to adopt it.

H

The the letter that portentino talks about he's not talking about is there discretion right.

H

That's a lot of the argument and people calling in is well if it's discretionary, if it's planned.

H

Discretion, traffic, the equestrian all of that goes out the window with sb435. You look at the general.

H

Plan you look at what was adopted and the intent you know the mr berkey, his the applicant's lawyer.

H

Mentioned that the general plan is the city's constitution um side note, I would argue the.

H

City charters, the constitution, but, to his point a general plan can be interpreted right. It's in.

H

Black and white on the page, but you have to apply it into each area and I'm sorry, but any reasonable.

H

Person, if you brought this before a judge- and he looked at our general plan and the actions that.

H

We took in 2013 and the fact that there's only four little sentences in a 157 page document.

H

To to support this, I really don't think it's there. I absolutely don't think it's there if it was.

H

The previous owner, mr stabert, would have done it, and so what we have, I believe, is a developer.

H

Who saw an opportunity to finagle some some work? He bought the property he's going to try to flip.

H

It and if not, he sells it and he gets his money back. It's no skin off his nose either way. It goes.

H

And you know I will say: there's people out there. You know like mr herman, who would have us just.

H

Roll over and accept it, but I say we deny this on the grounds on four very specific grounds.

H

One, the findings are inconsistent between the different sections in our general plan.

H

In the land use table two, the action of council in 2013 to refuse to adopt.

H

A rancho master plan, which is taken after the adoption of the general plan and three the fact.

H

That it's a very small amount of language put forth in the general plan page three. Sixteen.

H

And then, finally, number four, no reasonable person when looking at those three items can look at the.

H

Pickwick and say to them: oh no, we're building housing there, you have to build housing. There.

H

If the applicant had come to us totally separate from sb 35 and said, hey, I want to work with you. We.

H

Need housing there's no way we would have turned him away. This is not something we would have done.

H

Outright and so the fact that he didn't do that. The fact that from the beginning.

H

From the beginning, the applicant knew he was going to use this for sb-35. There was no conversation.

H

That's all he wanted to do and he was going to ram it through.

H

I think he's hanging on by thread, I think he's just waiting for cities like us to turn a blind.

H

Eye a fear for a lawsuit. I I would vote uh uh to not approve this and uh request that the.

H

Applicant come back with something else: that's not sp35 and see if we can work with him on that.

C

Thank you, colleagues.

G

All right, thank you, mr mayor, um so there's a there's a lot to unpack here and I'm going to.

G

Try and get it all into my comments and then I might have to piggyback off of you. Councilmember.

G

Fruits there's a lot to say. um First of all, I just want to say thank you to staff for your work.

G

Thank you to all of the members of the of the public that called in tonight.

G

um This is an emotionally charged situation and I just want to speak from a point of personal.

G

Privilege, if I can so I live in the rancho and my wife ali and I specifically bought in the rancho.

G

For all of the reasons that we heard tonight, it is, unlike any other neighborhood in southern.

G

California, it is a treasure and I share their concern on a personal level, about the erosion.

G

Of that unique neighborhood, I think we all do and to the folks watching at home. You know better than.

G

I do it's not just sb 35, it's senate bill, nine, it's senate bill 10. and it's a lot of legislation.

G

That is coming from sacramento and I think the disappointing here is the disappointing part here.

G

Is that when I look at a bill like senate bill 35 uh with all due respect to senator weiner it it's.

G

A terrible bill not because I don't appreciate what you're trying to do, but the way it's written.

G

It isn't clear um also, I I want to specifically mention a couple of the callers who called in.

G

Favor of it um we do have a housing crisis in california and burbank needs to play its part and.

G

Build that housing, but we also have an affordable housing crisis, and you know I wish that the bill.

G

Were constructed in a different way where it required more than just 10 percent, because.

G

That is not going to put a dent in it. Mr ruskin, I agreed with your comment. I do think to an extent.

G

Adding housing period will help the situation. In hindsight, though, I tracked senate bill 35 and it.

G

Could have been written a lot better, there were some concessions made along the way, and I was.

G

Very disappointed with the outcome and, more to the point, it leads to the erosion of local decision.

G

Making we're elected, we represent our community and we know what fits burbank's interests. The best.

G

So I could talk all night, as you all know, about how much I do like the project. In some ways it.

G

Adds home ownership opportunities to our community where they're lacking you know ali, and I are one.

