►
Description
Burbank City Council Meeting Closed Session - June 7, 2022
B
C
C
It
is
in
the
matter
of
the
california
department
of
housing
and
community
development
notice
of
violation
concerning
the
denial
of
the
pickwick
gardens
housing
project.
The
second
item
is
a
matter
of
existing
litigation
pursuant
to
government
code,
section
54,
956.9
d1
in
the
case
of
tim
simonek
at
all
versus
city
of
burbank
at
all.
C
D
E
Good
afternoon
good
afternoon,
mayor
telemontes
vice
mayor,
anthony
and
council
members,
my
name
is
dale
gusk
and
I
want
to
address
item
number
one
on
your
closed
session
agenda
about
pickwick.
I
want
to
say
how
much
I
appreciate
and
thank
you
for
your
decision
to
deny
the
project
with
the
most
recent
letter
from
hcd.
I
am
sure
you
are
feeling
pressure.
E
E
We
all
should
be
concerned
with
such
a
fundamental
error
made
by
the
state
department
of
housing
and
community
development
in
what
appears
to
be
an
official
notice
of
violation.
This
error
is,
in
addition
to
another
one
where
hcd
states,
essentially
that
the
city
intended
pickwick
to
become
a
housing
site.
The
city
did
not
the
early
april.
2021
draft
of
the
current
housing
element
did
not
include
pickwick.
The
previous
adopted
housing
element
did
not
include
pickwick.
The
current
draft
housing
element
does
not
include
pickwick
in
its
site
inventory.
E
The
only
time
the
pickwick
site
was
identified
and
the
housing
element
was
november
last
year
and
then
only
as
a
pending
entitlement.
Pending
entitlement
is
a
record
of
a
developer
proposal.
It
does
not
reflect
the
city's
intention.
The
site
has
never
been
listed
in
the
site
inventory
because
the
city
never
intended
pickwick
to
be
developed
as
a
housing
site.
The
matters
you
are
considering
affect
more
neighborhoods
than
just
the
rancho.
E
The
consequences
of
not
defending
your
decision
will
affect
all
burbank
neighborhoods,
our
general
plan
for
growth
and
land
development
in
burbank,
the
one
that
we,
the
community,
spend
so
much
time
on,
and
the
one
that
the
city
spent
so
much
money
on
will
no
longer
guide.
Our
city
developers
will
decide
where
to
build.
What
to
build
when
to
build
and
at
what
density
they
will
decide
how
much
parking
they
can
keep
asking
for
waivers
from
any
standards
they
don't
like
because
of
their
claims
of
financial
infusibility
losing
pickwick
loses
the
whole
city.
E
F
Good
afternoon,
mayor
talamantes
vice
mayor,
anthony
council
members,
my
name
is
alisa
cunningham
and
I'm
calling
about
item
number
one
on
your
closed
session
agenda.
Regarding
pickwick,
I
wanted
to
thank
you
for
reaching
the
right
decision
to
deny
the
project.
I
know
that
took
courage
and
an
understanding
of
the
key
facts
that
were
submitted
to
you
during
the
april
18th
meeting.
F
I
read
the
may
24th
letter
from
hcb,
and
what
I
would
like
to
point
out
is
that
letter
contains
errors
about
our
zoning
about
the
city's
intent.
I
hope
you
consider
that
hcd
simply
does
not
have
their
facts
right.
Yet
they
were
drawing
a
judgment
that
you
violated
a
law
when,
in
fact,
you
simply
reached
a
different
conclusion.
F
F
Any
any
decision
you
make
about
pickwick
goes
way
beyond
the
rancho.
Any
decision
will
set
a
precedent
that,
in
turn,
will
affect
the
entire
city.
The
most
significant
consequence
of
that
precedent
will
be
to
take
decision
making
out
of
your
hands.
Another
consequence
will
be
to
eliminate
all
consideration
of
any
mitigation
for
neighboring
businesses
or
residences
down
the
street
or
adjacent
to
a
project.
F
B
D
Good
afternoon,
mayor
and
city
council
members,
my
name
is
susan
o'carroll
and
I'm
a
long
time,
burbank
resident
and
I
wanted
to
address
closed
session
item
number
one.
First.
I
wanted
to
thank
you
again
for
your
decision
to
not
to
deny
the
pickwick
sb-35
project.
I
think
you
made
the
right
decision.
D
I've
read
that
letter,
which
is
available
on
the
hpd
website,
done
some
research
and
put
together
a
letter
which
I
emailed
you
this
morning
documenting
why?
I
believe
the
errors
in
hcd,
where
they're,
why
I
believe
there
are
errors
in
hcd's
claims.
I
therefore
urge
you
to
hang
tough.
We
end
up
for
burbank
and
continue
to
hold
firm
in
the
face
of
bullying
by
the
state
and
continue
to
hold
firm
with
your
denial
of
the
pick
with
our
checks.
D
I
believe
the
validity
of
your
denial
will
be
supported
by
facts,
as
documented
in
my
letter.
I
also
wanted
to
urge
you
to
move
with
haste,
to
develop
and
adopt
a
local
ordinance.
That
requires
a
greater
affordability
requirement
for
a
project
to
qualify
for
sc
35
streamlining
than
what's
in
this
than
what's
specified
in
sb
35,
which
is
only
that
ten
percent
of
units
in
an
sb
project
be
affordable.
D
Section
4b
I
won
sb
35
should
further,
rather
than
work
against
the
city
meeting
its
housing,
affordability
targets,
which
is
not
what's
currently
the
case.
No
project
should
be
eligible
for
a
c-35
streamlining
unless
at
a
minimum
it
meets
the
city's
regional
housing
needs
assessment
target,
which
is
61.3
percent
of
new
housing
units
produced
in
the
city
being
affordably
units,
preferably
the
city
will
require
100
affordability
for
a
project
to
be
eligible
for
sc-35.
D
Streamlining
adopting
a
local
ordinance
would
allow
the
city
to
ensure
that
any
project
receiving
benefits
actually
provides
affordable,
housing
consistent
with
the
city's
housing
element
goals
and
moves
the
city
forward
in
meeting
mandated
affordability
targets.
I
therefore
do
direct
preparation
of
such
an
ordinance,
so
in
closing
thanks
once
again
to
denying
the
project,
I
think
there's
substantial
evidence
to
support
your
decision
and
I
think,
moving
forward.
D
B
Right
so
there
being
no
further
public
comment.
I
now
declare
the
public
comment
period
closed.
We
will
now
proceed
to
a
closed
session
meeting.
We
will
reconvene
the
council
meeting
at
6
pm.
The
public
is
invited
to
view
the
meeting
online
or
by
television
and
will
be
able
to
provide
public
comment
by
appearing
in
person
or
by
calling
in
directly
to
the
city
council
at
818-238-3335.