G

Of those few young families that we're able to buy in burbank- and it was really really hard and.

G

Expensive, I could also talk at great length about how I think the project is deficient.

G

In many ways, but the reality is that's not our authority here tonight and I just wanted to say.

G

To the public, that's watching you know, our role is public oversight. This is not.

G

I forget which caller said it, so I apologize for blanking right now, but you asked why can't we just.

G

Do our typical development review I truly wish we could. I wish we could, but that's not the world.

G

That we're in right now, so what I would say about this project is, if we break it down, um I kind of.

G

View it this way, we have to look at it objectively and say: does it meet the site qualifications.

G

And uh does it comply with our other objective standards? um Speaking for myself personally,.

G

I see no evidence to suggest that it doesn't come so putting the site eligibility aside.

G

All the other issues- I I don't see there being any evidence that it fails to comply with our.

G

Complete streets plan or anything like that, that's just me, I don't I. We have a lot of speculation.

G

And conjecture and opinion, but as I was saying as a lawyer, you know we have a saying you know.

G

Don't use hearsay use evidence anyone can say. I heard that my opinion is that, but I want to see.

G

The evidence- and I don't think that's presented tonight now to council member springer's point.

G

I think that there is some question in my mind as to site eligibility. I see staff's interpretation.

G

And I see hcd's interpretation and it makes sense to me. On the other hand, you raised a good point.

G

uh Councilmember springer, and I think you you said you mentioned something similar vice mayor.

G

I want to just be clear for the record here on page 3-25, I believe is when you were referring.

G

To table lu-2, which included the projected estimated dwelling units in 2035., I see the.

G

Confusion there, so I guess my question to the body is I'm forming my my my opinion is this: we have to.

G

Come to the conclusion right that uh there is no substantial evidence in favor of consistency, not.

G

No evidence no substantial evidence and that, based on the entire record, no reasonable person.

G

Could conclude that the development is consistent with those standards? So so that's where I'm at.

G

And uh councilmember frutos you've been here a long time. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

G

But I will just say one more thing, because I know I'm kind of putting you on the spot.

G

um My line of questioning about the the long and tortured history here is really really simple.

G

um There is confusion where, in my humble opinion, there need not be. We have a general plan that does.

G

Include those four lines vice mayor, identifying the site for housing. If I had been on council.

G

That never would have passed. At least I wouldn't have voted for that, because it creates confusion.

G

Where there needn't be- and I don't say any of this to point fingers- I don't mean to.

G

Disparage our our state senator or assembly member prior councils. My point is that we as policymakers.

G

Need to be very, very clear that what we approve truly embodies. What our intent is, because this.

G

Is how situations like this come up, and I think that it's just needlessly painful, where you know.

G

Moving forward, I know we all have the community's best interest at heart, and I just I know I hope we.

G

Continue to do what we do as a team, and that is turn over every stone and be really methodical.

G

And principled, in our approach and the last thing you know vice mayor, I know you have a strong.

G

Opinion about developers, um you know you also had some words for mr hermann, I'm going to say this. I.

G

Know, mr herman quite well, we all do. um I know he has the community's best interest at heart and.

G

There are serious concerns about what happens next and I'm just going to say them, because we all know.

G

um There can be a lawsuit either way we come out tonight and that's not the only consequence for.

G

The public to know there could be a court order that comes down uh direct telling us that we got.

G

It wrong now the pickwick is important enough that we might want to take that chance as a team.

G

And say we're going to make our case and make our pitch, but what the public needs to know is.

G

That, if the court disagrees with us, we're going to have a very clear choice on our hands, correct and.

G

Get in compliance with the court order or pay a substantial fine totaling, nearly 5 million dollars.

G

And I just want to go on record right now and say: 5 million can do an awful lot of good for.

G

This community and it is- and I'm not willing to part with those service cuts for it. So that is my.

G

Concern and my point vice mayor is not to be harsh on you, but to say I understand where mr herman's.

G

Coming from- and I know he has the community's best interest at heart when he is imploring us to think.

G

Long and hard about these decisions and same to uh you know to the developer. I probably wouldn't.

G

uh You know for counsel, for the developer, probably wouldn't have led with those choice of words.

G

um But I understand quite clearly your rights and we'll see where the body comes down tonight.

G

um I guess that's all. I have mr mayor I'd love to hear from my uh colleague here.

C

Councilman frudo, yes, thank you, mr mayor. Well, they're. Definitely.

F

Was a lot a lot of discussion this evening, and I want to thank staff and the support.

F

Staff, mr city manager, what I really like is that this was only dealing with this tonight.

F

Versus a regular council meeting, so I felt very comfortable with my long line of questions.

F

My rationale and my evidence and my decision tonight is based upon a reasonable person plain.

F

And simple: I'm not the subject matter: experts like our cdd folks, I'm definitely not the folks.

F

Up in sacramento, but I have heard enough now to the average person the average resident 107 000.

F

People in our city and 17 square miles, they know the pickwick commercial zone being on the council.

F

And going through mariposa and talking about the rancho master plan and studying the rancho.

F

Master plan- and it was interesting because when we're working on the mariposa project.

F

I met he was a retired detective from the burbank police department who lived in the rancho.

F

And he was one of the group of community members that.

F

Wrote that master plan- and this supports your comments, mr vice mayor- that there was a reason why.

F

The council, before our time, stayed away. That's an important document again, a reasonable person.

F

And this is what I'm basing my decision tonight: a reasonable person that we're reasonable we're the.

F

Layman here they're the subject matter: experts they gave us the information we went back and.

F

Forth with their questioning, but as more questions came up from all of us myself vice mayor, mr mayor.

F

Councilman springer councilmember schultz. It really brought into question how it's kind of.

F

Inconsistent the different answers going here and there and when I first read this letter, I'm.

F

Glad, mr mayor, we took a break because I had to read it a couple times, but this whole process.

F

From the time that we were notified that it was moving forward, we were playing catch up. We were.

F

At at the tail end because the residents were calling us and wanting to know, we don't know it's.

F

Our first 35, it's our very first one and I'm sure, there's more to come. But to me the average person.

F

In the community would say: no, no, that's a bowling alley, an ice skating ring and you guys haven't, had.

F

A public hearing like you normally do and it talks about ordinary practice. Our ordinary practice.

F

And the last one I can cite was when we redid the zoning in the uh golden state. Freeway.

F

That area we rezoned it for housing because it was.

F

Manufacturing commercial, but we had a public hearing to rezone that after we passed.

F

The the new housing goals for the city, so we can we we can meet the arena numbers.

F

So ordinary practice we did that we didn't do it for this project to the average again. The test.

F

The ordinary person that follows council would probably say: hey you guys, never had a rezoning.

F

When you guys went to the ranch, you know the mariposa projects. uh You know several years ago.

F

You guys cited on lot size and everything, that's ordinary practice again. This is the layman. This.

F

Is an average person, the rancho master plan to ordinary people and that's the test? That's how.

F

I have to make a decision that is based upon an ordinary person saying no hey. We worked on this.

F

Master rancho plan and that site is it's just not zoned for housing, at least not that big. I still.

F

Believe in what I read low density, why we went up to mac medium to me, that's a lot of density.

F

I don't feel strongly with everything that was discussed. The testimony.

F

Most important the questions from all my colleagues, you have put a serious doubt.

F

In my mind that this project is consistent with our general plan, so I will be voting no.

F

But I'll vote no without prejudice, so hopefully the developer can maybe circle his wagons with.

F

Our staff and come up with something better because I do support more housing. But I got to.

F

Tell you that hoa kind of blew me away. That's not consistent! We're talking about ordinary practice.

F

You tell me one project that we has a body of five now have passed, and you talked about some.

F

Of the projects I get at their rental apartments but as far as I understand.

F

Low-Cost housing means just the rent or in this case.

F

The mortgage hoa is a whole different thing. I I I'm sorry, that's again my.

F

uh Facts in this hearing goes back to a reasonable person enough evidence during the testimony.

F

Discussion, presentation by staff has literally put a reasonable doubt that this is not consistent.

F

To the ordinary person, they feel that that rancho master plan is an effect.

F

In their minds, that would prevent something like this happening.

F

And that's how I will stand on my vote. Thank you, mr mayor. Thank you, city staff. Thank you. Customer.

C

Well, let me weigh in here uh very good discussion.

C

Obviously I know where it's headed. You know there was a lot of misunderstanding.

C

Obviously, with all the speakers, their comments in regards to, uh why can't we do something.

C

Different, you guys shouldn't vote for it, because this is this: isn't the burbank way.

C

But if this does go down, it's going to be another message that we send to sacramento lawmakers.

C

Saying see, burbank doesn't want to play, they don't want to do their share of housing.

C

And we all agree, we need housing, but where are we going to do it over north hollywood, sun valley.

C

And get the credit from them that has been done not around here, but other cities.

C

So you know it's it's unfortunate but- and I agree like I said earlier on- that's a.

C

Unique community over there that's very special because they're, not not many around the country.

C

Or even the state that has something like this.

C

So I'm proud to be part of burbank, I'm proud to be the mayor and have an equestrian community.

C

But I think we have to come to a realization when you get down the road we do have to do our share.

C

You know we just can't be saying well, not in my neighborhood.

C

It's great, if you put it over there, it looks really good over there from where I live.

C

But not in my neighborhood, you know: there's not going to be a perfect location that everybody's.

C

Going yeah- this is great, put it right here. I don't see that coming in my lifetime.

C

But there are a lot of uncertainties in this discussion here. The letter from uh senator.

C

Portentino early on that, it made it clear that, obviously the opposing side was showing it to.

C

Everybody but see, look at see what senator said senator said yeah. This is no good. This project.

C

Doesn't fall under the sb 35 and then we have something else that just propped up tonight that.

C

Was never distributed to count out to staff at least let alone council members so went somewhere.

C

And staff just kind of sat on it, I mean senator portentino stepped because that's where it went.

C

His office, it's unfortunate that they didn't share it with us just to give us a complete picture.

C

But um you know like it's mentioned there are so many uncertainties here.

C

So many questions and obviously I understand I've been around long enough that you you want to put.

C

The the uh the burden of proof on someone else you can raise, depending on what site, you're taking.

C

You can raise doubt any which way you want and whatever side you're on you can raise doubt right.

C

And let the other side come up with the answers, but.

C

Somebody want to make a motion sure go ahead.

I

Thank you. um I think that you know we need housing and we have areas in burbank where I think we can.

I

Put it but you in your public transportation, there is no public transportation here.

I

No untrained, um but I think we have the findings. You know like the land use and I'm confused about.

I

The rancho master plan and incorporated it in, and I need clarification on that because I believe I.

I

Understand it to be a part of our general plan, the density is inconsistent. That's r3, the street.

I

Widening we don't, we don't widen streets and it says that it if an improvement would not.

I

Be compatible with the scale and design of the existing infrastructure, or do we increase the.

I

Existing roadway with along a residential or mixed-use area, the improvement would conflict.

I

With mobility element 1.5, I mean that's a clear conflict. Our general plan notes references.

I

Our complete street plan and you go to complete street plan chapter 10 and you see a map.

C

Thank you of equestrian priority streets and maine and riverside and every other little street.

I

I mean it's tiny, look like equestrian priority streets.

I

And there's nothing in there. I mean horses ride in the street and nothing in all of this.

I

Offers any safety for them. Nothing addresses widening the street because clearly.

I

It's out of scale if they can't use the existing roadway, then it's too big for that. For that.

I

Property, it's the wrong who knows, but it's out of scale, for the existing infrastructure.

I

So we do, I believe we do have findings. You know definite findings, but thank you.

I

Yeah go ahead. uh Thank you very much, mr mayor, and uh thank you for that. Council member springer.

G

You know there's just a couple quick points I want to make before I get to the central thrust here.

G

um You know, I share your concern, mr mayor, about the message that this sends to sacramento, because.

G

um You know we are uh potentially voting down a project right. The one thing I would say if anyone.

G

From sacramento is listening is that what was it late? Last year, we approved a project with nearly.

G

900 units I mean we as a city are committed to adding housing and you know to if the developer.

G

Is still watching what I would say is I I'm going to depart here from my uh vice mayor a little bit.

G

Who had some very uh tough words for him? Look, we can't construct the housing that we need.

G

Publicly financed not on the scale that we need, and I actually do like to see a project like this.

G

Coming forward with ownership opportunity, so there's an opportunity for equity building and.

G

Every part of our community, I'm with you, mr mayor, every part, is going to have to pull its fair share.

G

But to the issue at hand, uh you know the council majority council, member fruitos, you had a lot of.

G

Great comments about the standard here and your view of it um I will join uh the majority.

G

And we'll see what happens, but the last thing I just want to say to those watching at home is that.

G

This is not the end. There is a strong probability that this will go to court, we'll see what the.

G

Court has to say, and it may be out of our hands at some point. So I only say that, because I know it's.

G

Very easy to get caught up in the moment to make a lot of commitments and promises. But the reality is.

G

This is a matter that may be decided by the courts and it may be out of our hands, but with all of.

G

That said, I think we can all agree. The rancho is a very special place. The pickwick is unique and it's.

G

Worth fighting for, um I think you've articulated the uh the argument councilmember springer, so um I.

G

Think it'd be appropriate if you wanted to make the motion, and uh but thank you for your words.

N

Go ahead just one comment: if I can ask my colleagues just consider without prejudice.

F

This way the developer can, tomorrow morning, get together with city staff, see if we can.

F

Brainstorm something better and we can revisit it. If I may ask that I will plan you know without.

F

Prejudice this way, you know the developer has an opportunity to work with staff if he wishes.

F

Thank you. Thank you, mr mayor. Thank you vice mayor, uh thank you and before a motion is made, I will.

H

Just say to the people watching at home um if the developer, for whatever reason turns right back.

H

Around and offers a different project, not under sb 35, don't be surprised if we are considering.

H

Housing on that that that plot that property, we have spoken a big message not just tonight, but.

H

For years now, about housing needs in the city of burbank across main street is r4.

H

Across riverside is r4, there is no there's, no reason why we shouldn't be able to look.

H

At that property and change the zoning as needed, because that's our prerogative as a city council.

H

The only argument we're making here today is that the council didn't do that in 2013.. We.

H

Find that you know it's inconsistent with uh the general plan, so that's all that's being.

H

Said today, and in fact, a few months from now, if a judge overrules that you're going to see.

H

These same council members vote very differently if there's a fine attached to it. So everyone.

H

Watching at home, this is again just the first step and counselor springer. One more comment.

I

There's nothing that precludes the developer for going through a planned development process. It's.

I

Just that it's another option right, yeah, we're not that option is available. Sure.

I

Okay, all right is there a motion.

I

So I need help with emotion. I just move that we vote no with prejudice without prejudice to.

I

Would you like me to thank you, walk you through it? Okay, what I would suggest is that the motion.

AF

Be framed, something like the city council adopts a resolution, uh denying project number.

AF

22-00972 located at 921-1001, west west riverside drive.

AF

uh Period and the city council of the city, burbank, fines.

AF

And it sounds like councilmember springer had a fairly comprehensive.

AF

List of findings, I don't know whether the council members want those read again or incorporated.

AF

And that would be a resolution denying the project based upon the findings that you.

AF

Read into the record and you could provide them to staff, we could incorporate that.

AF

So that the resolution was complete, I would ask a question: it sounded to me.

AF

Like in the first instance, your discussion and findings regarding the general plan and zoning.

AF

Went to whether the project was even eligible, and so um so, if that's the case, then the city.

AF

Council of the city of burbank finds the proposed project is not eligible.

AF

Based upon and we can excerpt your findings that go to the zoning and general plan that you.

AF

Stated and then further state the other findings. Would you like me to restate them? I would say.

I

Not eligible due to the land use, designation density is inconsistent with our general plan.

I

um Street binding is inconsistent with our general plan and also in the complete street.

I

Is just ignored, I I recall when you read your statement, that it was also that the zone is not.

AF

Residential zone and that the general plan land use designation was not a general plan. Land use.

AF

Designation right, sp 35 requires a residential land use, designation and- and this clearly is not.

C

Okay, there's a motion: is there a second a second second, any other comments, madam city uh clerk.

E

Councilmember springer, yes, vice mayor anthony, yes without prejudice.

E

Part of the motion- right- yes, I'm sorry councilmember, yes, councilmember schultz,.

F

Yes, mayor telemantes, yes, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Colleagues, great deliberation.

C

I'd like to remind all the all the viewers listening that this friday.

C

April 22nd earth earth day this friday april 22nd so go out there and enjoy the earth.

C

We now join the meeting to tuesday april 26th for a joint city council meeting through an online.

C

Meeting process the public may view the meeting please whenever we're still in session. Thank you.

C

The public may view the media online or on television and will be able to provide.

C

Public comment in the following three ways: by leaving an e-comment on the city webpage.

C

By emailing, the city council directly or by calling directly to the city council meeting.

C

Thank you and good night be safe out there.

C